IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE ... has leave to file the Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) attached hereto as Exhibit A, which includes added claims for unpaid overtime

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

ARLENE KAMINSKI, individually and on )

behalf of all others similarly situated, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. 1:16-cv-10844

)

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., )

)

)

Defendant. )

)

JOINT STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE

1. This Joint Stipulation of Settlement and Release (the “Settlement Agreement”) is

made and entered into by and between Plaintiff Arlene Kaminski (“Plaintiff” or “Class

Representative”), on behalf of herself and all members of the “Plaintiff Class” as defined herein,

on the one hand, and Defendant Bank of America, N.A. (“Defendant” or the “Bank”), on the

other hand.

2. The Class Representative, the Plaintiff Class, and Defendant are referred to

collectively herein as the “Parties.”

3. “Class Counsel” means Ryan F. Stephan and Catherine Mitchell of Stephan

Zouras, LLP.

4. “Defendant’s Counsel” means Michael D. Mandel, Sylvia J. Kim, and Katherine

Lennox of McGuireWoods LLP.

5. “FLSA Collective Members” means all current and former Operations Market

Professionals employed by Defendant nationwide in the internal job code OS005 who reported

through the same management chains as Plaintiff from November 23, 2013 through and

including the date the Court enters an Order preliminarily approving the terms and conditions of

this Settlement Agreement and as set forth in Exhibit H.1

6. “Illinois Rule 23 Class Members” means all current and former Operations

Market Professionals employed by Defendant in the State of Illinois in the internal job code

OS005 who reported through the same management chains as Plaintiff from November 23, 2013

1 The parties agree that they will maintain Exhibit H as confidential, and will not file it with the Court

unless and until the Court requires it. However, upon final approval of this settlement, the parties may

file with the Court a list of all FLSA Collective Members who have submitted claims, and a list of all

Rule 23 Class Members who are bound by this settlement and the judgment that will be entered in this

case.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 27F03EC4-F73F-48F5-84E9-90ACEDD16BFCDocuSign Envelope ID: 0B2C9EE3-4A60-4A11-89CB-4ABD40764BE6Case: 1:16-cv-10844 Document #: 34-1 Filed: 10/27/17 Page 2 of 23 PageID #:174

2

through and including the date the Court enters an Order preliminarily approving the terms and

conditions of this Settlement Agreement and as set forth in Exhibit H.

7. “New York Rule 23 Class Members” means all current and former Operations

Market Professionals employed by Defendant in the State of New York in the internal job code

OS005 who reported through the same management chains as Plaintiff from November 23, 2010

through and including the date the Court enters an Order preliminarily approving the terms and

conditions of this Settlement Agreement and as set forth in Exhibit H.

8. “Plaintiff Class” or “Plaintiff Class Members” means and refers collectively to the

FLSA Collective Members and the Rule 23 Class Members.

9. “Settlement Class” or “Settlement Class Members” means all FLSA Collective

Members who timely consent to join the Lawsuit and/or Rule 23 Class Members who have not

timely opted-out of the settlement described in this Settlement Agreement and who have instead

timely submitted a claim on a properly-completed Claim Form (as defined below) before the

Claim Deadline (as defined below).

BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW OF SETTLEMENT

10. On November 23, 2016, Class Representative filed a putative class and collective

action Complaint against Defendant in the United States District Court for the Northern District

of Illinois, Case No. 1:16-cv-10844 therein, which is pending before the Honorable Robert W.

Gettleman (the “Lawsuit”).

11. On January 24, 2017, Class Representative filed a First Amended Complaint

(“FAC”) against Defendant in the Lawsuit.

12. On May 8, 2017, Class Representative filed a Second Amended Complaint

(“SAC”) against Defendant in the Lawsuit.

13. For the purposes of this Settlement Agreement only, Plaintiff and Defendant

hereby stipulate and agree, subject to the Court’s entry of an order approving the same, that

Plaintiff has leave to file the Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) attached hereto as Exhibit A,

which includes added claims for unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the New York Labor Laws

(“NYLL”) and/or New York Codes, Rules and Regulations, in connection with the Court granting

preliminary approval of this Settlement Agreement, which shall relate back to the date of the

filing of Plaintiff’s original Complaint commencing the Lawsuit, with Defendant’s currently

operative Answer to the SAC being deemed to be its Answer to the TAC. Should, for whatever

reason, the settlement set forth in this Settlement Agreement not become final, the TAC shall be

deemed stricken, null and void ab initio, with the previously-filed SAC in the Lawsuit remaining

the operative pleading.

14. In the Lawsuit, Class Representative alleges claims for (1) overtime wages

pursuant to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., (2) overtime

wages pursuant to the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (“IMWL”), 820 ILCS §§ 105 et seq., and (3)

overtime wages pursuant to the NYLL. The gravamen of Class Representative’s allegations are


3

that Defendant misclassified her, and all similarly-situated individuals, as exempt from overtime

and related requirements under the FLSA and applicable state law.

15. The Lawsuit seeks certification of a putative FLSA collective action consisting of

“[a]ll individuals who currently work, or have worked, for the Defendant as a Senior Specialist-

Securities, Operations Market Professional, or any other similarly titled position during the

applicable statute of limitations period and performed overtime work without receiving all wages

owed for such work.” The Lawsuit also seeks certification of a putative Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23

(“Rule 23”) class of “[a]ll individuals who currently work, or have worked, for the Defendant as

a Senior Specialist-Securities, Operations Marketing Professional, or any other similarly titled

position, in the states of Illinois and New York during the applicable statute of limitations period

and performed overtime work without receiving all wages owed for such work.”

16. The Parties engaged in extensive informal exchanges of documents and

information, including data regarding the Plaintiff Class members’ workweeks and salaries.

17. On August 24, 2017, the Parties participated in a private mediation with Hon.

Morton Denlow (Ret.). At the conclusion of the mediation, no settlement was reached, but the

mediator made a proposal for a settlement of the Lawsuit. On August 31, 2017, the Parties

accepted the terms of the mediator’s proposal.

18. The Parties intend to fully, finally, and forever settle, compromise, and discharge

all disputes and claims that were raised in the Lawsuit, including but not limited to requests for

legal or equitable relief that have been asserted by Class Representative on behalf of herself and

on behalf of members of the Plaintiff Class.

19. The Parties expressly acknowledge that nothing in this Settlement Agreement, nor

the fact of the Settlement Agreement itself, shall be construed or deemed an admission of

liability, culpability, negligence or wrongdoing of any kind by Defendant, nor shall it constitute

an admission on behalf of Defendant of any fact or allegations against them, including any

allegation that this matter is suitable for class or collective treatment. Defendant specifically

denies any liability.

20. The Parties intend that this Settlement Agreement shall include a full and

complete release of the claims asserted in the Lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiff Class relating to

the classification of Operations Market Professionals as exempt from overtime under Illinois,

New York, and federal law, and/or any claim for relief relating to nonpayment of overtime

wages and related penalties, releasing Defendant and all of its present and former parent

companies, subsidiaries, shareholders, officers, directors, employees, agents, servants, registered

representatives, attorneys, insurers and successors and assigns.

21. Class Counsel represent that they have conducted a thorough investigation into

the facts of the Lawsuit, and have diligently pursued an investigation of the claims of the

Plaintiff Class against Defendant. Based on their own independent investigation and evaluation

and all known facts and circumstances, including the risk of defenses asserted by Defendant

regarding class certification and the merits of the claims, Class Counsel are of the opinion that


4

the settlement with Defendant is fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interest of the Plaintiff

Class.

22. Defendant denies that it has violated the law in any manner alleged in the

Lawsuit. Nonetheless, Defendant has concluded that further litigation of the Released Claims

encompassed by this Settlement Agreement would be protracted and expensive, and would also

divert management and employee time. Defendant has taken into account the uncertainty and

risks inherent in litigation and has, therefore, concluded that it is desirable that the claims in the

Lawsuit be settled in the manner and upon the terms and conditions set forth in this Settlement

Agreement. Nothing contained herein, nor the consummation of this Settlement Agreement, is to

be construed or deemed an admission of liability, culpability, negligence, or wrongdoing on the

part of Defendant or as an admission that a class should be certified for any purpose other than

settlement purposes.

23. The Parties agree to cooperate and take all steps necessary and appropriate to

obtain preliminary and final approval of this settlement, to effectuate all aspects of this

Settlement Agreement.

24. The total settlement fund payment under this Settlement Agreement, including,

without limitation, the payments to the Settlement Class, Class Counsel’s attorneys’ fees and

costs, any enhancement award for the Class Representative awarded by the Court, and all costs

associated with administering the settlement is Eight Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars

($850,000) (“Gross Settlement Fund”).

25. The amount remaining after deducting from the Gross Settlement Fund the

amount of payment to the Class Counsel’s attorneys’ fees and costs, any enhancement award for

the Class Representative awarded by the Court, and all costs associated with administering the

settlement shall be referred to as the “Net Settlement Fund.” As described further below, all

payments to the Settlement Class shall be from the Net Settlement Fund.

CERTIFICATION OF THE PLAINTIFF CLASS FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY

26. The Parties enter into this Agreement on a conditional basis. This Settlement

Agreement will become final and effective only upon the occurrence of all of the following

events: (i) the Court entering an order granting preliminary approval of the Settlement

Agreement; (ii) the Court entering an order granting final approval of the Settlement reflected in

the Agreement; and (iii) the occurrence of the Effective Date, as defined in Paragraph 29(g)

below. Unless the Court orders otherwise, this Agreement shall be deemed null and void ab

initio upon the failure of any of these three conditions to occur.

27. For settlement purposes only, the Parties agree that the Plaintiff Class shall be

conditionally certified. If the Court denies the preliminary approval of this Settlement

Agreement, Defendant retains the right to contest whether the Lawsuit should be maintained as a

class or collective action and to contest the merits of the claims being asserted in the Lawsuit.

28. This Settlement Agreement is contingent upon the approval and certification by

the Court of the Plaintiff Class for settlement purposes only. Defendant does not waive, and


5

instead expressly reserves, its rights to challenge the propriety of class certification for any

purpose should the Court not approve the Settlement Agreement. In connection with the

proposed certification of the Plaintiff Class, the Parties shall cooperate and present to the Court

for its consideration competent evidence, as may be requested by the Court, under the applicable

due process requirements and standards for class certification.

SETTLEMENT APPROVAL PROCEDURE

29. This Settlement Agreement will become final and effective upon occurrence of all

of the following events described in the following sub-paragraphs (a) – (g), inclusive:

a. Execution of this Settlement Agreement by the Parties and their respective

counsel of record.

b. Submission of the Settlement Agreement to the Court for preliminary

approval.

c. Entry of an order by the Court (1) granting preliminary approval of the

Settlement Agreement, including conditional certification of the Plaintiff

Class for settlement purposes only, (2) appointing Class Counsel; (3)

appointing the Class Representative for the Plaintiff Class; and (4) appointing

a Claims Administrator. The parties agree to use KCC, LLC as Claims

Administrator in this matter.

d. Court approval of the form and content of a Notice of Pendency of Class

Action, Proposed Settlement and Hearing Date (“Class Notice”) advising the

members of the Plaintiff Class of material terms and provisions of this

Settlement Agreement, the procedure for approval thereof, and their rights

with respect thereto, as well as a Claim Form and Consent Form. The parties

propose the Illinois Class Notice attached as Exhibit B, the New York Class

Notice attached as Exhibit C, the FLSA Collective Notice attached as Exhibit

D, the Illinois Claim Form attached as Exhibit E, the New York Claim Form

attached as Exhibit F and the FLSA Consent Form attached as Exhibit G.

e. Filing by Class Counsel, on or before the date of the final approval hearing,

the Claims Administrator’s verification, in writing, that the Class Notice to the

Plaintiff Class Members has been disseminated in accordance with the Court’s

order.

f. Entry of an order by the Court granting final approval of the Settlement

Agreement and entering judgment thereon.

g. Occurrence of the “Effective Date,” which is defined as: (a) If no objections to

the settlement are filed, the date of final approval of the settlement by the

Court; (b) If objections to the settlement are filed and overruled and no appeal

is taken of the final approval order, thirty one (31) days after the Court enters

final approval; or (c) If any appeal is taken from the Court’s overruling of

objections to the settlement, the later of twenty (20) days after the appeal is


6

withdrawn or twenty (20) days after an appellate decision affirming the final

approval decision becomes final.

30. As soon as practicable after this Settlement Agreement has been signed by all

parties and their counsel, Class Counsel shall move the Court for preliminary approval of this

settlement, and request an order:

a. Conditionally certifying the Plaintiff Class;

b. Preliminarily approving this Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate;

c. Preliminarily appointing and approving Plaintiff as Class Representative;

d. Preliminarily appointing and approving Ryan F. Stephan and Catherine

Mitchell of Stephan Zouras, LLP as Class Counsel;

e. Preliminarily appointing and approving KCC, LLC as the Claims

Administrator;

f. Approving the procedure for sending notice to the members of the Plaintiff

Class as set forth in this Settlement Agreement;

g. Approving the Class Notices to be sent to the Illinois and New York Rule 23

Class Members in substantially the same form as Exhibits B and C to this

Agreement, or as modified by the Court;

h. Approving the FLSA Collective Notice to be sent to the FLSA Collective

Members in substantially the same form as Exhibit D to this Agreement, or as

modified by the Court;

i. Approving the Claim Forms to be sent to the Rule 23 Class Members in

substantially the same form as Exhibits E and F to this Agreement, or as


j. Approving the FLSA Consent Form to be sent to the FLSA Collective

Members in substantially the same form as Exhibit G to this Agreement, or as


k. Authorizing the Claims Administrator to mail the approved Class Notice,

Claim Form, Collective Notice, and/or Consent Form to the Plaintiff Class

Members.

31. Class Counsel shall prepare and provide Defendant’s counsel with no less than

three court days to review, provide comments to, and otherwise approve the motion for

preliminary approval of the settlement before the motion and supporting papers are filed with the

Court.


7

32. Class Counsel shall be responsible for ensuring that at least the following

documents are filed with the Court in advance of the final approval hearing so that the Court will

have a sufficient basis upon which to evaluate and approve the Settlement:

a. A final report by the Claims Administrator providing details regarding the

execution of the approved notice process, the rate (if any) of opt-outs and

objections, and other information vital to the Court’s assessment of the

fairness of the Agreement at the final approval hearing;

b. A duly-noticed motion, accompanying memorandum of points and authorities

prepared by Class Counsel (and approved by Defendant’s counsel), and such

other pleadings, evidence, or other documents as may be necessary for the

Court to determine that the settlement documented by this Settlement

Agreement is fair, adequate and reasonable;

c. A [Proposed] Order for the Court’s signature (i) finally approving the

Settlement Agreement as being fair, adequate and reasonable; (ii) permanently

enjoining all of the Settlement Class Members who do not timely exclude

themselves from the Settlement Agreement from pursuing, or seeking to

reopen, any Released Claims against any Released Parties; (iii) dismissing the

Lawsuit with prejudice and entering Judgment consistent with this Settlement

Agreement so as to permanently bar all Settlement Class Members from

prosecuting against Releasees each of the Released Claims, as defined in

Paragraphs 68 and 69, below; and (iv) providing for the continuing

jurisdiction of the Court to enforce the settlement.

d. A [Proposed] Judgment and Notice of Entry of Judgment (collectively,

“Judgment”).

33. Class Counsel shall provide Defendant’s counsel with no less than three court

days to review, provide comments to, and otherwise approve the motion for final approval of the

Settlement, [Proposed] Order, and Judgment thereon before the motions and supporting papers

are filed with the Court.

SETTLEMENT PAYMENT AND CALCULATION OF CLAIM

34. In consideration of the mutual covenants and promises set forth herein, the Parties

agree, subject to the Court’s approval, as follows:

35. Without admitting any liability whatsoever, Defendant will settle the claims of the

Plaintiff Class released by this Settlement Agreement by depositing, within (15) business days of

the Effective Date of the Settlement, an amount up to the maximum amount of the Gross

Settlement Fund into a qualified settlement fund, which shall be established and administered by

the Claims Administrator (the “Qualified Settlement Fund”). Any interest accrued on this

deposit shall be retained by Defendant. If final approval of the settlement is reversed on appeal,

then Defendant shall be entitled to prompt return of the principal and all interest accrued. No

money shall be distributed from the Qualified Settlement Fund unless and until the Effective

Date occurs.


8

36. All amounts paid as part of this Settlement Agreement shall be paid out of the

Qualified Settlement Fund. These amounts shall include (1) all payments to Settlement Class

Members under this Settlement Agreement; (2) any enhancement payments to the Class

Representative; (3) any and all costs of administering the settlement; (4) Class Counsel’s

Attorneys’ Fees and Costs as approved by the Court; and (5) any other amounts required to be

paid under this Settlement Agreement. Defendant shall have no obligation under this Settlement

Agreement to make any payment whatsoever beyond its obligation to make payments to the

Qualified Settlement Fund in an amount equal to the designated Gross Settlement Fund, except

that Defendant shall separately pay the employer’s share of payroll taxes attributable to

Individual Settlement Shares paid to Settlement Class Members.

37. Claims Administration Charges. All costs associated with administering the

settlement (the “Claims Administration Charges”), whether foreseen or unforeseen, will be paid

from the Qualified Settlement Fund. The Claims Administration Charges for administration of

the settlement include, but are not limited to, identification of class members’ best address,

printing and mailing of the Class Notice, creating and instituting a dedicated settlement website,

processing claims, consent forms, disputes, requests for exclusion, and objections in accordance

with this Settlement Agreement, calculating preliminary and final payment amounts and tax

withholdings for Plaintiff Class Members, responding to inquiries from Plaintiff Class Members,

issuing and mailing settlement payments and checks, reasonable efforts to locate Class Members,

and preparing any required tax returns and tax reports. Assuming that there is no significant

change in the proposed scope of work or size of the class, the Claims Administrator’s costs in

administering the settlement of this Lawsuit is estimated to be no more than $15,000, and shall

be reserved from the Qualified Settlement Fund by the Claims Administrator. Payments to the

Claims Administrator shall be made after the Effective Date. Any unused funds allocated to the

Claims Administration Charges shall be paid back into the Net Settlement.

38. Class Counsel’s Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. No less than fourteen (14) days

before the final approval hearing, Class Counsel will file a motion for an award of reasonable

attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of reasonable costs. Class Counsel will seek Court approval

for payment of attorneys’ fees in the amount of up to 33% of the Gross Settlement Fund, or Two

Hundred Eighty-Three Thousand and Fifty Dollars ($283,050.00), plus actual litigation costs,

which are currently estimated to be approximately $10,000. Defendant will not oppose an

application by Class Counsel for an award of attorneys’ fees up to one-third (33%) of the Gross

Settlement Fund ($283,050.00), nor oppose an application by Class Counsel for an award of

actual litigation costs incurred by Class Counsel in connection with the litigation of the Lawsuit,

all of which will be paid out of the Gross Settlement Fund. An appropriate 1099 form shall be

provided to Class Counsel for such payments. The Parties expressly agree that the Court’s

approval or denial of any request for attorneys’ fees and costs are not material conditions to the

Settlement Agreement, and are to be considered by the Court separately from the fairness,

reasonableness, adequacy, and good faith of the Settlement. Any order or proceeding relating to

the application by Class Counsel for an award for attorneys’ fees and costs shall not operate to

terminate or cancel this Agreement. Any reduction in Class Counsel’s request for fees and costs

shall revert to the Net Settlement.

39. Class Representative Enhancement. The Class Representative will seek Court

approval for an enhancement payment in an amount not to exceed Fifteen Thousand Dollars


9

($15,000.00). This payment is intended to compensate the Class Representative for her efforts

on behalf of the Settlement Class, which have substantially benefitted the Settlement Class.

Defendant will not oppose the Class Representative’s request for an enhancement payment of up

to $15,000.00, to be paid from the Gross Settlement Fund, subject to approval by the Court. The

final amount of any enhancement payment awarded to the Class Representative by the Court

shall be binding on the Class Representative. Any enhancement payments to the Class

Representative will be treated as a non-wage payment and reported as such by the Claims

Administrator to the appropriate government taxing authorities, with the Class Representative

being solely responsible for paying any and all taxes due on any such payments. The Parties

expressly agree that the Court’s approval or denial of any request for enhancement payments to

the Class Representative is not a material condition to the Settlement Agreement, and is to be

considered by the Court separately from the fairness, reasonableness, adequacy, and good faith

of the Settlement Agreement. Any order or proceeding relating to the application by Class

Counsel for an enhancement award to the Class Representative shall not operate to terminate or

cancel this Agreement. Any reduction in the request for enhancement payments shall revert to

the Net Settlement.

40. Individual Settlement Shares. The gross payment amount to each member of the

Settlement Class shall be referred to as their “Individual Settlement Share.” In determining the

Individual Settlement Shares, the Net Settlement Fund will first be divided pro rata between the

FLSA Collective and the Rule 23 Class based upon the total active workweeks of the Class

Members. The portion of the Net Settlement Fund to be allocated to the FLSA Collective will be

calculated by multiplying the amount of the Net Settlement Fund by a fraction, the numerator of

which will be the sum of the total workweeks attributable to FLSA Collective Members and the

denominator of which will be the total workweeks attributable to all Plaintiff Class Members (the

“FLSA Collective Pro Rata Distribution”). The portion of the Net Settlement Fund to be

allocated to the Rule 23 Class will be calculated by multiplying the amount of the Net Settlement

Fund by a fraction, the numerator of which will be the sum of the total workweeks attributable to

Rule 23 Class Members and the denominator of which will be the total workweeks attributable to

all Plaintiff Class Members (the “Rule 23 Pro Rata Distribution”). Individual Settlement Shares

will be based on the Settlement Class Member’s pro rata share of the applicable pro rata

distribution and will be calculated based upon the total number of weeks that the Settlement

Class Member was actively employed (i.e., not on a leave of absence) in a relevant position

during the relevant time period (“Eligible Workweeks”). More specifically, the Individual

Settlement Shares for the FLSA Collective Members will be determined by dividing the FLSA

Pro Rata Distribution by the total number of Eligible Workweeks for all FLSA Collective

Members, and then multiplying that figure by each FLSA Collective Member’s Eligible

Workweeks. Similarly, the Individual Settlement Shares for the FLSA Collective Members will

be determined by dividing the Rule 23 Pro Rata Distribution by the total number of Eligible

Workweeks for all Rule 23 Class Members, and then multiplying that figure by each Rule 23

Class Member’s Eligible Workweeks.

According to Defendant’s records, the FLSA Collective Members and Rule 23 Class

Members have worked a total of approximately 9,310 workweeks between November 23, 2010

and present. Approximately 2,450 of those workweeks are attributed to Illinois Rule 23 Class

Members, 3,850 to New York Rule 23 Class Members, and 3,010 to FLSA Collective Members.


10

41. The Parties agree that 1/3 of the amount distributed to each member of the

Settlement Class will be considered wages and will be subject to employee withholdings

required under federal, state and local laws and any other payroll charges required to be paid or

deposited with the pertinent federal, state and local taxing agencies, 1/3 of the amount distributed

to each member of the Settlement Class will be considered penalties and/or liquidated damages,

and will be reported as such to each member of the Settlement Class on an IRS Form 1099, and

1/3 of the amount distributed to each member of the Settlement Class will be considered interest,

and will be reported as such to each member of the Settlement Class on an IRS Form 1099. All

Parties represent that they have not received, and shall not rely on, advice or representations

from other parties or their agents regarding the tax treatment of payments under federal, state, or

local law.

42. No employee benefit provided by Defendant to any Settlement Class Member,

including but not limited to any 401(k) benefits, shall increase or accrue as a result of any

payment made in accordance with this Agreement.

43. The Parties are mindful that the total consideration payable hereunder is

comprised of a number of separate and distinct claims for damages and penalties by Class

Representative and the Plaintiff Class Members. Accordingly, having considered the matter in

detail, having performed their own separate and independent computations and estimation of the

damages and penalties potentially awardable to Plaintiff at trial, and having done the foregoing

with complete and satisfactory access to, and advice from, accounting and legal advisors, the

Parties mutually consent and agree that the Net Settlement Fund be apportioned among the Class

Members’ various wage and non-wage claims in this action as set forth above. Moreover, the

Parties mutually consent and agree, and hereby represent to the Court in this judicially-

supervised settlement transaction, that the apportionment of the Net Settlement Fund as stated

above is a reasonable and arm’s length determination of the character of the Individual

Settlement Shares for all purposes, including for tax purposes.

APPOINTMENT OF CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR

44. The Parties have agreed, subject to the Court’s approval, to the appointment of

KCC, LLC to perform the duties of a Claims Administrator for the purposes of verifying any

amounts due to Settlement Class Members as described in this Settlement Agreement. The

Claims Administrator will administer disbursements from the Gross Settlement Fund paid by

Defendant into the Qualified Settlement Fund, including, but not limited to, distributing the Class

Notice, calculating Individual Settlement Shares, calculating the employee’s share of payroll tax,

calculating interest owed, preparing and issuing all disbursements to be paid to Class Members,

Class Counsel, and the local state and federal payroll tax authorities, and handling inquiries

and/or disputes about the calculation of the Settlement Awards. The Claims Administrator shall

be responsible for the timely filing of all federal, state and local tax returns of the Qualified

Settlement Fund and making the timely payment of any and all taxes and withholdings required

with such returns. The Claims Administrator shall coordinate as necessary with Defendant to

report and remit all state and unemployment payroll taxes to the proper agencies. The Claims

Administrator shall establish a dedicated settlement website, an email address and toll-free

telephone number to direct inquiries regarding the Class Notice and determination of Individual

Settlement Shares. All questions by Class Members shall be directed to the Claims


11

Administrator and Class Counsel. All disputes relating to the Claims Administrator’s ability and

need to perform its duties shall be referred to the Court, if necessary, which will have continuing

jurisdiction over the terms and conditions of this Settlement Agreement, until all payments and

obligations contemplated by the Settlement Agreement have been fully carried out. All Claims

Administration Charges associated with administering disbursements from the Qualified

Settlement Fund including, but not limited to, the fees and costs of the Claims Administrator and

the cost of the Class Notice, shall be paid entirely from the Gross Settlement Fund, as set forth in

Paragraph 36, above. The Parties expect that the Claims Administrator shall conduct all

administration of all disbursements of the Gross Settlement Fund and that Class Counsel shall

receive no portion of the Claims Administration Charges paid to the Claims Administrator.

NOTICE TO THE PLAINTIFF CLASS

45. Defendant will provide to the Claims Administrator, within ten (10) calendar days

of the entry of an order granting preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement and Class

Notice, a database including the following information for each member of the Plaintiff Class:

(1) last known address, telephone number and email address, (2) Social Security number, and (3)

data pertaining to the number of weeks that each individual was actively working (i.e., not on a

leave of absence) in a position as part of the Plaintiff Class (the “Database”). Defendant agrees

to provide the Database in a format reasonably acceptable to the Claims Administrator. The

Claims Administrator will keep the Database confidential, use it only for the purposes described

herein, and return it to Defendant upon final approval of the Settlement, or otherwise certify that

it has been permanently and irreversibly destroyed. Unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, all

eligibility and settlement award determinations shall be based solely on Defendant’s employment

records.

46. FLSA Collective Members: Within fourteen (14) calendar days of receipt by the

Claims Administrator of the Database, the Claims Administrator will mail to all members of the

FLSA Collective, via First-Class United States Mail, the Court-approved Collective Notice and

Consent Form. The Collective Notice shall inform the eligible FLSA Collective Members of

their eligibility to participate in the Settlement. Prior to the mailing, the Claims Administrator

shall run the addresses through the U.S. Postal Service’s National Change of Address database

and update the Database as necessary.

47. Rule 23 Class Members: Within fourteen (14) calendar days of receipt by the

Claims Administrator of the Database, the Claims Administrator will mail to all members of the

Rule 23 Class, via First-Class United States Mail, the Court-approved Class Notices and Claim

Forms. The Class Notices shall inform the Rule 23 Class Members that, unless they follow the

procedures for opting out (described in Paragraph 57 below), they will be deemed to have

accepted the settlement and the terms of this Settlement Agreement. The Class Notices shall also

inform Rule 23 Class Members that by completing and timely submitting a Claim Form, they

will be consenting to join in the Lawsuit and release all claims under the FLSA, as described in

Paragraph 69 below. Prior to the mailing, the Claims Administrator shall run the addresses

through the U.S. Postal Service’s National Change of Address database and update the Database

as necessary.


12

48. With respect to those Plaintiff Class Members whose envelope containing the

Class Notice is returned to the Claims Administrator as undeliverable, the Claims Administrator

shall promptly attempt to obtain a valid mailing address by use of one or more skip trace

databases such as the Equifax, NCOA (“National Change of Address”) database search, and skip

trace. If another address is identified, the Claims Administrator shall immediately thereafter

send the Class Notice to the new address.

49. In addition, no later than fourteen (14) calendar days following the receipt of the

Database from Defendant, the Claims Administrator shall create and institute a dedicated

website. The dedicated website shall include: (a) a brief welcome page approved by the Parties;

(b) the Class Notice(s); (c) the Illinois Rule 23 Claim Form; (d) the New York Rule 23 Claim

Form; (e) the FLSA Claim Form; (f) contact information for Class Counsel; (g) contact

information for the Claims Administrator; and (h) all applicable deadlines. The dedicated

website shall be taken down within seven (7) calendar days following the Claim Deadline.

50. Class Counsel shall provide the Court, at least fourteen (14) calendar days prior to

the final approval hearing, a declaration by the Claims Administrator of due diligence and proof

of mailing with regard to the mailing of the Class Notice.

CLAIMS PROCESS

51. Plaintiff Class Members must comply with the following procedures to share in

disbursements from the Net Settlement Fund.

52. For FLSA Collective Members: The Consent Form must be signed by the

individual and returned to the Claims Administrator as indicated on the Collective Notice and

Consent Form no later than (60) days after the date the Claims Administrator first mails the

Collective Notice and Consent Form to the FLSA Collective Members (“Consent Deadline”).

The date of submission of a Claim Form to the Claims Administrator is deemed to be the earlier

of: (a) the date the Claim Form is deposited in the U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid, as evidenced by

the postmark; (b) the date the Claim Form is tendered to an overnight service for delivery, as

indicated by a shipping envelope; or (c) the date the Claim Form is received by the Claims

Administrator. If an FLSA Collective Member does not submit a properly completed Consent

Form on or before the Consent Deadline, the FLSA Collective Member’s Individual Settlement

Share that otherwise would have been payable to said FLSA Collective Member if a properly

completed Consent Form had been timely submitted by the FLSA Collective Member shall be

retained by Defendant. Potential FLSA Collective Members who do not submit valid consent

forms do not release any claims against the Defendant except for those FLSA Collective

Members who are also Rule 23 Class Members.

53. For Rule 23 Class Members: The Claim Form must be signed by the individual

and returned to the Claims Administrator as indicated on the Class Notice no later than 60 days

after the date the Claims Administrator first mails the Class Notice and Claim Form to the Rule

23 Class Members (the “Claim Deadline”). The Claim Form will include a written consent to

join the Lawsuit and release FLSA claims. The date of submission of a Claim Form to the

Claims Administrator is deemed to be the earlier of: (a) the date the Claim Form is deposited in

the U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid, as evidenced by the postmark; (b) the date the Claim Form is


13

tendered to an overnight service for delivery, as indicated by a shipping envelope; or (c) the date

the Claim Form is received by the Claims Administrator. Absent a showing of good cause or by

agreement of the Parties, or as otherwise ordered by the Court, no Claim Form will be honored if

postmarked after the Claim Deadline. If a Rule 23 Class Member does not submit a properly

completed Claim Form on or before the Claim Deadline, the Rule 23 Class Member’s Individual

Settlement Share, that otherwise would have been payable to said Rule 23 Class Member if a

properly completed Claim Form had been timely submitted by the Rule 23 Class Member, shall

be distributed as follows: 50% retained by Defendant and 50% redistributed on a pro rata basis to

the Rule 23 Class Members who have timely submitted Claim Forms by the Claim Deadline.

54. In the event a Consent Form or Claim Form is submitted timely but is deficient in

one or more aspects, the Claims Administrator will return the Consent Form or Claim Form to

the class member with a letter explaining the deficiencies and stating that the class member will

have (21) calendar days from the date of the deficiency notice to correct the deficiencies and

resubmit the Consent Form or Claim Form. The resubmitted Consent Form or Claim Form must

be submitted within (21) calendar days of the date of the deficiency notice to be considered

timely unless there is a showing of good cause for additional time. No Plaintiff Class Member

will be provided a second notice of deficiency.

55. The Claims Administrator will review the Consent Forms and Claim Forms and

make any calculations of payments to be distributed as described above by reviewing the

Consent Forms and Claim Forms and documentation provided by Defendant. The Claims

Administrator will certify jointly to Class Counsel and Defendant’s Counsel what claims were

timely filed.

56. Upon completion of its calculation of payments, the Claims Administrator will

provide Class Counsel and Defendant’s counsel with a report listing the amount of all payments

to be made to each Settlement Class Member. After receiving the Claims Administrator’s report,

Class Counsel and Defendant’s Counsel shall jointly review the same to determine if the

calculation of payments to class members is consistent with this Settlement.

OBJECTIONS AND REQUESTS FOR EXCLUSION FOR RULE 23 CLASS MEMBERS

57. Rule 23 Class Members may exclude themselves from the Settlement Agreement

by mailing to the Claims Administrator a request for exclusion, which expresses their desire to

be excluded from the Settlement Class, including their name (and former names, if any), current

address, telephone number, and social security number. Any such request for exclusion must be

postmarked not more than (60) calendar days after the date the Class Notice is initially mailed to

the Plaintiff Class Members. Requests to opt out of the settlement that do not include all

required information, or that are not submitted on a timely basis, will be deemed null, void, and

ineffective. Persons who are eligible to and do submit valid and timely requests to opt out of the

settlement will not participate in the settlement, nor will they be bound by the terms of the

Settlement Agreement, if it is approved, or the final Judgment in the Lawsuit. If a member of the

Plaintiff Class submits both a Claim Form and a request for exclusion, the request for exclusion

will be deemed invalid and the member’s Claim Form and release will be valid.


14

58. Rule 23 Class Members may object to the settlement by filing an objection with

the clerk of the Court (and serve it on the Claims Administrator and all counsel identified in the

notice) no later than (60) calendar days after the date the Class Notice is initially mailed to the

Plaintiff Class Members. Any Rule 23 Class Member who fails to timely file such a written

statement of his or her intention to object, or who requests to exclude themselves from the

settlement, shall be foreclosed from making any objection to this settlement, unless otherwise

ordered by the Court.

59. Counsel for the Parties shall file any response to any objections to the settlement

submitted by any Rule 23 Class Member at least fourteen (14) court days before the date of the

final approval hearing, or as otherwise ordered by the Court.

DISPUTE PROCESS

60. The Claim Forms will apprise each Rule 23 Class Member and the Consent Form

will apprise each FLSA Collective Member of their number of Eligible Workweeks and their

estimated Individual Settlement Share, assuming that all Class Members submit a Claim Form or

Consent Form, as appropriate. These calculations shall be based on Defendant’s records, as

described above in Paragraph 40.

61. If a Class Member does not wish to challenge the information set forth in the

Claim Form or Consent Form, then the member need do nothing except submit the Claim Form

or Consent Form in a timely fashion, as directed in the Class Notice or Collective Notice, and

payment will be made pursuant to this Settlement Agreement based on Defendant’s records.

62. If a Class Member wishes to challenge the information set forth in the Claim

Form or Consent Form, then the member must submit with their Claim Form or Consent Form a

written, signed challenge under penalty of perjury, along with any supporting documents to the

Claims Administrator at the address provided on the Claim Form or Consent Form within (60)

days of the date the Claim Form or Consent Form was originally mailed to the Class Member.

No dispute will be timely if submitted more than (60) calendar days after the date the Claim

Form or Consent Form was originally mailed to the Class Member. Counsel for the Parties may

stipulate to a compromise or stipulate to allow the Claims Administrator to resolve the challenge

and make a final and binding determination without hearing or right of appeal. Thereafter, the

Claims Administrator shall inform the member whether his or her dispute was resolved in his or

her favor within ten (10) days after the challenge is made. In the case of a dispute, the Class

Member shall have the burden of proof to show that Defendant’s records are incorrect. If any

other dispute arises with regard to the propriety of a Claim Form, counsel for the Parties may

stipulate to a compromise or stipulate to allow the Claims Administrator to resolve the dispute

and make a final and binding determination without hearing or right of appeal. Engaging in the

dispute process set forth in this paragraph does not extend the time to opt out of the class.

FUNDING OF SETTLEMENT AND DISBURSEMENTS

63. Funding of Qualified Settlement Fund. Within (15) calendar days after the

Effective Date, Defendant shall wire money to the Claims Administrator for deposit into the

Qualified Settlement Fund in an amount equal to the total of all Individual Settlement Awards


15

for which Class Members have submitted Claim Forms or Consent Forms (including 50% of any

unclaimed funds for the Illinois Rule 23 Class and New York Rule 23 Class to be redistributed

on a pro rata basis to the Rule 23 Class Members who have timely submitted claim forms as set

forth above in paragraph 53), court-ordered Attorneys’ Fees and Costs, court-ordered

enhancement payment to the Class Representative, and the employer’s share of payroll taxes

attributable to the Individual Settlement Awards for which Class Members have submitted Claim

Forms or Consent Forms.

64. Disbursement of Settlement Awards, Attorneys’ Fees and Costs, and

Enhancements. No later than ten (10) calendar days after Defendant has wired the amount

described in Paragraph 63 into the Qualified Settlement Fund, the Claims Administrator shall

issue and mail the checks representing the Individual Settlement Shares to the Settlement Class

Members, as well as disburse any court-approved attorney’s fees and costs, Claims

Administration Charges, and court-approved enhancement payments. The mailing of Individual

Settlement Shares shall be by first-class United States mail to the last known mailing address of

each Settlement Class Member. Class Counsel shall be paid wire transfer per the written

instructions provided by Class Counsel to the Claims Administrator. The mailing of any

enhancement payments shall be by first-class United States mail to Class Counsel.

65. The Claims Administrator shall make the required payments as set forth in the

Court’s Final Order and Judgment. The Claims Administrator must keep counsel for the Parties

apprised of all distributions of Individual Settlement Shares and, upon completion of the mailing

of the Individual Settlement Shares, the Claims Administrator shall promptly provide a written

report to counsel for the Parties showing all payments made to Settlement Class Members, tax

authorities, Plaintiff, Class Counsel, and the Claims Administrator.

66. Checks to the Settlement Class Members shall remain valid and negotiable for 90

days from the date of their issuance and may thereafter automatically be canceled if not cashed

within that time period. The Claims Administrator shall provide a list of any settlement checks

that are not cashed/negotiated (“Uncashed Checks”) to counsel for the Parties at the conclusion

of the 90-day period. Within 10 days of the expiration of the 90-day period, the Claims

Administrator shall transfer any funds from Uncashed Checks as follows:

a. For any Uncashed Checks to the Illinois Rule 23 Class Members, the Claims

Administrator shall transfer any funds to the State of Illinois Unclaimed Property

Fund for the benefit of the Rule 23 Class Member(s).

b. For any Uncashed Checks to the New York Rule 23 Class Members, the Claims

Administrator shall transfer any funds to the State of New York Unclaimed

Property Fund for the benefit of the Rule 23 Class Member(s).

c. For any Uncashed Checks to the FLSA Collective Members, the funds shall revert

to Defendant.

67. Upon completion of the administration of the settlement under this Settlement

Agreement, the Claims Administrator shall provide to Defendant’s Counsel the following: (a)

specimens of all form documents sent to Class Members, including the Class Notice(s), Claim


16

Forms and Consent Form; (b) copies of all non-privileged documents actually sent to the Class

Members, including without limitation, those itemized in (a), supra; and (c) a register listing all

Settlement Class Members and the payment made to each Settlement Class Member under this

settlement. In addition, the Claims Administrator shall provide to Defendant a register of all

Rule 23 Class Members who excluded themselves from the settlement.

RELEASE OF CLAIMS

68. Rule 23 Class Members: Upon the final approval by the Court of this Settlement

Agreement, and except as to such rights or claims as may be created by this Settlement

Agreement, all Rule 23 Class Members who have not opted out of the settlement, regardless of

whether that member submitted a timely claim, fully release and discharge Defendant and

Defendant’s present and former parent companies (including Bank of America Corporation),

subsidiaries, shareholders, officers, directors, employees, agents, registered representatives,

attorneys, insurers, successors and assigns (“Releasees”), from any and all individual and class

claims, debts, liabilities, demands, obligations, penalties, guarantees, costs, expenses, attorneys’

fees, damages, action or causes of action of whatever kind or nature, whether known or

unknown, that were alleged in the Lawsuit, including, but not limited to any claims under federal

or state law that are alleged in the Complaint, SAC, or TAC, or could have been alleged based

upon the facts alleged in the Complaint, SAC, or TAC, i.e., that the Plaintiff Class Members

were misclassified as exempt from overtime under either Illinois or New York law (the

“Released Claims”). The Released Claims include, but are not necessarily limited to, any claim

for violation of any federal, state, or local statute, rule, or regulation relating to the designation or

treatment as exempt from overtime. This includes claims under Illinois and New York state laws

for alleged failure to pay minimum or overtime wages and for any statutory or civil penalties

under any statute, ordinance, or otherwise arising from or related to the classification as exempt

from overtime. All Rule 23 Class Members who have not opted out of the settlement and who

submit a timely Claim Form will, in addition to the Released Claims, fully release and discharge

Defendant and all Releasees from any and all claims under the FLSA for alleged failure to pay

minimum or overtime wages and for any statutory or civil penalties and liquidated damages

arising from or related to the classification as exempt from the FLSA.

69. FLSA Collective Members: Upon the final approval by the Court of this

Settlement Agreement, and except as to such rights or claims as may be created by this

Settlement Agreement, all FLSA Collective Members who have timely opted in to the settlement

will fully release and discharge Defendant and Defendant’s present and former parent companies

(including Bank of America Corporation), subsidiaries, shareholders, officers, directors,

employees, agents, registered representatives, attorneys, insurers, successors and assigns

(“Releasees”), from any and all individual and class claims, debts, liabilities, demands,

obligations, penalties, guarantees, costs, expenses, attorneys’ fees, damages, action or causes of

action of whatever kind or nature, whether known or unknown, that were alleged in the Lawsuit,

including, but not limited to any claims under federal or state law that are alleged in the

Complaint, SAC, or TAC, or could have been alleged based upon the facts alleged in the

Complaint, SAC, or TAC, i.e., that the Plaintiff Class Members were misclassified as exempt

from overtime (the “Released Claims”). The Released Claims include, but are not necessarily

limited to, any claim for violation of any federal, state, or local statute, rule, or regulation

relating to the designation or treatment as exempt from the FLSA. This includes claims under


17

FLSA Collective Members’ respective governing state or local laws for alleged failure to pay

minimum or overtime wages and for any statutory or civil penalties under any statute, ordinance,

or otherwise arising from or related to the classification as exempt from overtime, exclusively for

the same time period covering the FLSA Collective Member’s claims released under the FLSA.

70. The Parties stipulate that beyond the Gross Settlement Fund, Defendant shall not

owe any further monies to the Class Representative, Settlement Class Members, or to Class

Counsel based upon the claims made and facts alleged in the Lawsuit.

71. It is the desire of the Parties to fully, finally, and forever settle, compromise, and

discharge the Released Claims. Upon entry of an order granting final approval and judgment in

the Action, Class Representative and each and every Settlement Class Member shall be bound by

the terms of this Settlement Agreement and shall have recourse exclusively to the benefits,

rights, and remedies provided hereunder. Class Representative and each and every Settlement

Class Member shall be deemed to have, and by operation of the judgment and final approval

order entered by the Court shall have fully, finally, and forever released, relinquished, and

discharged each and all of the Released Parties from any and all Released Claims through the

date of entry of Judgment in the Lawsuit.

72. Upon final approval by the Court of this Settlement Agreement, and for and in

consideration of the payment of an enhancement payment to the Class Representative for

services performed on behalf of the Plaintiff Class Members, the Class Representative, and her

respective heirs, representatives, attorneys, administrators, executors, successors and assigns,

fully release and discharge Releasees from any and all actions, causes of action, grievances,

obligations, costs, expenses, damages, losses, claims, liabilities, suits, debts, demands, and

benefits (including attorneys’ fees and costs actually incurred), of whatever character, in law or

in equity, known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, matured or unmatured, of any kind or

nature whatsoever, based on any act, omission, event, occurrence, or nonoccurrence from the

beginning of time to the effective date of this Agreement, including but not limited to any claims

or causes of action arising out of or in any way relating to the Class Representative’s

employment relationship with Defendant or any Releasee. The Class Representative agrees that

this release of claims includes, but is not limited to, claims for breach of any implied or express

contract or covenant; claims for promissory estoppel; claims of entitlement to any pay; claims of

wrongful denial of insurance and employee benefits; claims for wrongful termination, public

policy violations, defamation, invasion of privacy, emotional distress or other common law or

tort matters; claims of harassment, retaliation, or discrimination under federal, state, or local law;

claims based on any federal, state, or other governmental statute, regulation or ordinance,

including, without limitation, the FLSA, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, as amended, the Age

Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”), as amended, the Americans with

Disabilities Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Illinois Human Rights Act, the IMWL,

the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act and the Employee Retirement Income Security

Act.

73. In addition to Class Representative’s full and general release, Class

Representative agrees that she will not at any time in the future, seek, apply for, or accept

employment with Defendant or any of their parent companies or subsidiaries.


18

VOIDING THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

74. If the Court does not approve any material condition of this Settlement Agreement or

effects a fundamental change of the Settlement Agreement, the entire Settlement Agreement will

be voidable and unenforceable. The Parties expressly agree that the Court’s approval or denial

of any request for attorneys’ fees and costs or any enhancement payment to the Class

Representative are not material conditions to this agreement, and are to be considered by the

Court separately from the fairness, reasonableness, adequacy, and good faith of the settlement.

75. If 10% or more of the Rule 23 Class Members do not participate in this settlement

by excluding themselves from the Rule 23 settlement or 90% or more of the FLSA Collective

Members do not participate in this settlement by failing to opt-in to the FLSA settlement, then

Defendant may withdraw from and void this Settlement Agreement by providing notice to Class

Counsel and to the Court within seven (7) calendar days after the Claims Administrator provides

the parties with a list of all Rule 23 Class Members who have opted out of the settlement and

FLSA Collective Members who have failed to opt-in to the settlement. The Parties agree not to

encourage any Rule 23 Class Member to opt out of the settlement and any FLSA Collective

Member to not opt in to the settlement.

MUTUAL FULL COOPERATION

76. The Parties agree to fully cooperate with each other to accomplish the terms of

this Settlement Agreement, including but not limited to, execution of such documents as may

reasonably be necessary to implement the terms of this Settlement Agreement. The Parties to

this Settlement Agreement shall use their best efforts, including all efforts contemplated by this

Settlement Agreement and any other efforts that may become necessary by order of the Court, or

otherwise, to effectuate this Settlement Agreement. As soon as practicable after execution of this

Settlement Agreement, Class Counsel shall, with the assistance and cooperation of Defendant’s

Counsel, take all necessary steps to secure the Court’s final approval of this Settlement

Agreement.

NO ADMISSION OF LIABILITY

77. Each of the Parties has entered into this Settlement Agreement with the intention

to avoid further disputes and litigation with the attendant risk, inconvenience and expense.

Nothing contained herein, nor the consummation of this Settlement Agreement, is to be

construed or deemed an admission of liability, culpability, negligence, or wrongdoing on the part

of Defendant. This Settlement Agreement is a settlement document and shall, pursuant to

Illinois Rules of Evidence 408, New York Civil Practice Law and Rules § 4547 and Federal Rule

of Evidence 408, be inadmissible in evidence in any proceeding. The preceding sentence shall

not apply to an action or proceeding to approve, interpret, or enforce this Settlement Agreement.

CONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETATION

78. The Parties agree that the terms and conditions of this Settlement Agreement are

the result of lengthy, intensive arms-length negotiations between the Parties and that this

Settlement Agreement shall not be construed in favor of or against any of the Parties by reason

of their participation in the drafting of this Settlement Agreement


19

79. Paragraph titles are inserted as a matter of convenience and for reference, and in

no way define, limit, extend, or describe the scope of this Settlement Agreement or any of its

provisions. Each term of this Settlement Agreement is contractual and not merely a recital.

80. This Agreement shall be subject to and governed by the laws of the State of

Illinois and subject to the continuing jurisdiction of the United States District Court, Northern

District of Illinois.

MODIFICATION

81. This Settlement Agreement may not be changed, altered, or modified, except in

writing and signed by counsel for the Parties, and approved by the Court. This Settlement

Agreement may not be discharged except by performance in accordance with its terms or by a

writing signed by counsel for the Parties.

INTEGRATION CLAUSE

82. This Settlement Agreement contains the entire agreement between the Parties

relating to any and all matters addressed in the Settlement Agreement, and all prior or

contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations, and statements, whether oral or

written and whether by a party or such party’s legal counsel, with respect to such matters are

extinguished. No rights hereunder may be waived or modified except in a writing signed by all

Parties.

BINDING ON ASSIGNS

83. This Settlement Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the

Parties and their respective heirs, trustees, executors, administrators, successors and assigns.

EFFECT OF NOTICE

84. It is agreed that it is impossible or impractical to have each member of the class

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

binding nature of the release and such shall have the same force and effect as if each member of

the class executed this Settlement Agreement.

EACH PARTY TO BEAR OWN COSTS

85. Except as specifically provided herein, the Parties hereto will bear responsibility

for their own attorneys’ fees and costs, taxable or otherwise, incurred by them or arising out of

this Lawsuit, and will not seek reimbursement thereof from any Party to this Settlement

Agreement.

CONFIDENTIALITY

86. The Parties and their counsel agree that they will not issue any press releases or

press statements, post any internet disclosures, have any communications with the press or media

about this Settlement Agreement, or otherwise publicize the terms of this Settlement Agreement


20

in any medium, including but not limited to internet blogs or chat rooms, Facebook, or a law firm

website, prior to the entry by the Court of an order granting preliminary approval. If counsel for

either Party receives an inquiry about settlement from the media, counsel may respond only after

the motion for preliminary approval has been filed and only by confirming the terms of the

settlement. Thereafter, Plaintiff and her counsel agree not to issue press releases, hold any press

conferences, or otherwise actively publicize the settlement (except on Class Counsel’s public

website through webpages and links intended to inform class members about the settlement and

its terms, the Court’s orders in the case, and to maximize participation in the settlement).

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Parties shall have the right to disclose this Settlement

Agreement as may be required under federal or state tax and/or securities laws or under generally

accepted accounting principles, and may disclose in legal proceedings the terms of this


STAY OF PROCEEDINGS

87. The Parties agree to stay all proceedings in the Lawsuit, except such proceedings

as may be necessary to implement the Settlement Agreement, until the Effective Date or until the

Settlement Agreement is voided or not approved.

88. The Court shall retain jurisdiction with respect to the interpretation,

implementation and enforcement of the terms of this Settlement Agreement and all orders and

judgments entered in connection therewith, and the Parties and their counsel hereto submit to the

jurisdiction of the Court for purposes of interpreting, implementing and enforcing the settlement

embodied in this Settlement Agreement and all orders and judgments entered in connection

therewith.

PARTIES’ AUTHORITY

89. The signatories represent that they are fully authorized to enter into this

Settlement Agreement and bind the Parties to its terms and conditions.

COUNTERPARTS

90. This Settlement Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts and by

facsimile or email. All executed counterparts and each of them shall be deemed to be one and

the same instrument provided that counsel for the Parties to this Settlement Agreement shall

exchange among themselves signed counterparts.

[signatures appear on following pages]


21

IT IS SO STIPULATED AND AGREED:

PLAINTIFF/CLASS REPRESENTATIVE AND CLASS COUNSEL

Dated: Stephan Zouras, LLP

By: _________________

Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.

Stephan Zouras, LLP

205 N. Michigan Ave., Ste. 2560

Chicago, Illinois 60602

Telephone: (312) 233-1550

Facsimile: (312) 698-4562

[email protected]

[email protected]

Dated: ___________________________________

Arlene Kaminski

Plaintiff/Class Representative

DEFENDANT AND COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT

Dated: MCGUIREWOODS LLP

By: _________________

Michael D. Mandel, Esq.

MCGUIREWOODS LLP

1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90067

Telephone: (310) 315-8200

Facsimile: (310) 956.3113

[email protected]

Attorneys for Defendant

Dated: BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.

By: __________________

Title: _______________________________

DocuSign Envelope ID: 27F03EC4-F73F-48F5-84E9-90ACEDD16BFC

10/23/2017

DocuSign Envelope ID: 0B2C9EE3-4A60-4A11-89CB-4ABD40764BE6

10/26/2017

Case: 1:16-cv-10844 Document #: 34-1 Filed: 10/27/17 Page 22 of 23 PageID #:194


EXHIBIT A to EXHIBIT 1


1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

ARLENE KAMINSKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendant.

))))))))))))

Case No. 1:16-cv-10844 Honorable Judge Robert W. Gettleman COLLECTIVE ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

THIRD AMENDED COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

Representative Plaintiff, Arlene Kaminski (“Plaintiff”), individually and on behalf of all

other similarly situated employees, by and through her counsel, brings claims as a Collective

Action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§201 et seq. (the “FLSA”), and as a

Class Action pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23 and in accordance with

Illinois and New York state wage and hour law against Defendant, its subsidiaries and affiliates,

and allege, upon personal belief as to Plaintiff and her own acts, and as for all other matters, upon

information and belief, and based upon the investigation made by Plaintiff’s counsel, as follows:

NATURE OF ACTION

1. Plaintiff contends that Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29

U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq. (“FLSA”), the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (“IMWL”), 820 ILCS §§105

et seq., and Articles 6 and 19 of the New York Labor Law and the New York Codes, Rules and

Regulations Subpart 142-2.2, 12 NYCRR 142 (“NYLL”), by knowingly suffering or permitting

Plaintiff and the Class members to work in excess of 40 hours per week without properly

compensating them at an overtime rate for those additional hours.


2

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 29 U.S.C.

§216(b), which provides that suit under the FLSA “may be maintained against any employer… in

any Federal or State court of competent jurisdiction.” The Representative Plaintiff has signed an

opt-in consent form to join this lawsuit. (Dkt. 1-1).

3. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331

because Plaintiffs’ claims arise under the FLSA and also pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332(a)(1),

because the matter in controversy in this civil action exceeds $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and

costs and the parties are residents of different states.

4. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. §1367.

5. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b), because Defendant

resides in, and does business within, this District and because the actions and omissions giving rise

to the claims pled in this Complaint occurred within this District.

PARTIES

6. Named Plaintiff, Arlene Kaminski is a resident of Illinois and worked for

Defendant in its Chicago, Illinois office as a Senior Specialist-Securities, Operations Market

Professional, during the applicable statute of limitations period. Throughout this period, Plaintiff

was an “employee” as defined by the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §203(e)(1).

7. Defendant, Bank of America, N. A. is a Delaware corporation with its principal

place of business located in Charlotte, North Carolina. Defendant provides banking and corporate

account services to customers throughout this District and nationwide.


3

8. Specifically, Plaintiff was employed at Defendant’s Chicago Financial Center

headquarters, located at 135 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois. At all times relevant,

Defendant was Plaintiff’s “employer” as defined by the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §203(d) and was

actively engaged in the conduct described herein. Throughout the relevant period, Defendant

employed Plaintiff and similarly situated employees within the meaning of the FLSA.

FACTS

9. Plaintiff and class members (“Plaintiffs”) are individuals who have worked for

Defendant as Senior Specialist-Securities, Operation Market Professionals, or any other similarly

titled position during the statutory period (hereinafter referred to as “OPMs”). Plaintiffs all shared

similar job titles, training, job descriptions, job requirements and compensation plans, amongst

other things.

10. Plaintiff and other similarly situated OPMs’ primary duty involved servicing

Defendant’s customers. More specifically, Plaintiff and other similarly situated OPMs handled

email and executed requests from Defendant’s customers related to their accounts. Plaintiff and

other similarly situated OPMs also managed Defendant’s customer’s accounts. More specifically,

Plaintiff and other similarly situated OPMs managed escrow accounts from pay agencies,

transferred or sent out funds, made payments on bonds, and made principal and interest payments,

among other things.

11. Defendant managed Plaintiff’s work, including the amount of hours worked by

OPMs. Defendant dictated, controlled and ratified the wage and hour and all related employee

compensation policies.

12. Under Defendant’s uniform policy, Plaintiff and other similarly situated OPMs

were compensated on a salary basis, based on a 40 hour workweek. Nonetheless, Defendant


4

encouraged, required and/or permitted Plaintiff and other similarly situated OPMs to work more

than 40 hours per week.

13. Plaintiffs regularly worked more than 40 hours per week and at times more than 50

hours per week.

14. Defendant misclassified Plaintiffs as exempt from the FLSA and the IMWL even

though Plaintiffs did not meet any tests for exemption.

15. Defendant violated the FLSA and IMWL by not paying Plaintiffs an overtime

premium when they worked more than 40 hours per week.

16. Defendant knew, and was aware at all times, of the above-mentioned violations.

17. The conduct alleged above reduced Defendant’s labor and payroll costs.

18. Plaintiff and class members were subject to Defendant’s uniform policies and

practices and were victims of Defendant’s schemes to deprive them of overtime compensation. As

a result of Defendant’s improper and willful failure to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated

OPMs in accordance with the requirements of the FLSA and IMWL, Plaintiffs and class members

suffered lost wages and other damages.

FLSA COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS

19. Plaintiff brings this collective action for herself and all others similarly situated

pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216(b) to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages and other

damages related to Defendant’s violation of the FLSA.

20. Plaintiff pursues the requested relief on behalf of the following Class:

All individuals who currently work, or have worked, for the Defendant as a Senior Specialist-Securities, Operations Market Professionals, or any other similarly titled position during the applicable statute of limitations period and performed overtime work without receiving all wages owed for such work.


5

21. Representative Plaintiff is a member of the Class with whom she seeks to represent

because Plaintiff was employed by Defendant during the relevant period, was misclassified as

exempt, was routinely suffered or permitted to work more than 40 hours per week and was not

paid overtime for any time worked over 40 hours per week.

22. Specifically, even though they did not satisfy any test for exemption, Defendant

engaged in a common scheme to misclassify Plaintiff and other Class members as exempt to avoid

paying them overtime pay when they worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

23. Although Plaintiff and the Class members may have had different job titles and/or

worked in different locations throughout the relevant period, this action may be properly

maintained as a collective action because:

a. Plaintiff and the Class members were all paid a salary based on a 40 hour workweek.

b. Plaintiff and the Class members worked in excess of 40 hours per week;

c. Defendant misclassified Plaintiff and Class members as exempt from the FLSA;

d. Regardless of their job title or location, Defendant did not pay Plaintiff and

the Class members an overtime premium of 1½ times their regular hourly rate for all time worked in excess of 40 hours per week; and

e. Defendant maintained common timekeeping and payroll systems and

policies with respect to Plaintiff and the Class members, regardless of their job title or location.

24. Defendant encouraged, suffered and permitted the Representative Plaintiff and the

collective class to work more than forty (40) hours per week without proper overtime

compensation.

25. Defendant knew that Representative Plaintiff and the collective class members

performed work that required additional wages and overtime compensation to be paid.


6

Nonetheless, Defendant operated under a scheme, as described above, to deprive the

Representative Plaintiff and the collective class of wages and overtime compensation.

26. Defendant’s conduct, as alleged herein, was willful and has caused significant

damage to Representative Plaintiff and the collective class.

27. Defendant is liable under the FLSA for failing to properly compensate

Representative Plaintiffs and the collective class. Plaintiffs request that the Court authorize notice

to the members of the collective class to inform them of the pendency of this action and their right

to “opt-in” to this lawsuit pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216(b), for the purpose of seeking unpaid wages,

unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages under the FLSA, and the other relief requested

herein.

28. Plaintiff estimates that the Class, including both current and former employees over

the relevant period, will include at least fifty (50) members. The precise number of Class members

should be readily available from Defendant’s personnel, scheduling, time and payroll records, and

from input received from the class members as part of the notice and “opt-in” process provided by

29 U.S.C. §216(b). Given the composition and size of the Class, its members may be informed of

the pendency of this action directly via U.S. mail, e-mail and by posting notice in Defendant’s

offices.

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

29. The Representative Plaintiff brings claims for relief on her own and as a class action

pursuant to Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b). The class is defined as:

All individuals who currently work, or have worked, for the Defendant as a Senior Specialist-Securities, Operations Market Professionals, or any other similarly titled position, in the states of Illinois and New York during the applicable statute of limitations period and performed overtime work without receiving all wages owed for such work.


7

30. This action is properly maintainable as a class action because:

a. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable;

b. There are questions of law or fact that are common to the class;

c. The claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and

d. The Representative Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

Numerosity

31. On information and belief, the total number of putative class members represents

at least 50 individuals. The exact number of class members may be determined from Defendant’s

records.

Commonality

32. There are numerous and substantial questions of law and fact common to

members of the state classes including, but not limited to, the following:

a. Whether Plaintiff and the Class members were all paid a salary based on a 40 hour workweek;

b. Whether Plaintiff and the Class members, by definition, all worked in excess of 40 hours per week;

c. Whether Defendant misclassified Plaintiff and Class members as exempt

from the FLSA;

d. Whether Defendant maintained common timekeeping and payroll systems and policies with respect to Plaintiff and the Class members, regardless of their job title or location.

e. Whether Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and the Class members, an

overtime premium of 1½ times their regular hourly rate for all time worked in excess of 40 hours per week; and

f. Whether Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and class members all compensation rightfully owed.


8

33. Plaintiff anticipates that Defendant will raise defenses that are common to the class.

Adequacy

34. The Representative Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the

class. Plaintiff has retained experienced counsel who are competent in the prosecution of complex

litigation and who have experience acting as class counsel specifically in wage and hour litigation.

Typicality

35. The claims asserted by the Representative Plaintiff are typical of the class members

she seeks to represent. The Representative Plaintiff has the same interests and suffers from the

same injuries as the class members.

36. Upon information and belief, there are no other class members who have an interest

individually controlling the prosecution of his or her individual claims, especially in light of the

relatively small value of each claim and the difficulties involved in bringing individual litigation

against one’s employer. However, if any such class member should become known, he or she can

opt out of this action pursuant to Rule 23.

Common Questions of Law and Fact Predominate and a Class Action is Superior to Joinder of Claims or Individual Lawsuits

37. The numerous common questions of law and fact set forth in the commonality

discussion above predominate over individual questions because Defendant’s alleged underlying

activities and impact of its policies and practices affected class members in the same manner: they

were subjected to a policy of suffering overtime work without overtime pay.

38. A class action is superior to other available means for the fair and efficient

adjudication of this controversy because the individual joinder of the parties is impracticable.

Class action treatment will allow a large number of similarly situated persons to prosecute their

common claims in a single forum simultaneously, efficiently and without the unnecessary


9

duplication of effort and expenses if these claims were brought individually. Moreover, as the

damages suffered by each class member may be relatively small, the expenses and burden of

individual litigation would make it difficult for plaintiffs to bring individual claims. The

presentation of separate actions by individual class members could create a risk of inconsistent

and varying adjudications, establish incompatible standards of conduct for Defendant and/or

substantially impair or impede the ability of class members to protect their interests.

COUNT I

VIOLATION OF THE FLSA

39. Each of the preceding paragraphs is incorporated by reference as though fully set

forth herein.

40. Defendant operates an “enterprise” as defined by Section 3(r)(1) of the FLSA, 29

U.S.C. § 203(r)(1), and is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 3(s)(1)(A), 29

U.S.C. § 203(s)(1)(A).

41. Plaintiff and the Class members are similarly situated individuals within the

meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §216(b).

42. FLSA Section 207(a)(1) states that an employee must be paid an overtime rate,

equal to at least 1½ times the employee’s regular rate of pay, for all hours worked in excess of 40

hours per week.

43. Throughout the relevant period, Defendant violated the FLSA by engaging in a

common scheme to misclassify Plaintiff and the Class members as exempt from the FLSA’s

overtime pay requirement, even though they did not satisfy any test for exemption.

44. Throughout the relevant period, Defendant violated the FLSA by routinely

suffering or permitting Plaintiff and the Class members to work overtime hours per week without

paying them overtime wages for these hours.


10

45. Throughout the relevant period, Plaintiff and the Class members worked in excess

of 40 hours per week, but were not paid an overtime premium of 1½ times their regular hourly rate

for those additional hours.

46. Plaintiff and the Class members have been harmed as a direct and proximate result

of Defendant’s unlawful conduct because they have been deprived of overtime wages owed for

time worked in excess of 40 hours per week from which Defendant derived a direct and substantial

benefit.

COUNT II

VIOLATION OF ILLINOIS MINIMUM WAGE LAW

47. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.

48. Plaintiff is a member of a class that meets the requirements for certification and

maintenance of a class action pursuant to Rule 23.

49. Defendant is an “employer” and Plaintiff and class members are “employees” under

Illinois Minimum Wage Law (“IMWL”), 820 ILCS §§105 et seq.

50. The IMWL, 820 ILCS §§105 et seq., requires employers to pay employees

minimum wages for all hours worked. Section 105/4(a) of the IMWL requires employers to pay

employees one and one half times their regular rate for all hours worked over forty (40) per work

week. Section 105/12 of the IMWL provides that employers who violate the provisions of this act

are liable to affected employees for unpaid wages, costs, attorney’s fees, damages of 2% of the

amount of any such underpayment for each month following the date of underpayments and other

appropriate relief.

51. Defendant violated the IMWL, 820 ILCS §§105 et seq., by engaging in a common

scheme to misclassify Plaintiff and the Class members as exempt from the IMWL’s overtime pay

requirement, even though they did not satisfy any test for exemption.


11

52. Throughout the relevant period, Defendant violated the IMWL by routinely

suffering or permitting Plaintiff and the Class members to work overtime hours per week without

paying them overtime wages for these hours.

53. Throughout the relevant period, Plaintiff and the Class members worked in excess

of 40 hours per week, but were not paid an overtime premium of 1½ times their regular hourly rate

for those additional hours.

54. Plaintiff and the Class members have been harmed as a direct and proximate result

of Defendant’s unlawful conduct because they have been deprived of overtime wages owed for

time worked in excess of 40 hours per week from which Defendant derived a direct and substantial

benefit. Defendant also failed to pay overtime pay and other benefits to Plaintiffs and class

members.

55. Plaintiff and class members are also entitled to injunctive relief to prevent

Defendant from continuing their violation of these statutory provisions and other appropriate class-

wide injunctive relief.

COUNT III VIOLATION OF THE NEW YORK LABOR ARTICLES 6 & 19


57. Under New York law, an employee must be paid overtime, equal to one and one-

half times the employee’s regular rate of pay, for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week in the

manner and methods provided by the FLSA. 12 NYCRR § 142-2.2.

58. By engaging in the above-alleged conduct, Defendant has failed to pay members of

the New York Class overtime compensation as required by the NYLL.


12

59. Members of the New York Class are victims of a uniform, company-wide

compensation policy that has been applied to all members of the Class and has deprived them of

earned overtime compensation.

60. Defendant has acted willfully and has either known that its conduct violated the

NYLL, or has shown a reckless disregard for the matter of whether its conduct violated the NYLL.

Defendant has not acted in good faith with respect to the conduct alleged herein.

61. As a result of Defendant’s violations of the NYLL, the members of the New York

Class have suffered harm and are entitled to recoup their unpaid wages and other losses in an

amount to be determined at trial, along with liquidated damages, interest and reasonable attorneys’

fees and costs.

COUNT IV NEW YORK LABOR LAW SECTION 195


63. Defendant has failed to pay members of the New York Class all wages, including

overtime wages, for all the hours they worked for Defendant. NYLL requires that wages be paid

on an employer’s regular payday for all hours worked.

64. Due to Defendant’s violations of the NYLL, members of the New York Class, are

entitled to recover from Defendant unpaid wages, reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, pre- and post-

judgment interest.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, ARLENE KAMINSKI, individually and on behalf of all

others similarly situated, by and through her attorneys, demand judgment against the Defendant

and in favor of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated, for a sum that will properly, adequately


13

and completely compensate Plaintiff for the nature, extent and duration of her damages, the costs

of this action and as follows:

A. Order the Defendant to file with this Court and furnish to counsel a list of all names, telephone numbers, email addresses and home addresses of all Senior Specialist-Securities, Operations Market Specialists, or any other similarly titled position who have worked for the Defendant within the last three years;

B. Authorize Plaintiffs’ counsel to issue notice at the earliest possible time to all Senior

Specialist-Securities, Operations Market Specialists, or any other similarly titled position who have worked for the Defendant within the last three years, informing them that this action has been filed, of the nature of the action, and of their right to opt-in to this lawsuit if they were deprived of regular wages and overtime compensation, as required by the FLSA;

C. Certify Count I as a collective action and Counts II-IV as a class action;

D. Appoint Stephan Zouras, LLP as counsel for the Plaintiffs; E. Declare and find that the Defendant committed one or more of the following acts:

i. Violated provisions of the FLSA by failing to pay regular wages, overtime wages and other benefits to Plaintiffs and similarly situated persons who opt-in to this action;

ii. Willfully violated provisions of the FLSA; and

iii. Violated the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, 820 ILCS §105 et seq. and

provisions of the New York Labor Laws by failing to pay overtime wages to Plaintiff and class members.

F. Award compensatory damages, including all pay owed and wrongful deductions

made, in an amount according to proof;

G. Award 2% per month interest on all overtime compensation due accruing from the date such amounts were due until it is paid;

H. Award all damages provided by statute for Defendant’s violation of New York

Labor Law Article 6 §195; I. Award liquidated damages on all compensation due accruing from the date such

amounts were due;

J. Award all costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred prosecuting this claim;


14

K. Grant leave to amend to add claims under applicable state and federal laws; L. Grant leave to add additional plaintiffs by motion, the filing of written consent

forms, or any other method approved by the Court; and M. For such further relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

Dated: October 26, 2017 Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Ryan F. Stephan Ryan F. Stephan Catherine T. Mitchell Stephan Zouras, LLP 205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560 Chicago, Illinois 60601 312-233-1550

[email protected] [email protected]

ATTORNEYS FOR THE PLAINTIFFS


EXHIBIT B to EXHIBIT 1


NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT Kaminski v. Bank of America, N.A., Case No. 1:16-cv-10844 (N.D. Ill.)

To all persons employed by BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. as Senior Specialists-Securities and/or Operations Market Professionals in Illinois, who worked in the internal job code OS005 and who reported through the same management chains as Plaintiff, (the “Class”) from November 23, 2013 through <<the date the Court grants preliminary approval of the settlement>> (the “Class Period”): YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO MONEY FROM THIS PROPOSED SETTLEMENT.

A federal court authorized this notice. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer.

Your legal rights are affected whether you act or do not act. Please read this notice carefully to understand your options and the deadlines to exercise them.

This notice summarizes the proposed settlement. For the precise terms and conditions of the settlement, please see the settlement agreement available at www.____________.com or by

contacting Plaintiff’s counsel at the telephone number and address provided below. If you wish to make a claim, you must submit your claim form as explained below no later than <<60 calendar days after notice is mailed>>. That is the only way to get a payment under this proposed settlement.

WHAT IS THIS LAWSUIT ABOUT? This notice is related to a case called Kaminski v. Bank of America, N.A., Case No. 1:16-cv-10844 (referred to as the “Lawsuit”). The Lawsuit is now pending before Judge Robert W. Gettleman in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. In this Lawsuit, Plaintiff claims that Bank of America, N.A. (“Bank of America” or “Defendant”) misclassified her and all other Senior Specialists-Securities and/or Operations Market Professionals (collectively “OMPs”), who worked in the internal job code OS005 in the state of Illinois and who reported through the same management chains as Plaintiff, as overtime-exempt employees. Plaintiff asserts that the Class members are entitled to overtime wages and related damages. Plaintiff brings claims on behalf of herself and the Class members for: (1) overtime wages pursuant to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.; (2) overtime wages pursuant to the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (“IMWL”), 820 ILCS §§ 105 et seq.; and (3) overtime wages pursuant to Articles 6 and 19 of the New York Labor Law and the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations Subpart 142-2.2, 12 NYCRR 142 (“NYLL”). Plaintiff seeks relief for herself and Class members in the form of overtime wages, liquidated damages, interest, restitution, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. Bank of America denies that it has violated the law in any manner. Bank of America asserts that it has paid Plaintiff and the members of the Class all wages in the manner required by law. Nothing contained herein, nor the consummation of this settlement, is to be construed or deemed an admission of liability, culpability, negligence, or wrongdoing on the part of Bank of America.

WHO IS INCLUDED IN THIS SETTLEMENT? This Settlement includes three groups:

All current and former Operations Market Professionals employed by Defendant in the


State of Illinois in the internal job code OS005 who reported through the same management chains as Plaintiff from November 23, 2013 through and including the date the Court enters an Order preliminarily approving the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement and as set forth in Exhibit H to the Settlement Agreement. (the “Illinois Rule 23 Class”). All current and former Operations Market Professionals employed by Defendant in the State of New York in the internal job code OS005 who reported through the same management chains as Plaintiff from November 23, 2010 through and including the date the Court enters an Order preliminarily approving the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement and as set forth in Exhibit H to the Settlement Agreement (the “New York Rule 23 Class”). All current and former Operations Market Professionals employed by Defendant nationwide in the internal job code OS005 who reported through the same management chains as Plaintiff from November 23, 2013 through and including the date the Court enters an Order preliminarily approving the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement and as set forth in Exhibit H to the Settlement Agreement (the “FLSA Class”).

This Notice is directed to the Illinois Rule 23 Class Members only.

WHAT DOES THE SETTLEMENT PROVIDE? Defendant has agreed to pay up to a total of $850,000 (“Gross Settlement Fund”) to settle this case. This Gross Settlement Fund includes, without limitation, the payments to the Settlement Class, Class Counsel’s attorneys’ fees and costs, any enhancement award for the Class Representative awarded by the Court and all costs associated with administering the settlement. The amount remaining after the above deductions is referred to as the “Net Settlement Fund” and is anticipated to be about $531,950.00. All payments to the Settlement Class will be from the Net Settlement Fund. If you file a claim form and become a Claimant, you will be entitled to receive your portion of the Net Settlement Fund (“Your payment”). Your payment will be based on the total number of weeks that you were actively employed (i.e., not on a leave of absence) in a relevant position from November 23, 2013 to DATE. Your eligible workweeks and estimated payment are printed on the enclosed Claim Form. Your actual Settlement Payment may be more or less than the estimated amount, depending on the total amount of Claims made by Class Members and Court approval. To the extent there are unclaimed funds remaining in the Class Payment Fund once timely/valid Claims have been accounted for, 50% of those unclaimed funds in the Class Payment Fund will be reallocated to Claimants on a pro rata basis and 50% of those unclaimed funds in the Class Payment Fund will be retained by Defendant.

WHAT CLAIMS ARE BEING RELEASED? Unless you exclude yourself from the Settlement as explained below, you will fully release and discharge Bank of America and Bank of America’s present and former parent companies (including Bank of America Corporation), subsidiaries, shareholders, officers, directors, employees, agents, registered representatives, attorneys, insurers, successors and assigns (“Releasees”) from any and all individual and class claims, debts, liabilities, demands, obligations, penalties, guarantees, costs, expenses, attorneys’ fees, damages, action or causes of action of whatever kind or nature, whether known or unknown, that were alleged in the Lawsuit, including, but not limited to any claims under federal or state law that are alleged in the operative Complaint, or could have been alleged based upon the facts alleged in the operative


Complaint, i.e., that the Plaintiff Class Members were misclassified as exempt from overtime under Illinois law (the “Released Claims”). The Released Claims include, but are not necessarily limited to, any claim for violation of any federal, state, or local statute, rule, or regulation relating to the designation or treatment as exempt from overtime. This includes claims under Illinois state laws for alleged failure to pay minimum or overtime wages and for any statutory or civil penalties under any statute, ordinance, or otherwise arising from or related to the classification as exempt from overtime. In addition, if you submit a Claim Form, you will release any and all Fair Labor Standards Act claims, obligations, demands, actions, rights, causes of action, and liabilities against Defendant, its former and present officers, directors, agents, employees, attorneys, insurers, benefit plans, predecessors, successors, parents (including Bank of America Corporation), subsidiaries, and affiliated entities, that were asserted in, arise out of, or are related to the subject matter of this Action (the “Released Federal Law Claims”).

HOW TO MAKE A CLAIM To receive any money from this Settlement, you must submit the Claim Form enclosed with this Notice to KCC <<ADDRESS>> no later than <<60 calendar days after notice is mailed>>. The date of submission of a Claim Form to the Claims Administrator is deemed to be the earlier of: (a) the date the Claim Form is deposited in the U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid, as evidenced by the postmark; (b) the date the Claim Form is tendered to an overnight service for delivery, as indicated by a shipping envelope; or (c) the date the Claim Form is received by the Claims Administrator. The Claim Form provides individualized information about the estimated amount owed to you, if all Rule 23 Class Members make claims. Your actual payment depends on the number of persons who participate in the Settlement, and may be greater, assuming that the Court approves the settlement. If you wish to challenge the information set forth in the Claim Form, then you must submit with your Claim Form a written, signed challenge, under penalty of perjury, along with any supporting documents to the Claims Administrator at the address provided above by <<60 calendar days after notice is mailed>>. No dispute will be considered timely if submitted after this date. Counsel for the parties may agree to a compromise to resolve your challenge or they may agree to allow the Claims Administrator to resolve your challenge and make a final and binding determination without hearing or right of appeal. The Claims Administrator will inform you whether your dispute was resolved in your favor within ten (10) days after your challenge is made. In the case of a challenge, you will have the burden of proof to show that Bank of America’s records are incorrect. If any other dispute arises about the propriety of a Claim Form, counsel for the Parties may agree to a compromise of the dispute or agree to allow the Claims Administrator to resolve the dispute and make a final and binding determination without hearing or right of appeal. Please note that engaging in the dispute process set forth in this paragraph does not extend the time to exclude yourself from the class, which is discussed below.

WHAT ARE YOUR OTHER OPTIONS? If you don’t want to be legally bound by the Settlement, you must exclude yourself by submitting a Request for Exclusion by [INSERT CLAIM DEADLINE]. If you exclude yourself, you cannot receive money from the Settlement, but you may be able to otherwise pursue or continue to pursue Defendant for the legal claims at issue in this case. If you do not exclude yourself from the Settlement, you may still object to it by [INSERT CLAIM DEADLINE].

How to Object to the Settlement If you do not exclude yourself from the settlement, you can ask the Court to deny approval of the settlement by submitting an objection to it to the Claims Administrator. You cannot ask the Court to order


a larger settlement; the Court can only approve or deny the settlement as presented to it by the parties. If the Court denies approval, no settlement payments will be made and the lawsuit will continue. If that is what you want to happen, you must object. However, if the Court rejects your objection, you will still be bound by the terms of the Settlement. To object, you must mail a written notice of objection, postmarked on or before ≪DEADLINE≫ to: [CONTACT INFORMATION FOR KCC] If you exclude yourself from the settlement, you cannot object because the settlement then would no longer impact you. Any written objection must state each specific reason in support of your objection, any legal support for each objection, and whether you wish to appear and be heard at the Fairness Hearing. Your written objection must also state the case name and docket number for this Action (which are shown at the top of this Notice), as well as your full name, social security number, address, telephone number, and dates of your employment with Bank of America. To be effective, any written objections must be postmarked no later than ≪DEADLINE≫. A Class Member who fails to submit a written statement of objection in the manner described above and by the specified deadline will be deemed to have waived any objections and will be foreclosed from making any objection (whether by appeal or otherwise) to the Settlement.

How to Exclude Yourself From the Settlement

You have the right to exclude yourself from the Rule 23 Class and the settlement. If you wish to be excluded, you must mail a Request for Exclusion to the Claims Administrator setting forth your name and a statement that you request exclusion from the Rule 23 Class and do not wish to participate in the settlement, with a postmark no later than <<60 calendar days after notice is mailed>> to [CONTACT INFORMATION FOR KCC].

If you timely request exclusion from the Rule 23 Class, you will be excluded from the Rule 23 Class, you will receive no payment from the settlement, you will not be bound by the judgment entered in the Lawsuit and you will not be precluded from otherwise prosecuting any individual claim against Defendants.

Final Fairness Hearing A hearing on the fairness of the proposed settlement, and on Plaintiff’s petition for attorneys’ fees and costs and enhancement payments to Plaintiffs, is scheduled for ___________, 2018, at ____ a.m./p.m.. If there are objections and arguments concerning the fairness of the proposed settlement, the Court will consider them. The hearing will take place before the Honorable Judge Robert W. Gettleman in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Courtroom 1703, at 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL 60604. Please note that the Court may change the time and date of the hearing without further notice.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION This description of the Lawsuit is general and does not cover all of the issues and proceedings thus far. In case of any discrepancy between this notice and the settlement agreement, the terms of the Settlement Agreement will be controlling. In order to see the complete file including the individual terms of the settlement, you can visit the office of the Clerk of the Court for the Northern District of Illinois at 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL 60604, or access the Court docket in this case through the Court’s Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system at https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov. For more information, you may visit [INSERT WEBSITE]. You can also contact any of the lawyers listed below who the Court has designated to represent the interests of the Named Plaintiff and the Class Members. If you call one of these lawyers, please identify yourself as


a “Class Member” in the “Bank of America Overtime Lawsuit” and ask to speak with one of the following lawyers:

Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. Catherine T. Mitchell, Esq. Stephan Zouras, LLP

205 N. Michigan Ave., Ste. 2560 Chicago, Illinois 60601 Telephone: (312) 233-1550 Facsimile: (312) 233-1560 [email protected] [email protected]

*Nothing prohibits you from speaking with other lawyers about this Action, the Settlement or this Class Notice, at your own expense. PLEASE DO NOT TELEPHONE THE COURT OR THE COURT CLERK’S OFFICE TO INQUIRE ABOUT THIS SETTLEMENT OR THE CLAIM PROCESS.


EXHIBIT C to EXHIBIT 1


NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT Kaminski v. Bank of America, N.A., Case No. 1:16-cv-10844 (N.D. Ill.)

To all persons employed by BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. as Senior Specialists-Securities and/or Operations Market Professionals in New York, who worked in the internal job code OS005 and who reported through the same management chains as Plaintiff (the “Class”), from November 23, 2010 through <<the date the Court grants preliminary approval of the settlement>> (the “Class Period”): YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO MONEY FROM THIS PROPOSED SETTLEMENT.


Your legal rights are affected whether you act or do not act. Please read this notice carefully to understand your options and the deadlines to exercise them.

This notice summarizes the proposed settlement. For the precise terms and conditions of the settlement, please see the settlement agreement available at www.____________.com or by

contacting Plaintiff’s counsel at the telephone number and address provided below. If you wish to make a claim, you must submit your claim form as explained below no later than <<60 calendar days after notice is mailed>>. That is the only way to get a payment under this proposed settlement.

WHAT IS THIS LAWSUIT ABOUT? This notice is related to a case called Kaminski v. Bank of America, N.A., Case No. 1:16-cv-10844 (referred to as the “Lawsuit”). The Lawsuit is now pending before Judge Robert W. Gettleman in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. In this Lawsuit, Plaintiff claims that Bank of America, N.A. (“Bank of America” or “Defendant”) misclassified her and other Senior Specialists-Securities and/or Operations Market Professionals (collectively “OMPs”), who worked in the internal job code OS005 in the state of New York and who reported through the same management chains as Plaintiff, as overtime-exempt employees. Plaintiff asserts that the Class members are entitled to overtime wages and related damages. Plaintiff brings claims on behalf of herself and the Class members for: (1) overtime wages pursuant to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.; (2) overtime wages pursuant to the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (“IMWL”), 820 ILCS §§ 105 et seq.; and (3) overtime wages pursuant to Articles 6 and 19 of the New York Labor Law and the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations Subpart 142-2.2, 12 NYCRR 142 (“NYLL”). Plaintiff seeks relief for herself and Class members in the form of overtime wages, liquidated damages, interest, restitution, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. Bank of America denies that it has violated the law in any manner. Bank of America asserts that it has paid Plaintiff and the members of the Class all wages in the manner required by law. Nothing contained herein, nor the consummation of this settlement, is to be construed or deemed an admission of liability, culpability, negligence, or wrongdoing on the part of Bank of America.

WHO IS INCLUDED IN THIS SETTLEMENT? This Settlement includes three groups:

All current and former Operations Market Professionals employed by Defendant in the


State of Illinois in the internal job code OS005 who reported through the same management chains as Plaintiff from November 23, 2013 through and including the date the Court enters an Order preliminarily approving the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement and as set forth in Exhibit H to the Settlement Agreement. (the “Illinois Rule 23 Class”). All current and former Operations Market Professionals employed by Defendant in the State of New York in the internal job code OS005 who reported through the same management chains as Plaintiff from November 23, 2010 through and including the date the Court enters an Order preliminarily approving the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement and as set forth in Exhibit H to the Settlement Agreement (the “New York Rule 23 Class”). All current and former Operations Market Professionals employed by Defendant nationwide in the internal job code OS005 who reported through the same management chains as Plaintiff from November 23, 2013 through and including the date the Court enters an Order preliminarily approving the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement and as set forth in Exhibit H to the Settlement Agreement (the “FLSA Class”).

This Notice is directed to the New York Rule 23 Class Members only.

WHAT DOES THE SETTLEMENT PROVIDE? Defendant has agreed to pay up to a total of $850,000 (“Gross Settlement Fund”) to settle this case. This Gross Settlement Fund includes, without limitation, the payments to the Settlement Class, Class Counsel’s attorneys’ fees and costs, any enhancement award for the Class Representative awarded by the Court and all costs associated with administering the settlement. The amount remaining after the above deductions is referred to as the “Net Settlement Fund” and is anticipated to be about $531,950.00. All payments to the Settlement Class will be from the Net Settlement Fund. If you file a claim form and become a Claimant, you will be entitled to receive your portion of the Net Settlement Fund (“Your payment”). Your payment will be based on the total number of weeks that you were actively employed (i.e., not on a leave of absence) in a relevant position from November 23, 2010 to DATE. Your eligible workweeks and estimated payment are printed on the enclosed Claim Form. Your actual Settlement Payment may be more or less than the estimated amount, depending on the total amount of Claims made by Class Members and Court approval. To the extent there are unclaimed funds remaining in the Class Payment Fund once timely/valid Claims have been accounted for, 50% of those unclaimed funds in the Class Payment Fund will be reallocated to Claimants on a pro rata basis and 50% of those unclaimed funds in the Class Payment Fund will be retained by Defendant.

WHAT CLAIMS ARE BEING RELEASED? Unless you exclude yourself from the Settlement as explained below, you will fully release and discharge Bank of America and Bank of America’s present and former parent companies (including Bank of America Corporation), subsidiaries, shareholders, officers, directors, employees, agents, registered representatives, attorneys, insurers, successors and assigns (“Releasees”) from any and all individual and class claims, debts, liabilities, demands, obligations, penalties, guarantees, costs, expenses, attorneys’ fees, damages, action or causes of action of whatever kind or nature, whether known or unknown, that were alleged in the Lawsuit, including, but not limited to any claims under federal or state law that are alleged in the operative Complaint, or could have been alleged based upon the facts alleged in the operative


Complaint, i.e., that the Plaintiff Class Members were misclassified as exempt from overtime under New York law (the “Released Claims”). The Released Claims include, but are not necessarily limited to, any claim for violation of any federal, state, or local statute, rule, or regulation relating to the designation or treatment as exempt from overtime. This includes claims under New York state laws for alleged failure to pay minimum or overtime wages and for any statutory or civil penalties under any statute, ordinance, or otherwise arising from or related to the classification as exempt from overtime. In addition, if you submit a Claim Form, you will release any and all Fair Labor Standards Act claims, obligations, demands, actions, rights, causes of action, and liabilities against Defendant, its former and present officers, directors, agents, employees, attorneys, insurers, benefit plans, predecessors, successors, parents (including Bank of America Corporation), subsidiaries, and affiliated entities, that were asserted in, arise out of, or are related to the subject matter of this Action (the “Released Federal Law Claims”).

HOW TO MAKE A CLAIM To receive any money from this Settlement, you must submit the Claim Form enclosed with this Notice to KCC <<ADDRESS>> no later than <<60 calendar days after notice is mailed>>. The date of submission of a Claim Form to the Claims Administrator is deemed to be the earlier of: (a) the date the Claim Form is deposited in the U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid, as evidenced by the postmark; (b) the date the Claim Form is tendered to an overnight service for delivery, as indicated by a shipping envelope; or (c) the date the Claim Form is received by the Claims Administrator. The Claim Form provides individualized information about the estimated amount owed to you, if all Rule 23 Class Members make claims. Your actual payment depends on the number of persons who participate in the Settlement, and may be greater, assuming that the Court approves the settlement. If you wish to challenge the information set forth in the Claim Form, then you must submit with your Claim Form a written, signed challenge, under penalty of perjury, along with any supporting documents to the Claims Administrator at the address provided above by <<60 calendar days after notice is mailed>>. No dispute will be considered timely if submitted after this date. Counsel for the parties may agree to a compromise to resolve your challenge or they may agree to allow the Claims Administrator to resolve your challenge and make a final and binding determination without hearing or right of appeal. The Claims Administrator will inform you whether your dispute was resolved in your favor within ten (10) days after your challenge is made. In the case of a challenge, you will have the burden of proof to show that Bank of America’s records are incorrect. If any other dispute arises about the propriety of a Claim Form, counsel for the Parties may agree to a compromise of the dispute or agree to allow the Claims Administrator to resolve the dispute and make a final and binding determination without hearing or right of appeal. Please note that engaging in the dispute process set forth in this paragraph does not extend the time to exclude yourself from the class, which is discussed below.

WHAT ARE YOUR OTHER OPTIONS? If you don’t want to be legally bound by the Settlement, you must exclude yourself by submitting a Request for Exclusion by [INSERT CLAIM DEADLINE]. If you exclude yourself, you cannot receive money from the Settlement, but you may be able to otherwise pursue or continue to pursue Defendant for the legal claims at issue in this case. If you do not exclude yourself from the Settlement, you may still object to it by [INSERT CLAIM DEADLINE].

How to Object to the Settlement If you do not exclude yourself from the settlement, you can ask the Court to deny approval of the settlement by submitting an objection to it to the Claims Administrator. You cannot ask the Court to order


a larger settlement; the Court can only approve or deny the settlement as presented to it by the parties. If the Court denies approval, no settlement payments will be made and the lawsuit will continue. If that is what you want to happen, you must object. However, if the Court rejects your objection, you will still be bound by the terms of the Settlement. To object, you must mail a written notice of objection, postmarked on or before ≪DEADLINE≫ to: [CONTACT INFORMATION FOR KCC] If you exclude yourself from the settlement, you cannot object because the settlement then would no longer impact you. Any written objection must state each specific reason in support of your objection, any legal support for each objection, and whether you wish to appear and be heard at the Fairness Hearing. Your written objection must also state the case name and docket number for this Action (which are shown at the top of this Notice), as well as your full name, social security number, address, telephone number, and dates of your employment with Bank of America. To be effective, any written objections must be postmarked no later than ≪DEADLINE≫. A Class Member who fails to submit a written statement of objection in the manner described above and by the specified deadline will be deemed to have waived any objections and will be foreclosed from making any objection (whether by appeal or otherwise) to the Settlement.

How to Exclude Yourself From the Settlement

You have the right to exclude yourself from the Rule 23 Class and the settlement. If you wish to be excluded, you must mail a Request for Exclusion to the Claims Administrator setting forth your name and a statement that you request exclusion from the Rule 23 Class and do not wish to participate in the settlement, with a postmark no later than <<60 calendar days after notice is mailed>> to [CONTACT INFORMATION FOR KCC].

If you timely request exclusion from the Rule 23 Class, you will be excluded from the Rule 23 Class, you will receive no payment from the settlement, you will not be bound by the judgment entered in the Lawsuit and you will not be precluded from otherwise prosecuting any individual claim against Defendant.

Final Fairness Hearing A hearing on the fairness of the proposed settlement, and on Plaintiff’s petition for attorneys’ fees and costs and enhancement payments to Plaintiffs, is scheduled for ___________, 2018, at ____ a.m./p.m.. If there are objections and arguments concerning the fairness of the proposed settlement, the Court will consider them. The hearing will take place before the Honorable Judge Robert W. Gettleman in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Courtroom 1703, at 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL 60604. Please note that the Court may change the time and date of the hearing without further notice.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION This description of the Lawsuit is general and does not cover all of the issues and proceedings thus far. In case of any discrepancy between this notice and the settlement agreement, the terms of the Settlement Agreement will be controlling. In order to see the complete file including the individual terms of the settlement, you can visit the office of the Clerk of the Court for the Northern District of Illinois at 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL 60604, or access the Court docket in this case through the Court’s Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system at https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov. For more information, you may visit [INSERT WEBSITE]. You can also contact any of the lawyers listed below who the Court has designated to represent the interests of the Named Plaintiff and the Class Members. If you call one of these lawyers, please identify yourself as


a “Class Member” in the “Bank of America Overtime Lawsuit” and ask to speak with one of the following lawyers:



*Nothing prohibits you from speaking with other lawyers about this Action, the Settlement or this Class Notice, at your own expense. PLEASE DO NOT TELEPHONE THE COURT OR THE COURT CLERK’S OFFICE TO INQUIRE ABOUT THIS SETTLEMENT OR THE CLAIM PROCESS.


EXHIBIT D to EXHIBIT 1


NOTICE OF PROPOSED FLSA COLLECTIVE ACTION SETTLEMENT Kaminski v. Bank of America, N.A., Case No. 1:16-cv-10844 (N.D. Ill.)

To all persons employed by BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. as Senior Specialists-Securities and/or Operations Market Professionals, who worked in the internal job code OS005 and who reported through the same management chains as Plaintiff (the “Class”), from November 23, 2013 through <<the date the Court grants preliminary approval of the settlement>> (the “Class Period”): YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO MONEY FROM THIS PROPOSED SETTLEMENT.

Read this notice carefully to understand your options and the deadlines to exercise them.


This notice summarizes the proposed settlement. For the precise terms and conditions of the settlement, please see the settlement agreement available at www.____________.com, or by

contacting Plaintiff’s counsel at the telephone number and address provided below. If you wish to participate in the settlement, you must submit your Claim and Consent to Join Form as explained below no later than <<60 calendar days after notice is mailed>>. That is the only way to get a payment under this proposed settlement. If you do not want to be a part of this settlement, you do not need to do anything.

WHAT THE LAWSUIT IS ABOUT This notice is related to a case called Kaminski v. Bank of America, N.A., Case No. 1:16-cv-10844 (referred to as the “Lawsuit”). The Lawsuit is now pending before Honorable Judge Robert W. Gettleman in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. In the Lawsuit, Plaintiff claims that Bank of America, N.A. (“Bank of America” or “Defendant”) misclassified her and all other similarly-situated Senior Specialists-Securities and/or Operations Market Professionals nationwide, who worked in the internal job code OS005 and who reported through the same management chains as Plaintiff, as overtime-exempt employees. Plaintiff asserts that the Class members are entitled to overtime wages and related damages. Plaintiff brings claims on behalf of herself and the Class members for (1) overtime wages pursuant to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.,; (2) overtime wages pursuant to the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (“IMWL”), 820 ILCS §§ 105 et seq.; and (3) overtime wages pursuant to Articles 6 and 19 of the New York Labor Law and the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations Subpart 142-2.2, 12 NYCRR 142 (“NYLL”). The operative complaint seeks relief for the Class members in the form of overtime wages, liquidated damages, interest, restitution, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. Bank of America denies that it has violated the law in any manner alleged in the Lawsuit. Bank of America asserts that it has paid Plaintiff and the members of the Class all wages in the manner required by law. Nothing contained herein, nor the consummation of this settlement, is to be construed or deemed an admission of liability, culpability, negligence, or wrongdoing on the part of Bank of America.

WHO IS INCLUDED IN THIS SETTLEMENT?


This Settlement includes three groups:

All current and former Operations Market Professionals employed by Defendant in the State of Illinois in the internal job code OS005 who reported through the same management chains as Plaintiff from November 23, 2013 through and including the date the Court enters an Order preliminarily approving the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement and as set forth in Exhibit H to the Settlement Agreement. (the “Illinois Rule 23 Class”). All current and former Operations Market Professionals employed by Defendant in the State of New York in the internal job code OS005 who reported through the same management chains as Plaintiff from November 23, 2010 through and including the date the Court enters an Order preliminarily approving the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement and as set forth in Exhibit H to the Settlement Agreement (the “New York Rule 23 Class”). All current and former Operations Market Professionals employed by Defendant nationwide in the internal job code OS005 who reported through the same management chains as Plaintiff from November 23, 2013 through and including the date the Court enters an Order preliminarily approving the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement and as set forth in Exhibit H to the Settlement Agreement (the “FLSA Class”).

This Notice is directed to the FLSA Class Members only. You are an FLSA Class Member if you fall into the FLSA Class definition above.

PLAN OF DISTRIBUTION AND RELIEF The following is a summary of the terms of the proposed Settlement Agreement. A. Gross Settlement Fund of the Settlement Defendant has agreed to pay up to a total of $850,000 (“Gross Settlement Fund”) to settle this case. This Gross Settlement Fund includes, without limitation, the payments to the Settlement Class, Class Counsel’s attorneys’ fees and costs, any enhancement award for the Class Representative awarded by the Court, and all costs associated with administering the settlement. The amount remaining after these deductions is referred to as the “Net Settlement Fund” and is anticipated to be approximately $531,950.00. All payments to the Settlement Class will be from the Net Settlement Fund. B. Calculation of Individual Claims If you file a claim and consent to join form and become a Claimant, you will be entitled to receive your portion of the New Settlement Fund (“Individual Settlement Share”). Your Individual Settlement Share will be calculated based on the total number of weeks that you were actively employed (i.e., not on a leave of absence) in a relevant position during the Class Period (“Eligible Workweeks”). The Consent Form enclosed with this Notice sets forth your Eligible Workweeks, together with your estimated pro rata Individual Settlement Share of the FLSA Class Settlement Fund. The amount of your actual Settlement Payment may be more or less than the estimated amount, depending on the total amount of Claims made by Class Members and Court approval. If you do not timely submit a properly completed Consent Form, you will not receive money and the Individual Settlement Share that otherwise would have


been payable to you if a properly completed Consent Form had been timely submitted will retained by Bank of America. C. Release of Claims If you timely and properly submit a claim and consent to join form, upon the final approval by the Court of the settlement, you will fully released and discharge Bank of America and Bank of America’s present and former parent companies (including Bank of America Corporation), subsidiaries, shareholders, officers, directors, employees, agents, registered representatives, attorneys, insurers, successors and assigns (“Releasees”) from any and all individual and class claims, debts, liabilities, demands, obligations, penalties, guarantees, costs, expenses, attorneys’ fees, damages, action or causes of action of whatever kind or nature, whether known or unknown, that were alleged in the Lawsuit, including, but not limited to any claims under federal or state law that are alleged in the operative Complaint, or could have been alleged based upon the facts alleged in the operative Complaint, i.e., that the Plaintiff Class Members were misclassified as exempt from overtime (the “Released Claims”). The Released Claims include, but are not necessarily limited to, any claim for violation of any federal, state, or local statute, rule, or regulation relating to the designation or treatment as exempt from the FLSA. This includes claims under FLSA Class Members’ respective governing state or local laws for alleged failure to pay minimum or overtime wages and for any statutory or civil penalties under any statute, ordinance, or otherwise arising from or related to the classification as exempt from overtime, exclusively for the same time period covering the FLSA Collective Member’s claims released under the FLSA. If you do NOT submit a valid Claim and Consent to Join Form, you will NOT release any claims you have against Bank of America and Releasees.

HOW TO MAKE A CLAIM To receive payment from this Settlement, you must submit the Claim and Consent to Join Form enclosed with this Notice to KCC <<ADDRESS>>, no later than <<60 calendar days after notice is mailed>>. The date of submission of a Claim Form to the Claims Administrator is deemed to be the earlier of: (a) the date the Claim Form is deposited in the U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid, as evidenced by the postmark; (b) the date the Claim Form is tendered to an overnight service for delivery, as indicated by a shipping envelope; or (c) the date the Claim Form is received by the Claims Administrator. The Claim Form provides individualized information about the estimated amount owed to you, if all FLSA Class Members make claims. Your actual payment depends on the number of persons who participate in the Settlement, and may be greater, assuming that the Court approves the settlement. If you wish to challenge the information set forth in the Claim Form, then you must submit with your Claim Form a written challenge, signed under penalty of perjury, along with any supporting documents to the Claims Administrator at the address provided above by <<60 calendar days after notice is mailed>>. No dispute will be considered timely if submitted after this date. Counsel for the parties may agree to a compromise to resolve your challenge or they may agree to allow the Claims Administrator to resolve your challenge and make a final and binding determination without hearing or right of appeal. The Claims Administrator will inform you whether your dispute was resolved in your favor within ten (10) days after your challenge is made. In the case of a challenge, you will have the burden of proof to show that Bank of America’s records are incorrect. If any other dispute arises about the propriety of a Claim Form, counsel for the Parties may agree to a compromise of the dispute or agree to allow the Claims Administrator to resolve the dispute and make a final and binding determination without hearing or right of appeal.


WHAT ARE YOUR OTHER OPTIONS? If you wish to be excluded from the settlement, you can do nothing. If you do not timely submit a valid Claim and Consent to Join Form, you cannot receive payment from the settlement, but you may be able to otherwise pursue or continue to pursue Defendant for the legal claims at issue in this case.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION This description of the Lawsuit is general and does not cover all of the issues and proceedings thus far. If there is any discrepancy between this notice and the Settlement Agreement, the terms of the Settlement Agreement will be controlling. In order to see the complete file, including the individual terms of the settlement, you can visit the office of the Clerk of the Court for the Northern District of Illinois at 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL 60604, or access the Court docket in this case through the Court’s Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system at https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov. For more information, you may visit www.____________.com. You can also contact any of the lawyers listed below who the Court has designated to represent the interests of Named Plaintiff and the Class Members. If you call one of these lawyers, please identify yourself as a “Class Member” in the “Bank of America Overtime Lawsuit” and ask to speak with one of the following lawyers:



*Nothing prohibits you from speaking with other lawyers about this Action, the Settlement of this Class Notice, at your own expense. PLEASE DO NOT TELEPHONE THE COURT OR THE COURT CLERK’S OFFICE TO INQUIRE ABOUT THIS SETTLEMENT OR THE CLAIM PROCESS.


EXHIBIT E to EXHIBIT 1


Page 1 of 2

CLAIM AND CONSENT TO OPT-IN FORM

Kaminski v. Bank of America, N.A. Case No. 1:16-cv-10844, United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

If you wish to receive a payment from the settlement of the above-titled matter, you must provide the information requested, sign and date this Claim and Consent to Opt-In Form, and return it to the Settlement Administrator (KCC) in the enclosed postage-prepaid envelope or in your own shipping envelope by first class U.S. mail or the equivalent, postage paid, postmarked on or before [60 calendar days after the initial mailing of the Notice of Settlement] or file it on KCC’s online filing system by accessing [website]. Based on the information and data provided by Bank of America, N.A. (“Defendant”), your estimated payment in this settlement is [amount], which is based on Defendant’s records that you worked [total weeks] workweeks in a relevant Senior Specialist-Securities and/or Operations Market Professional (“OMP”) position in the state of Illinois during the time period of November 23, 2013 to [preliminary approval DATE]. Your estimated payment is a proportional distribution of the Settlement based upon your relevant work weeks. Your actual payment depends on the number of persons who participate in the Settlement, as well as Court approval, and may be more than this amount. If you disagree with your estimated payment in this Settlement, you must identify the number of weeks that you claim to have worked as a OMP or similarly titled position in Illinois during the time period of November 23, 2013 to [DATE]: ____________________________________ (insert your estimated number of workweeks here), and provide documents (e.g., check stubs, cancelled checks, payroll documents) evidencing your additional claimed weeks during the applicable time period. By signing this form, you indicate that you understand that, unless you timely opt-out or object to the Settlement, you fully release and discharge Defendant and its present and former parent companies (including Bank of America Corporation), subsidiaries, shareholders, officers, directors, employees, agents, registered representatives, attorneys, insurers, successors and assigns (“Releasees”), from any and all individual and class claims, debts, liabilities, demands, obligations, penalties, guarantees, costs, expenses, attorneys’ fees, damages, action or causes of action of whatever kind or nature, whether known or unknown, that were alleged in the Lawsuit, including, but not limited to any claims under federal or state law that are alleged in the operative Complaint, or could have been alleged based upon the facts alleged in the operative Complaint, i.e., that the Plaintiff Class Members were misclassified as exempt from overtime under Illinois law (the “Released Claims”). The Released Claims include, but are not necessarily limited to, any claim for violation of any federal, state, or local statute, rule, or regulation relating to the designation or treatment as exempt from overtime. This includes claims under Illinois state laws for alleged failure to pay minimum or overtime wages and for any statutory or civil penalties under any statute, ordinance, or otherwise arising from or related to the classification as exempt from overtime. By signing this form, you also fully release and discharge Bank of America and all Releasees from any and all claims under the FLSA for alleged failure to pay minimum or overtime wages and for any statutory or civil penalties and liquidated damages arising from or related to the classification as exempt from the FLSA. __________________________________________ Signature __________________________________________ Type or Print Name __________________________________________ Dated (mm/dd/yyyy)


Page 2 of 2

TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SETTLEMENT, YOU MUST SIGN AND SUBMIT THE CLAIM FORM BY [60 calendar days after the initial mailing of the Notice of Settlement]

THE BELOW INFORMATION WILL ONLY BE USED FOR IDENTIFICATION PURPOSES AND WILL NOT BE FILED WITH THE COURT.

Name: Street Address: City, State, Zip Code: Daytime Telephone:

Evening Telephone:

E-mail Address:

SSN (last 4 digits):


EXHIBIT F to EXHIBIT 1


Page 1 of 2

CLAIM AND CONSENT TO OPT-IN FORM


If you wish to receive a payment from the settlement of the above-titled matter, you must provide the information requested, sign and date this Claim and Consent to Opt-In Form, and return it to the Settlement Administrator (KCC) in the enclosed postage-prepaid envelope or in your own shipping envelope by first class U.S. mail or the equivalent, postage paid, postmarked on or before [60 calendar days after the initial mailing of the Notice of Settlement] or file it on KCC’s online filing system by accessing [website]. Based on the information and data provided by Bank of America, N.A. (“Defendant”), your estimated payment in this settlement is [amount], which is based on the Bank’s records that you worked [total weeks] workweeks in a relevant Senior Specialist-Securities and/or Operations Market Professional (“OMP”) position in the state of New York during the time period of November 23, 2010 to [preliminary approval DATE]. Your estimated payment is a proportional distribution of the Settlement based upon your relevant work weeks. Your actual payment depends on the number of persons who participate in the Settlement, as well as Court approval, and may be more than this amount. If you disagree with your estimated payment in this Settlement, you must identify the number of weeks that you claim to have worked as an OMP or similarly titled position in New York during the time period of November 23, 2010 to [DATE]: ____________________________________ (insert your estimated number of workweeks here), and provide documents (e.g., check stubs, cancelled checks, payroll documents) evidencing your additional claimed weeks during the applicable time period. By signing this form, you indicate that you understand that, unless you timely opt-out or object to the Settlement, you fully release and discharge Defendant and its present and former parent companies (including Bank of America Corporation), subsidiaries, shareholders, officers, directors, employees, agents, registered representatives, attorneys, insurers, successors and assigns (“Releasees”), from any and all individual and class claims, debts, liabilities, demands, obligations, penalties, guarantees, costs, expenses, attorneys’ fees, damages, action or causes of action of whatever kind or nature, whether known or unknown, that were alleged in the Lawsuit, including, but not limited to any claims under federal or state law that are alleged in the operative Complaint, or could have been alleged based upon the facts alleged in the operative Complaint, i.e., that the Plaintiff Class Members were misclassified as exempt from overtime under New York law (the “Released Claims”). The Released Claims include, but are not necessarily limited to, any claim for violation of any federal, state, or local statute, rule, or regulation relating to the designation or treatment as exempt from overtime. This includes claims under New York state laws for alleged failure to pay minimum or overtime wages and for any statutory or civil penalties under any statute, ordinance, or otherwise arising from or related to the classification as exempt from overtime. By signing this form, you also fully release and discharge Bank of America and all Releasees from any and all claims under the FLSA for alleged failure to pay minimum or overtime wages and for any statutory or civil penalties and liquidated damages arising from or related to the classification as exempt from the FLSA. __________________________________________ Signature __________________________________________ Type or Print Name __________________________________________ Dated (mm/dd/yyyy)


Page 2 of 2




Evening Telephone:

E-mail Address:



Page 1 of 2

CLAIM AND CONSENT TO JOIN FORM


If you wish to receive a payment from the settlement of the above-titled matter, you must provide the information requested, sign and date this Claim and Consent to Join Form, and return it to the Settlement Administrator (“KCC”) in the enclosed postage-prepaid envelope or in your own shipping envelope by first class U.S. mail or the equivalent, postage paid, postmarked on or before [60 calendar days after the initial mailing of the Notice of Settlement] or file it on KCC’s online filing system by accessing [website]. Based on the information and data provided by Bank of America, N.A. (“Defendant”), your estimated payment in this settlement is [amount], which is based on the Bank’s records that you worked [total weeks] workweeks in a relevant Senior Specialist-Securities and/or Operations Market Professional (“OMP”) position during the time period of November 23, 2013 to [preliminary approval DATE]. Your estimated payment is a proportional distribution of the Settlement based upon your relevant work weeks. Your actual payment depends on the number of persons who participate in the Settlement, as well as Court approval, and may be more than this amount. If you disagree with your estimated payment in this Settlement, you must identify the number of weeks that you claim to have worked as an OMP or similarly-titled position during the time period of November 23, 2013 to [DATE]: ____________________________________ (insert your estimated number of workweeks here), and provide documents (e.g., check stubs, cancelled checks, payroll documents) evidencing your additional claimed weeks during the applicable time period. By submitting this Claim and Consent to Join Form and electing to receive a settlement payment, you acknowledge that you are consenting to join and opt into the FLSA collective action in this Lawsuit, you authorize Class Counsel to file this consent to join with the Court on your behalf, and you fully release and discharge Defendant and its present and former parent companies (including Bank of America Corporation), subsidiaries, shareholders, officers, directors, employees, agents, registered representatives, attorneys, insurers, successors and assigns (“Releasees”), from any and all individual and class claims, debts, liabilities, demands, obligations, penalties, guarantees, costs, expenses, attorneys’ fees, damages, action or causes of action of whatever kind or nature, whether known or unknown, that were alleged in the Lawsuit, including, but not limited to any claims under federal or state law that are alleged in the operative Complaint, or could have been alleged based upon the facts alleged in the operative Complaint, i.e., that the Plaintiff Class Members were misclassified as exempt from overtime (the “Released Claims”). The Released Claims include, but are not necessarily limited to, any claim for violation of any federal, state, or local statute, rule, or regulation relating to the designation or treatment as exempt from the FLSA. This includes claims under FLSA Collective Members’ respective governing state or local laws for alleged failure to pay minimum or overtime wages and for any statutory or civil penalties under any statute, ordinance, or otherwise arising from or related to the classification as exempt from overtime, exclusively for the same time period covering the FLSA Collective Member’s claims released under the FLSA. __________________________________________ Signature __________________________________________ Type or Print Name __________________________________________ Dated (mm/dd/yyyy)



Page 2 of 2



Evening Telephone:

E-mail Address:



EXHIBIT 2


1


ARLENE KAMINSKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. Defendant.

)))))))))))

Case No. 1:16-cv-10844 Honorable Judge Robert W. Gettleman

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF

CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION SETTLEMENT On November 2, 2017, the Court heard the Parties’ joint motion for preliminary approval

of a class and collective action settlement. The Court has considered the motion, including

reviewing the Settlement Agreement and its exhibits, which include the Illinois Rule 23 Class

Notice, the New York Rule 23 Class Notice, the proposed FLSA Collective Notice (collectively

“Class Notice”), the Illinois Claim Form, the New York Claim Form and the FLSA Consent Form

(collectively “Claim Form”), along with the submissions of counsel, and hereby finds and orders

as follows:

1. Unless otherwise defined herein, all terms used in this Order (the “Preliminary

Approval Order”) will have the same meaning as defined in the Settlement Agreement.

2. The Court grants Plaintiff leave to file her Third Amended Complaint on or before

November 10, 2017, to include added claims for unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the New York

Labor Laws (“NYLL”) and/or New York Codes, Rules and Regulations.

3. The Court finds on a preliminary basis that the settlement memorialized in the

Settlement Agreement, and filed with the Court, falls within the range of reasonableness and,


2

therefore, meets the requirements for preliminary approval.

4. This Court grants preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement, including

preliminary approval of the attorneys’ fees and costs payable to Class Counsel, the enhancement

payment to the Named Plaintiff and the settlement administration costs.

5. This Court approves KCC as Claims Administrator to perform duties in accordance

with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and the plan of settlement administration therein.

6. The Class Notice to be provided, as set forth in the Settlement Agreement, is hereby

found to be the best practicable means of providing notice under the circumstances and, when

completed, shall constitute due and sufficient notice of the proposed settlement and the Final

Approval Hearing (where applicable) to all persons and entities affected by and/or entitled to

participate in the settlement, in full compliance with the notice requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23,

due process, the Constitution of the United States, the laws of the State of Illinois, and all other

applicable laws. The Notices are accurate, objective, and informative and provide Plaintiff Class

Members with all of the information necessary to make an informed decision regarding their

participation in the settlement and its fairness.

7. The Illinois Rule 23 Class Notice, the New York Rule 23 Class Notice, the FLSA

Collective Notice, the Illinois Claim Form, the New York Claim Form and the FLSA Consent

Form are approved. The Claims Administrator is authorized to mail those documents to the

Plaintiff Class Members and institute a dedicated website as provided in the Settlement

Agreement.

8. Pending the Court’s decision on final approval of the settlement and entry of the

Court’s Final Approval Order, the Lawsuit and any other action or proceeding brought by or on

behalf of the Named Plaintiff or any Plaintiff Class Member that asserts any claim released under


3

the Settlement Agreement shall be stayed in each such action or proceeding, other than anything

related to the administration of this settlement.

9. The Named Plaintiff and Defendant are ordered to carry out the settlement

according to the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

10. The Court will conduct a Final Approval Hearing on [approximately 100 days after

entry of this Order] at ___ a.m. to determine the overall fairness of the settlement. The Final

Approval Hearing may be continued without further notice to Plaintiff Class Members. The Named

Plaintiff and Defendant shall file their motion for approval of the settlement, and Class Counsel

shall file their unopposed motion for attorneys’ fees and costs on or before [14 days before the

Final Approval Hearing].

11. Any Rule 23 Class Member may appear at the Final Approval Hearing and may

object to the Settlement, as provided in the Illinois and New York Rule 23 Class Notices.

12. Any Plaintiff Class Member may choose to opt out of and be excluded from the

settlement by following the instructions for requesting exclusion that are set forth in the Settlement

Agreement and Notice. Any written request to opt-out must be signed by each such person opting

out.

13. That the Parties are willing to stipulate to class and collective certification as part

of the settlement shall have no bearing on, nor be admissible in connection with, the issue of

whether of a class should be certified in a non-settlement context. In the event the settlement does

not become effective in accordance with the terms of the Agreement, or the settlement is not finally

approved, or is terminated, canceled, or fails to become effective, then the Parties shall revert to

their respective positions existing immediately prior to the date they entered into the Agreement.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


4

Dated: ____________________, 2017 ___________________________________

The Honorable Robert W. Gettleman Unites States District Court Judge for the Northern District of Illinois


EXHIBIT 3


1


ARLENE KAMINSKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. Defendant.

)))))))))))

Case No. 1:16-cv-10844 Honorable Judge Robert W. Gettleman

DECLARATION OF RYAN F. STEPHAN IN SUPPORT OF

PARTIES’ JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION SETTLEMENT

I, Ryan F. Stephan, declare under penalty of perjury as follows:

1. I am a member of good standing of the Illinois State Bar and I am licensed to

practice law in all courts of the State of Illinois. I, along with James B. Zouras, am a

founder and principal of Stephan Zouras, LLP, the attorneys retained by the Named

Plaintiff in this action. I submit this declaration in support of the Parties’ Joint Motion for

Preliminary Approval of a Class and Collective Action Settlement. I make these

statements based on personal knowledge, and would so testify if called as a witness at

trial.

2. I have been admitted or admitted pro hac vice to the Southern and Eastern

Districts of New York, the Superior Court for the State of California, the Eastern District

of Missouri, the District of Maryland, the Southern District of Ohio, the Northern and

Southern Districts of Florida, the District of Massachusetts, the District of New Jersey,

the District of Minnesota, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the Western District of

Washington and the Southern and Northern Districts of Iowa. I have also argued before


2

various federal and state appellate courts as lead appellate counsel on at least fourteen

occasions.

4. Since approximately 2002, my practice has been highly concentrated in

representing employees in cases arising under federal and state wage and hour laws,

including the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and comparable state wage and hour

laws across the United States, including the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (“IMWL”) and

the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (“IWPCA”). The majority of these cases

proceeded as collective actions under §216(b) of the FLSA and/or set forth class action

claims under state wage laws, including the IMWL and the IWPCA.

5. I have been appointed lead or co-lead counsel in scores of complex wage and hour

class and collective actions which have collectively resulted in a total monetary recovery

exceeding $65 million dollars for over one hundred thousand (100,000) employees.

Stephan Zouras, LLP and its two principals, myself included, have prosecuted and are

actively prosecuting dozens of other individual, class and collective wage actions in

federal and state courts throughout the United States. I have been appointed lead or co-

lead counsel in a number of contested Rule 23 wage and hour class actions by the federal

district court for the Northern District of Illinois, as well as other courts.

6. My law firm, Stephan Zouras, LLP, has extensive experience representing

Plaintiffs as lead counsel in numerous wage and hour actions. (See Attachment A –

Stephan Zouras, LLP Firm Resume). I, along with my partner James B. Zouras, founded

Stephan Zouras, LLP, in 2007.

7. Since its inception, I have actively participated in all aspects of this Litigation,

including but not limited to: (1) case investigation; (2) drafting the pleadings; (3)


3

discovery; (4) communications with Plaintiff and opposing counsel; (5) mediation of

Plaintiff’s claims; and (6) negotiation of the Settlement. Thus, I am familiar with the facts

and proceedings of this case.

8. On August 24, 2017 the parties participated in a private mediation session

overseen by Honorable Morton Denlow (Ret.). The Parties did not settle their claims at

that time. However, Judge Denlow submitted his Mediator’s Proposal which the Parties

accepted on August 31, 2017. Over the course of the subsequent two months, the Parties

negotiated the remaining terms of the settlement, which have been memorialized in the


9. The Settlement includes the Named Plaintiff, Illinois Rule 23 Class Members,

New York Rule 23 Class Members and FLSA Opt-In Collective Class Members.

10. The terms of the Settlement are contained in the Settlement Agreement. There are

no undisclosed side agreements between the Named Plaintiff and Defendant.

11. Class Counsel conducted an analysis of the data provided by Defendants, which

included records reflecting 9,310 active workweeks and weekly pay amounts for the 102

putative Class Members, in order to allocate the Settlement fund as set forth in the

Settlement Agreement. In determining the allocation method, the Parties considered,

among other things, the data obtained via discovery for purposes of the Settlement, as

well as the possibility for liquidated and other damages under the FLSA, IMWL and

NYLL.

12. By Class Counsel’s estimation, and based on a 100% claims-rate, the $850,000.00

Gross Settlement Amount represents an average weekly payout of approximately $57.00

per week, per Plaintiff Class Member, net of anticipated attorneys’ fees, litigation costs,


4

settlement administration expenses, and service payments.

13. The settlement of this action was the product of well-informed judgments about

the adequacy of the resolution. The settlement was also the product of arm’s-length, non-

collusive negotiations. Class Counsel are intimately familiar with the strengths and

weaknesses of the claims and defenses of this case, as well as the factual and legal issues,

sufficient to make an informed recommendation about the value of the claims, the time,

costs and expense of protracted litigation, discovery, and appeals, and the adequacy of the

Settlement reached. The stage of litigation has advanced to a state that Class Counsel

could fairly and fully evaluate the value of the Settlement. In my professional opinion,

the Settlement is fair and reasonable in light of the risk, costs, and delay of further

litigation.

14. Under penalties as provided by law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1746, the undersigned

certifies that the statements set forth in this instrument are true and correct.

Dated: October 26, 2017 FURTHER DECLARANT SAYETH NOT.

s/ Ryan F. Stephan______________ Ryan F. Stephan Stephan Zouras, LLP 205 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 2560 Chicago, Illinois 60601 312.233.1550


ATTACHMENT A


1

STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 205 N. Michigan Ave. Suite 2560

Chicago, IL 60601 312-233-1550

www.stephanzouras.com

FIRM PROFILE STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP is a law firm concentrating on helping people in class and individual civil litigation. The firm's attorneys have broad litigation, trial and appellate experience in the areas of wage and hour law and other employment disputes, mass torts and catastrophic personal injury, consumer protection, products liability and other complex litigation. Our Chicago-based firm actively litigates cases in federal and state courts throughout the United States. The firm's two founding partners, James B. Zouras and Ryan F. Stephan, have successfully prosecuted claims ranging from individual wrongful death and other catastrophic injury cases to complex, multi-district class and collective actions on behalf of over one hundred thousand individuals against many of the largest corporations in the world.

PRINCIPAL ATTORNEYS James B. Zouras is a founder and principal of Stephan Zouras, LLP. A 1995 graduate of DePaul University College of Law, Jim served as Editor of the Law Review, graduated in the top 10% of his class and was admitted to the Order of the Coif. Jim has helped thousands of people recover tens of millions of dollars in damages in individual and class actions arising under federal wage and hour laws including the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and comparable state wage laws, other complex litigation, and catastrophic personal injury actions involving wrongful death, vehicle crashes, products liability, premises liability and construction negligence. Jim has been appointed lead or co-lead counsel on a large number of contested class actions throughout the United States. He has successfully tried over a dozen jury trials and argued over 14 appeals as lead appellate counsel before the federal and state appellate courts. In 2000, Jim was named among the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin's "Top 40 Lawyers Under Age 40," one of the youngest lawyers ever bestowed that honor. Jim and his cases have been profiled by numerous media outlets including the Chicago Tribune, the Chicago Sun-Times, Bloomberg BNA, Billboard Magazine and TMZ. Jim has also been interviewed by CBS Consumer Watch. Jim is frequently invited as a speaker at national class action litigation seminars. Ryan F. Stephan is a founder and principal of Stephan Zouras, LLP. A 2000 graduate from Chicago Kent College of Law, Ryan has helped thousands of clients recover damages in cases involving unpaid overtime, employment disputes, business litigation, products liability and personal injury. Ryan has successfully tried cases to verdict including obtaining a $9,000,000 verdict on behalf of 200 employees who were misclassified and denied overtime pay. Ryan has also served as lead or co-lead counsel on numerous complex class and collective action cases involving wage and hour matters and has helped recover damages for tens of thousands of wronged employees. In these cases, Ryan has helped establish precedent in wage and hour law, forced major corporations to change unlawful employment practices and helped recover tens of millions of


2

dollars in unpaid wages for his clients. Ryan and his cases have been profiled by numerous media outlets including Good Morning America, Fortune, ESPN, Fox News, The Guardian, The New York Times, Think Progress, USA Today and Vice Sports. Mr. Stephan and Mr. Zouras are admitted to the United States Supreme Court as well as the Trial Bar of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. In addition, they have been admitted or admitted pro hac vice to prosecute class actions in the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, the District of New Jersey, the Eastern and Middle Districts of Pennsylvania, the Western District of North Carolina, the Superior Court for the State of California, the Central District of Illinois, , the District of Minnesota the Eastern District of Michigan, the Eastern District of Missouri, the District of Maryland, the Southern District of Ohio, the Northern, Middle and Southern Districts of Florida, the Northern District of Texas, the District of Massachusetts, the District of Minnesota, the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania, the Western District of Washington and the Southern and Northern Districts of Iowa. In every consecutive year since 2009, Chicago Magazine's Super Lawyer Section selected both Jim and Ryan as two of the top attorneys in Illinois, a distinction given to no more than 5% of the lawyers in the state.

PARTNERS

Andrew C. Ficzko graduated from Drake University Law School in 2009. A tireless advocate for working people, Andy has spent his entire professional career litigating on behalf of employees in class and collective actions nationwide. Andy has helped thousands of clients recover damages in cases involving unpaid minimum and overtime wages and other benefits. Andy served as the second chair in two major federal jury trials to verdict on behalf of Plaintiffs in wage and hour matters and one state jury trial to verdict on behalf of Plaintiffs in a breach of contract matter. Andy has been admitted to the Trial Bar of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois since December 2012 and has been admitted or admitted pro hac vice to the Southern District of New York, the Southern and Northern Districts of Iowa, District of Massachusetts, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and the Western District of Washington. In 2014, 2015, and 2016 Andy was recognized by Chicago Magazine’s Super Lawyer section as a Rising Star, a distinction given to no more than 2.5% of Illinois lawyers. Teresa M. Becvar is a 2013 graduate of Chicago-Kent College of Law, where she served as Editor of the Law Review and graduated in the top 15% of her class. Teresa assists Stephan Zouras, LLP clients with employment and consumer protection issues. Teresa has experience working on a wide range of employment cases, including wage and hour class and collective actions and employment discrimination cases. Teresa has been admitted pro hac vice to the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York, the Western District of Washington, the Middle District of Florida and the Central District of California. In 2016, Teresa was recognized by Chicago Magazine’s Super Lawyer section as a Rising Star, a distinction given to no more than 2.5% of Illinois lawyers.


3

ASSOCIATE ATTORNEYS Catherine T. Mitchell graduated from The John Marshall Law School in 2015. Catherine litigates on behalf of Stephan Zouras, LLP’s clients in both class action and individual litigation, representing people in a wide-range of legal disputes, including unpaid wages, employee misclassification, mass torts, antitrust, and consumer fraud. Catherine is an active member of the Women’s Bar Association of Illinois and the Young Lawyers Society of the Chicago Bar Association, and served as a Chapter Editor for the Second Edition of BNA’s Age Discrimination in Employment Act Treatise. Catherine is admitted to practice in Illinois, the District of Colorado, the Eastern District of Wisconsin (admission pending) and has been admitted pro hac vice to the Southern and Eastern District of New York, the District of Florida-Tampa Division, the Southern District of Iowa and the Eastern District of North Carolina. Haley R. Jenkins graduated cum laude from Chicago-Kent College of Law in 2016. Haley litigates on behalf of Stephan Zouras, LLP’s clients in both class action and individual litigation. A spirited advocate, Haley represents clients in legal disputes involving unpaid wages, employee misclassification, antitrust, consumer fraud, whistleblower actions, and qui tam cases. She is currently a member of the legal team pursuing the first-ever lawsuit for minimum wage violations on behalf of the cheerleading squad of an NBA team. Haley is admitted to practice in Illinois and the District of Colorado and has been admitted pro hac vice to the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

OF COUNSEL

David J. Cohen, a highly skilled and successful class-action attorney, joined Stephan Zouras, LLP in April 2016 and manages our Philadelphia office. Dave has spent 22 years fighting to protect the rights of thousands of employees, consumers, shareholders, and union members. Before joining Stephan Zouras, Dave worked on, and ran, dozens of significant antitrust, consumer, employment and securities matters for four highly-regarded Philadelphia firms. Before joining the private sector, Dave completed a unique clerkship with the Hon. Stephen E. Levin in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, during which he not only helped to develop a respected and efficient system for the resolution of the Court’s class action cases, but also contributed to several well-regarded works on class actions. Dave earned a J.D. from the Temple University School of Law in 1994. While attending law school, Dave was awarded the Barristers Award for excellence in trial advocacy and worked as a teaching assistant for Hon. Legrome Davis (E.D. Pa.) as part of Temple’s award-winning Integrated Trial Advocacy program. Dave graduated with honors from the University of Chicago in 1991.

Dave is admitted to practice in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and the state courts of Pennsylvania and New Jersey. He is a member of the American and Philadelphia Bar Associations.


4

Phillip J. Gibbons, Jr., a highly-accomplished Plaintiff’s class action attorney in his own right, joined Stephan Zouras, LLP in June 2017 and manages our Charlotte office. Phil focuses entirely on employment law, with an emphasis on helping employees recover unpaid wages including overtime. Phil began his legal career with a large national law firm, representing and counseling corporations and employers. Since 2001, Phil has exclusively represented employees. Phil is recognized by his peers as a highly skilled employment lawyer. He is listed in Best Lawyers in America and Super Lawyers. In addition, he has a perfect 10.0 rating on Avvo.com and an “A/V” rating with Martindale Hubble, which is the highest rating an attorney can receive. Phil has extensive experience litigating single and multi-plaintiff wage and hour lawsuits under the Fair Labor Standards Act, recovering unpaid overtime and minimum wages for thousands of employees throughout the United States. Phil is admitted to practice in North Carolina, Indiana, Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, U.S. District Courts Western District North Carolina, Middle District North Carolina, Southern District of Indiana, Northern District of Indiana, and Eastern District of Michigan.


5

REPRESENTATIVE TRIALS, VERDICTS AND JUDGMENTS

Frisari v. DISH Network 8/25/16 – Arbitration Judgment No. 18-160-001431-12 (AAA Arbitration) -The Arbitrator certified and granted final judgment in excess of seven figures for a class of over 1,000 New Jersey inside sales associates who performed work before and/or after their shifts without pay and were not paid the proper overtime rate when they worked in excess of 40 hours a week.

Huskey v. Ethicon Inc. 9/10/2014 – Jury Verdict No 2:12-cv-05201 (United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia) -Stephan Zouras, LLP helped secure a $3,270,000.00 jury verdict in one of the bell-weather trial cases in the multi-district litigation against Johnson & Johnson’s Ethicon unit for defective design, failure to warn and negligence related to transvaginal mesh device.

Lee v. THR 5/22/14 – Trial Court Judgment No. 12-cv-3078 (United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois) -As a result of the efforts of class counsel Stephan Zouras, LLP, the Court entered a judgment for a class of employees given job titles such as "Buyers," "Auditors" and "Managers" for unpaid overtime in the sum of $12,207,880.84.

Vilches et al. v. The Travelers Companies, Inc. 12/12/12 - Arbitration Judgment No. 11-160-000355-11 (American Arbitration Association) -Following a contested evidentiary hearing, Stephan Zouras, LLP secured a significant monetary award on behalf of a group of insurance appraiser employees seeking unpaid earned overtime under the FLSA. Kyriakoulis, at al. v. DuPage Health Center 11/8/12 - Jury Verdict No. 10-cv-7902 (United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois) -Stephan Zouras, LLP achieved a favorable jury verdict on behalf of several medical assistants deprived of minimum and overtime wages in violation of federal and Illinois law. Smith v. Safety-Kleen Systems, Inc. 7/11/12 - Jury Verdict No. 10-cv-6574 (United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois) -Stephan Zouras, LLP achieved a favorable jury verdict on behalf of a chemical handler deprived of overtime wages in this donning and doffing action brought under the FLSA. Wong v. Wice Logistics 1/30/12 - Jury Verdict No. 08 L 13380 (Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois) -Stephan Zouras, LLP recovered unpaid commissions and other damages for Plaintiff based on her claims under the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. Daniels et al. v. Premium Capital Financing 10/18/11 - Jury Verdict No. 08-cv-4736 (United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York) -Stephan Zouras, LLP were appointed lead class and trial counsel and achieved a jury verdict in excess of $9,000,000.00 on behalf of over 200 loan officers who were deprived of minimum wages and overtime pay.


6

Ferrand v. Lopas 5/22/01 - Jury Verdict No. 00 L 2502 (Circuit Court of Cook County, Law Division, State of Illinois) -Jury verdict in excess of available liability insurance policy limits entered in favor of seriously-injured pedestrian, resulting in liability against insurance carrier for its bad faith refusal to tender the policy limits before trial.

REPRESENTATIVE RESOLVED CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTIONS

Courts have appointed the firm's partners as lead or co-lead counsel in numerous class and collective actions in which they achieved six, seven and eight-figure verdicts or settlements including: In re Sears Holdings Corporation Stockholder and Derivative Litigation 5/9/17 – Final Approval No. 11081-VCL (Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware) -Stephan Zouras, LLP represented the Named Plaintiff in a $40 million settlement in connection with a 2015 sale by Sears of 235 properties to Seritage Growth Properties. Leiner v. Johnson & Johnson 1/31/17 – Final Approval No. 15-cv-5876c (United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois) -The Court granted final approval of a $5 million settlement for consumers nationwide in a consumer fraud class action. Stephan Zouras, LLP represented consumers who were deceived into paying premium prices for Johnson & Johnson baby bedtime products which falsely claimed to help babies sleep better. McPhearson v. 33 Management 11/3/16 – Final Approval No. 15-ch-17302 (Circuit Court of Cook County, IL) -The Court granted final approval of class settlement on behalf of tenants of a Chicago apartment building where the landlords violated the City of Chicago Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance by collecting and holding tenant security deposits without paying interest earned. Cook v. Bank of America 8/2/16 – Final Approval No. 15-cv-07718 (United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois) -The Court granted final approval of $3,250,000 settlement for an Illinois Class and FLSA Collective on behalf of individuals who worked as Treasury Services Advisors and who were misclassified as exempt from earned overtime wages. Altnor v. Preferred Freezer Services, Inc. 7/18/16 – Final Approval No. 14-cv-7042 (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania) -The firm’s attorneys served as lead counsel in this lawsuit seeking recovery of wages for unpaid meal break work for a class of 80 cold storage warehouse workers. Lukas v. Advocate Health Care 6/29/16 – Final Approval No. 14-cv-2740 (United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois) -The Court granted final approval of a $4,750,000 settlement for a federal FLSA and Illinois Minimum Wage Law collective class of home health care clinicians who were wrongly classified as “exempt” from federal and state overtime laws.


7

Kurgan v. Chiro One Wellness Centers LLC 4/27/16 – Final Approval No. 10-cv-1899 (United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois) -The Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for Section 216(b) certification of Plaintiffs’ FLSA claim, granted Rule 23 certification of Plaintiffs’ claims under the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and appointed Stephan Zouras, LLP as counsel for a class of chiropractic technicians and assistants. Heba v. Comcast 4/6/16 – Final Approval No. 12-471 (First Judicial District of Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia) -The Court granted class certification to Customer Account Executives who worked at Comcast’s Pennsylvania call centers and were required to work 15 minutes a day before their scheduled start time without pay. As lead counsel, Stephan Zouras, LLP achieved a favorable resolution for over 6,000 class members. Johnson v. Casey’s General Stores, Inc. 3/3/16 – Final Approval No. 15-cv-3086 (United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri) -The Court granted final approval on behalf of a certified class of employees of Casey’s General Stores, Inc. to redress violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Fields v. Bancsource, Inc. 2/3/16 – Final Approval No. 14-cv-7202 (United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois) -The Court entered an order granted Plaintiffs’ motion for Section 216(b) certification of a class of field engineers who were deprived of overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 in given workweeks. Elder, et al. v. Comcast Corporation 1/11/16 – Final Approval No. 12-cv-1157 (United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois) -The Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification and appointed Stephan Zouras, LLP as counsel for a class of cable technicians who allege they were deprived of overtime wages in violation of federal law. Posada, et al. v. Continental Home Loans, Inc. 1/13/16 - Final Approval 15-cv-4203 (United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York) -Stephan Zouras, LLP was appointed class counsel and achieved a substantial settlement on behalf of a class of loan officers deprived of minimum and overtime wages. Struett v. Susquehanna Bank 10/27/15 – Final Approval No. 15-cv-176 (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania) -The firm’s attorneys served as co-lead counsel in this lawsuit which recovered $300,000 in unpaid overtime wages for 31 misclassified loan officers. Faust, et al. v. Comcast Corporation 10/11/15 - Final Approval No. 10-cv-2336 (United States District Court for the Northern District of Maryland) -The Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification and appointed Stephan Zouras, LLP lead counsel for a class of call center employees. Butler, et al. v. Direct Sat 9/3/15 - Final Approval No. 10-cv-08747 DKC (United States District Court for the District of Maryland) -Stephan Zouras, LLP reached favorable resolution on behalf of a finally-certified collective class of technicians working in DirectSat’s Maryland warehouses who were not paid overtime


8

Sosnicki v. Continental Home Loans, Inc. 7/30/15 - Final Approval No. 12-cv-1130 (United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York) -As lead class counsel, Stephan Zouras, LLP achieved a six figure settlement on behalf of a collective class of loan officers who were deprived of minimum wages and overtime in violation of federal and state law. Bordell v. Geisinger Medical Center 4/8/15 – Final Approval No. 12-cv-1688 (Northumberland Court of Common Pleas) -The firm’s attorneys served as lead counsel in this lawsuit which challenged Defendant’s workweek averaging practices and recovered $499,000 in unpaid overtime wages for hospital workers. Harvey, et al. v. AB Electrolux, et al. 3/23/15 – Final Approval No. 11-cv-3036 (United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa) -As lead counsel, Stephan Zouras, LLP achieved a six figure settlement amount on behalf of hundreds of production workers seeking unpaid earned wages. Price v. NCR Corporation No. 51-610-908-12 (AAA Arbitration) 3/18/15 – Final Approval - As lead class counsel, Stephan Zouras, LLP achieved a seven figure, arbitrator approved settlement on behalf of thousands of Customer Engineers nationwide who were deprived overtime wages in violation of federal law. Frebes, et al. v. Mask Restaurants, LLC 1/15/15 – Final Approval No. 13-cv-3473 (United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois) - Stephan Zouras, LLP was appointed class counsel and achieved a substantial settlement on behalf of hundreds of servers, bartenders and bussers forced to participate in an illegal “tip pool.” Jones v. Judge Technical Services Inc. 12/15/14 – Final Approval No. 11-cv-6910 (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania) -As lead class counsel, Stephan Zouras, LLP prevailed on summary judgment and subsequently achieved a seven figure settlement on behalf of IT workers who were designated under the “Professional Day” or “Professional Week” compensation plan, misclassified as exempt from the FLSA and denied overtime pay. Howard, et al. v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. 5/7/14 – Final Approval No. 08-cv-2746 (United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois) and Hawkins v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. No. 09-cv-3633 (United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois) -For settlement purposes, the Court certified a class of approximately ten thousand security guards seeking damages for unpaid wages and overtime under the FLSA and Illinois Minimum Wage Law. Thomas v. Matrix Corporation Services 2/12/14 – Final Approval No. 10-cv-5093 (United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois) -As lead counsel, Stephan Zouras, LLP achieved a six figure settlement on behalf of a class of hundreds of technicians who allege they were deprived of overtime wages in violation of federal law.


9

Ingram v. World Security Bureau 12/17/13 – Final Approval No. 11-cv-6566 (United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois) -Stephan Zouras secured a class settlement on behalf of several hundred security officers deprived of minimum wages and overtime in violation of federal and state law. Sexton v. Franklin First Financial 9/30/13 – Final Approval No. 08-cv-04950 (United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York) -Stephan Zouras, LLP achieved a settlement on behalf of a class of approximately 150 loan officers deprived of minimum wages and overtime in violation of the FLSA. Outlaw v. Secure Health, L.P. 9/24/13 – Final Approval No. 11-cv-602 (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania) -The firm’s attorneys served as lead counsel in this lawsuit seeking recovery of wages for unpaid pre-shift, meal break and uniform maintenance work for a class of 35 nursing home workers. Robinson v. RCN Telecom Services, Inc. 8/5/13 – Final Approval No. 10-cv-6841 (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania) -The firm’s attorneys served as co-lead counsel in this lawsuit which recovered $375,000 in unpaid overtime wages for misclassified cable television installers. Holland v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. 7/26/13- Final Approval No. BC 394708 (Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles) -As class counsel, Stephan Zouras, LLP achieved a six figure settlement on behalf of thousands of security officers who allege they were deprived of overtime wages in violation of federal law. Jankoski v. Heath Consultants, Inc. 7/2/13 - Final Approval No. 12-cv-04549 (United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois) -Stephan Zouras, LLP was appointed lead counsel and achieved a settlement on behalf of gas management technicians deprived of minimum wages and overtime in violation of the FLSA. Ord v. First National Bank of Pennsylvania 6/21/13 – Final Approval No. 12-cv-766 (United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania) -The firm’s attorneys served as co-lead counsel in this consumer fraud lawsuit which recovered $3,000,000 for consumers who had been made to pay improper overdraft fees. Holley v. Erickson Living Management, LLC 6/13/13 – Final Approval No. 11-cv-2444 (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania) -The firm’s attorneys served as lead counsel in this lawsuit seeking recovery of wages for unpaid pre-shift and meal break work for a class of 63 nursing home workers. Hansen, et al. v. Per Mar Security Services 5/15/13 - Final Approval No. 09-cv-459 (United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa) -Stephan Zouras, LLP was appointed class counsel and secured a settlement for hundreds of security guards deprived of minimum wages and overtime in violation of federal and state law. Pomphrett v. American Home Bank 3/14/13 – Final Approval No. 12-cv-2511 (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania) -The firm’s attorneys served as co-lead counsel in this lawsuit which recovered $2,400,000 in unpaid overtime wages for misclassified loan officers.


10

Murphy v. Rayan Brothers, et al. 2/22/13 - Final Approval No. 11 CH 03949 (Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division, State of Illinois) -Stephan Zouras, LLP achieved class wide recovery on behalf of a class of tenants for violations of the Chicago Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance (RLTO). Glatts v. Crozer-Keystone Health System 2/6/13 – Final Approval No. 0904-1314 (Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas) -The firm’s attorneys served as co-lead counsel in this lawsuit which challenged Defendant’s workweek averaging practices and recovered $1,200,000 in unpaid overtime wages for hospital workers. Chambers v. Front Range Environmental, LLC 1/23/13 - Final Approval No. 12-cv-891 (United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois) -Stephan Zouras, LLP was appointed as class counsel and resolved this action on behalf of a class of maintenance workers. Piehl v. Baytree National Bank 1/3/13 - Final Approval No. 12-cv-1364 (United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois) -Stephan Zouras, LLP was appointed class counsel and resolved this action on behalf of a class of Indiana loan officers who were paid on a commission-only basis and deprived of earned minimum wage and overtime in violation of the FLSA. Searson v. Concord Mortgage Corporation 11/19/12 - Final Approval No. 07-cv-3909 (United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York) -Stephan Zouras, LLP achieved a settlement on behalf of a class of 80 loan officers deprived of minimum wages and overtime in violation of the FLSA. Ellenbecker, et al. v. North Star Cable Construction, Inc., et al. 11/14/12 - Final Approval No. 09-cv-7293 (United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois) -Stephan Zouras, LLP obtained Rule 23 certification, were appointed lead counsel, and achieved a significant monetary resolution for a class of several hundred cable technicians seeking unpaid overtime wages and the recovery of improper deductions from their pay. Williams, et al. v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. 11/8/12 - Final Approval No. 10-cv-7181 (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania) -As lead class counsel, Stephan Zouras, LLP achieved a settlement on behalf of a class of Pennsylvania security guards who were not paid for all time spent in training and orientation. Lacy, et al. v. The University of Chicago Medical Center 11/6/12 - Settlement No. 11-cv-5268 (United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois) -As lead class counsel, Stephan Zouras, LLP achieved a FLSA settlement for a collective class of hospital respiratory therapists. Molyneux, et al. v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. 11/5/12 - Final Approval No. 10-cv-588 (United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa) -As lead class counsel, Stephan Zouras achieved a settlement on behalf of a class of Iowa and Wisconsin security guards who were not paid for all time spent in training and orientation.


11

Davis v. TPI Iowa, LLC 9/6/12 - Final Approval No. 11-cv-233 (United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa) -As class counsel, Stephan Zouras, LLP achieved a settlement on behalf of a collective class of production employees. Kernats, et al. v. Comcast Corporation 5/28/12 - Final Approval No. 09-cv-3368 (United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois) -As lead class counsel, Stephan Zouras, LLP achieved a seven-figure settlement on behalf of over 7,500 Customer Account Representatives (CAEs) for unpaid wages in a Rule 23 class action brought under Illinois wage law. Garcia, et al. v. Loffredo Fresh Produce Co., Inc. 5/24/12 - Final Approval No. 11-cv-249 (United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa) -As class counsel, Stephan Zouras, LLP achieved a settlement on behalf of a collective class of produce processing employees.

Larsen, et al. v. Clearchoice Mobility, Inc., et al. 3/21/12 - Final Approval No. 11-cv-1701 (United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois) -Stephan Zouras, LLP achieved an FLSA settlement on behalf of a collective class of retail sales consultants. Etter v. Trinity Structural Towers 1/26/12 - Final Approval No. 11-cv-249 (United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa) -As class counsel, Stephan Zouras, LLP achieved a settlement on behalf of a collective class of production employees. Petersen, et al v. Marsh USA, Inc. et al. 9/21/11 - Final Approval No. 10-cv-1506 (United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois) -Stephan Zouras, LLP achieved a six figure settlement on behalf of over 30 analysts who claimed they were misclassified under the FLSA. Thompson v. World Alliance Financial Corp. 8/5/11 - Final Approval No. 08-cv-4951 (United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York) -Stephan Zouras, LLP were appointed lead counsel and achieved a settlement on behalf of a class of over one hundred loan officers deprived of minimum wages and overtime in violation of federal and state law. Vaughan v. Mortgage Source LLC, et al. 6/16/11 - Final Approval No. 08-cv-4737 (United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York) -Stephan Zouras, LLP were appointed lead counsel and achieved a settlement on behalf of a class of loan officers deprived of minimum wages and overtime in violation of federal and state law. Harris, et al. v. Cheddar's Casual Cafe, Inc. 6/1/11 - Final Approval No. 51 460 00557 10 (AAA Arbitration) -Stephan Zouras served as lead counsel in six-figure class settlement on behalf of over 100 restaurant workers deprived of minimum wages and overtime.


12

Turner v. Mercy Health System 4/20/11 – Final Approval No. 0801-3670 (Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas) -The firm’s attorneys served as co-lead counsel in this lawsuit which challenged Defendant’s workweek averaging practices and, in a case of first impression, recovered $2,750,000 in unpaid overtime wages for hospital workers. Brown et al. v. Vision Works, et al. 3/4/11 - Final Approval No. 10-cv-01130 (United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois) -As lead class counsel, Stephan Zouras, LLP achieved a settlement on behalf of retail store managers improperly classified as exempt from overtime. Havard v. Osceola Foods, Inc., et al. 2/28/11 - Final Approval No. LA CV 0111290 (Iowa District for Clarke County, Iowa) -As lead class counsel, Stephan Zouras, LLP achieved a class settlement on behalf of meat processing plant employees who were not properly paid for donning and doffing activities performed before their shifts, during meal breaks and after their shifts. Lagunas v. Cargill Meat Solutions Corp. 1/27/11 - Final Approval No. 10-cv-00220 (United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa) -Stephan Zouras, LLP served as co-lead counsel in class settlement on behalf of meat processing plant employees who were not properly paid for donning and doffing activities performed before their shifts, during meal breaks and after their shifts. Anderson v. JCG Industries, Inc. 9/2/10 - Final Approval No. 09-cv-1733 (United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois) -As lead class counsel, Stephan Zouras, LLP achieved a six-figure settlement on behalf of meat processing plant employees who were not properly paid for time worked before their shifts, during meal breaks and after their shifts. Cedeno, et al. v. Home Mortgage Desk, Corp., et al. 6/15/10 - Final Approval No. 08-cv-1168 (United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York) -Stephan Zouras, LLP along with co-counsel was appointed lead counsel and achieved a six figure settlement on behalf of a Section 216(b) collective class of loan officers deprived of overtime wages. Perkins, et al. v. Specialty Construction Brands, Inc. 11/15/09 - Final Approval No. 09-cv-1678 (United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois) -As lead class counsel, Stephan Zouras, LLP achieved a six figure wage and hour settlement on behalf of a collective class of plant employees for claims of unpaid overtime, including time worked before the start of their shifts, during breaks and after the end of their shifts. Wineland, et al. v. Casey's General Stores, Inc. 10/22/09 - Final Approval No. 08-cv-00020 (United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa) -Stephan Zouras, LLP along with co-counsel was appointed lead counsel and achieved a seven figure settlement on behalf of a Section 216(b) collective class and Rule 23 class of over 10,000 cooks and cashiers for unpaid wages, including time worked before and after their scheduled shifts and while off-the-clock.


13

Jones, et al. v. Casey's General Stores, Inc. 10/22/09 - Final Approval No. 07-cv-400 (United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa) -Stephan Zouras, LLP along with co-counsel was appointed lead counsel and achieved a seven figure settlement on behalf of a Section 2 l 6(b) collective class and Rule 23 class of assistant store managers for unpaid wages, including time worked before and after their scheduled shifts and while off-the-clock. Stuart, et al. v. College Park, et al. 12/11/07 - Final Approval No. 05 CH 09699 (Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division, State of Illinois) -The firm's partners served as co-lead counsel in this case brought on behalf of a class of tenants who were seeking the refund of their security deposits. As a result of their efforts, Mr. Stephan and Mr. Zouras helped achieve a six figure settlement on behalf of a class of over 100 tenants. Huebner et al. v. Graham C Stores 11/15/07 - Final Approval No. 06 CH 09695 (Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division, State of Illinois) -Ryan Stephan of Stephan Zouras, LLP served as co-lead counsel in this wage and hour case involving claims for unpaid wages by a class of gas station employees. Mr. Stephan helped achieve a six figure settlement for over 100 employees. Perez, et al. v. RadioShack Corporation 9/14/07 - Final Approval No. 02-cv-7884 (United States District Court for Northern District of Illinois) -The firm's partners served as co-lead counsel in this nationwide Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") overtime action brought on behalf of 4,000 retail store managers. Plaintiffs claimed they were improperly classified as exempt from the FLSA and owed overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 each week. In a case of first impression, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of a sub-class of Plaintiffs who did not "regularly and customarily" supervise at least 80 hours of subordinate time per week at least 80% of the time as required by the executive exemption of the FLSA. The reported decision is Perez v. RadioShack Corp., 386 F. Supp. 979 (N.D. Ill. 2005). As a result of the efforts of Plaintiffs' counsel, Plaintiffs obtained a nearly $9 million settlement on the eve of trial. Reinsmith, et al. v. Castlepoint Mortgage 4/3/07 - Final Approval No. 05-cv-01168 (United States District Court, Eastern District of Massachusetts) -The firm's partners served as co-lead counsel in this action brought on behalf of a collective class of loan officers seeking to recover unpaid overtime. Mr. Stephan and Mr. Zouras helped achieve a seven-figure settlement on behalf of over 100 loan officers in this case. Kutcher, et al. v. B&A Associates 11/20/06 - Final Approval No. 03 CH 07610 (Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division, State of Illinois) -The firm's partners served as co-lead counsel in this case brought on behalf of a class of tenants who were seeking damages based on alleged security deposit violations. As a result of their efforts, Mr. Stephan and Mr. Zouras helped achieve a six figure settlement on behalf of a class of over 100 tenants.


14

Ciesla, et al. v. Lucent Technologies, Inc. 7/31/06 - Final Approval No. 05-cv-1641 (United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois) -The firm's partners served as co-lead counsel in this breach of contract class action against a high-tech communications company. Mr. Stephan and Mr. Zouras helped obtain a seven figure settlement on behalf of the class. Casale, et al. v. Provident Bank 7/25/05 - Final Approval No. 04-cv-2009 (United States District Court for the District of New Jersey) -The firm's partners served as co-lead counsel in this case brought on behalf of a collective class of over 100 loan officers who were seeking damages based on wage and hour violations of the FLSA. As a result of their efforts, Mr. Stephan and Mr. Zouras helped achieve a seven figure settlement on behalf of the Plaintiffs. Corbin, et al. v. Barry Realty 3/22/05 - Final Approval No. 02 CH 16003 (Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division, State of Illinois) -The firm's partners served as co-lead counsel in this case brought on behalf of a class of tenants who were seeking the refund and interest on their security deposits as called for by the Chicago Residential Landlord Tenant Ordinance. As a result of their efforts, Mr. Stephan and Mr. Zouras helped achieve a six-figure settlement on behalf of a class of over 100 tenants.

REPRESENTATIVE CURRENT CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTIONS Courts have appointed the firm's partners and associate attorneys as lead or co-lead counsel in numerous pending class and collective actions they are actively litigating including: Higgins v. Bayada Home Health Care, Inc. 12/1/16 No. 3:16-cv-2382 (United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania) - Stephan Zouras, LLP represents current and former home health clinicians, which include registered nurses, occupational therapists, physical therapists, medical social workers and speech language pathologists employed by Bayada Home Health Care, Inc. Plaintiffs allege that Bayada wrongfully classified them as “exempt” from both federal and state overtime laws, depriving them of earned wages, including overtime wages. Brown v. Health Resource Solutions, Inc. 11/22/16 No. 1:16-cv-10667 (United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois) - Stephan Zouras, LLP represents a collective class of home health care clinicians employed by Health Resource Solutions, Inc. alleging they were misclassified as exempt from the overtime provisions of federal and state wage and hour laws, effectively depriving them of certain earned regular and overtime wages. Donoghue v. Verizon Communications, Inc. 9/1/16 No. 16-cv-4742 (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania) - Stephan Zouras LLP represents wireline workers who were hired to fill in for Verizon employees during a strike. Despite regularly working 65 hours per week, these employees were classified as exempt and denied overtime wages.


15

Fries v. Residential Home Health, LLC 3/28/16 No. 1:16-cv-03727 (United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois) -Stephan Zouras, LLP represents current and former home health care clinicians, which include registered nurses, occupational therapists, physical therapists and speech language pathologists employed by Residential Home Health Care, LLC. Plaintiffs allege that Residential wrongly classified Clinicians as “exempt” from federal and state overtime laws to deprive them of significant earned wages. Oaks v. Sears 3/23/16 No. 1:15-cv-11318 (United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois) -The Court appointed Stephan Zouras, LLP lead counsel to represent hundreds of consumers who own or once owned Sears Kenmore grills in a product defect class action. Galt v. Eagleville Hospital 12/30/15 No. 15-cv-6851 (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania) -Stephan Zouras LLP represents current and former healthcare providers employed by Eagleville Hospital in this case seeking to recover unpaid overtime wages for meal break work. Hauser v. Alexian Brothers Home Health 7/24/15 No. 15-cv-6462 (United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois) -Stephan Zouras, LLP is prosecuting an action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Illinois wage law for a conditionally certified class of home health care clinicians who were misclassified as “exempt” and deprived of earned overtime wages. Goh v. NCR Corporation 6/26/15 Case No. 01-15-0004-0067 (AAA Arbitration) -Stephan Zouras is prosecuting an action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) on behalf of thousands of aggrieved employees of NCR throughout the United States. Korenblum v. Citigroup, Inc. 4/30/15 No. 15-cv-3383 (United States District Court for the Southern District of New York) -Stephan Zouras, LLP, represents current and former information technology workers for Citigroup, Inc. who were required to work more than 40 hours per week without overtime pay. Gursky v. Citigroup 4/23/15 No. 8:15-cv-02887-SCB-MAP (United States District Court Middle District of Florida Tampa Division) -Stephan Zouras, LLP currently represents current and former IT employees seeking unpaid overtime wages against Citigroup. Plaintiffs allege that Citi often hired these IT workers IT through staffing agencies but controlled their work and terms of employment. Additionally, Plaintiffs allege that they worked more than 40 hours per week, but were not paid for all the overtime they worked. Ray v. Dish Network 4/17/15 No 01-15-0003-4651 (American Arbitration Association) -Stephan Zouras, LLP represents individuals who worked as an Inside Sales Associate who performed work before and/or after their scheduled shifts without pay and worked in excess of 40 hours in any given work week or worked less than 40 hours bit were not paid for any such additional work and were not credited for the time expended on such work.


16

Carver v. Presence Health Network 4/2/15 No. 1:15-cv-02905 (United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois) -Stephan Zouras, LLP represents participants and beneficiaries of the Resurrection Health Care Defined Benefit Plan and the Provena Employees’ Retirement Plan. Plaintiffs allege that Presence is violating numerous provisions of ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act), including underfunding their pension plans by claiming the Plans are exempt for ERISA’s protections because they are a “Church Plan.” Albu v. The Home Depot, Inc, 2/11/15 No. 15-cv-00412 (United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia) - Stephan Zouras, LLP recently filed a consumer class action complaint on behalf employees and service providers of Home Depot for routinely and systematically violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Tompkins v. Farmers Insurance Exchange (E.D. Pa.) 6/13/14 No. 14-cv-3737 (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania) -The Court appointed Stephan Zouras LLP to serve as co-lead counsel in this case seeking unpaid overtime wages for misclassified loan officers and certified the case to proceed for a group of loan officers in 49-states. Lukas v. Advocate Health Care 3/17/14 No. 14-cv-01873 (United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois) -Stephan Zouras represents participants and beneficiaries of the Advocate Health Care Network pension plan. Plaintiffs allege that Advocate is violating numerous provisions of ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act), including underfunding the Advocate Plan by claiming the Plan is exempt from ERISA’s protections because it is a “church based plan.” On December 31, 2014, Federal District Court Judge Edmund Chang ruled in our favor, specifically holding, “the Advocate plan does not meet the criteria of an exempt church plan under ERISA.” Rocha v. Gateway Financial Services (E.D. Pa.) 2/2/14 No. 15-cv-482 (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania) -The Court appointed Stephan Zouras LLP co-lead counsel in this case seeking unpaid overtime wages for misclassified loan officers and certified the case to proceed on a collective basis for more than 100 individuals. Jacks, et al. v. DirectSat, USA, LLC 6/19/12 No. 10-cv-1707 (United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois) -The Court appointed Stephan Zouras, LLP lead counsel to represent a certified class of several hundred satellite dish technicians who allege they were deprived of earned overtime wages. Franco, et al. v. Ideal Mortgage Bankers, d/b/a Lend America 8/13/08 No. 07-cv-3956 (United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York) -Stephan Zouras, LLP achieved FLSA Section 216(b) certification of a collective class of several hundred loan officers who were deprived of minimum wages and overtime in violation of federal and state law.


1

Boyd, David A.

From: [email protected]: Friday, October 27, 2017 1:28 PMTo: [email protected]: Activity in Case 1:16-cv-10844 Kaminski v. Bank of America, N.A. et al motion for

settlement

This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. However, if the referenced document is a transcript, the free copy and 30 page limit do not apply.

United States District Court

Northern District of Illinois - CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.1.1.2

Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered by Stephan, Ryan on 10/27/2017 at 3:27 PM CDT and filed on 10/27/2017 Case Name: Kaminski v. Bank of America, N.A. et al Case Number: 1:16-cv-10844

Filer: Arlene Kaminski Document Number: 34

Docket Text: MOTION by Plaintiff Arlene Kaminski for settlement approval (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit 1, # (2) Exhibit A to Exhibit 1, # (3) Exhibit B to Exhibit 1, # (4) Exhibit C to Exhibit 1, # (5) Exhibit D to Exhibit 1, # (6) Exhibit E to Exhibit 1, # (7) Exhibit F to Exhibit 1, # (8) Exhibit G to Exhibit 1, # (9) Exhibit 2, # (10) Exhibit 3, # (11) Attachment A)(Stephan, Ryan)

1:16-cv-10844 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Brian E. Spang [email protected], [email protected] Catherine T Mitchell [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] James B. Zouras [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Katharine P. Lennox [email protected], [email protected],

2

[email protected] Michael David Mandel [email protected], [email protected], ECFNEF-LACC-L&[email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Michael Ross Phillips [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Ryan F Stephan [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] 1:16-cv-10844 Notice has been delivered by other means to:

The following document(s) are associated with this transaction:

Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1040059490 [Date=10/27/2017] [FileNumber=18197897 -0] [1183567e5a9c8b3e9101a020f542ebe0fb3756a3e53fe701c3f5a8158d28ff310 006a11d60471b998db4c77697ca06f3f46043773a5de5f6d6ae592a2fa3fccd]] Document description:Exhibit 1 Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1040059490 [Date=10/27/2017] [FileNumber=18197897 -1] [3b242038ea6a9c577639b7db7a616c42ccc70d9580d362636db9abba7de084418 be0a320873a0e72da4417e713242d0e46260bd4b81f636971374cc1bf6fdfc1]] Document description:Exhibit A to Exhibit 1 Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1040059490 [Date=10/27/2017] [FileNumber=18197897 -2] [15cf5df7a3a1907f8bc0992df84875afa4ed45af8d73821da398ec4899ddb6757 a9e0fa301f897054e75516ae224dbbaa099b6d098d3e385d25bd359a0304d8c]] Document description:Exhibit B to Exhibit 1 Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1040059490 [Date=10/27/2017] [FileNumber=18197897 -3] [16ed0bcd9747917d2a4dcf1eef34f4123dfd1610e122e3455703d2d58cdc6e5e5 61355a90ad50b6fb527cac12e55d4bb3ad9d34a44cbac2650e7a7fa9501543d]] Document description:Exhibit C to Exhibit 1 Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1040059490 [Date=10/27/2017] [FileNumber=18197897 -4] [87bb80fb25c4ecc761c7ed76f8267a83951628d73261b37883bcac8ac7ece1d82 6c46e88e1467de77d67a8949c3a287c767eba3a4a677bc8033310993b20cc33]] Document description:Exhibit D to Exhibit 1 Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1040059490 [Date=10/27/2017] [FileNumber=18197897 -5] [76fb40b85df4ba2a10d2167d307068c24601cc0b0a1bcabc2f22cd4f784040a3a d6d8f8c2618d7863eff4b50f60225c4ec1fe17e70a6ff2a67ecc1b1903cf60f]]

3

Document description:Exhibit E to Exhibit 1 Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1040059490 [Date=10/27/2017] [FileNumber=18197897 -6] [2f8fb988f3db8f6c85d5689143c33210a472fb97d5df65c8ea286719a2748b883 859277aad075668f06ad018f5b6fc9c5672cfa944ab1d834e4cc5670100deb2]] Document description:Exhibit F to Exhibit 1 Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1040059490 [Date=10/27/2017] [FileNumber=18197897 -7] [4b712ca970ed9941be6e4780bd106e8dd75fb6d89f5d0a0091098b97dfd4c8971 542402e884aa34d96758f6b3146a86c8e10bb07465a546bbe35f3c6990ef917]] Document description:Exhibit G to Exhibit 1 Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1040059490 [Date=10/27/2017] [FileNumber=18197897 -8] [4e6511ade2eeca90ae5a43a67d46cc1ecd8b0c9bdeecf0a790b12cf5ae4c6ada1 54d77042ab033f7c0cc652730b60a61f832f5176601ad7dd6348fcc37c4920a]] Document description:Exhibit 2 Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1040059490 [Date=10/27/2017] [FileNumber=18197897 -9] [493d7a1fb167a6243978aaef4e093610141e0c1b7dae938a20b75f4220d9d9eb6 4eb6e6abc706531a7af966acbc8318187a07a4416adcef562d53a96ba257e50]] Document description:Exhibit 3 Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1040059490 [Date=10/27/2017] [FileNumber=18197897 -10] [75a7faef2157a855a551ee335895b163e96068e77a9e4c1d610395f46addebdd 66cb80c95534349c730b4bcfdf202c7ff744db8720c4d373dbee17789df57b51]] Document description: Attachment A Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1040059490 [Date=10/27/2017] [FileNumber=18197897 -11] [3f81f018ddaa6b78ad8a61ac3c629403d5a382fba3851095390daf693b7ad364 e6a67bdfcd700fafd6b96d810bc55d5c8a5341be1af07a0bf894ddf4097da7b3]]

Documents

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE ... has leave to file the Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) attached hereto as Exhibit A, which includes added claims for unpaid overtime