U.S. District Court Southern District of New York (Foley Square) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC

Millien et al v. The Madison Square Garden Company et al Assigned to: Judge Alison J. Nathan Referred to: Magistrate Judge Sarah L Cave Case in other court: Supreme Court of the State of NY,
NY County, 652225 Cause: 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act

Date Filed: 05/26/2017 Date Terminated: 08/10/2020 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 890 Other Statutory Actions Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff
Clint Millien individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated

represented by Cristina Maria Schrum-Herrera Outten & Golden LLP One California St., Floor 12 San Franscisco, CA 94111 (415)-638-8800 Fax: (415)-638-8810 Email: cschrumherrera@outtengolden.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patrick David Lopez Outten & Golden LLP (DC) 601 Massachusetts Avenue Nw Washington, DC 20001 (202)-847-4400 Fax: (202)-847-4410 Email: pdl@outtengolden.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Chauniqua Danielle Young Outten & Golden, LLP (NYC) 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 (212)-245-1000 Fax: (646)-509-2060 Email: cyoung@outtengolden.com TERMINATED: 07/25/2017

Cheryl-Lyn Deon Bentley Outten & Golden, LLP (NYC) 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 (212)-245-1000 Fax: (646)-509-2060 Email: cbentley@outtengolden.com TERMINATED: 09/10/2019
Christopher McNerney Outten & Golden, LLP (NYC) 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 (212)-245-1000 Fax: (646)-509-2060 Email: cmcnerney@outtengolden.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel S. Stromberg Outten & Golden, LLP (NYC) 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 (202)-847-4406 Fax: (646)-591-3894 Email: dstromberg@outtengolden.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eric Vinson Eingold Youth Represent 11 Park Place New York, NY 11215 (646)-759-8085 Fax: (646)-217-3097 Email: eeingold@youthrepresent.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lewis M. Steel Outten & Golden, LLP (NYC) 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 (212)-245-1000 Fax: (646)-509-2060 Email: ls@outtengolden.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Felipe Kelly individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated

Michael Clayton Pope Youth Represent 342 Broadway New York, NY 10013 (212)-553-6698 Fax: (212)-964-3653 Email: mpope@youthrepresent.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nina Teresa Martinez New York Legal Assistance Group 7 Hanover Square New York, NY 10004 (212)-613-5034 Fax: (212)-714-2384 Email: nmartinez@outtengolden.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ossai Miazad Outten & Golden, LLP (NYC) 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 (212)-245-1000 Fax: (646)-509-2060 Email: omiazad@outtengolden.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Cristina Maria Schrum-Herrera (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patrick David Lopez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chauniqua Danielle Young (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/25/2017
Cheryl-Lyn Deon Bentley

V.
Defendant
The Madison Square Garden Company

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/10/2019
Christopher McNerney (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel S. Stromberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eric Vinson Eingold (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lewis M. Steel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Clayton Pope (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nina Teresa Martinez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ossai Miazad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Keri Lynne Engelman Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP (PA) 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215)-963-5100 Fax: (215)-963-5001 Email: keri.engelman@morganlewis.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant MSGN Holdings, L.P.

Paul C. Evans Baker McKenzie LLP 452 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10018 212-626-4100 Fax: 212-310-1600 Email: paul.evans@bakermckenzie.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sam Scott Shaulson Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP (New York) 101 Park Avenue New York, NY 10178 (212)-309-6718 Fax: (212)-309-6273 Email: sam.shaulson@morganlewis.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Keri Lynne Engelman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul C. Evans (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sam Scott Shaulson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 05/26/2017

# Docket Text
1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Supreme Court, County of New York. Case Number: 652225-17. (Filing Fee $ 400.00, Receipt Number 0208-13714758).Document filed by MSGN Holdings, L.P., THE MADISON SQUARE GARDEN COMPANY. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Summons and Complaint, # 2 Exhibit B - Summons and First Amended Complaint)(Shaulson, Sam) (Entered: 05/26/2017)

05/26/2017 05/26/2017 05/26/2017 05/26/2017 05/30/2017
05/30/2017
05/30/2017
05/30/2017

2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed. (Shaulson, Sam) (Entered: 05/26/2017)
3 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Ossai Miazad on behalf of Felipe Kelly, Clint Millien. (Miazad, Ossai) (Entered: 05/26/2017)
4 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Christopher McNerney on behalf of Felipe Kelly, Clint Millien. (McNerney, Christopher) (Entered: 05/26/2017)
5 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Chauniqua Danielle Young on behalf of Felipe Kelly, Clint Millien. (Young, Chauniqua) (Entered: 05/26/2017)
***NOTICE TO ATTORNEY REGARDING CASE OPENING STATISTICAL ERROR CORRECTION: Notice to attorney Sam Scott Shaulson. The following case opening statistical information was erroneously selected/entered: County code XX Out of State. The following correction(s) have been made to your case entry: the County code has been modified to New York. (kl) (Entered: 05/30/2017)
***NOTICE TO ATTORNEY REGARDING PARTY MODIFICATION. Notice to attorney Sam Scott Shaulson. The party information for the following party/parties has been modified: Felipe Kelly, Clint Millien, THE MADISON SQUARE GARDEN COMPANY. The information for the party/parties has been modified for the following reason/reasons: party name was entered in all caps; party text was omitted. (kl) (Entered: 05/30/2017)
CASE OPENING INITIAL ASSIGNMENT NOTICE: The aboveentitled action is assigned to Judge Alison J. Nathan. Please download and review the Individual Practices of the assigned District Judge, located at http://nysd.uscourts.gov/judges/District. Attorneys are responsible for providing courtesy copies to judges where their Individual Practices require such. Please download and review the ECF Rules and Instructions, located at http://nysd.uscourts.gov/ecf_filing.php. (kl) (Entered: 05/30/2017)
Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn is so designated. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(b)(1) parties are notified that they may consent to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge. Parties who wish to consent may access the necessary form at the following

05/30/2017 05/31/2017 06/02/2017 06/02/2017 06/02/2017
06/02/2017
06/02/2017

link: http://nysd.uscourts.gov/forms.php. (kl) (Entered: 05/30/2017)
Case Designated ECF. (kl) (Entered: 05/30/2017)
6 NOTICE OF INITIAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE: Initial Conference set for 8/23/2017 at 03:00 PM in Courtroom 906, 40 Centre Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Alison J. Nathan. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 5/31/2017) (mml) (Entered: 05/31/2017)
7 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Michael Clayton Pope on behalf of Felipe Kelly, Clint Millien. (Pope, Michael) (Entered: 06/02/2017)
8 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Eric Vinson Eingold on behalf of Felipe Kelly, Clint Millien. (Eingold, Eric) (Entered: 06/02/2017)
9 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Sam S. Shaulson dated June 2, 2017. Document filed by MSGN Holdings, L.P., The Madison Square Garden Company. (Attachments: # 1 Stipulation and Proposed Order Regarding Extension of Time for Defendants to Answer, Plead or Otherwise Respond to the First Amended Complaint and Proposed Briefing Schedule)(Shaulson, Sam) (Entered: 06/02/2017)
10 ORDER granting 9 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to Answer:NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED, as follows: 1. The deadline for Defendants to answer, plead, or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint shall be extended 24-days, up to and including June 26, 2017; 2. Should Defendants file a motion dismiss and/or strike any or all of the claims in Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs shall have until and including July 26, 2017 to file any opposition to Defendants' motion; and 3. Should Defendants file a motion dismiss and/or strike any or all of the claims in Amended Complaint and should Plaintiffs file an opposition to Defendants' motion, Defendants will have until and including August 16, 2017 to file a reply in support of their motion. (MSGN Holdings, L.P. answer due 6/26/2017; The Madison Square Garden Company answer due 6/26/2017.) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 6/2/2017) (jwh) (Entered: 06/02/2017)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Motions due by 6/26/2017. Responses due by 7/26/2017. Replies due by 8/16/2017. (jwh) (Entered: 06/02/2017)

06/26/2017 06/26/2017 06/28/2017
07/14/2017 07/14/2017 07/21/2017 07/25/2017 08/04/2017

11 FILING ERROR - CORPORATE PARENT/OTHER AFFILIATE NOT ADDED - RULE 7.1 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT.. Document filed by MSGN Holdings, L.P., The Madison Square Garden Company.(Shaulson, Sam) Modified on 6/28/2017 (lb). (Entered: 06/26/2017)

ANSWER to Complaint. Document filed by MSGN Holdings,

12

L.P., The Madison Square Garden Company.(Shaulson, Sam)

(Entered: 06/26/2017)

***NOTICE TO ATTORNEY TO RE-FILE DOCUMENT DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY ERROR. Notice to Attorney Sam Scott Shaulson to RE-FILE Document 11 Rule 7.1 Corporate Disclosure Statement,. ERROR(S): Corporate Parents were not added. Please re-file this document and when prompted: Are there any corporate parents or other affiliates?, select the YES radio button and enter the Corporate Parent(s) or Affiliate(s). YOU MUST SELECT THE SEARCH BUTTON. Select the correct name or create a new corporate parent. Add the Corporate Parent(s) or Affiliate(s) one party name at a time. (lb) (Entered: 06/28/2017)

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against MSGN Holdings, L.P.,

13

The Madison Square Garden Company with JURY

DEMAND.Document filed by Clint Millien, Felipe

Kelly.(Miazad, Ossai) (Entered: 07/14/2017)

14 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Lewis M. Steel on behalf of Felipe Kelly, Clint Millien. (Steel, Lewis) (Entered: 07/14/2017)

15 LETTER addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Chauniqua D. Young dated July 21, 2017 re: Withdrawal as Attorney of Record. Document filed by Felipe Kelly, Clint Millien.(Young, Chauniqua) (Entered: 07/21/2017)

16 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: 15 Letter filed by Felipe Kelly, Clint Millien. ENDORSEMENT: SO ORDERED. Attorney Chauniqua Danielle Young terminated. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/24/2017) (mro) (Entered: 07/25/2017)

17 MOTION for P. David Lopez to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee of $200.00, receipt no. 0208-13982227. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff. Document filed by Felipe Kelly, Clint Millien. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Certificates of Good Standing, # 3 Proposed Order)(Lopez, Patrick) Modified on 8/14/2017 (jc). (Entered: 08/04/2017)

08/07/2017
08/14/2017 08/14/2017 08/15/2017 08/16/2017 08/21/2017 08/28/2017

>>>NOTICE REGARDING DEFICIENT MOTION TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE. Notice to RE-FILE re: Document No. 17 MOTION for P. David Lopez to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff... The filing is deficient for the following reason(s): missing Certificate of Good Standing from Supreme Court of Colorado; the filing fee was not paid;. Re-file the motion as a Corrected Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice - attach the correct signed PDF - select the correct named filer/filers - attach valid Certificates of Good Standing issued within the past 30 days attach Proposed Order. Pay the filing fee using the event Pro Hac Vice Fee Payment found under the event list Other Documents. (bcu) (Entered: 08/07/2017)
18 MOTION for P. David Lopez to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff. Document filed by Felipe Kelly, Clint Millien. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Certificate of Good Standing, # 3 Proposed Order)(Lopez, Patrick) (Entered: 08/14/2017)
>>>NOTICE REGARDING PRO HAC VICE MOTION. Regarding Document No. 18 MOTION for P. David Lopez to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff.. The document has been reviewed and there are no deficiencies. (ma) (Entered: 08/14/2017)
19 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time re: Initial Pretrial Conference addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from P. David Lopez dated August 15, 2017. Document filed by Felipe Kelly, Clint Millien.(Lopez, Patrick) (Entered: 08/15/2017)
20 ORDER granting 19 Letter Motion for Extension of Time re: Initial Pretrial Conference. The Court hereby reschedules the initial pretrial conference previously scheduled for August 23, 2017 to September 15, 2017 at 2:30 P.M. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 8/15/2017) (mml) (Entered: 08/16/2017)
21 ORDER granting 18 Motion for P. David Lopez to Appear Pro Hac Vice (HEREBY ORDERED by Judge Alison J. Nathan)(Text Only Order) (Nathan, Alison) (Entered: 08/21/2017)
22 MOTION for Paul C. Evans to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number 0208-14064150. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff. Document filed by MSGN Holdings, L.P., The Madison Square Garden Company.

08/28/2017
08/29/2017
08/30/2017 08/30/2017 09/08/2017 09/14/2017

(Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Paul C. Evans, # 2 Certificates of Good Standing from New Jersey and Pennsylvania, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Evans, Paul) (Entered: 08/28/2017)
23 MOTION for Keri L. Engelman to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number 0208-14064233. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff. Document filed by MSGN Holdings, L.P., The Madison Square Garden Company. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Keri L. Engelman, # 2 Certificates of Good Standing from New Jersey and Pennsylvania, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Engelman, Keri) (Entered: 08/28/2017)
>>>NOTICE REGARDING PRO HAC VICE MOTION. Regarding Document No. 23 MOTION for Keri L. Engelman to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number 0208-14064233. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff., 22 MOTION for Paul C. Evans to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number 0208-14064150. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff.. The document has been reviewed and there are no deficiencies. (wb) (Entered: 08/29/2017)
24 ORDER granting 22 Motion for Paul C. Evans to Appear Pro Hac Vice (HEREBY ORDERED by Judge Alison J. Nathan)(Text Only Order) (Nathan, Alison) (Entered: 08/30/2017)
25 ORDER granting 23 Motion for Keri L. Engelman to Appear Pro Hac Vice (HEREBY ORDERED by Judge Alison J. Nathan)(Text Only Order) (Nathan, Alison) (Entered: 08/30/2017)
26 LETTER addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Ossai Miazad dated September 8, 2017 re: Proposed Civil Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order. Document filed by Felipe Kelly, Clint Millien. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Miazad, Ossai) (Entered: 09/08/2017)
27 FILING ERROR - DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY - MOTION for Cristina Schrum-Herrera to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number 0208-14128996. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff. Document filed by Felipe Kelly, Clint Millien. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Certificate of Good Standing, # 3 Proposed Order)(Schrum-Herrera, Cristina) Modified on 9/15/2017 (wb). (Entered: 09/14/2017)

09/15/2017
09/15/2017 09/18/2017 09/25/2017 09/25/2017 09/26/2017

>>>NOTICE REGARDING DEFICIENT MOTION TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE. Notice to RE-FILE Document No. 27 MOTION for Cristina Schrum-Herrera to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number 020814128996. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff... The filing is deficient for the following reason(s): missing Certificate of Good Standing from Supreme Court of California;. Re-file the motion as a Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice - attach the correct signed PDF - select the correct named filer/filers - attach valid Certificates of Good Standing issued within the past 30 days - attach Proposed Order.. (wb) (Entered: 09/15/2017)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Alison J. Nathan. Initial Pretrial Conference held on 9/15/2017. See transcript for complete details. (Court Reporter Kelly Surina) (qs) (Entered: 09/15/2017)
28 CIVIL CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND SCHEDULING ORDER: All parties do not consent to conducting all further proceedings before a United States Magistrate Judge, including motions and trial pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). This case is to be tried to a jury. Case Management Conference set for 7/28/2018 at 02:00 PM before Judge Alison J. Nathan. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 9/15/2017) (mml) (Entered: 09/18/2017)
29 MOTION for Cristina Schrum-Herrera to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff. Document filed by Felipe Kelly, Clint Millien. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Certificate of Good Standing, # 3 Proof of Payment for Filing, # 4 Proposed Order)(SchrumHerrera, Cristina) (Entered: 09/25/2017)
>>>NOTICE REGARDING PRO HAC VICE MOTION. Regarding Document No. 29 MOTION for Cristina SchrumHerrera to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff.. The document has been reviewed and there are no deficiencies. (bcu) (Entered: 09/25/2017)
30 LETTER addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from P. David Lopez dated September 26, 2017 re: Stipulation and [Proposed] Order. Document filed by Felipe Kelly, Clint Millien. (Attachments: # 1 Stipulation and [Proposed] Order)(Lopez, Patrick) (Entered: 09/26/2017)

09/28/2017 10/02/2017 10/03/2017
10/03/2017 10/03/2017

31 STIPULATION AND ORDER CONCERNING PRODUCTION OF ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION:...regarding procedures to be followed that shall govern the handling of confidential material... (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 9/27/2017) (ap) (Entered: 09/28/2017)
32 LETTER addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from David Lopez dated October 2, 2017 re: Formatted Stipulation and [Proposed] Order, and Rescheduling of the Case Management Conference. Document filed by Felipe Kelly, Clint Millien. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Lopez, Patrick) (Entered: 10/02/2017)
33 STIPULATION AND ORDER CONCERNING PRODUCTION OF ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. All Parties are bound by and subject to the terms of this Order. 2. Definitions. a. "Discovery Material" is defined as all products of discovery and all information derived there from, including, but not limited to, documents, objects and things, deposition testimony, interrogatory/request for admission responses, and any copies, excerpts or summaries thereof, produced by any Party in the above-captioned matter. b. Plaintiffs and Defendants, as well as their officers, directors, employees, agents, and legal counsel, are referred to as the "Parties" solely for the purposes of this Protocol. c. "Plaintiffs" as used herein shall mean Plaintiffs Clint Millien and Felipe Kelly, as well as any other individually named plaintiff in this case or in any case that is consolidated with this matter or any such consolidated matter as set forth in this order. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 10/2/2017) (rj) (Entered: 10/03/2017)
34 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: 32 LETTER addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from David Lopez dated October 2, 2017 re: Formatted Stipulation and [Proposed] Order, and Rescheduling of the Case Management Conference. Document filed by Felipe Kelly, Clint Millien. ENDORSEMENT: The conference previously scheduled for July 28, 2018 is hereby rescheduled for July 27, 2018 at 2:00 P.M. SO ORDERED. (Case Management Conference set for 7/27/2018 at 02:00 PM before Judge Alison J. Nathan.) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 10/2/2017) (rjm) (Entered: 10/03/2017)
35 ORDER granting 29 Motion for Cristina Schrum-Herrera to Appear Pro Hac Vice (HEREBY ORDERED by Judge Alison J. Nathan)(Text Only Order) (Nathan, Alison) (Entered: 10/03/2017)

10/18/2017 10/18/2017 10/30/2017 10/31/2017 11/01/2017

36 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: CONFERENCE held on 9/15/2017 before Judge Alison J. Nathan. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Kelly Surina, (212) 805-0300. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 11/8/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/20/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/16/2018.(McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 10/18/2017)
37 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a CONFERENCE proceeding held on 9/15/17 has been filed by the court reporter/transcriber in the above-captioned matter. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days...(McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 10/18/2017)
38 NOTICE of Unopposed Motion For An Enlargement of Time To File Defendants' Answer To Plaintiffs' First Amended Federal Complaint. Document filed by MSGN Holdings, L.P., The Madison Square Garden Company. (Attachments: # 1 Unopposed Motion of Enlargement of Time to File Defendants' Answer to Plaintiffs' First Amended Federal Complaint, # 2 Exhibit Defendants' Answer to Plaintiffs' First Amended Federal Complaint)(Shaulson, Sam) (Entered: 10/30/2017)
39 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: 38 Notice of Unopposed Motion for an Enlargement of Time to File Defendants' Answer and Defenses to Plaintiffs' First Amended Federal Complaint filed by MSGN Holdings, L.P., The Madison Square Garden Company. ENDORSEMENT: The Court GRANTS Defendants' unopposed motion and hereby accepts the untimely filing of Defendants' Answer to the First Amended Federal Class Action Complaint per its discretion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B). (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 10/31/2017) (mro) (Entered: 11/01/2017)
40 ANSWER to 13 Amended Complaint. Document filed by MSGN Holdings, L.P., The Madison Square Garden Company.(Shaulson, Sam) (Entered: 11/01/2017)

12/21/2017
01/17/2018 03/15/2018 03/16/2018 03/22/2018
03/23/2018
04/04/2018 04/06/2018 04/17/2018

41 STIPULATION AND ORDER GOVERNING THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL...regarding procedures to be followed that shall govern the handling of confidential material... Nothing in this Order affects the parties' obligation to comply with Rule 4.A of the Court's Individual Practices in Civil Cases governing redactions and filing under seal. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/20/2017) (mml) (Entered: 12/21/2017)
42 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Cheryl-Lyn Deon Bentley on behalf of Felipe Kelly, Clint Millien. (Bentley, Cheryl-Lyn) (Entered: 01/17/2018)
43 STATUS REPORT. re Mediation Discussion Document filed by Felipe Kelly, Clint Millien.(Miazad, Ossai) (Entered: 03/15/2018)
44 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: 43 Status Report filed by Felipe Kelly, Clint Millien. ENDORSEMENT: SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 3/16/2018) (kgo) (Entered: 03/16/2018)
45 MOTION for Daniel Stromberg to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number 0208-14845047. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff. Document filed by Felipe Kelly, Clint Millien. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Affidavit of Daniel Stromberg, # 2 Certificate of Good Standing, # 3 Proposed Order)(Stromberg, Daniel) (Entered: 03/22/2018)
>>>NOTICE REGARDING PRO HAC VICE MOTION. Regarding Document No. 45 MOTION for Daniel Stromberg to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number 0208-14845047. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff.. The document has been reviewed and there are no deficiencies. (bcu) (Entered: 03/23/2018)
46 ORDER granting 45 Motion for Daniel Stromberg to Appear Pro Hac Vice (HEREBY ORDERED by Judge Alison J. Nathan)(Text Only Order) (Nathan, Alison) (Entered: 04/04/2018)
47 STATUS REPORT. Document filed by MSGN Holdings, L.P., The Madison Square Garden Company.(Evans, Paul) (Entered: 04/06/2018)
48 ORDER REFERRING CASE TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE. Order that case be referred to the Clerk of Court for assignment to a Magistrate Judge for General Pretrial (includes scheduling,

04/17/2018 04/17/2018 04/19/2018 04/20/2018 04/20/2018
04/24/2018 05/09/2018

discovery, non-dispositive pretrial motions, and settlement). Referred to Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 4/12/2018) (rj) (Entered: 04/17/2018)

49 LETTER MOTION for Discovery with Exhibits addressed to Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn from Ossai Miazad dated April 16, 2018. Document filed by Felipe Kelly, Clint Millien.(Miazad, Ossai) (Entered: 04/17/2018)

***DELETED DOCUMENT. Deleted document number 50 Order. The document was incorrectly filed in this case. (mml) (Entered: 04/18/2018)

50 LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn from Paul C. Evans dated April 19, 2018 re: Response to Letter Motion. Document filed by MSGN Holdings, L.P., The Madison Square Garden Company.(Evans, Paul) (Entered: 04/19/2018)

NOTICE OF REDESIGNATION TO ANOTHER MAGISTRATE JUDGE. The above entitled action has been redesignated to Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman. Please note that this is a reassignment of the designation only. (wb) (Entered: 04/20/2018)

NOTICE OF REASSIGNMENT OF A REFERRAL TO ANOTHER MAGISTRATE JUDGE. The referral in the above entitled action has been reassigned to Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman, for General Pretrial (includes scheduling, discovery, nondispositive pretrial motions, and settlement). Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn no longer referred to the case. Motions referred to Henry B. Pitman. (wb) (Entered: 04/20/2018)

Set/Reset Hearings: Discovery Hearing set for 5/18/2018 at 10:30 AM in Courtroom 18A, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman. (ajc) (Entered: 04/24/2018)

LETTER MOTION for Discovery re ESI addressed to Magistrate

51

Judge Henry B. Pitman from Ossai Miazad dated May 9, 2018.

Document filed by Felipe Kelly, Clint Millien. (Attachments: # 1

Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4

Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7

Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10

05/14/2018 05/14/2018 05/14/2018
05/15/2018 05/17/2018 05/18/2018

Exhibit J, # 11 05/09/2018)

Exhibit K)(Miazad, Ossai) (Entered:

52 STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER EXTENDING THE DEADLINE FOR REQUESTS TO ADMIT: IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between counsel for the parties, that the deadline to serve Requests to Admit shall be continued until May 25, 2018 or a different date the Court so orders at the May 18, 2018 discovery hearing. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 5/14/2018) (ras) (Entered: 05/14/2018)

53 LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman from Paul C. Evans dated May 14, 2018 re: Plaintiffs' Discovery Deficiences. Document filed by MSGN Holdings, L.P., The Madison Square Garden Company. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H)(Evans, Paul) (Entered: 05/14/2018)

54 LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman from Paul C. Evans dated May 14, 2018 re: Plaintiffs May 9, 2018 Letter. Document filed by MSGN Holdings, L.P., The Madison Square Garden Company. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O)(Evans, Paul) (Entered: 05/14/2018)

55 LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman from Ossai Miazad dated May 15, 2018 re: Request for Extension of Discovery Schedule. Document filed by Felipe Kelly, Clint Millien. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Miazad, Ossai) (Entered: 05/15/2018)

56 LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman from Ossai Miazad dated May 17, 2018 re: Response to ECF 53. Document filed by Felipe Kelly, Clint Millien. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Miazad, Ossai) (Entered: 05/17/2018)

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman: Discovery Hearing held on 5/18/2018. (ajc) (Entered: 05/18/2018)

05/24/2018
05/24/2018
05/30/2018 06/08/2018 06/14/2018 06/20/2018 06/21/2018 06/21/2018

57 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: Discovery Hearing held on 5/18/2018 before Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Carole Ludwig, (212) 420-0771. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 6/14/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 6/25/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/22/2018.(mhe) (Entered: 05/24/2018)

58 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a Discovery Hearing proceeding held on 5/18/18 has been filed by the court reporter/transcriber in the above-captioned matter. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days.(mhe) (Entered: 05/24/2018)

59 NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS by Cristina Maria Schrum-Herrera on behalf of Felipe Kelly, Clint Millien. New Address: Outten & Golden LLP, One California Street, 12th Floor, Suite 1250, San Francisco, California, 94111, 4156388800. (Schrum-Herrera, Cristina) (Entered: 05/30/2018)

60 JOINT LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman from Ossai Miazad dated June 8, 2018 re: Status of Discovery. Document filed by Felipe Kelly, Clint Millien.(Miazad, Ossai) (Entered: 06/08/2018)

61 LETTER MOTION for Conference re Motion to Quash and Protective Order addressed to Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman from Ossai Miazad dated June 14, 2018. Document filed by Felipe Kelly, Clint Millien. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G)(Miazad, Ossai) (Entered: 06/14/2018)

LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman from

62

Paul C. Evans dated June 20, 2018 re: Plaintiff's June 14, 2018

Letter. Document filed by MSGN Holdings, L.P., The Madison

Square Garden Company.(Evans, Paul) (Entered: 06/20/2018)

Case Stayed (ne) (Entered: 06/21/2018)

63 ORDER: Unfortunately, scheduling limitations prevent me from meeting with counsel concerning plaintiff's letter dated June 14,

06/21/2018 06/21/2018 06/21/2018 06/27/2018
06/29/2018 07/05/2018 07/06/2018

2018 until July 5, 2018 at 11:00 a.m. In order to preserve the status quo, defendants are directed to refrain from serving the subpoenas that are the subject of plaintiffs' June 14 Letter until the dispute can be resolved on the merits. It does not appear that delaying service of the subpoenas will result in any prejudice to defendants. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 6/20/2018) (ne) Modified on 6/21/2018 (ne). Modified on 6/21/2018 (ne). (Entered: 06/21/2018)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 61 LETTER MOTION for Conference re Motion to Quash and Protective Order addressed to Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman from Ossai Miazad dated June 14, 2018. Motion Hearing set for 7/5/2018 at 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman. (ne) (Entered: 06/21/2018)
64 LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman from Ossai Miazad dated June 21, 2018 re: Reply to Defendants' June 20, 2018 Letter in Response to Plaintiffs' June 14, 2018 Letter. Document filed by Felipe Kelly, Clint Millien.(Miazad, Ossai) (Entered: 06/21/2018)
65 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Nina Teresa Martinez on behalf of Felipe Kelly, Clint Millien. (Martinez, Nina) (Entered: 06/21/2018)
66 ORDER: Due to the Court's unavailability, the Status Conference previously scheduled for July 27, 2018 at 3:00 pm is hereby rescheduled to August 17, 2018 at 3:00 pm. (Case Management Conference set for 8/17/2018 at 03:00 PM before Judge Alison J. Nathan.) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 6/26/2018) (cf) (Entered: 06/27/2018)
67 JOINT LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman from Ossai Miazad dated June 29, 2018 re: Update on the Status of Discovery. Document filed by Felipe Kelly, Clint Millien.(Miazad, Ossai) (Entered: 06/29/2018)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman: Discovery Hearing held on 7/5/2018. (ajc) (Entered: 07/09/2018)
ORDER terminating 49 Letter Motion for Discovery; 68
terminating 51 Letter Motion for Discovery; granting in part and denying in part 61 Letter Motion for Conference. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully requested to mark Docket Items 49, 51 and 61 closed. SO ORDERED. (As further set forth in this order)

07/06/2018 07/09/2018 07/12/2018
07/12/2018
08/14/2018 08/15/2018

(Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 7/6/2018) (ne) (Entered: 07/06/2018)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Expert depositions due by 12/26/2018. Fact Discovery due by 9/12/2018. (ne) (Entered: 07/06/2018)
69 ORDER: Accordingly, the case management conference previously scheduled for August 17, 2018, is hereby adjourned to November 9, 2018, at 3:15 P.M. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Case Management Conference set for 11/9/2018 at 03:15 PM before Judge Alison J. Nathan.) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/9/2018) (cf) Modified on 9/19/2018 (cf). (Entered: 07/09/2018)
70 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: Discovery Hearing held on 7/5/2018 before Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Shari Riemer, (518) 581-8973. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 8/2/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/13/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/10/2018.(rro) (Entered: 07/12/2018)
71 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a Discovery Hearing proceeding held on 7/5/2018 has been filed by the court reporter/transcriber in the above-captioned matter. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days.(rro) (Entered: 07/12/2018)
72 LETTER MOTION to Stay addressed to Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman from Paul C. Evans dated August 14, 2018. Document filed by MSGN Holdings, L.P., The Madison Square Garden Company.(Evans, Paul) (Entered: 08/14/2018)
73 ORDER granting 72 Letter Motion to Stay. ALL PROCEEDINGS IN THIS MATTER ARE STAYED PENDING FURTHER ORDER OF THE COURT. COUNSEL ARE TO PROVIDE STATUS REPORT NO LATER THAN 10/12/18. THE COURT IS AVAILABLE TO CONDUCT A SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE IF COUNSEL BELIEVE IT WOULD BE HELPFUL. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 8/15/2018) (ne) (Entered: 08/15/2018)

08/15/2018 10/12/2018 10/15/2018
11/06/2018 11/07/2018 11/12/2018 11/13/2018
12/19/2018 12/19/2018 12/20/2018

Case Stayed (ne) (Entered: 08/15/2018)
74 STATUS REPORT. Document filed by MSGN Holdings, L.P., The Madison Square Garden Company.(Shaulson, Sam) (Entered: 10/12/2018)
75 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: 74 Status Report filed by MSGN Holdings, L.P., The Madison Square Garden Company. ENDORSEMENT: THE STAY OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS CONTINUED. COUNSEL ARE TO PROVIDE AN UPDATED STATUS REPORT NO LATER THAN 11-12-18. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 10/15/2018) (ne) (Entered: 10/15/2018)
76 JOINT LETTER MOTION to Adjourn Conference addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Ossai Miazad dated November 6, 2018. Document filed by Felipe Kelly, Clint Millien.(Miazad, Ossai) (Entered: 11/06/2018)
77 ORDER granting 76 Letter Motion to Adjourn Conference. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 11/7/2018) (cf) (Entered: 11/07/2018)
78 STATUS REPORT. Document filed by Felipe Kelly, Clint Millien.(Miazad, Ossai) (Entered: 11/12/2018)
79 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: 78 Status Report filed by Felipe Kelly, Clint Millien. ENDORSEMENT: THE STAY OF THE MATTER IS CONTINUED. COUNSEL IS TO PROVIDE A STATUS REPORT ON OR BEFORE 12-19-18. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 11/13/2018) (ne) (Entered: 11/13/2018)
80 JOINT LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman from Paul C. Evans dated December 19, 2018 re: Status Update. Document filed by MSGN Holdings, L.P., The Madison Square Garden Company.(Evans, Paul) (Entered: 12/19/2018)
81 JOINT LETTER addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Paul C. Evans dated December 19, 2018 re: Status Update. Document filed by MSGN Holdings, L.P., The Madison Square Garden Company.(Evans, Paul) (Entered: 12/19/2018)
82 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: 80 Letter filed by MSGN Holdings, L.P., The Madison Square Garden Company. ENDORSEMENT: THE STAY IS CONTINUED THROUGH 314-19. COUNSEL SHALL PROVIDE A STATUS UPDATE NO

12/21/2018 03/14/2019 03/15/2019 04/30/2019
05/01/2019 05/14/2019 05/15/2019 06/04/2019 06/05/2019

LATER THAN 3-14-19. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 12/20/2018) (ne) (Entered: 12/20/2018)

MEMO ENDORSEMENT: on re: 81 Letter filed by MSGN

83

Holdings, L.P., The Madison Square Garden Company.

ENDORSEMENT: SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J.

Nathan on 12/21/2018) (ama) (Entered: 12/21/2018)

84 STATUS REPORT. Document filed by Felipe Kelly, Clint Millien.(Miazad, Ossai) (Entered: 03/14/2019)

85 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: 84 Status Report filed by Felipe Kelly, Clint Millien. ENDORSEMENT: SO ORDERED. (Motions due by 5/15/2019.) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 3/15/2019) (kv) (Entered: 03/15/2019)

86 LETTER addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Paul C. Evans dated 04/30/2019 re: Settlement Agreement and Motion for Preliminary Approval. Document filed by MSGN Holdings, L.P., The Madison Square Garden Company.(Evans, Paul) (Entered: 04/30/2019)

MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: 86 Letter filed by MSGN

87

Holdings, L.P., The Madison Square Garden Company.

ENDORSEMENT: SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J.

Nathan on 4/30/2019) (ks) (Entered: 05/01/2019)

88 LETTER addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Paul C. Evans dated May 14, 2019 re: Settlement Agreement and Preliminary Approval. Document filed by MSGN Holdings, L.P., The Madison Square Garden Company.(Evans, Paul) (Entered: 05/14/2019)

89 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: 88 Letter filed by MSGN Holdings, L.P., The Madison Square Garden Company. ENDORSEMENT: SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 5/15/2019) (jca) (Entered: 05/15/2019)

90 THIRD LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Ossai Miazad dated June 4, 2019. Document filed by Felipe Kelly, Clint Millien.(Miazad, Ossai) (Entered: 06/04/2019)

91 ORDER granting 90 THIRD LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time. SO ORDERED. Motions due by 6/19/2019. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 6/5/2019) (jca) (Entered: 06/05/2019)

06/18/2019 06/19/2019 06/24/2019 06/24/2019 06/24/2019
06/24/2019

92 LETTER addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Paul C. Evans dated June 18, 2019 re: Preliminary Approval Motion. Document filed by MSGN Holdings, L.P., The Madison Square Garden Company.(Evans, Paul) (Entered: 06/18/2019)

93 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: 92 Letter filed by MSGN Holdings, L.P., The Madison Square Garden Company. ENDORSEMENT: SO ORDERED. (Motions due by 6/24/2019.) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 6/18/2019) (jca) (Entered: 06/19/2019)

MOTION to Approve Notice of Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for

94

Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, Conditional

Certification of Settlement Classes, Appointment of Class

Counsel, and Approval of Plaintiffs' Proposed Notice of

Settlement . Document filed by Felipe Kelly, Clint

Millien.(Miazad, Ossai) (Entered: 06/24/2019)

95

MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 94 MOTION to

Approve Notice of Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary

Approval of Class Action Settlement, Conditional Certification of

Settlement Classes, Appointment of Class Counsel, and Approval

of Plaintiffs' Proposed Notice of Sett . Document filed by Felipe

Kelly, Clint Millien. (Miazad, Ossai) (Entered: 06/24/2019)

DECLARATION of Ossai Miazad in Support re: 94 96
MOTION to Approve Notice of Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, Conditional Certification of Settlement Classes, Appointment of Class Counsel, and Approval of Plaintiffs' Proposed Notice of Sett. Document filed by Felipe Kelly, Clint Millien. (Attachments:

# 1 Exhibit Settlement Agreement, # 2 Exhibit Proposed Order)(Miazad, Ossai) (Entered: 06/24/2019)

97 DECLARATION of Michael Pope in Support re: 94

MOTION to Approve Notice of Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, Conditional Certification of Settlement Classes, Appointment of Class Counsel, and Approval of Plaintiffs' Proposed Notice of Sett. Document filed by Felipe Kelly, Clint Millien. (Miazad, Ossai) (Entered: 06/24/2019)

08/08/2019
08/08/2019 08/15/2019 08/16/2019 08/16/2019 09/06/2019 09/10/2019

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED MOTION

98

FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION

SETTLEMENT, CONDITIONAL CERTIFICATION OF

SETTLEMENT CLASSES, APPOINTMENT OF CLASS

COUNSEL, AND APPROVAL OF PLAINTIFFS' PROPOSED

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT granting 94 MOTION to Approve Notice of Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, Conditional Certification of Settlement Classes, Appointment of Class Counsel, and Approval of Plaintiffs' Proposed Notice of Settlement. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 8/8/2019) (jca) (Entered: 08/08/2019)

99 ORDER: By separate order, the Court has preliminarily approved the parties' class action settlement and form notice. Before transmitting the form notice to the class, the parties shall revise the form notice to indicate that the Court is located at 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007 and that the fairness hearing will occur in Courtroom 906. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 8/8/2019) (jca) (Entered: 08/08/2019)

100 FIRST LETTER MOTION to Adjourn Conference re Final Approval addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Plaintiffs, Clint Millien and Felipe Kelly dated August 15, 2019. Document filed by Felipe Kelly, Clint Millien.(Miazad, Ossai) (Entered: 08/15/2019)

101 ORDER granting 100 Letter Motion to Adjourn Conference. The final approval hearing currently scheduled for November 6 is hereby adjourned to November 19 at 11 :00 AM. The deadline for filing final approval motions is hereby extended to November 4. SO ORDERED. Status Conference set for 11/19/2019 at 11:00 AM before Judge Alison J. Nathan. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 8/16/2019) (kv) (Entered: 08/16/2019)

Set/Reset Deadlines: Motions due by 11/4/2019. (kv) (Entered: 08/16/2019)

102 LETTER addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Cheryl-Lyn D. Bentley dated September 6, 2019 re: Withdrawal of Cheryl-Lyn D. Bentley as Attorney of Record. Document filed by Felipe Kelly, Clint Millien.(Bentley, Cheryl-Lyn) (Entered: 09/06/2019)

103 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: 102 Letter filed by Felipe Kelly, Clint Millien. ENDORSEMENT: SO ORDERED. Attorney

10/02/2019 10/03/2019 10/03/2019
10/21/2019 11/04/2019 11/04/2019 11/04/2019 11/04/2019 11/04/2019

Cheryl-Lyn Deon Bentley terminated. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 9/9/2019) (kv) (Entered: 09/10/2019)
Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave is so redesignated. (ad) (Entered: 10/02/2019)
NOTICE OF REDESIGNATION TO ANOTHER MAGISTRATE JUDGE. The above entitled action has been redesignated to Magistrate Judge Sarah L Cave. Please note that this is a reassignment of the designation only. (wb) (Entered: 10/03/2019)
NOTICE OF REASSIGNMENT OF A REFERRAL TO ANOTHER MAGISTRATE JUDGE. The referral in the above entitled action has been reassigned to Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave, for General Pretrial (includes scheduling, discovery, nondispositive pretrial motions, and settlement). Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman no longer referred to the case. (wb) (Entered: 10/03/2019)
104 LETTER addressed to TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN from William Starr dated 10/9/2019 re: My written objection to the proposed settlement. (kv) (Entered: 10/21/2019)
105 MOTION to Approve Notice of Plaintiffs Unopposed Motion for Certification of the Settlement Classes and Final Approval of Class Action Settlement . Document filed by Felipe Kelly, Clint Millien.(Miazad, Ossai) (Entered: 11/04/2019)
106 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 105 MOTION to Approve Notice of Plaintiffs Unopposed Motion for Certification of the Settlement Classes and Final Approval of Class Action Settlement . . Document filed by Felipe Kelly, Clint Millien. (Miazad, Ossai) (Entered: 11/04/2019)
107 MOTION to Approve Notice of Plaintiffs Motion for Approval of Service Awards . Document filed by Felipe Kelly, Clint Millien.(Miazad, Ossai) (Entered: 11/04/2019)
108 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 107 MOTION to Approve Notice of Plaintiffs Motion for Approval of Service Awards . . Document filed by Felipe Kelly, Clint Millien. (Miazad, Ossai) (Entered: 11/04/2019)
109 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs. Document filed by Felipe Kelly, Clint Millien.(Miazad, Ossai) (Entered: 11/04/2019)

11/04/2019 11/04/2019
11/04/2019 11/19/2019 01/02/2020
01/02/2020

110 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 109 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs. . Document filed by Felipe Kelly, Clint Millien. (Miazad, Ossai) (Entered: 11/04/2019)
111 DECLARATION of Ossai Miazad in Support re: 109 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs., 107 MOTION to Approve Notice of Plaintiffs Motion for Approval of Service Awards ., 105 MOTION to Approve Notice of Plaintiffs Unopposed Motion for Certification of the Settlement Classes and Final Approval of Class Action Settlement .. Document filed by Felipe Kelly, Clint Millien. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I)(Miazad, Ossai) (Entered: 11/04/2019)
112 DECLARATION of Michael Pope in Support re: 105 MOTION to Approve Notice of Plaintiffs Unopposed Motion for Certification of the Settlement Classes and Final Approval of Class Action Settlement ., 109 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs., 107 MOTION to Approve Notice of Plaintiffs Motion for Approval of Service Awards .. Document filed by Felipe Kelly, Clint Millien. (Miazad, Ossai) (Entered: 11/04/2019)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Alison J. Nathan. Hearing held on motion for final approval of a class action settlement and motion for fees, costs, and service awards. Decisions on motions are reserved. See transcript for complete details. (Court Reporter Eve Giniger) (qs) (Entered: 11/19/2019)
113 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: CONFERENCE held on 11/19/2019 before Judge Alison J. Nathan. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Eve Giniger, (212) 805-0300. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 1/23/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 2/3/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/1/2020.(McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 01/02/2020)
114 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a CONFERENCE proceeding held on 11/19/19 has been filed by the court reporter/transcriber in the above-captioned matter. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available

to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days...(McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 01/02/2020)

03/17/2020

115 LETTER addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Ossai Miazad dated March 17, 2020 re: Motion for Final Approval. Document filed by Felipe Kelly, Clint Millien..(Miazad, Ossai) (Entered: 03/17/2020)

03/19/2020

116 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: 115 Letter filed by Felipe Kelly, Clint Millien. ENDORSEMENT: The Court will resolve the motion for final approval in due course. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 3/19/2020) (kv) (Entered: 03/19/2020)

08/07/2020 117

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 105 MOTION to Approve Notice of Plaintiffs Unopposed Motion for Certification of the Settlement Classes and Final Approval of Class Action Settlement . filed by Felipe Kelly, Clint Millien, 109 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs. filed by Felipe Kelly, Clint Millien, 107 MOTION to Approve Notice of Plaintiffs Motion for Approval of Service Awards . filed by Felipe Kelly, Clint Millien. For the reasons stated, the Settlement is determined to be fair, reasonable, and adequate. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of the Class Action Settlement is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Motions for an Award of Service Payments to Class Representatives, and an Award of Attorney's Fees and Costs are also GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment and to close this case. This resolves Dkt. Nos. 105, 107, and 109. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 8/7/2020) (kv) Transmission to Finance Unit (Cashiers) for processing. Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing. (Entered: 08/07/2020)

08/10/2020 118

CLERK'S JUDGMENT re: 117 Memorandum & Opinion. in favor of Clint Millien, Felipe Kelly against MSGN Holdings, L.P., The Madison Square Garden Company. It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasonsstated in the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated August 7, 2020, Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of the Class Action Settlement is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Motions for an Award of Service Payments to Class Representatives, and an Award of Attorney's Fees and Costs are also GRANTED. Accordingly, judgment is hereby entered pursuant to the terms of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated August 7, 2020 attached to this Judgment. (Signed by Clerk of Court Ruby Krajick on

08/10/2020

08/10/2020) (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Right to Appeal) (dt) (Entered: 08/10/2020)
Terminate Transcript Deadlines (dt) (Entered: 08/10/2020)

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

PACER Login:
Description:
Billable Pages:
Exempt flag:

10/17/2020 21:08:49

CRClearinghouse Client Code:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

17

Cost:

Not Exempt

Exempt reason:

Peach 1:17-cv-04000-AJNSLC 1.70
Not Exempt

 
 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/26/2017 08:56 AM

INDEX NO. 652225/2017

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/26/2017

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK

CLINT MILLIEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Index No.

Plaintiff(s),

-against-
THE MADISON SQUARE GARDEN COMPANY and MSGN HOLDINGS, L.P.,

Summons

Defendant(s).

Date Index No. Purchased:

To the above named Defendant(s)
THE MADISON SQUARE GARDEN COMPANY and MSGN HOLDINGS, L.P. Two Penn Plaza, New York, New York 10121

You are hereby summoned to answer the complaint in this action and to serve a copy of your answer, or, if the complaint is not served with this summons, to serve a notice of appearance, on the Plaintiff's attorney within 20 days after the service of this summons, exclusive of the day of service (or within 30 days after the service is complete if this summons is not personally delivered to you within the State of New York); and in case of your failure to appear or answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded in the complaint.

The basis of venue is location of Defendants' principal office a,nd residence, which is Two Penn Plaza, New York, New York 10121

Dated: New York, New York
April 26, 2017

OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
by__/_s_/ _O_s_sa_i_M__i_a_z_a_d___________
Ossai Miazad
Attorneys for Plaintiff
OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP Ossai Miazad Lewis M. Steel Christopher M. McNerney Chauniqua D. Young 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, New York 10017 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 Facsimile: (646) 509-2060
Attorneys for Plaintiff Millien and the Putative Classes

1 of 17

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/26/2017 08:56 AM

INDEX NO. 652225/2017

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/26/2017

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK

CLINT MILLIEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. THE MADISON SQUARE GARDEN COMPANY and MSGN HOLDINGS, L.P.,
Defendants.

Index No.: CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Jury Trial Demanded

Plaintiff Clint Millien (“Millien” or “Plaintiff”), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, alleges, upon personal knowledge as to himself and upon information and belief as to other matters, as follows:
SUMMARY OF THE CLAIMS 1. Plaintiff brings this case on his own behalf and that of a proposed class of all others similarly situated against Defendants The Madison Square Garden Company and MSGN Holdings, L.P. (“MSG” or “Defendant”) for violation of their rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., and the New York State Fair Credit Reporting Act (“NY FCRA”), N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 380 et seq. 2. Mr. Millien sought employment at MSG. He was qualified for the job, made a conditional offer of employment and subjected to MSG’s background check process. 3. Upon information and belief, MSG routinely rejects job applicants based on information contained in background check reports (“consumer reports”) that it obtains from consumer reporting agencies (“CRAs”) without providing those individuals with copies of their consumer reports, a statement of rights under the FCRA, or a copy of Article 23-A of the New

2 of 17

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/26/2017 08:56 AM

INDEX NO. 652225/2017

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/26/2017

York Correction Law (“Correction Law”). MSG’s failure to provide these documents violates section 1681b(b)(3)(A) of the FCRA, which renders illegal the use of consumer reports to make adverse employment decisions without the employer first providing the individual who is the subject of the report with sufficient and timely notification of its intent to take an adverse action, a copy of the report, and a summary of rights under the FCRA. See 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(3)(A)(i) and (ii). It also violates N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 380-g(d), which requires that employers provide individuals with a copy of Article 23-A of the Correction Law when a consumer report has been procured on them.
4. MSG’s violations of the FCRA and NY FCRA cause concrete injury by, among other examples, invading individuals’ privacy and depriving them of crucial information that Congress and the New York legislature intended that they possess so that, for example, applicants could explain their conviction histories or otherwise challenge their rejections of employment.
5. MSG has willfully violated the above-mentioned provision of the FCRA and NY FCRA.
6. On behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff seeks statutory and/or actual damages; exemplary and punitive damages; pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; and reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses associated with this action.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 7. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681p, which permits claims under the FCRA to be brought in any “court of competent jurisdiction.” This Court also has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s FCRA and NY FCRA claims pursuant to New York Civil Practice Law and Rule § 301.
2
3 of 17

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/26/2017 08:56 AM

INDEX NO. 652225/2017

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/26/2017

8. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to New York Civil Practice Law and Rule § 503 because MSG is headquartered and resides in this District and because a substantial part of the events and omissions giving rise to the claims alleged herein occurred in this District.
9. This case is properly brought in the Commercial Division of the Supreme Court because, upon information and belief, the damages of Plaintiff and the putative class, exclusive of punitive damages, interests, costs, disbursements and counsel fees claimed, exceed the monetary threshold for New York County of $500,000.
PARTIES Plaintiff
10. Plaintiff Millien and the proposed Class Members he seeks to represent are “consumers” as defined by the FCRA and NY FCRA.
11. Plaintiff is a resident of Essex County, New Jersey. Defendants
12. The Madison Square Garden Company is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware and maintains its headquarters at Two Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY.
13. MSGN Holdings, L.P. is registered as a Delaware limited partnership and maintains its headquarters at Two Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY.
14. At all relevant times, The Madison Square Garden Company and MSGN Holdings, L.P. have each been a “person” using “consumer reports” of Plaintiff and proposed Class Members for “employment purposes” and have taken “adverse action” against Plaintiff and similarly situated applicants, as defined by the FCRA and NY FCRA, for example by preventing them from explaining or challenging their rejections of employment. These adverse actions have
3
4 of 17

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/26/2017 08:56 AM

INDEX NO. 652225/2017

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/26/2017

been based wholly or in part on those consumer reports. 15. At all relevant times, The Madison Square Garden Company and MSGN
Holdings, L.P. have been aware of the requirements of the FCRA and NY FCRA, and yet have disregarded those requirements.
STATEMENT OF FACTS Clint Millien
16. On or about July 13, 2015, Mr. Millien spoke with a recruiter employed by MSG about job openings with the company. The recruiter encouraged Mr. Millien to apply, based on his previous work experience.
17. Mr. Millien subsequently applied to work at MSG through MSG’s online portal. Either on the application, or in a separate document, MSG asked Mr. Millien about his criminal history. Mr. Millien was confused by MSG’s forms, and only disclosed one of his two misdemeanor convictions, which he reasonably believed was the only information MSG was asking about.
18. On or about July 14, 2015, Mr. Millien was interviewed by an MSG representative for approximately thirty minutes.
19. The interview was successful, and at its conclusion, Mr. Millien was told that he was conditionally hired but that MSG would conduct a background check. He also was told that he would have an orientation in early August and that he would start working for MSG after the orientation.
20. Later that day, Mr. Millien received an email from MSG with the subject line “Offer Documents.” A link in the email led to documents that containing information about Mr. Millien’s employment with MSG, including that he would be paid approximately $11.00 an hour
4
5 of 17

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/26/2017 08:56 AM

INDEX NO. 652225/2017

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/26/2017

for a position in “food prep.” 21. Mr. Millien received a second email from MSG on July 14, 2015, instructing him
to take a drug test. Following those instructions, Mr. Millien took a drug test and passed it. 22. At some point during this process, MSG obtained a consumer report on Mr.
Millien that contained a criminal record check. 23. In or around July or August, 2015, Mr. Millien received a phone call from an
MSG employee informing him that MSG was rescinding its employment offer as a result of its background check.
24. Mr. Millien never received a copy of his consumer report. 25. Mr. Millien never received a statement of his rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. 26. Mr. Millien never received a copy of Article 23-A of the New York Correction Law. 27. During the entire relevant period, Mr. Millien resided at the same address known to MSG. Factual Allegations Common to All Class Members The Fair Credit Reporting Act 28. The FCRA was enacted in 1970. Through its passage, Congress required that consumer reports be “fair and equitable to the consumer” and protect a “consumer’s right to privacy” through “adopt[ing] reasonable procedures” to ensure “the confidentiality, accuracy, relevancy, and proper utilization” of information contained within consumer reports. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681(a)(4)-(b). 29. Congress also required that “consumer reports” explicitly include background
5
6 of 17

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/26/2017 08:56 AM

INDEX NO. 652225/2017

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/26/2017

reports procured for employment purposes. See 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(d)(1)(B). 30. Through the FCRA, Congress requires that “before taking any adverse action
based in whole or in part on [a consumer report],” the employer taking the adverse action must provide “the consumer to whom the report relates” with:
(i) a copy of the report; and (ii) a description in writing of the rights of the consumer under this
subchapter, as prescribed by the [Consumer Financial Protection] Bureau under section 1681g(c)(3)[.] 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(3)(A)(i) and (ii). 31. The FCRA defines adverse action as both “a denial of employment or any other decision for employment purposes that adversely affects any current or prospective employee,” and “an action taken or determination that is . . . adverse to the interests of the consumer.” 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(k)(1)(B)(ii) and (iv). 32. Upon information and belief, MSG has routinely and systematically failed to provide Plaintiff and other job applicants with their consumer report and a summary of their rights under the FCRA before taking adverse actions against them. 33. In Congress’s judgment, an employer’s failure to provide a consumer with his or her consumer report and a summary of his or her rights under the FCRA are both harms sufficient to establish Article III standing. 34. Without notice that a consumer report is going to be used to take adverse action against them, job applicants are hindered in their ability to preserve their privacy, provide context for their criminal histories, or to correct errors or other problems with the report. 35. MSG has acted willfully in violating the FCRA. MSG knew or should have

6
7 of 17

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/26/2017 08:56 AM

INDEX NO. 652225/2017

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/26/2017

known its obligations under the FCRA. These obligations are well-established by the plain
language of the FCRA, in the promulgations and opinion letters of the Federal Trade
Commission, and in longstanding case law. Further, MSG is required to certify to the consumer
reporting agency that it will comply with the FCRA’s stand-alone disclosure and authorization
requirements. See 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(1)(A).
36. Despite MSG’s awareness of its legal obligations, it has acted recklessly and
willfully in breaching its known duties and depriving Plaintiff and other job applicants of their
rights under the FCRA.
The NY FCRA
37. The NY FCRA requires that:
When a consumer reporting agency provides a consumer report that contains criminal conviction information, permitted by paragraph one of subdivision (a) of section three hundred eighty-j of this article, to a user, the person, firm, corporation or other entity requesting such report shall provide the subject of such report a printed or electronic copy of article twenty-three-A of the correction law governing the licensure and employment of persons previously convicted of one or more criminal offenses. N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 380-g(d). 38. “The public policy of [New York] state, as expressed in [its Correction Law], [is]
to encourage the licensure and employment of persons previously convicted of one or more
criminal offenses.” N.Y. Corr. Law § 753(1)(a).
39. Upon information and belief, MSG has routinely and systematically failed to
provide Plaintiff and other job applicants with a copy of Article 23-A of the Correction Law.
40. This has caused Plaintiff and other job applicants concrete harm because it has
denied them an opportunity to learn of their rights under Article 23-A of the Correction Law and
created the risk of future harm.

7
8 of 17

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/26/2017 08:56 AM

INDEX NO. 652225/2017

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/26/2017

41. For example, under the Correction Law, MSG cannot deny employment to an individual “when such finding is based upon the fact that the individual has previously been convicted of one or more criminal offenses, unless” MSG shows “a direct relationship” between the conviction(s) and the job or “an unreasonable risk to property or to the safety or welfare of specific individuals or the general public.” N.Y. Corr. Law § 752.
42. Instead, MSG must consider eight factors laid out in Section 753 of the Correction Law and whether the individual has a certificate of relief from disabilities or a certificate of good conduct. N.Y. Corr. Law § 753.
43. In turn, Section 754 of the Correction law allows an individual “previously convicted of one or more criminal offenses” to request a written explanation for the employer’s denial of employment, which the employer is required to provide within 30 days of the request— providing applicants with crucial information as to the basis for the job denial. N.Y. Corr. Law § 754.
44. MSG’s failure to provide Plaintiff and other job applicants with a copy of Article 23-A of the Correction law denied them information about their legal right to be free from discrimination and remedies for that discrimination once it had occurred.
45. MSG’s failure to provide this information also created the risk that Plaintiff and other job applicants would fail to seek to vindicate their right to be free from discrimination— either from MSG’s denial of employment or the denial of employment by another employer.
46. Given that the time for an individual to bring a claim against MSG through the New York City Commission on Human Rights (“NYCCHR”) is only one year, see N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-109(e) (stating that commission lacks jurisdiction over complaints “filed more than one year after the alleged unlawful discriminatory practice or act of
8
9 of 17

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/26/2017 08:56 AM

INDEX NO. 652225/2017

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/26/2017

discriminatory harassment or violence . . . occurred”); N.Y. Corr. Law § 755(2) (explaining that claims can be brought against private employers, inter alia, through NYCCHR), many putative class members have had their choice of venues diminished through MSG’s actions, causing further concrete harm.
47. MSG’s violation of the NY FCRA frustrates New York’s public policy to increase the employment of persons with criminal convictions. See N.Y. Corr. Law § 753(1)(a).
48. MSG has acted willfully in violating the requirements of the NY FCRA. MSG knew or should have known about its obligations under the NY FCRA. These obligations are well-established by the plain language of the NY FCRA.
49. Despite MSG’s awareness of its legal obligations, it has acted recklessly and willfully in breaching its known duties and depriving Plaintiff and other job applicants of their rights under the FCRA.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 50. Plaintiff brings this case as a proposed Class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on behalf of himself and two classes of persons (collectively, the “Classes”). 51. Plaintiff asserts the First Cause of Action against MSG on behalf of the “FCRA Consumer Report Class” defined as follows: FCRA Consumer Report Class: All individuals who, during the applicable five year statute of limitations period, were subjected to an adverse action by MSG at least in part because of information in their consumer reports without being provided with a copy of their consumer report and/or a statement of their rights under the FCRA. 52. Plaintiff asserts the Second Cause of Action against MSG on behalf of the “NY FCRA Class” defined as follows: NY FCRA Class: All individuals who, during the applicable two year statute of limitations period, had consumer reports requested about them by MSG and were not provided with a copy of article twenty-three-A of the correction law.
9
10 of 17

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/26/2017 08:56 AM

INDEX NO. 652225/2017

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/26/2017

53. The members of the FCRA Consumer Report Class and NY FCRA Class are
collectively referred to as “Class Members.”
54. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend the definition of above-defined classes based
on discovery or legal developments.
55. The Class Members identified herein are so numerous that joinder of all members
is impracticable. MSG is a large New York employer. The number of job applicants harmed by
MSG’s violations of the FCRA and NY FCRA is far greater than feasibly could be addressed
through joinder. The precise number is uniquely within Defendant’s possession, and Class
Members may be notified of the pendency of this action by published and/or mailed notice.
56. There are questions of law and fact common to Class Members, and these
questions predominate over any questions affecting only individual members. Common legal
and factual questions include, among others:
(a) whether Defendant violated the FCRA by failing to provide Plaintiff and the FCRA Consumer Report Class with a copy of their consumer report before taking adverse action against them in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(3)(A)(i);
(b) whether Defendant violated the FCRA by failing to provide Plaintiff and the FCRA Consumer Report Class with a written description of their rights under the FCRA before taking adverse action against them in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(3)(A)(ii);
(c) whether Defendant’s actions caused informational injury to Plaintiff and Class Members, and whether Defendant’s actions violated the privacy of Plaintiff and Class Members;
(d) whether Defendant violated the NY FCRA by failing to provide Plaintiff and the NY FCRA Class with a copy of Article 23-A of the Correction Law, in violation of N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 380-g(d).
(e) whether Defendant was willful in its noncompliance with the requirements of the FCRA and NY FCRA; and
10
11 of 17

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/26/2017 08:56 AM

INDEX NO. 652225/2017

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/26/2017

(f) whether statutory damages, compensatory damages, exemplary damages and punitive damages for Class Members are warranted.
57. Plaintiff is a member of the classes he seeks to represent. MSG took adverse action against Plaintiff without first providing him with a copy of his consumer reports, a written summary of his rights under the FCRA, or a copy of Article 23-A of the Correction Law.
58. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the classes he seeks to represent. Upon information and belief, it is MSG’s standard practice to take adverse actions against applicants without first providing them with a copy of their consumer reports, a written summary of their rights under the FCRA, or a copy of Article 23-A of the Correction Law. Plaintiff is entitled to relief under the same causes of action as other Class Members.
59. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the Class Members because his interests coincide with, and are not antagonistic to, the interests of the Class Members he seeks to represent. Plaintiff has retained Counsel who are competent and experienced in complex class actions, including litigation pertaining to criminal background checks, the FCRA and NY FCRA, other employment litigation, and the intersection thereof. There is no conflict between Plaintiff and the Class Members.
60. Class certification is appropriate pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) for the FCRA Consumer Report Class because common questions of fact and law predominate over any questions affecting only individual Class Members. For example, MSG has maintained a common policy of taking adverse action without first providing applicants with copies of their consumer reports and/or a written description of their rights under the FCRA. Moreover, a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this litigation. Class Members have been damaged and are entitled to recovery as a result of Defendant’s uniform policies and practices. Because MSG has maintained a common
11
12 of 17

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/26/2017 08:56 AM

INDEX NO. 652225/2017

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/26/2017

policy of failing to properly inform Class Members of their rights under the FCRA, many Class Members are likely unaware that their rights have been violated.
61. Class certification is appropriate pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) for the NY FCRA Class because common questions of fact and law predominate over any questions affecting only individual Class Members. For example, MSG has maintained a common policy of obtaining consumer reports from individuals without providing them with a copy of Article 23-A of the Correction Law. Moreover, a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this litigation. Class Members have been damaged and are entitled to recovery as a result of Defendant’s uniform policies and practices. Because MSG has maintained a common policy of failing to properly inform Class Members of their rights under the NY FCRA, many Class Members are likely unaware that their rights have been violated.
62. The amount of each Class Member’s individual claim is small compared to the expense and burden of individual prosecution of this litigation. The FCRA has statutorily specified damages, which Class Members will prove at trial are warranted, that will render calculation of damages for Class Members straightforward. The propriety and amount of exemplary and punitive damages are based on Defendant’s conduct, making these issues common to Class Members.
CAUSES OF ACTION FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF MSG’s Failure to Provide Consumer Reports and FCRA Notices Before Adverse Actions (15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(3)(A), Brought by Mr. Millien on Behalf of Himself and the FCRA
Consumer Report Class) 63. Mr. Millien, on behalf of himself and the FCRA Consumer Report Class, incorporates the preceding paragraphs as alleged above.
12
13 of 17

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/26/2017 08:56 AM

INDEX NO. 652225/2017

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/26/2017

64. MSG violated the FCRA by taking adverse employment actions against Mr. Millien and the FCRA Consumer Report Class based in whole or in part on the information contained within their consumer reports.
65. Before taking these adverse employment actions, MSG failed to provide Mr. Millien and the FCRA Consumer Report Class with a copy of their consumer reports and a reasonable amount of time to respond.
66. Before taking these adverse employment actions, MSG failed to provide Mr. Millien and the FCRA Consumer Report Class with a written description of their rights under the FCRA.
67. These failures are each separate violations of the FCRA. 68. MSG’s policy caused concrete injury (including the risk of harm) to Mr. Millien and the FCRA Consumer Report Class, including because they could not:
(a) evaluate information contained in the consumer reports to ensure accuracy;
(b) challenge and correct that information; (c) explain the circumstances surrounding that information (even if accurate); (d) explain why information reported should not preclude employment; (e) explain why information that was different on the consumer report than
the application should not preclude employment; and (f) learn of their rights and opportunities under the FCRA, including the
opportunity to bring suit under the FCRA. 69. MSG acted willfully and in knowing or reckless disregard of its obligations and the rights of Mr. Millien and the FCRA Disclosure Class. 70. MSG’s willful conduct is reflected by, among other things, the fact that it violated a clear statutory mandate set forth in 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(3)(A).
13
14 of 17

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/26/2017 08:56 AM

INDEX NO. 652225/2017

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/26/2017

71. MSG’s willful conduct is still further reflected by the following:
(a) The FCRA was enacted in 1970, and Defendant has had years to become compliant;
(b) Defendant’s conduct is inconsistent with the FTC’s longstanding regulatory guidance, judicial interpretation, and the plain language of the statute;
(c) Defendant repeatedly and routinely took adverse action based in whole or in part on information contained in a consumer report before providing consumers with a copy of the consumer report or FCRA rights; and
(d) By adopting such a policy, Defendant voluntarily ran a risk of violating the law substantially greater than the risk associated with a reading that was merely careless.
72. As a result of MSG’s actions, Mr. Millien and the FCRA Consumer Report Class
have been deprived of their consumer rights, prevented from timely and effectively contesting
the adverse action, and had their privacy invaded.
73. MSG’s willful conduct makes it liable for statutory damages, punitive damages,
and attorneys’ fees and costs, in an amount to be determined by the Court pursuant to 15 U.S.C.
§ 1681n.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF MSG’s Failure to Provide Copy of Article 23-a (N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 380-g(d), Brought by Mr. Millien on Behalf of Himself
and the NY FCRA Class)
74. Mr. Millien, on behalf of himself and the NY FCRA Class, incorporates the
preceding paragraphs as alleged above.
75. MSG violated the NY FCRA by procuring consumer reports from Mr. Millien
and the NY FCRA Class without providing them with copies of Article 23-A of the Correction
Law.

14
15 of 17

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/26/2017 08:56 AM

INDEX NO. 652225/2017

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/26/2017

76. MSG’s policy caused concrete injury (including the risk of harm) to Mr. Millien and the NY FCRA Class, including because they could not learn of their rights and opportunities under the NY FCRA.
77. MSG acted willfully and in knowing or reckless disregard of its obligations and the rights of Mr. Millien and the FCRA Disclosure Class.
78. MSG’s willful conduct is reflected by, among other things, the fact that it violated a clear statutory mandate set forth in N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 380-g(d).
79. MSG’s willful conduct is still further reflected by the following: (a) Defendant has had years to become compliant with the NY FCRA; (b) Defendant repeatedly and routinely failed to provide individuals with copies of Article 23-A as required by the NY FCRA; and (c) By adopting such a policy, Defendant voluntarily ran a risk of violating the law substantially greater than the risk associated with a reading that was merely careless.
80. As a result of MSG’s actions, Mr. Millien and the NY FCRA Class have been deprived of their consumer rights, prevented from timely and effectively contesting the adverse action.
81. MSG’s willful and/or negligent conduct makes it liable for actual damages, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs, in an amount to be determined by the Court pursuant to N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 380-l and N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 380-m.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and Class Members pray for relief as follows:
(a) Certification of the case as a class action on behalf of the proposed classes;
(b) Designation of Plaintiff Clint Millien as a representative of Class Members;
15
16 of 17

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/26/2017 08:56 AM

INDEX NO. 652225/2017

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/26/2017

(c) Designation of Plaintiff’s counsel of record as Class Counsel;
(d) An award of all actual and/or statutory damages awardable for violations of the FCRA and NY FCRA including punitive damages for each violation found to be willful;
(e) An award of costs incurred herein, including reasonable attorneys’ fees to the extent allowable by law;
(f) Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, as provided by law;
(g) Payment of a reasonable service award to Plaintiff, in recognition of the services he has rendered and will continue to render to Class Members, and the risks he has taken and will take; and
(h) Such other and further legal and equitable relief as this Court deems necessary, just and proper.

JURY DEMAND Plaintiff demands a trial by jury in this action.

Dated: New York, New York April 26, 2017

Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Ossai Miazad OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP Ossai Miazad Lewis M. Steel Christopher M. McNerney Chauniqua D. Young 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, New York 10017 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 Facsimile: (646) 509-2060

YOUTH REPRESENT Michael C. Pope Eric Eingold 11 Park Place, Suite 1512 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (646) 759-8080 Facsimile: (646) 217-3097

Attorneys for Plaintiff Millien and the Putative Classes

16

17 of 17

 
 Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 13 Filed 07/14/17 Page 1 of 33

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

CLINT MILLIEN and FELIPE KELLY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. THE MADISON SQUARE GARDEN COMPANY and MSGN HOLDINGS, L.P.,
Defendants.

Case No. 17 Civ. 4000 (AJN)(SN)
FIRST AMENDED FEDERAL CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Jury Trial Demanded

Plaintiffs Clint Millien (“Millien”) and Felipe Kelly (“Kelly”) (together, “Plaintiffs”), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, allege, upon personal knowledge as to themselves and upon information and belief as to other matters, as follows:
SUMMARY OF THE CLAIMS 1. Defendants’ answer, filed after they removed this case to federal court, necessitates this amended Complaint. In the pleadings removed to this court, Plaintiffs had alleged, on their own behalf and that of a proposed class of all others similarly situated, that Defendants The Madison Square Garden Company and MSGN Holdings, L.P. (“MSG” or “Defendants”) violated their rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., the New York State Fair Credit Reporting Act (“NY FCRA”), N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 380 et seq., the New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”), N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8101 et seq. and Article 23-A of the New York State Correction Law, N.Y. Corr. Law § 750 et seq. (“Correction Law”). Those claims are also alleged in this amended Complaint. 2. Specifically, Plaintiffs sought employment at MSG. They were qualified for the

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 13 Filed 07/14/17 Page 2 of 33
entry-level jobs, given conditional offers of employment and subjected to MSG’s background check process.
3. Upon information and belief, MSG routinely rejects job applicants based on information contained in background check reports (“consumer reports”) that it obtains from consumer reporting agencies (“CRAs”) without first providing those individuals with copies of their consumer reports, a statement of rights under the FCRA, or a copy of Article 23-A of the Correction Law.
4. MSG’s failure to provide these documents before taking adverse actions violates section 1681b(b)(3)(A) of the FCRA, which renders illegal the use of consumer reports to make adverse employment decisions without the employer first providing the individual who is the subject of the report with sufficient and timely notification of its intent to take an adverse action, a copy of the report, and a summary of rights under the FCRA. See 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(3)(A)(i) and (ii). It also violates N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 380-g(d), which requires that employers provide individuals with a copy of Article 23-A of the Correction Law when a consumer report has been procured on them.
5. In turn, MSG’s denial of employment to job applicants based on information contained in consumer reports, without first providing that information to job applicants and allowing them to dispute or otherwise explain that information, is a per se violation of the NYCHRL, which requires that employers evaluate the eight factors laid out in the Correction Law before denying employment on the basis of a criminal history.
6. MSG’s answer, however, seeks to avoid a court ruling on these issues. Without giving the plaintiffs an opportunity to respond, MSG’s answer alleges it determined not to hire Plaintiffs because it claimed they had falsified their applications by failing to reveal
2

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 13 Filed 07/14/17 Page 3 of 33
misdemeanor convictions. See ECF No. 12 (Answer). This conduct violates the NYCHRL and FCRA by failing to give each of the Plaintiffs individualized consideration and the opportunity to either contradict the consumer reports upon which MSG’s actions were based or to explain that the responses in their applications were not based upon falsifying their answers.
7. In addition, because plaintiff Millien is Black and plaintiff Kelly is Black and Latino, and social science studies have clearly established that Blacks and Latinos have criminal records at significantly higher rates than Whites, their rejection from work for which they were qualified violates the NYCHRL, requiring plaintiffs to add this cause of action to their amended Complaint.
8. MSG has a policy requiring applicants to detail complete criminal history information and denies employment to applicants who it alleges did not “disclose convictions on their job application materials[,]” ECF No. 12 (Answer) at 1. That policy does not have a “demonstrable relationship to successful performance of the jobs for which [the policy] used,” Griggs v. Dukes Power, Co., 401 U.S. 424, 431(1971), and is otherwise an invalid screening device rendering it improper under the NYCHRL.
9. MSG’s violations of the law cause concrete injury by, among other examples, invading individuals’ privacy and depriving them of crucial information that Congress and the New York legislature intended that they possess so that, for example, applicants could explain their conviction histories, correct inaccurate or incomplete information, or otherwise challenge their rejections of employment.
10. MSG has willfully violated the laws Plaintiffs have set forth in this amended Complaint.
11. On behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs seek statutory
3

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 13 Filed 07/14/17 Page 4 of 33
damages; exemplary and punitive damages; injunctive and/or declaratory relief, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; and reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses associated with this action.
12. Through this lawsuit, Plaintiffs will show that the conduct outlined in their Complaint clearly violates the stated public policy of New York and the Unites States to remove barriers to employment for thousands of persons who have paid the penalties for any crimes they may have committed.
STATUTORY BACKGROUND 13. “The public policy of [New York] state [and City], as expressed in [the Correction Law], [is] to encourage the licensure and employment of persons previously convicted of one or more criminal offenses.” N.Y. Corr. Law § 753(1)(a). 14. When the Correction Law was enacted in 1976, both the legislature and the Governor recognized the need to “reverse the long history of employment discrimination against” people with criminal records by “eliminating many of the obstacles to employment.” Governor’s Bill Jacket, 1976, Ch. 931 Memorandum of Senator Ralph J. Marino & Assemblyman Stanley Fink in Support of S. 4222-C and A. 5393-C. 15. As articulated in the NYCHRL, “there is no greater danger to the health, morals, safety and welfare of the city and its inhabitants than the existence of groups prejudiced against one another and antagonistic to each other because of their actual or perceived differences, including those based on . . . conviction or arrest record.” N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-101. 16. Overbroad and/or arbitrary bans on hiring because of conviction histories undermine and violate the City’s clearly articulated policy—as do requirements that applicants must disclose their complete and accurate conviction histories before MSG purchases a
4

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 13 Filed 07/14/17 Page 5 of 33
consumer report from a CRA, which because of the way criminal records are kept, can be unclear and confusing.
17. Such acts of discrimination “menace the institutions and foundation of a free democratic state.” N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-101.
18. The use of these arbitrary pre-employment bans also results in discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, color, and national origin because it imports the racial and ethnic disparities in the criminal justice system into the employment application process.
19. For these, among other reasons, the NYCHRL forbids companies from denying employment, or aiding and abetting the denial of employment, simply because a job applicant has a criminal record. Instead, companies must engage in an individualized evaluation of each of the factors outlined in Article 23-A of the Correction Law.
20. The FCRA was enacted “to insure that consumer reporting agencies exercise their grave responsibilities with fairness, impartiality, and respect for the consumers’ right to privacy,” FCRA § 1681(a)(4), by operating “in a manner which is fair and equitable to the consumer, with regard to the confidentiality, accuracy, relevancy” of the consumer information they disseminate. FCRA § 1681(b).
21. Congress was particularly concerned about the use of background reports in the employment context, and therefore defined the term “consumer reports” to explicitly include background reports procured for employment purposes. See 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(d)(1)(B).
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 22. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681p, which permits claims under the FCRA to be brought in any “court of competent jurisdiction” and 28 U.S.C. 1331. This Court also has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ FCRA, NY FCRA, and
5

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 13 Filed 07/14/17 Page 6 of 33
NYCHRL claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (supplemental jurisdiction). 23. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) and (2)
because MSG is headquartered and resides in this District and because a substantial part of the events and omissions giving rise to the claims alleged herein occurred in this District.
24. After being originally filed in the Commercial Division of the New York Supreme Court, MSG removed this case to federal court because the Court had federal question jurisdiction and venue and supplemental jurisdiction over “Plaintiffs’ NY Claim and NYCHRL Claim[.]” ECF No. 1 (Notice of Removal) at 4.
25. Before being removed, this case was properly brought in the Commercial Division of the New York Supreme Court because, upon information and belief, the damages of Plaintiffs and the putative class, exclusive of punitive damages, interests, costs, disbursements and counsel fees claimed, exceed the monetary threshold for New York County of $500,000.
26. This Court is empowered to issue a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.
27. Contemporaneously with the filing of this amended Complaint, Plaintiffs have mailed a copy of the amended Complaint to the New York City Commission of Human Rights and the Office of the Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, thereby satisfying the notice requirements of Section 8-502 of the New York City Administrative Code.
PARTIES Plaintiffs
28. Plaintiffs and the proposed Class Members they seek to represent are “consumers” as defined by the FCRA and NY FCRA and are each a “person” within the meaning of the NYCHRL.
6

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 13 Filed 07/14/17 Page 7 of 33
29. Plaintiffs each have criminal convictions. 30. Plaintiff Millien is a resident of Essex County, New Jersey. 31. Plaintiff Millien is a Black man. 32. Plaintiff Kelly is a resident of Bronx County, New York. 33. Plaintiff Kelly is a Black and Latino man. Defendants 34. The Madison Square Garden Company is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware and maintains its headquarters at Two Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY. 35. MSGN Holdings, L.P. is registered as a Delaware limited partnership with a principal place of business at 11 Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, New York 10001. 36. At all relevant times, The Madison Square Garden Company and MSGN Holdings, L.P. have each been a “person” using “consumer reports” of Plaintiffs and proposed Class Members for “employment purposes” and have taken “adverse action” against Plaintiffs and similarly situated applicants, as defined by the FCRA and NY FCRA, for example by preventing them from explaining or challenging their rejections of employment. These adverse actions have been based wholly or in part on those consumer reports. 37. At all relevant times, The Madison Square Garden Company and MSGN Holdings, L.P. have been aware of the requirements of the FCRA and NY FCRA, and yet have disregarded those requirements. 38. At all relevant times, The Madison Square Garden Company and MSGN Holdings, L.P. have been employers as defined by the NYCHRL, and private employers as defined by the Correction Law.
7

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 13 Filed 07/14/17 Page 8 of 33
STATEMENT OF FACTS Clint Millien
39. On or about July 13, 2015, Mr. Millien spoke with a recruiter employed by MSG about job openings with the company. The recruiter encouraged Mr. Millien to apply, based on his previous work experience.
40. Mr. Millien subsequently applied to work at MSG for positions in food preparation through MSG’s online portal. Either on the application, or in a separate document, MSG asked Mr. Millien about his criminal history. Mr. Millien was confused by MSG’s forms, and only disclosed one of his two misdemeanor convictions, which he reasonably believed was the only information MSG was asking about.
41. On or about July 14, 2015, Mr. Millien was interviewed by an MSG representative for approximately thirty minutes.
42. The interview was successful, and at its conclusion, Mr. Millien was told that he was conditionally hired but that MSG would conduct a background check. He also was told that he would have an orientation in early August and that he would start working for MSG after the orientation.
43. Later that day, Mr. Millien received an email from MSG with the subject line “Offer Documents.” A link in the email led to documents containing information about Mr. Millien’s employment with MSG, including that he would be paid approximately $11.00 an hour for a position in “food prep.”
44. Mr. Millien received a second email from MSG on July 14, 2015, instructing him to take a drug test. Following those instructions, Mr. Millien took a drug test and passed it.
45. At some point during this process, MSG obtained a consumer report on Mr.
8

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 13 Filed 07/14/17 Page 9 of 33
Millien that contained a criminal record check. 46. In or around July or August, 2015, after MSG had obtained a consumer report,
Mr. Millien received a phone call from an MSG employee informing him that MSG was rescinding its employment offer as a result of its background check.
47. Prior to MSG’s adverse employment determination, Mr. Millien did not receive a copy of his consumer report.
48. Prior to MSG’s adverse employment determination, Mr. Millien did not receive a statement of his rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
49. Prior to MSG’s adverse employment determination, Mr. Millien did not receive a copy of Article 23-A of the New York Correction Law.
50. During the entire relevant period, Mr. Millien resided at the same address known to MSG.
51. On approximately May 5, 2017, approximately one year and a half after MSG’s adverse employment decision and only after filing this lawsuit, Mr. Millien received a copy of his consumer report and a statement of his rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
52. During the interview process, and afterwards, MSG never obtained information from Mr. Millien which would enable it to fully evaluate the factors laid out in Section 753 of the Correction Law. For example, after reviewing Mr. Millien’s background check, MSG never asked Mr. Millien for information regarding the circumstances of his convictions or evidence of Mr. Millien’s rehabilitation or good conduct.
53. As part of its Answer, MSG now states for the first time that it denied Mr. Millien employment because he purportedly “failed to disclose criminal convictions on [his] job application materials.” ECF No. 12 (Answer) at 1.
9

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 13 Filed 07/14/17 Page 10 of 33
54. MSG never asked Mr. Millien whether his consumer report was accurate or to explain his purported failure to disclose part of his criminal history. Felipe Kelly
55. In approximately July 2015, Mr. Kelly applied online for a food preparation position with MSG.
56. Mr. Kelly was subsequently interviewed by an MSG representative. 57. The interview was successful, and at its conclusion, Mr. Kelly was told that he was conditionally hired but that MSG would conduct a background check. 58. After that interview, Mr. Kelly was instructed to take a drug test, which he passed, and was emailed a schedule for orientation at MSG. 59. At some point during this process, MSG obtained a consumer report on Mr. Kelly that contained a criminal record check. 60. After MSG obtained a consumer report, Mr. Kelly received a phone call from an MSG employee informing him that MSG was rescinding its job offer as a result of its background check. 61. Prior to MSG’s adverse employment determination, Mr. Kelly had not received a copy of his consumer report. 62. Prior to MSG’s adverse employment determination, Mr. Kelly had not received a statement of his rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. 63. Prior to MSG’s adverse employment determination, Mr. Kelly had not received a copy of Article 23-A of the New York Correction Law. 64. After telling Mr. Kelly that MSG was rescinding its job offer, the MSG employee told Mr. Kelly that he would receive something in the mail.
10

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 13 Filed 07/14/17 Page 11 of 33
65. Approximately two weeks after the call rescinding the job offer, Mr. Kelly received a copy of his consumer report.
66. During the entire relevant period, Mr. Kelly resided at the same address known to MSG.
67. During the interview process, and afterwards, MSG never obtained information from Mr. Kelly which would enable it to fully evaluate the factors laid out in Section 753 of the Correction Law. For example, after reviewing Mr. Kelly’s consumer report, MSG never asked Mr. Kelly for information regarding the circumstances of his convictions or evidence of Mr. Kelly’s rehabilitation or good conduct.
68. As part of its Answer, MSG now states for the first time in this ongoing litigation that it denied Mr. Kelly employment because he purportedly “failed to disclose criminal convictions on [his] job application materials.” ECF No. 12 (Answer) at 1.
69. MSG never asked Mr. Kelly whether his consumer report was accurate or to explain his purported failure to disclose part of his criminal history. Factual Allegations Common to All Class Members The NYCHRL Article 23-A Claims
70. The NYCHRL states that no employer may “deny employment to any person” based on a criminal conviction “when such denial or adverse action is in violation of the provisions of article twenty-three-a of the correction law.” N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107 (10).
71. Article 23-A of the Correction Law prohibits an employer from denying employment to any person by virtue of their criminal record unless the employer can meet its burden of demonstrating one of two exceptions:
(1) there is a direct relationship between one or more of the previous criminal offenses and the specific license or employment sought or held by the
11

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 13 Filed 07/14/17 Page 12 of 33
individual; or
(2) the issuance or continuation of the license or the granting or continuation of the employment would involve an unreasonable risk to property or to the safety or welfare of specific individuals or the general public.
N.Y. Correct. Law § 752.
72. Article 23-A of the Correction Law further requires that before taking any adverse
action on the basis of a criminal record, the employer must consider all the following factors:
(a) The public policy of this state, as expressed in this act, to encourage the licensure and employment of persons previously convicted of one or more criminal offenses.
(b) The specific duties and responsibilities necessarily related to the license or employment sought or held by the person.
(c) The bearing, if any, the criminal offense or offenses for which the person was previously convicted will have on his fitness or ability to perform one or more such duties or responsibilities.
(d) The time which has elapsed since the occurrence of the criminal offense or offenses.
(e) The age of the person at the time of occurrence of the criminal offense or offenses.
(f) The seriousness of the offense or offenses.
(g) Any information produced by the person, or produced on his behalf, in regard to his rehabilitation and good conduct.
(h) The legitimate interest of the public agency or private employer in protecting property, and the safety and welfare of specific individuals or the general public.
N.Y. Correct. Law § 753. 73. It is impossible for an employer to conduct the legally required evaluation of all
Article 23-A factors without first engaging in a conversation with the prospective candidate
before making an employment determination. See N.Y. Correct. Law § 753.
74. For this reason, among others, the NYCHRL forbids companies from denying 12

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 13 Filed 07/14/17 Page 13 of 33
employment simply because a job applicant has a criminal record. Instead, companies must engage in an evaluation of the factors outlined in the Correction Law before making an employment determination.
75. Despite knowing of its obligations under the NYCHRL, MSG has denied, and continues to deny, employment to job applicants, without undertaking the inquiry required by New York Law.
76. Upon information and belief, MSG’s denial of employment to job applicants based on information contained in consumer reports, without first providing that information to job applicants and allowing them to dispute or otherwise explain that information, is a per se violation of the NYCHRL.
77. For example, although not a subject to this suit, the New York City Commission on Human Rights has put out guidance about the recently enacted Fair Chance Act. See https://www1.nyc.gov/site/cchr/law/fair-chance-act.page. That guidance explains that “[e]mployers must carefully conduct the Article 23-A analysis.” Id. This means that “[o]nce an employer extends a conditional offer and learns of an applicant’s criminal record, it must solicit the information necessary to properly consider each Article 23-A factor, including the applicant’s evidence of rehabilitation.” Id. By denying employment to job applicants before soliciting such information, MSG violated the NYCHRL. These obligations existed before the enactment of the Fair Chance Act.
78. MSG has acted consciously in breaching its known duties and depriving Plaintiff Millien and other job applicants of their rights under the NYCHRL and the Correction Law.
79. At a minimum, MSG’s conduct has been reckless in failing to make an appropriate inquiry to ascertain its obligations under the NYCHRL and the Correction Law.
13

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 13 Filed 07/14/17 Page 14 of 33

80. The ability to find employment is an essential aspect of reentering society for people with criminal histories. Recidivism declines when those individuals have viable employment prospects and other stabilizing resources in their communities. MSG’s policy of discriminating against individuals with criminal records frustrates such public policy objectives. The NYCHRL Disparate Impact Claims
81. MSG’s policy of terminating applicants who purportedly fail to provide a completely accurate criminal history on their job application is an employment policy that disparately impacts Blacks and Latinos.
82. In essence, MSG’s application process and policy of termination for purported falsification on applications effectively imports the acute racial disparities in the criminal justice system into the employment process, thereby multiplying the negative impact on Black and Latino job applicants with criminal histories—like Plaintiffs.
83. According to conservative estimates, 65 million Americans (one in every four adults) have a criminal history.1 With 12 to 14 million arrests annually, the percent of the American population with a criminal history is growing rapidly.2
84. With regard to race, nearly 60% of U.S. prisoners are Black or Latino, although these groups represent less than 30% of the overall U.S. population.3 This means that one out of every three Black males born today will go to prison, as will one out of every six Latino males,

1

Michelle Natividad Rodriguez & Maurice Emsellem, NELP, 65 Million “Need Not

Apply”: The Case For Reforming Criminal Background Checks For Employment 3 (2011),

available at http://www.nelp.org/page/-/65_million_need_not_apply.pdf?nocdn=1.

2

FBI, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Crime in the United States, 2009 1 (2009), available at

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/arrests/index.html; see also Robert Brame et al., Cumulative

Prevalence of Arrest from Ages 8 to 23 in a National Sample, 129 PEDIATRICS 21, 25 (2012)

(roughly one in every three Americans has been arrested by age twenty-three).

3

Leah Sakala, Breaking Down Mass Incarceration in the 2010 Census: State-by-State

Incarceration Rates by Race/Ethnicity, PRISON POL’Y INITIATIVE (May 28, 2014),

http://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/rates.html.

14

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 13 Filed 07/14/17 Page 15 of 33

compared to just one out of every seventeen White males.4 85. Moreover, while 1.6 million persons were held in U.S. prisons in 2010, there were
more than eight times that number of arrests (roughly 13.1 million).5 This number is significant given that information produced in routine criminal background checks often extends beyond convictions that yield prison time, and includes arrests that never led to conviction.
86. Compounding the racial disparities in criminal arrests and convictions is proven employer bias against people with criminal records. For example, audit studies conducted by researchers at Harvard and Princeton Universities found that Blacks and Latinos with criminal records were particularly disadvantaged in the job market when compared to Whites with criminal records.6
87. With little or no scientific justification, MSG disqualifies applicants, including Plaintiffs, whom it claims falsified their answers with regard to criminal records, without making any attempt to speak to the applicants about their answers or to determine whether their information with regard to criminal convictions was correct.
88. MSG imposes this policy and practice, requiring that applicants self-disclose their entire criminal history, and denying employment to applicants like Plaintiffs who purportedly fail to do so (at least in part) on the argument that this omission shows a lack of honesty or trustworthiness. See ECF No. 12 (Answer) at 17 (“Plaintiffs’ claims under the NYCHRL are

4

Marc Mauer, Addressing Racial Disparities in Incarceration, 91 PRISON J. 87S, 88S

(2011).

5

FBI, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 2011 Crime in the United States, 2010,

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/persons-

arrested.

6

Devah Pager et al., Discrimination in a Low-Wage Labor Market: A Field Experiment, 74

Am. Soc. Rev. 777, 785-86 (2009); Devah Pager et al., Sequencing Disadvantage: Barriers to

Employment Facing Young Black and White Men with Criminal Records, 623 ANNALS AM.

ACAD. POL. & SOC. SCI. 195, 199 (2009); Devah Pager, The Mark of a Criminal Record, 108

AM. J. SOC. 937, 955-61 (2003).

15

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 13 Filed 07/14/17 Page 16 of 33
barred because they intentionally misrepresented their criminal background.”). 89. This policy and practice disproportionately impacts Black and Latino applicants,
who are more likely to have interactions with the criminal justice system requiring disclosure than White applicants.
90. MSG’s requirement that applicants self-disclose their criminal histories screens out individuals who would be eligible for employment according to any rational and fair system of determining edibility for employment.
91. MSG’s requirement that applicants self-disclose their entire criminal history is not an accurate proxy for determining an applicant’s criminal history, honesty or trustworthiness.
92. MSG’s screening process is convoluted and confusing, and applicants are not clearly informed that they need to disclose all of their convictions. For example, although Plaintiff Millien routinely discloses both of his convictions when applying for jobs, he only disclosed one when applying for MSG because he was confused by MSG’s questions about criminal history, and did not realize he had to disclose both.
93. Moreover, the criminal justice system is complex, with technical and varied terminology, which leads many persons with criminal records not to realize the full extent or proper phrasing of their criminal history on job applications. A criminal record is not comprised of a single document. “Information about arrestees, [suspects,] defendants, pre-trial detainees, probationers, inmates, and parolees is recorded in numerous and over lapping files, records, and databases that include: rap sheets created by police and nationally integrated rap sheet systems; court records; police investigative and intelligence information shared at the local, state, and
16

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 13 Filed 07/14/17 Page 17 of 33

federal levels; and other private databases[.]”7 94. Because of this, experts agree that “[l]egal ambiguity and complexity
characterizes the practice of checking criminal records, as the law and practice varies significantly across states.”8
95. Thus, MSG’s requirement that applicants must disclose entirely complete and accurate criminal histories sets up a situation whereby applicants are terminated or not hired because they purportedly fail to accurately disclose their convictions based on confusion as to the meaning of their charges and convictions, or other reasons such as incompleteness (for example, a failure to seal certain records despite court orders, dismissals of charges, or acquittals). Because of the disparities in Blacks and Latinos with criminal record histories, this employment policy disparately impacts those racial groups.
96. In turn, having a conviction (whether disclosed or not), is not an accurate proxy for determining whether an applicant would be able to perform the duties of the job. There are no reliable studies or empirical data to suggest that applicants with criminal records are more or less likely to engage in terminable offenses.9
97. At the same time, there are less discriminatory alternatives that would have better achieved MSG’s legitimate hiring interests. The Fair Credit Reporting Act
98. The FCRA was enacted in 1970. Through its passage, Congress required that

7

Nairuby L. Beckles, The Criminal "DNA" Footprint: Viewing the Mark of Criminal

Records Through the Legal Lens of the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act, 59 How.

L.J. 485, 492–95 (2016).

8

Sarah Esther Lageson et. al., Legal Ambiguity in Managerial Assessments of Criminal

Records, 40 L. & Soc. Inquiry 175, 176 (2015).

9

See, e.g., Ian B. Petersen, Toward True Fair-Chance Hiring: Balancing Stakeholder

Interests and Reality in Regulating Criminal Background Checks, 94 Tex. L. Rev. 175, 187-88

(2015).

17

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 13 Filed 07/14/17 Page 18 of 33
consumer reports be “fair and equitable to the consumer” and protect a “consumer’s right to privacy” through “adopt[ing] reasonable procedures” to ensure “the confidentiality, accuracy, relevancy, and proper utilization” of information contained within consumer reports. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681(a)(4)-(b).
99. Congress also required that “consumer reports” explicitly include background reports procured for employment purposes. See 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(d)(1)(B).
100. Through the FCRA, Congress requires that “before taking any adverse action based in whole or in part on [a consumer report],” the employer taking the adverse action must provide “the consumer to whom the report relates” with:
(i) a copy of the report; and (ii) a description in writing of the rights of the consumer under this
subchapter, as prescribed by the [Consumer Financial Protection] Bureau under section 1681g(c)(3)[.] 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(3)(A)(i) and (ii). 101. The FCRA defines adverse action as both “a denial of employment or any other decision for employment purposes that adversely affects any current or prospective employee,” and “an action taken or determination that is . . . adverse to the interests of the consumer.” 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(k)(1)(B)(ii) and (iv). 102. Upon information and belief, MSG has routinely and systematically failed to provide Plaintiffs and other job applicants with their consumer report and a summary of their rights under the FCRA before taking adverse actions against them. 103. In Congress’s judgment, an employer’s failure to provide a consumer with his or her consumer report and a summary of his or her rights under the FCRA are both harms sufficient to establish Article III standing.
18

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 13 Filed 07/14/17 Page 19 of 33
104. Without notice that a consumer report is going to be used to take adverse action against them, job applicants are hindered in their ability to preserve their privacy, provide context for their criminal histories, or to correct errors or other problems with the report.
105. MSG’s failure to provide this information also created the risk that Plaintiffs and other job applicants would fail to seek to vindicate their right under the FCRA because they would not know of those rights.10
106. MSG has acted willfully in violating the FCRA. MSG knew or should have known its obligations under the FCRA. These obligations are well-established by the plain language of the FCRA, in the promulgations and opinion letters of the Federal Trade Commission, and in longstanding case law. Further, MSG is required to certify to the consumer reporting agency that it will comply with the FCRA’s stand-alone disclosure and authorization requirements. See 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(1)(A). Willfulness, as well as MSG’s control over the distribution of such reports, is further shown because MSG has only sent Mr. Millien a copy of his consumer report and FCRA rights after Mr. Millien was forced to file a lawsuit.
107. Despite MSG’s awareness of its legal obligations, it has acted recklessly and willfully in breaching its known duties and depriving Plaintiffs and other job applicants of their rights under the FCRA. The NY FCRA
108. The NY FCRA requires that: When a consumer reporting agency provides a consumer report that contains criminal conviction information, permitted by paragraph one of subdivision (a) of section three hundred eighty-j of this article, to a user, the person, firm,
10 To the extent MSG argues that it took adverse actions based on Plaintiffs’ alleged failures to disclose convictions, those adverse actions were still based on the consumer reports MSG ran on Plaintiffs, which revealed the alleged discrepancies that were the purported basis for MSG’s denials of employment.
19

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 13 Filed 07/14/17 Page 20 of 33
corporation or other entity requesting such report shall provide the subject of such report a printed or electronic copy of article twenty-three-A of the correction law governing the licensure and employment of persons previously convicted of one or more criminal offenses. N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 380-g(d). 109. “The public policy of [New York] state, as expressed in [its Correction Law], [is] to encourage the licensure and employment of persons previously convicted of one or more criminal offenses.” N.Y. Corr. Law § 753(1)(a). 110. Upon information and belief, MSG has routinely and systematically failed to provide Plaintiffs and other job applicants with a copy of Article 23-A of the Correction Law. 111. This has caused Plaintiffs and other job applicants concrete harm because it has denied them an opportunity to learn of their rights under Article 23-A of the Correction Law and created the risk of future harm. 112. For example, as discussed above, under the Correction Law, MSG cannot deny employment to an individual “when such finding is based upon the fact that the individual has previously been convicted of one or more criminal offenses, unless” MSG shows “a direct relationship” between the conviction(s) and the job or “an unreasonable risk to property or to the safety or welfare of specific individuals or the general public.” N.Y. Corr. Law § 752. 113. Instead, MSG must consider all eight factors laid out in Section 753 of the Correction Law and whether the individual has a certificate of relief from disabilities or a certificate of good conduct. N.Y. Corr. Law § 753. 114. In turn, Section 754 of the Correction law allows an individual “previously convicted of one or more criminal offenses” to request a written explanation for the employer’s denial of employment, which the employer is required to provide within 30 days of the request—
20

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 13 Filed 07/14/17 Page 21 of 33
providing applicants with crucial information as to the basis for the job denial. N.Y. Corr. Law § 754.
115. MSG’s failure to provide Plaintiffs and other job applicants with a copy of Article 23-A of the Correction law denied them information about their legal right to be free from discrimination and remedies for that discrimination once it had occurred.
116. MSG’s failure to provide this information also created the risk that Plaintiffs and other job applicants would fail to seek to vindicate their right to be free from discrimination— either from MSG’s denial of employment or the denial of employment by another employer.
117. Given that the time for an individual to bring a claim against MSG through the New York City Commission on Human Rights (“NYCCHR”) is only one year, see N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-109(e) (stating that commission lacks jurisdiction over complaints “filed more than one year after the alleged unlawful discriminatory practice or act of discriminatory harassment or violence . . . occurred”); N.Y. Corr. Law § 755(2) (explaining that claims can be brought against private employers, inter alia, through NYCCHR), many putative class members have had their choice of venues diminished through MSG’s actions, causing further concrete harm.
118. MSG’s violation of the NY FCRA frustrates New York’s public policy to increase the employment of persons with criminal convictions. See N.Y. Corr. Law § 753(1)(a).
119. MSG has acted willfully in violating the requirements of the NY FCRA. MSG knew or should have known about its obligations under the NY FCRA. These obligations are well-established by the longstanding and plain language of the NY FCRA.
21

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 13 Filed 07/14/17 Page 22 of 33
120. Despite MSG’s awareness of its legal obligations, it has acted recklessly and willfully in breaching its known duties and depriving Plaintiffs and other job applicants of their rights under the FCRA.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 121. Plaintiffs bring this case as a proposed Class action pursuant to the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules on behalf of themselves and three classes of persons (collectively, the “Classes”). 122. Plaintiffs assert the First Cause of Action against MSG on behalf of the “FCRA Consumer Report Class” defined as follows: FCRA Consumer Report Class: All individuals who, during the applicable five year statute of limitations period, were subjected to an adverse action by MSG at least in part because of information in their consumer reports without first being provided with a copy of their consumer report and/or a statement of their rights under the FCRA. 123. Plaintiffs assert the Second Cause of Action against MSG on behalf of the “NY FCRA Class” defined as follows: NY FCRA Class: All individuals who, during the applicable two year statute of limitations period, had consumer reports requested about them by MSG and were not provided with a copy of Article twenty-three-A of the Correction Law. 124. Plaintiffs assert the Third Cause of Action against MSG on behalf of the “Criminal History Discrimination Class” defined as follows: Criminal History Discrimination Class: All individuals who, during the applicable three year statute of limitations period, were denied employment based in whole or in part on criminal offense information contained in a consumer report without MSG having performed a complete New York Correction Law Article 23-A analysis, as required by N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107(10). 125. Plaintiffs assert the Fourth Cause of Action against MSG on behalf of the “SelfDisclosure Disparate Impact Class” defined as follows:
22

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 13 Filed 07/14/17 Page 23 of 33
Self-Disclosure Disparate Impact Class: All Black and Latino individuals who, during the applicable three year statute of limitations period, were denied employment based in whole or in part because of a purported failure to fully disclose conviction history on MSG’s application. 126. The members of the FCRA Consumer Report Class, NY FCRA Class, Criminal History Discrimination Class and Self-Disclosure Disparate Impact Class are collectively referred to as “Class Members.” 127. Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend the definition of above-defined classes based on discovery or legal developments. 128. The Class Members identified herein are so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. MSG is a large New York employer. The number of job applicants harmed by MSG’s violations of the law is far greater than feasibly could be addressed through joinder. The precise number is uniquely within Defendants’ possession, and Class Members may be notified of the pendency of this action by published and/or mailed notice. 129. There are questions of law and fact common to Class Members, and these questions predominate over any questions affecting only individual members. Common legal and factual questions include, among others: (a) whether Defendants violated the FCRA by failing to provide Plaintiffs and
the FCRA Consumer Report Class with a copy of their consumer report before taking adverse action against them in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(3)(A)(i); (b) whether Defendants violated the FCRA by failing to provide Plaintiffs and the FCRA Consumer Report Class with a written description of their rights under the FCRA before taking adverse action against them in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(3)(A)(ii); (c) whether Defendants’ actions caused informational injury to Plaintiffs and Class Members, and whether Defendants’ actions violated the privacy of Plaintiffs and Class Members;
23

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 13 Filed 07/14/17 Page 24 of 33
(d) whether Defendants violated the NY FCRA by failing to provide Plaintiffs and the NY FCRA Class with a copy of Article 23-A of the Correction Law, in violation of N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 380-g(d);
(e) whether Defendants were willful in their noncompliance with the requirements of the FCRA and NY FCRA;
(f) whether Defendants violated the NYCHRL and the Correction Law when denying employment to Plaintiffs and the Criminal History Discrimination Class;
(g) whether Defendants violated the NYCHRL when denying employment to Plaintiffs and the Self Disclosure Disparate Impact Class based on a purported failure to full disclose conviction history;
(h) whether statutory damages, compensatory damages, exemplary damages and punitive damages for Class Members are warranted; and
(i) whether a declaratory judgement and/or injunctive relief is warranted regarding Defendants’ policies and practices.
130. Plaintiffs are members of the classes they seek to represent. MSG took adverse action against Plaintiffs without proper consideration of the factors laid out in the Correction Law or for purportedly failing to self-disclose conviction histories. MSG also took adverse action against Plaintiffs before first providing them with a copy of their consumer reports, a written summary of their rights under the FCRA, or a copy of Article 23-A of the Correction Law.
131. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the classes they seek to represent. Upon information and belief, it is MSG’s standard practice to take adverse actions against applicants: (1) without properly considering the factors laid out in the Correction Law; or (2) because of a purported failure to self-disclose conviction histories. MSG’s standard practice also is to take adverse actions against applications without first providing them with a copy of their consumer reports, a written summary of their rights under the FCRA, or a copy of Article 23-A
24

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 13 Filed 07/14/17 Page 25 of 33
of the Correction Law. Plaintiffs are entitled to relief under the same causes of action as other Class Members.
132. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of Class Members because their interests coincide with, and are not antagonistic to, the interests of the Class Members they seek to represent. Plaintiffs have retained Counsel who are competent and experienced in complex class actions, including litigation pertaining to criminal background checks, the Correction Law, FCRA and NY FCRA, disparate impact litigation, other employment litigation, and the intersection thereof. There is no conflict between Plaintiffs and the Class Members.
133. Class certification is appropriate for the FCRA Consumer Report Class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) because common questions of fact and law predominate over any questions affecting only individual Class Members. For example, MSG has maintained a common policy of taking adverse action without first providing applicants with copies of their consumer reports and/or a written description of their rights under the FCRA. Moreover, a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this litigation. Class Members have been damaged and are entitled to recovery as a result of Defendants’ uniform policies and practices. Because MSG has maintained a common policy of failing to properly inform Class Members of their rights under the FCRA before taking adverse actions, many Class Members are likely unaware that their rights have been violated.
134. Class certification is appropriate for the NY FCRA Class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) because common questions of fact and law predominate over any questions affecting only individual Class Members. For example, MSG has maintained a common policy of obtaining consumer reports from individuals without providing them with a copy of Article 23-A
25

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 13 Filed 07/14/17 Page 26 of 33
of the Correction Law. Moreover, a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this litigation. Class Members have been damaged and are entitled to recovery as a result of Defendants’ uniform policies and practices. Because MSG has maintained a common policy of failing to properly inform Class Members of their rights under the NY FCRA, many Class Members are likely unaware that their rights have been violated.
135. Class certification is appropriate for the Criminal History Discrimination Class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) because MSG has acted and/or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Class, making appropriate declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to Plaintiffs and the Class as a whole (or as to a specific subset of issues). The Class Members are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief to end MSG’s common, uniform, unfair, and discriminatory policies and practices.
136. Class certification is also appropriate for the Criminal History Discrimination Class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) because common questions of fact and law predominate over any questions affecting only individual Class Members. For example, MSG has maintained a common policy of taking adverse action without first properly considering the mandatory factors laid out in the Correction Law. Moreover, a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this litigation. Class Members have been damaged and are entitled to recovery as a result of Defendants’ uniform policies and practices.
137. Class certification is appropriate for the Self-Disclosure Disparate Impact Class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) because MSG has acted and/or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Class, making appropriate declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to Plaintiffs and the Class as a whole (or as to a specific subset of issues). The Class Members are
26

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 13 Filed 07/14/17 Page 27 of 33
entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief to end MSG’s common, uniform, unfair, and discriminatory policies and practices.
138. Class certification is also appropriate for the Self-Disclosure Disparate Impact Class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) because common questions of fact and law predominate over any questions affecting only individual Class Members. For example, MSG has maintained a common policy of denying employment based on a purported failure to fully disclose conviction histories. Moreover, a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this litigation. Class Members have been damaged and are entitled to recovery as a result of Defendants’ uniform policies and practices.
139. The amount of each Class Member’s individual claim is small compared to the expense and burden of individual prosecution of this litigation. The FCRA has statutorily specified damages, which Class Members will prove at trial are warranted, that will render calculation of damages for Class Members straightforward. The propriety and amount of exemplary and punitive damages are based on Defendants’ conduct, making these issues common to Class Members. Questions as to the propriety and scope of declaratory and injunctive relief regarding Defendants’ conduct will be common to Class Members.
CAUSES OF ACTION FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF MSG’s Failure to Provide Consumer Reports and FCRA Notices Before Adverse Actions (15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(3)(A), Brought by Plaintiffs on Behalf of Themselves and the FCRA
Consumer Report Class) 140. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the FCRA Consumer Report Class, incorporate the preceding paragraphs as alleged above.
27

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 13 Filed 07/14/17 Page 28 of 33
141. MSG violated the FCRA by taking adverse employment actions against Plaintiffs and the FCRA Consumer Report Class based in whole or in part on the information contained within their consumer reports.
142. Before taking these adverse employment actions, MSG failed to provide Plaintiffs and the FCRA Consumer Report Class with a copy of their consumer reports and a reasonable amount of time to respond.
143. Before taking these adverse employment actions, MSG failed to provide Plaintiffs and the FCRA Consumer Report Class with a written description of their rights under the FCRA.
144. These failures are each separate violations of the FCRA. 145. MSG’s policy caused concrete injury (including the risk of harm) to Plaintiffs and the FCRA Consumer Report Class, including because they could not:
(a) evaluate information contained in the consumer reports to ensure accuracy;
(b) challenge and correct that information; (c) explain the circumstances surrounding that information (even if accurate); (d) explain why information reported should not preclude employment; (e) explain why information that was different on the consumer report than
the application should not preclude employment; and (f) learn of their rights and opportunities under the FCRA, including the
opportunity to bring suit under the FCRA. 146. MSG acted willfully and in knowing or reckless disregard of its obligations and the rights of Plaintiffs and the FCRA Disclosure Class. 147. MSG’s willful conduct is reflected by, among other things, the fact that it violated a clear statutory mandate set forth in 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(3)(A). 148. MSG’s willful conduct is still further reflected by the following:
28

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 13 Filed 07/14/17 Page 29 of 33
(a) The FCRA was enacted in 1970, and Defendants have had years to become compliant;
(b) Defendants’ conduct is inconsistent with the FTC’s longstanding regulatory guidance, judicial interpretation, and the plain language of the statute;
(c) Defendants repeatedly and routinely took adverse action based in whole or in part on information contained in a consumer report before providing consumers with a copy of the consumer report or FCRA rights;
(d) Defendants only sent Mr. Millien a copy of his consumer report and statement of rights after he filed this suit and almost two years after denying him employment; and
(e) By adopting such a policy, Defendants voluntarily ran a risk of violating the law substantially greater than the risk associated with a reading that was merely careless.
149. As a result of MSG’s actions, Plaintiffs and the FCRA Consumer Report Class have been deprived of their consumer rights, prevented from timely and effectively contesting the adverse action, and have had their privacy invaded.
150. MSG’s willful conduct makes it liable for statutory damages, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs, in an amount to be determined by the Court pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF MSG’s Failure to Provide Copies of Article 23-a (N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 380-g(d), Brought by Plaintiffs on Behalf of Themselves
and the NY FCRA Class)
151. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the NY FCRA Class, incorporate the preceding paragraphs as alleged above.
152. MSG violated the NY FCRA by procuring consumer reports from Plaintiffs and the NY FCRA Class without providing them with copies of Article 23-A of the Correction Law.
29

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 13 Filed 07/14/17 Page 30 of 33
153. MSG’s policy caused concrete injury (including the risk of harm) to Plaintiffs and the NY FCRA Class, including because they could not learn of their rights and opportunities under the NY FCRA.
154. MSG acted willfully and in knowing or reckless disregard of its obligations and the rights of Plaintiffs and the FCRA Disclosure Class.
155. MSG’s willful conduct is reflected by, among other things, the fact that it violated a clear statutory mandate set forth in N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 380-g(d).
156. MSG’s willful conduct is still further reflected by the following: (a) Defendants have had years to become compliant with the NY FCRA; (b) Defendants repeatedly and routinely failed to provide individuals with copies of Article 23-A as required by the NY FCRA; and (c) By adopting such a policy, Defendants voluntarily ran a risk of violating the law substantially greater than the risk associated with a reading that was merely careless.
157. As a result of MSG’s actions, Plaintiffs and the NY FCRA Class have been deprived of their consumer rights, prevented from timely and effectively contesting the adverse action.
158. MSG’s willful and/or negligent conduct makes it liable for actual damages, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs, in an amount to be determined by the Court pursuant to N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 380-l and N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 380-m.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF MSG’s Discriminatory Denial of Employment (N.Y.C. Admin. Code. § 8-101 et seq., Brought by Plaintiffs on Behalf of Themselves and the Criminal History Discrimination Class) 159. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Criminal History Discrimination Class, incorporate the preceding paragraphs as alleged above.
30

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 13 Filed 07/14/17 Page 31 of 33
160. MSG denied employment to Plaintiffs and the Criminal History Discrimination Class based in whole or in part on the criminal history information contained within their consumer reports.
161. Before denying employment to Plaintiffs and the Criminal History Discrimination Class, MSG failed to conduct a proper inquiry into the factors outlined in Article 23-A of the Correction Law, in violation of N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107(10).
162. As a result of MSG’s actions, Plaintiffs and the Criminal History Discrimination Class have been deprived of their rights and have lost employment opportunities, earnings and other employment benefits.
163. Plaintiffs and the Criminal History Discrimination Class also seek injunctive and declaratory relief to correct MSG’s discriminatory policies and practices.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF MSG’s Discriminatory Denial of Employment (N.Y.C. Admin. Code. § 8-101 et seq., Brought by Plaintiffs on Behalf of Themselves and
the Self-Disclosure Disparate Impact Class) 164. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Self-Disclosure Disparate Impact Class, incorporate the preceding paragraphs as alleged above. 165. MSG denied employment to Plaintiffs and the Self-Disclosure Disparate Impact Class based in whole or in part on a purported failure to fully disclose conviction histories on their MSG applications. 166. MSG’s policy and practice has a disparate impact on Blacks and Latinos, who are more likely to have criminal histories that MSG requires to be disclosed. 167. MSG’s policy and practice creates a barrier to employment that is neither jobrelated nor consistent with business necessity.
31

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 13 Filed 07/14/17 Page 32 of 33
168. Moreover, there are less discriminatory alternatives that would have better achieved any legitimate hiring interests that MSG purportedly sought to address through this policy.
169. As a result of MSG’s actions, Plaintiffs and the Self-Disclosure Disparate Impact Class have been deprived of their rights and have lost employment opportunities, earnings and other employment benefits.
170. Plaintiffs and the Self-Disclosure Disparate Impact Class also seek injunctive and declaratory relief to correct MSG’s discriminatory policies and practices
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and Class Members pray for relief as follows:
(a) Certification of the case as a class action on behalf of the proposed classes;
(b) Designation of Plaintiffs Clint Millien and Felipe Kelly as representatives of Class Members;
(c) Designation of Plaintiffs’ counsel of record as Class Counsel; (d) An award of all actual and/or statutory damages awardable for violations
of the FCRA and NY FCRA including punitive damages for each violation found to be willful; (e) An award of compensatory and/or punitive damages for violations of the NYCHRL; (f) An award of costs incurred herein, including reasonable attorneys’ fees to the extent allowable by law; (g) Injunctive and/or declaratory relief to correct Defendants’ discriminatory policies and practices; (h) Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, as provided by law; (i) Payment of a reasonable service award to Plaintiffs, in recognition of the services they have rendered and will continue to render to Class Members, and the risks they have taken and will take; and
32

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 13 Filed 07/14/17 Page 33 of 33

(j) Such other and further legal and equitable relief as this Court deems necessary, just and proper.

JURY DEMAND Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury in this action.

Dated: New York, New York July 14, 2017

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Ossai Miazad
OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP Ossai Miazad Lewis M. Steel Christopher M. McNerney Chauniqua D. Young 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, New York 10017 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 Facsimile: (646) 509-2060

P. David Lopez (pro hac vice motion forthcoming) 601 Massachusetts Avenue NW 2nd Floor West Suite Washington, DC 20001 Tel: (202) 847-4400 Facsimile: (202) 847-4410

YOUTH REPRESENT Michael C. Pope Eric Eingold 11 Park Place, Suite 1512 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (646) 759-8080 Facsimile: (646) 217-3097

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Classes

33

 
 Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 118 Filed 08/10/20 Page 1 of 17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------X Clint Millien, et al.,
Plaintiffs, -against-
The Madison Square Garden Company, et al., Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------X

17 CIVIL 4000 (AJN)
JUDGMENT

It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons
stated in the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated August 7, 2020, Plaintiff's Motion
for Final Approval of the Class Action Settlement is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Motions for an
Award of Service Payments to Class Representatives, and an Award of Attorney's Fees and
Costs are also GRANTED. Accordingly, judgment is hereby entered pursuant to the terms of the
Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated August 7, 2020 attached to this Judgment.
Dated: New York, New York August 10, 2020
RUBY J. KRAJICK _________________________
Clerk of Court BY:
_________________________ Deputy Clerk

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 118 Filed 08/10/20 Page 2 of 17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

8/7/2020

Clint Millien, et al., Plaintiffs,
–v– The Madison Square Garden Company, et al.,
Defendants.

17-cv-4000 (AJN)
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: A hearing was held on November 19, 2019, during which time the Court heard Plaintiffs’
Motion for Final Approval of the Class Action Settlement and their Application for Award of Attorney’s Fees and Costs and an Incentive Award for the Class Representatives. Having considered the written submissions of the parties, having held a final fairness hearing, and having considered the arguments offered at that hearing, it is hereby ordered that the Class is finally certified and the Settlement is finally approved. I. BACKGROUND
Lead Plaintiff Clint Millien filed this lawsuit against Defendants on April 26, 2017 in New York Supreme Court. Defendants then removed this case to federal court, and Plaintiff Millien amended his Complaint, adding another Plaintiff, Felipe Kelly. The Amended Complaint brings several claims. First, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to provide them and proposed class members with copies of their background check report and other required notices before deciding not to hire them as required by the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) (Count 1) and New York Fair Credit Reporting Act (“NY FCRA”) (Count 2). See Amended Complaint, Dkt. No. 13, ¶¶ 140-158.
1

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 118 Filed 08/10/20 Page 3 of 17
The FCRA requires that before taking an “adverse action based in whole or in part on [a consumer report]” employers must provide the consumer with “a copy of the report” and “a description in writing” of the rights a consumer has under the FCRA. 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(3)(A)(i) and (iii). The statute further defines consumer report to include background checks conducted for employment purposes, and defines adverse actions to include “a denial of employment or any other decision for employment purposes that adversely affects any current or prospective employee.” See 15 U.S.C. § 1681a. The FCRA authorizes statutory damages between $100 and $1,000 per person for “willful noncompliance,” in addition to actual damages. See 15 U.S.C. § 1681n. The NY FCRA states that when an entity requests background check containing “criminal conviction information,” it must “provide the subject of such report a printed or electronic copy of article twenty-three-A of the correction law.” N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 380-g(d). Those who do not comply are liable for actual damages, as well as punitive damages, if non-compliance was willful. Id. §§ 380-l; 380-m.
Article 23-A of the Corrections Law states in the pertinent part: No application for any license or employment, and no employment or license held by an individual, to which the provisions of this article are applicable, shall be denied or acted upon adversely by reason of the individual’s having been previously convicted of one or more criminal offenses, or by reason of a finding of lack of “good moral character” when such finding is based upon the fact that the individual has previously been convicted of one or more criminal offenses, unless: (1) there is a direct relationship between one or more of the previous criminal offenses and the specific license or employment sought or held by the individual; or (2) the issuance or continuation of the license or the granting or continuation of the employment would involve an unreasonable risk to property or to the safety or welfare of specific individuals or the general public. N.Y. Correc. Law § 752.
2

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 118 Filed 08/10/20 Page 4 of 17
Another section of Article 23-A gives a specific list of factors that an employer must consider when deciding when making a determination pursuant to § 752. See N.Y. Correc. Law § 753.
Second, Plaintiffs claim that when Defendants decided not to hire them and other class members based on a failure to disclose criminal convictions on their applications that were later revealed by a background check, Defendants violated the New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”) by failing to conduct the required analysis under Article 23-A (Count 3). While Article 23-A does not appear to have a private right of action, the NYCHRL effectively creates one for those who apply to positions in New York City. It states:
It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice for any employer, employment agency or agent thereof to deny employment to any person or take adverse action against any employee by reason of such person or employee having been convicted of one or more criminal offenses, or by reason of a finding of a lack of “good moral character” which is based on such person or employee having been convicted of one or more criminal offenses, when such denial or adverse action is in violation of the provisions of article 23a of the correction law. N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107(10)(a) (emphasis added). The available remedies under this provision are the same for other violations of the NYCHRL, which is the City’s primary employment discrimination statute. Third, Plaintiffs also claim that Defendants’ practice of refusing to hire prospective employees based on a failure to disclose criminal convictions was discrimination against Black and Latino applicants on a disparate impact theory in violation of the NYCHRL (Count 4). A few weeks before discovery closed, but before the bulk of the depositions were conducted, the parties engaged in private mediation. The result of that mediation is the present settlement. There are three kinds of relief under the agreement. All 508 class members (termed the “FCRA Class”) will receive a payment of $200. A subclass of 281 members who applied to jobs in New York City (termed the “NYC Class”) will get an opportunity to receive an additional
3

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 118 Filed 08/10/20 Page 5 of 17
$1,700 payment. After preliminary certification, the NYC class members were required to submit claims forms. For the 132 members that did so, Defendants will then conduct an Article 23-A analysis and determine whether the class member, in light of that analysis, would have been eligible for employment, regardless of whether the class member fully disclosed his or her criminal record. See Settlement Agreement at 10-13. Class members who submitted claims forms and were otherwise eligible for employment would then receive $1,700 each. MSG also agrees to implement various policy changes regarding hiring and employment of those with criminal records. The Lead Plaintiffs would each receive $7,500 service awards. The agreed upon amount of attorneys’ fees and costs is $750,000.
In exchange, the Defendants are released from “all claims . . . under any legal or equitable theory under the FCRA and/or NY FCRA.” Id. at 20. Additionally, the NYC Class would release Defendants from “all claims . . . relating to their criminal records, including discrimination claims . . . under Title VII . . . the NY FCRA, the Correction Law, and the NYCHRL.” Id. at 21. II. CLASS CERTIFICATION
The FCRA Class is defined as “individuals who were denied employment with MSG based on the content of his or her Background Check Report from April 26, 2015 through the date of Preliminary Approval of the Settlement.” Settlement Agreement at 7. The NYC Class is defined as “individuals who applied for employment with MSG in New York City, New York and who were denied employment based on MSG’s determination that they failed to fully or accurately disclose their criminal conviction history from May 8, 2014 through the date of Preliminary Approval of the Settlement.” Id. at 8.
4

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 118 Filed 08/10/20 Page 6 of 17
For the reasons set forth below, for purposes of this settlement, the Classes are certified because they satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
A. The Settlement Meets the Rule 23(a) Criteria Rule 23(a) imposes four threshold requirements for class certification: (1) numerosity (“the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable”), (2) commonality (“there are questions of law or fact common to the class”), (3) typicality (“the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class”), and (4) adequacy of representation (“the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class”). Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). In the Second Circuit, “numerosity is presumed at a level of 40 members.” Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Town of Hyde Park, 47 F.3d 473, 483 (2d Cir. 1995). Because the FCRA Class and the NYC Class both have over one hundred members, the numerosity requirement is satisfied. Commonality and typicality are also satisfied. The commonality requirement examines class’s claims “depend upon a common contention . . . capable of classwide resolution” such that “its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke.” Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 350 (2011). Typicality “requires that the claims of the class representatives be typical of those of the class, and is satisfied when each class member’s claim arises from the same course of events, and each class member makes similar legal arguments to prove the defendant's liability.” Marisol A. v. Giuliani, 126 F.3d 372, 376 (2d Cir. 1997) (quotation omitted). Both classes involve common questions of law and fact. For the FCRA class, common questions include whether Defendants failed to provide the required reports and notices before declining to hire applicants based on the results of criminal
5

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 118 Filed 08/10/20 Page 7 of 17
background checks and whether that failure was willful. For the NYC Class, common questions include whether Defendants conducted Article 23-A analyses when rejecting applicants for failing to disclose criminal convictions and whether such a failure constitutes a violation of Article 23-A and by extension, the NYCHRL. Lead Plaintiffs have claims typical of the classes. They both allege that Defendants rescinded their conditional employment offers after conducting a criminal background check due to Defendants’ policy that applicants must fully disclose their criminal histories on their background forms. They allege that they did not receive the reports or required notices before Defendants made their decision. And they both allege that MSG did not and could not have conducted an Article 23-A analysis in their cases.
Lead Plaintiffs also provide adequate representation. Their interests are aligned with those of the class and their claims and the claims of other class members arise out of the same course of conduct. Their representation is adequate even though there is a subclass, because lead plaintiffs are members of both the subclass and the overall class. See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Visa U.S.A. Inc., 396 F.3d 96, 111 (2d Cir. 2005). Furthermore, Lead Plaintiffs’ counsel has significant experience litigating these kinds of cases. See Dkt. Nos. 96-97; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g).
B. The Settlement Class Meets the Relevant Rule 23(b)(3) Criteria To meet the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3), the Court must conclude “that the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). The issues in the class action that are “subject to generalized proof, and thus applicable to the class as a whole” must “predominate over those issues subject only to individualized proof.” In re Visa
6

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 118 Filed 08/10/20 Page 8 of 17
Check/MasterMoney Antitrust Litig., 280 F.3d 124, 136 (2d Cir. 2001). “As long as a sufficient constellation of common issues binds class members together, variations in the sources and application of a defense will not automatically foreclose class certification under Rule 23(b)(3).” Id. at 138; see also In re Nassau County Strip Search Cases, 461 F.3d 219, 221, 229-30 (2d Cir. 2006). When determining issue predominance for a settlement class, a district court need not consider trial management problems, but instead should focus on “whether the legal or factual questions that qualify each class member’s case as a genuine controversy are sufficiently similar as to yield a cohesive class.” In re Am. Int’l Group Secs. Litig., 689 F.3d 229, 240 (2d Cir. 2012) (quotation omitted).
This litigation largely focuses on whether MSG’s hiring practices with regard to criminal background checks were compliant with Federal and New York law. While there could be particular hiring practices that were not applied consistently to each class member, at least for a settlement class, the common questions in this case “are more substantial than the issues subject only to individualized proof.” Roach v. T.L. Cannon Corp., 778 F.3d 401, 405 (2d Cir. 2015) (quotation omitted); see In re Am. Int’l Group Secs. Litig., 689 F.3d at 240-43; In re Nassau County Strip Search Cases, 461 F.3d at 229-30. And although there would likely be individualized damage determinations for members of the NYC class, that is not enough to defeat class certification. See Roach, 778 F.3d at 405. Furthermore, a class action is superior to other forms of litigation, as “proceeding individually would be prohibitive due to the minimal recovery.” Seijas v. Republic of Argentina, 606 F.3d 53, 58 (2d Cir. 2010). III. NOTICE WAS APPROPRIATE
As required by the Preliminary Approval Order, both the FCRA class and NYC class were provided with written notice of the terms of the Settlement, the procedures for objecting to
7

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 118 Filed 08/10/20 Page 9 of 17
the settlement, and the procedures for opting out of the settlement class. All 508 class members were successfully sent a class notice, either by mail or email. See Dkt. No. 111-2, ¶ 8. As described above, the notices provided an accurate description of the class settlement in its final form. Of the 281 members of the NYC class, 132 submitted claims forms. Fairness Hearing Tr. 4. Additionally, Defendants provided notice of the settlement to the relevant federal and state authorities pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act. See Dkt. No. 111, ¶ 42. IV. THE SETTLEMENT IS FINALLY APPROVED
A district court’s approval of a settlement is contingent on a finding that the settlement is “fair, reasonable, and adequate.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2). This entails a review of both procedural and substantive fairness. D’Amato v. Deutsche Bank, 236 F.3d 78, 85 (2d Cir. 2001). In conducting this review, the Court should be mindful of the “strong judicial policy in favor of settlements, particularly in the class action context.” Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., 396 F.3d 96, 116 (2d Cir. 2005) (quoting In re PaineWebber Ltd. P’ships Litig., 147 F.3d 132, 138 (2d Cir. 1998)). “The compromise of complex litigation is encouraged by the courts and favored by public policy.” Id. at 117 (quotation omitted).
A. The Settlement Is Procedurally Fair With respect to procedural fairness, a proposed settlement is presumed fair, reasonable, and adequate if it culminates from “arm’s-length negotiations between experienced, capable counsel after meaningful discovery.” McReynolds v. Richards-Cantave, 588 F.3d 790, 803 (2d Cir. 2009) (quotation omitted). Here, the settlement was negotiated by experienced counsel after almost fifteen hours with a mediator. The involvement of a mediator is a strong indicator of an arm’s-length negotiating process. Cf. D’Amato, 236 F.3d at 85. Additionally, a settlement was only reached after full, extensive written discovery and one deposition. Dkt. No. 111, ¶ 14.
8

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 118 Filed 08/10/20 Page 10 of 17
B. The Settlement Is Substantively Fair In assessing substantive fairness, the Court considers the nine factors detailed by the Second Circuit in City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corporation, 495 F.2d 448 (2d Cir. 1974): (1) the complexity, expense and likely duration of the litigation; (2) the reaction of the class to the settlement; (3) the stage of the proceedings and the amount of discovery completed; (4) the risks of establishing liability; (5) the risks of establishing damages; (6) the risks of maintaining the class action through the trial; (7) the ability of the defendants to withstand a greater judgment; (8) the range of reasonableness of the settlement fund in light of the best possible recovery; (9) the range of reasonableness of the settlement fund to a possible recovery in light of all the attendant risks of litigation. Id. at 463 (citations omitted); see also Wal-Mart, 396 F.3d at 117. The Court finds that these factors, individually and weighed against one another, counsel approval of the settlement.
1. The Complexity, Expense and Likely Duration of the Litigation Fully litigating this case would likely have been complex and expensive. Most of the depositions had yet to have been conducted when the settlement was reached. There likely would have been thorough class certification and summary judgment motions practices. In order to succeed on their class claims, Plaintiffs would have had to prove the existence and consistent application of certain hiring practices. In order to get FCRA statutory damages, Plaintiffs would have had to prove willfulness, which could have been fact intensive. Additionally, the parties would have had to litigate the apparently novel issue of whether Article 23-A and the NYCHRL cover situations when a job applicant is not hired because they failed to fully disclose their criminal history.
2. The Reaction to the Class of the Settlement “If only a small number of objections are received, that fact can be viewed as indicative of the adequacy of the settlement.” Wal-Mart, 396 F.3d at 118. The reaction of the class has
9

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 118 Filed 08/10/20 Page 11 of 17
been positive. Only one class member opted out of the class, and only one class member filed an objection. As an initial matter, the lone objector appears not to have complied with procedures for submitting an objection by failing to submit his objection to class counsel. Furthermore, the issues raised by his objection do not counsel against approval of the settlement. See Dkt. No. 104. He argues that the monetary relief is too small and gives his own damages calculation. But as discussed below, the monetary relief in the settlement is significant, particularly in relation to the litigation risks associated with these claims and the seasonal part-time nature of the work at issue. In addition to lost wages, the objector also includes various claims in his damages calculation that either do not exist or are not covered by this settlement. See id. (discussing damages for “overall unprofessionalism” and “defamation”). Overall, the reaction of the class supports approval.
3. The Stage of the Proceedings and the Amount of Discovery Completed While the parties need not have engaged in extensive discovery, Plummer v. Chemical Bank, 668 F.2d 654, 660 (2d Cir.1982), a sufficient factual investigation must have been conducted to afford the Court the opportunity to “‘intelligently make . . . an appraisal’ of the Settlement.” In re Austrian and German Bank Holocaust Litig., 80 F. Supp. 2d 164, 176 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (quoting Plummer, 668 F.2d at 660). Here, the parties engaged significant discovery, including production of over 10,000 pages of documents and the deposition MSG’s principal compliance officer. See Dkt. 111, ¶ 14. The parties also litigated several discovery disputes before Judge Pitman. This factor favors approval.
4. The Risks of Establishing Liability Lead Plaintiffs would have faced substantial risks in establishing liability. On the FCRA and NY FCRA claims, Defendants might have to succeeded in proving that they did send the
10

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 118 Filed 08/10/20 Page 12 of 17
required reports and notices to Lead Plaintiffs and other class members before making adverse employment decisions.
Lead Plaintiffs would arguably have faced even more significant risks to establish liability on their NYCHRL Article 23-A claims. Their legal theory is novel and untested. Defendants argue that they were not required to conduct Article 23-A analyses because they failed to hire Plaintiffs and class members only due to their failure to disclose a criminal conviction. It is unclear whether deciding not to hire someone based on a failure to disclose a criminal conviction triggers the NYCHRL’s Article 23-A requirements for those who are not hired because of their criminal convictions. See N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107(10)(a) (applying Article 23-A for those who are denied employment “by reason of such person or employee having been convicted of one or more criminal offenses, or by reason of a finding of a lack of ‘good moral character’ which is based on such person or employee having been convicted of one or more criminal offenses.”). Although text of the NYCHRL could plausibly be interpreted to reach such situations there are reasons to doubt that reading. For example, the Article 23-A analysis seems more directed at whether the nature of the conviction makes an applicant unsuitable for employment. It is unclear how an applicant’s lack of candor fits in under Article 23-A. Finally, Lead Plaintiffs’ disparate impact theory appears to be speculative and therefore difficult to substantiate at trial. This factor weighs strongly in favor of certification.
5. The Risks of Establishing Damages Lead Plaintiffs would have also faced substantial risks in establishing damages. Defendants would have argued that any violations of the FCRA and NY FCRA were not willful, thus precluding statutory damages. And determining backpay damages for NYC Class members
11

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 118 Filed 08/10/20 Page 13 of 17
would be a daunting task, potentially requiring individualized hearings and damages determinations. This factor supports certification.
6. The Risks of Maintaining the Class Action Through the Trial Defendant likely would have opposed certification of a litigation class, arguing for both classes that common questions do not predominate over individual ones.
7. The Ability of the Defendants to Withstand a Greater Judgment The parties did not provide any information with regard to this factor, although Defendants could presumably withstand a greater judgment.
8. The Range of Reasonableness of the Settlement Fund in Light of the Best Possible Recovery and in Light of all of the Attendant Risks of Litigation
“It is well-settled that a cash settlement amounting to only a fraction of the potential recovery will not per se render the settlement inadequate or unfair.” Morris v. Affinity Health Plan, Inc., 859 F. Supp. 2d 611, 621 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (quoting Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm’n, 688 F.2d 615, 628 (9th Cir. 1982)). Indeed, “there is no reason, at least in theory, why a satisfactory settlement could not amount to a hundredth or even a thousandth part of a single percent of the potential recovery.” Grinnell, 495 F.2d at 455 n.2. “The determination whether a settlement is reasonable does not involve the use of a mathematical equation yielding a particularized sum.” Frank v. Eastman Kodak Co., 228 F.R.D. 174, 186 (W.D.N.Y. 2005) (quotation omitted). “[I]n any case there is a range of reasonableness with respect to a settlement—a range which recognizes the uncertainties of law and fact in any particular case and the concomitant risks and costs necessarily inherent in taking any litigation to completion . . . .” Newman v. Stein, 464 F.2d 689, 693 (2d Cir. 1972) (Friendly, J.).
12

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 118 Filed 08/10/20 Page 14 of 17
Here, the Court finds that settlement recovery to be generous in light of risks of further litigating this case. With regard to the FCRA claims, the principal if not sole form of recovery had Lead Plaintiffs succeeded would have been statutory damages, which are limited to $100 to $1,000. See 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(a)(1)(A). The NY FCRA does not authorize statutory damages, meaning that classwide monetary relief would likely have been difficult to establish. Thus, $200 per class member would have been well within the potential range of recovery on these claims, even if Lead Plaintiffs largely succeeded at trial. See White v. First Am. Registry, Inc., No. 04cv-1611, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18401, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2007).
Likewise, the Court finds the monetary relief on the NYCHRL claims to be substantively sufficient in light of the litigation risks. The $1,700 number is based on a rough approximation of the wages class members would have received had they been employed. The positions at issue were predominantly seasonal, part-time work, such as food prep, and averaged roughly $615 per year. See Dkt. No. 111, ¶ 36; Fairness Tr. 15. That number is based off Defendants’ own employment records. Based on the fact that employees from one year often return for multiple years, the parties calculated the average amount of lost wages for class members to be $1,700. Thus, class members who qualify for a payment on these claims will receive same amount of money they likely would have had they successfully litigated their claims to judgment. The Court does have concerns that the monetary relief will be contingent on an Article 23-A analysis conducted by Defendants. Class members and class counsel have virtually no meaningful recourse if Defendants deny a large number of claims based on their view of the Article 23-A analyses. But Defendants have assured the Court the Article 23-A analyses will be conducted in a good-faith, fair, and professional manner. See Fairness Tr. 12-13. In light of
13

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 118 Filed 08/10/20 Page 15 of 17
these representations and the litigation risks associated with the NYCHRL claims, the sole discretion accorded to Defendants appears to be a fair concession.
Finally, the Court notes that the settlement includes significant programmatic relief that will likely ensure greater opportunities for applicants with criminal records.
Accordingly, this factor weighs strongly in favor of approval. * * *
Weighed together, the Court finds that the Grinnell factors weigh in favor of the proposed settlement. For the foregoing reasons, the Court find the settlement, together with the distribution plan, to be fair, reasonable, and adequate. V. THE ATTORNEY’S FEES AND EXPENSES ARE REASONABLE
The Class Counsel seek $750,000 in fees and costs as well as an incentive award to each lead Plaintiff of $15,000.
It is well-established that in a class action settlement like this one counsel may be entitled to a “reasonable fee.” Goldberger v. Integrated Resources, Inc., 209 F.3d 43, 47, 49 (2d Cir. 2000) (directing courts to consider (1) counsel’s time and labor; (2) the case’s magnitude and complexities; (3) the risk of continued litigation; (4) the quality of the representation; (5) the fee’s relation to the settlement; and (6) public policy considerations). Class Counsel are also entitled to be reimbursed for litigation costs and expenses. See In re Marsh ERISA Litig., 265 F.R.D. 128, 150 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). District Courts “may select ‘either the lodestar or percentage of the recovery methods’ to calculate fees.” Fresno County Emples. Ret. Ass’n v. Isaacson, 925 F.3d 63, 68 (2d Cir. 2019) (quoting Goldberger, 209 F.3d at 45). Furthermore, in the Second Circuit, Class Plaintiffs may receive additional payments as “incentive awards.” Roberts v. Texaco, Inc., 979 F. Supp. 185, 200 (S.D.N.Y. 1997).
14

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 118 Filed 08/10/20 Page 16 of 17
The proposed attorney’s fee award is reasonable. If the Court were to apply the percentage method, the $750,000 fee award would fare poorly. The fee award exceeds the monetary recovery for the class, and courts usually do not award more than 33.3% of the monetary relief when applying the percentage method. See Springer v. Code Rebel Corp., No. 16-cv-3492, 2018 WL 1773137, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 10, 2018) (describing award of 33.3% of a common fund as “well within the range of fee awards typically awarded”); In re Telik, Inc. Sec. Litig., 576 F. Supp. 2d 570, 587-88 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). However, courts are not obligated to use the percentage fee method. See McDaniel v. County of Schenectady, 595 F.3d 411, 419 (2d Cir. 2010). And the logic the percentage fee method is undermined in cases such as this one where the settlement involves significant programmatic relief.
Under the lodestar method, the proposed fee award appears to be quite modest. Based on time records submitted to the Court, class counsel argues for a lodestar amount of $1,732,875.50. Even if the Court were to make some downward adjustments to this number based on the hourly rates billed, the lodestar award amount would still exceed the fee amount. This strongly suggests that the fee award is reasonable.
The reasonableness of the fee in spite of the high percentage is confirmed by other Goldberger factors, particularly “public policy considerations.” 209 F.3d at 50 (quotation omitted). This litigation concerns important consumer and civil rights. But because the employment positions at issue were seasonal and part-time, the monetary recovery was never going to be substantial even though litigation was sure to be costly and time-intensive. Fee awards that are large in relation to the monetary recovery are necessary to enable counsel to bring these kinds of cases. Arguably, the alternative would be to effectively lock low-wage workers out of the courthouse. Furthermore, the legal theory of the NYCHRL claims was
15

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 118 Filed 08/10/20 Page 17 of 17

untested, and class counsel undertook significant risk by pursuing it. Additionally, the Court notes that the fee award was negotiated separately from the class relief. Weighing all of the relevant factors, the Court finds an award of $750,000 for fees and costs to be reasonable.
Finally, in light of the efforts Lead Plaintiffs expended for the benefit of the class, an incentive award of $7,500 for each Lead Plaintiff is appropriate. See Dornberger v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 203 F.R.D. 118, 125 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (describing payments ranging from $2,500 to $85,000). VI. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, the Settlement is determined to be fair, reasonable, and adequate. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Approval of the Class Action Settlement is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Motions for an Award of Service Payments to Class Representatives, and an Award of Attorney’s Fees and Costs are also GRANTED.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment and to close this case. This resolves Dkt. Nos. 105, 107, and 109. SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 7, 2020 New York, New York

____________________________________ ALISON J. NATHAN
United States District Judge

16

 
 NYSCEF New York County Supreme Court

Document List Index # 652225/2017

Created on:10/25/2020 10:25 PM

Case Caption: Clint Millien et al - v. - The Madison Square Garden Company et al Judge Name:

Doc#
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8

Document Type/Information
SUMMONS + COMPLAINT Summons and Class Action Complaint
AFFIRMATION/AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE Service of Process - The Madison Square Garden Company AFFIRMATION/AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE Service of Process - MSGN Holdings, L.P.
COMPLAINT (AMENDED) First Amended Class Action Complaint
PROOF OF SERVICE Affidavit of Service of First Amended Complaint
PROOF OF SERVICE Affidavit of Service of First Amended Complaint
NOTICE OF REMOVAL / REMAND (PRE RJI) Notice Of Filing Of Notice Of Removal
EXHIBIT(S) Notice of Removal

Status Date Received Filed By

Processed 04/26/2017

Miazad, O.

Processed 05/01/2017

Miazad, O.

Processed 05/01/2017 Processed 05/16/2017 Processed 05/23/2017 Processed 05/23/2017 Processed 05/26/2017 Processed 05/26/2017

Miazad, O. Miazad, O. Miazad, O. Miazad, O. Shaulson, S. Shaulson, S.

Page 1 of 1

 
 Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 96-1 Filed 06/24/19 Page 1 of 67

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

X:

CLINT MILLIEN and FELIPE KELLY, :

individually and on behalf of all others

:

similarly situated,

:

:

Plaintiffs,

:

:

-against-

:

:

THE MADISON SQUARE GARDEN

:

COMPANY and MSGN HOLDINGS,

:

L.P.,

:

:

Defendants.

:

Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-04000

X

STIPULATION AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT This Stipulation and Settlement Agreement (“Agreement” or “Settlement Agreement”) is

made and entered into by and among the Named Plaintiffs Clint Millien and Felipe Kelly (“Named

Plaintiffs”), individually and on behalf of the Settlement Class defined below, and The Madison

Square Garden Company and MSGN Holdings, L.P. (“Defendants”). The Named Plaintiffs, the

Settlement Class, and Defendants are jointly referred to in this Agreement as the “Parties,” or

“Settling Parties,” and each of them as a “Party.”

I. RECITALS A. On April 26, 2017, Plaintiff Clint Millien filed a Class Action Complaint in the

Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York. On May 16, 2017, the Named

Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Class Action Complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of

New York, County of New York, which was amended to include, among other things, Plaintiff

Felipe Kelly as a named plaintiff. On May 26, 2017, MSG removed the Action to the United States

District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 96-1 Filed 06/24/19 Page 2 of 67
B. On July 14, 2017, the Named Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Federal Class Action Complaint (the “Complaint”). The Named Plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that (1) Defendants violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., by failing to provide consumer reports and notices to the Named Plaintiffs and the putative class before taking adverse actions; (2) Defendants violated the New York State Fair Credit Reporting Act (“NY FCRA”), N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 380 et seq., by failing to provide copies of Article 23A of the New York State Correction Law (“Correction Law”) to the Named Plaintiffs and putative class; (3) Defendants violated the New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”), N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-101 et seq., by failing to conduct a proper analysis of the factors set forth in Section 753 for all individuals who were denied employment based on criminal offense information; and (4) Defendants violated the NYCHRL based on its policy of denying employment to those applicants who failed to fully and accurately disclose their criminal conviction histories.
C. On November 1, 2017, MSG filed an Answer to the First Amended Federal Class Action Complaint, denying the allegations set forth therein. Defendants deny any and all liability or damages to any individual, group, or entity with respect to the alleged facts or causes of action asserted by Plaintiffs.
D. Between approximately July 2017 and August 2018, the Parties engaged in extensive discovery, including exchanging written and document discovery (including electronic discovery). Plaintiffs also took the deposition of a corporate witness. On August 15, 2018, the Court entered a stay of the Action so that the Parties could pursue resolution (Dkt. 74). The Parties then participated in a day-long, arms-length settlement meeting on September 13, 2018 and exchanged numerous written counter-proposals thereafter. On December 5, 2018, the Parties
2

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 96-1 Filed 06/24/19 Page 3 of 67
participated in further good faith, arms-length negotiations facilitated by mediator Dina R. Jansenson, Esq. of JAMs. On February 28, 2019, the Parties participated in additional good faith, arms-length negotiations with mediator Dina R. Jansenson. During the February 28, 2019 mediation, the Parties were able to reach an agreement to settle the Action on a class wide basis on the terms set forth herein.
E. This Agreement is not, and shall not, in any way be deemed to constitute an admission or evidence of any wrongdoing or liability on the part of MSG, nor of any violation of any federal, state, or local statute, regulation, principle of common law or equity.
F. The attorneys representing the Settlement Class defined below are experienced in litigating class action claims of the type involved in the Action.
G. The Parties to this Agreement and their respective attorneys of record, taking into account the risks, uncertainties, and delay involved in the Action, as well as other relevant considerations, have concluded that it is in the best interest of all Parties to compromise and fully and finally settle the Action in the manner and upon the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth. The Parties to this Agreement intend that this Settlement will end and encompass all litigation and/or claims against MSG that arise or relate to the Action.
H. MSG’s execution of this Agreement is not, and shall not be construed as, an admission by MSG or deemed to be evidence of the validity of any of the claims made by the Named Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves or members of the Settlement Classes, or that MSG violated any federal, state, or local law. Further, neither this Agreement itself, nor any of the documents prepared or executed by any party to this Agreement in negotiating or implementing the Settlement called for by this Agreement, nor any of the terms of any such documents, shall
3

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 96-1 Filed 06/24/19 Page 4 of 67
ever be offered in evidence or shared with any party to any civil, criminal, or administrative action or proceeding, except to enforce compliance with this Agreement.
I. The relief provided to the Named Plaintiffs and Settlement Class Members and procedures for the distribution of relief provide a fair, speedy, and cost-effective settlement to the Settlement Class Members.
J. Class Counsel has analyzed and evaluated the merits of the claims asserted against MSG, the impact of this Agreement on the Named Plaintiffs and Settlement Class Members, and based upon Class Counsel’s analysis and evaluation of a number of factors, and recognizing the substantial risks of litigation, including the possibility that if not settled now, future litigation may not result in any recovery, or might result in recovery that is less favorable and that would not occur for several years, as well as recognizing that the non-monetary elements of this Agreement are significant. Class Counsel is satisfied that the terms and conditions of this Agreement are fair, reasonable, and adequate and this Agreement is in the best interest of the Named Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class Members. II. DEFINITIONS
In addition to terms defined elsewhere in the Agreement, as used in the Agreement, the following terms have the meanings stated below:
A. “Action” means the civil action titled “Millien v. The Madison Square Garden Company” now pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Civil Action No. 17 Civ. 4000.
B. “Agreement” or “Settlement Agreement” means this Stipulation and Settlement Agreement.
4

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 96-1 Filed 06/24/19 Page 5 of 67

C. “Acceptance Period” means the sixty (60) day notice period, beginning from the

date of issuance of the Class Notice and Claim Form, during which an NYC Class Member may

submit a Claim Form to seek an Enhanced Payment.

D. “Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses” means such funds as may be awarded to Class

Counsel to compensate them for their fees and all expenses incurred by the Named Plaintiffs and/or

Class Counsel in connection with the Action.

E. “Background Check Report” means any consumer report that MSG obtains on job

applicants for employment purposes from a Consumer Reporting Agency.

F. “Claim Form” means the Claim Form, as approved by the Court in substantially the

form of the document attached to this Agreement as Exhibit 3, whereby by an NYC Class Member

may elect to seek an Enhanced Payment.

G. “Claim Bar Date” means the last day of the sixty (60) day Acceptance Period in

which an NYC Class Member may timely complete and submit a Claim Form.

H. “Class Counsel” or “Plaintiffs’ Counsel” means Outten & Golden, LLP (“O&G”)

and Youth Represent (“YR”).

I.

“Class Notices” mean the notices described in this Agreement in Section VIII to

be provided to Settlement Class Members, including the proposed Class Notice to FCRA Class

Members (attached as Exhibit 1), and the proposed Class Notice to NYC Class Members and Claim

Form (attached as Exhibits 2 and 3) by U.S. mail and e-mail (to the extent MSG has valid e-mail

addresses for the Settlement Class Members), which will notify Settlement Class Members, among

other things, about their rights to opt out and object to the Settlement, NYC Class Members’ right

to submit a Claim Form in order to be eligible to obtain an Enhanced Payment, the Released

5

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 96-1 Filed 06/24/19 Page 6 of 67
Claims, the preliminary approval of the Settlement, and the scheduling of the Final Approval Hearing.
J. “Consumer Reporting Agency” means any consumer reporting agency that MSG has engaged and/or may engage in the future to procure Background Check Reports on job applicants and/or provide other services in connection with such Background Check Reports.
K. “Counsel for Defendants” means Morgan, Lewis & Bockius. L. “Court” means the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. M. “Criminal History Disclosure” means the method by which MSG requests prospective employees to fully and accurately disclose his or her criminal conviction history in accordance with applicable law. N. “Days” or “days” refer to calendar day unless specifically indicated as business days (excluding federal holidays). O. “Defendants” mean The Madison Square Garden Company and MSGN Holdings, L.P. P. “Enhanced Payment” means a payment of $1,700.00 that an NYC Class Member may be eligible to receive if he or she meets the requirements set forth in Section III.B of the Agreement. Q. “Fairness Hearing” means the hearing before the Court relating to the Motion for Final Approval. R. “The Fair Credit Reporting Act” or “FCRA” means the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq.
6

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 96-1 Filed 06/24/19 Page 7 of 67
S. “FCRA Class” means individuals who were denied employment with MSG based on the content of his or her Background Check Report from April 26, 2015 through the date of Preliminary Approval of the Settlement. The FCRA Class will not include any individuals who timely and validly file a written notice of intent to opt-out of the Settlement by the Opt-Out Deadline.
T. “Final” with respect to the Judgment, any award of Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses, and any Service Awards means that the time for appeal or writ review has expired without any appeal being filed or, if an appeal or petition for review is taken and dismissed or the Settlement is affirmed, the time period during which further petition for hearing, appeal, or writ of certiorari can be taken has expired without an appeal being filed. If the Judgment is set aside, materially modified as determined by MSG in good faith, or overturned by the Court or on appeal, and is not fully reinstated on further appeal, the Judgment shall not become Final.
U. “Final Approval Order” and “Judgment” means the Order and Judgment to be entered by the Court pursuant to the Settlement which grants final approval of this Settlement, dismisses with prejudice the Named Plaintiffs’ claims, and enters a judgment according to the terms set forth in this Agreement, including by ordering the Release of the Released Claims.
V. “MSG” means Defendant The Madison Square Garden Company and its affiliates. W. “Named Plaintiffs” or “Class Representatives” refers collectively to Clint Millien and Felipe Kelly. X. “The New York Fair Credit Reporting Act” or “NY FCRA” means the New York General Business Law § 380 et seq. Y. “The New York City Human Rights Law” or “NYCHRL” means the New York City Administration Code § 8-101 et seq.
7

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 96-1 Filed 06/24/19 Page 8 of 67
Z. “Notice and Administrative Costs” means all reasonable and authorized costs and expenses incurred by the Settlement Administrator in administering the Settlement, including all reasonable and authorized costs and expenses of disseminating and publishing the Class Notices in accordance with the Preliminary Approval Order.
AA. “NYC Class” includes individuals who applied for employment with MSG in New York City, New York and who were denied employment based on MSG’s determination that they failed to fully or accurately disclose their criminal conviction history from May 8, 2014 through the date of Preliminary Approval of the Settlement. The NYC Class will not include any individuals who timely and validly file a written notice of intent to opt-out of the Settlement by the Opt-Out Deadline.
BB. “Participating NYC Class Members” means individuals who are part of the NYC Class and who also timely and validly submit a Claim Form to seek an Enhanced Payment by the Claim Bar Date.
CC. “Objector” means an individual who properly files an objection to this Agreement but does not include any individual who opts out of this Agreement.
DD. “Objection Deadline” means the date the Court establishes as the deadline by which members of the Settlement Class must file objections to the preliminarily approved Settlement with the Court, which date the Parties propose shall be forty-five (45) days from the delivery of the Class Notices.
EE. “Opt-Out Deadline” means the date the Court establishes as the deadline by which members of the Settlement Class must postmark a written notice of their intent to opt-out of the Settlement, which date the Parties propose shall be forty-five (45) days from the delivery of Class Notices.
8

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 96-1 Filed 06/24/19 Page 9 of 67
FF. “Preliminary Approval Order” means the order in substantially similar form as Exhibit 4 and providing for, among other things, preliminary approval of the Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate; preliminary certification of the Settlement Classes for settlement purposes only; dissemination of the Class Notice to the Settlement Classes; and finding that the proposed Class Notice is reasonably calculated to apprise the Settlement Class Members of the pendency of the Action and the best practicable notice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, the material terms of the proposed Settlement, and the Settlement Class Members’ options and rights with respect thereto.
GG. “Release” or “Releases” means the releases of all Released Claims against the Released Persons, as provided for in Section V of the Settlement Agreement.
HH. “Released Claims” refers to the FCRA Class Members’ Released Claims as set forth in Section V.A, the NYC Class Members’ Released Claims as set forth in Section V.C, and the Named Plaintiffs’ Released Claims as set forth in Section V.D, respectively.
II. “Released Persons” means MSG and their respective present, former, and future affiliates, parents, subsidiaries, corporate family members, member entities, predecessors, successors, insurers, and each and all of their officers, directors, partners, agents, attorneys, heirs, administrators, executors, members, representatives, trustees, principals, assigns, and employees, individually, jointly, and severally.
JJ. “Service Award” means a service award that each Named Plaintiff shall apply for as compensation for his time and effort undertaken in this Action, not to exceed $7,500.00 per Plaintiff, for a total of $15,000.00.
KK. “Settlement” means the settlement set forth in this Agreement. LL. “Settlement Administrator” means JND Legal Administration Company.
9

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 96-1 Filed 06/24/19 Page 10 of 67
MM. “Settlement Class” or “Settlement Class Members” means all individuals included in the FCRA Class and NYC Class.
NN. “Settlement Effective Date” means the date on which the Judgment in this case becomes Final (as defined in Section II.T of this Agreement). If no Settlement Class Member objects to this Settlement, the Final Settlement Date means thirty (30) days after the date on which the Court’s order granting final approval is entered on the docket. If no appeal has been taken from the Judgment, the Final Settlement Date means the date on which the time to appeal has expired. If any appeal has been taken from Judgment, the Final Settlement Date means the date on which all appeals, including petitions for rehearing, petitions for rehearing en banc, and petitions for certiorari or any other form of review, have been finally disposed of in a manner that affirms the Judgment. It is the intention of the Parties that the Settlement shall not become effective until the Court’s Final Approval Order and Judgment has been completely Final and until there is no timely recourse by an appellant or Objector who seeks to contest the Settlement.
OO. “Settlement Payment” means the monetary payments to be made to the Named Plaintiffs, the FCRA Class as set forth in Section III.A, and the Participating NYC Class Members who qualify for an Enhanced Payment as set forth in Section III.B.
PP. “Settlement Website” means the Internet site created by the Settlement Administrator pursuant to this Agreement to provide information about the Settlement.
QQ. “Settling Parties” or “Parties” means, collectively, Defendants, Named Plaintiffs, and all Settlement Class Members. III. MONETARY RELIEF AND BENEFITS
A. Monetary Benefits To The Named Plaintiffs And The FCRA Class Members. In exchange for the Named Plaintiffs’ Released Claims and the FCRA Class Members’ Released
10

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 96-1 Filed 06/24/19 Page 11 of 67
Claims as set forth in Section V.A, the Named Plaintiffs and the FCRA Class Members shall each be entitled to receive a one-time payment of $200.00.
B. Eligibility For Enhanced Payment For The Named Plaintiffs And NYC Class Members. In exchange for the Named Plaintiffs’ Released Claims and the NYC Class Members’ Released Claims as set forth in Section V.C, the Named Plaintiffs and NYC Class Members shall be eligible to request an Enhanced Payment. If the Named Plaintiff or a NYC Class Member submits a valid Claim Form by the Claim Bar Date, MSG will conduct an analysis of the Named Plaintiff’s and Participating NYC Class Member’s criminal conviction history as it existed at the time he or she applied for employment with MSG under New York Correction Law § 752, and the factors set forth in New York Correction Law § 753 (“Article 23-A analysis”), to determine if he or she would have been eligible for employment absent his or her failure to fully and accurately disclose his or her criminal conviction history. In conducting the Article 23-A analysis, MSG will consider only the information regarding the Named Plaintiff’s and the Participating NYC Class Member’s criminal conviction history as it existed at the time he or she was denied employment, along with any evidence of rehabilitation or other information that the Named Plaintiff or the Participating NYC Class Member submits in the Claim Form and which evidence existed at the time he or she applied for employment with MSG. If the Named Plaintiff or the Participating NYC Class Member does not submit any evidence of rehabilitation in the Claim Form, MSG will not consider this fact in its Article 23-A analysis (i.e. in its evaluation, MSG will not hold against the applicant the fact that he or she did not submit additional evidence of rehabilitation). MSG will also not consider in its Article 23-A analysis the fact that it previously determined that the Named Plaintiff or Participating NYC Class Member did not fully and accurately disclose his or her criminal conviction history in his or her original application for
11

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 96-1 Filed 06/24/19 Page 12 of 67
employment with MSG. If MSG determines that the Named Plaintiff or Participating NYC Class Member would have been eligible for employment under the Article 23-A analysis, the Named Plaintiff and Participating NYC Class Member will receive an Enhanced Payment in the amount of $1,700.00. MSG’s determination that an NYC Class Member is entitled to an Enhanced Payment in this Settlement is entirely without prejudice to MSG’s ability to conduct an independent evaluation of the Participating NYC Class Member’s qualification for employment with MSG if such individual separately applies for employment pursuant to MSG’s normal hiring policies and procedures, including conducting an independent analysis of the Participating NYC Class Member’s criminal conviction history under New York Correction Law § 752 and the factors set forth in New York Correction Law § 753. For the avoidance of doubt, MSG’s determination that a Participating Class Member will receive an Enhanced Payment in the amount of $1,700.00 is unrelated to, and shall have no impact on, any decision that MSG may make in the future regarding such individual’s qualification for employment if the individual later applies for employment, including a decision not to hire such individual based on his or her criminal history and/or failure to fully or accurately disclose his or her criminal history at the time of his or her later application for employment, consistent with applicable law and the terms of this Agreement.
C. Time-Period For MSG To Conduct Article 23-A Analysis. In order to be eligible for the Enhanced Payment, the Named Plaintiff and the NYC Class Member must submit a valid Claim Form by the Claim Bar Date. MSG will conduct the Article 23-A analysis to determine whether the Named Plaintiff and the Participating NYC Class Member will receive the Enhanced Payment after the Settlement Effective Date.
12

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 96-1 Filed 06/24/19 Page 13 of 67
D. Entitlement to Enhanced Payment. If MSG determines that more than 30% of the NYC Class Members are not entitled to the Enhanced Payment pursuant to the Article 23-A analysis described in Section III.B, MSG will provide Plaintiffs’ Counsel with sufficient information to understand the basis for MSG’s determination and the opportunity to meet and confer regarding MSG’s decision.
E. W-9 Requirement. The Participating NYC Class Members who are deemed to be eligible to receive the Enhanced Payment pursuant to Section III.B will be required to submit a Form W-9. The Settlement Administrator will send the Form W-9 to such individuals via U.S. mail (including an envelope with pre-paid postage) and e-mail with a link to submit the form on the Settlement website, within fourteen (14) days after completing the Article 23-A Analysis described in Section III.E. The completed Form W-9 can be submitted via U.S. mail, e-mail, fax, and the Settlement Website. For Participating NYC Class Members who are deemed to be eligible to receive the Enhanced Payment but fail to submit a Form W-9, the Settlement Administrator will make a reasonable follow-up effort, including sending a reminder postcard, to ensure that such individuals properly submit a Form W-9. If the Participating NYC Class Members who are deemed to be eligible to receive the Enhanced Payment fail to submit the Form W-9 within ninety (90) days, the Settlement Administrator will hold his or her Settlement Payment in escrow throughout the 120-day check-cashing period described in Section III.I. If such individual deemed eligible to receive the Enhanced Payment fails to submit the Form W-9 within ninety (90) days, and whose Settlement Payment is in escrow throughout the 120-day check-cashing period described in Section III.I, submits the Form W-9 during the 120-day check-cashing period, the Settlement Administrator will issue the Settlement Payment and the Settlement Check will become void at the conclusion of the initial 120-day check-cashing period, or 60-days after issuance of the
13

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 96-1 Filed 06/24/19 Page 14 of 67
check, whichever is longer, as described in Section III.I. If such individual fails to submit the Form W-9 during the 120-day check-cashing period, the monetary value of his or her Settlement Payment will be donated to Getting Out Staying Out (“GOSO”), a non-profit organization.
F. Service Awards to The Named Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs’ Counsel may petition the Court for a $7,500.00 Service Award for each Named Plaintiff, in consideration for their service as a named Plaintiff. MSG will not oppose a request for Service Awards for each Named Plaintiff (not to exceed $7,500.00 for each), for a total of $15,000.00.
G. Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses. Plaintiffs’ Counsel may petition the Court for an award of fees and expenses in an amount not to exceed $750,000.00. Plaintiffs’ Counsel acknowledges that such maximum amount includes all fees and costs of all counsel for the Named Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class, including counsel from O&G and YR. MSG agrees not to oppose Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s application for Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses consistent with these limitations.
H. Distribution of Settlement Payments. Within thirty (30) days of the Settlement Effective Date, the Settlement Administrator will issue checks for the Settlement Payments of $200.00 to the Named Plaintiffs and the FCRA Class Members. Within ninety (90) days after the Settlement Administrator issued the Participating NYC Class Members who qualified for an Enhanced Payment Form W-9s, or within fourteen (14) days after which every Participating NYC Class Member who qualified for an Enhanced Payment has submitted a Form W-9 to the Settlement Administrator, whichever is earlier, the Settlement Administrator will issue checks for the Settlement Payments to the Participating NYC Class Members who qualified for an Enhanced Payment and timely submitted the required Form W-9
14

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 96-1 Filed 06/24/19 Page 15 of 67
I. Uncashed Checks. All checks for Settlement Payments will become void 120 days after issuance. If a Settlement Class Member requests re-issuance of a check within the 120-day period, then the re-issued check will become void at the end of the initial 120-day check cashing period, or sixty (60) days after re-issuance of the check, whichever is later. The monetary value of any uncashed checks as of the void date will be donated to GOSO, a non-profit organization.
J. Payments to Class Counsel. Within thirty (30) days of the Settlement Effective Date, the Settlement Administrator will pay, or cause to be paid, by wire transfer, any Courtapproved Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses to Class Counsel subject to Section III.G. Class Counsel shall provide to the Settlement Administrator a Form W-9 with a tax identification number prior to this payment.
K. Payments of Service Awards to the Named Plaintiffs. Within thirty (30) days of the Settlement Effective Date, the Settlement Administrator will issue checks to the Named Plaintiffs for any Court-approved Service Awards. The Service Awards approved by the Court will be classified as non-wage compensation (reportable on a Form 1099) and the Named Plaintiffs will be solely responsible for paying any applicable taxes owed on this payment. The Settlement Administrator, on MSG’s behalf, will issue to the Named Plaintiffs an IRS 1099 for this payment.
L. Tax Allocation. The FCRA Class Member Settlement Payments will be classified as non-wage compensation (reportable on a Form 1099) and each FCRA Class Member will be solely responsible for correctly characterizing their Settlement Payments for any tax purposes. The Settlement Administrator, on MSG’s behalf, will issue the FCRA Class Members’ an IRS Form 1099 reflecting this payment. Any Enhanced Payments made to Participating NYC Class Members will be allocated 50% as wages for which the Settlement Administrator, on behalf of MSG, will issue a W-2, and 50% as interest and penalties, for which the Settlement Administrator,
15

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 96-1 Filed 06/24/19 Page 16 of 67
on behalf of MSG, will issue an IRS Form 1099. The Settlement Administrator will report all payments to government authorities including the IRS as required by law, and shall make all legally required deductions and withholdings. MSG will pay for any employer-side payroll taxes. IV. NON-MONETARY RELIEF AND BENEFITS
In addition to the monetary relief described in Section III, MSG has agreed to implement certain non-monetary relief, as set forth below, for the benefit of the Settlement Class Members.
A. Background Check Procedures. MSG will formalize in writing its background check procedures.
B. Pre-Adverse and Adverse Action Letters. MSG will provide, or contract with a Consumer Reporting Agency to provide, pre-adverse action letters and/or adverse action letters to applicants whom MSG denies employment based on the contents of his or her Background Check Report as required in accordance with federal, state, and local law. MSG will revise its pre-adverse action letters to include contact information for MSG, including an e-mail and phone number. MSG will further revise its pre-adverse action letters to explicitly state that MSG will consider an applicant’s evidence of rehabilitation, and facilitate and encourage applicants to provide MSG with such information.
C. New York City Fair Chance Act Notices. MSG will provide, or contract with a Consumer Reporting Agency to provide, NYC Fair Chance notices to applicants in accordance with New York City Fair Chance Act.
D. Possession of Marijuana. MSG will revise its Criminal History Disclosure to state that applicants for employment need not disclose criminal convictions for possession for marijuana, except for convictions for possession of marijuana with intent to sell the same, unless the law otherwise requires.
16

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 96-1 Filed 06/24/19 Page 17 of 67
E. Training. MSG will train its employees who are responsible for reviewing the substance of applicants’ Background Check Reports in connection with his or her candidacy for employment regarding MSG’s background check procedures as well as federal, state, and local law relating to MSG’s use of Background Check Reports. MSG will train its recruiters on MSG’s policy regarding denying employment to those applicants who do not fully and accurately disclose his or her criminal conviction history; that MSG does not prohibit applicants with criminal conviction histories from obtaining employment with MSG; the process by which applicants can provide evidence of rehabilitation; and the legal requirements under federal, state, and local law relating to MSG’s evaluation and use of applicants’ Background Check Reports, including under the New York City Fair Chance Act. YR will be provided a one-time opportunity to present to the MSG employees who are responsible for reviewing the substance of applicants’ Background Check Reports regarding issues that could lead an applicant to fail to fully and accurately disclose his or her criminal convictions. Any documents and/or materials that YR delivers and/or shares with MSG employees in connection with this presentation will be subject to MSG’s prior review and satisfaction.
F. Applicant Communications Prior To Obtaining Background Check Report. MSG will advise each applicant by e-mail prior to his or her submission of consent for MSG to obtain a Background Check Report that the applicant may provide evidence of rehabilitation, explain the procedure by which the applicant may provide evidence of rehabilitation, and remind the applicant that a failure to fully and accurately disclose his or her criminal conviction history may lead to a denial of employment.
G. Criminal History Disclosure. MSG will revise its Criminal History Disclosure as set forth in the Consumer Reporting Agency’s portal consistent with Exhibit 5. MSG will further
17

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 96-1 Filed 06/24/19 Page 18 of 67
revise its Criminal History Disclosure as set forth in the Consumer Reporting Agency’s portal to state that applicants can provide evidence of rehabilitation to MSG and will provide an e-mail address for applicants to do so. MSG will further revise its Criminal History Disclosure as set forth in the Consumer Reporting Agency’s portal to state in bold type that an applicant’s failure to fully and accurately disclose his or her criminal conviction history may result in MSG denying the applicant’s employment.
H. Time-Period Relating To Criminal History Disclosure. MSG will revise its Criminal History Disclosure as set forth in the Consumer Reporting Agency’s portal to state that applicants are required to disclose his or her criminal conviction history for the five-years preceding his or her application for employment. MSG may assess an applicant’s criminal conviction history for a longer period in accordance with applicable law for purposes of determining whether the applicant is qualified for employment under the New York Correction Law § 752 when considering the factors set forth in New York Correction Law § 753.
I. Open Warrants. MSG will not revoke a conditional offer of employment because of an applicant’s failure to disclose an open warrant or warrants in the Criminal History Disclosure.
J. MSG’s Process For Evaluating Applicants Who Fail To Fully and Accurately Disclose His or Her Criminal Conviction History. If an applicant does not fully and accurately disclose his or her criminal conviction history in the Criminal History Disclosure, MSG will request an explanation for the lack of disclosure by sending the applicant a notice by e-mail. See Ex. 5. The e-mail notice will include a link to the applicant’s Background Check Report and a copy of the criminal record information that the applicant self-disclosed at the time he or she applied. MSG will send a follow-up, reminder e-mail to all applicants four (4) days later which will provide a second link to the applicant’s Background Check Report and a copy of the criminal
18

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 96-1 Filed 06/24/19 Page 19 of 67
record information that the applicant self-disclosed at the time he or she applied. In determining whether an applicant who did not fully and accurately disclose his or her criminal conviction history will be offered employment, MSG will consider whether the applicant provides MSG with information to MSG’s satisfaction that the applicant did not intentionally misrepresent his or her criminal conviction history. In such review, MSG will consider, among other factors, the extent to which the applicant demonstrates with credible explanation, that the applicant was confused about the applicant’s criminal conviction history and/or that the applicant made a good faith effort to fully and accurately disclose such history. For example, MSG will consider as an important factor that the applicant disclosed his or her most serious criminal conviction(s).
K. Two-Year No Hire. An applicant who is denied employment based on his or her failure to fully and accurately disclose his or her criminal conviction history will be eligible to reapply for employment with MSG after two years. MSG will include this information in the adverse action letter provided to the applicant. If an applicant who was denied employment based on his or her failure to fully and accurately disclose his or her criminal history applies for employment within two-years of such denial, MSG will have no liability stemming from this Settlement Agreement with respect to its decision not to hire that individual.
L. Settlement Monitor. MSG will designate a MSG employee to monitor implementation of Section IV of the Agreement. V. RELEASE OF CLAIMS
A. FCRA Class Members’ Released Claims. On the Settlement Effective Date, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, all FCRA Class Members who have not timely and properly opted out of the Settlement, and each of their respective spouses (to the extent spouses have derivative claims), heirs, executors, trustees, guardians, administrators, representatives, agents, successors, predecessors and assigns, fully and
19

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 96-1 Filed 06/24/19 Page 20 of 67
forever release, waive, acquit, and discharge the Released Persons from all claims, demands, causes of action, and liabilities, known and unknown, that he or she had, have, or may have under any legal or equitable theory under the FCRA and/or NY FCRA, including but not limited to claims for statutory damages, compensatory damages, punitive damages, penalties, attorneys’ fees and costs, and all other available relief. It is expressly intended and understood by the Parties that this Agreement is to be construed as a complete settlement, accord, and satisfaction of the FCRA Class Members’ Released Claims.
B. Acknowledgment of California Civil Code Section 1542: All FCRA Class Members who are residents of California hereby acknowledge, pursuant to Section 1542 of the California Civil Code, that a general release does not extend to claims that the creditor or releasing party does not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release and that, if known by him or her, would have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor or released party.
C. NYC Class Members’ Released Claims. On the Settlement Effective Date, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, all NYC Class Members who have not timely and properly opted out of the Settlement, regardless of whether he or she is a Participating NYC Class Member and regardless of whether he or she receives an Enhanced Payment, and each of their respective spouses (to the extent spouses have derivative claims), heirs, executors, trustees, guardians, administrators, representatives, agents, successors, predecessors and assigns, fully and forever release, waive, acquit, and discharge the Released Persons from all claims, demands, causes of actions, and liabilities, known and unknown, relating to their criminal records, including discrimination claims that he or she had, have, or may have, including under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.SC. § 2000e et seq., the NY
20

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 96-1 Filed 06/24/19 Page 21 of 67
FCRA, the Correction Law, and the NYCHRL, against MSG, including but not limited to claims for statutory damages, compensatory damages, punitive damages, penalties, attorneys’ fees and costs, and all other relief available. It is expressly intended and understood by the Parties that this Agreement is to be construed as a complete settlement, accord, and satisfaction of the NYC Class Members’ Released Claims.
D. Named Plaintiffs’ Released Claims. On the Settlement Effective Date, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Named Plaintiffs, and each of their respective spouses (to the extent spouses have derivative claims), heirs, executors, trustees, guardians, administrators, representatives, agents, successors, predecessors and assigns, fully and forever release, waive, acquit, and discharge the Released Persons from all claims, demands, causes of action, and liabilities, known and unknown, that he had, have, or may have under any legal or equitable theory, whether contractual, common-law, or statutory, and whether under federal, state or local law, by reason of any act, omission, transaction, practice, plan, policy, procedure, conduct, occurrence or other matter, from the beginning of time through the Settlement Effective Date. VI. NO HIRE
A. No Hire For The Named Plaintiffs. The Named Plaintiffs agree not to knowingly apply for any job with MSG, The Hulu Theatre, Radio City Music Hall, The Beacon Theatre, the Chicago Theatre, The Forum, The New York Knicks, the New York Rangers and any other entities that Named Plaintiffs know to be affiliated with MSG. MSG and its affiliates have no obligation to hire or employ, and/or engage the Named Plaintiffs in the future on a full-time, part-time, temporary and/or contingency basis. If the Named Plaintiffs violate this provision, the Named Plaintiffs will have no cause of action with respect to MSG’s decision not to hire, employ, and/or engage them in any capacity and MSG will have no liability with respect to the same.
21

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 96-1 Filed 06/24/19 Page 22 of 67
VII. NON-ADMISSION OF LIABILITY A. No Admission of Liability. MSG has asserted and continues to assert many
defenses in the Action and expressly denies any fault, wrongdoing, or liability whatsoever, as well as the validity of each of the claims and prayers for relief asserted in the Action and further denies that class treatment is appropriate in this Action. Specifically, MSG denies the factual allegations in the Complaint; asserts that MSG has complied and continues to comply with all legal requirements when it conducts background check screenings on prospective employees; asserts that it was not required to perform an analysis of the factors set forth in Section 753 of the New York Correction Law because the Named Plaintiffs intentionally misrepresented their criminal histories during MSG’s screening process; asserts that the Named Plaintiffs could not meet their burden to establish a willful violation of the FCRA or the NY FCRA. MSG entered the Agreement due to the length of time necessary to resolve the issues presented, the disruption of its business operations, and the opportunity to improve its legally compliant background check policies and procedures. The Parties expressly acknowledge and agree that neither the fact of, nor any provision contained in, this Agreement, nor the implementing documents or actions taken under them, nor MSG’s willingness to enter into this Agreement, nor the content or fact of any negotiations, communications, and discussions associated with the Settlement shall constitute or be construed or used as an admission by or against MSG or any of the Released Persons to attempt to show any fault, wrongdoing, violation of law, or liability whatsoever or used as evidence of the validity of any claim or allegation of any kind in any action or any proceeding of any kind whatsoever. VIII. NOTICE OF OPT OUT, OBJECTIONS, SETTLEMENT, AND TERMINATION.
A. Retention of Settlement Administrator. MSG will retain JND Legal Administration to administer the Settlement. MSG will pay for all costs associated with the Settlement, including
22

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 96-1 Filed 06/24/19 Page 23 of 67
the Notice and Administrative Costs. The Settlement Administrator shall administer the Settlement in accordance with its terms and objectives.
B. Class Notice to Settlement Class. MSG will provide to the Settlement Administrator a list containing the following information for each Settlement Class Member: name, Social Security number, last known address, and e-mail addresses no more than seven (7) days after the Court has issued its Preliminary Approval Order (“Settlement List”). Five (5) days prior to issuing the Class Notices, the Settlement Administrator will provide to Plaintiffs’ Counsel a list containing the unique identifier of each Settlement Class Member, indicating whether they receive notice as a FCRA Class Member or NYC Class Member (but not their name or contact information). The Settlement Administrator shall not disclose the Settlement List to Class Counsel or anyone else external to the Settlement Administrator, except to the extent a Class Member contacts the Settlement Administrator and the Settlement Administrator refers such Class Member to Class Counsel. In that instance, the Settlement Administrator may release such Class Member’s contact information to Class Counsel. Within five (5) days after the Claim Bar Date, the Settlement Administrator will provide Plaintiffs’ Counsel with a copy of the Settlement List limited to only Participating NYC Class Members. After receipt of the Settlement Class Members’ information from Defendants, the Settlement Administrator will perform a search and update using the National Change of Address Database to correct any known or identifiable address changes for Settlement Class Members. As soon as practicable but in no event more than 21 days after the Court has issued its Preliminary Approval Order in substantially the same form as Exhibit 4, the Settlement Administrator will send by e-mail and U.S. mail (to the extent MSG has the Settlement Class Members’ e-mail and home addresses) the approved Class Notice to the FCRA Class Members and the approved Class Notice, Claim Form, and a pre-paid envelope (to be used to return the Claim Form to the Settlement Administrator) to the NYC Class Members. The Class Notice and
23

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 96-1 Filed 06/24/19 Page 24 of 67
the pre-paid envelope shall bear the Settlement Administrator’s mailing address as the return-mail address.
C. Reminder Notice. Thirty (30) days after distribution of the initial Class Notice to the NYC Class, the Settlement Administrator will send by e-mail and U.S. mail (to the extent MSG has the NYC Class Members’ e-mail and home addresses) a reminder postcard in substantially the same form as Exhibit 2 to the NYC Class.
D. Submission of Claim Form. The NYC Class Member must submit a Claim Form to the Settlement Administrator within the Acceptance Period and no later than the Claim Bar Date, pursuant to Section II.G above, in order for the Claim Form to be valid and for the NYC Class Member to be eligible for consideration to receive an Enhanced Payment. The NYC Class Member may validly submit a Claim Form through e-mail, fax, U.S. mail (via the pre-paid envelope referenced in Section VIII.B) or the Settlement Website.
E. Right to Opt Out. All members of the Settlement Class will have right to be excluded from (i.e., to “opt out” of) the Settlement Class. On or before the Opt-Out Deadline established by the Court, each Settlement Class Member who elects to opt out of the Settlement must send, by first class U.S. mail, written notice to the Settlement Administrator indicating his or her name and address and stating that he or she desires to opt-out of the settlement and otherwise does not want to participate in the Settlement. Any member of the Settlement Class who does not timely (as measured by the postmark on that individual’s written notice) opt out of the Settlement by written notice correctly directed to the Settlement Administrator and containing the requisite information shall become a Settlement Class Member and shall be bound by Orders of the Court, the Judgment, and the Settlement, including the Releases. In no event shall members of the Settlement Class be allowed to opt-out of the Settlement as a group or on behalf of more than one
24

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 96-1 Filed 06/24/19 Page 25 of 67
member of the Settlement Class, and any such provision shall not be considered a valid opt out. Any Settlement Member who fails to timely and validly opt out of the Settlement under the Settlement Agreement shall be bound the terms of this Settlement.
F. Objections. Any Settlement Class Member who does not opt out and who wishes to object to the Settlement must file a timely written statement of objection with the Clerk of Court and mail a copy of that objection with the requisite postmark to Class Counsel and Counsel for Defendants no later than the Objection Deadline. Any objection must state the case name and number, the basis for and an explanation of the objection, the name, address, address, telephone number, and e-mail address of the Settlement Class Member making the objection, and a statement of whether the Settlement Class Member intends to appear at the Final Approval Hearing, either with or without counsel. In addition, any objection must be personally signed by the Settlement Class Member and, if represented by counsel, then by the counsel.
Any Settlement Class Member who fails to make an objection in the manner specified above shall be deemed to have waived any objections and shall be foreclosed from making any objections, whether by appeal or otherwise, to the Settlement. No Settlement Class Member shall be entitled to contest in any way the approval of the terms and conditions of this Agreement or the Court’s Final Approval Order and Judgment except by filing and serving written objections in accordance with the provision of this Settlement Agreement. Any Settlement Class Member who fails to object in the manner prescribed above shall be foreclosed forever from raising any objection to the Settlement.
G. Preliminary Settlement Approval. On June 19, 2019, Plaintiffs’ Counsel will file with the Court a motion for preliminary settlement approval, memorandum of law in support thereof, proposed Class Notice, Claim Form, and Preliminary Approval Order (“Preliminary
25

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 96-1 Filed 06/24/19 Page 26 of 67
Approval Motion”), which is consistent with this Agreement. Plaintiffs’ Counsel will provide the motion for preliminary settlement approval and memorandum of law in support thereof to Counsel for Defendants at least seven (7) before June 19, 2019 for their review and comment. Defendants’ Counsel will provide their comments at least two (2) business days before June 19, 2019. The Preliminary Approval Motion will seek a settlement class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 23(e) and 23(b)(2) and (b)(3), with an opt out right. The Preliminary Approval Motion will also seek the setting of date(s) for individuals to opt out of this Agreement or provide objections to this Agreement, which date the Parties propose shall be forty-five (45) days from the delivery of Class Notice, and for a Fairness Hearing for final approval of the Settlement before the Court at the earliest practicable date.
H. Compliance with CAFA. In accordance with the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”), within ten (10) days of the Named Plaintiffs’ filing of the Preliminary Approval Motion, MSG will serve upon the appropriate state and federal official notice of this proposed Settlement in accordance with CAFA, 28 U.S.C. § 1715. MSG will provide a copy of this notice to Plaintiffs’ Counsel and will file with the Court a notice of compliance with CAFA’s requirements.
I. Right of Termination. This Agreement shall terminate and the Settlement will become null and void, except for the Non-Admission of Liability provision as set forth in Section VII., if: (1) the Court, or any appellate court(s), rejects, modifies, or denies approval of any portion of this Agreement or the proposed Settlement, which MSG determines in good faith to be material; or (2) the Court, or any appellate court(s), does not enter or completely affirm, or alters or expands, any portion of the Final Judgment, which MSG determines in good faith to be material. In such event, the terms and provisions of this Agreement, except for the Non-Admission of Liability
26

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 96-1 Filed 06/24/19 Page 27 of 67
provision as set forth in Section VII., will have no further force and effect with respect to the Settling Parties and will not be used or discoverable in the Action, or in any other proceeding for any purpose, and any Judgment or order entered by the Court in accordance with the terms of this Agreement will be treated as vacated, nunc pro tunc.
J. Representations and Warranties. 1. Representations and Warranties. Each Named Plaintiff represents and
warrants that: (a) he is the sole and exclusive owner of his owned Released Claims and that he has not assigned or otherwise transferred any interest in any of the Released Claims against any of the Released Persons; (b) he will not assign or otherwise transfer any interest in any of his Released Claims; and (c) he has no surviving claim or cause of action against any of the Released Persons with respect to any of the Released Claims.
2. The Settling Parties’ Representations and Warranties. The Settling Parties, and each of them on his or its own behalf only, represent and warrant: (a) they are voluntarily entering into the Settlement Agreement as a result of arms’-length negotiations among their counsel; (b) in executing the Settlement Agreement, they are relying solely upon their own judgment, belief, and knowledge, and the advice and recommendation of their own independently selected counsel, concerning the nature, extent and duration of their rights and claims hereunder and regarding all matters which relate in any way to the subject matter hereof; and (c) they have not been influenced to any extent whatsoever in executing the Settlement Agreement by representations, statements, or omissions pertaining to any of the foregoing matters by any Party or by any person representing any party to the Settlement Agreement.
K. Hearing on the Proposed Settlement
27

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 96-1 Filed 06/24/19 Page 28 of 67
1. At the Fairness Hearing, the Parties shall jointly request the Court to enter a Final Approval Order and Judgment, which among other things:
a. Approves, without material modification, the proposed Settlement, pursuant to the terms of this Agreement.
b. Finds that the terms of this Agreement are fair, reasonable and adequate to the Settlement Class.
c. Provides that each member of the Settlement Class shall be bound by this Agreement, include the Releases.
d. Finds that the sending and mailing of the Class Notices in the form attached as Exhibits 1-3 and the other means of notice required by this Agreement satisfy the requirements of Rule 23 and the requirements of due process;
e. Approves the non-monetary relief; f. Dismisses all claims in the Action with prejudice; g. Retains jurisdiction for all matters relating to the interpretation, administration, implementation, and effectuation and enforcement of this Agreement as set forth in Section X. 2. If the Settlement is not granted Final Approval, or this Agreement is otherwise terminated or rendered null and void, the certification of the above-described Settlement Classes shall be automatically vacated and shall not constitute evidence or a determination that the requirements for certification of a class for Settlement or trial purposes in this or any other action can or have been satisfied; in such circumstances, MSG reserves and shall have all rights to challenge certification of the Settlement Classes or any other class for trial or any other purpose in
28

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 96-1 Filed 06/24/19 Page 29 of 67
the Action, or in any other action, on all available grounds as if no Settlement Class had been certified. IX. DURATION OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
A. Duration of Settlement Agreement. Section IV of this Settlement Agreement shall expire two years from the later of the entry of the Final Approval Order, or MSG’s complete implementation of the non-monetary relief described in Section IV. For purposes of calculating this time-period, YR’s one-time training of MSG’s employees, as set forth in Section IV.E, will not be considered. X. CONTINUING JURISDICTION
A. Authority of the Court and Continuing Jurisdiction. The administration and implementation of the Settlement as embodied in this Settlement Agreement shall be under the authority of the Court. The Court shall retain jurisdiction to preserve the Settlement Agreement, including, but not limited to, the enforcement of the Releases contained in the Agreement, for two years from the later of the entry of the Final Approval Order, or MSG’s complete implementation of the non-monetary benefits described in Section IV. For purposes of calculating this time-period, Youth Represents’ one-time training of MSG’s employees, as set forth in Section IV, will not be considered. XI. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
A. Publicity. The Parties, Plaintiffs’ Counsel, and Counsel for Defendants agree that they will not issue any press releases or initiate any contact with any media outlet about the fact, amount or terms of the Settlement and/or publicize that MSG was specifically a party to this Settlement, including but not limited to on any website (including any website maintained by Plaintiffs’ Counsel). Plaintiffs’ Counsel may publicize the terms of the Settlement generally but they may state only that they entered into such Settlement with a “New York City employer,”
29

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 96-1 Filed 06/24/19 Page 30 of 67
without any further explanation or characterization of MSG’s business, industry and/or other identifying factor. The Parties and their counsel further agree that if any Party receives a press inquiry regarding the Settlement, they will decline to comment unless as otherwise agreed in writing. Nothing in this Agreement will prevent Plaintiffs’ Counsel or MSG from making any legally-mandated disclosures.
B. Choice of Law. The Agreement will be interpreted, enforced, and governed by and under the laws of the State of New York without regard to its conflict of law principles.
C. Best Reasonable Efforts and Full Cooperation. The Parties agree to fully cooperate with one another to accomplish the terms of this Agreement, including but not limited to, executing such documents and taking such other actions as may be reasonably necessary to implement the terms of the Settlement. The Parties to this Agreement will use their best reasonable efforts, including all efforts contemplated by this Agreement and any other efforts that may become necessary or ordered by the Court, or otherwise, to effectuate this Agreement and the terms set forth in it.
D. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the full and entire agreement among the Parties with regard to the subject matter and supersedes all prior representations, agreements, promises, or warranties, written, oral, or otherwise. No Party shall be liable or bound to any other Party for any prior representation, agreement, promise, or warranty, oral or otherwise, except for those that are set forth in or attached to this Agreement.
E. Binding. This Agreement will be binding upon and will inure to the benefit of the Parties and their respective heirs, trustees, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns.
F. No Prior Assignments. The Parties represent, covenant, and warrant that they have not directly or indirectly, assigned, transferred, encumbered, or purported to assign, transfer, or
30

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 96-1 Filed 06/24/19 Page 31 of 67
encumber to any person or entity any portion of liability, claim, demand, action, cause of action, or rights released or discharged in this Settlement except as set forth in this Agreement.
G. Construction. The Parties agree that the terms and conditions of this Agreement are the result of lengthy, arm’s length negotiations between the Parties and that this Agreement will not be construed in favor or against any Party by reason of the extent to which any Party or the Party’s Counsel participated in drafting of this Agreement.
H. Construction of Captions and Interpretations. Paragraphs, titles, captions, or headings in this Agreement are inserted as a matter of convenience and for reference and in no way define, limit, extend, or describe the scope of this Agreement or any provision in it. Each term of this Agreement is contractual and is not merely a recital.
I. Class Signatories. The Parties agree that because the Settlement Class Members are so numerous, it is impossible and impracticable to have each Settlement Class Member execute this Agreement. Therefore, the Class Notice will advise all Settlement Class Members of the binding nature of the Releases. The Releases will have same force and effect as if this Agreement was executed by each Settlement Class Member.
J. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, and when each Party has signed and delivered at least one such counterpart, each counterpart will be deemed an original, and, when taken together with other signed counterparts, will constitute one Agreement, which will be binding upon and effective as to all Parties, subject to the Court’s approval.
K. Authority. The signatories below represent that they are fully authorized to enter into this Agreement and to bind the Parties and the Settlement Class Members.
31

DocuSign Envelope IDC: Fa9s9e1871F:31-87C-9c5v-4-5044B-0A0520A--A5CJEN44-9SDLF2C105 Document 96-1 Filed 06/24/19 Page 32 of 67

XII. EXECUTION

The undersigned, being duly authorized, have caused this Agreement to be executed on the

dates shown below and agree that it shall take effect on that date upon which it has been executed

by all the undersigned.
___________________________________ CLINT MILLIEN NAMED PLAINTIFF AND CLASS REPRESENTATIVE

____6_/_1_4_/_2_0_1_9___________ DATE

___________________________________ FELIPE KELLY NAMED PLAINTIFF AND CLASS REPRESENTATIVE

_______________________ DATE

___________________________________ OSSAI MIAZAD CLASS COUNSEL AND COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS

_______________________ DATE

____________________________________ MICHAEL POPE CLASS COUNSEL AND COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS

_______________________ DATE

__________________________________ SAM SHAULSON COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS

_______________________ DATE

___________________________________ LAWRENCE BURIAN THE MADISON SQUARE GARDEN COMPANY

_______________________ DATE

32

DocuSign Envelope IDC: 5AaE5sEDe4311165B:711--7D8E8-Dc814v--40A44F4E00-980B70D6E0--A24DEJ64NE672-9S244L1486CA2F426 Document 96-1 Filed 06/24/19 Page 33 of 67

XII. EXECUTION

The undersigned, being duly authorized, have caused this Agreement to be executed on the

dates shown below and agree that it shall take effect on that date upon which it has been executed

by all the undersigned.

___________________________________ CLINT MILLIEN NAMED PLAINTIFF AND CLASS REPRESENTATIVE
___________________________________ FELIPE KELLY NAMED PLAINTIFF AND CLASS REPRESENTATIVE
___________________________________ OSSAI MIAZAD CLASS COUNSEL AND COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS
____________________________________ MICHAEL POPE CLASS COUNSEL AND COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS

_______________________ DATE
____6_/_1_7_/_2_0_1_9___________ DATE
_____6_/_1_4_/2_0_1_9___________ DATE
____6_/_1_7_/_2_01_9____________ DATE

__________________________________ SAM SHAULSON COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS

_______________________ DATE

___________________________________ LAWRENCE BURIAN THE MADISON SQUARE GARDEN COMPANY

_______________________ DATE

32

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 96-1 Filed 06/24/19 Page 34 of 67
06/17/2019 06/17/2019

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 96-1 Filed 06/24/19 Page 35 of 67

CLINT MILLIEN NAMED PLAINTIFF AND CLASS REPRESENT ATIVE
FELIPE KELLY NAMED PLAINTIFF AND CLASS REPRESENT ATIVE
OSSAI MIAZAD CLASS COUNSEL AND COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS
MICHAEL POPE CLASS COUNSEL AND COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS
J'~ J'APt.~~
SAM SHAULSON COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS
LAWRENCE BURIAN THE MADISON SQUARE GARDEN COMPANY
LAWRENCE BURIAN MSGN HOLDINGS, L.P.

DATE DATE DATE DATE
DATE DATE

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 96-1 Filed 06/24/19 Page 36 of 67
Exhibit 1

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 96-1 Filed 06/24/19 Page 37 of 67

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Millien v. The Madison Square Garden Company, et al., No. 17 Civ. 4000

NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND HEARING
If MSG’s records show that you applied for employment with MSG and were denied employment based on the content of your background check report from April 26, 2015, through [DATE OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT], you are entitled
to $200.00 from this Settlement.
A federal court authorized Notice. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer.



You are receiving this notice because MSG’s records indicate that you are a member of the

FCRA Settlement Class as described below.



This notice relates to a settlement in a class action lawsuit alleging that MSG violated the

Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), New York State Fair Credit Reporting Act (“NY

FCRA”), and New York State Correction Law (“Correction Law”).



Under this Settlement, you are eligible for a $200.00 payment.



Visit the Settlement Website at www.[insert URL].com for additional details about the

Settlement. You may also get additional information by contacting the Settlement

Administrator at the address, e-mail address, or phone number identified in Paragraph 7

below.



MSG denies that it violated the law in any way whatsoever. The two sides disagree as to

whether MSG’s conduct was permitted under the law. The parties, however, have agreed

to resolve the lawsuit through a Court-supervised settlement.

YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS IN THIS SETTLEMENT:

To receive a one-time cash payment, you do not have to do anything.

DO NOTHING Your Settlement Payment is: $200.00.

After final approval by the Court, the payment will be mailed to you at the same address as this Notice. You also give up your right to sue MSG on these claims.

EXCLUDE YOURSELF

If you wish to exclude yourself (“opt out”) from the Settlement, you must follow the directions outlined in Paragraph 7 below. If you request exclusion, you will receive no money from the Settlement. Your exclusion request must be postmarked no later than XX, 2019.

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 96-1 Filed 06/24/19 Page 38 of 67

OBJECT

You may write to the Court about why you believe the Settlement is not fair and reasonable. You must object in writing in order to appear at the Fairness Hearing to speak to the Court about the fairness of the Settlement. You must file a written objection and mail a copy to counsel, per the instructions below, which must be postmarked no later than XX, 2019.

These rights and options – and deadlines – are explained in this notice.
The Court in charge of this case still has to decide whether to give final approval to the Settlement. Class Member relief in the form of injunctive relief and/or payments will be made if the Court approves the Settlement and after appeals, if any, are resolved. Please be patient.
BASIC INFORMATION
1. Why did I receive this Notice?
You are receiving this Notice because MSG’s records indicate that you were denied employment with MSG based on the content of your background check report at some point from April 26, 2015 through [DATE OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT] (“FCRA Settlement Class”). This Notice has been sent because members of the FCRA Settlement Class have a right to know about the proposed Settlement of the class action lawsuit in which they are putative class action members, and about all of their options, before the Court decides whether to approve the Settlement. If the Court approves the Settlement, and after objections or appeals relating to the Settlement are resolved, the benefits provided for by the Settlement will be available to the FCRA Settlement Class Members who do not decide to exclude themselves.
2. What is this lawsuit about?
Plaintiffs allege that MSG violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) by failing to provide background check reports and notices to them and the putative class before taking adverse employment actions and the New York FCRA (“NY FCRA”) by failing to provide copies of Article 23-A of the Correction Law to them and the putative class.
Plaintiffs also allege that, as to a subset of class members, MSG violated the New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”) by (1) failing to conduct an analysis of the factors set forth in Section 753 of the Correction Law for individuals who were denied employment based on criminal offense information contained in his or her background check report; and (2) denying employment to those applicants who failed to fully and accurately disclose their criminal conviction histories. The settlement of the claims of that subset of class members is the subject of a separate notice and MSG’s records indicate that you are not a member of that settlement.
MSG denies Plaintiffs’ allegations and denies that it violated the law in any way whatsoever. The Court did not decide in favor of Plaintiffs or MSG. Although the Court has authorized Notice to be given of the proposed Settlement, this Notice does not express the opinion of the Court on the merits of the claims or defenses by either side in the lawsuit.

2

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 96-1 Filed 06/24/19 Page 39 of 67
3. Why is there a Settlement?
The Court did not decide in favor of the Plaintiffs or in favor of MSG. Both sides believe they would have prevailed but there was no ruling in favor of either party. Instead, both sides agreed to a settlement. The parties engaged in lengthy and arm’s length negotiations to reach this Settlement. That way, they avoid the delays and uncertainties associated with a trial, and the people affected will get compensation. The Plaintiffs and Class Counsel think the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate.
WHO IS IN THE SETTLEMENT
4. How do I know if I am part of the Settlement?
You are part of the Settlement if you fit the definition set forth in Paragraph 1. Based on MSG’s records, you were denied employment with MSG based on the content of your background check report at some point between April 26, 2015 and [DATE OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE SETTLEMENT]. If you are not sure about whether you are a member of the FCRA Settlement Class, you can contact the Settlement Administrator at the address, e-mail address, or phone number identified in Paragraph 7 of this Notice.
THE SETTLEMENT BENEFITS – WHAT YOU GET
5. What does the Settlement provide?
Injunctive Relief This Settlement calls for injunctive relief in the form of revisions to MSG’s background check policies and practices. For more details, you can access the Settlement Agreement available at www.[insert URL].com.
Individual Payments In addition to non-monetary benefits, you are eligible to receive a one-time gross payment of $200.00.
Additional Payments Subject to the Court’s approval, MSG has also agreed to separately pay Class Counsel’s attorneys’ fees and costs of no more than $750,000.00, the cost of administering the Settlement, and service awards of $7,500.00 to each of the two Plaintiffs, Clint Millien and Felipe Kelly for bringing the suit, their service to the Class, and reaching this Settlement.
6. By not excluding myself from this Settlement, what legal claims am I releasing?
If the Court grants final approval of the Settlement and if you do not opt out of the Settlement, you give up (also called “release”) your right to sue MSG under the FCRA and/or NY FCRA, including any right to recover statutory damages, compensatory damages, punitive damages, penalties, and attorneys’ fees and costs. This means that you cannot sue, continue to sue, or be part of any other lawsuit against MSG or its affiliates under the FCRA and/or NY FCRA. It also means that all of the Court’s orders concerning the FCRA Settlement Class will apply to you and legally bind you, including the Release described above and in detail in Section V.A of the Settlement Agreement.
3

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 96-1 Filed 06/24/19 Page 40 of 67

This Release provision describes the legal claims that you give up if this Settlement is approved and you do not exclude yourself. Please carefully read the Release and Settlement Agreement as a whole.

7. What are my options?



OPTION 1 – DO NOTHING AND GET A PAYMENT

If you do nothing you will automatically receive a $200.00 settlement payment if the Court approves the Settlement.



OPTION 2 – EXCLUDE YOURSELF FROM THE SETTLEMENT

If you choose to be excluded from the Settlement, you will not be bound by any judgment or other final disposition of the lawsuit. If you exclude yourself, you are not part of the Settlement and will not receive any benefits from it. You will retain any individual claims against MSG you might have under the FCRA and/or NY FCRA. To request an exclusion, you must send, by first class U.S. mail, written notice to the Settlement Administrator by [XX date] stating your name, address, and that you desire to opt-out of the Settlement and otherwise do not want to participate in the Settlement. The Settlement Administrator’s contact information is:

[JND Address]

If the request is not postmarked by [XX date] or otherwise does not contain the required information, your request for exclusion will be invalid and you will be bound by the terms of the Settlement approved by the Court, including without limitation, the judgment ultimately rendered in the case, and you will be barred from bringing any claims that arise out of or relate in any way to the claims as specified in the Release referenced in Paragraph 6.



OPTION 3 – OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENT

If you wish to remain an FCRA Settlement Class Member and wish the Court to consider your objection at the Final Approval Hearing, you may object to the Settlement. You can object to any aspect of the proposed Settlement if you file and serve a written objection. Your written objection must include: (1) case name and number; (2) an explanation of the basis of your objection; (3) your name, address, and telephone number; and (4) a statement as to whether you intend to attend the Final Approval Hearing, either with or without counsel. The written objection must be personally signed by you, and if you are represented by counsel, then by your counsel. You must also send a copy of this written objection to the FCRA Settlement Class Counsel and Counsel for MSG.

You must file any objection with the Clerk of the Court at the address below on or before [XX date].

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York Ruby J. Krajick 500 Pearl Street
New York, New York 10007

4

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 96-1 Filed 06/24/19 Page 41 of 67

You must also send your objection by first class mail, postmarked on or before [XX date], to Counsel for the FCRA Settlement Class and Counsel for MSG. These documents should be mailed to Class Counsel at:

Ossai Miazad Outten & Golden, LLP 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, New York 10071

And to Counsel for MSG at:
Sam Shaulson Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP
101 Park Avenue New York, New York 10178

Paul Evans Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP
1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103

Any member of the FCRA Settlement Class who does not file and serve an objection in the time and manner described above will waive that objection. If you exclude yourself from the Settlement, you may not object to it.

8. What is the difference between objecting and excluding?
Objecting is simply telling the Court that you do not like something about the Settlement. You can object only if you stay in Settlement. Excluding yourself is telling the Court that you do not want to be part of the Settlement. If you exclude yourself, you have no basis to object because the lawsuit no longer affects you.

THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING YOU

9. Do I have a lawyer in this case?
The Court has appointed Plaintiffs Clint Millien and Felipe Kelly as Class Representatives. The Court has appointed Outten & Golden, LLP and Youth Represent to represent you and all Class Members. Together, the lawyers are called “Class Counsel.” Unless you elect to exclude yourself from the Settlement, you will continue to be represented by Class Counsel in connection with the implementation of the Settlement throughout the duration of the terms of the Settlement at no cost to you. Class counsel may be contacted here:

Ossai Miazad Christopher M. McNerney
Outten & Golden, LLP 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, New York 10071
Telephone: (212) 245-1000 MSGSettlement@outtengolden.com

Michel Pope Eric Eingold Youth Represent 11 Park Place, Suite 1512 New York, New York 10007 Telephone: (646) 759 – 8080

5

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 96-1 Filed 06/24/19 Page 42 of 67
10. How will the lawyers be paid? Class Counsel will ask the Court to approve payment of up to $750,000.00 for their attorneys’ fees and expenses.
THE COURT’S FAIRNESS HEARING
11. Where and when will the Court decide whether to approve the Settlement? The Court is currently scheduled to conduct a Final Approval Hearing regarding the proposed Settlement on ________, 2019, at ____________, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, located at 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York 10007. You do not need to attend the hearing, but you may attend if you would like at your own expense. You may ask the Court for permission to speak at Final Approval Hearing. At this hearing, the Court will consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the terms of the Settlement. If there are objections, the Court will consider them. After the hearing, the Court will decide whether to approve the Settlement. We do not know how long the Court’s decision will take. Please note that the Court can continue the Final Approval Hearing to another date without notice. 12. Are there more details about the Settlement? The full Settlement Agreement and certain pleadings filed are available on the website created for this settlement by the Settlement Administrator, available at www.[insertURL].com. 13. How do I get more information? You can contact the Settlement Administrator, identified in Paragraph 7 above, or Class Counsel, identified in Paragraph 9 above. PLEASE DO NOT TELEPHONE THE COURT OR THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK FOR
INFORMATION REGARDING THIS SETTLEMENT.
6

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 96-1 Filed 06/24/19 Page 43 of 67
Exhibit 2

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 96-1 Filed 06/24/19 Page 44 of 67

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Millien v. The Madison Square Garden Company, et al., No. 17 Civ. 4000

NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND HEARING

If MSG’s records show that you applied for employment with the Madison Square Garden (MSG) in New York City and were denied employment based on MSG’s determination that you failed to fully and/or accurately disclose your criminal conviction history from
May 8, 2014, through [DATE OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT], you are eligible for $200.00 and could receive an enhanced payment of $1,700.00 from this Settlement.

A federal court authorized Notice. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer.



You are receiving this notice because MSG’s records indicate that you are a member of the

NYC Settlement Class as described below.



This notice relates to a settlement in a class action lawsuit alleging that MSG violated the

Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), the New York State Fair Credit Reporting Act (“NY

FCRA”), and the New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”).



Under this Settlement, you are eligible for a $200.00 payment and, if you qualify, an

additional award of $1,700.



Visit the Settlement Website at www.[insertURL].com for additional details about the

Settlement (your Notice ID and PIN for filing a claim through the Settlement Website are

both printed on your Claim Form). You may also get additional information by contacting

the Settlement Administrator at the address, e-mail address, or phone number identified in

Paragraph 6 below.



MSG denies that it violated the law in any way whatsoever. The two sides disagree as to

whether MSG’s conduct was permitted under the law. The parties, however, have agreed

to resolve the lawsuit through a Court-supervised settlement.

YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS IN THIS SETTLEMENT:

SUBMIT A CLAIM FORM

You must submit a Claim Form by XX, 2019 to be considered for a onetime cash payment of $1,700.00 in addition to the $200.00 payment you are entitled to, if you do not exclude yourself, regardless of whether you submit a Claim Form.

DO NOTHING

If you do not submit a Claim Form, you are not eligible for a one-time additional payment of $1,700.00, and instead will only receive a onetime cash payment of $200.00. You also give up your right to sue MSG on these claims.

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 96-1 Filed 06/24/19 Page 45 of 67

EXCLUDE YOURSELF
OBJECT

If you wish to exclude yourself (“opt out”) from the Settlement, you must follow the directions outlined in Paragraph 8 below. If you request exclusion, you will not be eligible to receive any benefits from the Settlement. Your exclusion request must be postmarked no later than XX, 2019.
You may write to the Court about why you believe the Settlement is not fair and reasonable. You must object in writing in order to appear at the Fairness Hearing to speak to the Court about the fairness of the Settlement. You must file a written objection and mail a copy to counsel, postmarked no later than XX, 2019.

These rights and options – and deadlines – are explained in this notice.
The Court in charge of this case still has to decide whether to give final approval to the Settlement. Class Member relief in the form of injunctive relief and/or payments will be made if the Court approves the Settlement and after appeals, if any, are resolved. Please be patient.
BASIC INFORMATION
1. Why did I receive this Notice?
You are receiving this Notice because MSG’s records indicate that you were denied employment based on MSG’s determination that you failed to fully and/or accurately disclose your criminal conviction history at some point from May 8, 2014 through [DATE OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT] (“NYC Settlement Class”). This Notice has been sent because members of the NYC Settlement Class have a right to know about the proposed Settlement of the class action lawsuit in which they are putative class members, and about all of their options, before the Court decides whether to approve the Settlement. If the Court approves the Settlement, and after objections or appeals relating to the Settlement are resolved, the benefits provided for by the Settlement will be available to the NYC Settlement Class Members who do not decide to exclude themselves.
2. What is this lawsuit about?
Plaintiffs allege that MSG violated (1) the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) by failing to provide background check reports and notices to them and the putative class before taking adverse employment actions; (2) the New York FCRA (“NY FCRA”) by failing to provide copies of Article 23-A of the Correction Law to them and the putative class; and (3) the New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”) by (i) failing to conduct an analysis of the factors set forth in Section 753 of the New York State Correction Law for individuals who were denied employment based on criminal offense information contained in his or her background check report; and (ii) denying employment to those applicants who failed to fully and/or accurately disclose their criminal conviction histories.
MSG denies Plaintiffs’ allegations and denies that it violated any of these laws in any way whatsoever. The Court did not decide in favor of Plaintiffs or MSG. Although the Court has authorized Notice to be given of the proposed Settlement, this Notice does not express the opinion of the Court on the merits of the claims or defenses by either side in the lawsuit.
2

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 96-1 Filed 06/24/19 Page 46 of 67
3. Why is there a Settlement?
The Court did not decide in favor of the Plaintiffs or in favor of MSG. Both sides believe they would have prevailed but there was no ruling in favor of either party. Instead, both sides agreed to a settlement. The parties engaged in a lengthy and arm’s length negotiations to reach this Settlement. That way, they avoid the delays and uncertainties associated with a trial, and the people affected will get compensation. The Plaintiffs and Class Counsel think the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate.
WHO IS IN THE SETTLEMENT
4. How do I know if I am part of the Settlement?
You are part of the Settlement if you fit the definition set forth in Paragraph 1. Based on MSG’s records, you applied for a job in New York City, New York between May 8, 2014 and [DATE OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT] and were denied employment with MSG because you failed to fully and/or accurately disclose your criminal history. If you are not sure about whether you are a member of the NYC Settlement Class, you can contact the Settlement Administrator at the address, e-mail address, or phone number identified in Paragraph 6 of this Notice.
THE SETTLEMENT BENEFITS – WHAT YOU GET
5. What does the Settlement provide?
Injunctive Relief This Settlement calls for injunctive relief in the form of revisions to MSG’s background check policies and practices, including as it applies to MSG’s process for how it evaluates the criminal history information that applicants like you self-disclosed. For more details, you can access the Settlement Agreement available at www.[insert URL].com.
Individual Payments In addition to non-monetary benefits, you are eligible to receive a one-time gross payment of $200.00 and are eligible to receive an additional $1,700.00 if you a timely submit Claim Form. IN DETERMINING WHETHER YOU WILL RECEIVE THIS ADDITIONAL $1,700.00, MSG WILL EVALUATE WHETHER YOUR CONVICTION HISTORY AT THE TIME OF YOUR APPLICATION WOULD HAVE RENDERED YOU ELIGIBLE FOR EMPLOYMENT AT MSG OR WOULD HAVE DISQUALIFIED YOU FROM EMPLOYMENT. YOU WILL RECEIVE THE ONE-TIME PAYMENT OF $1,700.00 ONLY IF MSG DETERMINES THAT YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN ELIGIBLE FOR EMPLOYMENT GIVEN YOUR CRIMINAL CONVICTION HISTORY AT THE TIME OF YOUR ORIGINAL APPLICATION FOR EMPLOYMENT. IF MSG DETERMINES, THAT YOU WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ELIGIBLE FOR EMPLOYMENT BASED ON YOUR CRIMINAL HISTORY AT THE TIME OF YOUR ORIGINAL APPLICATION FOR EMPLOYMENT, YOU WILL NOT RECEIVE THE ONE-TIME PAYMENT OF $1,700.00. In conducting this analysis, MSG will consider only the information regarding your criminal history as it existed at the time of your original application for employment, along with any evidence of rehabilitation or other information that existed at the time of your application for
3

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 96-1 Filed 06/24/19 Page 47 of 67
employment and which you submit to MSG in the Claim Form. When conducting this analysis, MSG will not hold it against you if you do not submit any evidence of rehabilitation. MSG will also not hold against you that you did not fully and/or accurately disclose your criminal history in your original application for employment. If MSG determines, in its sole discretion, that you are entitled to the one-time payment of $1,700.00, you will also be required to submit a W-9 to the Settlement Administrator as described in Paragraph 5 in order to receive the $1,700.00 payment.
Additional Payments Subject to the Court’s approval, MSG has also agreed to separately pay Class Counsel’s attorneys’ fees and costs of no more than $750,000.00, the cost of administering the Settlement, and service awards of $7,500.00 to each of the two Plaintiffs, Clint Millien and Felipe Kelly for bringing the suit, their service to the Class, and reaching this Settlement.
6. When and how do I submit the Claim Form?
You must submit the Claim Form to the Settlement Administrator by [XX date]. If you do not submit the Claim Form to the Settlement Administrator by this date, you will not be eligible for the one-time payment of $1,700.00. You may submit the Claim Form by sending it by U.S. mail using the envelope provided herewith (postage pre-paid), through the Settlement Website at www.[insertURL].com, by email at [insert e-mail address], or by fax at [insert fax number].
7. By not excluding myself from this Settlement, what legal claims am I releasing?
If the Court grants final approval of the Settlement and you do not opt out of the Settlement, you give up (also called “release”) your right to sue MSG under the FCRA and/or NY FCRA, as well as all claims that you had, have, or may have relating to your criminal records, including discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.SC. § 2000e et seq., the Correction Law, and the NYCHRL, including any right to recover statutory damages, compensatory damages, punitive damages, penalties, and attorneys’ fees and costs. This means that you cannot sue, continue to sue, or be part of any other lawsuit against MSG or its affiliates relating to your criminal records.
It also means that all of the Court’s orders concerning the NYC Settlement Class will apply to you and legally bind you, including the Release described above and in detail in Section V.A & B of the Settlement Agreement. Unless you opt-out of the lawsuit, you will be covered by the release, even if you do not submit a Claim Form for participation in Class Member relief. Please carefully read the Releases and Settlement Agreement as a whole. This release will apply regardless of whether you submit a claim form or whether MSG determines that you are entitled to receive the onetime payment of $1,700.00.
8. What are my options?
 OPTION 1 – SUBMIT THE CLAIM FORM
If you wish to be eligible to receive a one-time gross payment of $1,700.00, in addition to your $200.00 payment, then you must timely submit the enclosed Claim Form. If you timely submit the enclosed Claim Form, you will only receive the one-time payment of $1,700.00 if MSG determines, in its sole discretion, that you are entitled such payment based on the analysis described in Paragraph 5.
4

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 96-1 Filed 06/24/19 Page 48 of 67



OPTION 2 – DO NOTHING

If you do nothing, you will automatically receive a $200.00 settlement payment if the Court approves the Settlement. If you do nothing, however, you will not be eligible to receive a onetime payment of $1,700.00.



OPTION 3 – EXCLUDE YOURSELF (“OPT-OUT”) FROM THE

SETTLEMENT

If you choose to be excluded from the Settlement, you will not be bound by any judgment or other final disposition of the lawsuit. If you exclude yourself, you are not part of the Settlement and will not receive any benefits from it. You will retain any individual claims against MSG you might have under the FCRA, NY FCRA, and/or NYCHRL. To request an exclusion, you must send, by first class U.S. mail, written notice to the Settlement Administrator by [XX date] stating your name, address, and that you desire to opt-out of the Settlement and otherwise do not want to participate in the Settlement. The Settlement Administrator’s contact information is:

[JND Address]

If the request is not postmarked by [XX date] and/or does not contain the required information, your request for exclusion will be invalid and you will be bound by the terms of the Settlement approved by the Court, including without limitation, the judgment ultimately rendered in the case, and you will be barred from bringing any claims that arise out of or relate in any way to the claims as specified in the Release referenced in Paragraph 7.



OPTION 4 – OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENT

If you wish to remain an NYC Settlement Class Member, but you object to the Settlement (or any of its terms) and wish the Court to consider your objection at the Final Approval Hearing, you may object to the Settlement. You can object to any aspect of the proposed Settlement if you file and serve a written objection. Your written objection must include: (1) case name and number; (2) an explanation of the basis of your objection; (3) your name, address, and telephone number; and (4) a statement as to whether you intend to attend the Final Approval Hearing, either with or without counsel. The written objection must be personally signed by you, and if you are represented by counsel, then by your counsel. You must also send a copy of this written objection to Class Counsel and Counsel for Defendants.

You must file any objection with the Clerk of the Court at the address below on or before [XX date].

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York Ruby J. Krajick 500 Pearl Street
New York, New York 10007

5

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 96-1 Filed 06/24/19 Page 49 of 67

You must also send your objection by first class mail, postmarked on or before [XX date], to Counsel for the NYC Settlement Class and Counsel for MSG. These documents should be mailed to:

Class Counsel at:

And to Counsel for MSG at:

Ossai Miazad Outten & Golden, LLP
685 Third Avenue 25th Floor
New York, New York 10071

Sam Shaulson Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP
101 Park Avenue New York, New York 10178
Paul Evans Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP
1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103

Any member of the NYC Settlement Class who does not file and serve an objection in the time and manner described above will waive that objection. If you exclude yourself from the Settlement, you may not object to it.

9. What is the difference between objecting and excluding?
Objecting is simply telling the Court that you do not like something about the Settlement. You can object only if you stay in the Settlement. Excluding yourself is telling the Court that you do not want to be part of the Settlement. If you exclude yourself, you have no basis to object because the lawsuit no longer affects you.

10. If MSG determines that I am entitled to the one-time $1,700.00 payment, how do I submit the required W-9?
If MSG determines, in its sole discretion, that you are entitled to receive a one-time payment of $1,700.00 based on its analysis described in Paragraph 5, the Settlement Administrator will send you a W-9 Form to complete. You may submit the W-9 by sending it by U.S. mail, through the Settlement Website at www.[insertURL].com, by email at [insert e-mail address], or by fax at [insert fax number]. If you fail to timely submit the W-9 Form at that time, you will not receive the onetime payment of $1,700.00.
THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING YOU

11. Do I have a lawyer in this case?
The Court has appointed Plaintiffs Clint Millien and Felipe Kelly as Class Representatives. The Court has appointed Outten & Golden, LLP and Youth Represent to represent you and all Class Members. Together, the lawyers are called “Class Counsel.” Unless you elect to exclude yourself from the Settlement, you will continue to be represented by Class Counsel in connection with the implementation of the Settlement throughout the duration of the terms of the Settlement at no cost to you. Class counsel may be contacted here:

6

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 96-1 Filed 06/24/19 Page 50 of 67

Ossai Miazad Christopher M. McNerney
Outten & Golden, LLP 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, New York 10071
Telephone: (212) 245-1000 MSGSettlement@outtengolden.com

Michel Pope Eric Eingold Youth Represent 11 Park Place, Suite 1512 New York, New York 10007 Telephone: (646) 759 – 8080

12. How will the lawyers be paid?
Class Counsel will ask the Court to approve payment of up to $750,000.00 for their attorneys’ fees and expenses.
THE COURT’S FAIRNESS HEARING
13. Where and when will the Court decide whether to approve the Settlement?
The Court is currently scheduled to conduct a Final Approval Hearing regarding the proposed Settlement on ________, 2019, at ____________, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, located at 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York 10007. You do not need to attend the hearing, but you may attend if you would like at your own expense. You may ask the Court for permission to speak at Final Approval Hearing.
At this hearing, the Court will consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the Settlement. If there are objections, the Court will consider them. After the hearing, the Court will decide whether to approve the Settlement. We do not know how long the Court’s decision will take.
Please note that the Court can continue the Final Approval Hearing to another date without notice.
14. Are there more details about the Settlement?
The full Settlement Agreement and certain pleadings filed in this case are available on the website created for this settlement by the Settlement Administrator, available at www.[insertURL].com.
15. How do I get more information?
You can contact the Settlement Administrator, identified in Paragraph 6 above, or Class Counsel, identified in Paragraph 11 above.
PLEASE DO NOT TELEPHONE THE COURT OR THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK FOR INFORMATION REGARDING THIS SETTLEMENT OR THE CLAIM PROCESS.

7

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 96-1 Filed 06/24/19 Page 51 of 67
Exhibit 3

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 96-1 Filed 06/24/19 Page 52 of 67

CLAIM FORM
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

CLINT MILLIEN and FELIPE KELLY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
-against-
THE MADISON SQUARE GARDEN COMPANY and MSGN HOLDINGS, L.P.,
Defendants.

X: : Civil Action No. 1:17 Civ. 4000 : : : : : : : : : : : :

X

You are eligible to participate in a court-approved settlement.
Please read this Claim Form carefully.
TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR AN ENHANCED PAYMENT FROM THIS SETTLEMENT, YOU MUST COMPLETE THIS FORM AND SUBMIT IT TO THE SETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATOR VIA E-MAIL, FAX, OR ONLINE AT www.[insertURL].com BY [XX date].
The records of The Madison Square Garden Company and MSGN Holdings, L.P. (“MSG”) show that you applied for employment with MSG in New York City and were denied employment based on MSG’s determination that you failed to fully and/or accurately disclose your criminal conviction history from May 8, 2014 through [DATE OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT].
As described in the NYC Class Notice, you may be eligible to receive a one-time payment of $1,700.00 if you timely submit this Claim Form and MSG determines that, had you fully and accurately disclosed your criminal conviction history, you may have been eligible for employment. If MSG determines that you would not have been eligible for employment because your conviction history at the time of your application would have disqualified you, you will not be entitled to receive a one-time payment of $1,700.00. Regardless of whether you receive the one-time payment of $1,700.00, you will release MSG and its affiliates of all claims described in Paragraph 7 of the NYC Class Notice.

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 96-1 Filed 06/24/19 Page 53 of 67
SECTION 1: UPDATED PERSONAL INFORMATION First Name, MI, Last Name: ______________________________________________________ Mailing Address: _______________________________________________________________ City, State, Zip Code: ____________________________________________________________ E-mail Address: ________________________________________________________________
SECTION 2: EVIDENCE OF REHABILITATION OR OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION Please provide below any evidence of rehabilitation, or any other information you believe relevant, that existed at the time of your original application to MSG or its affiliates, which you would like MSG to consider in the analysis described in the NYC Class Notice and above. Please also submit any supporting documents that you would like MSG to consider in its analysis. However, if you choose not to submit any additional information, MSG will not hold it against you. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
You must submit this Claim Form by [XX date] for it to be valid. You can submit the Claim Form by U.S. mail (pre-paid postage included herein), e-mail, fax, or through the Settlement Website. E-mail the Claim Form to: ____; Fax the Claim Form at: ____; or Submit the Claim Form through the Settlement Website at: _______. If you mail the Claim Form, it must be post-marked by [XX date]. Signature: _________________________________ Date: ___________________________

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 96-1 Filed 06/24/19 Page 54 of 67
Exhibit 4

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 96-1 Filed 06/24/19 Page 55 of 67

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

CLINT MILLIEN and FELIPE KELLY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
-against-
THE MADISON SQUARE GARDEN COMPANY and MSGN HOLDINGS, L.P.,
Defendants.

X: : Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-04000 : : : : : : : : : : : :

X

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, CONDITIONAL
CERTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT CLASSES, APPOINTMENT OF CLASS COUNSEL, AND APPROVAL OF PLAINTIFFS’ PROPOSED NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT
Upon review and consideration of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class
Action Settlement, including the Parties’ Stipulation and Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement
Agreement” or “Agreement”) and all Exhibits thereto, and having been fully advised in the
premises, it is HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED as follows:
1. Settlement. Plaintiffs Clint Millien and Felipe Kelly (“Plaintiffs”), on behalf of
themselves and all Settlement Class Members, and Defendants The Madison Square Garden
Company and MSGN Holdings, L.P. (“Defendants”) (collectively, the “Settling Parties”), have
negotiated a settlement of this action (the “Action”) to avoid the uncertainties and burden of
protracted litigation, and to resolve any and all claims being released by the Settlement Agreement.

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 96-1 Filed 06/24/19 Page 56 of 67
2. Review. The Court has carefully reviewed the Settlement Agreement, as well as the files, records, and proceedings to date in this matter. The terms and conditions in the Settlement Agreement are hereby incorporated as though fully set forth in this Order, and, unless otherwise indicated, capitalized terms in this Order shall have the meanings attributed to them in the Settlement Agreement.
3. Preliminary Approval. The Settlement Agreement entered into by and among the Settling Parties has been negotiated at arm’s-length and is approved on a preliminary basis as fair, reasonable, and adequate.
4. Settlement Class Definitions and Relief. The proposed relief to the Settlement Class Members, as identified in Sections III and IV of the Settlement Agreement, is approved on a preliminary basis as fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Settlement Classes include the FCRA Class and the NYC Class:
The FCRA Class consists of all individuals who were denied employment with The Madison Square Garden Company (“MSG”) or its affiliates based on the content of his or her background check report from April 26, 2015, through the date of Preliminary Approval. Excluded from the FCRA Class are all individuals who file a timely and proper request to be excluded from the Settlement.
The NYC Class consists of all individuals who applied for employment with MSG or its affiliates in New York City, New York and were denied employment based on MSG’s determination that they failed to fully and/or accurately disclose their criminal conviction histories from May 8, 2014, through the date of Preliminary Approval. Excluded from the NYC Class are all individuals who file a timely and proper request to be excluded from the Settlement.
2

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 96-1 Filed 06/24/19 Page 57 of 67
5. Preliminary Certification of Settlement Class. The Court makes the following determinations as to certification of the Settlement Class for settlement purposes only:
(a) The Court preliminarily certifies the Settlement Classes for purposes of settlement only, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), (b)(2) and (b)(3).
(b) The Settlement Classes are so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable;
(c) There are questions of law or fact common to the members of the Settlement Classes;
(d) The claims of Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the other members of the Settlement Classes;
(e) Plaintiffs and are capable of fairly and adequately protecting the interests of the members of the Settlement Classes, in connection with the Settlement Agreement;
(f) Common questions of law and fact predominate over questions affecting only individual members of the Settlement Classes;
(g) The Settlement Classes are ascertainable; (h) Resolution of the claims in this Action by way of settlement is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient resolution of the claims of the Settlement Classes. 6. Designation of Class Representatives. Plaintiffs Clint Millien and Felipe Kelly are designated as representatives of the FCRA and NYC Classes for the sole purpose of seeking a settlement of the Action. 7. Designation of Class Counsel. Outten & Golden LLP (“O&G”) and Youth Represent (“YR”) are designated as Class Counsel.
3

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 96-1 Filed 06/24/19 Page 58 of 67
8. Final Approval Hearing. A hearing regarding final approval of the Settlement (“Final Approval Hearing”) will be held on ____ at ____ in New York City, New York before the Honorable Alison Nathan.
Such hearing may be reset to a later date than that in the Class Notices without requiring additional, subsequent notice to Class Members.
9. Class Notice. (a) The Court approves the Class Notices in the Settlement Agreement,
attached as Exhibits 1 and 2 to the Settlement Agreement, to be distributed in the manner provided for in Section VIII of the Settlement Agreement. The Court finds that this is the best practicable notice under the circumstances and is reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise the Settlement Class Members of the pendency of this Action, the terms of the Settlement Agreement, and their right to object to the Settlement Agreement or exclude themselves from the Settlement Class. In finalizing the Class Notices, the parties may make non-substantive formatting changes, as necessary, without seeking further approval of the Court. The Court further finds that e-mailing and mailing the Class Notices (to the extent MSG has the e-mail addresses and home addresses of Settlement Class Members) as set forth in the Settlement Agreement is reasonable, and constitutes due, adequate, and sufficient notice to all persons entitled to receive notice, and meets the requirements of due process.
(b) The Class Notices should be mailed and e-mailed to Settlement Class Members no more than twenty-one (21) days after the Preliminary Approval Order, and Reminder Notice will be issued thirty (30) days by e-mail and U.S. mail (to the extent MSG has the NYC Class Members’ e-mail and home addresses) after the distribution of the initial Class Notice to the NYC Class.
4

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 96-1 Filed 06/24/19 Page 59 of 67
10. Administrator. The Court authorizes and directs MSG to retain JND Legal Administration Company as the Settlement Administrator to implement the terms of the Settlement Agreement, and authorizes and directs such Administrator to: (i) mail and e-mail Class Notices and Reminder Notices; (ii) establish the Settlement Website; and (iii) carry out such other responsibilities in order to administer the Settlement in accordance with its terms and objectives and as stated in the Settlement Agreement.
11. Exclusion from the Settlement Class. Any Settlement Class Member who wishes to be excluded from the Class must send a written request for exclusion to the Settlement Administrator, by first-class mail, to the address provided in the Class Notice. Any such request for exclusion must be postmarked no later than ____, which is forty-five (45) days after the issuance of Class Notices.
(a) To be valid, the request for exclusion must: (i) identify the name and address of the Settlement Class Member; and (ii) include a statement that the Settlement Class Member desires to opt-out of the Settlement and otherwise does not want to participate in the Settlement.
(b) A Settlement Class Member who desires to opt out must take timely affirmative written action pursuant to this Order and the Settlement Agreement, even if the Settlement Class Member desiring to opt out of the Class (i) files or has filed a separate action against any of the Released Persons (as defined in the Settlement Agreement), or (ii) is, or becomes, a putative class member in any other class action filed against any of the Released Persons.
(c) Except for those Settlement Class Members who timely and properly file a request for exclusion, all other Settlement Class Members will be deemed to be Settlement Class Members for all purposes under the Agreement, and upon the Settlement Effective Date (as defined
5

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 96-1 Filed 06/24/19 Page 60 of 67
in the Settlement Agreement), will be bound by its terms, including, but not limited to, the Releases
in Section V of the Settlement Agreement.
(d) If the proposed Settlement is finally approved, any Settlement Class
Member who has not submitted a timely, written request for exclusion or to opt-out from the
Settlement Class shall be bound by all subsequent proceedings, orders, and judgments in this
Action, even if he or she has pending, or subsequently initiates, litigation against MSG or any of
the Released Parties relating to any of the Released Claims.
12. Objections and Appearances. Any Settlement Class Member who has not filed a
timely written request for exclusion and who complies with the requirements of this Paragraph
may object to any aspect of the proposed settlement either on his or her own or through an attorney
hired at his or her expense. Any Settlement Class Member who wishes to object to the Settlement
Agreement must do so in writing and must file with the Clerk of Court and serve on Class Counsel
and Counsel for Defendants at the addresses listed below, a written statement of objection in
accordance with the requirements set forth below and in the Settlement Agreement. The written
statement of objection must be postmarked no later than _____, which is forty-five (45) days after
the issuance of the Class Notices.
To Class Counsel: Ossai Miazad Christopher M. McNerney Outten & Golden, LLP 685 Third Avenue 25th Floor New York, New York 10071 Attorney for Plaintiffs
To Counsel for MSG: Sam Shaulson Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP 101 Park Avenue New York, New York 10178
6

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 96-1 Filed 06/24/19 Page 61 of 67
Paul Evans Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Attorney for Defendants
(a) The requirements to assert a valid written objection shall be set forth in the Class Notices, and shall include: (i) case name and number; (ii) an explanation of the basis of the Settlement Class Member’s objection; (iii) the Settlement Class Member’s name, address, and telephone number; and (iv) a statement as to whether the Settlement Class Member intends to attend the Final Approval Hearing, either with or without counsel. The written objection must be personally signed by Settlement Class Member, and if Settlement Class Member is represented by counsel, then by the Settlement Class Member’s counsel.
(b) Any Settlement Class Member who fails to object to the Settlement in the manner described in the Agreement, the Class Notices, and this Order shall be deemed to have waived any such objection, shall not be permitted to object to any terms or approval of the Settlement at the Final Approval Hearing, and shall be foreclosed from seeking any review of the Settlement or the terms of the Agreement by appeal or other means.
(c) Any Settlement Class Member who submits a timely written objection may appear, in person or by counsel, at the Final Approval Hearing held by the Court, to show cause why the proposed Settlement Agreement should not be approved as fair, adequate, and reasonable.
13. Releases. If the Settlement is finally approved, all Settlement Class Members who have not filed a timely and proper request for exclusion shall release the Released Persons from all Released Claims, as described in Section V. of the Settlement Agreement.
14. Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses, and Service Awards. Defendants agree not to oppose an application for the award of Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses in this Action not to exceed
7

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 96-1 Filed 06/24/19 Page 62 of 67
seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($750,000.00). Defendants also agree not to oppose the application for a Service Award of $7,500.00 for each Named Plaintiff for their work and assistance in this Action. Class Counsel shall file their motion requesting these awards no later than two weeks before the Final Approval Hearing.
15. Preliminary Injunction. All Settlement Class Members who do not timely exclude themselves from the Settlement Class are hereby preliminarily enjoined from filing, commencing, prosecuting, intervening in, or participating in any lawsuit asserting any of the Released Claims (as that term is defined in the Settlement Agreement).
16. Service of Papers. Class Counsel and Counsel for Defendants shall serve on each other and on all other parties who have filed notices of appearance or written objections, at or before the Final Approval Hearing, any further documents in support of the proposed Settlement, including responses to any papers filed by Settlement Class Members. Class Counsel and Counsel for Defendants shall promptly furnish to each other any and all objections or written requests for exclusion that may come into their possession and shall file such objections or requests for exclusion with the Court on or before the date of the Final Approval Hearing.
17. Termination of Settlement. This Order shall become null and void, and shall be without prejudice to the rights of the Parties, all of whom shall be restored to their respective positions existing immediately before this Court entered this Order, if (i) the proposed Settlement is not finally approved by the Court, or does not become Final (as defined in the Settlement Agreement), pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement; or (ii) the Settlement Agreement is terminated or does not become Final, as required by the terms of the Settlement Agreement, for any other reason. In such event, and except as provided therein, the proposed Settlement and Settlement Agreement shall become null and void and be of no further force and effect; the
8

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 96-1 Filed 06/24/19 Page 63 of 67
preliminary certification of the Settlement Class for settlement purposes shall be automatically vacated; neither the Settlement Agreement nor the Court’s Orders, including this Order, shall be used or referred to for any purpose whatsoever; and the Parties shall retain, without prejudice, any and all objections, arguments, and defenses with respect to class certification, including the right to argue that no class should be certified for any purpose.
18. Use of Order Following Termination of Settlement. This Order shall be of no force and effect if the Settlement does not become Final and shall not be construed or used as an admission, concession, or declaration by or against Defendants of any fault, wrongdoing, breach, or liability, or by or against Plaintiffs or the Settlement Class Members that their claims lack merit or that the relief requested in the Complaint in this Action is inappropriate, improper, or unavailable, or as a waiver by any party of any defenses or arguments it may have.
19. Duration of Settlement Agreement/Jurisdiction. Section IV of the Settlement Agreement will expire two years from the later of entry of the Final Approval Order, or MSG’s completion of the non-monetary relief described in Section IV of the Agreement. For purposes of calculating this time-period, Youth Represents’ one-time training of MSG’s employees as set forth in in Section IV.E of the Agreement will not be considered (“Duration Period”). This Court will retain jurisdiction to preserve the Agreement, including, but not limited to, the enforcement of the Releases contained in the Agreement, for the Duration Period.
20. Necessary Steps. The Court authorizes the Parties to take all necessary and appropriate steps to implement the Settlement Agreement.
DONE and ORDERED this ____ day of___, 2019.
9

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 96-1 Filed 06/24/19 Page 64 of 67
Exhibit 5

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 96-1 Filed 06/24/19 Page 65 of 67
CRIMINAL HISTORY DISCLOSURE WORKFLOW TO BE IN BOLD: Applicants with felony and/or misdemeanor convictions are eligible for employment consideration at MSG. MSG may exclude you from employment if you intentionally fail to disclose your conviction history. [Other MSG information] [NEXT] Within the last 5 years, have you been convicted of a felony or misdemeanor? [Person cannot advance without selecting “Yes” or “No”] REMINDER As a reminder, applicants with felony and misdemeanor convictions are eligible for employment consideration at MSG. However, MSG may exclude you from employment if you intentionally fail to disclose your conviction history. Please review your response before submitting.
If you are unsure about whether to disclose your criminal history, MSG recommends that you do so.
[NEXT]

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 96-1 Filed 06/24/19 Page 66 of 67
CRIMINAL HISTORY DISCLOSURE REVIEW PROCESS
If an applicant does not disclose a requested misdemeanor or felony conviction, MSG will request an explanation for the lack of disclosure by sending the applicant an e-mail. That notice will request an explanation for the applicant’s failure to disclose. The e-mail notice will include the applicant’s consumer report and a copy of the criminal record information that the applicant self-disclosed at the time he or she applied. The applicant will have eight (8) days to respond to the e-mail notice and provide an explanation regarding the lack of disclosure. MSG will send a second, reminder e-mail to all applicants four (4) days later.
Standard: Whether Applicant provides MSG with information to MSG’s satisfaction that Applicant did not intentionally misrepresent Applicant’s criminal conviction history.
In such a review, MSG will consider, among other factors, the extent to which Applicant demonstrates with a credible explanation that the Applicant was confused about the Applicant’s criminal conviction history and that the Applicant made a good faith effort to fully and accurately disclose such history. For example, MSG will consider as an important factor whether the Applicant disclosed his/her most serious criminal conviction(s).
E-mail Notice language:
We write to inform you that, as part of the background check process in connection with your prospective employment with The Madison Square Garden Company and/or one of its affiliates (“MSG”), it appears that there is a discrepancy between the criminal history you disclosed and what was reported on your background check report.
Click here to access a copy of your background check report which includes the information you disclosed as part of your application, for your review and comparison. Upon clicking the link, you will need to sign into the Accurate portal using the e-mail address and password you created when you registered to complete the background check. After doing so, you will be directed to a page labeled “Documents.” Click the box labeled “Consumer Report (View/Download)” to access your report. The information you disclosed as part of your application is found under the heading “Previous Conviction Question.”
You have eight business days to respond to this e-mail and explain any difference between what you disclosed on your criminal history and what was reported on your background check report. In your response, please explain any information that you believe to be wrong in the report or any other facts you think are important for us to know, or are otherwise relevant, even if your report is accurate. Failure to respond may result in your disqualification from employment.
Please respond by clicking reply and responding to the above e-mail address.
You may also receive, or already have received, a separate communication from MSG’s consumer reporting agency, Accurate Background Check, Inc., regarding your background check and prospective employment with MSG. Please respond to that communication separately as instructed therein.
Thank you.

Case 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC Document 96-1 Filed 06/24/19 Page 67 of 67
Follow-Up, Reminder E-mail:
As explained in the previous e-mail sent to you, as part of the background check process it appears there is a discrepancy between the criminal history you disclosed and what was reported on your background check report.
Click here to access a copy of your background check report which includes the information you disclosed as part of your application, for your review and comparison. Upon clicking the link, you will need to sign into the Accurate portal using the email address and password you created when you registered to complete the background check. After doing so, you will be directed to a page labeled “Documents.” Click the box labeled “Consumer Report (View/Download)” to access your report. The information you disclosed as part of your application is found under the heading “Previous Conviction Question.”
Please explain the difference between what you said was on your criminal history and what was reported on your background check report. In your response, please explain any information that you believe to be wrong in the report, or any other facts you think are important for us to know, or are otherwise relevant, even if your report is accurate. You must provide a response to this email within four business days.
If you have already provided the requested response, please ignore this e-mail. If you have not already provided the requested response, please do so as failure to respond in the required timeperiod may result in your disqualification from employment.
Thank you.

 
 Millien v. Madison Square Garden Company, Not Reported in Fed. Supp. (2019) 2019 WL 3759501

2019 WL 3759501 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, S.D. New York.
Clint MILLIEN and Felipe Kelly, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. The MADISON SQUARE GARDEN COMPANY
and MSGN Holdings, L.P., Defendants.
Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-04000 |
Signed 08/08/2019
Attorneys and Law Firms
Cristina Maria Schrum-Herrera, Pro Hac Vice, Outten & Golden LLP, San Franscisco, CA, Patrick David Lopez, Outten & Golden LLP, Washington, DC, Cheryl-Lyn Deon Bentley, Christopher McNerney, Daniel S. Stromberg, Lewis M. Steel, Ossai Miazad, Outten & Golden, LLP, Eric Vinson Eingold, Michael Clayton Pope, Youth Represent, Nina Teresa Martinez, New York Legal Assistance Group, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs.
Keri Lynne Engelman, Paul C. Evans, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Philadelphia, PA, Sam Scott Shaulson, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, New York, NY, for Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, CONDITIONAL CERTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT CLASSES,
APPOINTMENT OF CLASS COUNSEL, AND APPROVAL OF PLAINTIFFS’ PROPOSED
NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT
HON. ALISON J. NATHAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
*1 Upon review and consideration of Plaintiffs’ Motion

for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, including the Parties’ Stipulation and Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement” or “Agreement”) and all Exhibits thereto, and having been fully advised in the premises, it is HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED as follows:
1. Settlement. Plaintiffs Clint Millien and Felipe Kelly (“Plaintiffs”), on behalf of themselves and all Settlement Class Members, and Defendants The Madison Square Garden Company and MSGN Holdings, L.P. (“Defendants”) (collectively, the “Settling Parties”), have negotiated a settlement of this action (the “Action”) to avoid the uncertainties and burden of protracted litigation, and to resolve any and all claims being released by the Settlement Agreement.
2. Review. The Court has carefully reviewed the Settlement Agreement, as well as the files, records, and proceedings to date in this matter. The terms and conditions in the Settlement Agreement are hereby incorporated as though fully set forth in this Order, and, unless otherwise indicated, capitalized terms in this Order shall have the meanings attributed to them in the Settlement Agreement.
3. Preliminary Approval. The Settlement Agreement entered into by and among the Settling Parties has been negotiated at arm’s-length and is approved on a preliminary basis as fair, reasonable, and adequate.
4. Settlement Class Definitions and Relief. The proposed relief to the Settlement Class Members, as identified in Sections III and IV of the Settlement Agreement, is approved on a preliminary basis as fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Settlement Classes include the FCRA Class and the NYC Class:
The FCRA Class consists of all individuals who were denied employment with The Madison Square Garden Company (“MSG”) or its affiliates based on the content of his or her background check report from April 26, 2015, through the date of Preliminary Approval. Excluded from the FCRA Class are all individuals who file a timely and proper request to be excluded from the Settlement.
The NYC Class consists of all individuals who applied for employment with MSG or its affiliates in New York City, New York and were denied employment based on MSG’s determination that they failed to fully and/or accurately

Millien v. Madison Square Garden Company, Not Reported in Fed. Supp. (2019) 2019 WL 3759501

disclose their criminal conviction histories from May 8, 2014, through the date of Preliminary Approval. Excluded from the NYC Class are all individuals who file a timely and proper request to be excluded from the Settlement.
5. Preliminary Certification of Settlement Class. The Court makes the following determinations as to certification of the Settlement Class for settlement purposes only:
(a) The Court preliminarily certifies the Settlement Classes for purposes of settlement only, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), (b)(2) and (b)(3).
(b) The Settlement Classes are so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable;
(c) There are questions of law or fact common to the members of the Settlement Classes;
*2 (d) The claims of Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the other members of the Settlement Classes;
(e) Plaintiffs and are capable of fairly and adequately protecting the interests of the members of the Settlement Classes, in connection with the Settlement Agreement;
(f) Common questions of law and fact predominate over questions affecting only individual members of the Settlement Classes;
(g) The Settlement Classes are ascertainable;
(h) Resolution of the claims in this Action by way of settlement is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient resolution of the claims of the Settlement Classes.
6. Designation of Class Representatives. Plaintiffs Clint Millien and Felipe Kelly are designated as representatives of the FCRA and NYC Classes for the sole purpose of seeking a settlement of the Action.
7. Designation of Class Counsel. Outten & Golden LLP (“O&G”) and Youth Represent (“YR”) are designated as Class Counsel.
8. Final Approval Hearing. A hearing regarding final approval of the Settlement (“Final Approval Hearing”) will be held on 11/6/19 at 2 pm in New York City, New York before the Honorable Alison Nathan.

Such hearing may be reset to a later date than that in the Class Notices without requiring additional, subsequent notice to Class Members.
9. Class Notice.
(a) The Court approves the Class Notices in the Settlement Agreement, attached as Exhibits 1 and 2 to the Settlement Agreement, to be distributed in the manner provided for in Section VIII of the Settlement Agreement. The Court finds that this is the best practicable notice under the circumstances and is reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise the Settlement Class Members of the pendency of this Action, the terms of the Settlement Agreement, and their right to object to the Settlement Agreement or exclude themselves from the Settlement Class. In finalizing the Class Notices, the parties may make non-substantive formatting changes, as necessary, without seeking further approval of the Court. The Court further finds that e-mailing and mailing the Class Notices (to the extent MSG has the e-mail addresses and home addresses of Settlement Class Members) as set forth in the Settlement Agreement is reasonable, and constitutes due, adequate, and sufficient notice to all persons entitled to receive notice, and meets the requirements of due process.
(b) The Class Notices should be mailed and e-mailed to Settlement Class Members no more than twenty-one (21) days after the Preliminary Approval Order, and Reminder Notice will be issued thirty (30) days by e-mail and U.S. mail (to the extent MSG has the NYC Class Members’ e-mail and home addresses) after the distribution of the initial Class Notice to the NYC Class.
10. Administrator. The Court authorizes and directs MSG to retain JND Legal Administration Company as the Settlement Administrator to implement the terms of the Settlement Agreement, and authorizes and directs such Administrator to: (i) mail and e-mail Class Notices and Reminder Notices; (ii) establish the Settlement Website; and (iii) carry out such other responsibilities in order to administer the Settlement in accordance with its terms and objectives and as stated in the Settlement Agreement.
*3 11. Exclusion from the Settlement Class. Any Settlement Class Member who wishes to be excluded from the Class must send a written request for exclusion to the Settlement Administrator, by first-class mail, to the address provided in the Class Notice. Any such request

Millien v. Madison Square Garden Company, Not Reported in Fed. Supp. (2019) 2019 WL 3759501

for exclusion must be postmarked no later than 10/13/19, which is forty-five (45) days after the issuance of Class Notices.
(a) To be valid, the request for exclusion must: (i) identify the name and address of the Settlement Class Member; and (ii) include a statement that the Settlement Class Member desires to opt-out of the Settlement and otherwise does not want to participate in the Settlement.
(b) A Settlement Class Member who desires to opt out must take timely affirmative written action pursuant to this Order and the Settlement Agreement, even if the Settlement Class Member desiring to opt out of the Class (i) files or has filed a separate action against any of the Released Persons (as defined in the Settlement Agreement), or (ii) is, or becomes, a putative class member in any other class action filed against any of the Released Persons.
(c) Except for those Settlement Class Members who timely and properly file a request for exclusion, all other Settlement Class Members will be deemed to be Settlement Class Members for all purposes under the Agreement, and upon the Settlement Effective Date (as defined in the Settlement Agreement), will be bound by its terms, including, but not limited to, the Releases in Section V of the Settlement Agreement.
(d) If the proposed Settlement is finally approved, any Settlement Class Member who has not submitted a timely, written request for exclusion or to opt-out from the Settlement Class shall be bound by all subsequent proceedings, orders, and judgments in this Action, even if he or she has pending, or subsequently initiates, litigation against MSG or any of the Released Parties relating to any of the Released Claims.
12. Objections and Appearances. Any Settlement Class Member who has not filed a timely written request for exclusion and who complies with the requirements of this Paragraph may object to any aspect of the proposed settlement either on his or her own or through an attorney hired at his or her expense. Any Settlement Class Member who wishes to object to the Settlement Agreement must do so in writing and must file with the Clerk of Court and serve on Class Counsel and Counsel for Defendants at the addresses listed below, a written statement of objection in accordance with the requirements set forth below and in the Settlement Agreement. The written statement of objection must be postmarked no later than 10/13/19,

which is forty-five (45) days after the issuance of the Class Notices.
To Class Counsel: Ossai Miazad Christopher M. McNerney Outten & Golden, LLP 685 Third Avenue 25th Floor New York, New York 10071 Attorney for Plaintiffs
To Counsel for MSG: Sam Shaulson Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP 101 Park Avenue New York, New York 10178 Paul Evans Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Attorney for Defendants
(a) The requirements to assert a valid written objection shall be set forth in the Class Notices, and shall include: (i) case name and number; (ii) an explanation of the basis of the Settlement Class Member’s objection; (iii) the Settlement Class Member’s name, address, and telephone number; and (iv) a statement as to whether the Settlement Class Member intends to attend the Final Approval Hearing, either with or without counsel. The written objection must be personally signed by Settlement Class Member, and if Settlement Class Member is represented by counsel, then by the Settlement Class Member’s counsel.
*4 (b) Any Settlement Class Member who fails to object to the Settlement in the manner described in the Agreement, the Class Notices, and this Order shall be deemed to have waived any such objection, shall not be permitted to object to any terms or approval of the Settlement at the Final Approval Hearing, and shall be foreclosed from seeking any review of the Settlement or the terms of the Agreement by appeal or other means.
(c) Any Settlement Class Member who submits a timely written objection may appear, in person or by counsel, at the Final Approval Hearing held by the Court, to show cause why the proposed Settlement Agreement should not be approved as fair, adequate, and reasonable.

Millien v. Madison Square Garden Company, Not Reported in Fed. Supp. (2019) 2019 WL 3759501

13. Releases. If the Settlement is finally approved, all Settlement Class Members who have not filed a timely and proper request for exclusion shall release the Released Persons from all Released Claims, as described in Section V. of the Settlement Agreement.
14. Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses, and Service Awards. Defendants agree not to oppose an application for the award of Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses in this Action not to exceed seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($750,000.00). Defendants also agree not to oppose the application for a Service Award of $7,500.00 for each Named Plaintiff for their work and assistance in this Action. Class Counsel shall file their motion requesting these awards no later than two weeks before the Final Approval Hearing.
15. Preliminary Injunction. All Settlement Class Members who do not timely exclude themselves from the Settlement Class are hereby preliminarily enjoined from filing, commencing, prosecuting, intervening in, or participating in any lawsuit asserting any of the Released Claims (as that term is defined in the Settlement Agreement).
16. Service of Papers. Class Counsel and Counsel for Defendants shall serve on each other and on all other parties who have filed notices of appearance or written objections, at or before the Final Approval Hearing, any further documents in support of the proposed Settlement, including responses to any papers filed by Settlement Class Members. Class Counsel and Counsel for Defendants shall promptly furnish to each other any and all objections or written requests for exclusion that may come into their possession and shall file such objections or requests for exclusion with the Court on or before the date of the Final Approval Hearing.
17. Termination of Settlement. This Order shall become null and void, and shall be without prejudice to the rights of the Parties, all of whom shall be restored to their respective positions existing immediately before this Court entered this Order, if (i) the proposed Settlement is not finally approved by the Court, or does not become Final (as defined in the Settlement Agreement), pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement; or (ii) the Settlement Agreement is terminated or does not become Final, as required by the terms of the Settlement Agreement, for any other reason. In such event, and

except as provided therein, the proposed Settlement and Settlement Agreement shall become null and void and be of no further force and effect; the preliminary certification of the Settlement Class for settlement purposes shall be automatically vacated; neither the Settlement Agreement nor the Court’s Orders, including this Order, shall be used or referred to for any purpose whatsoever; and the Parties shall retain, without prejudice, any and all objections, arguments, and defenses with respect to class certification, including the right to argue that no class should be certified for any purpose.
*5 18. Use of Order Following Termination of Settlement. This Order shall be of no force and effect if the Settlement does not become Final and shall not be construed or used as an admission, concession, or declaration by or against Defendants of any fault, wrongdoing, breach, or liability, or by or against Plaintiffs or the Settlement Class Members that their claims lack merit or that the relief requested in the Complaint in this Action is inappropriate, improper, or unavailable, or as a waiver by any party of any defenses or arguments it may have.
19. Duration of Settlement Agreement/Jurisdiction. Section IV of the Settlement Agreement will expire two years from the later of entry of the Final Approval Order, or MSG’s completion of the non-monetary relief described in Section IV of the Agreement. For purposes of calculating this time-period, Youth Represents’ one-time training of MSG’s employees as set forth in Section IV.E of the Agreement will not be considered (“Duration Period”). This Court will retain jurisdiction to preserve the Agreement, including, but not limited to, the enforcement of the Releases contained in the Agreement, for the Duration Period.
20. Necessary Steps. The Court authorizes the Parties to take all necessary and appropriate steps to implement the Settlement Agreement.
DONE and ORDERED this 8th day of Aug 2019.
SO ORDERED.
All Citations
Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2019 WL 3759501

Millien v. Madison Square Garden Company, Not Reported in Fed. Supp. (2019) 2019 WL 3759501