Dkt 064-1 Ex 1 Settlement Agreement

EXHIBIT 1

CASE 0:15-cv-02498-SRN-BRT Document 64-1 Filed 02/16/16 Page 1 of 64

Page 1 of 25

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Duniyo Hussein, et al.,

on behalf of themselves,

the Proposed Rule 23 Class, and

OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

Capital Building Services Group., Inc.,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-CV-2498 (SRN/BRT)

SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE

AGREEMENT

Plaintiffs Duniyo Hussein (“Plaintiff Hussein”), Naima Omar Issa (“Plaintiff

Issa”), Leyla Yusuf (“Plaintiff Yusuf”), Raymond Deshler (“Plaintiff Deshler”),

Assiongbonvi “Luc” Kangnigan (“Plaintiff Kangnigan”), Melvin Holmes (“Plaintiff

Holmes”), Abraham Quevedo Orantes (“Plaintiff Quevedo”), and Leticia Zuniga

Escamilla (“Plaintiff Zuniga”), (collectively, the “Named Plaintiffs” or “Plaintiffs”),

individually and on behalf of all individuals employed in Minnesota by Defendant

Capital Building Services Group, Inc. (“Capital” or “Defendant”) as cleaners (including

crew leads) from May 20, 2012 to January 15, 2016 (“Class Members” or “Proposed

Rule 23 Class”), together with Defendant, have entered into this Settlement and Release

Agreement (the “Agreement”) to settle issues regarding the payment of unpaid wages and

other claims raised in this litigation (the “Settlement”).


Page 2 of 25

I. BACKGROUND

A. Procedural History and Mediation

On May 20, 2015, Plaintiffs filed this putative FLSA collective and Rule 23 class

action against Defendant. (Compl. ¶ 1, ECF No. 1.) Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant

failed to pay proper minimum wage and overtime compensation in violation of the

federal FLSA, and that Defendant violated several Minnesota state wage and hour laws.

(Id. ¶¶ 10–11.) Specifically, Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant violated: the Fair Labor

Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 206, 207, Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act

(“MFLSA”), Minn. Stat. §§ 177.23, .24, .25, .255, and .30, and the Minnesota Payment

of Wages Act (“PWA”), Minn. Stat. §§ 181.032, .101, .13, and .14. (Id. ¶¶ 98–175.)

Defendant filed an Answer denying all claims. (ECF No. 29.)

In the Complaint, the Plaintiffs allege Capital failed to pay employees for all hours

worked, resulting in minimum wage, gap time, and overtime violations under the FLSA

and MNFLSA. (Compl. ¶¶ 98-152, ECF No. 1.) Plaintiffs allege that meal breaks are

systematically deducted from employees’ hours worked, even when those breaks are not

actually taken. (Id.) Plaintiffs allege that some employees have to purchase their own

cleaning supplies, and these unreimbursed expenses cause employees’ wages to drop

even further below minimum wage. (Id.) Plaintiffs allege that when employees are asked

to clean a store where they do not normally work, their time is seldom tracked, and often

unpaid. (Id.) Plaintiffs allege that travel time between stores is not compensated. (Id.)

Plaintiffs allege that workers have no choice but to be paid with debit cards, and thus

must pay ATM fees in order to access their own wages. (Id.) Plaintiffs allege that


Page 3 of 25

beginning in their second pay period, employees’ only other option is to receive direct

deposit, which is not an option for workers who do not have bank accounts. (Id.)

Plaintiffs allege that on numerous occasions, terminated employees were not paid for

work performed during their final pay periods. (Id.) Last, Plaintiffs allege that Capital

failed to maintain accurate employment records and supply pay stubs (or electronic

access to pay stubs) to employees. (Id.) Plaintiffs seek damages, equitable relief,

injunctive relief, penalties, attorneys’ fees, and costs, on their own behalf and on behalf

of all those similarly situated.

Defendant contends that all of Capital’s employees were compensated in

compliance with the law and that any alleged failure to pay wages was not willful.

Defendant has denied, and continues denying, each of the claims and contentions alleged

by the Plaintiffs in the Action, and so it denies any wrongdoing or legal liability arising

from any facts or conduct alleged in the Action. Nevertheless, Defendant has concluded

that further litigation would be protracted and expensive and would divert management

and employee time. Defendant has taken into account the uncertainty and risk inherent in

litigation and concluded it is appropriate to fully and finally settle the Action in the

manner, and upon the terms, set forth in this Agreement.

On June 3, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Conditional Certification and

Notice, Class Certification, and a Preliminary Injunction. (ECF No. 5.) On November 20,

2015, this Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for conditional certification and deferred

ruling on Plaintiffs’ motions for class certification and injunctive relief. (ECF 58.) With

mediation pending, the parties entered into a private agreement to defer mailing the court-


Page 4 of 25

approved notice and toll the claims of all class members until after mediation. Because

the discussions produced a settlement, Plaintiffs’ counsel did not send conditional

certification notice to the class.

In pursuing claims at issue in the Action, and in evaluating the merits of the

settlement, Class Counsel have (1) reviewed thousands of pages of data and documents,

(2) conducted over a dozen witness interviews, (3) held meetings and conferences

between representatives of the Parties, (4) researched federal and Minnesota law, (5)

investigated facts regarding the Class Members’ claims, (6) gathered declarations, (7)

researched and investigated potential defenses to Plaintiffs’ claims, and (8) analyzed the

damages incurred by the Class.

On December 11, 2015, the Parties participated in a full-day mediation session

conducted by the Honorable Arthur Boylan (Ret.). Following the mediation, the parties

continued negotiating over a variety of sensitive monetary and non-monetary terms. On

January 22, 2016, as a result of these arm’s length negotiations, the Parties agreed to the

settlement. The Parties have worked diligently to resolve numerous issues regarding

settlement. The Parties believe they are fully and adequately informed of all facts

necessary to evaluate the case for settlement.

B. Inadmissibility of the Agreement

Neither this Agreement, nor any document, statement, proceeding, and conduct

related to this Agreement, nor any reports and accounts thereof, shall, in any event, be

construed as, offered, and admitted into evidence as, received as, or deemed to be

evidence for any purpose adverse to the Parties. Except for the purposes of settling the


Page 5 of 25

Action, or enforcing the Settlement, this Agreement shall not be disclosed, referred to,

offered, or received into evidence against the Parties in any further proceeding in the

Action, or in any other civil, criminal, or administrative action or proceeding.

II. TERMS

Subject to Court approval, the Parties agree as follows:

A. Definitions of Terms that Are Not Otherwise Defined

1. Action means the lawsuit captioned Hussein, et al. v. Capital

Building Services Group, Inc., No. 15-cv-2498.

2. Class Members means: (1) the Plaintiffs who filed the Action, (2)

the Opt-In Plaintiffs, and (3) all individuals employed by Defendant as cleaners

(including crew leads) in Minnesota from May 20, 2012 through January 15, 2016.

3. Class Counsel means the law firms of Nichols Kaster, PLLP.

4. Court means the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.

5. Covered Period means 12:01 a.m. on May 20, 2012 through 11:59

p.m., January 15, 2016.

6. Final Approval Order means the Court’s Order granting final

approval of the Parties’ settlement and this Agreement.

7. Notice of Settlement means the form approved by Class Counsel and

Defendant, subject to Court approval, which Class Counsel will mail, via first-class U.S.

mail, to each Class Member to explain the terms of the Settlement.

8. Opt-In Plaintiffs means all Plaintiffs who filed consents to join the

Action after the case was filed.


Page 6 of 25

9. Party or Parties means the Class Members, the Settlement Class,

and/or Defendant.

10. Settlement Class means all Class Members who timely submit a

settlement participation form.

11. Settlement Effective Date means the first day following the latter of

the following occurrences: (1) the entry of the Final Approval Order; (2) if an objection

has been made to final approval of the Parties’ settlement, the date on which the

objector’s time to appeal the Final Approval Order has expired, with no appeal or other

judicial review having been taken or sought; or (3) if an appeal of the Final Approval

Order has been timely filed, the date the Final Approval Order is affirmed by an appellate

court with no possibility of subsequent appeal, or other judicial review, or the date the

appeal(s) or other judicial review are finally dismissed with no possibility of subsequent

appeal or other judicial review.

12. Settlement Payment means the payment of $425,000.00, to be paid

by Capital pursuant to this Agreement.

B. Benefits

1. Settlement Payment. In exchange for the release of claims in Section

II.C., Capital will pay $425,000.00 to, or on behalf of, the Settlement Class and Class

Counsel. This amount includes all wages, liquidated damages, pay card fees, punitive

damages, equitable relief, penalties of any nature, attorneys’ fees, costs, and incentive

awards to which Plaintiffs and their counsel claim entitlement in the Action.


Page 7 of 25

2. Employer’s Payroll Taxes. In addition to this Settlement Payment,

Capital will pay the employer’s share of all applicable payroll taxes on amounts treated as

wages.

3. Reversion. Any portion of the Settlement Payment not negotiated by

any member of the Settlement Class within 90 days of the mailing of the checks shall be

null and void and shall be paid as a cy pres award to Mid-Minnesota Legal Aid, 430 First

Ave North, Suite 300, Minneapolis, MN 55401.. Such reversion payments will be made

by the Parties no later than 220 days after the Settlement Effective Date.

4. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. Class Counsel may apply to the District

Court for an award of fees and costs in the Action (the “Fee Application”) in the amount

of $151,666.66. Defendant will not oppose, nor will it object, to the reasonableness of the

amount of fees and costs requested by Class Counsel. All fees and costs approved by the

Court will be paid out of the Settlement Payment. If the Court does not approve Class

Counsel’s request for fees and costs in full, the unapproved portion of the fees and costs

will be apportioned among the Class Members in an equal percentage to each Class

Member’s original award. The parties shall otherwise bear their own attorneys’ fees,

costs, and expenses incurred in the prosecution, defenses, and/or settlement of the Action.

5. Incentive Awards. Class Counsel may apply to the District Court for

an award of incentive compensation up to and including a total of $25,000. Class Counsel

shall request incentive awards as follows:

Duniyo Hussein: $4,500

Naima Omar Issa: $3,000


Page 8 of 25

Leyla Yusuf: $3,000

Raymond Deshler: $2,000

Assiongbonvi “Luc” Kangnigan: $2,000

Melvin Holmes: $3,000

Abraham Quevedo Orantes: $3,000

Leticia Zuniga Escamilla: $3,000

Jesus Sanchez: $1,500

The incentive awards reflect the contributions Plaintiffs made to the prosecution

and ultimate resolution of the Action. Incentive award payments shall be accompanied by

an IRS form 1099. Incentive awards approved by the Court will be paid out of the

Settlement Payment. If the Court does not approve Class Counsel’s request for incentive

awards in full, the unapproved portion of the fees and costs will be apportioned among

the Class Members in an equal percentage to each Class Member’s original award.

6. Individual Awards. Capital shall pay individual awards to certain

Plaintiffs to resolve individual claims going beyond the scope of the class/collective

claims. Capital shall pay individual awards as follows:

Abraham Quevedo Orantes: $10,000

Leyla Yusuf: $3,000

Duniyo Hussein: $10,000

Leticia Zuniga Escamilla: $5,000

Melvin Holmes: $5,000


Page 9 of 25

Individual Awards will be paid out of the Settlement Payment. Individual Award

payments shall be accompanied by an IRS form 1099.

7. Consent to Class and Collective Action Certification. For purposes

of the Settlement only, Defendant consents to final certification under (1) 29 U.S.C. §

216(b) (“216(b)”) regarding the claims of all Opt-In Plaintiffs, and (2) Fed. R. Civ. P. 23

of an opt-out class of persons comprised of Class Members. The Parties agree that

certification for purposes of the Settlement is not an admission by Defendant that Rule 23

class and 216(b) collective action certification would be proper absent the Settlement. For

purposes of the Settlement, the Parties stipulate and agree that the requisites for

establishing class and collective action certification with respect to the Settlement Class

have been, and are, met.

C. Release of Claims

1. Claims Released. Upon the Settlement Effective Date, the Class

Members, excluding those Class Members who timely exclude themselves, will be

deemed to have released claims as set forth below in Paragraph II.C.2.

2. Scope of Released Claims of Class Members. Each Class Member,

excluding those Class Members who timely exclude themselves, on behalf of his/her

respective heirs, beneficiaries, devisees, legatees, executors, administrators, trustees,

conservators, guardians, personal representatives, successors-in-interest, and assigns,

hereby knowingly and voluntarily releases all known and unknown claims against

Defendant, its parent, subsidiaries, and affiliated companies and their present, former, and

future successors and assigns, and all of their present, former, and future owners, officers,


Page 10 of 25

directors, shareholders, stockholders, partners, members, employees, agents, consultants,

representatives, insurers, attorneys, trustees, administrators, heirs, in their individual and

representative capacities (herein the “Released Parties”) that accrued during the Covered

Period based on putative violations of state law alleged in this Action, including but not

limited to failure to pay minimum wage, overtime, or gap time, failure to comply with

Minnesota’s wage statement laws, failure to maintain accurate payroll records, failure to

reimburse employees for purchasing supplies, and failure to comply with Minnesota’s

law governing the use of pay cards.

3. Claims Released by the Settlement Class. Upon the Settlement

Effective Date, the Settlement Class will be deemed to have released claims as set forth

below in Paragraph II.C.4.

4. Scope of Released Claims of Settlement Class. Each Settlement

Class Member, on behalf of his/her respective heirs, beneficiaries, devisees, legatees,

executors, administrators, trustees, conservators, guardians, personal representatives,

successors-in-interest, and assigns, hereby knowingly and voluntarily releases all known

and unknown claims against the Released Parties that accrued during the Covered Period

based on putative violations of federal law alleged in this Action, including but not

limited to failure to pay minimum wage and overtime compensation.

5. Scope of Released Claims by Certain Named Plaintiffs. Named

Plaintiffs Abraham Quevedo Orantes, Leyla Yusuf, Duniyo Hussein, Melvin Holmes, and

Leticia Zuniga Escamilla, on behalf of their respective heirs, beneficiaries, devisees,

legatees, executors, administrators, trustees, conservators, guardians, personal


Page 11 of 25

representatives, successors-in-interest, and assigns, hereby knowingly and voluntarily

release all known and unknown claims against the Released Parties that accrued on or

before January 22, 2016, including but not limited to any Claims arising under the Age

Discrimination in Employment Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Civil

Rights Act of 1991, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Family and Medical Leave

Act, or any other federal, state, or local law, including without limitation, the Minnesota

Human Rights Act, and Claims based on breach of an implied or express contract,

promissory estoppel, emotional distress, defamation, misrepresentation, fraud, public

policy, common law, good faith and fair dealing, negligence, invasion of privacy,

retaliation, or any claim that Named Plaintiffs may have that accrued on or before

January 22, 2016. This release shall not apply to and shall not affect the Named

Plaintiffs’ right to enforce the terms of this Agreement, to seek remedy for breach of this

Agreement, to assert claims which cannot legally be waived under applicable law, or to

subsequently assert any Claim arising from acts occurring after January 22, 2016.

D. Settlement Notices

1. Duty of Cooperation. The Parties agree to cooperate in obtaining

expeditious preliminary and final approval of this Agreement. Capital agrees to share

with Class Counsel any information necessary to confirm the fairness of the Settlement

and the equitable distribution from the Settlement Payment to members of the Settlement

Class. Class Counsel agrees that any information provided by Capital under this

Paragraph is confidential, is for settlement purposes only, and shall not be used for any

other purpose.


Page 12 of 25

2. Preliminary Approval Order. On, or before, February 15, 2016, the

Parties shall promptly move the Court for an order:

(i) Preliminarily approving this Agreement;

(ii) Approving certification of the Rule 23 class as agreed upon

by the Parties for the purpose of effectuating this Agreement;

(iii) Approving the Notice of Settlement to each Class Member;

and

(iv) Scheduling a hearing on final approval of this Agreement.

3. Notice of Settlement. Within ten (10) days after the Court

preliminarily approves the settlement, Class Counsel shall distribute the approved Notice

of Settlement to Class Members by first-class U.S. mail, postage prepaid. Class Counsel

shall, within three days of distributing the Notice of Settlement, notify Defendant’s

counsel of the date the Notice of Settlement was distributed. A copy of the Notice of

Settlement in English, Spanish, and Somali is attached as Exhibit A.

4. Diligence in Finding Class Members. Class Counsel will use

reasonable efforts to maximize the probability that the Notice of Settlement will be

received by each member of the Settlement Class.

5. Enforcing Deadlines. Class Counsel will enforce the deadlines for

Class Members to affirmatively opt out of the Settlement.

6. Opt-in Procedures. Class Members who wish to participate in the

settlement and thus become members of the Settlement Class shall complete, sign, and

mail the settlement participation form contained on the last page of the Notice of

Settlement. In order to be considered valid, settlement participation forms must be


Page 13 of 25

postmarked or received by Class Counsel within 45 days from the date Class Counsel

first mails the Notice of Settlement

7. Opt-Out Procedures. Class Members seeking to exclude themselves

from the Parties’ settlement and this Agreement must, within 45 days from the date Class

Counsel first mails the Notice of Settlement, (1) provide their name, the dates and

locations where they worked for Capital, and (2) sign a statement indicating “I

understand I am requesting to be excluded from the Parties’ settlement and that I will

receive no money from the Parties’ settlement. I understand that if I am excluded from

the Parties’ settlement, I may bring a separate legal action seeking damages, but might

recover nothing, or less than what I would have recovered if I had remained in the

Parties’ settlement in this case” (the “Opt-Out Notice”). Each Opt-Out Notice must be

timely sent to Class Counsel, with a copy to Defendant’s counsel.

8. Rescinding Decision to Opt Out. Class Members will be permitted to

withdraw, or rescind, their Opt-Out Notices by submitting a “Rescission of Opt-Out

Notice” to Class Counsel, which will include the following language: “I previously

submitted an Opt-Out Notice seeking exclusion from the Parties’ settlement. I have

reconsidered, and I wish to withdraw my Opt-Out Notice. I understand that by rescinding

my Opt-Out Notice, I may be eligible to receive a distribution from the Settlement

Payment and may not bring a separate legal action against Defendant with respect to any

Released Claims.” A Class Member wishing to submit a Rescission of Opt-Out Notice

will sign and date the statement and deliver it to Class Counsel no more than 60 days

after Class Counsel first mails the Notice of Settlement.


Page 14 of 25

9. Allocating Settlement Amounts. After accounting for attorneys’ fees,

costs, expenses, individual awards, and incentive awards, the remaining portion of the

Settlement Payment shall be distributed among the Settlement Class according to a

formula devised by Class Counsel, which shall primarily be based on (1) the weeks

worked by each member of the Settlement Class, and (2) the compensation earned by

each member of the Settlement Class. Each member of the Settlement Class will receive

a minimum payment from the Settlement in the amount of $100.00. Within 65 days after

Class Counsel first mails the Notice of Settlement, Class Counsel will provide Defendant

with the Individual gross, pre-tax allocations due to each member of the Settlement Class.

10. Joint Motion for Final Approval. Class Counsel will prepare, and

Defendant will approve, a motion for final approval of the Settlement. Upon approval by

Defendant’s counsel, Class Counsel will timely file the motion for final approval of the

Settlement, which will include the following proposed orders:

(i) a Final Approval Order adjudging the terms to be fair,

reasonable, and adequate, and directing consummation of its

terms and provisions; and

(ii) an order dismissing the Action on the merits, with prejudice,

in accordance with the terms of this Agreement.

11. Fairness Hearing. The Court will hold a fairness hearing before

issuing a Final Approval Order. The Court will decide if the Parties’ Settlement should be

finally approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate.

12. Final Approval Order. It is expected that the Final Approval Order

will:


Page 15 of 25

(i) dismiss with prejudice all claims against Defendant in the

Action;

(ii) declare that the Class Members are bound by the Release of

Claims described in Paragraph II.C.2. above, and the

Settlement Class is bound by the Release of Claims described

in Paragraph II.C.4. above; and

(iii) reserve jurisdiction over the construction, interpretation,

implementation, and enforcement of the Parties’ settlement

and over administration and distributions from the Settlement

Payment.

13. Issuing Settlement Checks. Within 14 business days after the

Settlement Effective Date, and subject to the terms of this Agreement, Capital will hand-

deliver to Class Counsel the following:

(i) Settlement checks for each member of the Settlement Class

pursuant to the allocation as described in Paragraph II.D.9.

above. Payments will be divided as follows:

(a) One half of the amount paid by Capital to each

member of the Settlement Class will be allocated to

wages and reported on an IRS Form W-2. Capital will

withhold state and federal payroll taxes as required by

law. Capital shall bear the responsibility for paying the

employer’s share of payroll taxes.

(b) One half of the amount paid by Capital to each

member of the Settlement Class will be allocated to

liquidated damages and reported on an IRS Form

1099. This amount will be excluded from ordinary

payroll withholdings.

(c) A check representing Class Counsel’s attorneys’ fees

and costs, as approved by the Court.

(ii) Settlement checks for Plaintiffs receiving incentive awards

and individual awards as described in Paragraph II.B.5 and

Paragraph II.B.6.


Page 16 of 25

14. Mailing Settlement Checks. Within 21 days after the

Settlement Effective Date, Class Counsel will mail the checks to the Settlement Class. If

any payments to the Settlement Class are returned by the postal service as undeliverable,

Capital will assist Class Counsel in correcting any address errors, and payments will be

promptly re-mailed to the correct addresses, if known. Capital will work with class

counsel in a timely and cooperative manner to ensure that settlement payments reach

participating Plaintiffs within the time prescribed by this agreement.

15. Inquiries or Communications from Class Members. The Parties

agree to cooperate to resolve any post-settlement inquiries or communications with Class

Members.

16. Altering Dates. Upon written agreement, or with Court approval, the

Parties may alter the above dates and time periods.

E. Promises

1. Compliant Pay Card Disclosure Form. Defendant’s Counsel will

draft a compliant pay card disclosure form, and Defendant shall not commence paying

employees with pay cards until employees have signed the consent form.

2. Wage Statements. Defendant will use paper paystubs for employees

in Minnesota for one year and then comply with Minnesota law governing electronic

paystubs thereafter.

3. Designation to Receive Complaints. Defendant shall designate the

Human Resources/Payroll Manager to receive and address wage complaints.


Page 17 of 25

4. Travel Time. Defendant shall develop a form for employees to report

employer-required time traveling between stores on a prospective basis and shall pay

employees for the travel time if required by applicable law.

5. Payment by Check. Defendant shall provide all employees with the

option to be paid via paper check.

6. No Purchase of Supplies. Defendant shall adopt a formal policy that

under no circumstances are employees to purchase any supplies for Defendant including

cleaning supplies.

7. Declaration to the Court. Defendant shall submit to the court a

signed declaration stating that Defendant has complied with all injunctive relief

contemplated by this agreement within 60 days of the settlement effective date.

8. Compliance with Wage and Hour Laws. Capital agrees to comply

with state and federal labor law, including wage payment practices, record keeping,

break, and overtime laws.

9. Class Counsel’s Administrative Responsibilities. Class Counsel shall

be responsible for mailing the Notice of Settlement, the application of the allocation

formula described herein, and mailing of payments made from the Settlement Payment.

10. Taxes on Wages. The Parties recognize that one-half of the

individual distributions from the Settlement Payment constitute wage income subject to

W-2 reporting. Therefore, pursuant to state and federal law, normal payroll taxes and

withholdings will be deducted from this portion of each member of the Settlement

Class’s distribution from the Settlement Payment. Capital will make all required


Page 18 of 25

employer contributions with respect to any wage payments, and these amounts will not be

deducted from the individual distributions from the Settlement Payment made to

members of the Settlement Class.

11. Taxes on Liquidated Damages and Enhancement Payments. The

Parties agree that one-half of the individual distributions from the Settlement Payment

constitute liquidated damages and are not wages. Therefore, all members of the

Settlement Class receiving a distribution from the Settlement Payment for liquidated

damages, will receive an IRS Form 1099 for the liquidated damages, and the Settlement

Class will be responsible for correctly characterizing this compensation for tax purposes

and to pay any taxes owed on said amount.

12. Tax Liability. The Settlement Class shall be responsible for any tax

liability arising from the allocation of the Settlement Payment as attorneys’ fees, costs,

expenses, taxable wage income, and taxable non-wage income.

13. CAFA Compliance. In compliance with 28 U.S.C. § 1715,

Defendant will provide to appropriate federal and state officials notice regarding the

Settlement. The Parties understand that the Court’s final approval of the Settlement and

this Agreement may not be issued earlier than 90 days after the appropriate Federal and

State officials have been served with notice of the Settlement.

F. Miscellaneous

1. Authority. The signatories represent they are fully authorized to

enter into this Agreement and bind the Parties, including the Settlement Class, to these

terms and conditions.


Page 19 of 25

2. Mutual Full Cooperation. The Parties agree to fully cooperate with

each other to accomplish the terms of this Agreement, including, but not limited to,

executing such documents and taking such other action as may reasonably be necessary

to implement the terms of their settlement. The Parties to this Agreement will use their

best efforts, including all efforts contemplated by this Agreement, and any other efforts

that may become necessary, to effectuate this Agreement and the terms set forth in it. As

soon as practicable after execution of this Agreement, Class Counsel will, with the

assistance and cooperation of Defendant and their counsel, take all necessary steps to

secure the Court’s final approval of the Settlement.

3. Assignments. Except as set forth in this Agreement, the Parties

represent, covenant, and warrant that they have not directly or indirectly, assigned,

transferred, encumbered, or purported to assign, transfer, or encumber to any person or

entity any portion of any liability, claim, demand, action, cause of action, or rights

released and discharged.

4. Construction. The Parties agree that the terms and conditions of this

Agreement are the result of lengthy, arms-length negotiations between the Parties and

that this Agreement will not be construed in favor of, or against, any party by reason of

the extent to which any Party, or the Party’s counsel, participated in the drafting of this

Agreement.

5. Construction of Captions and Interpretations. Paragraph titles or

captions in this Agreement are only inserted as a matter of convenience and in no way

define, limit, extend, or describe the scope of this Agreement, or any provision in it.


Page 20 of 25

6. Modification and Waiver. This Agreement may not be changed,

altered, or modified, except in a written document that is signed by the Parties and

approved by the Court. This Agreement may not be discharged, except by performance in

accordance with its terms, or a written document signed by the Parties. The waiver by

one Party of any breach of this Agreement will not be deemed to be a waiver of any prior

or subsequent breach. If the Court modifies any portion of this Agreement without the

consent of both Parties, either party may void this Agreement in its entirety.

7. Integration Clause. This Agreement includes the entire agreement

between the Parties relating to the transactions described herein, and all prior or

contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations, and statements, whether

oral or written and whether by a Party or a Party’s legal counsel, are merged into this

Agreement.

8. Binding Effect. This Agreement will be binding upon, and will inure

to the benefit of, the Parties and their respective heirs, trustees, executors, administrators,

and successors.

9. Class Signatories. Because the Settlement Class includes numerous

individuals, it is impossible or impractical to have every member of the Settlement Class

execute this Agreement. The Notice of Settlement will advise all Class Members of the

binding nature of the Settlement, including the releases set forth in this Agreement, such

that the Notice of Settlement will have the same force and effect as if this Agreement

were executed by each member of the Settlement Class.


Page 21 of 25

10. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, and

when each Party has signed and delivered at least one such counterpart, each counterpart

will be deemed an original, and, when taken together with other signed counterparts, will

constitute one Agreement, which, subject to Court approval, will be binding upon and

effective as to all Parties.


Page 22 of 25

Executed this _____ day of ______, 2016.

On behalf of Defendant

Print name


Counsel for Defendant

Print name


Duniyo Hussein, individually, and on behalf of

the Settlement Class


Naima Omar Issa, individually, and on behalf

of the Settlement Class


Leyla Yusuf, individually, and on behalf of the

Settlement Class


Page 23 of 25


Page 24 of 25


Raymond Deshler, individually, and on behalf

of the Settlement Class


Assiongbonvi “Luc” Kangnigan, individually,

and on behalf of the Settlement Class


Melvin Holmes, individually, and on behalf of

the Settlement Class


Abraham Quevedo Orantes, individually, and

on behalf of the Settlement Class



Page 25 of 25

Leticia Zuniga Escamilla, individually, and on

behalf of the Settlement Class


Class Counsel

Print name


EXHIBIT A


- 1 -

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT – DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Notice of Settlement of Class Action

If you are an employee who worked for Capital Building Service Group, Inc. as a store

cleaner (including as a crew lead) in Minnesota from May 20, 2012 through January

15, 2016, a Proposed Class Action Settlement May Affect Your Rights. You May Be

Entitled to Money.

A U.S. FEDERAL COURT HAS AUTHORIZED THIS NOTICE.

IT IS NOT FROM A LAWYER. YOU ARE NOT BEING SUED.

You are receiving this notice because you have been identified as someone eligible to

receive money from a proposed settlement of a class action lawsuit. The lawsuit was

brought by a group of current and former employees (“Plaintiffs”) of Capital Building

Services Group, Inc. (“Capital” or “Defendant”). The lawsuit is captioned Hussein, et al.

v. Capital Building Services Group, Inc., No. 15-cv-2498 and is pending before Judge

Susan R. Nelson in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.

The Plaintiffs in this case brought claims on behalf of all other cleaners (including crew

leads) who worked for Capital in Minnesota. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair

Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act,

Minn. Stat. § 177.24, and Minnesota Payment of Wages Act, Minn. Stat. § 181.001, et

seq. Plaintiffs allege that Capital failed to pay them for all hours worked, failed to pay

minimum wage, and failed to pay all overtime earned. Plaintiffs further allege that

Capital violated state and federal labor laws by failing to provide pay stubs, by deducting

time for meal and rest breaks not taken, by requiring employees to purchase their own

cleaning supplies, by failing to compensate employees for travel between stores, by

requiring new employees to be paid on a credit card without authorization, and by

charging fees to access wages.

Defendant has denied and continues to deny all of the allegations in the Plaintiffs’

Complaint and that the practices complained of violated federal or Minnesota law. The

Court has not made a determination regarding the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims or Capital’s

defenses.

Rather than continue to litigate these matters, the Plaintiffs and Capital have reached a

settlement. The settlement provides that Capital will pay the class $425,000. Class

members may elect to receive a one-time payment, which will be based on Capital’s

records and a good faith estimation of the amount of wages allegedly owed.


- 2 -

The Court has preliminarily approved the settlement. However, settlement money cannot

be distributed until after the Court grants final approval of the settlement.

The Court has certified the following Class for settlement purposes:

All individuals employed by Defendant as cleaners (including crew

leads) in

Minnesota from May 20, 2012 through January 15, 2016.

Your legal rights are affected by the Court’s decision to certify a Class, and you have a

choice to make now. Please read the following pages carefully, including the Summary

of Your Rights and the Settlement Benefits and My Options sections, which are below.

A Summary of Your Rights and Choices:

Your Legal Rights Are Affected Even If You Do Not Act.

Read This Notice Carefully.

You May: Effect of Choosing the Option: Due Date:

Participate by

Signing the

Settlement

Participation

Form

By signing the settlement

participation form included in this

Notice, you will receive a

settlement payment, but you will

be bound by the terms of the

settlement and give up your right

to sue Capital yourself on the

claims raised in this case.

Postmarked on or before

[DATE 45 DAYS FROM DATE

NOTICE IS MAILED]

Do Nothing

If you do nothing, you will NOT

receive a settlement payment. You

will also give up your right to sue

Capital yourself on the Minnesota

Fair Labor Standards Act and

Minnesota Payment of Wages Act

claims raised in this case. You will

not give up your right to sue

Capital yourself under federal law.

None.

Exclude

Yourself

You can elect to get out of the

Class and keep your right to sue

Capital on your own about the

claims in the lawsuit. To exclude

yourself from participating in the

settlement you must send in a

signed exclusion request.



NOTICE IS MAILED]


- 3 -

File

Objection

If you do not get out of the Class,

you can remain a part of the Class

and still write to the Court

explaining why you disagree with

the settlement.



NOTICE IS MAILED]

Appear at

the Hearing

If you do not get out of the class,

you can also ask to speak to the

Court about the fairness of the

settlement. You must send written

notice of your desire to appear in

advance.

Postmarked on or before [DATE

45 DAYS FROM DATE NOTICE

IS MAILED]

WHAT THIS NOTICE CONTAINS

BASIC INFORMATION

1. Why did I get this Notice? ....................................................................... 3

2. What is a class action? ............................................................................. 3

3. What is this class action about? ............................................................... 4

4. Who are the class members? .................................................................... 4

5. Why is the class action being settled? ...................................................... 5

SETTLEMENT BENEFITS AND MY OPTIONS

6. What are the settlement benefits? ............................................................ 5

7. How do I receive settlement benefits? ..................................................... 5

REMAINING IN THE CLASS

8. What happens if I do nothing and stay in the Class? ............................... 6

9. If I remain in the Class, what am I giving up? ......................................... 6

EXCLUDING YOURSELF FROM THE CLASS

10. Why would I want to be excluded from the Class? ................................. 6

11. How do I exclude myself from the Class? ............................................... 6

12. How do I object to the settlement? ........................................................... 7

THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING YOU

13. Do I have a lawyer representing my interests in this case? ..................... 8

14. How will the lawyers be paid? ................................................................. 9

15. How will the class representatives be paid? ............................................. 9

THE COURT’S FINAL APPROVAL HEARING


- 4 -

16. When and where will the Court decide whether to approve the settlement?

10

17. Do I have to attend the hearing? ............................................................ 10

18. Can I have my lawyer appear at the Final Approval Hearing to tell the Court

about my opinions regarding the settlement? ....................................... 10

GETTING MORE INFORMATION

19. Where do I obtain more information? ................................................... 10


- 5 -

BASIC INFORMATION

1. WHY DID I GET THIS NOTICE?

The Court directed this Notice be sent to you because Capital’s records show that you

worked for Capital as a cleaner (or crew lead) in Minnesota from May 20, 2012 through

January 15, 2016. Therefore, you may be entitled to money under the terms of the

settlement.

If you are a member of the Class, as defined in Question 4 below, this proposed

settlement will affect your legal rights. Therefore, it is important that you read this notice

carefully. You have choices to make before the Court decides whether to approve the

settlement.

2. WHAT IS A CLASS ACTION?

In a class action lawsuit, one or more people called “Representative Plaintiffs” sue one or

more defendants on behalf of other people who may have similar claims. All these people

together are a “Class” or “Class Members.” The court can determine whether it will allow

a lawsuit to proceed as a class action. In a class action, one court resolves the common

issues for everyone in the Class except for those people who choose to exclude

themselves from the Class.

3. WHAT IS THIS CLASS ACTION ABOUT?

The lawsuit alleges that Capital violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, Minnesota Fair

Labor Standards Act, and Minnesota Payment of Wages Act, and seeks payment for

wages wrongfully withheld during the Class period. Plaintiffs allege that Capital failed to

pay them for all hours worked, failed to pay minimum wage, and failed to pay all

overtime earned. Plaintiffs further allege that Capital violated state and federal labor laws

by failing to provide pay stubs, by deducting time for meal and rest breaks not taken, by

requiring employees to purchase their own cleaning supplies, by failing to compensate

employees for travel between stores, by requiring new employees to be paid on a credit

card without authorization, and by charging fees to access wages. Capital has vigorously

denied and continues to deny all of Plaintiff’s allegations that it has violated state or

federal law.

The Plaintiffs and Capital have reached a settlement in this case to avoid further

litigation. The Court has not ruled on the merits of the Plaintiffs’ claims or on Capital’s

defenses. Rather, the Court has simply certified the Class for settlement purposes and

tentatively approved the proposed settlement.

4. WHO ARE THE CLASS MEMBERS?


- 6 -

In order to determine if you are entitled to benefits from this settlement, you first must

determine if you are a Class Member. The Court has defined the Class (the “Class

Definition”) as follows:

All employees who worked for Capital as cleaners (including crew leads) in

Minnesota from May 20, 2012 through January 15, 2016.

If you fall within the definition of a Class Member, you may qualify for a payment

pursuant to the criteria set forth in the Settlement Agreement. If you are not a Class

Member as described in the Class Definition, you are not a Class Member and you do not

qualify for settlement benefits.

5. WHY IS THE CLASS ACTION BEING SETTLED?

This matter is being settled because both sides have agreed to a settlement of this case to

avoid the costs and risks of trial. Capital does not admit it violated the law.

SETTLEMENT BENEFITS AND MY OPTIONS

6. WHAT ARE THE SETTLEMENT BENEFITS?

The Settlement Agreement, if approved, provides monetary benefits to the Class. Class

Members will receive checks in amounts which will be determined based on a formula

devised by Class Counsel, which shall primarily be based on (1) the weeks worked by

each Class Member, and (2) the compensation earned by each Class Member. Each Class

Member will receive a minimum payment from the settlement in the amount of $100.00;

although, some may receive more. As part of the settlement, Capital has agreed to pay

$425,000 to the Class, which includes attorneys’ fees and costs as explained in Question

14 below. The total amount Capital has agreed to pay is referred to as the Settlement

Fund.

As described below, if the settlement is approved, the lawyers representing the Class

Members (“Class Counsel”) will have their attorneys’ fees, litigation costs, and costs of

administering the settlement paid from the Settlement Fund. The remaining amounts of

the Settlement Fund will be distributed to the Class Members by check.

Checks that are not cashed within 90 days after mailing will be donated to the Mid-

Minnesota Legal Aid.

PARTICIPATING IN THE SETTLEMENT

7. HOW DO I RECEIVE SETTLEMENT BENEFITS?


- 7 -

If you are a Class Member as defined in Question 4 above, you must fill out the

settlement participation form below in order to receive settlement benefits. All

settlement participation forms MUST be postmarked on or before [DATE 45 DAYS

FROM THE MAILING OF THIS NOTICE].

You should seek the advice of a tax professional if you have questions about the tax

implications of this settlement.

8. IF I PARTICIPATE IN THE SETTLEMENT, WHAT AM I GIVING UP?

If the Court approves the settlement, you will have released Capital from any further

claims based on the same allegations made in this lawsuit, including claims for unpaid

wages; unpaid overtime compensation; unpaid minimum wages from May 20, 2012

through January 15, 2016, and you cannot ever sue them about these issues again. Should

you have any questions about the scope of the release, you may contact Class Counsel at

the numbers or addresses listed in Question 13 below.

DOING NOTHING

9. WHAT HAPPENS IF I DO NOTHING?

If you do nothing, you remain a Class Member as defined in Question 4 above, but you

will NOT receive money. You will be included in the Class, and you will be bound by the

terms and conditions of the settlement; except, you will not release any claims under

federal law.

EXCLUDING YOURSELF FROM THE CLASS

10. WHY WOULD I WANT TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS?

You do not have to take part in the settlement. You can exclude yourself from the

settlement by “opting out.” If you exclude yourself, you will not get the benefits of the

settlement, nor can you object to the settlement. Any Court orders will not apply to you.

By excluding yourself, you keep any right to file or proceed with a lawsuit against

Capital regarding the issues raised in this lawsuit.

If you have sued Capital for claims based on, or related to, the matters raised in this

lawsuit and want to continue with your suit, you are encouraged to seek legal counsel

about protecting your legal rights. If you want to continue with your current lawsuit, you

will need to personally ask, through a signed exclusion request, to be excluded from the

Class. If you exclude yourself, you will not be legally bound by the Court’s judgment in


- 8 -

this case. Similarly, if you wish to start your own lawsuit against Capital for claims

covered by this lawsuit, you must exclude yourself from the Class. Should you do so, you

will have to represent yourself, or hire and pay your own lawyer, for that lawsuit and

prove your own claims. If you exclude yourself so you can start or continue your own

lawsuit against Capital for claims covered by this lawsuit, you should talk to your own

lawyer soon, because your claims may be subject to a statute of limitations.

11. HOW DO I EXCLUDE MYSELF FROM THE CLASS?

If you are a Class Member and want to be excluded from the Class, you must send in a

written request that includes all of the following information:

Your legal name, current address and telephone number;

The name and number of the lawsuit: Hussein, et al. v. Capital Building

Services Group, Inc., No. 15-cv-2498.

The dates and location(s) where you worked for Capital;

A statement, signed by you, indicating “I understand I am requesting to be

excluded from the Parties’ settlement and that I will receive no money from

the Parties’ settlement. I understand that if I am excluded from the Parties’

settlement, I may bring a separate legal action seeking damages, but might

recover nothing, or less than what I would have recovered if I had remained

in the Parties’ settlement in this case.”

All exclusion requests must be mailed to Class Counsel, who is administering this

settlement, at the following address:

Adam W. Hansen

Nichols Kaster, PLLP

4600 IDS Center

80 South Eighth Street

Minneapolis, MN 55402

All exclusion requests MUST be postmarked on or before [DATE 45 DAYS FROM

THE MAILING OF THIS NOTICE]. Class Counsel will provide all exclusion

requests to the Court and Capital’s lawyers after this date.

Any exclusion request must include your personal signature, which shall be the

Court’s indication that you wish to be excluded from the Class. You cannot exclude

yourself by phone or by email. If you do not follow these instructions properly, you will

lose your right to exclude yourself. There are no exceptions.


- 9 -

UNLESS YOU PROPERLY SIGN AND MAIL IN A REQUEST FOR

EXCLUSION, YOU WILL BE BOUND BY ANY JUDGMENT IN THIS CASE,

AND YOU WILL NOT BE PERMITTED TO PURSUE ANY PENDING OR

FUTURE LITIGATION REGARDING MATTERS RESOLVED IN THIS

SETTLEMENT. IF YOU WANT TO EXCLUDE YOURSELF FROM THIS

SETTLEMENT, IT IS IMPORTANT THAT YOU FOLLOW THESE

INSTRUCTIONS CAREFULLY.

OBJECTING TO THE SETTLEMENT

12. HOW DO I OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENT?

If you do not like the settlement, but do not want to be excluded from it, you may file an

objection to it. This means you can tell the Court that you disagree with the settlement or

some of its terms. For example, you can say you do not think the settlement is fair or

adequate or that you object to the amount of the attorneys’ fees, costs, or expenses. The

Court will consider your views, but the Court may approve the settlement anyway.

You can object only if you do not exclude yourself from the Class. If you exclude

yourself, you cannot object.

To object, either you, or a lawyer of your own choosing, must prepare an objection that

includes all of the following information:

1. The name and title of the lawsuit, Hussein, et al. v. Capital Building

Services Group, Inc., No. 15-cv-2498.;

2. A written statement of objections clearly specifying the grounds, or

reasons, for each objection;

3. A statement indicating if you, or your lawyer, will ask to appear at the Final

Approval Hearing to talk about your objections, and, if so, how long you

will need to present your objections; and

4. Copies of documents (if any) you, or your lawyer, will present at the Final

Approval Hearing.

Your objection must be postmarked no later than [DATE 45 DAYS FROM DATE

NOTICE IS MAILED]. Any objection postmarked after that date may be rejected.

Objections must be mailed to Class Counsel at the following address:

Adam W. Hansen



- 10 -

4600 IDS Center


Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402

Class Counsel will file all objections with the Court, and provide all objections to

Capital’s lawyers, after [DATE 45 DAYS FROM DATE NOTICE IS MAILED].

Objections postmarked after [DATE 45 DAYS FROM DATE NOTICE IS MAILED]

will be untimely, and may not be considered by the Court.

THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING YOU

13. DO I HAVE A LAWYER REPRESENTING MY INTERESTS IN THIS

CASE?

Yes. The Court has appointed the following law firm to represent you and other Class

Members. These lawyers are referred to as Class Counsel and include:

Paul Lukas, Adam Hansen, and Carl Engstrom of the law firm Nichols Kaster, PLLP.

Class Counsel can be reached at the following addresses and numbers:


4600 IDS Center


Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402

Email: [email protected]

Phone: 1-877-448-0492

Fax: 612-215-6870

You will not be charged directly by Class Counsel for their services, but they will ask the

Court to award them a fee from the Settlement Fund.

If you want, you may hire your own attorney. However, you will be responsible for any

fees and expenses that attorney charges you.

14. HOW WILL THE LAWYERS BE PAID?

Class Counsel will ask the Court for reimbursement of their out of pocket expenses and

an award of attorneys’ fees based on their work in this litigation. The amount of

attorneys’ fees to be awarded will be determined by the Court. Under the terms of the

Settlement Agreement, and subject to Court approval, Class Counsel can petition the

Court for a fee of $151,666.66 of the $425,000 Settlement Fund. Attorneys’ fees,


- 11 -

litigation costs, and settlement administration costs payable to Class Counsel have been

factored into the value of the settlement.

All attorneys’ fees, litigation costs, and administration costs will be paid from the

Settlement Fund. Payment of these funds will reduce the Settlement Fund by an equal

amount.

The Settlement Agreement provides further details about the fees and costs payable to

Class Counsel. A copy of the Settlement Agreement may be obtained from Class Counsel

or the Court.

15. HOW WILL THE REPRESENTATIVE PLAINTIFFS BE PAID?

To compensate the Representative Plaintiffs and certain opt-in Plaintiffs for their work in

this litigation on behalf of the Class, certain Plaintiffs will receive extra incentive

compensation. The settlement agreement allocates a total of $25,000 to be shared among

nine Plaintiffs who filed the case or joined this case prior to class certification. In

addition, five Plaintiffs will receive extra compensation totaling $33,000 for claims that

are individual to those Plaintiffs. These five Plaintiffs have given up their right to sue

Capital for any reason (including for wrongful termination). These Plaintiffs’ individual

claims have been factored into the value of the settlement.

THE COURT’S FINAL APPROVAL HEARING

16. WHEN AND WHERE WILL THE COURT DECIDE WHETHER TO

APPROVE THE SETTLEMENT?

On [DATE and TIME], the Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing. At this hearing,

the Court will consider if the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. If there are

written objections, the Court will consider them, and the Court will listen to people who

have asked to speak at the hearing. After the hearing, the Court will decide whether or not

to approve the settlement.

The Hearing will be held before the Honorable Susan R. Nelson at the United States

Courthouse in St. Paul: 774 Federal Building, 316 North Robert Street, St. Paul,

Minnesota, 55101.

17. DO I HAVE TO ATTEND THE HEARING?

No. Class Counsel will answer any questions the Court may have, but you may appear at

your own expense. If you send a written objection, the Court will consider it. If you want,

you may also pay your own lawyer to attend the hearing.


- 12 -

18. IF I HIRE MY OWN LAWYER, CAN MY LAWYER APPEAR AT THE

FINAL APPROVAL HEARING TO TELL THE COURT ABOUT MY

OPINIONS REGARDING THE SETTLEMENT?

Yes. As long as you don’t exclude yourself, you have the right to appear through counsel

at the Final Approval Hearing. You may also appear without a lawyer and directly tell

the Court your opinions about the settlement - as long as your Notice of Appearance and

any written objections you may have filed are postmarked by [DATE 45 DAYS

FOLLOWING THE MAILING OF NOTICE]. Note that if you choose to have a lawyer

appear on your behalf, the cost of having that lawyer appear will be at your own expense.

GETTING MORE INFORMATION

19. WHERE DO I OBTAIN MORE INFORMATION?

If you want additional information, you may call or write Class Counsel at the address

and phone number listed above.

In addition, Class counsel has created a specific website describing the case:

http://www.nka.com/case/capital-building-services-group-inc/

The specific terms of the settlement have also been filed with the Court. You can look at,

and copy, these documents at any time during regular office hours at Clerk of the Court,

United States District Court, District of Minnesota, 300 South Fourth Street, 202, U.S.

Courthouse, Minneapolis, MN 55415. If you have a Public Access to Court Electronic

Records (“PACER”) account, you may view the documents on the Court’s Case

Management/Electronic Court Filing website: www.pacer.gov.

DATE:

Susan R. Nelson

United States District Court Judge


- 13 -

CAPITAL BUILDING SERVICES GROUP, INC.

SETTLEMENT PARTICIPATION FORM

[YOU MUST FILL OUT THIS FORM TO PARTICIPATE IN THE

SETTLEMENT]

I worked for Capital Building Services Group, Inc. as a cleaner (which includes

work as a crew lead) in Minnesota on one or more occasions from May 20, 2012, through

January 15, 2016. I wish to participate in the settlement as described in this Notice. I

understand that by participating in this settlement, I give up the right to sue Capital based

on the claims raised in this lawsuit under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201

et seq., Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act, Minn. Stat. § 177.24, and Minnesota

Payment of Wages Act, Minn. Stat. § 181.001, et seq.

Date:

Signature

Full Name:

Address:

City, State Zip:

Best Phone Number(s):

Email:

Return this form by

fax, email, or mail to:

Nichols Kaster, PLLP, Attn: Adam Hansen

Fax: (612) 338-4878

Email: [email protected]

Address: 4600 IDS Center, 80 S. 8th

Street, Minneapolis,

MN 55402

Web: www.nka.com


- 14 -

IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SETTLEMENT, THIS FORM MUST be

postmarked on or before [DATE 45 DAYS FROM THE MAILING OF THIS

NOTICE].


EXHIBIT B


1 | P a g e

With offices in Minneapolis and San Francisco, Nichols Kaster is a premier employment and consumer litigation firm. Nichols Kaster’s practice is solely dedicated to plaintiffs’ work, advocating for employees’ and consumers’ rights on both an individual and class action basis. The firm is composed of thirty experienced and talented attorneys dedicated to “fighting for the little guy,” and who have been recognized locally and nationally for their achievements.

The firm, throughout its thirty-plus years of practice, has developed a sterling reputation as a top employment and consumer plaintiffs’ firm. In September 2014, Nichols Kaster was named one of the top 50 Elite Trial Lawyers by The National Law Journal and Law.com, a list of firms “that are doing the most creative and substantial work on the plaintiffs side.” The Nat’l Law Journal, Introducing America’s Elite Trial Lawyers, Sept. 8, 2014. In February 2012, the firm was named to The National Law Journal’s 2011 Litigation Boutiques Hot List for its attorneys’ courtroom abilities. In the article spotlighting Nichols Kaster, the Journal wrote regarding the firm’s consumer practice: “The firm is credited with mounting the first challenge to a banking practice known as forced-place insurance” and that “American Banker magazine recently concluded that evidence to date in one of the Nichols Kaster suits against JPMorgan Chase ‘suggests serious trouble for the banks.’” Jason McLure, Nichols Kaster Takes the Employees’ Side, The Nat’l Law Journal, Litigation Boutiques Hot List, Feb. 13, 2012. Nichols Kaster has also been ranked as a Best Law Firm by U.S. News & World Report, as a top plaintiffs’ employment law firm by Law360, and by Minnesota Lawyer as one of Minnesota’s Top 100 Law Firms. In 2009, Nichols Kaster was ranked as one of the top ten busiest FLSA firms in the country by Litigation Almanac 360, which conducted a study of over 500,000 federal cases and received input from more than 200 law firms. Nichols Kaster was the only plaintiffs’ firm in the top ten. Nichols Kaster received a First Tier ranking on the 2014 Best Law Firms list in Minneapolis for Litigation-Labor and Employment by US News-Best Lawyers in November 2013. On Martindale Hubbell, the firm has a 5 out of 5 peer rating. In a recent CityPages article regarding one of the firm’s cases, Nichols Kaster was described as “one of the top employment firms in the country.” Olivia LaVecchia, The Perfect Victim: Exploitation and Threat of Deportation, CityPages, May 29, 2013.

Nichols Kaster, through the years, has and continues to, secure substantial settlements, win significant motions on important issues, and vigorously litigate complex class actions and challenging individual actions against some of the top defense firms nationwide. The firm has been recognized by judges for its successes and extensive experience. Further, Nichols Kaster has been appointed lead or co-counsel on hundreds of class and collective actions and frequently achieves class certification in both litigation and settlement contexts.


2 | P a g e

Nichols Kaster is led by its experienced and talented partners.1

Don H. Nichols has over 35 years of experience in the practice of law, has tried over 100 cases to verdict and has obtained over $50 million dollars for his class and collective clients. Don is highly respected by the legal community, as seen by his fellowship in The College of Labor and Employment Lawyers. Don was recently selected by his peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America® 2015 and 2016 for his work in Litigation-Labor & Employment. Education: B.A. Augsburg College 1968, J.D. University of Minnesota Law School 1971.

James H. Kaster has also tried well over 100 cases to verdict or decision, including a successful case in front of the United States Supreme Court (Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp.). He was ranked by Chambers USA as number one among plaintiffs’ employment lawyers in Minnesota, was named Lawyer of the Year by Best Lawyers in 2012, and 2016, was selected for inclusion in 2015 as well for his work in Litigation-Labor & Employment, and was named to the 2013 Super Lawyers Minnesota Top 100 List. Jim’s success in the courtroom includes earning many million dollar and multi-million dollar recoveries for the plaintiffs. Jim is also a frequent lecturer before local, state, and national organizations on damage recovery and trial skills. He has been published multiple times in the Minnesota Trial Lawyer publication and was selected as a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers, which is a premier professional trial organization in America whose membership is limited to 1% of the trial lawyers in any state or province. In June 2014, Jim was recertified as a Civil Trial Law Specialist, a program administered by the Minnesota State Bar Association and approved by the State Board of Legal Certification, and which is earned by leading attorneys who have completed a rigorous approval process, including an examination in the specialty area, peer review, and documented experience. The achievement has been earned by fewer than 3% of all licensed Minnesota attorneys. Education: B.A. Marquette University 1976, J.D. Marquette University 1979.

Paul J. Lukas has been named one of the Top 40 Employment Law Lawyers by Minnesota Law and Politics, named Top Lawyer by Mpls/St. Paul Magazine and named in the Who’s Who in Employment Law by Minnesota Law and Politics. Paul is also consistently named to the Minnesota Super Lawyers list each year. Early in his career, Paul tried a wide variety of criminal cases, including the nationally renowned State v. Porter case before the Minnesota Supreme Court. He then focused his practice on civil plaintiff litigation, representing thousands of employees and consumers and obtaining well over $100MM for his clients. Paul is also a frequent lecturer on a national level. Education: B.A. St. John’s University 1988, J.D. William Mitchell College of Law 1995.

Steven Andrew Smith was recently honored by the Minnesota Chapter of the National Employment Lawyers Association as the recipient of the 2014 Karla Wahl Dedicated Advocacy Award. The Award is given to recipients “for their ceaseless and courageous efforts” to protect and advance the rights of Minnesota employees. Steve was also the recipient of the 2011 Distinguished Pro Bono Service Award from the United States

1 Biographical information for all of the firm’s associate attorneys can be found below.


3 | P a g e

District Court for the District of Minnesota, was selected for the Merit Selection Panel regarding the Re-Appointment of U.S. Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan (D. Minn. 2012), has received the Martindale Hubble AV Preeminent rating, and was named to the Best Lawyers in America list for 2014, 2015, and 2016. Steve’s trial experience includes trials to verdict in sexual harassment, whistleblower, reprisal/retaliation, commission, contract, gender discrimination, marital status discrimination, disability, and wage and hour claims. Steve has also litigated several notable cases having substantial effect on employees’ rights under state and federal employment laws. Steve is often invited to lecture on employment issues both nationally and locally. He has also authored a number of articles on employment law issues such as sexual harassment in the workplace. He was further recognized in 2014 by the United States District Court and Chief Judge Michael J. Davis for his involvement in the Pro Se Project, a project by the United States District Court of Minnesota for assisting individuals representing themselves in federal court. Education: B.A. Concordia College 1990, J.D. William Mitchell College of Law 1995 cum laude.

Michele R. Fisher has a practice primarily dedicated to national wage and hour class and collective action litigation. She has represented over a hundred thousand employees seeking to recover overpayment pay, minimum wages and commission payments. She has successfully handled numerous jury trials and arbitrations. She is a member of the firm’s management committee and the chair of its Business Development and Marketing Groups, which originate class and collective actions and market the firm. Michele is a regular speaker at local and national conferences, routinely acts as an author and editor for wage and hour publications, and is active in several organizations. She is the co-chair and a faculty member of the Practicing Law Institute’s Wage & Hour Litigation and Compliance conference, the Co-Chair of the ABA Federal Labor Standards Legislation Committee, the Co-Editor-in-Chief of the ABA Federal Labor Standards Legislation Committee’s Midwinter Report, an editorial board member for BNA’s the Fair Labor Standard Act Treatise, and a chapter editor for BNA’s Wage and Hour Laws: A State-by-State Survey (2d ed.). She has been named to the Super Lawyers and Rising Star lists repeatedly. Education: B.A. St. Cloud State University 1997, J.D. William Mitchell College of Law 2000.

Matthew H. Morgan has been an adjunct faculty member at William Mitchell College of Law and a frequent lecturer at legal seminars. He also received a CALI Award in Business Organization and was named to the Who’s Who in Employment Law. Matt was recently named to the 2014 Super Lawyers list, Minnesota Super Lawyers, Mpls/St. Paul Magazine, and Twin Cities Business. Matt is a skilled litigator, trying cases to verdict in both jury and bench trials. In 2012, Matt tried two jury trials against large health organizations and received verdicts in favor of the plaintiff in each of them. Matt has represented clients on a variety of complex matters including non-competition and non-solicitation provisions of employment and separation agreements, discrimination, retaliation, professional licensure, sexual harassment, breach of duty of loyalty, unfair competition, and breach of contract. Education: B.A. University of Minnesota 1996, J.D. William Mitchell College of Law 2000.


4 | P a g e

Kai H. Richter has years of consumer class action experience, having managed the Complex Litigation Division of the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office prior to coming to Nichols Kaster. He has testified before the Minnesota House of Representatives Civil Law Committee regarding consumer enforcement litigation and other social justice matters. Kai is also a 2014-15 Co-Chair of the Consumer Litigation Section for the Minnesota State Bar Association. Education: B.A. Dartmouth College 1995, J.D. University of Minnesota 1999 cum laude.

Rachhana T. Srey has extensive wage and hour experience. She contributes to the National Employment Lawyers Association Class and Collective Action Committee’s quarterly publication. She recently took a large class case to trial and won significant recovery for the class members. Rachhana has spoken nationally and locally on topics related to the FLSA and discovery in civil litigation. Education: B.A. University of Minnesota 2000, J.D. William Mitchell College of Law 2004 cum laude.

Matthew C. Helland has been named to the Rising Stars list, Northern California Super Lawyers and San Francisco Magazine and has extensive employment law experience. He has spoken at several conferences and seminars on the WARN Act and EPPA and FLSA collective actions. Matt works out of the firm’s San Francisco office and is well-versed in both California and Minnesota state law. Matt has worked on multiple large class actions in his career, involving a variety of issues, including wage and hour rights, WARN Act violations, breach of contract, and Truth in Lending Act claims. Education: B.A. Rhodes College 2002, J.D. University of Minnesota Law School 2005 magna cum laude.

David E. Schlesinger has represented thousands of employees in cases involving discrimination, retaliation, breach of contract, unpaid wages, shareholder rights, FLSA, and non-competes and trade secrets. David, as first-chair, has tried and won cases in both trial and arbitration. He has also argued before the Minnesota Supreme Court. David teaches Practice and Professionalism at the University of Minnesota Law School. Education: B.A. Mary Washington College 2001, J.D. University of Minnesota Law School 2006 cum laude.

Tim C. Selander has litigated claims in federal and state courts, as well as arbitration. Tim has represented workers in disputes related to unpaid wages, overtime pay, commissions, and wrongful termination. Tim has been a frequent speaker at continuing legal education seminars and was recognized as a Rising Star in 2012 and a Super Lawyer in 2013. Education: B.A. University of Wisconsin-Madison 2002, J.D. William Mitchell College of Law 2006.

Anna P. Prakash has represented thousands of employees and consumers in collective and class actions under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act, and state employment and consumer protection laws since joining Nichols Kaster in 2009. She is a skilled class action litigator, achieving many successes for her clients, including the summary judgment victories referenced below in Huff, Hart, and Clincy, successful appeal in Bible, and the trial verdict in FTS. Education: B.A. University of Michigan 2002, J.D. Cornell Law School 2005.


5 | P a g e

The firm’s partners are consistently named to the Minnesota Super Lawyers or the Super Lawyers’ Rising Stars list. In January 2012, the firm’s partners were featured in Newsweek’s 20 Leaders in Employment Law showcase.

Many of Nichols Kaster’s associate attorneys have also been recognized on the Minnesota Super Lawyers and Rising Stars lists over the years. Nichols Kaster’s attorneys are active in many organizations, have been admitted in numerous state and appellate courts, and frequently speak to national audiences. Nichols Kaster has tried multiple large class actions to verdict, and its attorneys have experience arguing before the United States Supreme Court, several federal Courts of Appeals and the Minnesota Supreme Court.

JUDICIAL RECOGNITION

Courts have widely acknowledged Nichols Kaster’s exemplary class action practice. Below are a few examples of such recognition.

The Honorable Judge Sidney H. Stein of the U.S.D.C. S.D.N.Y.:

[T]he quality of representation, as evidenced by the substantial recovery and the qualifications of the attorneys, is high. As then District Judge Gerard E. Lynch recognized, Nichols Kaster is “a reputable plaintiff-side employment litigation boutique with a nationwide practice and special expertise prosecuting FLSA cases.”

Febus v. Guardian 1st Funding Grp., LLC, 870 F. Supp. 2d 337 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2012) (citing Imbeault v. Rick’s Cabaret Int’l Inc., No. 08-Civ.-5458 (GEL), 2009 WL 2482134, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2009)) (granting motion for attorneys’ fees).

Special Master David R. Cohen (appointed by the Honorable Kathryn Vratil):

So I’ll just close by saying that this is as complicated a question as any I’ve seen in any case I’ve worked by a factor of, you know – not just a little bit more complicated. It’s enormously more complicated. And the worked that all of you have put into trying to solve this problem ranging from your legal analysis to your math has been really extraordinary.

Sibley v. Sprint Nextel Corp., No. 08-2063 (D. Kan. Dec. 19, 2014) (transcript from expert summit) (addressing both parties).

The Honorable Judge Michael J. Davis of the U.S.D.C. D. Minn.:

The settlement was the result of arm’s-length negotiations between experienced counsel. Class Counsel is well known by this Court for their expertise in wage and hour litigation.


6 | P a g e

Burch v. Qwest Commc’ns Intl., No. 06-03523 (D. Minn. Sept. 14, 2012) (granting settlement approval).

The Honorable Judge Paul A. Engelmayer of the U.S.D.C. S.D.N.Y.:

The high quality of Nichols Kaster’s representation strongly supports approval of the requested fees. The Court has previously commended counsel for their excellent lawyering. See Dkt 541 at 98 (“I have benefited by very high-quality briefing from both of you.”). The point is worth reiterating here. Nichols Kaster was energetic, effective, and creative throughout this long litigation. The Court found Nichols Kaster’s briefs and arguments first-rate. And the documents and deposition transcripts which the Court reviewed in the course of resolving motions revealed the firm’s far-sighted and strategic approach to discovery….Further, unlike in many class actions, plaintiffs’ counsel did not build their case by piggybacking on regulatory investigation or settlement. … The lawyers at Nichols Kaster can genuinely claim to have been the authors of their clients’ success.

Hart v. RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc., No. 09 Civ. 3043, 2015 WL 5577713 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 2015) (granting final approval of settlement and awarding attorneys’ fees and costs).

The Honorable Judge William Alsup of the U.S.D.C. N.D. Cal.: …Mr. Richter did a fine job in a case I had. …. and he came back with a real settlement that benefited those class members. He did an excellent job in that case.

Lane v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 12-4026 (N.D. Cal.) (transcript from hearing on motion for class certification and Nichols Kaster’s motion to intervene) (referring to the settlement achieved by Nichols Kaster attorney Kai Richter in Hofstetter v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, No. 10-01313).

I want to say that both sides here have performed at an admirable level. And I wish that the lawyers of all cases would perform at your level. I say this to both of you, because you have you have been of assistance to the Court.

Hofstetter v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, No. 10-01313 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2011) (transcript from final class settlement approval hearing).

Plaintiffs’ counsel are experienced class-action counsel. Hofstetter, No. 10-01313, 2011 WL 1225900 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2011) (order appointing Nichols Kaster as class counsel and certifying the classes).


7 | P a g e

The Honorable Judge Richard H. Kyle of the U.S.D.C. D. Minn.: Well, I think you did a great job on this. I mean, I really do. It's nice to see when cases go, and go quickly, and I know that it's a little different than a lot of other cases but it still -- you still have a lot of fooling around here that doesn't have to be done, but it seems to me you folks have gotten it done the right way. So I look forward to seeing you all [at the final approval hearing].

Bible v. Gen. Revenue Corp., 12-CV-1236 (D. Minn. Jan. 6, 2014) (transcript from preliminary approval hearing).

The Court finds that counsel is competent and capable of exercising all responsibilities as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class.

Bible, No. 12-CV-136 (D. Minn. Jan. 7, 2014) (appointing Nichols Kaster as class counsel and preliminarily certifying a consumer protection class regarding claims under the Fair Debt Collection Protection Act).

..the court finds that Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel are qualified to represent the Class.

Stewart v. CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp., 05-CV-1502-RHK/AJB, 2006 WL 839509, at *1 (D. Minn. Mar. 28, 2006) (appointing class counsel and preliminarily certifying consumer protection class regarding illegal heat shut-offs for settlement purposes).

The Honorable Chief Judge Deborah Chasanow of the U.S.D.C. D. Md.:

…the attorneys at Nichols Kaster, PLLP are qualified, experienced, and competent, as evidenced by their background in litigating class-action cases involving FCRA violations. …. As noted above, Plaintiffs’ attorneys are experienced and skilled consumer class action litigators who achieved a favorable result for the Settlement Classes.

Singleton v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, 976 F. Supp. 2d 665, 677, 683 (D. Md. 2013) (granting final approval of consumer class action settlement).

…the attorneys at Nichols Kaster, PLLP, are qualified, experienced, and competent.

Singleton, No. 11-cv-01823 (D. Md. May 13, 2013) (appointing class counsel and preliminarily certifying consumer protection classes regarding claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act for settlement purposes).


8 | P a g e

The Honorable Judge Joan M. Azrack of the U.S.D.C. E.D.N.Y.:

…Plaintiffs’ counsel “have an established record of competent and successful prosecution of large wage and hour class actions, and the attorneys working on the case are likewise competent and experienced in the area.” Nichols Kaster and O&G’s lawyers have substantial experience prosecuting and settling employment class actions, including wage and hour class actions and are well-versed in wage and hour law and in class action law….Courts have repeatedly found Nichols Kaster and O&G to be adequate class counsel in employment law class actions.

Westerfield v. Wash. Mut. Bank, No. 06-2817, 2009 WL 6490084 (E.D.N.Y. June 26, 2009) (preliminarily approving settlement and appointing class counsel).

The Honorable Judge Virginia A. Phillips of the U.S.D.C. C.D. Cal.:

Plaintiffs have demonstrated sufficiently that their counsel will represent the proposed classes adequately. Counsel has identified and investigated the claims in this action, has extensive experience handling class actions similar to this one, has demonstrated knowledge of the applicable law, and has adequate resources to represent the proposed classes.

Cervantez v. Celestica Corp., 253 F.R.D. 562, 574 (C.D. Cal. July 30, 2008) (appointing class counsel and certifying the class).

Over the past two years, Class Counsel has been active in all stages of litigation and has particularly benefitted Plaintiffs through capable handling of motion practice. For example, Plaintiffs obtained summary judgment on a key issue involving the Morillion doctrine and defeated summary judgment on Defendants’ de minimis defense.

Cervantez, No. 07-729 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2010) (granting final approval of settlement).

The Honorable Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois of the U.S.D.C. D. Minn.

Surprisingly Defendants also argue that Plaintiff’s legal counsel is not able to vigorously prosecute this case, asserting that [Michele Fisher] and her firm do not have experience with prevailing wage class action suits. Defendant’s conclusory assertion is without merit. In support of his motion, Plaintiff submitted the resume of his firm Nichols Kaster, LLP, which indicates that Plaintiff’s counsel has extensive experience with wage disputes and class actions.

Seipel v. Safety Signs, Inc., No. 15-cv-71 (D. Minn. Aug. 27, 2015) (ECF No. 64) (recommending that plaintiff’s motion for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 be granted and Nichols Kaster be appointed as class counsel)


9 | P a g e

The Honorable Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler of U.S.D.C. N.D. Cal.

Plaintiffs retained counsel with significant experience in prosecuting force-placed insurance cases, and other courts in this district have appointed them class counsel in force-placed insurance cases. … Counsel have worked vigorously to identify and investigate the claims in this case, and, as this litigation has revealed, understand the applicable law and have represented their clients vigorously and effectively.

Ellsworth v. U.S. Bank, N.A., No. C 12-02506 LB, 2014 WL 2734953 at *18 (N.D. Cal. June 13, 2014) (granting plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and appointing Nichols Kaster as class counsel).

The Honorable Judge Kathryn Vratil of U.S.D.C. D. Kan.:

The Court must consider the work counsel has done in identifying or investigating potential claims in the actions, counsels' experience in handling class actions and other complex litigation and claims of the type asserted in the present action, counsels' knowledge of the applicable law, and the resources counsel will commit to representing the class. Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(g)(1)(C). After reviewing the record, the Court is satisfied that the firms of Nichols Kaster, PLLP and Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP satisfy these criteria and will adequately represent the interests of the class as counsel.

Sibley v. Sprint Nextel Corp., 254 F.R.D. 662, 677 (D. Kan. 2008) (order granting class certification and appointing Nichols Kaster as class counsel).

The Honorable Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung of the U.S.D.C. D. Minn.:

…[T]he combined experience of Plaintiffs’ counsel as well as the fact that employment law, particularly the representation of employees, forms a large part of both the firm and counsel’s practice persuades this Court that the law firm of Nichols Kaster, PLLP, and its attorneys Steven Andrew Smith and Anna P. Prakash will more than adequately protect the interests of the Class Members.

Fearn v. Blazin’ Beier Ranch, Inc., No. 11-743 (D. Minn. Jan. 30, 2012) (recommending preliminary approval of settlement and appointing class counsel).

Plaintiffs have shown good cause under Rule 16(b) because Plaintiffs’ new counsel has shown the necessary diligence. Plaintiffs brought on Nichols Kaster, an experienced employment law firm of high repute as lead counsel in May 2012. Since that time, Plaintiffs have made a concerted effort to comply with this Court’s orders and deadlines.

Alvarez v. Diversified Main. Sys., Inc., No. 11-3106 (D. Minn. Aug. 21, 2012) (granting motion to amend).


10 | P a g e

The Honorable Judge Gary Larson of Minn. Dist. Ct., Hennepin County:

…Plaintiff’s counsel are qualified, experienced attorneys that are fully capable of conducting this class action litigation…they are highly qualified, knowledgeable attorneys that are willing to invest the resources necessary to fully prosecute this case.

Karl v. Uptown Drink, LLC, No. 27-CV-10-1926 (Minn. Dist. Ct. Nov. 17, 2010) (appointing Nichols Kaster as class counsel and certifying the class).

The Honorable Judge Susan M. Robiner:

Plaintiffs’ counsel are adequate legal representatives for the class. They have done work identifying and investigating potential claims, have handled class actions in the past, know the applicable law, and have the resources necessary to represent the class. The class will be fairly and adequately represented.

Spar v. Cedar Towing & Auction, Inc., No. 27-CV-411-24993 (Minn. Dist. Ct. Oct. 16, 2012) (certifying class and appointing Nichols Kaster as class counsel).

The Honorable Judge David N. Hurd of the U.S.D.C. N.D.N.Y.:

Finally, Plaintiffs and their counsel have fairly and adequately represented the interests of the Settlement Classes.

Casey v. Citibank, N.A., et al., 12-CV-820, and Coonan v. Citibank, N.A., 13-CV-353 (N.D.N.Y. April 2, 2014) (appointing Nichols Kaster as co-lead counsel and preliminarily approving class wide settlement classes in a $110MM force-placed insurance settlement)

The Honorable Judge Lorna G. Schofield of the U.S.D.C. S.D.N.Y.:

Nichols Kaster has demonstrated it is able fairly and adequately to represent the interests of the putative class

Ernst v. DISH Network, LLC, et al., 12-CV-8794 (S.D.N.Y. July 23, 2013) (appointing Nichols Kaster as interim class counsel for a putative class with Fair Credit Reporting Act claims against consumer reporting agency).

The Honorable Judge John G. Koetl of the U.S.D.C. S.D.N.Y.:

..[C]lass counsel ha[s] demonstrated their interest in vigorously pursuing the claims of the class.

Hart v. Rick’s Cabaret, Intl., Inc., No. 09-3043, 2010 WL 5297221, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 20, 2010) (appointing Nichols Kaster as class counsel and certifying the class).


11 | P a g e

The Honorable Judge Larry Alan Burns of the U.S.D.C. S.D. Cal.:

[Defendant] doesn’t question whether Plaintiffs are represented by qualified and competent counsel, and it’s obvious that they are. Plaintiffs’ are represented by a national law firm, Nichols Kaster, that specializes in employment and class action law.

Norris-Wilson v. Delta-T Grp., Inc., 270 F.R.D. 596, 605 (S.D. Cal. 2010) (certifying a Rule 23 wage and hour class and appointing Nichols Kaster as class counsel).

The Honorable Judge Susan Richard Nelson of the U.S.D.C. D. Minn.:

Plaintiffs’ Counsel are qualified attorneys with extensive experience in class action and wage and hour litigation and are hereby appointed as Class Counsel.

Alvarez v. Diversified Main. Sys., Inc., No. 11-3106 (D. Minn. Feb. 14, 2013) (appointing class counsel and preliminarily certifying the class for settlement purposes).

The Honorable Judge Thomas D. Schroeder of the U.S.D.C. M.D.N.C.: However, the difficulty of the legal issues involved [and] the skill and experience of Plaintiffs’ counsel in FLSA cases . . . make an enhancement of the lodestar amount appropriate in this case.

Latham v. Branch Banking & Trust Co., No. 1:12-cv-00007, 2014 WL 464236 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 14, 2014) (granting final approval of class action settlement).

Arbitrator Joel Grossman, Esq. The Arbitrator also notes that the briefs submitted by Claimant’s counsel and the performance at the hearing by Claimant’s counsel were of a very high quality.

Green v. CashCall, Inc., JAMS Arbitration No. 1200047225(JAMS Aug. 22, 2014) (awarding Nichols Kaster’s fees and costs).

AREAS OF PRACTICE

EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION: Collective/Class Actions & Individual Plaintiffs

Nichols Kaster has, and continues to, litigate on behalf of thousands of employees in multiple state and nationwide cases. The firm has filed lawsuits regarding various violations, including but not limited to, failure to pay overtime, minimum wage violations, misclassification, off-the-clock work, donning and doffing, discrimination, and Minnesota gratuities statutes violations.


12 | P a g e

Types of Employment Cases Nichols Kaster Handles: -Fair Labor Standards Act, Overtime & Minimum Wage Violations -Wage Fixing -Equal Pay Act -Criminal Background Discrimination -Federal Railway Safety Act Violations -Employee Benefits -Breach of Contract -Non-Compete Agreements -Defamation -Severance -Workers Adjustment Retraining Notification Act -Sexual Harassment -Discrimination -Americans with Disability Act -Family Medical Leave Act -Retaliation Claims CONSUMER LITIGATION: Class Actions

Nichols Kaster has developed a consumer class action team dedicated to investigating and filing suits to ensure consumers’ rights are represented. The consumer cases the firm has filed have alleged various violations, some of which are listed below. In the last six years, the firm has initiated more than 140 consumer cases, the vast majority of which were brought on a class-wide basis. Types of Consumer Cases Nichols Kaster Handles: -Force-Placed Insurance -Fair Credit Reporting Act -Improper Background Checks -Fair Debt Collection Practices Act -Student Loans -False Advertising & Deceptive Marketing -Information Privacy/Data Breach -Interest Overcharges & Misapplication of Loan Payments -Predatory Lending -Unfair & Deceptive Business Practices -Unfair & Unconscionable Contracts -Unfair Credit Billing Practices -Unfair Credit Reporting Practices -Unfair Debt Collection Practices


13 | P a g e

WHISTLEBLOWER/QUI TAM Nichols Kaster represents whistleblowers across the country, protecting individuals who have “blown the whistle” on illegal activity. These cases involve the reporting of possible government fraud, mishandling of toxic substances, violations of tax or securities laws, discrimination in education, failure to provide access to public facilities, and more. Nichols Kaster also represents individuals who have brought claims on behalf of the government against entities who have defrauded the government under the False Claims Act (also known as “qui tam” lawsuits).

NOTABLE LITIGATION RESULTS Recent highlights of Nichols Kaster’s cases include: In Heaton v. Social Finance, Inc., No. 3:14-cv-05191-TEH (N.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2015), the court denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment, finding that there were triable issues of fact as to whether defendants had violated the statutes at issue, whether the alleged violations were willful, and finding that defendants had failed to meet their burden as to plaintiffs’ claims under the California Unfair Competition Law. In Bible v. United Student Aid Funds, Inc., 799 F.3d 633 (7th Cir. 2015), pet. for rehrg. denied (7th Cir. Oct. 5, 2015), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint against a student loan guarantor for wrongfully charging collection fees on a defaulted student loan, finding that plaintiff’s claims for breach of contract and for violations of the RICO Act were not preempted by the Higher Education Act, and stating that “a guaranty agency may not impose collection costs on a borrower who is in default for the first time but who has timely entered into and complied with an alternative repayment agreement.” Id. In Tamez v. BHP Billiton Petroleum (Americas), Inc., No. 5:15-cv-00330 (W.D.T.X. Oct. 5, 2015), the court granted plaintiffs’ motion for conditional certification, conditionally certifying a class of employees alleging violations of the overtime wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act by a multinational corporation that produces major commodities including oil and gas. In Payne v. WBY, Inc., No. 1:14-CV-913 (N.D. Ga. Sept. 10, 2015), the court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of opt-in plaintiffs in an FLSA conditionally certified collective action. The court held that the defendant’s alleged posting of an arbitration agreement on a bulletin board in the breakroom without additional notice to workers of its existence, its terms, or its binding nature was insufficient to establish an offer or acceptance of its terms. In Miller v. Fleetcor Technologies Operating Co., LLC, No. 13-cv-2403, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2015 WL 4661921 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 5, 2015), the court denied defendant’s motion for decertification, agreeing with plaintiffs that each individual claim and the case as a whole should be kept together, allowing plaintiffs to move forward as a collective group.


14 | P a g e

In Johnson v. Casey’s Gen. Stores, Inc., --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2015 WL 4542143 (W.D. Mo. July 27, 2015), the court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss, finding that plaintiff’s allegations regarding Fair Credit Reporting Act violations and the willfulness of defendant’s conduct sufficient for litigation to move forward. In Henderson v. 1400 Northside Drive, Inc., 2015 WL 3823995 (N.D. Cal. June 19, 2015), the court granted plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on the issues of: (1) the creative professional exemption, finding that defendants misclassified adult entertainers as exempt from the overtime and minimum wage requirements of the FLSA; and (2) offset, finding that defendants could not offset their minimum wage obligations with tips paid by customers to adult entertainers. In Clark v. Centene Company of Texas, LP, No. A-12-CA-174-SS, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2015 WL 2250387 (W.D. Tex. May 22, 2015), upon the conclusion of a bench trial, the court awarded damages to a collective action of utilization review nurses. The court found that plaintiffs submitted sufficient evidence to create a just and reasonable inference as to overtime hours worked by the collective and awarded liquidated damages. This victory followed the court’s order on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment and defendant’s motion for decertification last year, holding that the defendant misclassified its utilization nurses. 44 F. Supp. 3d 674 (W.D. Tex. 2014). The court ruled that plaintiffs are not exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime laws and are thus eligible for overtime pay. The court further held that defendant’s claim that each plaintiff’s claim would need to be analyzed individually to determine liability and damages was without merit. In Lengel v. HomeAdvisor, Inc., --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2015 WL 2088933 (D. Kan. May 6, 2015), the court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss, finding that plaintiff’s allegations regarding Fair Credit Report Act violations and the willfulness of defendant’s conduct sufficient for litigation to move forward. In Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association, 135 S. Ct. 1199 (2015), the United States Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of a group of employees represented by Nichols Kaster. The Court upheld a Department of Labor interpretation granting minimum wage and overtime compensation for mortgage loan officers. In Febus v. Guardian First Funding Group, LLC, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2015 WL 925917 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 4, 2015), plaintiffs brought a motion to enforce a wage and hour settlement from which one of the individual defendants defaulted. The court ordered the defendant pay the amount due, imposed an additional thirty percent penalty on the amount due, and awarded interest. The court noted that Nichols Kaster had been “attempting, in vain, to collect,” and emphasized that defendant “cannot avoid his contractual obligations because he has decided that the settlement terms no longer suit his interests.” In Hart v. Rick’s Cabaret Int’l, Inc., No. 09 Civ 3043, the court denied decertification of the FLSA Collective and Rule 23 Class of approximately 2,300 adult entertainers at Rick’s Cabaret in New York and granted, in part, plaintiffs’ affirmative motion for partial summary judgment on


15 | P a g e

damages, finding that no reasonable jury could conclude the Class was owed less than $10.8 million. 2014 WL 6238175 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2014). This significant ruling came approximately one year after the court ruled that the Class and Collective Members are employees as a matter of law under the FLSA and New York Labor Law and that Rick’s Cabaret violated both laws by failing to pay wages. The court further held that the money entertainers received from Rick’s Cabaret’s customers were tips and not service charges that could offset wage obligations and that Rick’s Cabaret violated New York Labor Law by charging Class and Collective Members fines and fees as a condition of employment. 967 F. Supp. 2d 901 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 10, 2013). On September 22, 2015, the court granted final approval of a class-wide $15 million gross settlement, finding the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and adequate and further awarding plaintiffs’ counsel’s attorneys’ fees, expenses, and service awards to the named plaintiffs and discovery participants. 2015 WL 5577713 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 2015). In the consolidated lawsuits of Casey v. Citibank, N.A., No. 5:12-cv-0820 (N.D.N.Y.) and Coonan v. Citibank, N.A., No. 1:13-cv-00353 (N.D.N.Y.) (Aug. 21, 2014), the court granted final approval of an approximately $110 million settlement on behalf of settlement classes who were force-placed with flood or hazard insurance by Citibank, N.A. The settlement also provides substantial injunctive relief, forbidding Citibank and its affiliates from accepting commissions or any other form of compensation in connection with force-placed insurance for a period of six years, places limits on the amount of insurance coverage that Citibank may require borrowers to maintain, and requires Citibank to offer class members the opportunity to reduce their flood insurance coverage if Citibank had increased their coverage amount to an amount in excess of the amount required under federal law. The court found the settlement to be “fair, reasonable, and adequate, in the best interests of the Settlement Classes” and overruled nine objections. In Bible v. General Revenue Corp., No. 12-cv-01236 RHK (D. Minn. June 27, 2014), the court granted final approval of a $1.25 million settlement on behalf of approximately 134,000 class members, more than double the statutory cap for a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act class action. In Pearsall-Dineen v. Freedom Mortgage Corp., No. 13-cv-06836-JEI-JS, 2014 WL 2873878 (D. N.J. June 25, 2014), the court conditionally certified the Fair Labor Standards Act overtime case as a collective action. The judge’s order authorized notice of the lawsuit to be disseminated to all mortgage underwriters who worked for Freedom Mortgage in the last three years, providing them the opportunity to join the lawsuit and to assert their overtime claims against the defendant for failing to pay them overtime hours. In Wolfram v. PHH Corp., No. 12-cv-599 (S.D. Ohio June 17, 2014), the court granted plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment, finding that the assigned real estate offices from where plaintiffs, who are current or former loan officers employed by defendant, worked where all serving as the “employer’s place of business” under the outside sales exemption of the Fair Labor Standards Act. This established that an employee may work from multiple sites, not technically owned or operated by the employer, and each of those sites can be considered the “employer’s place of business” under the regulations, therefore any work performed at these sites is not “outside” work under the outside sales exemption.


16 | P a g e

In Ellsworth v. U.S. Bank, N.A., No. C 12-2506-LB, 2014 WL 2734953 (N.D. Cal. June 13, 2014), the court issued a broad class certification ruling on behalf of plaintiff-borrowers who were force-placed with flood insurance. In its order, the court certified multi-state classes of borrowers spanning forty different states to pursue claims against U.S. Bank for breach of their mortgage agreements stemming from U.S. Bank’s force-placed insurance practices. In addition, the court separately certified classes of borrowers in California and New Mexico to pursue claims against U.S. Bank and its force-placed insurance vendor, ASIC, for unjust enrichment, unfair business practices, and/or breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. In MacIntyre v. Lender Processing Services, Inc., No. 3:13-cv-89-J-25JBT (M.D. Fla. Apr. 29, 2014), the court granted affirmative summary judgment to plaintiff (a Minnesota resident) on a breach of contract claim for an unpaid bonus, and used its discretion to enforce Minnesota state law for defendant’s (a Florida company) failure to promptly pay wages. The court simultaneously denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s gender discrimination claims ruling, in part, that defendant’s actions toward plaintiff constituted direct evidence of gender discrimination. In Arnett v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 3:11-cv-01372-SI (D. Or. Apr. 17, 2014), the court preliminarily approved a $31 million settlement for approximately 625,000 class members, the largest common fund settlement ever negotiated in a case involving force-placed flood insurance. In Rhodes v. CashCall, JAMS Ref. No. 1200047475, Garcia v. CashCall, JAMS Ref. No. 1200047422, Good v. CashCall, JAMS Ref. No. 1200047220, and Green v. CashCall, Inc., JAMS Ref. No. 1200047225 (2014), a JAMS arbitrator ruled that CashCall misclassified Rhodes and Green, loan processers, and Garcia and Good, underwriters, as exempt from the overtime requirements of California and federal law. The arbitrator awarded Rhodes $15,000 in unpaid overtime plus an additional $15,000 in liquidated damages, along with $88,179 in attorneys’ fees and costs, Green was awarded $15,067.72 in damages, as well as $54,165.50 in attorneys’ fees and costs. The arbitrator also awarded Garcia $10,000 in unpaid overtime plus an additional $10,000 in liquidated damages, along with $98,709 in attorneys’ fees and costs, and Good was awarded $43,631 in unpaid overtime, as well as $50,627.49 in attorneys’ fees and costs. In Farmer v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 5:11-cv-00935-OLG (W.D.T.X. Oct. 18, 2013), the court granted final approval of the parties’ multi-million dollar settlement with significant prospective injunctive relief, finally certifying a class of 25,000 Texas mortgagors who had been sent letters requesting proof of hazard insurance in violation of the language of their deeds of trust, and appointing Nichols Kaster as class counsel. In Huff v. Pinstripes, Inc., 972 F. Supp. 2d 1065 (D. Minn. 2013), the court ruled in plaintiffs’ favor on cross-motions for summary judgment, finding that Pinstripes had violated the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act’s provisions on tip-pooling by requiring its servers to share their tips with “server assistants,” who act as servers’ support staff at the restaurant. In Monroe v. FTS USA, LLC, No. 2:08-cv-02100-JTF-cgc (W.D. Tenn. Sept. 18, 2013), the court upheld plaintiffs’ trial verdict and damages award of more than $3.8 million for the approximately 300-person collective of cable technicians who were denied overtime pay under


17 | P a g e

the Fair Labor Standards Act. After extensive post-trial briefing, the court denied defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law, motion for new trial, motion to alter or amend judgment, and motion for decertification. The court additionally granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel defense counsel’s billing records as part of the then-pending fight over plaintiffs’ counsel’s requested fee award. In Walsten v. Shank Power Products Co., Inc., No. 19HA-CV-12-1094 (Minn. Dist. Ct., Sept. 9, 2013), a minority shareholder case, an advisory jury returned a $700,000 verdict for the plaintiff, finding for him on his claims for breach of fiduciary duty and violation of his reasonable expectation of continuing employment. The trial judge subsequently issued an order sustaining the $700,000 advisory verdict and awarding $200,000 in attorneys’ fees. In Karl v. Uptown Drink, LLC, 835 N.W.2d 14 (Minn. Aug. 14, 2013), the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that under Minnesota law, employers cannot require employees to reimburse them from their tips for items such as cash register shortages, unsigned credit card receipts, and customer walk outs. The Court also found that employees do not have to show that because of the deductions their wages fell below the minimum wage in order to prove a violation of Minn. Stat. § 181.79. In this case, the plaintiffs were over 750 employees who worked at three different bars/night clubs in Minneapolis. At a jury trial in 2011, the plaintiffs prevailed on their record-keeping and certain minimum wage claims, but lost on the unlawful deductions claims. Nichols Kaster appealed the deductions issue, and took it all the way to the Minnesota Supreme Court, where the Court agreed with plaintiffs and instructed the lower court to enter judgment on the plaintiffs’ behalf on this claim. In Ernst v. DISH Network, LLC, No. 12-8794-LGS (S.D.N.Y. July 23, 2013), the court appointed Nichols Kaster as interim class counsel for the putative class with claims against Defendant Sterling Infosystems, Inc., finding that Nichols Kaster had “demonstrated it is able fairly and adequately to represent the interests of the putative class. On September 22, 2014, the court ruled on plaintiff’s and two of the defendants’ cross-motions for partial summary judgment, granting plaintiff’s motion and denying defendants’. The court ruled that the summary report received by two of the defendants was a “consumer report” for purposes of the Fair Credit Reporting Act because it “communicated information bearing on Plaintiff’s character, general reputation, or mode of living, and the information was collected and expected to be used for ‘employment purposes.’” (Order, S.D.N.Y Sept. 22, 2014.) In Holmes v. Bank of America, N.A., 2013 WL 2317722 (W.D.N.C. May 28, 2013), the court denied four motions to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims regarding force-placed insurance and allowing the case to proceed. In Singleton v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, No. 8:11-cv-01823(D. Md. May 13, 2013), the court granted preliminary approval of the parties’ proposed $2.5 million settlement under the Fair Credit Reporting Act in a case where plaintiffs alleged that the defendant employer had improperly procured consumer reports on employees and applicants and had failed to comply with the pre-adverse action notice requirements of the Act. The court preliminarily certified three settlement classes of over 50,000 people and appointed Nichols Kaster as class counsel, describing the firm as “qualified, experienced, and competent.”


18 | P a g e

In Ulbrich v. GMAC Mortgage, No. 11-32424 (S.D. Fla. May 10, 2013), the court granted final settlement approval and appointed Nichols Kaster as class counsel for a 2,000+ nationwide class. The case involved claims against GMAC Mortgage, LLC and Balboa Insurance Services, Inc. relating to force-placed wind insurance. In Kirsch v. St. Paul Motorsports, Inc., No. 11-cv-02624, 2013 WL 1900620 (D. Minn. May 7, 2013), the court denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment in its entirety, finding that plaintiff had put forth sufficient evidence for a prima facie claim of age discrimination. In Gustafson v. BAC Home Loan Services, LP, No. 8:11-cv-00915 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2013), Judge Josephine Staton Tucker appointed Nichols Kaster as co-lead interim class counsel for multiple putative classes in a force-placed insurance case against Bank of America and other defendants. In Boaz v. Federal Express Customer Info. Services, Inc., 725 F.3d 603 (6th Cir. 2013), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that plaintiff, a FedEx project manager who had claimed that FedEx had failed to pay her overtime wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and paid her less than male coworkers performing the same job, in violation of the Equal Pay Act, could pursue her overtime and gender discrimination claims. The federal laws at issue provide employees three years to file a lawsuit and FedEx had plaintiff sign an application which stated that lawsuits had to be brought within 6 months or claims were lost. The lower court had dismissed plaintiff’s claims, citing the application. The Sixth Circuit unanimously sided with plaintiff, reversed the dismissal and remanded the case for trial. In Calderon v. GEICO General Insurance Co., 2012 WL 6889800 (D. Md. Nov. 29, 2012), the court granted summary judgment in favor of approximately one hundred current and former Security Investigators for GEICO, finding that they were not covered by the administrative exemption. Specifically, the court held that plaintiffs did not exercise discretion and independent judgment as to matters of significance. In Spar v. Cedar Towing & Auction, Inc., Case No. 27-CV-11-24993 (Minn. Dist. Ct., Oct. 16, 2012), Nichols Kaster won class certification and was appointed class counsel for a class of approximately six thousand Minneapolis consumers who plaintiffs alleged had been charged illegal towing fees by defendant. In Walls v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Civ. No. 3:11-cv-00673, 2012 WL 3096660 (W.D. Ky. July 30, 2012), a case regarding force-placed flood insurance, the court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss, stating that the plaintiff’s mortgage agreement did not explicitly provide that the lender’s flood insurance requirement could change at will and that Kentucky contracts contain provisions which can impose limits on discretion afforded by a contract, thus rejecting defendant’s interpretation of plaintiff’s mortgage agreement for purposes of the motion. In Bollinger v. Residential Capital, 863 F. Supp. 2d 1041 (W.D. Wash. May 30, 2012), the court granted plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment, finding that defendants misclassified the underwriter plaintiffs under the administrative exemption, and rejected defendants’ argument


19 | P a g e

that there was no evidence of willful violation of the FLSA, stating that “a jury could conclude that Defendants knowingly and recklessly” misclassified plaintiffs. In Lass v. Bank of America, N.A., 695 F.3d 129 (1st Cir. 2012), the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit struck down the district court’s ruling that had dismissed plaintiff’s claims. The Court found that plaintiff’s allegations regarding excessive flood insurance and improper kickbacks had been properly alleged and that the case should proceed. In Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., 131 S. Ct. 1325 (2011), the United States Supreme Court found in favor of the plaintiff and held that “an oral complaint of a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act is protected conduct under the [Act’s] anti-retaliation provision.” This was a huge win for employees all over the country, as the Supreme Court’s decision set a new FLSA anti-retaliation standard. In Clincy v. Galardi South Enterprises, Inc., 808 F. Supp. 2d 1326 (N.D. Ga. Sept. 7, 2011), the court granted plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of misclassification, finding that defendants misclassified adult entertainers as independent contractors and that the entertainers were in fact employees covered by the FLSA. In Eldredge v. City of Saint Paul, Civ No. 09-2018 (D. Minn. 2011), plaintiff Eldredge reached a settlement of his case that was the second largest paid by the City of Saint Paul in an employment lawsuit. In Hofstetter v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 2011 WL 1225900 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2011), Nichols Kaster was appointed class counsel for four classes encompassing approximately 40,000 mortgagors against Chase Bank. In the same case, Nichols Kaster secured an approximately $10MM settlement for the classes. Hofstetter, 2011 WL 5545912 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2011). In Stewart v. CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp., 2006 WL 839509 (D. Minn. Mar. 26, 2006), Nichols Kaster achieved a significant class action settlement on behalf of more than 2,500 low-income households who were left without heat by CenterPoint Energy in violation of Minnesota’s “Cold Weather Rule.”

ASSOCIATE BIOGRAPHIES

Alexander M. Baggio: Alex focuses on class and collective actions, currently representing thousands of employees regarding commission payments, minimum wage, overtime, and improper meal and break deductions. Prior to working at Nichols Kaster, Alex clerked for the Honorable Gary Larson and Janet Poston of the Minnesota District Courts. Education: B.A. University of Wisconsin-Madison 2005, J.D. University of Minnesota Law School 2009 cum laude.

Rebekah L. Bailey: Rebekah has significant experience in litigating complex class and collective actions and had been involved in several of the firm’s class actions, both consumer and


20 | P a g e

employment. She is an associate editor for the ABA FLSA Legislation Committee’s Mid-Winter Report, and a member of the Alumni Advisory Board for the Journal of Law & Inequality. Rebekah is a frequent speaker at continuing legal education seminars, including the Federal Bar Association’s annual meeting and convention. She won an award for Excellence in Labor and Employment Law, ABA-BNA, in 2008 and was recognized as a Super Lawyer in 2014 and 2015. Education: B.S. Grand Valley State University 2004, J.D. University of Minnesota Law School 2008 magna cum laude.

Daniel S. Brome: Daniel, while in law school, worked with the California Labor Commissioner, served as the Editor-in-Chief of the Berkeley Journal of Employment and Labor Law, and as Director of the Workers’ Rights Clinic. After law school, Daniel worked with a California law firm representing workers and unions in arbitrations and litigation. Daniel continues pursuing his passion for employment law at Nichols Kaster, working with the National Wage and Hour Litigation Team out of the San Francisco office. Education: B.A. Princeton University 2005, J.D. University of California, Berkeley, School of Law 2011.

Reena I. Desai: Reena has dedicated the majority of her career to helping thousands of employees recover unpaid wages and has also handled cases involving race and disability discrimination. Reena has extensive complex litigation experience and has spoken on several panels regarding employment and civil rights. Education: B.A. George Washington University 2002, J.D. University of Minnesota Law School 2007 cum laude.

Carl F. Engstrom: Carl began his legal career in 2010 as a law clerk with Nichols Kaster. He went on to work as a Judicial Law Clerk in Hennepin County District Court for Judge Philip Carruthers and Judge Tamara Garcia. He returned to Nichols Kaster in March 2015 to work as an associate with the Wage & Hour class action team. Education: B.A. Harvard College 1998, J.D. University of Minnesota Law School 2012 Kate Fisher: Kate has been dedicated to employment law since law school, and garnered recognition from St. Thomas and the Minnesota State Bar Association for her efforts while a student, winning the Dean’s Award in Employment Law and Labor Law and the MSBA Labor & Employment Law Section Student Award. Education: B.A. College of St. Catherine 2006, J.D. University of St. Thomas School of Law 2011 cum laude. Eleanor Frisch: Prior to joining Nichols Kaster, Eleanor served as a judicial clerk to the Hon. Roger L. Wollman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Eleanor is on Nichols Kaster’s consumer class action team, and is part of the consumer origination group. She has published articles in Bench & Bar of Minnesota and the Minnesota Law Review regarding whistleblower and sexual harassment claims. Education: B.A. Trinity University 2008, J.D. University of Minnesota Law School 2014 magna cum laude.

Adam W. Hansen: Adam began his career in the judicial system clerking in the Minnesota Supreme Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. He then moved to civil litigation, representing clients in a variety of contexts, including discrimination, retaliation, harassment, whistleblower, breach-of-contract, severance, wage and hour disputes, and Fair Credit Reporting Act violations. Adam currently works out of Nichols Kaster’s San Francisco


21 | P a g e

office and works with the Wage and Hour Team. Education: B.A. University of Wisconsin 2003, J.D. University of Minnesota Law School 2008.

Jason P. Hungerford: Prior to joining Nichols Kaster, Jason practiced in Texas, litigating cases involving breach of contract, banking fraud, wrongful foreclosure, and consumer bankruptcy. Jason is now a member of Nichols Kaster’s Whistleblower/Qui Tam team, and represents individual employees in a wide range of matters including harassment and discrimination. Education: B.A. University of Texas at El Paso 2003, J.D. University of Minnesota Law School 2008 magna cum laude. Lucas J. Kaster: Lucas received his J.D. from Marquette University Law School, where he focused his coursework on litigation. Prior to joining Nichols Kaster, Lucas was the founding attorney of Kaster Law in Milwaukee, Wisconsin where he did criminal defense work. Now, Lucas works as a part of Nichols Kaster’s individual rights team, focusing on aggressive advocacy, creative solutions and responsiveness to clients. Education: B.A. Villanova University 2004, J.D. Marquette University Law School 2011. Janet Olawsky: Janet works on individual employee rights cases with Nichols Kaster, fighting unlawful employment conduct and discrimination. Prior to joining Nichols Kaster, Janet volunteered with the Innocence Project of Minnesota and served as a judicial law clerk for the Hon. Kevin A. Lund and Hon. Robert Birnbaum in Rochester, Minnesota. Janet is also a qualified neutral under Rule 114 of the Minnesota Rules of General Practice. Education: B.A. University of St. Thomas 2007, J.D. William Mitchell College of Law 2012 magna cum laude. Brittany Bachman Skemp: Brittany is part of Nichols Kaster’s Wage and Hour Litigation team and focuses on class and collective actions. Prior to working as an associate at Nichols Kaster, Brittany clerked for Judge Thomas J. Kalitowski and Judge Jill Flaskamp Halbrooks of the Minnesota Court of Appeals. Brittany also serves as the community service director of the New Lawyers Section of the Hennepin County Bar Association. Education: B.A. University of St. Thomas 2008, J.D. William Mitchell College of Law 2013 magna cum laude. Bonnie M. Smith: Bonnie has won an unemployment benefits appeal, defeated summary judgment in a pregnancy discrimination case, second-chaired an arbitration to hold an employer liable for breach of contract, and negotiated substantial settlements for clients in several cases. Bonnie has also been a contributor to an ABA subcommittee on the FMLA. Education: B.A. Yale University 2004, J.D. University of Wisconsin Law School 2010 cum laude. Brock J. Specht: Brock has experience litigating complex multi-million dollar lawsuits in numerous federal courts around the country and currently works with the firm’s individual practice, assisting plaintiffs with claims such as retaliation, breach of contract, and whistleblower claims. Prior to joining the firm, Brock worked with a major Twin Cities law firm, and as a clerk for two judges on the Minnesota Court of Appeals. Brock also has worked as a Special Assistant State Public Defender, pro bono, and as an Adjunct Professor of Law at the University of St. Thomas School of Law. Education: B.A. University of Minnesota 2002, J.D. University of St. Thomas School of Law 2007 magna cum laude.


22 | P a g e

Nicholas Thompson: Prior to joining Nichols Kaster, Nick worked on personal injury and criminal cases. Currently, Nick is part of Nichols Kaster’s Consumer Litigation Team. He focuses on the Fair Credit Reporting Act, fighting for people who have been denied opportunities due to credit reports and/or background checks. Education: B.A. (double) University of Wisconsin 2005, J.D. University of Minnesota Law School 2008. Ashley Thronson: Ashley is a member of Nichols Kaster’s individual rights team, working on behalf of employees who have been treated unfairly. Prior to joining Nichols Kaster, Ashley interned with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, worked as a certified student attorney in the Housing Law Clinic, helped update the legal treatise Minnesota Practice Series: Employment Law and Practice, and completed an externship with the Hon. Ann D. Montgomery of the U.S.D.C. for the District of Minnesota. Education: B.S. University of Wisconsin-La Crosse 2010, J.D. University of Minnesota Law School 2013 magna cum laude. Megan D. Yelle: Megan has experience in a variety of complex matters including commercial, professional liability, products liability and commercial contract litigation matters. Megan is now a member of Nichols Kaster’s Consumer Class Action Team and advocates for consumers who have been victimized by unfair, deceptive, and unlawful trade practices. During law school, Megan participated in the Asylum Law Project helping recent immigrants to receive legal asylum in the United States. Education: B.A. St. Thomas University 2004, J.D. University of Minnesota Law School 2009 magna cum laude.


Documents

Dkt 064-1 Ex 1 Settlement Agreement