The federal appeals court based in Denver has declined to let three Vail Resorts employees block the ski conglomerate from finalizing a $13 million settlement over alleged wage violations.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit’s decision on Tuesday replaced a previous order from June. Initially, a three-judge panel believed the plaintiffs’ appeal was moot because a California state judge had already signed off on the Vail Resorts settlement.

Quickly, the plaintiffs informed the panel there was still time to act. They argued their attempt at overturning the California settlement was now in the state’s appellate courts. Consequently, the settlement was not “final” and the 10th Circuit still had the ability to stop Vail Resorts from executing the settlement and to let the plaintiffs’ wage theft claims proceed in Colorado.

Without addressing the circumstances directly, the 10th Circuit panel revoked its previous decision and examined the plaintiffs’ arguments. However, the panel ultimately sided with Vail Resorts.

Case: Quint v. Vail Resorts

Decided: October 17, 2023

Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for Colorado

Ruling: 3-0

Judges: Timothy M. Tymkovich (author)

Bobby R. Baldock

Carolyn B. McHugh

Background: Effort to halt Vail Resorts’ labor settlement will receive a rehearing

Beginning in late 2019, Vail Resorts employees began to pursue claims against the Broomfield-based ski operator, alleging the company was not property compensating them or providing required breaks. Several lawsuits made their way to federal court in California, but in August 2021 the parties reached a $13.1 million settlement with Vail Resorts in California state court.

Meanwhile, Randy Dean Quint, John Linn and Mark Molina had begun pursuing their own wage-related class action claims in Colorado’s federal court. Quint alleged he was owed more than $25,000 in unpaid wages and overtime and Linn claimed nearly $7,000 was owed to him.

“Vail Resort’s Snow Sport Instructors typically work 45 hours per week but are compensated for only 32.5 hours. In busy weeks, Snow Sport Instructors often work seven days and work in excess of 63 hours but are paid for 45.5 hours,” the lawsuit alleged.

The plaintiffs’ lawyer objected to the California settlement – as did other employees, who calculated they would receive mere dollars under the agreement instead of the thousands of dollars they believed they were owed. The Colorado plaintiffs then filed an emergency motion in their lawsuit asking for a federal judge in Colorado to block Vail Resorts from “consummating” the settlement, accusing the lawyers in the California case of colluding to provide a “woefully inadequate” payout to employees.

The judges who reviewed the request were not amused.

“(T)his Court takes umbrage at the insinuation that another federal or state judge would be so unethical as to permit such nefarious conduct,” wrote then-U.S. Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher in recommending the motion be denied.

“Plaintiffs provide no precedent for the proposition that this federal court is empowered to undertake a review of a settlement agreement reached in a different court, before a different judge,” added U.S. District Court Judge Daniel D. Domenico, who reviewed Gallagher’s recommendation and agreed it was correct.

Domenico also accused the plaintiffs’ lawyers of “misstating the law to the court” and threatened to “take additional measures” if there were further unethical conduct.

Reviewing the plaintiffs’ claims after vacating its initial order, the 10th Circuit panel did agree with them on one issue. The plaintiffs had correctly cited the legal standard Domenico needed to use when reviewing Gallagher’s recommendation.

Therefore, when Domenico scolded the plaintiffs for misstating the law, they were actually right and he was wrong. 

Otherwise, the appellate panel found no legal grounds to halt the settlement in California state court, which is a move generally prohibited by the longstanding federal Anti-Injunction Act.

“We reject Colorado Plaintiffs’ assertion that the Anti-Injunction Act does not apply to their Injunction Motion because they sought to enjoin Vail from consummating the settlement in state court rather than to enjoin the state court directly,” wrote Judge Timothy M. Tymkovich in the Oct. 17 opinion.

The case is Quint et al. v. Vail Resorts, Inc.