Summary
The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut ruled on plaintiffs’ motion to approve a Rule 23 class notice form and dissemination plan and to compel production of contact information for certain potential class members. The court approved the proposed notice plan, including notice to hourly warehouse employees whose race was not identified in the employer’s records, and rejected the defendants’ proposed revisions to the notice and opt-out process. The court also ordered production of the requested names and contact information.
Holdings
- The proposed notice form satisfied Rule 23 because it was modeled on the Federal Judicial Center template and adequately informed class members of the action, class definition, available relief, participation options, and opt-out rights. Defendants' proposed edits were rejected where they were unnecessary, confusing, misleading, overly technical, or likely to discourage class participation.
- The notice plan properly included hourly warehouse employees in the relevant positions whose race was not identified in Bozzuto's personnel records.
- Defendants were required to produce names and contact information for hourly warehouse employees in the relevant positions whose race was not identified in Bozzuto's records.
- Rule 23 did not require defendants to provide an electronic opt-out button; transmission of an exclusion request form by email or physical mail was sufficient.
Questions Presented
- Whether plaintiffs' proposed Rule 23 class notice form adequately informed class members of the nature of the action, potential relief, participation obligations, and opt-out rights.
- Whether the notice plan should include hourly warehouse employees in the relevant positions whose race was not identified in Bozzuto's personnel records.
- Whether defendants should be compelled to produce names and contact information for employees whose race was not identified in the personnel records.
- Whether an electronic opt-out button was required as part of the class notice plan.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (8)
- Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 173 (1974)(followed)
- Chime v. Peak Sec. Plus, Inc., 137 F. Supp. 3d 183, 212 (E.D.N.Y. 2015)(followed)
- Palmer v. Cognizant Tech. Sols. Corp., 2023 WL 4157454, at *4-*5 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2023)(followed)
- Mendez v. United States Nonwovens Corp., 2017 WL 11726150, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 2017)(followed)
- Macarz v. Transworld Sys., Inc., 201 F.R.D. 54, 61-62 (D. Conn. 2001)(followed)
- Cin-Q Automobiles, Inc. v. Buccaneers Ltd. P'ship, 2022 WL 4017054, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 2, 2022)(followed)
- Jermyn v. Best Buy Stores, L.P., 2010 WL 5187746, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 6, 2010)(followed)
- In re Nissan Motor Corp. Antitrust Litig., 552 F.2d 1088, 1099 (5th Cir. 1977)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…