Parker v. Anderson
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
667 F.2d 1204 (1982), cert denied, 459 U.S. 828 (1982)
- Written by Salina Kennedy, JD
Facts
Eleven named plaintiffs represented a class of employees in an employment-discrimination class action against Bell Helicopter Company (Bell) (defendant). Class counsel negotiated a settlement agreement, communicating with the named plaintiffs throughout the negotiation process. When class counsel reached a tentative settlement agreement with Bell, the agreement was immediately presented to the named plaintiffs. Each plaintiff approved the tentative agreement, subject to Bell’s acceptance of each named plaintiff’s additional individual demands. Bell countered each individual demand with a much lower offer. Because Bell would not satisfy their individual demands, 10 of the named plaintiffs (objectors) rejected the settlement agreement. Class counsel subsequently submitted to the court a settlement agreement that included a $1.25 million settlement fund to be distributed to the class members at the direction of the court as well as additional relief for the class members with an estimated value of $1 million. The individual claims of the objectors were severed from the class action. The district court approved the settlement agreement over the protests of the objectors, and the objectors appealed, arguing that class counsel had not fairly and adequately represented the class during settlement negotiations.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Politz, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 820,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
