# AUDIT AND CORRECTED NOTICE ## Part 1 — Bottom line Two of the five substantive paragraphs contain material, quantifiable arithmetic errors; one contains a materially overbroad release. The tax paragraph and the dates/hearing paragraph are substantively accurate and are **not** rewritten (one optional completeness insert is flagged separately). Because nothing has been sent, emailed, or mailed, distribution must be **held** and the file corrected — but **no renewed decision period is required**, because no class member has yet received a misleading notice. --- ## Part 2 — Corrected arithmetic **Deductions under the executed agreement** | Item | Agreement | Notice | Error | |---|---|---|---| | Attorney fees | $1,350,000 | $1,350,000 | correct | | Litigation costs | up to $110,000 | $110,000 (stated as fixed) | mischaracterized as fixed | | Administration expenses | $140,000 | $140,000 | correct | | Service awards (3) | $30,000 | $30,000 | correct | | Workplace Standards Agency | $270,000 | **omitted** | **understated by $270,000** | | **Total deductions** | **$1,900,000** | $1,630,000 | understated $270,000 | **Net class fund** - Correct: $5,400,000 − $1,900,000 = **$3,500,000** - Notice: $3,770,000 → **overstated by $270,000 (7.7%)** **Value per allocation point** - Correct: $3,500,000 ÷ 10,000 = **$350.00 exactly** (not "approximately") - Notice: $377 → **overstated by $27 per point (7.7%)** **Maya Ortiz (6 points)** - Correct: 6 × $350 = **$2,100.00** - Notice: $2,262 → **overstated by $162** **Aggregate exposure of the error:** the notice promises $270,000 more than the fund contains — i.e., every one of the 6,200 class members' estimates is inflated by 7.7%. **Reference figures for the corrected notice:** 10,000 points across 6,200 members ≈ 1.61 points and ≈ $564.52 average per member. **Rule 3 point:** the sentence "Estimates may change" does not cure any of this. A known omission of a $270,000 deduction and the resulting $27-per-point error are mathematical errors, not participation-driven variance, and the change-qualifier may not be used to excuse them. --- ## Part 3 — Release audit The proposed release paragraph is defective in four independent respects; it must be replaced, not merely trimmed. | Notice says | Agreement provides | Defect | |---|---|---| | "all claims, known or unknown" | wage-statement and off-clock-work claims only | overbroad as to claim type | | "arising from your employment" | claims based on the factual allegations in the complaint | no factual predicate; sweeps in unrelated claims | | "through the date the court finally approves" | January 1, 2022 – June 30, 2025 | overbroad as to period; adds post-6/30/2025 claims the agreement expressly excludes | | silent | express carve-outs (discrimination, harassment, retaliation, workers' comp, vested benefits, post-6/30/2025) | omits exclusions needed for an informed exclusion decision | --- ## Part 4 — Paragraphs that require **no** change **Taxes.** The 50% wages / 50% statutory statement matches the agreement, is framed as a current estimate, and disclaims tax advice. Rule 6 is satisfied. It is not rewritten merely because the deductions paragraph was wrong. (The withholding cross-reference is handled inside the corrected payment paragraph, so the tax paragraph itself is left intact.) **Your choices.** The exclusion date (October 2), objection date (October 2), hearing date (November 13), and the listed submission addresses are correct and are preserved verbatim. *Optional completeness insert (not an error correction):* if the notice does not elsewhere state the mechanics and the consequence of inaction, add after the existing sentences: "To exclude yourself, mail a signed written request stating your name, address, and that you wish to be excluded from this settlement to the address listed below, postmarked by October 2. To object, file or mail a written objection stating the reasons for your objection by October 2; you may, but need not, appear at the hearing. If you do nothing, you will remain in the class, receive a payment, and give up the claims described in the Release section." Do not alter the dates or addresses. --- ## Part 5 — Replacement language (ready to insert) ### ▶ Replace "Settlement amount and deductions" in full: > **Settlement amount and deductions.** Defendant will pay a gross settlement of $5,400,000. The following amounts are proposed to be deducted, and each requires separate court approval: > > - Attorney fees: $1,350,000 > - Litigation costs: up to $110,000 > - Settlement administration expenses: $140,000 > - Service awards to three class representatives: $30,000 total > - Payment to the Workplace Standards Agency: $270,000 > > Total proposed deductions: $1,900,000. If the court approves all of them, **$3,500,000** will remain as the net class fund for distribution to class members. The court may approve less than the amounts requested; if it does, the net class fund and individual payments will increase. Because litigation costs are capped at $110,000 and may be less, the net class fund may also increase for that reason. ### ▶ Replace "How your payment is calculated" in full: > **How your payment is calculated.** The administrator has calculated 10,000 total allocation points for 6,200 class members. Your payment equals the net class fund divided by 10,000, multiplied by your number of points. > > Using the current net class fund of $3,500,000, each point is worth **$350.00** ($3,500,000 ÷ 10,000). > > Maya Ortiz has **six points**. Her estimated payment is **$2,100.00** (6 × $350.00), before required withholding. Withholding applies only to the portion treated as wages — here, an estimated $1,050.00 — as described in the Taxes section below. > > These figures are estimates. They may change if the court awards less than the requested deductions, if litigation costs come in below the $110,000 cap, or if your point total is corrected. They will not change because of the number of class members who cash checks, because the allocation is by points against a fixed net fund. ### ▶ Replace "Release" in full: > **Release.** Unless you exclude yourself, you will release Defendant and the related persons identified in the settlement agreement from the following claims only: **claims for wage-statement violations and for off-the-clock work**, based on the factual allegations made in the complaint in this case, that accrued **between January 1, 2022 and June 30, 2025**. > > You are **not** releasing, and this settlement does not affect: > > - discrimination claims; > - harassment claims; > - retaliation claims; > - workers' compensation claims; > - claims to vested benefits; and > - any claim accruing after June 30, 2025. > > This release covers only the claims described above. It does not release all claims arising from your employment, and it does not extend past June 30, 2025. ### ▶ Do not modify: the "Taxes" paragraph and the dates/addresses in "Your choices." --- ## Part 6 — Distribution and renewed-notice analysis **Stop distribution: yes.** The errors are material by any measure — a $270,000 overstatement of the net fund, a 7.7% inflation of every individual estimate, and a release described as covering "all claims... arising from your employment through final approval" when it actually covers two claim types over a 42-month window. The release defect alone is disqualifying, because a class member deciding whether to opt out would be told they were giving up discrimination and workers' compensation rights they in fact retain. Under Rule 7, the uploaded file must be pulled and replaced before any transmission. **Renewed decision period: not required.** Rule 7's corrected-notice-plus-renewed-period remedy is triggered by a notice that "has already been distributed." Nothing has been sent, emailed, or mailed. The corrected notice is the first and only notice the class will see, so the October 2 exclusion and objection deadlines and the November 13 hearing date remain valid and should not be changed. **One caveat to confirm before mailing.** The deadlines are only sound if the corrected notice still gives class members a reasonable period to respond. If correction and vendor re-proofing push actual first transmission close enough to October 2 that members would have materially less time than the parties represented to the court, counsel should seek an order extending the exclusion and objection deadlines (and, if needed, continuing the hearing) rather than mailing a technically accurate notice with a compressed response window. Absent that timing problem, mail as corrected on the existing schedule. **Recommended file actions before release:** 1. Delete the uploaded version; mark it superseded so it cannot be transmitted in error. 2. Insert the three replacement paragraphs above; leave the Taxes and Your Choices paragraphs untouched (plus the optional mechanics insert if needed). 3. Re-verify against the executed agreement: five deduction line items totaling $1,900,000; net $3,500,000; $350.00 per point; 6,200 members / 10,000 points. 4. Confirm the administrator's point ledger shows six points for Ortiz and that no other exemplar figures appear elsewhere in the notice packet at the old $377 rate. 5. Have the administrator certify in writing that no version of the notice was transmitted, so the record supports proceeding without a renewed period.