Opinion
ACTION I, No. 96-CV-0374 (FB) (RML), ACTION II, No. 02-CV-0256 (FB)(RML).
May 12, 2008
For the Plaintiff: ESTHER GWEN TAMBURO, ESQ., United States Department of Justice, Employment Litigation Section, Washington, DC.
For the Defendants: LAWRENCE J. PROFETA, ESQ., The City of New York Law Department, New York, NY.
For the Intervenors: For Intervenor Brennan, et al.: MICHAEL E. ROSMAN, ESQ. Center for Individual Rights, Washington, DC.
For Intervenor Arroyo, et al.: MATTHEW B. CALANGELO, ESQ., NAACP Legal Defense Fund Educational Fund, Inc., New York, NY.
For Intervenor Caldero, et al.: EMILY J. MARTIN, ESQ., American Civil Liberties Union, Women's Rights Project, New York, NY.
MEMORANDUM ORDER
The parties have submitted a proposed order approving their stipulation adjusting the retroactive seniority dates for 11 Offerees for purposes of layoff protection. On May 2, 2008, the Court conducted a telephone conference with counsel for all parties to discuss the proposed order and, in particular, the Brennan Intervenors' request that class members be given notice and an opportunity to be heard on the proposed order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e).
In the course of the conference, the Court appointed counsel for the Brennan Intervenors, Michael E. Rosman, as class counsel; as such, Mr. Rosman agreed to prepare a proposed notice. In addition, counsel for the Board, Lawrence J. Profeta, agreed to ascertain the means at the Board's disposal for distributing the notice to class members.
On May 6, 2008, Mr. Rosman submitted a proposed notice that had been previously circulated to counsel for the remaining parties. On May 9, 2008, Mr. Profeta advised the Court that the Board could distribute the notice to class members by e-mail.
The Court agrees with the Brennan Intervenors that absent class members are entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard on the proposed order. The Court also finds that the proposed notice submitted by Mr. Rosman adequately and accurately describes the nature of the litigation and the proposed order, the potential effect on class members' rights and the right to object. Finally, the Court finds that e-mail is a quick, low-cost means of distribution that is reasonably calculated to give class members actual notice of the proposed order.
The Court, therefore, approves the proposed notice, and sets Friday, May 23, 2008, as the date by which objections must be postmarked. On or before Friday, May 16, 2008, the Board shall service the notice on class members by e-mail, and shall immediately thereafter file a certificate attesting that such service has been completed. In addition, the Court will post the notice and the proposed order on its website. After the deadline for objections passes, the Court will review any objections received and determine whether to hold a hearing.
SO ORDERED.