Facebook has agreed to settle a class action lawsuit that alleged the company’s current and former content moderators suffered psychological damage through their work.
The $52 million settlement, obtained by Dallas law firm Burns Charest Friday evening, will compensate 10,000 content moderators who worked for Facebook’s vendors in Texas, California, Arizona and Florida. Content moderators are responsible for viewing and removing disturbing, graphic and objectionable images and videos from Facebook’s social media platform.
The plaintiffs alleged that their repeated exposure to violent and graphic content — child sexual abuse, beheadings, terrorism, animal cruelty and other disturbing images — have caused them PTSD and other psychological issues.
Although the settlement is a sizable amount, the plaintiffs’ lawyers emphasize that, more importantly, the outcome achieves groundbreaking workplace improvements regarding how Facebook provides support to its content moderators.
As part of the settlement, Facebook has agreed to require its vendors to provide coaching sessions with licensed mental health counselors and other mental health support, as well as enhance its review tools designed to make content moderators’ work safer.
Daniel Charest, one of the plaintiffs’ lead attorneys, told The Texas Lawbook that Facebook’s desire to improve its conditions and face its shortcomings helped lead to settlement talks, which began months ago.
“Their willingness to deal with their issues and get it right … has been a driving factor here,” Charest said. “The plaintiffs will say what they’ll say, but ultimately I think the settlement reflects a decision by Facebook to try and walk forward in the proper direction.”
He called the settlement “a first of its kind.”
“There are terrible jobs out there that have to be done, but you can set them up in ways that are not [as] terrible,” he said.
Facebook and its outside law firm, Covington & Burling, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Filed in September 2018 in California state court, the plaintiffs sought mental health screening, treatment and compensation in addition to an improvement of their working conditions.
Under the $52 million settlement, each class member will receive $1,000, which they can use however they would like, Charest said. In addition, class members who are diagnosed with specified conditions as a result of their work will receive a payment that can go toward medical treatment for that condition. Depending on the amount remaining in the medical treatment portion of the settlement fund, which Charest said is currently budgeted at $25 million, class members may be eligible for additional damages awards of up to $50,000.
Charest said his firm got on the case through New Orleans attorney William Most, who had been connected to the lead plaintiff, Selena Scola. Most is married to Lydia Wright, an associate in Burns Charest’s New Orleans office.
“It was one of those situations where you can do good and yield economic results in the client’s favor … those opportunities don’t come along every day where you can [also] achieve some social good,” Charest said.
If the court approves the preliminary settlement, Charest said a notice will be sent to class members and then he will file a motion for final approval of the agreement.
Other lawyers on the Burns Charest team representing the plaintiffs include Warren Burns, Kyle Oxford and Amanda Klevorn. San Francisco-based Joseph Saveri Law Firm also represents the plaintiffs.
The settlement comes at the heels of another massive, high-profile win for Charest and his firm. In December, the firm obtained a victory in Houston on behalf of Hurricane Harvey flood victims when a federal court ruled that homeowners and businesses upstream of the Addicks and Barker dams should be compensated by the federal government.
Charest said the parties are currently in the discovery phase for the damages portion of the case, including a deposition scheduled on Friday of one of the main players at the Army Corps of Engineers. Charest said the damages trial is currently scheduled to go forward at the end of this year and, because it is a bench trial before U.S. Court of Federal Claims Judge Charles Lettow, the trial will possibly be conducted virtually in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.