This task force met for two days a week and was composed of seven people; three appointed by Texaco, three appointed by the plaintiffs, and one independent who served as a chairperson.
There is also evidence that an African-American attorney employed by Texaco, who had Roberts v texaco trying to initiate a race discrimination class action against Texaco, was fired, assertedly because of such efforts, and that several plaintiffs knew of that event and that it "petrified most of the individuals who wanted to commence a class action and most of these people gave up for fear of losing their jobs.
Harris makes the disturbing allegation that the Reporter who took her deposition testimony supposedly omitted to transcribe portions of it for fear of losing business and that she aided counsel in "bringing ethical charges.
The results of that effort have been noted above. Roberts in authoring the book. Mehri could represent him in a suit against Texaco. Hence, her submission lacks any significant showing of post-litigation burden or risk. The starting point, in this Circuit at least, for measurement of a proper counsel fee award is lodestar.
Within the first six months, Texaco was charged with implementing a diversity and training program for the entire company as well as a mentoring program. What has been said above concerning Ms.
While that award is an upward departure from the cited precedents, it seems amply warranted. On May 15,the plaintiffs moved for class certification.
The discovery proceedings were extensive and time consuming. Chambers to press for the initiation of this litigation. Roberts April 24, Aff. Revlon, 37 Fair Empl. In this Circuit, the bulk of the reported decisions granting incentive awards arise out of securities litigation. Fogelman, WL E.
And the ingenuity of counsel and their respective clients in framing an imaginative settlement, that may well have important ameliorative impact not only at Texaco but in the corporate context as a whole, likewise merit consideration.
As part of that process the Lundwall tapes were, apparently, re-mastered. What is "Reasonable", Univ. Certainly these prospective services will produce value that merits consideration, albeit not as part of the common fund as against which recovery is to be measured. The putative plaintiff Class then was represented solely by plaintiffs Roberts and Chambers.
Rev Roberts was called uppity and a smart-mouth little colored girl. The guiding standard in determining an incentive award is broadly stated as being the existence of special circumstances including the personal risk if any incurred by the plaintiff-applicant in becoming and continuing as a litigant, the time and effort expended by that plaintiff in assisting in the prosecution of the litigation or in bringing to bear added value e.
The Special Master analyzed the extent of the participation of each applicant for an incentive award. Texaco agreed that it would not oppose that application. In considering the application of Objectant Veronica Shinault, the Special Master noted that she had provided valuable assistance to counsel in prosecuting the litigation, however, he also reported that, "one critical element There were no procedures for validating subjective promotion criteria and assessing any disparate impact these procedures might have on African-Americans.
If the settlement submitted by Texaco and the plaintiffs is disapproved by the Court, either preliminarily or finally, the Fund including accrued interestbut excluding the cost of administration already expended, will revert to Texaco.
And while adjustments for "risk," complexity and quality of the legal work performed have been recognized [see Weseley v. This Court concludes that it is not. Applicants had a full opportunity to be heard individually and through their counsel if they so desired.Important Paras.
In this Circuit, the Courts have, with some frequency, held that a successful Class action plaintiff, may, in addition to his or her allocable share of the ultimate recovery, apply for and, in the discretion of the Court, receive an additional award, termed an incentive award.
Roberts v Texaco. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. BARI-ELLEN ROBERTS, SIL CHAMBERS JANET LEIGH WILLIAMS, MARSHA HARRIS, BEATRICE HESTER and VERONICA SHINAULT, Plaintiffs,-against-TEXACO, INC., Defendant, 94 Civ. (CLB) ORDER. Brieant, J. continue reading.
MEMORANDUM by Texaco Incorporated in support of  motion for an order pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b) of the FRCP, dismissing the Title VII claims alleged on behalf of a putative class, and remanding to the Equil Employment Opportunity Commission the individual Title VII claims of plaintiffs Bari-Ellen Roberts and Sil Chambers on the.
Texaco opposed, noting that it was seeking reconsideration before the EEOC. On September 27,the court (Judge Brieant) heard counsel and scheduled a hearing for December 6, on the class certification motions. Texaco opposed, noting that it was seeking reconsideration before the EEOC. On September 27,the court (Judge Brieant) heard counsel and scheduled a hearing for December 6, on the class certification motions.
 A copy of the publishing agreement and of the January 22, agreement between Texaco and Ms. Roberts respecting the terms of her separation from Texaco's employ were furnished to the Special Master, at his request, following the April 30 conference.Download