More Overtime Woes for Wal-Mart

In an unpublished opinion, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals says a trial court erred when it refused to allow assistant managers at Wal-Mart to present their case as a class action suit.

Assistant managers at Wal-Mart stores in California are suing Wal-Mart Stores Inc. for not paying them overtime, contending that they perform the work of employees who would normally get overtime. The lawsuit, Sepulveda v. Wal-Mart, claims that Wal-Mart improperly classified 2,750 current and former employees as managers, which are exempt from California’s wage and hour laws. Assistant Managers in CA regularly work 52 hour weeks, and can work up to 80 hour weeks during busy seasons, but receive no overtime and rarely receive uninterrupted breaks.

Wal-Mart employees win reversal of ruling on group lawsuit

April 29 (Bloomberg)—Wal-Mart Stores Inc. assistant managers in California won the reversal of a ruling barring them from suing as a group on claims they were denied overtime pay and meal breaks.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said a lower court erred when it refused to grant the workers’ request to proceed with a class-action, or group, lawsuit because many included in the proposed group had already left the company. The workers claim in the lawsuit that Wal-Mart improperly classified 2,750 current and former employees as managers, who aren’t eligible for overtime pay.

One criteria for class certification is that the relief sought benefit the entire group. The lawsuit seeks back pay and an order halting the practice of misclassifying workers.

``The district court must focus on the intent of the plaintiffs in bringing suit,’’ the appeals court said in its April 25 decision.

The 9th Circuit sent the case back to federal court in Los Angeles for it to reconsider the class-action request. John Quisenberry, an attorney for the workers, said yesterday in a phone interview that the ruling suggests the case may be certified as a group lawsuit.

Lawrence Di Nardo, an attorney for Wal-Mart, didn’t immediately return a voice-mail message.

The case is Daniel Sepulveda v Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 06-56090, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (San Francisco).

Posted by Corey Himrod on Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Click Here for a Printer-Friendly Version