NEW JERSEY SITE FIGHT: MAYOR AND SLATE HOLD RALLY AGAINST WAL-MART
Mayor and slate hold rally against Wal-Mart [Edison/Metuchen (N.J.) Sentinel]
EDISON - In an attempt to thwart the inevitable, Mayor Jun Choi called in support from local unions and Edison residents on May 31 to rally against the building of a Wal-Mart store on Vineyard Road.
“It’s about telling Wal-Mart that they are not welcome here and setting a precedent for the next project,” said Evan Stavisky, a campaign strategist for Mayor Choi’s slate of council candidates.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Beth Gostanian on Wednesday, June 06 | 0 comments | Permalink
Trenton, NJ. Court Gives Wal-Mart Its 9th. Class Action “Off the Clock” Case
Wal-Mart is suffering from a corporate illness that even its $4 prescriptions can’t cure: Litigation Fatigue. In its recently-released 2007 Annual Report, Wal-Mart devotes two entire pages of 10-point type to the subject of “Litigation.” The giant retailer has become a giant target of legal actions against it. “The company is a defendant in numerous cases containing class action allegations,” the company admits, “in which the plaintiffs are current and former hourly associates who allege that the company forced them to work ‘off the clock’ or failed to provide work breaks, or otherwise that they were not paid for worked performed.” In most of these cases, class action status is still under consideration by the courts. Wal-Mart says that in 14 cases, class action certification has been denied, but in 8 cases it has been approved in full or in part. In all, there are roughly 30 such lawsuits currently pending. These cases are like a financial sword hanging over shareholders. “The Company cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss which may arise from these lawsuits,” Wal-Mart warns. Just before Christmas of 2005, Wal-Mart was fined $172 million in one of these cases in California, and the retailer has now appealed that verdict. In October of 2006, Wal-Mart lost a similar case in Pennsylvania, setting the company back by $78 million. The largest class action lawsuit now pending, Dukes v Wal-Mart, began six years ago, is a gender discrimination suit that covers 1.6 million women workers. Wal-Mart appealed the class certification in the Dukes case, lost, and at the end of February, 2007, filed a motion to reconsider. In a classic understatement, Wal-Mart warns its shareholders that if it loses or settles in the Dukes case, “the resulting liability could be material to the company.” Yesterday, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that another off-the-clock lawsuit could proceed as a class action on behalf of roughly 80,000 current and former Wal-Mart employees. The attorney for the plaintiffs, Judith L. Spanier, said the New Jersey case was similar to the Pennsylvania case noted above. The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled 5-1 against Wal-Mart, which means that this case can proceed as one action, rather than thousands of separate lawsuits. “By allowing this manageable litigation to proceed, we permit a class of hourly, retail employees to unite and — on an equal footing with their adversary — to seek relief for their ‘small claims,’ ” the court ruled. As a class action case, Wal-Mart financial risk is much greater, as opposed to facing individual cases, many of which would never come to trial. The New Jersey case covers all hourly employees who worked for Wal-Mart stores in New Jersey since May 30, 1996. According to the decision written by Chief Justice James R. Zazzali, “The core of the present dispute is whether Wal-Mart engaged in a systematic and widespread practice of disregarding its contractual, statutory and regulatory obligations to hourly employees in this state by refusing to provide earned rest and meal breaks and by encouraging off-the-clock work.” Wal-Mart issued its standard reply in such cases: “We’ve always maintained that it is our policy to pay every associate for every hour they have worked.” But the plaintiffs charge that, in fact, Wal-Mart forced its workers to work hours without pay, and to skip required rest breaks. The court noted that many of the low-wage workers might remain silent because of “legitimate fears concerning employer retaliation, lack of resources, or a sense of powerlessness when confronting their would-be corporate adversary…We cannot ignore the reality that if the proposed class is not certified, thousands of aggrieved employees will not seek redress for defendant’s alleged wrongdoing.”
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Al Norman on Tuesday, June 05 | 0 comments | Permalink
NORTH CAROLINA SITE FIGHT: PROTESTING WAL-MART IN DURHAM
Protesting Wal-Mart in Durham [News 14 Carolina - Raleigh, N.C.]
DURHAM—A Durham group is protesting a planned Wal-Mart store in their area.
The store would be moved in at South Roxboro Road and Martin Luther King Junior Parkway. The group is worried about the store’s possible impact on their area.
Protesting the Wal-Mart.
“Major traffic concern,” said Sarah Lamm in regards to why she’s worried about a Wal-Mart. “Also, just the clientele that will be moving into the neighborhood, as well as safety, the potential impact on public services based on the traffic flow and we just want to keep our neighborhood family friendly and dog friendly and we are very concerned about how that might potentially change with a Wal-Mart moving in.”The group is collecting signatures for a petition, and plan to meet with the City Planning Commission.
Another protest is planned for June 16.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Jason Korta on Monday, June 04 | 0 comments | Permalink
NEW JERSEY WMT WORKERS GRANTED CLASS ACTION STATUS
New Jersey High Court Hands Wal-Mart a Setback [New York Times]
In a setback for Wal-Mart, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled yesterday that a lawsuit claiming off-the-clock violations could proceed as a class action on behalf of nearly 80,000 current and former Wal-Mart employees.
Judith L. Spanier, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, applauded the decision, saying the case resembled a Pennsylvania class action in which a jury ordered Wal-Mart Stores to pay $78 million last October, after finding that managers had forced employees to work off the clock and miss many breaks.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Jason Korta on Friday, June 01 | 0 comments | Permalink
Blacksburg, VA. Special Permit On Big Box Stores Passes Unanimously
Large scale retail projects in the town of Blacksburg, Virginia will face a lot more scrutiny because of a new zoning law passed yesterday. On May 14, 2007, Sprawl-Busters reported that the town of Blacksburg was going to vote on land use ordinance 1450, which would limit the size of retail buildings in town to 80,000 s.f. Larger buildings would require a special use permit issued by the town council. Jubilant residents tell Sprawl-Busters today that they have at least succeeded in getting their zoning law passed. “Last night, after a marathon 5-hour public hearing,” citizens wrote, “the Blacksburg Town Council passed, by a 7-0 vote, an ordinance that will require a special use permit for any retail over 80,000 square feet. A grassroots effort by Blacksburg United for Responsible Growth (BURG) brought in petitions with over 3,500 signatures. This was more than the total number of votes cast in the last, hotly contested, mayoral election. Speakers at the hearing in favor of the ordinance outnumbered those opposed by a ratio of 8 to 1. Almost all of the opposition to the ordinance came from individuals with a direct stake in a development on South Main Street that includes a Wal-Mart Supercenter. The ordinance gives us the breathing room we need to have the thorough study and public discussion of the best way of regulating big box development. We will be looking at ways to strengthen the protections of the new ordinance. In order to circumvent the new law and the will of the town’s residents, the developers of the South Main project have already sued the town. They have asked the circuit court to retroactively award them vested rights to build their supercenter. BURG is considering joining the case on the town’s side. We are elated at the unequivocal statement that the Town Council has made, but are still focused on winning the case and stopping this project that would be disastrous for the town.”
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Al Norman on Thursday, May 31 | 0 comments | Permalink
VIRGINIA SITE FIGHT: ORDINANCE REQUIRES BIG BOXES TO SUBMIT PLANS FOR REVIEW
Blacksburg Town Council passes ordinance [Roanoke (Va.) Times]
BLACKSBURG — It’s unanimous. Developers who want to build retail buildings larger than 80,000 square feet in Blacksburg must submit their plans to Town Council for an extra layer of review.
The 7-0 vote for Ordinance 1450 came after more than four hours of public comment, during which even elementary school students weighed in. Even council members and planning commissioners who outlined what they said were weaknesses, even flaws, in the much-debated ordinance, voted for it early this morning.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Jason Korta on Wednesday, May 30 | 0 comments | Permalink
North Carolina Site Fight: Morganton Wal-Mart Hearing Delayed
Morganton Wal-Mart hearing delayed [The Charlotte Observer]
Morganton residents will have to wait a bit longer to learn the fate of a proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter at N.C. 181 and Independence Boulevard, near Freedom High School: At the retailing giant’s request, the City Council plans to postpone a decision on the store, originally scheduled for June 4.
At a well-attended May 10 planning and zoning commission meeting, all 15 public speakers opposed the 176,311-square-foot store, primarily citing concerns about safety, traffic and quality of life.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Jason Korta on Friday, May 25 | 0 comments | Permalink
Fairfax County, VA. Officials Could Reject Stores That Are Too Big
Sprawl-Busters has noted for years that many citizens “hate the box” but love what’s inside. Bargain shoppers will ignore the environmental impacts of a huge retail store on the neighborhood and quality of life impacts on the community—just to buy more cheap Chinese underwear. But unhappiness with the big box prototype, symbolized by the Wal-Mart supercenter, has led to a significant amount of local zoning regulation across the country, designed to make such projects more compatible with surrounding land uses.
The Washington Post reports this week that officials in Fairfax County, Virginia are looking for ways to reshape the way large-scale stores are built. According to the Post, officials “are looking at making big-box stores build up instead of out, fit better into existing neighborhoods and leave less of a blemish on the environment—and the eye.” “It isn’t to say ‘absolutely no’ to big boxes,” Gerald E. Connolly, chairman of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, told the newspaper. “It’s to say, ‘Shouldn’t this be subject to review?’ Especially as we’re looking at revitalization. There may be parts of the county where a big box would completely stymie our efforts to revitalize a particular area.” On May 21st, the Board of Supervisors will consider a zoning proposal that would require any retailer of 80,000 s.f. or more to apply to the county before building. The Board of Supervisors would have the legal authority to reject a store considered too large for the neighborhood, or the surrounding road network. Supervisors could ask developers for “less sprawling designs, multistory buildings, parking garages and pedestrian and transit access” before gaining a building permit.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Al Norman on Monday, May 21 | 0 comments | Permalink
View Wal-Mart Watch's videos on YouTube