The settlement remains a confidential agreement in principle—not yet a publicly documented, court-approved class settlement. As of July 26, 2026, I found no public disclosure of the total amount, individual payments, payment date or funding source.
The underlying case
The principal lawsuit is:
McCullough v. Insight Foundation of Hillside, No. 4:25-cv-00644, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, assigned to Judge Benita Y. Pearson.
It was filed April 1, 2025 by former employee David McCullough and later included Angela Foor. The defendants are:
Insight Foundation of Hillside
Insight Foundation of Trumbull
Firdaus Foundation, the Michigan nonprofit associated with Insight Health System
AFSCME Ohio Council 8, several AFSCME locals, SEIU District 1199, Vanessa Satterthwaite and Billie Fike also sought involvement. Federal docket
Importantly, this is a combined Trumbull and Hillside employee case, not a Warren hospital-only settlement.
What employees alleged
The complaint alleges that Insight:
Ordered a mass layoff around March 28, 2025 without providing the 60 days’ advance written notice generally required by the federal WARN Act.
Described workers as temporarily “furloughed,” even though at least 100 employees allegedly were effectively terminated.
Failed to pay approximately three weeks of earned wages.
Failed to pay accrued or unused vacation time.
Terminated or failed to provide health and other employment benefits.
Deducted employee contributions for fringe benefits but allegedly retained the money without providing the corresponding benefits.
Treated Trumbull and Hillside as a single employer for WARN Act purposes.
The lawsuit requested:
Up to 60 days of wages;
The value of employment and ERISA benefits for that period;
Unpaid wages;
Accrued vacation compensation;
Return of benefit contributions;
Attorney fees and litigation costs; and
An order preventing the defendants from dissolving entities or dissipating assets while the case was pending.
These remain allegations; Insight had not been found liable when mediation produced the agreement. Initial complaint reporting, summary of claims
What happened in mediation
The case was referred for mediation on February 18, 2026. On April 28, the parties participated in an approximately eight-and-a-half-hour mediation conference before U.S. Judge James S. Gwin.
The mediation produced what the parties called a “preliminary settlement” covering:
The WARN litigation;
Employee wage and benefit claims;
Union grievances;
Other related claims; and
Apparently, both Trumbull and Hillside workers.
The parties stated that they were still “memorializing” the terms and intended to contact affected individuals during the following months. Judge Pearson retained jurisdiction to enforce the agreement. Business Journal report, parties’ joint statement reported by Becker’s
Why “preliminary” needs clarification
This was preliminary in the ordinary sense of a negotiated agreement awaiting final written documents. I found no publicly available order showing that Judge Pearson had granted formal preliminary class-settlement approval.
Those are different events:
Settlement reached in mediation: the parties agree on basic terms.
Written settlement executed: the parties sign the complete agreement.
Preliminary court approval: the judge reviews the agreement and approves notice to a proposed class, if class treatment is pursued.
Final approval: after notice and an opportunity to object or opt out, the judge decides whether the settlement is fair and enters final judgment.
The public record presently confirms the first stage, but does not publicly disclose completion of the later stages.
The related union case
There is also a companion labor case:
Ohio Council 8, AFSCME, et al. v. Insight Foundation of Hillside, et al., No. 4:26-cv-00609.
AFSCME Ohio Council 8, Local 2804 and United Nurses of America Local 2026 filed that action on March 16, 2026 to compel Insight to arbitrate grievances arising from the hospital shutdowns and collective-bargaining agreements.
After the April mediation, the unions asked that this case be stayed while the “global settlement” was finalized. On May 11, Judge Solomon Oliver granted an unopposed 90-day stay for settlement approval and finalization. That stay extends into early August 2026. Companion-case docket
This is the strongest public indication that the negotiated resolution is supposed to cover more than the WARN complaint—it also appears intended to resolve union grievances and arbitration claims.
What remains undisclosed
None of the publicly available sources identifies:
Total settlement fund;
Trumbull’s share versus Hillside’s share;
Number of eligible employees;
Whether union and nonunion employees are treated differently;
Formula for calculating individual payments;
Amount allocated to unpaid wages, vacation, WARN damages or benefits;
Attorney fees or payments to named plaintiffs;
Whether Firdaus Foundation guarantees payment;
Whether settlement money has been placed in escrow;
Whether an insurer, Insight, Firdaus or another party funds the agreement;
Payment deadline;
Tax treatment of payments;
Whether employees must submit claims;
Release language or claims employees must give up; or
What happens if Insight lacks sufficient funds.
Because employee wages differ, the demand for “60 days’ pay” cannot be converted into a total without payroll records and a final eligible-employee list.
Has there been recent public discussion?
The only substantive public discussion I found occurred May 6–8, 2026:
Local reporting announced the agreement but said settlement paperwork was still pending.
Becker’s published the parties’ joint statement promising outreach to affected individuals “in the coming months.”
The companion union case was stayed May 11 so the global settlement could be finalized.
I found no later public news report through July 26 stating that employees had received notices or payments. I also found no freely accessible docket entry showing a filed settlement agreement, disclosed dollar amount, preliminary-approval order or final-approval hearing.
The most important next documents to watch for are a joint settlement-approval motion, the signed settlement agreement, proposed employee notice, class definition and allocation formula, attorney-fee request, payment schedule, and preliminary or final approval order. Until one of those becomes public, it is safest to describe this as a confidential settlement in principle whose payment terms and completion remain unconfirmed.
No comments:
Post a Comment