After an appellate court overturned a settlement in a labor lawsuit involving tens of thousands of Vail Resorts’ employees in October, the case is now being heard once again in the California Superior Court.

A new judge has been issued, Judge Leanne K. Mayberry, who started her work with a case management conference in March.

The lawsuit was brought forth by Vail Resorts employees accusing the company of numerous Fair Labor Standards Act violations going back years, including unpaid hours and overtime, necessary equipment and expenses not being reimbursed, and other violations.

A $13.1 million settlement was reached in 2022, but that settlement was disputed by workers, who called it “pennies on the dollar” as it would have left little remaining for workers after being split up among a class that could have included more than 100,000 workers. The plaintiffs’ attorneys were also set to subtract approximately $4 million in payment from the total.

While Vail Resorts attorneys said the risk in taking the case to trial made it a fair settlement, the appellants argued that it was a “reverse auction,” in which “a defendant in a series of class actions picks the most ineffectual lawyers to negotiate a settlement in the hope that the district court will approve a weak settlement that will preclude other claims against the defendant.”

Support Local Journalism

Donate

California’s Third Appellate District heard oral arguments in the case in September at Union Mine High School in El Dorado, California, as part of an educational experience in which justices discussed their career paths with students and conducted a question-and-answer period following oral arguments. Students from El Dorado, Union Mine, Ponderosa, and Oakridge High Schools attended.

The case was explained to the students as follows:

“Defendants Vail Resorts, Inc., The Vail Corporation, and Heavenly Valley, Limited Partnership, are related companies that own and operate ski resorts in many states. Beginning in 2020, employees sued the ski resort operators in separate lawsuits in California and in Colorado alleging labor law violations, including failing to pay employees for all hours worked. Certain employees (like plaintiffs here) sought in their competing lawsuits to be named class representatives, meaning they each wanted the court hearing their case to agree those certain employees could represent the ‘class’ of all employees nationwide.

“At some point, the suing California employees reached a settlement agreement with Vail Resorts for around $13 million. They then asked a court in California to appoint them as class representatives and approve the settlement. If approved, the settlement agreement would cover a nationwide class of employees. The suing Colorado employees objected, in part because they believed the settlement amount was too low, and because approval of the settlement would extinguish their outstanding suit. The Colorado plaintiffs moved to intervene in, or join, the California lawsuit and to reject the settlement agreement. But the trial court denied their motion to intervene and entered judgment approving the settlement agreement.

“On appeal, the intervenors argue: (1) The trial court erred in denying their motion to intervene; (2) The trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider the settlement; (3) The trial court improperly presumed the settlement was fair; and (4) The trial court erred in certifying the class action.”

The Third Appellate District agreed with some of the intervenors’ points, saying the trial court should have granted the Colorado plaintiffs’ motion to intervene and improperly presumed the proposed settlement was fair. In addition to tossing out the settlement and remitting the case back to the trial court, the Third Appellate District also granted the Colorado plaintiffs permission to intervene in the case.

Now back in California Superior Court, the Colorado plaintiffs have intervened in the case and are making arguments in front of Mayberry. They are expected to file a motion to dismiss the California state court case in favor of their federal case in Colorado, which they feel is in the general jurisdiction of Vail Resorts as the company is headquartered in Broomfield.