Preview
Carolyn H. Cottrell (SBN 166977)
David C. Leimbach (SBN 265409)
Kyle G. Bates (SBN 299114)
SCHNEIDER WALLACE 2
wt A Asten COUNTY
COTTRELL KONECKY
WOTKYNS LLP
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
MAN 24 2019
Emeryville, California 94608
Telephone: (415) 421-7100 fom
Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 Y okey
py ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
dleimbach@schneiderwallace.com
kbates@schneiderwallace.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff Rachel Moniz, vw
the State of California, and Aggrieved Employees
10 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
I COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
12
RACHEL MONIZ, on behalf of the State of Case No. 17CIV01736
13 California and aggrieved employees,
Assigned for All Purposes to
14 Plaintiff, Hon. Marie S. Weiner, Dept. 2
15 VS. DECLARATION OF CAROLYN HUNT
COTTRELL IN SUPPORT OF JOINT
16 ADECCO USA, INC., and DOES 1-50, MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT
inclusive, PURSUANT TO PRIVATE ATTORNEYS
17 GENERAL ACT OF 2004
Defendants
18 Complaint Filed April 18, 2017
Trial Date: None Set
19
20 oD
q7—olv—-01736
we 1\
21
Deston in Support
22
23 (AU |
24
25
26
27
28
1
DECLARATION OF CAROLYN HUNT COTTRELL IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION TO APPROVE
SETTLEMENT PURSUANT TO PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT OF 2004
DECLARATION OF CAROLYN HUNT COTTRELL
I, Carolyn Hunt Cottrell, hereby declare as follows:
1 J am an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State of California. | am a member in
good standing of the State Bar of California, I am admitted to the United States District Courts for the
Northern, Eastern, Central, and Southern Districts of California. I am admitted to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals, and I am a member of the Bar of the United States Supreme Court.
2. I am a partner at Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP (“SWCKW”).
SWCKW specializes in representative and class action litigation in state and federal court.
3. I submit this declaration in support of the Motion to Approve Settlement Pursuant to Private
10 Attomeys General Act of 2004 in the above-captioned case.
11 4. Over (at least) the last two years Adecco has engaged in practices that violate the California
12 Labor Code and give rise to statutory penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (““PAGA”).
13 Specifically, Adecco’s employment agreements constitute 1) a violation of § 232 (prohibiting
the disclosure
14 of an employee’s own wages), 2) a violation of § 1197.5(k) (prohibiting the disclosure of the wages of
15 others), 3) a violation of § 232.5 (prohibiting the disclosure of an employee’s working conditions), and 4) a
16 violation of § 432.5 (prohibition on requiring an employee to agree to a condition known by the employer
17 to be prohibited by law). The California Labor Code provides for statutory penalties of $100 per employee,
18 per pay period for each initial violation and $200 per employee, per pay period for each subsequent violation.
19 Cal. Labor Code § 2699(0)(2).
20 5 The aforementioned violations affected all of Adecco’s employees in California from
21 February 1, 2016 through the present, referred to herein as the “Aggrieved Employees.” The Aggrieved
22 Employees include Adecco’s full-time employees, or Colleagues, and Adecco’s part-time employees, or
23 Associates.
24 6 SWCKW represents Plaintiff Rachel Moniz and has prosecuted the Moniz action.
25 7 I have been actively involved in the prosecution of Plaintiff Moniz’s claims since prior to
26 filing the complaint. I am familiar with the file, the documents, and the history related to Moniz. The
27 following statements are based on my personal knowledge and review of the files. If called to do so, I could
28 and would testify competently thereto.
DECLARATION OF CAROLYN HUNT COTTRELL IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION TO APPROVE
SETTLEMENT PURSUANT TO PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT OF 2004
8 The Private Attorneys General Act Settlement Agreement and Release (the “Settlement”)
that is the subject of this motion resolves all of these actions. The parties in Moniz participated in two
mediation sessions, from which the Settlement ultimately resulted. A true and correct copy of the Settlement
is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
I FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF MONIZ
9. Plaintiff Rachel Moniz filed the Action in San Mateo County Superior Court on April 18,
2017, seeking penalties under PAGA for Defendants’ overly-restrictive confidentiality provisions its
employees were forced to sign as a condition of their employment. Plaintiff Moniz was continuously
employed by Adecco from the fall of 2011 until the spring of 2016. See Complaint 7. Plaintiff seeks
10 penalties for alleged Labor Code violations on behalf of herself, the State of California, and all other
11 individuals employed by Adecco in California from February 1, 2016 through the present (“the Aggrieved
12 Employees”). Plaintiff's complaint alleges that Adecco’s employment agreements wrongfully prohibited its
13 employees from disclosing their own wages, wages of others, and their working conditions. Furthermore,
14 the complaint alleges that Adecco violated the California Labor Code by requiring its employees to agree to
15S acondition while that condition was known by Adecco to be prohibited by law.
16 10. On July 25, 2017, Defendants filed their Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint. On August 23,
17 2017, and while its demurrer was pending Adecco petitioned to coordinate this Action with a separate action
18 then-pending before Judge Karnow in the Superior Court for the County of San Francisco, Doe v. Google
19 et al., Case No. CGC-16-556034. Judge Karnow was assigned to be the coordination judge for purposes of
20 adjudicating Adecco’s petition for coordination. On September 9, 2017, Adecco’s Demurrer was overruled.
21 Adecco moved to renew its Demurrer on November 17, 2017, which was denied on December 14, 2017.
22 Adecco’s petition for coordination was denied on January 9, 2018.
23 il. The parties stipulated to brief motions for summary adjudication on the issue of the “scope”
24 of Aggrieved Employees, and such motions were briefed on May 11, 2018 and argued on June 22, 2018.
25 The Court granted Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Adjudication, in part, on July 31, 2018 and confirmed
26 that the Aggrieved Employees included both Colleagues (full-time employees) and Associates (temporary
27 employees) employed by Adecco in California from February 1, 2016 through the present.
28 12. The Parties prepared for trial, and Plaintiff filed her deposition designations and motions in
3
DECLARATION OF CAROLYN HUNT COTTRELL IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION TO APPROVE
SETTLEMENT PURSUANT TO PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT OF 2004
limine on July 25 and July 27, 2018, respectively. At Adecco’s request the September 4, 2018 trial date was
continued, and the Parties conducted additional discovery as to the Associates employed by Adecco during
the relevant time period. Concurrently with those discovery efforts the Parties participated in a mediation
this Action with David Rotman, Esq. on January 10, 2019 and January 21, 2019. Those mediations were
ultimately successful, and the Parties reached a settlement in principle on February 11, 2019. The Parties
filed a notice of settlement and stipulated to vacate all pending deadlines including the March 19, 2019 trial
date on February 21, 2019.
I. THE SETTLEMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF PAGA PENALTIES
A. Terms of the Settlement and Distribution of PAGA Penalties
10 13. The Settlement provides that Defendants will pay a non-reversionary settlement amount of
ll $4,500,000.00 (the “Maximum Settlement Amount”). From the Maximum Settlement Amount, payments
12 will be made to Plaintiff's counsel for attorneys’ fees and litigation costs, to Plaintiff Rachel Moniz in the
13 form of an enhancement award of $20,000, and to the Settlement Administrator for settlement
14 administration costs.
15 14. In consideration of the fact that additional Aggrieved Employees may be employed by
16 Adecco between March 24, 2019 and the date on which the Parties’ settlement is approved (“Additional
17 Aggrieved Employees”), Adecco will increase the Total Settlement Amount by $41.08 per each additional
18 Associate added to PAGA Settlement Members and by $631.68 per each additional Colleague added to
19 PAGA Settlement Members (75% of which will go to the State of California and 25% of which will go to
20 the individual PAGA Settlement Member) (which is the per-person share of the Total Settlement Amount
21 based on the total number of existing aggrieved employees) for each additional aggrieved employee that is
22 employed between March 24, 2019 and the date that the Parties’ Settlement is approved by the Court. The
23 number of aggrieved employees shall not increase following the Court’s approval of the Settlement
24 Agreement.
25 15. Plaintiff
has agreed to release all claims under state, federal, or local law, whether statutory,
26 arising out of the claims expressly pleaded in the Action, as well as all other claims that could have been
27 pleaded based on the facts pleaded in the Action including: claims for civil penalties under the Private
28 Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”) based on the alleged Labor Code Violations, interests, fees; and
4
DECLARATION OF CAROLYN HUNT COTTRELL IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION TO APPROVE
SETTLEMENT PURSUANT TO PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT OF 2004
all other claims and allegations made or that could have been made in the Action during the Release Period
based on the facts and allegations in the operative complaint.
16. Plaintiffs counsel will seek a standard fee award of one-third of the Maximum Settlement
Amount, along with reimbursement of actual litigation costs. The settlement administration costs are not
expected to exceed $78,000.
17. ’ After the remittance of Plaintiff's enhancement award, attorneys’ fees and costs, and the
expected costs of settlement administration, the Net Settlement Amount to be paid to the Aggrieved
Employees and the State of California will be $ $2,870,000.00. Pursuant to Labor Code § 2699(i), 75% of
the Net Settlement Amount will be paid to the LWDA (to be used to assist in the enforcement of labor laws
10 and education of employers and employees about their rights and responsibilities under the Labor Code),
ll and the remaining 25% of the Net Settlement Amount will be paid to the Aggrieved Employees.
12 18. The LWDA will receive a projected $2,152,500 from the Settlement.
13 19. Of the remaining 25% of the Net Settlement Amount that will be paid to the Aggrieved
14 Employees, 12% shall be paid to the 542 Colleagues and 88% shall be paid to the 61,095 Associates. These
15 allocations will result in an average payment amount of $10.33 for each Associate and $158.86 for each
16 Colleague.
17 20. The Aggrieved Employees encompassed by the proposed Settlement include all Associates
18 (61,095 part-time employees) and Colleagues (542 full-time employees) employed in California by Adecco
19 from February 1, 2016 through March 24, 2019.
20 B. Payments to the Aggrieved Employees
21 21. Per the Settlement Agreement, all individual settlement awards to Aggrieved Employees
22 shall be deemed to be paid to the Aggrieved Employees solely in the year in which such payments are
23 received by the Aggrieved Employees. It is expressly understood and agreed that the receipt of such
24 individual settlement awards will not entitle any Aggrieved Employee to additional compensation or
25 benefits under any company bonus, contest, or other compensation or benefit plan or agreement in place
26 during the period covered by the Settlement, nor will it entitle any Aggrieved Employee to any increased
27 retirement, 401K benefits or matching benefits, or deferred compensation benefits.
28 22. It is the intent of this Settlement that the individual settlement awards provided for in this
5
DECLARATION OF CAROLYN HUNT COTTRELL IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION TO APPROVE
SETTLEMENT PURSUANT TO PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT OF 2004
Settlement are the sole payments to be made by Adecco to the Aggrieved Employees, and that the Aggrieved
Employees are not entitled to any new or additional compensation or benefits as a result of having received
the individual settlement awards (notwithstanding any contrary language or agreement in any benefit or
compensation plan document that might have been in effect during the period covered by this Settlement).
Cc The Releases for the Aggrieved Employees and Plaintiff
23. The claims to be released shall be from February 1, 2016 through March 24, 2019. The
claims to be released by the Aggrieved Employees include all claims under state, federal, or local law,
whether statutory, arising out of the claims expressly pleaded in the Action and all other claims that could
have been pleaded based on the facts pleaded in the Action including: claims for civil penalties under PAGA.
10 based on the alleged Labor Code violations, interests, fees, and costs; and all other claims and allegations
il made or that could have been made in the Action during the Release Period based on the facts and allegations
12 in the operative complaint.
13 iil. THE SETTLEMENT IS FAIR, REASONABLE, AND WARRANTS COURT
APPROVAL
14
15 24. Within this framework, the Parties have consummated and structured the Settlement.
16 Plaintiff has extensively analyzed the facts and claims to evaluate its fairness and reasonableness.
17 Plaintiff's counsel have conducted exhaustive discovery and extensive outreach to the Aggrieved
18 Employees. Plaintiffs Counsel used this information and data to perform in-depth analyses of the
19 claims and potential recovery, the results of which are summarized here.
20 A. Judicial Review Of PAGA Settlements
21 25. Court approval is required for PAGA settlements. Labor Code § 2699(1)(2).
22 However, the PAGA does not establish any standards for the review of PAGA settlements. In
23 reviewing PAGA settlements courts have recognized that PAGA settlements must be viewed in
24 light of the PAGA's public purpose, namely augmenting the state's enforcement capabilities,
25 encouraging compliance with Labor Code provisions, and deterring noncompliance with
26 California's labor law. See, e.g., Vargas v. Central Freight Lines, No. 16-cv-00507-JLB, 2017 WL
27 4271893, *6 (Sept. 25, 2017 S.D. Cal.); Ramirez v. Benito Valley Farms, Inc., No. 16-CV-04708-
28 LHK, 2017 WL 3670794, *3 (Aug. 25, 2017 N.D. Cal.). The proposed settlement is fair and
6
DECLARATION OF CAROLYN HUNT COTTRELL IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION TO APPROVE
SETTLEMENT PURSUANT TO PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT OF 2004
~
we )
reasonable in light of the purposes of the PAGA.
B. Nature of the Alleged Violations
26. Plaintiff alleges that Adecco has wrongfully precluded its employees throughout
California from disclosing the amount of their wages and from disclosing several aspects of their
working conditions. In her complaint, Plaintiff brought five different causes of action pursuant to
the California Labor Code.
27. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges: (1) Adecco wrongfully prohibited its employees, as a
condition of employment, to refrain from disclosing the amount of his or her wages; (2) Adecco
wrongfully prohibited its employees from disclosing their own wages and discussing the wages of
10 others; (3) Adecco wrongfully prohibited its employees to a government or law enforcement
ll agency
12 28. First, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated Labor Code § 232. Labor Code §
13 232(a) prohibits an employer from requiring an employee, as a condition of employment, to refrain
14 from disclosing the amount of his or her wages. Furthermore, Labor Code § 232(b) prohibits
15 an employer from requiring an employee to sign a waiver or other document that purports to deny
16 the employee the right to disclose his or her wages. Defendants required Plaintiff to sign a Form
17 Employment Agreement that prohibited her from disclosing her wages. Plaintiff was subject to that
18 prohibition throughout her employment, and still remains subject to that prohibition even after
19 termination of her employment.
20 29. Second, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated Labor Code § 1197.5(k). Labor
21 Code § 1197.5(k)(1) prohibits an employer from “prohibit[ing] an employee from disclosing the
22 employee’s own wages, discussing the wages of others, inquiring about another employee’s wages,
23 or aiding or encouraging any other employee to exercise his or her rights under this section.” Again,
24 Defendants required Plaintiff to sign a Form Employment Agreement that prohibited her from
25 disclosing her wages. Plaintiff was subject to that prohibition throughout her employment, and still
26 remains subject to that prohibition even after termination of her employment.
27 30. Third, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated Labor Code § 232.5. Labor Code §
28 232.5(a) prohibits an employer from requiring, as a condition of employment, that an employee
DECLARATION OF CAROLYN HUNT COTTRELL IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION TO APPROVE
SETTLEMENT PURSUANT TO PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT OF 2004
X~
refrain from disclosing information about the employer’s working conditions. Labor Code §
232.5(b) prohibits an employer from requiring an employee to sign a waiver or other document that
purports to deny the employee the right to disclose information about the employer’s working
conditions. Defendants required Plaintiff to sign a Form Employment Agreement that prohibited
her from disclosing any non-public information of commercial value. This expressly includes,
without limitation, her wages, the identities of her coworkers, training methods, operation methods,
office protocols and systems, and programs and systems. Plaintiff was subject to that prohibition
throughout her employment. Even after the termination of her employment with Defendants,
Plaintiff remains subject to that prohibition.
10 3h. Fourth, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated Labor Code § 1102.5. Labor Code
11 § 1102.5(a) prohibits an employer from making, adopting, or enforcing any rule, regulation, or
12 policy preventing an employee from disclosing information to a government or law enforcement
13 agency, to a person with authority over the employee, or to another employee who has authority to
14 investigate, discover, or correct the violation or noncompliance, from providing information to, or
15 testifying before, any public body conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry, if the employee
16 has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute,
17 or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation, regardless of
18 whether disclosing the information is part of the employee’s job duties. The Form Employment
19 Agreement that Plaintiff signed prohibits employees from disclosing any non-public information
20 of commercial value to any entity regardless of whether employees believe that the information
21 discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state,
22 or federal rule or regulation.
23 32. Last, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated Labor Code § 432.5. Labor Code §
24 432.5 prohibits an employer from requiring an employee or applicant for employment to agree, in
25 writing, to any term or condition which is known by such employer to be prohibited by law. On
26 information and belief, Defendants knew that the non-disclosure provision in the Form
27 Employment Agreement contained provisions prohibited by the laws set forth above. Even so,
28 Defendants conditioned employment on acceptance of, and compliance with, the terms of the non-
8
DECLARATION OF CAROLYN HUNT COTTRELL IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION TO APPROVE
SETTLEMENT PURSUANT TO PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT OF 2004
-
\ ,
disclosure provision of the Form Employment Agreement.
33. The Aggrieved Employees in this case are either Colleagues (Adecco’s full-time
employees) or Associates (Adecco’s part-time employees). The following confidentiality provision
is substantially similar to the confidentiality provisions in the Colleague employment agreements
at issue:
34, “Confidential Information includes, but is not limited to. . information regarding. . .
personnel, compensation. Any unauthorized disclosure or release of such Confidential
Information would irreparably harm [Adecco].” ADECCO — 000009 (emphasis added).
35. The foregoing provision clearly and explicitly prevents the disclosure of information
10 relating to employees’ compensation.
11 36. The following confidentiality provision is substantially similar to the confidentiality
12 provisions in the Associate employment agreements at issue:
13 37. “Employee acknowledges and agrees that he/she cannot disseminate or disclose to
14 any third party, or use for Employee’s own benefit, any Confidential Information relating to the
15 products, business or affairs of Adecco or of Client which is in any way acquired during or by
16 reason of Employee’s employment with Client.” ADECCO — 000019.
17 38. By contrast, and compared to the Colleague agreements, the Associate provision is
18 much less clear as to what information is prohibited from disclosure.
19 Cc. Number of Alleged Violations and Total Potential PAGA Penalties
20 39. Plaintiffs counsel evaluated Adecco’s maximum potential exposure for the claims at
21 issue. That evaluation is based on a comprehensive review of Defendant’s production of documents
22 and data, as well as information provided by employees during interviews with Plaintiff's counsel.
23 40. Plaintiff’s counsel have analyzed all claims as pled in the operative complaint in this
24 Action. There are four sections of the Labor Code identified in Plaintiff's Complaint that give rise
25 to statutory penalties available under PAGA: 1) Violation of § 232 (prohibiting the disclosure of
26 an employee’s own wages), 2) Violation of § 1197.5(k) (prohibiting the disclosure of the wages of
27 others), 3) Violation of § 232.5 (prohibiting the disclosure of an employee’s working conditions),
28 and 4) Violation of § 432.5 (prohibition on requiring an employee to agree to a condition known
9
DECLARATION OF CAROLYN HUNT COTTRELL IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION TO APPROVE
SETTLEMENT PURSUANT TO PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT OF 2004
WS f
by the employer to be prohibited by law). The California Labor Code provides for statutory
penalties of $100 per employee, per pay period for each initial violation and $200 per employee,
per pay period for each subsequent violation. Cal. Labor Code § 2699(f)(2).
41. There were 542 Colleagues employed by Adecco in California during the relevant
time period, and 61,092 Associates.' Assuming a single initial pay period, the maximum penalty
exposure for all four statutory violations was more than $22.54 million for Adecco’s Colleagues
alone.” That was Plaintiff's initial demand for purposes of mediation, and the case ultimately settled
for approximately 20% of Plaintiff's initial demand.
D. Litigation Risks
10 42. This case was vigorously litigated since its inception, and required Plaintiff and her
ll counsel to participate in extensive motion practice. Adecco sought to dismiss this case through the
12 filing of its demurrer, its renewal thereof, and its motion for summary adjudication. Adecco also
13 sought to effectively dismiss this case by coordinating it with another case in another court in which
14 it received a favorable ruling on the issue of NLRA preemption. Plaintiff prevailed on all of these
15 issues through extensive briefing and argument, yet all of those issues remain vulnerable to contest
16 on appeal.
17 43. Additionally, there were substantive differences between the language of the
18 confidentiality provisions in the Colleague agreements, which explicitly referenced information
19 related to personnel and compensation, and the language of the confidentiality provisions in the
20 Associate employment agreements that did not. See Section V.B supra; compare ADECCO —
21 000009 with ADECCO — 000019. Adecco has continually disputed that either of these provisions
22 violate the California Labor Code, and Plaintiff faced significant risks associated with proving that
23 either agreement violated the statutory provisions at issue.
24 44 During discovery Plaintiff conducted substantial outreach with Aggrieved
25 Employees concerning the confidentiality provisions in their employment agreements. Plaintiff
26
' Plaintiff was informed on April 19, 2019 that these were the “final” numbers of Aggrieved Employees
27 including those whose employment began between the date of the Parties’ mediation and March 24, 2019.
? The maximum possible penalties for Adecco’s Associates is astronomically high. By Plaintiff's calculation
28
% of such exposure would be more than $56 million.
10
DECLARATION OF CAROLYN HUNT COTTRELL IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION TO APPROVE
SETTLEMENT PURSUANT TO PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT OF 2004
recognizes that the testimony of Aggrieved Employees at trial concerning their individual
experiences with the confidentiality provisions at issue could vary. While some employees may
testify that the confidentiality provisions hampered their ability to discuss their salary and benefits,
others may testify that they did not experience such restrictions. Variability in testimony as to
individual employees’ experience is not uncommon in employment litigation, and such variability
may present a risk to Plaintiffs case here if it were to proceed to trial.
45. As such, and in addition to the burden of proof Plaintiff would bear at trial, there are
significant legal risks associated with the continued litigation of Plaintiff's claims.
Iv. REQUESTED ATTORNEYS?’ FEES AND LITIGATION COSTS
10 46. For their efforts and the substantial risk they undertook in obtaining a large common fund
ll settlement to benefit the LWDA and the Aggrieved Employees, the Parties allocated one-third of the
12 Maximum Settlement Amount to Plaintiffs’ counsel for reasonable attorneys’ fees, plus their actual litigation
13 costs which here estimated to be $32,000.00. These fees are warranted under the law and within the range
14 commonly awarded in similar cases.
15 47. PlaintifP's counsel are experienced representative action litigators. This experience and
16 expertise, combined with the high quality of work performed in this case by Plaintiff's counsel, resulted in
17 the Settlement achieved.
18 48. SWCKW is regarded as one of the leading private plaintiff's firms in representative wage
19 and hour and employment actions. In November 2012, the Recorder listed the firm as one of the “top 10 go-
20 to plaintiffs’ employment firms in Northern California.” The partners and attorneys have litigated major
21 wage and hour actions, have won several prestigious awards, and sit on important boards and committees in
22 the legal community. SWCKW was founded by Todd Schneider in 1993, and I have been a member of the
23 firm since 1995.
24 49. Nearly my entire legal career has been devoted to advocating for the rights of individuals
25 who have been subjected to illegal pay policies, discrimination, harassment and retaliation and representing
26 employees in wage and hour and discrimination class actions. I have litigated hundreds of wage and hour,
27 employment discrimination and civil-rights actions, and I manage many of the firm’s current cases in these
28 areas. | am a member of the State Bar of California, and have had memberships with Public Justice, the
11
DECLARATION OF CAROLYN HUNT COTTRELL IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION TO APPROVE
SETTLEMENT PURSUANT TO PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT OF 2004
- mS
\ A
National Employment Lawyers Association, the California Employment Lawyers Association, and the
Consumer Attomeys of California. I served on the Board of Directors for the San Francisco Trial Lawyers
Association and co-chaired its Women’s Caucus. I was named one of the “Top Women Litigators for 2010”
by the Daily Journal. In 2012, I was nominated for Woman Trial Lawyer of the Year by the Consumer
Attomeys of California. I have been selected as a Super Lawyer every year since 2014. I earned my
Bachelor’s degree from the University of California, and I am a graduate of the University of the Pacific,
McGeorge School of Law.
50. SWCKW has acted or is acting as class and PAGA counsel in numerous cases. A partial list
of cases which have been certified and/or settled as class actions includes: Vorise v. 24 Hour Fitness USA,
10 Inc. (Case No. C 15-02051) (Conta Costa County Superior Court) (approval of PAGA settlement for failure
I to pay for minimum wage and overtimes wages, failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to reimburse
12 for necessary business expenditures, waiting time penalties, and failure to provide itemized wage statements
13 under California law); Van Liew v. North Star Emergency Services, Inc., et al. (Case No. RG17876878)
14 (Alameda County Superior Court) (final approval of a class action settlement for failure to pay for all hours
15 worked, failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to
16 reimburse for necessary business expenditures, waiting time penalties, and failure to provide itemized wage
17 statements, under California law); Asalati v. Intel Corp. (Case No. 16cv302615) (Santa Clara Superior
18 Court) (final approval of a class and collective action settlement for failure to pay for all hours worked,
19 failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to reimburse for necessary business
20 expenditures, failure to adhere to California record keeping requirements, waiting time penalties, and failure
21 to provide itemized wage statements, under federal and California law); Harmon, et al. v. Diamond Wireless,
22 LLC, (Case No. 34-2012-00118898) (Sacramento Superior Court) (final approval of a class action
23 settlement for failure to pay wages free and clear, failure to pay overtime and minimum wages, failure to
24 provide meal and rest breaks, failure to pay full wages when due, failure to adhere to California record
25 keeping requirements, and failure to provide adequate seating, under California law); Aguilar v. Hall AG
26 Enterprises, Inc., et al., (Case No. BCV-16-10994-DRL) (Kern County Superior Court) (final approval of
27 a class action settlement for failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to compensate for all hours
28 worked, failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, waiting time penalties, failure to provide itemized
12
DECLARATION OF CAROLYN HUNT COTTRELL IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION TO APPROVE
SETTLEMENT PURSUANT TO PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT OF 2004
aN
Ne
wage statements, and failure to pay undiscounted wages, under California law); Viceral and Krueger v.
Mistras Group, Inc., (Case No. 3:15-cv-02198-EMC) (Northern District of California) (final approval of a
class and collective action settlement for failure to compensate for all hours worked, including overtime,
under federal and California law); Jeter-Polk, et al. v. Casual Male Store, LLC, et al., (Case No. 5:14-CV-
00891) (Central District of California) (final approval of a class action settlement for failure to provide meal
and rest periods, failure to compensate for all hours worked, failure to pay overtime wages, unpaid wages
and waiting time penalties, and failure to provide itemized wage statements); Meza, et al. v. S.S. Skikos, Inc.,
et al., (Case No. 15-cv-01889-TEH) (Norther District of California) (final approval of class and collective
action settlement for failure to compensate for all hours worked, including overtime, under federal and
10 California law, failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to reimburse for necessary business uniforms,
ll failure to pay full wages upon termination to, and failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements);
12 Holmes, et al v. Xpress Global Systems, Inc., (Case No. 34-2015-00180822) (Sacramento Superior Court)
13 (final approval of a class action settlement for failure to provide meal and rest breaks and failure to provide
14 accurate itemized wage statements); Guilbaud, et al. v. Sprint Nextel Corp. et al, (Case No. 3:13-cv-04357-
15 VC) (Northern District of California) (final approval of a class and collective action settlement for failure to
16 compensate for all hours worked, including overtime, failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to
17 reimburse for necessary business uniforms, failure to pay full wages upon termination to, and failure to
18 provide accurate itemized wage statements); Molina, et al. v. Railworks Track Systems, Inc., (Case No.
19 BCV-15-10135) (Kern County Superior Court) (final approval of a class action settlement for failure to
20 provide meal and rest breaks, unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, off-the-clocker work, failure to pay full wages
21 upon termination to, and failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements); Allen, et al. v. County of
22 Monterey, et al., (Case No. 5:13-cv-01659) (Northern District of California) (settlement between FLSA
23 Plaintiffs and Defendantto provide relief to affected employees); Barrera v. Radix Cable Holdings, Inc., et
24 al., (Case No. CIV 1100505) (Marin County Superior Court) (final approval of class action settlement for
25 failure to provide meal and rest breaks to, off-the-clock work by, failure to provide overtime compensation
26 to, failure to reimburse business expenditures to, failure to pay full wages upon termination to, and failure to
27 provide accurate itemized wage statements to retention specialists working for cable companies); Glass
28 Dimensions, Inc., et al. v. State Street Corp. et al., (Case No. 1:10-cv-10588) (District of Massachusetts)
13
DECLARATION OF CAROLYN HUNT COTTRELL IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION TO APPROVE
SETTLEMENT PURSUANT TO PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT OF 2004
aN,
7
(final approval of class action settlement for claims of breach of fiduciary duty and self-dealing in violation
of ERISA); Friend, et al. v. The Hertz Corporation, (Case No. 3:07-052222) (Northern District of
California) (settlement of claims that rental car company misclassified non-exempt employees, failed to pay
wages, failed to pay premium pay, and failed to provide meal periods and rest periods); Hollands v. Lincare,
Inc., et al., (Case No. CGC-07-465052) (San Francisco County Superior Court) (final approval of class
action settlement for overtime pay, off-the-clock work, unreimbursed expenses, and other wage and hour
claims on behalf of a class of center managers); Jantz, et al. v. Colvin, (Case No. 531-2006-00276X) (In the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Baltimore Field Office) (final approval of class action
settlement for the denial of promotions based on targeted disabilities); Shemaria v. County of Marin, (Case
10 No. CV 082718) (Marin County Superior Court) (final approval of class action settlement on behalf of a
il class of individuals with mobility disabilities denied access to various facilities owned, operated, and/or
12 maintained by the County of Marin); Perez, et al. v. First American Title Ins. Co., (Case No. 2:08-cv-01184)
13 (istrict of Arizona) (final approval of class action settlement in action challenging unfair discrimination by
14 title insurance company); Perez v. Rue21, Inc., et al., (Case No. CISCV167815) (Santa Cruz County
15 Superior Court) (final approval of class action settlement for failure to provide meal and rest breaks to, and
16 for off-the-clock work performed by, a class of retail employees); Sosa, et al. v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream,
17 Inc., et al., (Case No. RG 08424366) (Alameda County Superior Court) (final approval of class action
18 settlement for failure to provide meal and rest breaks to, and for off-the-clock work performed by, a class of
19 ice cream manufacturing employees); Villalpando v. Exel Direct Inc., et al. (Case Nos. 3:12-cv-04137 and
20 4:13-cv-03091) (Northern District of Califomia) (certified class action on behalfof delivery drivers allegedly
21 misclassified as independent contractors); Choul, et al. v. Nebraska Beef, Ltd. (Case Nos. 8:08-cv-90, 8:08-
22 cv-99) (District of Nebraska) (final approval of class action settlement for offthe-clock work by, and failure
23 to provide overtime compensation to, production-line employees of meat-packing plant); Morales v.
24 Farmland Foods, Inc. (Case No. 8:08-cv-504) (District of Nebraska) (FLSA certification for off-the-clock
25 work by, and failure to provide overtime compensation to, production-line employees of meat-packing
26 plant); Barlow, et al. v. PRN Ambulance Inc. (Case No. BC396728) (Los Angeles County Superior Court)
27 (final approval of class action settlement for failure to provide meal and rest breaks to and for off-the-clock
28 work by certified emergency medical technicians); Espinosa, et al. v. National Beef, et al. (Case No.
14
DECLARATION OF CAROLYN HUNT COTTRELL IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION TO APPROVE
SETTLEMENT PURSUANT TO PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT OF 2004
a
Ne
ECU0467) (Imperial Superior Court) (final approval of class action settlement for off-the-clock work by,
and failure to provide overtime compensation to, production-line employees of meat-packing plant); Wolfe,
et al. v. California Check Cashing Stores, LLC, et al. (Case Nos. CGC-08-479518 and CGC-09-489635)
(San Francisco Superior Court) (final approval of class action settlement for failure to provide meal and rest
breaks to, and for off-the-clock work by, employees at check cashing stores); Carlson v. eHarmony (Case
No. BC371958) (Los Angeles County Superior Court) (final approval of class action settlement on behalf
of gays and lesbians who were denied use of eHarmony); Salcido v. Cargill (Case Nos. 1:07-CV-01347-
LJO-GSA,1:08-CV-00605-LJO-GSA) (Eastern District of California) (final approval of class action
settlement for off-the-clock work by production-line employees of meat-packing plant); Elkin v. Six Flags
10 (Case No. BC342633) (Los Angeles County Superior Court) (final approval of class action settlement for
ll missed meal and rest periods on behalf of hourly workers at Six Flags amusement parks); Jimenez v. Perot
12 Systems Corp. (Case No. RG07335321) (Alameda County Superior Court) (final approval of class action
13 settlement for misclassification of hospital clerical workers); Chau v. CVS RX Services, Inc. (Case No.
14 BC349224) (Los Angeles County Superior Court) (final approval of class action settlement for failure to
15 pay overtime to CVS pharmacists); Reed v. CALSTAR (Case No. RG04155105) (Alameda County Superior
16 Court) (certified class action on behalf of flight nurses); National Federation of the Blind v. Target (Case
17 No. C 06-01802 MHP) (N.D. Cal.) (certified class action on behalf of all legally blind individuals in the
18 United States who have tried to access Target.com); Bates v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (2004 WL
19 2370633) (N.D. Cal.) (certified national class action on behalf of deaf employees of UPS); Satchell v. FedEx
20 Express, Inc. (Case No. 03-02659 SI) (N.D. Cal.) (certified regional class action alleging widespread
21 discrimination within FedEx); Siddiqi v. Regents of the University of California (Case No. C-99-0790 SI)
22 (N.D. Cal.) (certified class action in favor of deaf plaintifiS alleging disability access violations at the
23 University of California); Lopez v. San Francisco Unified School District (Case No. C-99-03260 SI) (N.D.
24 Cal.) (certified class action in favor of plaintiffs in class action against school district for widespread
25 disability access violations); Campos v. San Francisco State University (Case No. C-97-02326 MCC) (N_D.
26 Cal.) (certified class action in favor of disabled plaintiffs for widespread disability access violations);
27 Singleton v. Regents of the University of California (Case No. 807233-1) (Alameda County Superior Court)
28 (class settlement for women alleging gender discrimination at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory);
15
DECLARATION OF CAROLYN HUNT COTTRELL IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION TO APPROVE
SETTLEMENT PURSUANT TO PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT OF 2004
McMaster v. BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Co. (Case No. RG04173735) (Alameda County Superior Court) (final
approval of class action settlement for drive-time required of Coca-Cola account managers); Portugal v.
Macy’s West, Inc. (Case No. BC324247) (Los Angeles County Superior Court) (California statewide wage
and hour “misclassification” class action resulting in a class-wide $3.25 million settlement); Taormina v.
Siebel Systems, Inc. (Case No. RG05219031) (Alameda County Superior Court) (final approval of class
action settlement for misclassification of Siebel’s inside sales employees); Joseph v. The Limited, Inc. (Case
No. CGC-04-437118) (San Francisco County Superior Court) (final approval of class action settlement for
failure to provide meal and rest periods to employees of The Limited stores); Rios v. Siemens Corp. (Case
No. C05-04697 PJH) (N.D. Cal.) (final approval of class action settlement for failure to pay accrued vacation
10 pay upon end of employment); DeSoto v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (Case No. RG0309669) (Alameda County
Il Superior Court) and Lenahan v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (Case No. 3-02-CV-000045 (SRC) (TJB)) (final
12 approval of class action settlement for failure to pay Sears drivers for all hours worked); among many others.;
13 among many others.
14 Sl. Ihave reviewed a summary of SWCKW’s billing records, which are maintained during the
15 regular course of business and billed contemporaneously. The hourly rates for partners is $925 per hour,
16 and the hourly rates for associates range from $600 to $800 per hour. The hourly rates for staff range from
17 $125 to $400 per hour. SWCKW’s total billed time, or lodestar, in this case is approximately
18 $740,055.00.While adjusting our rates to track market increases, SWCKW’s rates have steadily remained
19 reasonable and competitive, and have been consistently approved by many federal and state courts over the
20 past several years. See, e.g., Harmon, et al. v. Diamond Wireless, LLC (Case No. 34-2012-00118898)
21 (Sacramento Superior Court, Feb. 14, 2018) (approving class settlement and cross-checking fee in part using
22 $835 rate for Carolyn Hunt Cottrell and $350-$750 rate for other attorneys); Holmes, et al v. Xpress Global
23 Systems, Inc., (Case No. 34-2015-00180822) (Sacramento Superior Court, Apr. 28, 2016) (approving class
24 settlement and cross-checking fee in part using $795 rate for Carolyn Hunt Cottrell and $350-$500 rate for
25 other attorneys); Willits, et al. v. City of Los Angeles (Case No. 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW) (C.D. Cal.,
26 Aug. 25. 2016) (awarding fees on lodestar basis and specifically approving $750 rate for partners and $300-
27 $700 rates for other attorneys).
28 52. In this case, there was no guarantee of compensation or reimbursement. Rather, SWCKW
16
DECLARATION OF CAROLYN HUNT COTTRELL IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION TO APPROVE
SETTLEMENT PURSUANT TO PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT OF 2004
r ~
we
undertook all the risks of this litigation on a completely contingent fee basis. The inherent risk of proving
liability and penalties across the aggrieved employees and Defendant’s representation by skillful counsel
confront SWCK'W with the prospect of recovering nothing or close to nothing for their commitment to and
investment in the case.
353. Nevertheless, Plaintiff and SWCKW committed themselves to developing and pressing
Plaintiff's legal claims to enforce the State of California’s and the employees’ interests and maximize the
recovery. The challenges that SWCK.W had to confront and the risks they had to fully absorb on behalf of
the State and the employees here are precisely the reasons for multipliers in contingency fee cases.> As
PAGA Settlement Employees and the State will receive significant payments if the Settlement is approved,
10 SWCKW seek a reasonable fee award for their efforts and the risk they have assumed.
11 54. Attomeys who litigate on a wholly or partially contingent basis expect to receive significantly
12 higher effective hourly rates in cases where compensation is contingent on succes
Preview
Carolyn H. Cottrell (SBN 166977) David C. Leimbach (SBN 265409) Kyle G. Bates (SBN 299114) SCHNEIDER WALLACE 2 wt A Asten COUNTY COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 MAN 24 2019 Emeryville, California 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 fom Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 Y okey py ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com dleimbach@schneiderwallace.com kbates@schneiderwallace.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Rachel Moniz, vw the State of California, and Aggrieved Employees 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA I COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 12 RACHEL MONIZ, on behalf of the State of Case No. 17CIV01736 13 California and aggrieved employees, Assigned for All Purposes to 14 Plaintiff, Hon. Marie S. Weiner, Dept. 2 15 VS. DECLARATION OF CAROLYN HUNT COTTRELL IN SUPPORT OF JOINT 16 ADECCO USA, INC., and DOES 1-50, MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT inclusive, PURSUANT TO PRIVATE ATTORNEYS 17 GENERAL ACT OF 2004 Defendants 18 Complaint Filed April 18, 2017 Trial Date: None Set 19 20 oD q7—olv—-01736 we 1\ 21 Deston in Support 22 23 (AU | 24 25 26 27 28 1 DECLARATION OF CAROLYN HUNT COTTRELL IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT PURSUANT TO PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT OF 2004 DECLARATION OF CAROLYN HUNT COTTRELL I, Carolyn Hunt Cottrell, hereby declare as follows: 1 J am an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State of California. | am a member in good standing of the State Bar of California, I am admitted to the United States District Courts for the Northern, Eastern, Central, and Southern Districts of California. I am admitted to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and I am a member of the Bar of the United States Supreme Court. 2. I am a partner at Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP (“SWCKW”). SWCKW specializes in representative and class action litigation in state and federal court. 3. I submit this declaration in support of the Motion to Approve Settlement Pursuant to Private 10 Attomeys General Act of 2004 in the above-captioned case. 11 4. Over (at least) the last two years Adecco has engaged in practices that violate the California 12 Labor Code and give rise to statutory penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (““PAGA”). 13 Specifically, Adecco’s employment agreements constitute 1) a violation of § 232 (prohibiting the disclosure 14 of an employee’s own wages), 2) a violation of § 1197.5(k) (prohibiting the disclosure of the wages of 15 others), 3) a violation of § 232.5 (prohibiting the disclosure of an employee’s working conditions), and 4) a 16 violation of § 432.5 (prohibition on requiring an employee to agree to a condition known by the employer 17 to be prohibited by law). The California Labor Code provides for statutory penalties of $100 per employee, 18 per pay period for each initial violation and $200 per employee, per pay period for each subsequent violation. 19 Cal. Labor Code § 2699(0)(2). 20 5 The aforementioned violations affected all of Adecco’s employees in California from 21 February 1, 2016 through the present, referred to herein as the “Aggrieved Employees.” The Aggrieved 22 Employees include Adecco’s full-time employees, or Colleagues, and Adecco’s part-time employees, or 23 Associates. 24 6 SWCKW represents Plaintiff Rachel Moniz and has prosecuted the Moniz action. 25 7 I have been actively involved in the prosecution of Plaintiff Moniz’s claims since prior to 26 filing the complaint. I am familiar with the file, the documents, and the history related to Moniz. The 27 following statements are based on my personal knowledge and review of the files. If called to do so, I could 28 and would testify competently thereto. DECLARATION OF CAROLYN HUNT COTTRELL IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT PURSUANT TO PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT OF 2004 8 The Private Attorneys General Act Settlement Agreement and Release (the “Settlement”) that is the subject of this motion resolves all of these actions. The parties in Moniz participated in two mediation sessions, from which the Settlement ultimately resulted. A true and correct copy of the Settlement is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. I FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF MONIZ 9. Plaintiff Rachel Moniz filed the Action in San Mateo County Superior Court on April 18, 2017, seeking penalties under PAGA for Defendants’ overly-restrictive confidentiality provisions its employees were forced to sign as a condition of their employment. Plaintiff Moniz was continuously employed by Adecco from the fall of 2011 until the spring of 2016. See Complaint 7. Plaintiff seeks 10 penalties for alleged Labor Code violations on behalf of herself, the State of California, and all other 11 individuals employed by Adecco in California from February 1, 2016 through the present (“the Aggrieved 12 Employees”). Plaintiff's complaint alleges that Adecco’s employment agreements wrongfully prohibited its 13 employees from disclosing their own wages, wages of others, and their working conditions. Furthermore, 14 the complaint alleges that Adecco violated the California Labor Code by requiring its employees to agree to 15S acondition while that condition was known by Adecco to be prohibited by law. 16 10. On July 25, 2017, Defendants filed their Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint. On August 23, 17 2017, and while its demurrer was pending Adecco petitioned to coordinate this Action with a separate action 18 then-pending before Judge Karnow in the Superior Court for the County of San Francisco, Doe v. Google 19 et al., Case No. CGC-16-556034. Judge Karnow was assigned to be the coordination judge for purposes of 20 adjudicating Adecco’s petition for coordination. On September 9, 2017, Adecco’s Demurrer was overruled. 21 Adecco moved to renew its Demurrer on November 17, 2017, which was denied on December 14, 2017. 22 Adecco’s petition for coordination was denied on January 9, 2018. 23 il. The parties stipulated to brief motions for summary adjudication on the issue of the “scope” 24 of Aggrieved Employees, and such motions were briefed on May 11, 2018 and argued on June 22, 2018. 25 The Court granted Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Adjudication, in part, on July 31, 2018 and confirmed 26 that the Aggrieved Employees included both Colleagues (full-time employees) and Associates (temporary 27 employees) employed by Adecco in California from February 1, 2016 through the present. 28 12. The Parties prepared for trial, and Plaintiff filed her deposition designations and motions in 3 DECLARATION OF CAROLYN HUNT COTTRELL IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT PURSUANT TO PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT OF 2004 limine on July 25 and July 27, 2018, respectively. At Adecco’s request the September 4, 2018 trial date was continued, and the Parties conducted additional discovery as to the Associates employed by Adecco during the relevant time period. Concurrently with those discovery efforts the Parties participated in a mediation this Action with David Rotman, Esq. on January 10, 2019 and January 21, 2019. Those mediations were ultimately successful, and the Parties reached a settlement in principle on February 11, 2019. The Parties filed a notice of settlement and stipulated to vacate all pending deadlines including the March 19, 2019 trial date on February 21, 2019. I. THE SETTLEMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF PAGA PENALTIES A. Terms of the Settlement and Distribution of PAGA Penalties 10 13. The Settlement provides that Defendants will pay a non-reversionary settlement amount of ll $4,500,000.00 (the “Maximum Settlement Amount”). From the Maximum Settlement Amount, payments 12 will be made to Plaintiff's counsel for attorneys’ fees and litigation costs, to Plaintiff Rachel Moniz in the 13 form of an enhancement award of $20,000, and to the Settlement Administrator for settlement 14 administration costs. 15 14. In consideration of the fact that additional Aggrieved Employees may be employed by 16 Adecco between March 24, 2019 and the date on which the Parties’ settlement is approved (“Additional 17 Aggrieved Employees”), Adecco will increase the Total Settlement Amount by $41.08 per each additional 18 Associate added to PAGA Settlement Members and by $631.68 per each additional Colleague added to 19 PAGA Settlement Members (75% of which will go to the State of California and 25% of which will go to 20 the individual PAGA Settlement Member) (which is the per-person share of the Total Settlement Amount 21 based on the total number of existing aggrieved employees) for each additional aggrieved employee that is 22 employed between March 24, 2019 and the date that the Parties’ Settlement is approved by the Court. The 23 number of aggrieved employees shall not increase following the Court’s approval of the Settlement 24 Agreement. 25 15. Plaintiff has agreed to release all claims under state, federal, or local law, whether statutory, 26 arising out of the claims expressly pleaded in the Action, as well as all other claims that could have been 27 pleaded based on the facts pleaded in the Action including: claims for civil penalties under the Private 28 Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”) based on the alleged Labor Code Violations, interests, fees; and 4 DECLARATION OF CAROLYN HUNT COTTRELL IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT PURSUANT TO PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT OF 2004 all other claims and allegations made or that could have been made in the Action during the Release Period based on the facts and allegations in the operative complaint. 16. Plaintiffs counsel will seek a standard fee award of one-third of the Maximum Settlement Amount, along with reimbursement of actual litigation costs. The settlement administration costs are not expected to exceed $78,000. 17. ’ After the remittance of Plaintiff's enhancement award, attorneys’ fees and costs, and the expected costs of settlement administration, the Net Settlement Amount to be paid to the Aggrieved Employees and the State of California will be $ $2,870,000.00. Pursuant to Labor Code § 2699(i), 75% of the Net Settlement Amount will be paid to the LWDA (to be used to assist in the enforcement of labor laws 10 and education of employers and employees about their rights and responsibilities under the Labor Code), ll and the remaining 25% of the Net Settlement Amount will be paid to the Aggrieved Employees. 12 18. The LWDA will receive a projected $2,152,500 from the Settlement. 13 19. Of the remaining 25% of the Net Settlement Amount that will be paid to the Aggrieved 14 Employees, 12% shall be paid to the 542 Colleagues and 88% shall be paid to the 61,095 Associates. These 15 allocations will result in an average payment amount of $10.33 for each Associate and $158.86 for each 16 Colleague. 17 20. The Aggrieved Employees encompassed by the proposed Settlement include all Associates 18 (61,095 part-time employees) and Colleagues (542 full-time employees) employed in California by Adecco 19 from February 1, 2016 through March 24, 2019. 20 B. Payments to the Aggrieved Employees 21 21. Per the Settlement Agreement, all individual settlement awards to Aggrieved Employees 22 shall be deemed to be paid to the Aggrieved Employees solely in the year in which such payments are 23 received by the Aggrieved Employees. It is expressly understood and agreed that the receipt of such 24 individual settlement awards will not entitle any Aggrieved Employee to additional compensation or 25 benefits under any company bonus, contest, or other compensation or benefit plan or agreement in place 26 during the period covered by the Settlement, nor will it entitle any Aggrieved Employee to any increased 27 retirement, 401K benefits or matching benefits, or deferred compensation benefits. 28 22. It is the intent of this Settlement that the individual settlement awards provided for in this 5 DECLARATION OF CAROLYN HUNT COTTRELL IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT PURSUANT TO PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT OF 2004 Settlement are the sole payments to be made by Adecco to the Aggrieved Employees, and that the Aggrieved Employees are not entitled to any new or additional compensation or benefits as a result of having received the individual settlement awards (notwithstanding any contrary language or agreement in any benefit or compensation plan document that might have been in effect during the period covered by this Settlement). Cc The Releases for the Aggrieved Employees and Plaintiff 23. The claims to be released shall be from February 1, 2016 through March 24, 2019. The claims to be released by the Aggrieved Employees include all claims under state, federal, or local law, whether statutory, arising out of the claims expressly pleaded in the Action and all other claims that could have been pleaded based on the facts pleaded in the Action including: claims for civil penalties under PAGA. 10 based on the alleged Labor Code violations, interests, fees, and costs; and all other claims and allegations il made or that could have been made in the Action during the Release Period based on the facts and allegations 12 in the operative complaint. 13 iil. THE SETTLEMENT IS FAIR, REASONABLE, AND WARRANTS COURT APPROVAL 14 15 24. Within this framework, the Parties have consummated and structured the Settlement. 16 Plaintiff has extensively analyzed the facts and claims to evaluate its fairness and reasonableness. 17 Plaintiff's counsel have conducted exhaustive discovery and extensive outreach to the Aggrieved 18 Employees. Plaintiffs Counsel used this information and data to perform in-depth analyses of the 19 claims and potential recovery, the results of which are summarized here. 20 A. Judicial Review Of PAGA Settlements 21 25. Court approval is required for PAGA settlements. Labor Code § 2699(1)(2). 22 However, the PAGA does not establish any standards for the review of PAGA settlements. In 23 reviewing PAGA settlements courts have recognized that PAGA settlements must be viewed in 24 light of the PAGA's public purpose, namely augmenting the state's enforcement capabilities, 25 encouraging compliance with Labor Code provisions, and deterring noncompliance with 26 California's labor law. See, e.g., Vargas v. Central Freight Lines, No. 16-cv-00507-JLB, 2017 WL 27 4271893, *6 (Sept. 25, 2017 S.D. Cal.); Ramirez v. Benito Valley Farms, Inc., No. 16-CV-04708- 28 LHK, 2017 WL 3670794, *3 (Aug. 25, 2017 N.D. Cal.). The proposed settlement is fair and 6 DECLARATION OF CAROLYN HUNT COTTRELL IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT PURSUANT TO PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT OF 2004 ~ we ) reasonable in light of the purposes of the PAGA. B. Nature of the Alleged Violations 26. Plaintiff alleges that Adecco has wrongfully precluded its employees throughout California from disclosing the amount of their wages and from disclosing several aspects of their working conditions. In her complaint, Plaintiff brought five different causes of action pursuant to the California Labor Code. 27. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges: (1) Adecco wrongfully prohibited its employees, as a condition of employment, to refrain from disclosing the amount of his or her wages; (2) Adecco wrongfully prohibited its employees from disclosing their own wages and discussing the wages of 10 others; (3) Adecco wrongfully prohibited its employees to a government or law enforcement ll agency 12 28. First, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated Labor Code § 232. Labor Code § 13 232(a) prohibits an employer from requiring an employee, as a condition of employment, to refrain 14 from disclosing the amount of his or her wages. Furthermore, Labor Code § 232(b) prohibits 15 an employer from requiring an employee to sign a waiver or other document that purports to deny 16 the employee the right to disclose his or her wages. Defendants required Plaintiff to sign a Form 17 Employment Agreement that prohibited her from disclosing her wages. Plaintiff was subject to that 18 prohibition throughout her employment, and still remains subject to that prohibition even after 19 termination of her employment. 20 29. Second, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated Labor Code § 1197.5(k). Labor 21 Code § 1197.5(k)(1) prohibits an employer from “prohibit[ing] an employee from disclosing the 22 employee’s own wages, discussing the wages of others, inquiring about another employee’s wages, 23 or aiding or encouraging any other employee to exercise his or her rights under this section.” Again, 24 Defendants required Plaintiff to sign a Form Employment Agreement that prohibited her from 25 disclosing her wages. Plaintiff was subject to that prohibition throughout her employment, and still 26 remains subject to that prohibition even after termination of her employment. 27 30. Third, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated Labor Code § 232.5. Labor Code § 28 232.5(a) prohibits an employer from requiring, as a condition of employment, that an employee DECLARATION OF CAROLYN HUNT COTTRELL IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT PURSUANT TO PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT OF 2004 X~ refrain from disclosing information about the employer’s working conditions. Labor Code § 232.5(b) prohibits an employer from requiring an employee to sign a waiver or other document that purports to deny the employee the right to disclose information about the employer’s working conditions. Defendants required Plaintiff to sign a Form Employment Agreement that prohibited her from disclosing any non-public information of commercial value. This expressly includes, without limitation, her wages, the identities of her coworkers, training methods, operation methods, office protocols and systems, and programs and systems. Plaintiff was subject to that prohibition throughout her employment. Even after the termination of her employment with Defendants, Plaintiff remains subject to that prohibition. 10 3h. Fourth, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated Labor Code § 1102.5. Labor Code 11 § 1102.5(a) prohibits an employer from making, adopting, or enforcing any rule, regulation, or 12 policy preventing an employee from disclosing information to a government or law enforcement 13 agency, to a person with authority over the employee, or to another employee who has authority to 14 investigate, discover, or correct the violation or noncompliance, from providing information to, or 15 testifying before, any public body conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry, if the employee 16 has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, 17 or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation, regardless of 18 whether disclosing the information is part of the employee’s job duties. The Form Employment 19 Agreement that Plaintiff signed prohibits employees from disclosing any non-public information 20 of commercial value to any entity regardless of whether employees believe that the information 21 discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, 22 or federal rule or regulation. 23 32. Last, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated Labor Code § 432.5. Labor Code § 24 432.5 prohibits an employer from requiring an employee or applicant for employment to agree, in 25 writing, to any term or condition which is known by such employer to be prohibited by law. On 26 information and belief, Defendants knew that the non-disclosure provision in the Form 27 Employment Agreement contained provisions prohibited by the laws set forth above. Even so, 28 Defendants conditioned employment on acceptance of, and compliance with, the terms of the non- 8 DECLARATION OF CAROLYN HUNT COTTRELL IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT PURSUANT TO PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT OF 2004 - \ , disclosure provision of the Form Employment Agreement. 33. The Aggrieved Employees in this case are either Colleagues (Adecco’s full-time employees) or Associates (Adecco’s part-time employees). The following confidentiality provision is substantially similar to the confidentiality provisions in the Colleague employment agreements at issue: 34, “Confidential Information includes, but is not limited to. . information regarding. . . personnel, compensation. Any unauthorized disclosure or release of such Confidential Information would irreparably harm [Adecco].” ADECCO — 000009 (emphasis added). 35. The foregoing provision clearly and explicitly prevents the disclosure of information 10 relating to employees’ compensation. 11 36. The following confidentiality provision is substantially similar to the confidentiality 12 provisions in the Associate employment agreements at issue: 13 37. “Employee acknowledges and agrees that he/she cannot disseminate or disclose to 14 any third party, or use for Employee’s own benefit, any Confidential Information relating to the 15 products, business or affairs of Adecco or of Client which is in any way acquired during or by 16 reason of Employee’s employment with Client.” ADECCO — 000019. 17 38. By contrast, and compared to the Colleague agreements, the Associate provision is 18 much less clear as to what information is prohibited from disclosure. 19 Cc. Number of Alleged Violations and Total Potential PAGA Penalties 20 39. Plaintiffs counsel evaluated Adecco’s maximum potential exposure for the claims at 21 issue. That evaluation is based on a comprehensive review of Defendant’s production of documents 22 and data, as well as information provided by employees during interviews with Plaintiff's counsel. 23 40. Plaintiff’s counsel have analyzed all claims as pled in the operative complaint in this 24 Action. There are four sections of the Labor Code identified in Plaintiff's Complaint that give rise 25 to statutory penalties available under PAGA: 1) Violation of § 232 (prohibiting the disclosure of 26 an employee’s own wages), 2) Violation of § 1197.5(k) (prohibiting the disclosure of the wages of 27 others), 3) Violation of § 232.5 (prohibiting the disclosure of an employee’s working conditions), 28 and 4) Violation of § 432.5 (prohibition on requiring an employee to agree to a condition known 9 DECLARATION OF CAROLYN HUNT COTTRELL IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT PURSUANT TO PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT OF 2004 WS f by the employer to be prohibited by law). The California Labor Code provides for statutory penalties of $100 per employee, per pay period for each initial violation and $200 per employee, per pay period for each subsequent violation. Cal. Labor Code § 2699(f)(2). 41. There were 542 Colleagues employed by Adecco in California during the relevant time period, and 61,092 Associates.' Assuming a single initial pay period, the maximum penalty exposure for all four statutory violations was more than $22.54 million for Adecco’s Colleagues alone.” That was Plaintiff's initial demand for purposes of mediation, and the case ultimately settled for approximately 20% of Plaintiff's initial demand. D. Litigation Risks 10 42. This case was vigorously litigated since its inception, and required Plaintiff and her ll counsel to participate in extensive motion practice. Adecco sought to dismiss this case through the 12 filing of its demurrer, its renewal thereof, and its motion for summary adjudication. Adecco also 13 sought to effectively dismiss this case by coordinating it with another case in another court in which 14 it received a favorable ruling on the issue of NLRA preemption. Plaintiff prevailed on all of these 15 issues through extensive briefing and argument, yet all of those issues remain vulnerable to contest 16 on appeal. 17 43. Additionally, there were substantive differences between the language of the 18 confidentiality provisions in the Colleague agreements, which explicitly referenced information 19 related to personnel and compensation, and the language of the confidentiality provisions in the 20 Associate employment agreements that did not. See Section V.B supra; compare ADECCO — 21 000009 with ADECCO — 000019. Adecco has continually disputed that either of these provisions 22 violate the California Labor Code, and Plaintiff faced significant risks associated with proving that 23 either agreement violated the statutory provisions at issue. 24 44 During discovery Plaintiff conducted substantial outreach with Aggrieved 25 Employees concerning the confidentiality provisions in their employment agreements. Plaintiff 26 ' Plaintiff was informed on April 19, 2019 that these were the “final” numbers of Aggrieved Employees 27 including those whose employment began between the date of the Parties’ mediation and March 24, 2019. ? The maximum possible penalties for Adecco’s Associates is astronomically high. By Plaintiff's calculation 28 % of such exposure would be more than $56 million. 10 DECLARATION OF CAROLYN HUNT COTTRELL IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT PURSUANT TO PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT OF 2004 recognizes that the testimony of Aggrieved Employees at trial concerning their individual experiences with the confidentiality provisions at issue could vary. While some employees may testify that the confidentiality provisions hampered their ability to discuss their salary and benefits, others may testify that they did not experience such restrictions. Variability in testimony as to individual employees’ experience is not uncommon in employment litigation, and such variability may present a risk to Plaintiffs case here if it were to proceed to trial. 45. As such, and in addition to the burden of proof Plaintiff would bear at trial, there are significant legal risks associated with the continued litigation of Plaintiff's claims. Iv. REQUESTED ATTORNEYS?’ FEES AND LITIGATION COSTS 10 46. For their efforts and the substantial risk they undertook in obtaining a large common fund ll settlement to benefit the LWDA and the Aggrieved Employees, the Parties allocated one-third of the 12 Maximum Settlement Amount to Plaintiffs’ counsel for reasonable attorneys’ fees, plus their actual litigation 13 costs which here estimated to be $32,000.00. These fees are warranted under the law and within the range 14 commonly awarded in similar cases. 15 47. PlaintifP's counsel are experienced representative action litigators. This experience and 16 expertise, combined with the high quality of work performed in this case by Plaintiff's counsel, resulted in 17 the Settlement achieved. 18 48. SWCKW is regarded as one of the leading private plaintiff's firms in representative wage 19 and hour and employment actions. In November 2012, the Recorder listed the firm as one of the “top 10 go- 20 to plaintiffs’ employment firms in Northern California.” The partners and attorneys have litigated major 21 wage and hour actions, have won several prestigious awards, and sit on important boards and committees in 22 the legal community. SWCKW was founded by Todd Schneider in 1993, and I have been a member of the 23 firm since 1995. 24 49. Nearly my entire legal career has been devoted to advocating for the rights of individuals 25 who have been subjected to illegal pay policies, discrimination, harassment and retaliation and representing 26 employees in wage and hour and discrimination class actions. I have litigated hundreds of wage and hour, 27 employment discrimination and civil-rights actions, and I manage many of the firm’s current cases in these 28 areas. | am a member of the State Bar of California, and have had memberships with Public Justice, the 11 DECLARATION OF CAROLYN HUNT COTTRELL IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT PURSUANT TO PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT OF 2004 - mS \ A National Employment Lawyers Association, the California Employment Lawyers Association, and the Consumer Attomeys of California. I served on the Board of Directors for the San Francisco Trial Lawyers Association and co-chaired its Women’s Caucus. I was named one of the “Top Women Litigators for 2010” by the Daily Journal. In 2012, I was nominated for Woman Trial Lawyer of the Year by the Consumer Attomeys of California. I have been selected as a Super Lawyer every year since 2014. I earned my Bachelor’s degree from the University of California, and I am a graduate of the University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law. 50. SWCKW has acted or is acting as class and PAGA counsel in numerous cases. A partial list of cases which have been certified and/or settled as class actions includes: Vorise v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, 10 Inc. (Case No. C 15-02051) (Conta Costa County Superior Court) (approval of PAGA settlement for failure I to pay for minimum wage and overtimes wages, failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to reimburse 12 for necessary business expenditures, waiting time penalties, and failure to provide itemized wage statements 13 under California law); Van Liew v. North Star Emergency Services, Inc., et al. (Case No. RG17876878) 14 (Alameda County Superior Court) (final approval of a class action settlement for failure to pay for all hours 15 worked, failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to 16 reimburse for necessary business expenditures, waiting time penalties, and failure to provide itemized wage 17 statements, under California law); Asalati v. Intel Corp. (Case No. 16cv302615) (Santa Clara Superior 18 Court) (final approval of a class and collective action settlement for failure to pay for all hours worked, 19 failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to reimburse for necessary business 20 expenditures, failure to adhere to California record keeping requirements, waiting time penalties, and failure 21 to provide itemized wage statements, under federal and California law); Harmon, et al. v. Diamond Wireless, 22 LLC, (Case No. 34-2012-00118898) (Sacramento Superior Court) (final approval of a class action 23 settlement for failure to pay wages free and clear, failure to pay overtime and minimum wages, failure to 24 provide meal and rest breaks, failure to pay full wages when due, failure to adhere to California record 25 keeping requirements, and failure to provide adequate seating, under California law); Aguilar v. Hall AG 26 Enterprises, Inc., et al., (Case No. BCV-16-10994-DRL) (Kern County Superior Court) (final approval of 27 a class action settlement for failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to compensate for all hours 28 worked, failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, waiting time penalties, failure to provide itemized 12 DECLARATION OF CAROLYN HUNT COTTRELL IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT PURSUANT TO PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT OF 2004 aN Ne wage statements, and failure to pay undiscounted wages, under California law); Viceral and Krueger v. Mistras Group, Inc., (Case No. 3:15-cv-02198-EMC) (Northern District of California) (final approval of a class and collective action settlement for failure to compensate for all hours worked, including overtime, under federal and California law); Jeter-Polk, et al. v. Casual Male Store, LLC, et al., (Case No. 5:14-CV- 00891) (Central District of California) (final approval of a class action settlement for failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to compensate for all hours worked, failure to pay overtime wages, unpaid wages and waiting time penalties, and failure to provide itemized wage statements); Meza, et al. v. S.S. Skikos, Inc., et al., (Case No. 15-cv-01889-TEH) (Norther District of California) (final approval of class and collective action settlement for failure to compensate for all hours worked, including overtime, under federal and 10 California law, failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to reimburse for necessary business uniforms, ll failure to pay full wages upon termination to, and failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements); 12 Holmes, et al v. Xpress Global Systems, Inc., (Case No. 34-2015-00180822) (Sacramento Superior Court) 13 (final approval of a class action settlement for failure to provide meal and rest breaks and failure to provide 14 accurate itemized wage statements); Guilbaud, et al. v. Sprint Nextel Corp. et al, (Case No. 3:13-cv-04357- 15 VC) (Northern District of California) (final approval of a class and collective action settlement for failure to 16 compensate for all hours worked, including overtime, failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to 17 reimburse for necessary business uniforms, failure to pay full wages upon termination to, and failure to 18 provide accurate itemized wage statements); Molina, et al. v. Railworks Track Systems, Inc., (Case No. 19 BCV-15-10135) (Kern County Superior Court) (final approval of a class action settlement for failure to 20 provide meal and rest breaks, unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, off-the-clocker work, failure to pay full wages 21 upon termination to, and failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements); Allen, et al. v. County of 22 Monterey, et al., (Case No. 5:13-cv-01659) (Northern District of California) (settlement between FLSA 23 Plaintiffs and Defendantto provide relief to affected employees); Barrera v. Radix Cable Holdings, Inc., et 24 al., (Case No. CIV 1100505) (Marin County Superior Court) (final approval of class action settlement for 25 failure to provide meal and rest breaks to, off-the-clock work by, failure to provide overtime compensation 26 to, failure to reimburse business expenditures to, failure to pay full wages upon termination to, and failure to 27 provide accurate itemized wage statements to retention specialists working for cable companies); Glass 28 Dimensions, Inc., et al. v. State Street Corp. et al., (Case No. 1:10-cv-10588) (District of Massachusetts) 13 DECLARATION OF CAROLYN HUNT COTTRELL IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT PURSUANT TO PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT OF 2004 aN, 7 (final approval of class action settlement for claims of breach of fiduciary duty and self-dealing in violation of ERISA); Friend, et al. v. The Hertz Corporation, (Case No. 3:07-052222) (Northern District of California) (settlement of claims that rental car company misclassified non-exempt employees, failed to pay wages, failed to pay premium pay, and failed to provide meal periods and rest periods); Hollands v. Lincare, Inc., et al., (Case No. CGC-07-465052) (San Francisco County Superior Court) (final approval of class action settlement for overtime pay, off-the-clock work, unreimbursed expenses, and other wage and hour claims on behalf of a class of center managers); Jantz, et al. v. Colvin, (Case No. 531-2006-00276X) (In the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Baltimore Field Office) (final approval of class action settlement for the denial of promotions based on targeted disabilities); Shemaria v. County of Marin, (Case 10 No. CV 082718) (Marin County Superior Court) (final approval of class action settlement on behalf of a il class of individuals with mobility disabilities denied access to various facilities owned, operated, and/or 12 maintained by the County of Marin); Perez, et al. v. First American Title Ins. Co., (Case No. 2:08-cv-01184) 13 (istrict of Arizona) (final approval of class action settlement in action challenging unfair discrimination by 14 title insurance company); Perez v. Rue21, Inc., et al., (Case No. CISCV167815) (Santa Cruz County 15 Superior Court) (final approval of class action settlement for failure to provide meal and rest breaks to, and 16 for off-the-clock work performed by, a class of retail employees); Sosa, et al. v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, 17 Inc., et al., (Case No. RG 08424366) (Alameda County Superior Court) (final approval of class action 18 settlement for failure to provide meal and rest breaks to, and for off-the-clock work performed by, a class of 19 ice cream manufacturing employees); Villalpando v. Exel Direct Inc., et al. (Case Nos. 3:12-cv-04137 and 20 4:13-cv-03091) (Northern District of Califomia) (certified class action on behalfof delivery drivers allegedly 21 misclassified as independent contractors); Choul, et al. v. Nebraska Beef, Ltd. (Case Nos. 8:08-cv-90, 8:08- 22 cv-99) (District of Nebraska) (final approval of class action settlement for offthe-clock work by, and failure 23 to provide overtime compensation to, production-line employees of meat-packing plant); Morales v. 24 Farmland Foods, Inc. (Case No. 8:08-cv-504) (District of Nebraska) (FLSA certification for off-the-clock 25 work by, and failure to provide overtime compensation to, production-line employees of meat-packing 26 plant); Barlow, et al. v. PRN Ambulance Inc. (Case No. BC396728) (Los Angeles County Superior Court) 27 (final approval of class action settlement for failure to provide meal and rest breaks to and for off-the-clock 28 work by certified emergency medical technicians); Espinosa, et al. v. National Beef, et al. (Case No. 14 DECLARATION OF CAROLYN HUNT COTTRELL IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT PURSUANT TO PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT OF 2004 a Ne ECU0467) (Imperial Superior Court) (final approval of class action settlement for off-the-clock work by, and failure to provide overtime compensation to, production-line employees of meat-packing plant); Wolfe, et al. v. California Check Cashing Stores, LLC, et al. (Case Nos. CGC-08-479518 and CGC-09-489635) (San Francisco Superior Court) (final approval of class action settlement for failure to provide meal and rest breaks to, and for off-the-clock work by, employees at check cashing stores); Carlson v. eHarmony (Case No. BC371958) (Los Angeles County Superior Court) (final approval of class action settlement on behalf of gays and lesbians who were denied use of eHarmony); Salcido v. Cargill (Case Nos. 1:07-CV-01347- LJO-GSA,1:08-CV-00605-LJO-GSA) (Eastern District of California) (final approval of class action settlement for off-the-clock work by production-line employees of meat-packing plant); Elkin v. Six Flags 10 (Case No. BC342633) (Los Angeles County Superior Court) (final approval of class action settlement for ll missed meal and rest periods on behalf of hourly workers at Six Flags amusement parks); Jimenez v. Perot 12 Systems Corp. (Case No. RG07335321) (Alameda County Superior Court) (final approval of class action 13 settlement for misclassification of hospital clerical workers); Chau v. CVS RX Services, Inc. (Case No. 14 BC349224) (Los Angeles County Superior Court) (final approval of class action settlement for failure to 15 pay overtime to CVS pharmacists); Reed v. CALSTAR (Case No. RG04155105) (Alameda County Superior 16 Court) (certified class action on behalf of flight nurses); National Federation of the Blind v. Target (Case 17 No. C 06-01802 MHP) (N.D. Cal.) (certified class action on behalf of all legally blind individuals in the 18 United States who have tried to access Target.com); Bates v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (2004 WL 19 2370633) (N.D. Cal.) (certified national class action on behalf of deaf employees of UPS); Satchell v. FedEx 20 Express, Inc. (Case No. 03-02659 SI) (N.D. Cal.) (certified regional class action alleging widespread 21 discrimination within FedEx); Siddiqi v. Regents of the University of California (Case No. C-99-0790 SI) 22 (N.D. Cal.) (certified class action in favor of deaf plaintifiS alleging disability access violations at the 23 University of California); Lopez v. San Francisco Unified School District (Case No. C-99-03260 SI) (N.D. 24 Cal.) (certified class action in favor of plaintiffs in class action against school district for widespread 25 disability access violations); Campos v. San Francisco State University (Case No. C-97-02326 MCC) (N_D. 26 Cal.) (certified class action in favor of disabled plaintiffs for widespread disability access violations); 27 Singleton v. Regents of the University of California (Case No. 807233-1) (Alameda County Superior Court) 28 (class settlement for women alleging gender discrimination at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory); 15 DECLARATION OF CAROLYN HUNT COTTRELL IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT PURSUANT TO PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT OF 2004 McMaster v. BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Co. (Case No. RG04173735) (Alameda County Superior Court) (final approval of class action settlement for drive-time required of Coca-Cola account managers); Portugal v. Macy’s West, Inc. (Case No. BC324247) (Los Angeles County Superior Court) (California statewide wage and hour “misclassification” class action resulting in a class-wide $3.25 million settlement); Taormina v. Siebel Systems, Inc. (Case No. RG05219031) (Alameda County Superior Court) (final approval of class action settlement for misclassification of Siebel’s inside sales employees); Joseph v. The Limited, Inc. (Case No. CGC-04-437118) (San Francisco County Superior Court) (final approval of class action settlement for failure to provide meal and rest periods to employees of The Limited stores); Rios v. Siemens Corp. (Case No. C05-04697 PJH) (N.D. Cal.) (final approval of class action settlement for failure to pay accrued vacation 10 pay upon end of employment); DeSoto v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (Case No. RG0309669) (Alameda County Il Superior Court) and Lenahan v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (Case No. 3-02-CV-000045 (SRC) (TJB)) (final 12 approval of class action settlement for failure to pay Sears drivers for all hours worked); among many others.; 13 among many others. 14 Sl. Ihave reviewed a summary of SWCKW’s billing records, which are maintained during the 15 regular course of business and billed contemporaneously. The hourly rates for partners is $925 per hour, 16 and the hourly rates for associates range from $600 to $800 per hour. The hourly rates for staff range from 17 $125 to $400 per hour. SWCKW’s total billed time, or lodestar, in this case is approximately 18 $740,055.00.While adjusting our rates to track market increases, SWCKW’s rates have steadily remained 19 reasonable and competitive, and have been consistently approved by many federal and state courts over the 20 past several years. See, e.g., Harmon, et al. v. Diamond Wireless, LLC (Case No. 34-2012-00118898) 21 (Sacramento Superior Court, Feb. 14, 2018) (approving class settlement and cross-checking fee in part using 22 $835 rate for Carolyn Hunt Cottrell and $350-$750 rate for other attorneys); Holmes, et al v. Xpress Global 23 Systems, Inc., (Case No. 34-2015-00180822) (Sacramento Superior Court, Apr. 28, 2016) (approving class 24 settlement and cross-checking fee in part using $795 rate for Carolyn Hunt Cottrell and $350-$500 rate for 25 other attorneys); Willits, et al. v. City of Los Angeles (Case No. 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW) (C.D. Cal., 26 Aug. 25. 2016) (awarding fees on lodestar basis and specifically approving $750 rate for partners and $300- 27 $700 rates for other attorneys). 28 52. In this case, there was no guarantee of compensation or reimbursement. Rather, SWCKW 16 DECLARATION OF CAROLYN HUNT COTTRELL IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT PURSUANT TO PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT OF 2004 r ~ we undertook all the risks of this litigation on a completely contingent fee basis. The inherent risk of proving liability and penalties across the aggrieved employees and Defendant’s representation by skillful counsel confront SWCK'W with the prospect of recovering nothing or close to nothing for their commitment to and investment in the case. 353. Nevertheless, Plaintiff and SWCKW committed themselves to developing and pressing Plaintiff's legal claims to enforce the State of California’s and the employees’ interests and maximize the recovery. The challenges that SWCK.W had to confront and the risks they had to fully absorb on behalf of the State and the employees here are precisely the reasons for multipliers in contingency fee cases.> As PAGA Settlement Employees and the State will receive significant payments if the Settlement is approved, 10 SWCKW seek a reasonable fee award for their efforts and the risk they have assumed. 11 54. Attomeys who litigate on a wholly or partially contingent basis expect to receive significantly 12 higher effective hourly rates in cases where compensation is contingent on succes