Anderson et al v. The City and County of San Francisco et al

FINAL JUDGMENT
CASE NO. 4:20-cv-01149
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DEVON ANDERSON and BEVERLY L.
SWEENEY on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, SAN FRANCISCO
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, and
SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL
TRANSPORTATION AGENCY,
Defendants,
and
SAN FRANCISCO EMPLOYEES’
RETIREMENT SYSTEM,
Nominal Defendant
Case No. 4:20-cv-01149-ASK
FINAL JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO
FED. R. CIV. P. RULE 54(b) ONLY AS
TO COUNTS I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, XII,
XIII and XIV OF THE COMPLAINT
Complaint Filed: February 13, 2020
Trial Date: None Set
Judge: Hon. Ajay Krishnan
Case 4:20-cv-01149-ASK Document 191 Filed 02/20/26 Page 1 of 4

FINAL JUDGMENT
CASE NO. 4:20-cv-01149 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Pursuant to the Court’s order, Dkt. No. 178, granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval
of Class Action Settlement, Dkt. No. 166, Final Judgment on Counts I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, XII,
XIII and XIV is hereby entered as follows:
1. Consistent with the requirements of Rule 23(c), judgment is entered on behalf of
the Class and Subclasses with respect to Counts I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, XII, XIII and XIV (the
“Class Claims”), which was defined and finally certified as follows:
a. Counts I, II, III, VI, and VII of the Complaint are certified pursuant to
Rules23(a) and (b)(3) on behalf of the Class defined as follows: “All current and former
employees of the City and County of San Francisco who took a leave or an absence from
their employment with the City to engage in qualified military service during the
Settlement Class Period (i.e. October 10, 2024 to June 18, 2025).”
b. Count IV of the Complaint is certified pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(2) on
behalf of a “Pension Subclass,” which is defined as follows: “All members of the Class
who (a) took a leave or absence from their employment with the City to engage in qualified
military service during the Settlement Class Period while they were members of the San
Francisco Employees’ Retirement System Pension Plan, and (b) requested reemployment
by the City after the period of military leave.”
c. Count V of the Complaint is certified pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(2) on
behalf of an “Pension Interest Subclass,” which is a subclass of the Pension Subclass, and
is defined as follows: “All members of the Pension Class who purchased service credit for
a period of military service.”
d. Count XII of the Complaint is certified pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3)on
behalf of a “Pension Pickup Subclass,” which is a subclass of the Pension Subclass, and is
defined as follows: “All members of the Pension Subclass who, under the Memorandum of
Understanding between their union and the City that applied during the period of military
leave, were entitled to have the City ‘pick-up’ all or part of the employee contribution to
Case 4:20-cv-01149-ASK Document 191 Filed 02/20/26 Page 2 of 4

FINAL JUDGMENT
CASE NO. 4:20-cv-01149 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the San Francisco Employees’ Retirement System Pension Plan on behalf of the
employee.”
e. Counts XIII and XIV of the Complaint are certified pursuant to Rules
23(a)and (b)(3) on behalf of a “Long-Term Leave Subclass,” which is defined as follows:
“All current and former City employees who took leave or absence for a period greater
than 30 days from their employment at the City to engage in qualified active-duty military
service pursuant to the Annual Salary Ordinance during the Settlement Class Period.”
2. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Class Action Settlement
Agreement with respect to and over all the parties to the Class Action Settlement Agreement,
including members of the Class and to dismiss the Class Claims alleged in the Complaint with
prejudice.
3. Plaintiffs, Class Counsel, and Defendants are hereby directed to implement and
consummate the Class Action Settlement Agreement according to its terms and provisions, subject
to the Final Approval Order, as the Court has determined the Class Action Settlement Agreement
to be fair, reasonable and adequate.
4. As the Court determined that there was no just reason for delay to enter judgment
on the Class Claims, although Plaintiffs’ individual claims in Counts VII, IX, XI, XV, XVI,
XVIII, XIX remain pending and judgment is not entered as to those claims, judgment is hereby
entered under Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 54(b) only as to the Class Claims (i.e. Counts I, II, III, IV, V,
VI, VII, XII, XIII and XIV).
5. Without affecting the finality of judgment in any way, this Court expressly retains
exclusive jurisdiction as to all matters relating to (a) enforcement, interpretation and
implementation of the Class Action Settlement Agreements; (b) distribution of the Settlement
payments to the Class; (c) disputes about the payment of and division of or claims for additional
attorneys’ fees, reimbursement of expenses to Plaintiffs’ counsel and payment of the class
representative service awards; (d) enforcement and administration of the Class Action Settlement
Agreement, including the non-monetary terms (i.e. the prospective relief), including the Claims
Case 4:20-cv-01149-ASK Document 191 Filed 02/20/26 Page 3 of 4

FINAL JUDGMENT
CASE NO. 4:20-cv-01149 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Process and administration of the Class Action Settlement; and (e) enforcement of any order of
this Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 20, 2026
AJAY KRISHNAN
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:20-cv-01149-ASK Document 191 Filed 02/20/26 Page 4 of 4