Hall, Judge Janet C.

English

DigitalCommons@ILR

Cornell University ILR School 
DigitalCommons@ILR 
Consent Decrees Labor and Employment Law Program 
7-26-2013 
Cherie Easterling v. State of Connecticut, Department of 
Correction 
Judge Janet C. Hall 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/condec 
Thank you for downloading this resource, provided by the ILR School's Labor and Employment 
Law Program. Please help support our student research fellowship program with a gift to the 
Legal Repositories! 
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Labor and Employment Law Program at 
DigitalCommons@ILR. It has been accepted for inclusion in Consent Decrees by an authorized administrator of 
DigitalCommons@ILR. For more information, please contact catherwood-dig@cornell.edu. 
If you have a disability and are having trouble accessing information on this website or need materials in an 
alternate format, contact web-accessibility@cornell.edu for assistance. 
Cherie Easterling v. State of Connecticut, Department of Correction 
Keywords 
Cherie Easterling, State of Connecticut, Department of Corrections, 3:08-cv-00826-JCH, Consent Decree, 
disparate impact, hiring, sex, female, government, Employment Law, Title VII 
This article is available at DigitalCommons@ILR: https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/condec/384 
Case 3:08-cv-00826-JCH Document 245 Filed 07/29/13 Page 1 of 7 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT 
CHERIE EASTERLING, individually : 
and on behalf of all others : 
similarly situated, : CIVIL ACTION NO. 
: 3:08-CV-826(JCH) 
Plaintiffs, : 
-against- : JULY 26,2103 
STATE OF CONNECTICUT, 
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION : 
Defendant. : 
ORDER GRANTING 
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AND 
APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AND CLASS ACTION 
SETTLEMENT PROCEDURE 
The above-entitled matter came before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary 
Approval of Settlement and Approval of Plaintiffs' Proposed Notices of Settlement and Class 
Action Settlement Procedure ("Motion for Preliminary Approval"). This Court granted class 
certification on January 4, 2010. On May 5, 2011 the Court entered partial summary judgment 
in favor of Plaintiff as to liability for disparate impact discrimination arising from Defendant's 
use of the 1.5 mile portion of the physical fitness test for female Correction Officer applicants to 
the State of Connecticut. 
On November 22, 2011, the Court modified its earlier certification Order, certifying 
Plaintiffs claims for class-wide declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 
23(b)(2), and Plaintiffs claims for monetary and individualized injunctive relief pursuant to Fed. 
R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). ECF No. 156. The Court held that the members of the class include "[a]ll 
female applicants for the position of Correction Officer ("CO") at the State of Connecticut 
Case 3:08-cv-00826-JCH Document 245 Filed 07/29/13 Page 2 of 7 
Department of Correction ("DOC") who participated in the CO selection process and failed only 
the 1.5 mile run portion of the physical fitness test at any time from June 28, 2004, and 
continuing to the date of final judgment in this matter." Id. at 51. 
On January 3, 2012, following briefing, the Court approved the form of notice and opt-
out form for the class, ECF No. 166. The Court then set the schedule for the remedial damages 
phase of litigation on January 19, 2012. ECF No. 172. Only one class member, Virginia C. 
Brennan, opted-out of the class. ECF No. 173. 
Having considered the Motion for Preliminary Approval, the supporting declaration, and 
the complete record in this matter, for good cause shown, 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: 
I. Preliminary Approval of Settlement 
1. Based upon the Court's review of the Motion for Preliminary Approval, the Court 
grants preliminary approval of the settlement memorialized in the Stipulated Agreement, 
attached to the Dugger Declaration ("Dugger Decl.") as Exhibit B. 
2. The Court concludes that the proposed Stipulated Agreement is within the range 
of possible settlement approval, such that notice to the Class is appropriate. See In re Traffic 
Exec. Ass'n, 627 F.2d 631, 634 (2d Cir. 1980); Menkes v. Stolt-Nielsen S.A., 270 F.R.D. 80, 101 
(D. Conn. 2010); Reade-Alvarez v. Eltman, Eltman & Cooper, P.C., 237 F.R.D. 26, 33 
(E.D.N.Y. 2006). 
3. Having conducted an initial evaluation of the fairness of the proposed settlement 
on the basis of the Motion for Preliminary Approval, the supporting declaration and its attached 
documents, the Court finds that there is "probable cause to submit the [settlement] to class 
members" and will "hold a full-scale hearing as to its fairness." In re Traffic Exec. Ass 'n, 627 
2 
Case 3:08-cv-00826-JCH Document 245 Filed 07/29/13 Page 3 of 7 
F.2d at 634 (internal quotations omitted). 
4. The Court finds that the Stipulated Agreement is the result of extensive, arm's 
length negotiations by counsel, well-versed in the prosecution of complex employment class 
actions. See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Visa U.S.A. Inc., 396 F.3d 96, 116 (2d Cir. 2005). 
5. The assistance of an experienced mediator reinforces that the Stipulated 
Agreement is non-collusive. See Capsolas v. Pasta Res., Inc., No. 10 CV 5595, 2012 WL 
1656920, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 9, 2012). 
II. Notices to the Class 
6. The Court approves the proposed Court-Authorized Notices ("Notices") attached 
to the Dugger Declaration as Exhibit C (notice for class members for whom Class Counsel 
already has SSA and IRS authorizations) and Exhibit D (notice for class members for whom 
Class Counsel does not have SSA and IRS authorizations), and directs their distribution on 
August 2, 2013. 
7. The contents of the Notices comply fully with due process and Federal Rule of 
Civil Procedure 23. 
8. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2)(B), the notice must be: 
the best notice practicable under the circumstances, including individual 
notice to all members who can be identified through reasonable effort. The 
notice must concisely and clearly state in plain, easily understood 
language: the nature of the action; the definition of the class certified; the 
class claims, issues, or defenses; that a class member may enter an 
appearance through counsel if the member so desires; that the court will 
exclude from the class any member who requests exclusion, stating when 
and how members may elect to be excluded; and the binding effect of a 
class judgment on class members under Rule 23(c)(3). 
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B). 
9. The Notices satisfy each of these requirements and adequately put Rule 23 class 
****with the modification at page 5 of the Notice (para. 2 of Ex. C, para. 3 of Ex. D) to read: "It is important to understand that if you 
opt-out of the class, Class Counsel will no longer represent you, and if you wish to pursue your claims on your own behalf before 
they expire, you will need to retain separate counsel or represent yourself." 
3 
Case 3:08-cv-00826-JCH Document 245 Filed 07/29/13 Page 4 of 7 
members on notice of the proposed settlement. See, e.g., Menkes, 270 F.R.D. at 105 (class notice 
"must be of such nature as reasonably to convey the required information . . . and it must afford a 
reasonable time for those interested to make their appearance") (citing McReynolds v. Richards-
Cantave, 588 F.3d 790, 804 (2d Cir. 2009)). 
10. The Notices are appropriate because they describe the terms of the settlement, 
inform the class about the allocation of attorneys' fees, and provide specific information 
regarding the date, time, and place of the final approval hearing. Capsolas, 2012 WL 1656920, 
at *3. 
III. Class Action Settlement Procedure 
11. The Court hereby adopts the following general settlement approval procedures: 
a) Class members who have submitted complete IRS and SSA 
authorization forms and who do not opt out will receive back pay 
awards. 
b) Class members who have not submitted IRS and SSA 
authorization forms will receive the required forms. 
c) If a class member submits incomplete SSA or IRS authorization(s), 
Class Counsel will send a letter to the class member explaining the 
reason that the authorization is incomplete within five days, after 
which the class member will have fourteen days from the mailing 
to submit the corrected authorization(s) to Class Counsel via 
facsimile (or submit by mail by the original deadline if that 
deadline provides more time). 
d) Class members will be divided into two groups based on whether 
they first applied to the Correction Officer position in 2004 or 
2006. 
e) Using the information obtained for each class member from the 
IRS and SSA, Class Counsel will calculate the difference in wages 
for each class member as compared to the Correction Officer 
position (as valued in damages Tables 2 and 3 of the Stipulated 
Agreement) during the Damages Period. This value will represent 
the back pay value each class member would have been entitled to 
4 
Case 3:08-cv-00826-JCH Document 245 Filed 07/29/13 Page 5 of 7 
prior to a pro rata reduction reflecting the gross class damages 
methodology.1 
f) The total difference in wages between each class member and the 
Correction Officer position during the Damages Periods will be 
separately totaled for 2004 and 2006 applicants. Class members 
whose actual wages were more than the wages they would have 
received as a Correction Officer during their Damages Period will 
have a value of zero for this step. 
g) For each group (i.e. 2004 and 2006 applicants) the gross class 
damages attributed to that applicant group in damages Table 1 
($565,474 for 2004 and $1,286,418 for 2006)2 will be divided by 
the total income difference for all participating class members for 
each respective group derived from the totals of step #6. 
h) The resulting proportional value for the 2004 applicants and 2006 
applicants will be applied to the value calculated for each class 
member in step #5, which will determine that class member's 
appropriate pro rata distribution (the 2004 and 2006 applicant 
groups will have different proportional values). 
12. In addition, the Court hereby also adopts the following specific settlement 
approval procedures: 
a) Following preliminary approval, and prior to mailing notice, Class 
Counsel will run a search for any new addresses for each class 
member reported since January 1, 2012, on Westlaw People 
Search. 
Where the information provided by the IRS and SSA differ for a given year, the values 
will be averaged. Where only one agency provides information in response to Class Counsel's 
submission of complete authorization forms for a given year, Class Counsel will base its 
calculations on only the information provided by the disbursement deadline. In instances where 
an authorization was submitted to Class Counsel, but became stale before submission to the IRS 
or SSA, Class Counsel will rely on the information received as of the time of disbursement of 
awards, but prior to such reliance, will also request an additional authorization from the class 
member and submit it to the relevant agency. 
2
 The 2004 and 2006 totals will each be reduced by half of any incentive payment awarded 
to Cherie Easterling from the gross class damages fund. The maximum such award permitted by 
the Stipulated Agreement is $10,000. 
5 
Case 3:08-cv-00826-JCH Document 245 Filed 07/29/13 Page 6 of 7 
b) On August 2, 2013, Class Counsel will mail the notices to class 
members (class members for whom Class Counsel has not received 
SSA and IRS authorization forms will also receive the required 
forms and a pre-paid envelope for delivery to Class Counsel), at 
their last known address, as well as any additional addresses 
provided by Westlaw People Search, for the period after January 1, 
2012. Class members for whom Class Counsel have received 
completed IRS and SSA authorization forms will receive the notice 
attached to the Dugger Decl. as Ex. C, and class members for 
whom Class Counsel has not received completed authorizations 
will receive the notice attached to the Dugger Decl. as Ex. D. 
c) Class members will have until September 3, 2013, to opt out of or 
object to the settlement ("Notice Period"). 
d) A final fairness hearing will occur on September 10, 2013 at 2:00 
pm. 
e) Plaintiff will file a Motion for Final Settlement Approval and 
Motion for Approval of Attorney's Fees and Costs and Incentive 
Award by September 6, 2013. 
f) After the fairness hearing, if the Court grants Plaintiffs Motion for 
Approval of Settlement, the Court will issue a Final Order and 
Judgment. If no party objects to the proposed settlement, the 
"Effective Date" of the settlement will be the day the Court enters 
its Final Order and Judgment. 
g) If an individual or party object to and appeals the Court's Final 
Order and Judgment, the "Effective Date" of the settlement shall 
be the day after all appeals are finally resolved in favor of final 
approval and the time for any further appeal, rehearing, or 
reconsideration has expired. 
h) Class Counsel will mail class members a copy of the Final Order 
and Judgment and the pension credit request form, Dugger Decl, 
Ex. E (Pension Credit Request Form), within seven days of the 
Effective Date of settlement. Following approval of the 
settlement, Class Counsel will also send a short follow-up notice, 
to be agreed to by both parties, and ultimately approved by the 
Court at the fairness hearing, containing the final deadline for 
submitting SSA and IRS authorizations (to class members that 
have failed to submit them), and any other information agreed to 
by the parties. 
6 
Case 3:08-cv-00826-JCH Document 245 Filed 07/29/13 Page 7 of 7 
i) Defendant will disburse one check in the amount of $ 1,851,892 
(gross back pay relief) and one check in the amount of $1,232,463 
(attorney's fees and costs) to Class Counsel within thirty days of 
the Effective Date of settlement. 
j) Back pay award checks will be mailed to class members one 
hundred and fifty days after the Effective Date of the settlement. 
If, after Class Counsel submits the IRS and SSA authorization 
forms, it does not receive SSA and/or IRS information from the 
respective agencies (for any class member in any given year) 
within one hundred and thirty-five days of the Effective Date of 
settlement, Class Counsel will designate that year a value of 
$10,000 in wages with respect to the class member's 
wages/damages calculations. 
k) Class Counsel will deduct the amount of outstanding liens due and 
owing to the State of Connecticut from the disbursement made to 
each class member who is subject to such lien(s) and remit those 
funds to the State at the time the disbursement check is sent to the 
class member. Defendant's counsel will provide Class Counsel 
with a list of such outstanding liens. 
1) Funds that remain undisbursed because class members do not cash 
their back pay award checks within ninety days of receipt (as 
required under the Stipulated Agreement), will be disbursed to the 
class members who deposited checks within the required ninety 
days. This second distribution of the remaining funds will be 
apportioned equally, to all class members who deposited their 
checks within the deadline, and will be disbursed sixty days after 
the latest deadline for all class members to have deposited their 
back pay award check. 
m) The parties shall abide by all terms of the Stipulated Agreement 
attached as Ex. B to the Dugger Decl. 
It is so ORDERED this 26th day of July 2013. 
Is/ Janet C. Hall 
Honorable Janet C. Hall 
United States District Judge 
7 


Cherie Easterling v. State of Connecticut, Department of Correction

https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1413&amp;context=condec

Cherie Easterling v. State of Connecticut, Department of Correction

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

DigitalCommons@ILR