Lowe’s, Older Workers Settle for $400,000 to End Pay Change Suit

Lowe’s Home Centers LLC and older workers leading a class lawsuit alleging age bias in the retailer’s decision to end commission-like payments to sales associates agreed to a $400,000 settlement.

Diane Bartholomew, Michael Sherry, Willis Pelton, Jason Slater, Mark Easterling, and the company asked the US District Court for the Middle District of Florida on Wednesday to preliminarily approve the pact. The parties agree to include 2,197 individuals in the settlement, according to the motion.

The parties reached an agreement in principle in August with the help of a mediator and finalized the settlement on Dec. 22, the motion said.

“Lowe’s has denied and continues to deny that it unlawfully discriminated against Plaintiffs because of their age in any way,” the filing said. The settlement doesn’t constitute an admission or finding of liability or wrongdoing by Lowe’s, the agreement said.

Workers participating in the settlement will share $219,900, and class counsel will receive $130,100 in attorneys’ fees and costs. The settlement administrator will be paid $50,000, according to the agreement.

Bartholomew and Sherry filed the suit, along with opt-in plaintiffs Pelton and Slater, in September 2019. They challenged Lowe’s decision to end an “Allowance” scheme adopted in 2012 under which sales associates received annual payments equal to roughly 50% of “spiffs” they earned based on commissions the company received from manufacturers for selling their products. The ending of that program intentionally discriminated against workers 40 or older and also had a disparate impact based on age, the lawsuit said.

Judge Sheri Polster Chappell in a January 2020 ruling said the workers could pursue their disparate impact claim, but not their disparate treatment allegations. In August 2021, Judge John L. Badalamenti conditionally certified the case as a collective action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, allowing the workers to pursue the case as a class.

The settlement should be approved by the court because it “is reasonable, adequate, fair and consistent with applicable law,” the parties said in their joint motion for preliminary approval. The agreement and its notice-of-settlement procedures also comply with the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act, they said.

The parties reached a separate settlement of the workers’ state law quasi-contract claims, which isn’t subject to court approval, the filing said. The details of that settlement weren’t included in the filing.

Salas Law Firm PA represents the workers. McGuireWoods LLP represents Lowe’s.

The case is Bartholomew v. Lowe’s Home Ctrs., LLC, M.D. Fla., No. 2:19-cv-00695, motion for preliminary settlement approval 12/28/22.