0 comments

---

This piece originally appeared at The Huffington Post:

More bad headlines for Wal-Mart, the sexist employer. The company was nailed again by its own employees--this time in Kentucky.

In Wal-Mart’s Annual Report to shareholders there is a two page note simply called “Legal Proceedings.” In it, the company summarizes “a number of legal proceedings” which, “if adversely decided...may result in liability material to the Company’s financial condition or results of operations.” In addition to the well-known collection of wage and hour ‘off the clock’ class action lawsuits, are the gender discrimination lawsuits, including the massive Dukes v. Wal-Mart case which began 9 years ago. Damages sought by the women in the Dukes case could be so large that Wal-Mart admits, “the Company cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may arise from the litigation.”

Less well known is another lawsuit that was originally filed in the summer of 2001, just two months after the Dukes case. This case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. The lawsuit, EEOC (Janice Smith) v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. was brought by the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on behalf of Janice Smith and all other women who made application or transfer requests since 1995 at the Wal-Mart distribution center in London, Kentucky, and were not hired or transferred into the warehouse positions for which they applied.

The EEOC sought backpay for these women not selected for hire or transfer, and injunctive relief. According to Wal-Mart, the Kentucky complaint charges that the retailer based its hiring decisions on gender---which is a violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights act. Wal-Mart told his investors that it could not “reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may arise from this litigation.”

But this week the EEOC helped quantify that loss. The federal agency announced that Wal-Mart had agreed to pay $11.7 million in back wages and compensatory damages, plus its share of employer taxes, and up as much as $250,000 in administration fees.

According to the EEOC, Walmart’s London Distribution Center denied jobs to female applicants from 1998 through February 2005. Wal-Mart hired male entry-level applicants for warehouse positions---but excluded female applicants who were equally or better qualified. Wal-Mart routinely would tell female applicants that order filling positions were not “suitable” for women, and that they hired mostly 18- to 25-year-old men for these positions.

Read the rest of this story ...

0 comments

---

In a unionizing effort that stretches back to 2004, it would appear that Wal-Mart has once again attained the upper hand.

After four years of legal wrangling, Wal-Mart workers in Weyburn, Saskatchewan were finally granted union status last December. It had been four years since the United Food and Commercial Workers union originally filed an application to represent the Weyburn Wal-Mart workers based on the fact that more than half the store’s workers had signed union cards, but victory seemed within grasp. And that victory seem even closer in April, when an application Wal-Mart filed for reconsideration of union certification was dismissed by the Labour Relations Board of Saskatchewan.

Wal-Mart appealed, however, and now a Saskatchewan judge has pulled a Lucy, yanking the football away from Weyburn’s band of Charlie Browns.

A Saskatchewan judge has overturned the union certification of a Weyburn Wal-Mart store, saying workers should be allowed to vote on the matter...The law in 2004 was that if more than 50 per cent of employees signed cards, a secret ballot vote wasn’t required. However, after the Saskatchewan Party won the 2007 provincial election, defeating the NDP, the law changed — an employee vote is now mandatory before certification can be considered.

Where the Labour Relations Board had held that the applicable law was that in place at the time union status was filed for, this judge took the opposite route. He ruled that the amended law should have been the basis of the Labour Board’s decision when it ruled last year.

Read the rest of this story ...

0 comments

---

Image above from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

When Wal-Mart’s use of an intricate web of subsidiaries to avoid state taxes was discovered, the N.C. Secretary of Revenue famously sent tax lawyers and auditors after the world’s biggest retailer. With state economies strapped for cash, North Carolina is now looking to halt such shenanigans before they can start.

A proposed “combined-reporting” law would require companies with multiple subsidiaries operating in several states to file tax returns as a single business. Opponents of this legislation have given lawmakers the shivers...But in the face of the state’s biggest budget crisis since the Great Depression, combined reporting took a first step Tuesday toward becoming law. After a contentious House Finance Committee meeting, the Democrat-led committee voted along party lines to approve a larger tax package that includes combined reporting.

Combined reporting basically treats a parent company and its subsidiaries as one entity for tax purposes. A driving force behind the move was the public realization of just how much money North Carolina has been losing through loopholes in its tax laws.

Read the rest of this story ...

0 comments

---

According to Bloomberg, Wal-Mart has won preliminary court approval to pay as much as $85 million to settle 30 wage/hour lawsuits. The lawsuits claimed the company didn’t pay employees for all hours worked, forcing them to miss breaks and forgo overtime pay.

Late last year, Wal-Mart announced that it would settle 63 wage and hour class action lawsuits that have been pending against the company for several years. There were just under 80 such suits pending against Wal-Mart at the time, so it represented a pretty large legal housecleaning. This $85 million settlement covers just under half those cases as part of the larger agreement made back in December, which could cost the company up to $640 million before all is said and done.

Following the initial settlement, we noted that what these cases revealed through evidence and employee testimony was a “corporate culture” and systematic approach geared towards cutting labor costs, by dictating managers hire below the “preferred” staffing levels and rewarding managers for keeping labor costs down. Steven Greenhouse on TPM has pointed out that while store management is ultimately responsible for setting schedules, pressure often comes from the top:

Robert Eckert, a former assistant store manager at several Wal-Marts in California, said: “They tell you that working off the clock is against the law, is not allowed by Wal-Mart, and then they tell you to get the job done. But they didn’t give you the budget to get the job done. It is clearly understood that if you don’t make payroll, it’s a serious issue and you can lose your job over it.”

For more information on wage theft in general, you should check out Kim Bobo’s “Wage Theft in America: Why Millions of Working Americans Are Not Getting Paid - And What We Can Do About It.”

As for the $85 settlement, a Federal Judge in granting temporary approval called the wage theft agreement “fair, reasonable, and adequate.” Merely adequate for the workers, perhaps, but no doubt a “steal” for Wal-Mart.

Read the rest of this story ...

0 comments

---

In today’s Wall Street Journal, Home Depot co-founder Bernie Marcus acknowledges he sees in the retiring Justice David Souter a jurist with a “moderate or restrained record” – one which plaintiffs’ lawyers and unions would hope to avoid in a replacement. Earlier today President Obama announced his nominee to replace Justice Souter on the U.S. Supreme Court – Sonia Sotomayor, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit – and the question now: Is this a good thing for businesses like Wal-Mart?

The primary reason for asking this question at this time is because there exists the very real possibility that at some point in the relatively near future, Wal-Mart’s lawyers will be defending their client before the very Court that Judge Sotomayor is being nominated to.

Just two months ago, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals re-heard en banc arguments in the well-traveled Dukes v. Wal-Mart sex discrimination case – plaintiffs are hoping the full court will affirm a previous Ninth Circuit decision that upheld the lawsuit’s ability to proceed as a class action. If that happens, Wal-Mart will have two options – accept the decision and proceed to trial, or appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Should Wal-Mart come out on the short end of the Ninth Circuit and find itself in front of the Supreme Court, Sotomayor could be the newest of the nine justices the company will have to convince in order to have Dukes’ class action status removed. Judge Sotomayor’s voting record is now being parsed, and certainly as the vetting process moves forward, we’ll learn more about what kind of effect she could have on a potential Dukes decision. Most view her record as decidedly moderate, though she has implied in the past that the gender and ethnicity of judges should and does influence their judicial decision-making.

As a woman and a minority, could this be a bad omen for Wal-Mart? We’ll see...until then, however, we’ll have to make do with some of her career highlights, which you can find after the jump…

Read the rest of this story ...

0 comments

---

FINAL RULING: NORTH CAROLINA COURT SAYS NO $33 MILLION TAX REFUND FOR WAL-MART

• NC appeals court upholds tax bill for Wal-Mart [Associated Press]
  The state Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday against Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and its efforts to get a $33 million tax refund, upholding a trial judge's ruling that found a complex corporate structure was used primarily to avoid corporate income taxes.
  

• Wal-Mart loses appeal to get $30M in North Carolina tax refunds [Triangle Business Journal (N.C.)]
  The North Carolina Court of Appeals has denied Wal-Mart’s attempt to win $30 million in tax refunds from the state of North Carolina.
  

Read the rest of this story ...

0 comments

---

REPUBLICAN APPOINTEES BLOCKED FEC CHARGES AGAINST WAL-MART

• Republicans Block Election Complaint against Wal-Mart [AllGov]
  Republican appointees to the Federal Election Commission found nothing illegal in the actions by Wal-Mart during last year’s election when the giant retailer was accused of pushing its employees to vote against Barack Obama and other Democrats.

• FEC Dismisses Wal-Mart Complaints [CQpolitics]
  The Federal Election Commission deadlocked on whether Wal-Mart violated campaign finance laws during the 2008 campaign. Because of the tie vote, complaints against the retailer were dismissed, documents released Thursday show.
  

Read the rest of this story ...

0 comments

---

Wal-Mart has made no secret how badly it wants to sell products to Latin America and Hispanics living in the U.S.

It has opened several Hispanic-themed stores in the U.S. and bragged that it has cornered the Hispanic market more than other racial demographics. It is aggressively expanding in Central and South America. Wal-Mart even sponsored a “Latino Summit” last week.

Unfortunately, the company can’t seem to get its house in order at home. As you read here last week, the EEOC is currently suing Wal-Mart management in California for allowing its Latino employees to be addressed with racial slurs like ‘wetback.’ And this is hardly the first case of racial discrimination that Wal-Mart has seen. A quick sampling of the some of the others from our research files:

Hernandez v. Sam’s East, filed 12/7/2007 (case ended in settlement)
Plaintiff is Hispanic and was constantly belittled and harassed because of it. She was the only Hispanic at the store - worked as Manager of the Optical Department. She complained about the harassment and was fired.

Hernandez v. Wal-Mart Asspciates, filed 10/10/2008 (case was still open as of recently)
Plaintiff is a Hispanic woman who worked in the automotive department - she was told that females should be greeters, and was fired when she complained of harassment.

Marek v. Wal-Mart, filed 2/1/2008 (case was still open as of recently)
Plaintiff’s manager harassed her for being Hispanic. She complained about her treatment, and was fired for moving payroll hours - something her manager told her to do.

Sagastume v. Wal-Mart Stores East, filed 6/4/2008 (case was still open)
Plaintiff’s salary was cut, and she was denied requests for transfer or promotion while non-Hispanic managers received both. She was also ordered not to hire Hispanic employees.

It’s more of the same from Wal-Mart: a glossy new image, but the same old business. Will the Hispanic community buy it?

The following post by Al Norman was originally posted on the Battlemart Blog and at Huffington Post:

Al Norman: Wal-Mart’s ‘Wetback’ Problem [Huffington Post]:

The Wal-Mart corporation has been carefully nurturing its image as a strong supporter of the Latino community in America, opening stores designed for Latino shoppers, and hosting economic summits for Latino businesses. So it was especially embarrassing for the corporation to find itself in the national headlines late last week as the target of a lawsuit filed on behalf of its own Latino workers.

On May 7, 2009, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), representing Hispanic employees at a Sam’s Club in Fresno, California, filed a lawsuit against Wal-Mart, charging that the workers had been subjected to a hostile work environment. The suit was filed in U.S. District Court, alleging that Sam’s Club managers allowed their Latino workers to be verbally harassed repeatedly, including the use of derogatory words against workers of Mexican origin, like ‘wetback.’

Read the rest of this story ...

48 comments

---

The Regina Leader-Post is reporting that an application for reconsideration of union certification at Wal-Mart’s Weyburn store has been dismissed by the Labour Relations Board of Saskatchewan.

This ongoing battle hit the headlines back in December of last year, when after four years of legal wrangling, Wal-Mart workers in Weyburn, Saskatchewan were granted union status. The Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board granted union certification last year to the Weyburn store, where a majority of the workers had indicated their support to form a union through card signings. In 2004. Over four years prior.

Meanwhile, last year also saw provincial legislation approved which required a secret ballot be held to certify a union, meaning the previous practice in which a union could be certified through the card-signing practice without a secret ballot was no longer valid. Sensing an opening, Wal-Mart filed to have the Weyburn certification reconsidered since, after all, back in 2004 the employees didn’t conduct a secret ballot. But the argument has gone for naught, as the Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board held that the requirement passed in 2008 will not apply to the union certification which begun back in 2004.

“In the Board’s opinion, when the Union filed an application for certification together with sufficient evidence of majority support in accordance with state of the law at that time, they completed all procedures within their control to complete under the procedures in place,’’ the labour board said.

“At that point in time, their reliance on the state of the law crystallized into a right, a tangible and particular legal right protected under the common law presumption against retrospectively,’’ the labour board ruled.

Boo-yah, Wal-Mart. Boo-yah. Not surprisingly, Wal-Mart plans to appeal. We’d say we’re surprised, but, well, you know.

Labour relations board rules against Wal-Mart [Regina Leader-Post]

Read the rest of this story ...

4 comments

---

This was actually a little nugget turned up by The Writing on the Wal - the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund has filed a friend of the court brief supporting the plaintiffs in a historic, nationwide sex-discrimination lawsuit filed against Wal-Mart Stores.

They filed their brief before the Ninth Circuit heard arguments in Wal-Mart’s en banc appeal last week. A snippet from the Wichita NAACP blog:

LDF argued in its friend-of-the-court brief that accepting Wal-Mart’s position is not only bad policy, but also would be a radical rewriting of civil rights law. “When Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1991, the clear intent was to expand protections against workplace discrimination by extending the remedies available to victims of intentional discrimination to include money damages. Wal-Mart is attempting to undermine those protections,” said John Payton, LDF President and Director-Counsel.

LDF was joined on the brief by a broad coalition of civil rights non-profits, including the Asian American Justice Center, Latino Justice, PRLDEF, Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Legal Momentum, NAACP, National Partnership for Women & Families, National Women’s Law Center, and Women Employed.

We’ll most likely be waiting for quite a bit of time while the Ninth Circuit decides whether to reverse its previous decision that allowed Dukes v. Wal-Mart to proceed as a class action. Still, it’s impressive to see such a broad group of civil rights groups stand up on the side of Betty Dukes.

2 comments

---

Al Norman looks at Wal-Mart’s decision to lay off 650 workers in Columbus, Ohio, despite receiving $1.8 million “job creation” handout from from the city several years ago. The following article appeared originally on the Huffington Post.

“They shut us down with no warning,” says Wal-Mart worker

Ohio development officials were blind-sided this week when a job subsidy deal involving a Wal-Mart-owned optical lab went dark.

Regulators in the Buckeye state revealed that they had their eye on one of Wal-Mart’s 4 optical labs in the country, and were looking to see if the retailer had violated the terms of its subsidy agreement with the state.

Wal-Mart has a high visibility optical empire, which includes not just 2,500 Vision Centers inside its stores, but a myriad of lens and eyewear products---even a network of its own house optometrists, which it calls “doctor partners.”

Wal-Mart lures new eye doctors into a partnership deal in which the retailer covers a large part of a fledgling optometrist’s business expenses. “When you partner with us,” the retailer explains, “we cover a large part of your start-up costs. That means upon opening, the space, instrumentation, support and staffing resources are all in place at no cost to you. In fact, your overhead might be as minor as prescription pads and office pharmaceuticals.” The “doctor partner” either leases or co-leases their office space from Wal-Mart. The company promises new doctors, “we will never pressure you to sell frames. You’ll operate your practice on your terms and be able give your patients the care they deserve.”

Read the rest of this story ...

0 comments

---

At 5 p.m. this afternoon, Eastern Standard Time, Wal-Mart will try for a third time to halt the Dukes v. Wal-Mart sex discrimination lawsuit, as a panel of 11 judges from the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will hear Wal-Mart’s latest attempt to stop this case from moving forward as a class action.

On initial review, the Ninth Circuit voted 2-1 to allow the case to proceed to trial as a class action. Wal-Mart appealed, however, and just about a month ago the federal court agreed to rehear the case en banc - that is, a hearing where all judges of a court will hear the case, rather than just a panel of three. In this Marketplace story, attorney on each side give their opinions as to why the case should (or should not) proceed:

Ted Boutros (Wal-Mart): We have a tradition in this country that individuals get their day in court. Class actions are an exception to that that need to be used carefully so as not to defeat people’s rights.

Debra Smith (Equal Rights Advocates): It’s exactly the type of case that the federal judiciary envisioned being a class action. It’s David versus Goliath, you know, it’s classic.

As of right now you can check out the en banc status page of the Ninth Circuit for updates. A California Legal blog, the UCL Practitioner, is providing updates as well, and has provided this nice tip:

This morning’s Daily Journal reports on the upcoming argument and provides the names of the eleven judges on the en banc panel...According to the article, seven were appointed by Democratic presidents.

So there you go, seven out of eleven judges on the panel appointed by Democrats...take that for what you may. And we’ve already learned which side the EEOC and the Obama Administration are pulling for. We’ll keep you updated as we find out more on the hearing.

20 comments

---

THE Wal-Mart lawsuit - Dukes v. Wal-Mart, the largest discrimination class action in U.S. history - now has a new advocate. And let’s just say, it’s kind of a big one.

The federal government (through the EEOC, or Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) had to this point elected not to get involved in the Dukes lawsuit. Yesterday, however, despite retaining many holdovers from the Bush Administration, the Commission finally threw it’s opinion into the ring. The EEOC filed an Amicus Brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, saying it was filing the brief because “this court’s resolution of issues relating to punitive damages and back pay in class cases may directly affect the commission’s enforcement of Title VII” of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, “particularly its systemic litigation.” The staff in charge of deciding whether to intervene in the Dukes case is currently made up of two Democrats and two Republicans.

“If Wal-Mart’s arguments were accepted, it could effectively preclude a claim for punitive damages in most if not all Title VII pattern-or-practice cases including those brought by the Commission,” the EEOC wrote.

The EEOC isn’t actually taking a stand on the merits of the case itself - the Commission is only supporting the class action moving forward, deeming the issue important enough to its functions to intervene and assert its voice.

“If Wal-Mart’s arguments were accepted, it could effectively preclude a claim for punitive damages in most if not all Title VII pattern-or-practice cases including those brought by the Commission,” EEOC Attorney Barbara Sloan wrote. “It would be ‘nonsensical’ to prevent victims of particularly egregious discrimination from proceeding collectively.”

Needless to say, attorneys for plaintiffs welcomed the news, while Wal-Mart’s legal team and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce were less than pleased. The EEOC news comes about a month after the Ninth Circuit announced it would re-hear the class action certification decision en banc - when one party requests an hearing en banc, it means they are requesting a hearing where all judges of a court will hear the case, rather than a panel of them. That hearing is currently scheduled for March 24.

Obama Administration Sides With Wal-Mart Workers [Bloomberg]

Read the rest of this story ...

16 comments

---

A federal judge in Nevada has halted a class action against Wal-Mart and dog food manufacturer Menu Foods before it even had a chance to begin. His ruling held that the need for individual factual inquiries made a class action untenable. This isn’t completely surprising - the lawsuit was filed based on deceptive trade practices and claimed Wal-Mart’s Ol’ Roy pet food products were misleading in their labeling in that they claimed to be made in the USA, when in fact many ingredients came from China. The Judge argued that this meant everyone in the class would have had to purchase the food based on the misleading labeling, something that would have to be determined on a case-by-case basis. You can read the entire court order here.

While the decision wasn’t surprising, the timing might have been:

The judge’s decision was unusual in that he denied class certification before any substantial discovery had been performed. Indeed, the court noted that so-called preemptive motions are generally disfavored, since “the shape and form of a class action evolves only through the process of discovery.” However, the court determined that the class was untenable as a matter of law, and “it would be a waste of the parties’ resources and judicial resources to conduct discovery on class certification.”

So, not only will the class action not move forward, but no discovery will be done unless individual cases are filed - which means many of the facts as to how we ended up with such a far-reaching pet food scare will remain a mystery until then.

The Ol’ Roy suit was originally filed in 2007 and eventually consolidated with a class action in New Jersey which alleged that tainted food distributed by Menu Foods and others led to the death of hundreds of pets. That action consisted of over 100 suits that grew out of the largest pet food recall in U.S. history, and settled in April of last year for $24 million. The Ol’ Roy suit, however, was severed from the Menu Foods action prior to the settlement.

Wal-Mart Cuts Class Off at the Pass in Pet Food Case [Law.com]

Read the rest of this story ...

12 comments

---

On August 7, 2007, Charleston County Circuit Court Judge Perry M. Buckner III ruled Wal-Mart would have to face a class of more than 100,000 South Carolina employees claiming wage and hour violations - the workers filed suit in 2001 claiming Wal-Mart forced them to work through breaks and off the clock. Complaints of understaffing were front and center, as workers were forced to skip breaks, work before shifts or stay after clocking out to pick up the slack.

The case is Carter v. Wal-Mart and is part of a long list of wage and hour lawsuits, the resolution of which have seemingly been priority #1 with Wal-Mart’s legal team. Carter is one of 63 long active cases that were pending against Wal-Mart until two months ago, when the company announced it had agreed with attorneys for plaintiffs on a settlement agreement. South Carolina workers will get $49 million as part of the Carter settlement, which was approved by Judge Buckner on Tuesday and formally announced this morning.

The settlement will conclude more than six years of litigation concerning Wal-Mart’s employment practices in South Carolina. Wal-Mart in the settlement agreed to maintain electronic systems, surveys and notices to protect workers’ rights. “We are pleased with the preliminary approval of the settlement by the Court. We hope that Wal-Mart’s industry leading compliance model will set an example for the retail industry,” said plaintiff’s attorney Brad Hutto of Williams & Williams in Orangeburg, S.C.

The settlement reached back in December could, as a whole, cost the company up to $640 million before all is said and done.

Wal-Mart Paying $49 Million To Settle South Carolina Wage & Hour Lawsuit [Northwest Arkansas Morning News]

Read the rest of this story ...

1 comments

---

In the Dukes v. Wal-Mart saga, chalk up the latest round as a win for Wal-Mart. In this case, Wal-Mart - which had already seen a 3-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirm class action status - had requested what is referred to as an en banc appeal. Cases that go before the U.S. Court of Appeals are heard by 3-judge panels, so when one party requests an hearing en banc, it means they are requesting a hearing where all judges of a court will hear the case, rather than a panel of them. The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco obliged, and ruled late last Friday that a larger panel of judges will reconsider whether the case should be certified as a class action.

Counsel for plaintiffs did not seem to be necessarily surprised by the decision - Joseph Sellers, co-lead counsel, said the decision on review by a larger panel was “not a shock” and was surprised that it took them that long to grant a rehearing.

Brad Seligman, a Berkeley, Calif., lawyer and Sellers’ cocounsel, said the appellate court order is just one more step along the way. “We’re happy to move forward and we’re very confident we’re going to prevail in this case,” he said.

If the full panel reverses the class action decision, that would undoubtedly mean less financial risk for Wal-Mart. Denial of class action status would force women to pursue their discrimination cases individually - something many would not be likely to do because of legal fees and the length of the legal process- instead of allowing the case to proceed as the largest discrimination class action in U.S. history. You can check out past coverage of Dukes here and here.

9th Circuit orders rehearing on status of Wal-Mart sex-bias lawsuit [Arkansas Democrat-Gazette]

Read the rest of this story ...

0 comments

---

The first piece of legislation that President Obama signs could be a major step forward for pro-labor groups. Senate Bill 181, a wage discrimination bill that will reverse a 2007 Supreme Court decision narrowing the time period during which a worker can file a wage discrimination claim, cleared the Senate yesterday and is not expected to have much difficulty passing in the House. That would be because the House passed a nearly identical bill two weeks ago that, for reasons we won’t worry about for the moment, was not considered by the Senate.

The legislation, titled the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, focuses on Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., [550 U.S. 618 (2007)], a Supreme Court decision holding that regardless of when a worker discovers a pay disparity, any legal action needs to be filed within 180 days of the initial decision to pay the worker less. That means if you didn’t discover that you were being screwed within the first 6 months of your employment, you were pretty much up the creek. For Lilly Ledbetter, an employee at Goodyear Tire and Rubber for over 19 years, she didn’t realize she was getting a lower salary and lower pay raises then her male counterparts until after she left the company - and only then because an anonymous note was left in her mailbox. A statute of limitations is not uncommon in the civil law system, but often they begin to toll once the perceived wrong is discovered. Forcing an employee to sue within 180 days of a decision they might not discover for years - if ever - is fairly, well, wrong.

It has been a priority for women’s groups seeking to narrow the wage gap between men and women. “We feel free at last,” said Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., the chief sponsor of the legislation. She said the strong vote, which included all 16 female senators — including four Republicans — was “a sign of what Democratic leadership means.”

The AP story points out another point regarding the legislation...that is, the effect it might have on other labor legislation, including the Employee Free Choice Act:

The bill paves the way for considering more controversial labor measures, including one that would take away a company’s right to demand a secret ballot when workers are seeking to organize. (Senate Majority Leader Harry) Reid said that could come up this summer.

Senate passes wage discrimination bill [Associated Press]

Read the rest of this story ...

6 comments

---

A pair of stories - infant formula in Texas and continuing tax issues in Connecticut.

First, from Texas. Texas Wal-Marts are asking customers to check the dates on any infant formula sold within the state, after the office of the Attorney General learned that the retail giant had been selling expired product. There doesn’t appear to be a lawsuit on the horizon...the AG’s office simply asked Wal-Mart to remove the expired formula from shelves, inform customers, and make restitution. That most likely means refunds, but state penalties are not out of the question either.

The second story comes from Connecticut, where the neverending double taxation story has gotten life breathed back into it yet again. Here is our most recent post on the subject. And this, from the Hartford Courant:

Sue Drobinski of New Britain says that despite Wal-Mart entering into an agreement to follow state laws on taxes involving even exchanges, its employees in New Britain are not following the law.

I sent her email to state Consumer Protection Commissioner Jerry Farrell Jr. this morning, who has responded that his legal department will contact Wal-Mart to bring up this and other similar complaints.

Read on for more on both stories…

Read the rest of this story ...

0 comments

---

subrogation - n. assuming the legal rights of a person for whom expenses or a debt has been paid.

Subrogation, and the story of former Wal-Mart employee Debbie Shank, broke into the news with a vengeance just a little over one year ago after Wal-Mart Watch brought her story to the attention of the Wall Street Journal. A collision with a semi-trailer truck eight years ago left Debbie Shank permanently brain-damaged and in a wheelchair. Hoping to help cover Debbie’s nursing home costs, her husband Jim sued the trucking company that hit her. The family won a modest settlement, after which Jim received a call from Wal-Mart’s attorneys. Wal-Mart’s health plan, through a little-known clause in its health plan, sued the Shanks for the $470,000 it had spent on her medical care, and a federal judge ruled in Wal-Mart’s favor. And hence, the issue of subrogation and the Shanks became a national story in both print and broadcast media across the country.

The story ends, or at least has settled, on a more positive note. On April 1, 2008, Wal-Mart dropped all pending litigation against the Shank family. Thanks in part to the hundreds of people who wrote in to the company, as well of the contribution of many major news outlets, Debbie’s family will keep the money currently being held in trust for her future care, though how long that will last remains to be seen.

The story has now added another chapter, however. Individuals suffering catastrophic injuries like those that resulted from Debbie’s violent traffic collision will no longer have to worry about the threat of subrogation. Wal-Mart Watch has confirmed that Wal-Mart’s 2009 health care plan exempts the company’s right to subrogate against a covered person completely in cases of: 1) paraplegia or quadriplegia; 2) severe burns; 3) total and permanent physical or mental disability; or 4) death. In all other cases, the plan also limits the right to recover to 50% of a settlement (Including attorney’s fees).

You can read our press release after the jump. At the bottom you’ll find links to Wal-Mart’s 2008 benefits plan, plus the 2009 amendments.

Read the rest of this story ...

39 comments

---

Wal-Mart has, unsurprisingly, been the target of more lawsuits than one can count over the years. The company’s treatment of its workers and “save money at all costs” mentality has resulted in a flood of legal challenges ranging from single plaintiff suits to multi-million dollar class actions.

Dukes v. Wal-Mart is of course one large example (the largest class action in American history, actually), as are the myriad wage/hour/overtime class actions the company faces. Recently, we also reported on Wal-Mart’s poor treatment of its disabled workforce.

Wal-Mart Watch will be focusing on these individual stories, highlighting cases that warrant further attention because of the insight each gives in its own way on how Wal-Mart feels about its employees.

John Lennex v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P.

John Lennex was hired by Wal-Mart on September 7, 2004, as a Bicycle Assembler. You take your kid into Wal-Mart, buy him the latest Huffy bicycle (now conveniently made overseas, since Wal-Mart forced the bike manufacturer to go broke), and John Lennex will put it together for you. Or he would have, had he not been fired.

Lennex has coronary artery disease. He requires a defibrillator to regulate his heart beat, and is limited in his life activities. He is recognized as have a life-limiting disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act. And when he was hired, his managers were well aware of his condition.

When he was hired, bicycle assemblers were also allowed a certain comfort in their job – that is, they were actually allowed to sit on a stool while they built their bikes. When he received a new department manager in 2005, however, this changed. His new supervisor, Tye Wilson, told the employees to say bye-bye to stools or chairs. Despite knowing of Lennex’s disability and the fact that stools were readily available, AND that Lennex had performed his job admirably to that point, Wilson refused a request by Lennex for a reasonable accommodation that would let him continue to sit.

Read the rest of this story ...