Appellate panel hears dispute over whether class settlement bars missed meal‑period claims

A three-judge panel of the Other Court heard oral argument over whether a class-action settlement in Atkinson precludes new missed meal‑period claims brought by absent class members.

Joe Wright, counsel for appellants Destiny Corbin and Kim Andrews, told the panel the trial court erred in dismissing the subsequent meal‑period claim because the Atkinson settlement contained a "limited release" and because absent class members were given notice that they were only "giving up claims for COVID‑nineteen testing and screening" by participating in that settlement. Wright said applying claim preclusion in the way the trial court did effectively changed the negotiated terms of the settlement and raised due‑process concerns for absent, unrepresented class members.

Life Care Centers of America, represented on the record by Callie Castillo and Erin Wilson, urged the court to affirm. Defense counsel said plaintiffs and their counsel had pursued "successive wage and hour class actions" against Life Care and argued the trial court correctly dismissed the second action under the plain terms of the Atkinson release and the principles of res judicata. Counsel told the panel that class members who remained in the prior settlement received notice and accepted payment and that the prior judgment covered "any and all claims that were or could have been brought in this lawsuit for unpaid wages relating to the participating class members' employment."

Members of the panel pressed both sides on textual interpretation, timing, and the different treatment of named plaintiffs versus absent class members. One judge observed that counsel had released certain claims and then, the judge said, filed a related claim "six days later," while appellants' counsel responded that the new claims were brought "more than half a year after the settlement was negotiated." The panel also discussed whether, under the identical‑factual‑predicate doctrine, the meal‑period claims share the same factual predicate as the COVID‑testing claims alleged in Atkinson.

During argument the panel noted the record statement that the prior notice described the underlying suit as unpaid mandatory COVID testing and that the "average recovery for that is $175 per class member." Defense counsel emphasized the similarity of the complaints and said both cited the same statutes and language (spoken in the record as the "minimum wage act and industrial wealth").

Wright said the court should interpret the settlement like any contract, give effect to limiting language, and reverse the dismissal so the appellants may proceed. Defense counsel asked the panel to defer to the trial court's approval of the Atkinson settlement and to affirm the dismissal.

The court did not announce a decision at argument. The panel thanked counsel and moved to the next matter on the docket.