Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WAGE-HOUR—CLASS ACTIONS—W.D. Ky.: Alliance Coal wage settlement advances after court greenlights preliminary approval, (Jul 14, 2025)

By George Basharis, J.D.

Federal court finds hybrid wage-and-hour class action meets threshold for Rule 23 settlement notice.

A Kentucky federal district court has granted preliminary approval of a proposed $15.2 million class action settlement resolving wage-and-hour claims brought by thousands of coal miners against Alliance Coal and affiliated companies. The settlement, which follows years of consolidated litigation across four states, would resolve allegations that the companies failed to pay workers for required off-the-clock activities and improperly excluded bonuses from overtime calculations. The order authorizes notice to proceed to a settlement class estimated to include over 6,600 current and former miners (Branson v. Alliance Coal, LLC, No. 4:19-cv-155-RGJ-HBB (W.D. Ky. July 10, 2025)).

This litigation stems from six wage-and-hour lawsuits originally filed in Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana, and West Virginia. The plaintiffs alleged that Alliance Coal and a network of affiliated mining companies and executives acted as joint employers and violated both federal and state labor laws by requiring off-the-clock pre- and post-shift work without compensation. They also claimed that the companies failed to include bonuses in the regular rate of pay when calculating overtime.

Hybrid actions. Originally filed as hybrid actions asserting both Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective claims and state law class claims, the cases evolved procedurally as courts and parties grappled with the challenges of settling claims under both frameworks. After conditional certification of the FLSA collective in 2021 and significant discovery, the parties reached a nationwide settlement in April 2024 and moved to consolidate the lawsuits for settlement purposes only.

In response to concerns raised by the court regarding the complexity of hybrid settlements, the parties revised their approach. Here, they sought resolution through a Rule 23 class settlement that releases both class and collective claims without relying on collective certification.

Proposed class and settlement terms. The proposed settlement class includes non-exempt employees who worked in underground mines or surface coal preparation plants operated by Alliance affiliates in Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana, and West Virginia during various periods between 2011 and 2024. The definition includes individuals who previously opted into the FLSA collective as well as class members with claims under state wage laws.

The total gross settlement amount is $15,205,000, plus any interest accrued during the administration period. The proposal allocates funds based on factors including worksite, applicable state law, and whether a class member filed a consent form under the FLSA. A separate agreement addresses non-class claims of three individuals.

Plaintiffs’ counsel intends to seek a one-third attorney fee award from the common fund and has proposed service awards of up to $15,000 for each of the 13 named plaintiffs. The court noted that the issue of service awards warrants further scrutiny and will be revisited at the final fairness hearing.

Proposal within range of approval. In preliminarily approving the settlement, the court concluded that the proposal falls within the range of what could ultimately be found “fair, reasonable, and adequate” under Rule 23(e). The court emphasized the extensive litigation history, the use of an experienced mediator, and the arm’s-length nature of the negotiations.

It also found the proposed distribution plan appropriately accounts for variation among class members’ job roles, applicable legal standards, and litigation posture. The presence of multiple state laws and the distinction between FLSA opt-ins and non-opt-ins justified tailored allocation formulas.

The court acknowledged that the size of the proposed service awards could raise fairness concerns if not properly supported by evidence. However, it deferred a final ruling until the fairness hearing, allowing class counsel the opportunity to provide a fuller justification based on the named plaintiffs’ contributions, risks, and effort.

Likelihood of certification for settlement purposes. While not formally certifying the class at this stage, the court found it likely that the class will satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) at the final approval stage. With over 6,600 potential members, numerosity was readily satisfied. Common questions—including whether Alliance entities uniformly failed to compensate pre- and post-shift work or improperly calculated overtime—supported commonality and predominance.

Moreover, the named plaintiffs’ claims arose from the same employment practices and were governed by the same legal theories. Although the class spans multiple states and legal frameworks, the plaintiffs’ group includes representatives from each state, addressing concerns over adequate representation.

No reason was found by the court to question the adequacy of class counsel or the putative representatives, noting their experience, active participation in discovery, and apparent alignment with the interests of absent class members. However, because no final certification has occurred, the court deferred formal appointment of class counsel and class representatives until the final hearing.

Notice and settlement administration. The court approved the parties’ notice plan, which provides for direct mail and email notice to class members based on employment records. The court previously flagged deficiencies in the original notice, including the lack of information about the right to counsel and an inflexible opt-out procedure. The updated notice allows for exclusion requests via email and clearly informs class members of their right to appear through an attorney.

The court will hold the final approval hearing on October 23, 2025. Until then, all other proceedings in the consolidated action remain stayed.

The case is No. 4:19-cv-155-RGJ-HBB.

Judge: Jennings, R.

Attorneys: Camille Fundora Rodriguez (Berger & Montague) for Randy Branson. Allison C. Cooke (Stoll Keenon Ogden) for Alliance Coal, LLC.

Companies: Alliance Coal, LLC

Cases: WageHour ClassActions KentuckyNews