Check out this week’s issue of the Wal-Mart Watch Weekly Update for Elected Officials – a compilation of Wal-Mart news from across the country and beyond.
This week’s issue begins with reports of price gouging on the part of Wal-Mart. What’s truly abhorrent about these reports, however, is that they are being made by the very people affected most by the recent cavalcade of hurricanes to batter the Gulf coast. The Arkansas News Bureau and The Consumerist have more on these stories.
You’ll also find major news on the legal front. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has filed its second lawsuit against Wal-Mart in less than three weeks. The first involves the Americans with Disabilities Act in Illinois; the second involves age discrimination against a 67-year-old optician in Missouri. In addition to the EEOC lawsuits, Wal-Mart will now have to face another class action wage/hour lawsuit. Salvas v. Wal-Mart was originally certified as a class action back in 2004. Since then the case has gone back and forth through the Massachusetts court system, eventually being decertified and winding up in front of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court on appeal. Well, the SJC released its opinion this week, ruling that the decertification was improper and that the lawsuit should be reinstated as a class action. A trial is possible, which could cost Wal-Mart hundreds of millions of dollars in unpaid wages and damages. The Boston Globe and Boston Herald have the story.
Also check out the Product and Food Safety Report, where you’ll find stories on BPA (and a class action lawsuit regarding the chemical that includes Wal-Mart), dangerous soccer goals and baby cribs sold at Wal-Mart, and a pet food recall involving Purina products sold at the retailer.
And finally, check out our “Stateside” and “Wal-Mart International” sections to find out what’s going on with Wal-Mart around the country and across the globe.
Wal-Mart Watch Weekly Update for Elected Officials [September 24, 2008]
Posted by Corey Himrod | Permalink
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court - the state’s highest court - has reinstated a lawsuit filed by Massachusetts employees claiming the Wal-Mart pressured them to work off the clock and denied them rest and meal breaks.
These wage cases are probably becoming a familiar thing for those that follow Wal-Mart in the news. In fact, at this point its becoming surprising when Wal-Mart doesn’t do something illegal...even the company’s “save money, live better” tagline probably breaks some sort of law (truth-in-advertising comes to mind?). This particular Massachusetts wage case is impressive though, if only because of the long and winding road it has taken just in order to get back essentially to where it started.
To summarize as briefly as possible: Salvas v. Wal-Mart was initially filed in 2001 in Middlesex (MA) Superior Court, alleging Wal-Mart of illegally altering timecards in order to decrease payroll expenses, including clocking employees out just one minute after they had clocked in. The suit also alleged that employees were deprived of their meal and rest breaks. The case was certified as a class action in January of 2004, and then again on December 30, 2004 (Wal-Mart successfully appealed in between), on behalf of 65,000 or so present and former Wal-Mart employees. After Wal-Mart appealed (again), the case ended up back in Superior Court, where a third judge decided that the plainffs’ expert testimony should be excluded and decertified the class on the basis that each associate’s situation was unique, and therefore class action certification was improper.
The case was appealed again (this time by the plaintiffs) and it made it all the way to the Supreme Judicial Court, which heard oral arguments in May of this year. Today, the SJC finally released its opinion, which included the following:
In essence we are asked to determine (1) whether the judge abused his discretion by (a) allowing Wal-Mart’s motion to exclude the testimony of the plaintiffs’ principal expert, Dr. Martin Shapiro, as unreliable, and (b) allowing Wal-Mart’s motion to decertify the class of approximately 67,500 current and former hourly workers employed by Wal-Mart in Massachusetts for more than a ten-year period; and (2) whether the judge erred in granting summary judgment to Wal-Mart on all of the plaintiffs’ claims concerning meal breaks, as well as certain of the plaintiffs’ claims under the payment of wages law, G.L. c. 149, § 148, for failure to compensate the plaintiffs for the time they worked.
For the reasons set forth below, we vacate the judge’s orders. We conclude, inter alia, that the judge abused his discretion in allowing Wal-Mart’s motions to exclude the testimony of the plaintiffs’ expert and to decertify the class. We further conclude that the judge erred in granting partial summary judgment to Wal-Mart. We remand the case for the entry of an order certifying the class and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
So, there you go. The class has been certifed again. Good deal. The case now goes back to the trial court for certification, after which a jury trial may not be too far off. You can read more about Wal-Mart’s wage cases here. The SJC opinion is here, and it is not exactly complimentary of the superior court judge that decertified the case.
Mass. court reinstates lawsuit against Wal-Mart [Associated Press via Boston Herald]
Posted by Corey Himrod | Permalink
Big box developer gets more time in Greenfield [The Republican (Mass.)]
The Conservation Commission last night agreed to give the developer of a French King Highway department store more time to come up with alternative plans for dealing with wetlands.
Ceruzzi Holdings of Fairfield, Conn., which formed Greenfield Investors Property Development for the store project, will return in September with plans that address the concerns of the commission about wetlands protection.
Commission chairman Alexander J. Haro said the options will be to modify the existing plan to protect the wetland, or come up with another plan, perhaps for a smaller store to avoid any substantial wetland impact.
David Pickart, Ceruzzi’s environmental consultant, asked for the delay. He said it is needed to come up with the environmental answers.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Joel Nezianya | Permalink
Jul02
VICTORY IN WRENTHAM, MA
Wrentham officials: Wal-Mart not coming [Sun Chronicle (Mass.)]
Word that has been circulating the past few years that Wal-Mart was going to open a store in town will apparently remain rumor.
Town officials say they have recently been told the retail giant isn’t coming to Wrentham.
“I hear Wal-Mart is not coming to town,” Town Planner Paige Duncan said. “I never saw anything official” that the discounter was coming.
“Unofficially, I have been told they have abandoned” any plans, Duncan said.
The site that had been eyed is the Simeone property off South Street (Route 1A) and Green Street and near Wrentham Village Premium Outlets. Access would have been through the BJs warehouse site off South Street. The Simeone land had been the target of several controversial proposals over the years, including a water park, and now part of the land is being developed into warehouse use.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Joel Nezianya | Permalink
Wal-Mart Supercenter in limbo [News Herald via Wicked Local (Mass.)]
The status of plans to build the area’s first Wal-Mart Supercenter continues to be one of the best-kept secrets in town.
Preparations for the new big-box store were rolling along late last year when Wal-Mart presented plans to the Board of Selectmen and gained unanimous support from the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance that cut the number of parking spaces required for the facility.
But the process hit a snag last November when four Maple Avenue residents appealed the ZBA decision.
In the appeal, prepared by Winchester attorney Peter J. Cura, the plaintiffs claim the variance and the supercenter “will be detrimental to the area” and will “result in significant impacts” to the property owners near the mall, including an increase in traffic, loss of parking spaces and interference with access to their properties.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Joel Nezianya | Permalink
Decision expected soon on plan for second Raynham Wal-Mart [Enterprise News (Mass.)]
A decision is expected soon on whether a second Wal-Mart store will be able to come to town, according to the town’s lawyer.
Town Counsel Marc Antine said he is waiting to hear the results of a judge’s decision on a complaint filed three years ago against the town’s Planning Board and Wal-Mart by Demoulas Super Markets.
He said the results of the bench trial that began Jan. 21 and ended, after numerous continuations, March 14 should be filed soon by Judge Robert C. Cosgrove.
Antine said that although he was not requested to appear during the trial, he is one of those on the list to receive any decision made by the court.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Tony Calero | Permalink
Plans for Wal-Mart still unclear [GateHouse News Service via Taunton Daily Gazette (Mass.)]
Closing arguments in the trial between Wal-Mart and Demoulas Super Markets Inc. concluded Friday in Superior Court, but it may be months before a final decision is announced.
Nearly three years after the Raynham Planning Board approved plans for the Wal-Mart Supercenter at 160 Broadway, the 208,000-square-foot discount store remains on the drawing board and the property, the old Par 3 Golf Course, sits in decay.
In May 2005, Demoulas Super Markets Inc., owner of the popular Market Basket store filed an appeal against Wal-Mart and the five members of the planning board.
After a series of appeals and court rulings, the non-jury trial resumed Jan. 22 in Fall River Superior Court. Over nine days, the attorneys rehashed the case and conducted interviews with engineers and elected officials before recessing for two months.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Alex Goldschmidt | Permalink
Another victory for local residents fighting Wal-Mart.
Posted by Alex Goldschmidt | Permalink
Sprawl-Busters founder Al Norman broke this story on the Huffington Post over the weekend. Now, the Boston Herald examines Wal-Mart’s attempts to prevent Massachusetts from closing the tax loopholes the company is currently disputing in North Carolina. The company’s lobbying efforts show that Wal-Mart isn’t satisfied to just abide by the law: it takes an active role in shaping it. This is a big part of why some consider Wal-Mart to have an unfair advantage. If small businesses had even a fraction of the lobbying power Wal-Mart commands, the American economy would be much, much different.
Wal-Mart ups lobbying [Boston Herald]
Wal-Mart, while pushing to open more stores in Massachusetts, is also pumping more money into Beacon Hill lobbying.
The nation’s largest retailer has increased its spending on lobbyists in the state nearly five-fold since 2006, when it spent $43,220.
Wal-Mart forked over $208,678 to a pair of firms last year, state records show.
The retailer’s State House drive comes as Gov. Deval Patrick pushes plans to plug corporate “tax loopholes” that allow companies to avoid some local taxes by shipping income out of state.
Wal-Mart finds itself at the center of that debate. The chain has stores across the country paying rent to a separate real estate investment trust controlled by company executives, The Wall Street Journal has reported.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Alex Goldschmidt | Permalink
This article was originally published on the Huffington Post.
Forget everyday low prices. Wal-Mart has been paying high-priced lobbyists to keep the company from having to pay its fair share of income tax to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Wal-Mart paid nearly a quarter of a million dollars last year to a small army of 8 lobbyists to push its agenda with Beacon Hill lawmakers in 2007. The retailer’s ‘high-priced’ lobbying tab for 2007 came to $208,678---five times what the company spent the previous year.
According to research conducted by Sprawl-Busters, a Greenfield, MA-based anti-Wal-Mart clearinghouse, Wal-Mart hired three separate lobbying firms, plus its own Public Affairs Manager, as lobbyists:
- Bay State Strategies Group, LLC of Natick was paid $53,200 by Wal-Mart, which went to 3 of its lobbyists: David Shapiro, Frank Shea, and Robert Bernstein.
- Holland & Knight, LLP of Boston, also had Wal-Mart as a client in 2007. The firm was paid $26,600 by Wal-Mart for the services of the same 3 lobbyists.
- Johnson Haley, LLP of Boston, was the big winner of Wal-Mart payments, receiving a total of $128,503 for the services of 4 lobbyists: Stephanie D. Neal-Johnson, Pierce J. Haley, Andrea Serlin, and Martin Fisher.
In addition, Wal-Mart registered its own New England public affairs manager, Christopher Buchanan, of Plymouth, as a lobbyist.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Al Norman | Permalink
David lost this battle to Goliath [Wicked Local (Mass.)]
Bill Nickerson spent three years trying to convince the town and a trio of courts that Wal-Mart’s plans to expand off Route 44 didn’t go far enough to protect local residents.
He ran out of legal options in 2002 when the state’s highest court ruled he had no right to sue.
Although Nickerson lived less than a mile from the site in Raynham Woods Commerce Center - and although his four children had to navigate the busy state highway at a treacherous intersection to get to school or to the town’s ball fields - his Hill Street home did not border the Wal-Mart property itself.
And so the interest of this sole plaintiff was “not substantially different” from other residents who were “frustrated and inconvenienced by heavy traffic on Route 44,” a Supreme Judicial Court judge said in the decision that closed the case.
Nickerson still smarts over that legal technicality. He says he would have preferred to lose the case on its merits.
“To this day, I’m irate over the Hill Street intersection. It’s extremely dangerous,” Nickerson said this week. “My kids still cross that road every day.”
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Alex Goldschmidt | Permalink
The Boston Herald has a story out today about a recent visit to the Bay State from Wal-Mart corporate representative Linda Dillman. Ms. Dillman gave a speech to Massachusetts business groups. She came prepared with a very nice PowerPoint presentation and a long list of statistics about the company’s recent sustainability initiatives. Ms. Dillman also came with a request: Please stop opposing Wal-Mart.
Dillman, a senior vice president at Wal-Mart, used Wal-Mart’s environmental ideas and health care revisions as reason why Massachusetters should let down their guard on keeping the retailer out of the state. Massachusetts remains one of the few states that have not yet hit Wal-Mart saturation, and the company is determined to change that. From the Boston Herald:
It was a scene unthinkable just a few years ago, when Wal-Mart was routinely blasted by local critics and activists for its treatment of workers.
But battered by years of bad publicity, Wal-Mart in 2006 began one of the more dramatic public relations comebacks in corporate history. Today, the nation’s largest private employer is being cited, both locally and nationally, for its affordable health offerings, $4 co-pays on generic drugs and its environmental initiatives...Meanwhile, Wal-Mart’s new image could have big benefits for the retailer as it eyes future growth in Massachusetts, a market it has not fully tapped...Wal-Mart’s improved image is bound to help in future expansions, whether measured in new stores or medical clinics, said David Begelfer, head of the local chapter of the National Association of Industrial and Office Properties. In fact, providing health care for employees, and showing a commitment to the environment, are almost minimum requirements for companies looking to compete in Massachusetts.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Alex Goldschmidt | Permalink
Wal-Mart: Permits binding [Taunton Gazette]
On Thursday, the head of the Raynham Planning Board, Daniel J. Andrade, took the stand in the trial between Wal-Mart and the owner of a local supermarket, testifying that the board acted properly in approving plans for the retail giant’s second location in Raynham.
Andrade was a member of the planning board in 2005 when the board unanimously approved plans for the Wal-Mart supercenter on Route 138. At the trial held in Fall River Superior Court, Andrade testified at the request of the attorneys representing Wal-Mart in order to verify the course of events that led to the approval of the retail supercenter.
“We review the entire process individually, but as one,” he said during the questioning. “We have to understand what the process is all about before we can say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to a special permit.”
Part of the process included reviewing a proposal for a residential subdivision that was filed by Wal-Mart in order to prevent a zoning change put forth by Raynham residents attempting to block any plans for the retailer.At a town meeting in 2004, residents voted to reclassify zoning for the 26-acre lot Wal-Mart purchased from William Murby, the owner of the Par 3 golf course, earlier in the year. But by filing the sub-division proposal prior to the town meeting, Wal-Mart froze the commercial zoning designation while allowing plans for a 208,000 square-foot supercenter to move forward.
Andrade recounted several public hearings that were held at the Senior Center in 2005, noting appearances by local leaders such as Taunton Mayor Robert G. Nunes and state Sen. Marc Pacheco, D-Taunton.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Alex Goldschmidt | Permalink
Judge, attorneys visit proposed Wal-Mart site [The Enterprise (Mass.)]
A site visit is typically performed by a jury during a criminal trial, but no crime had been committed at the Par 3 Golf Course to prompt a site visit by the judge and attorneys in the appeal trial over the proposed Wal-Mart supercenter on Wednesday.
Shortly after 9 a.m., Judge Robert Cosgrove, along with attorneys representing the retail giant and Demoulas Super Markets, toured the grounds of the shuttered 26-acre golf course and the abutting Market Basket Plaza. Cosgrove appeared interested in the 100-yard stretch of road separating the current entrance to the Market Basket Plaza and the proposed entrance to the Wal-Mart.
The block of Route 138, also called Broadway, has been under legal scrutiny since the town’s Planning Board approved the 208,000-square-foot store in May of 2005.
Demoulas, owner of a Market Basket grocery store, has already been denied an initial appeal of the Wal-Mart store, but is appealing a second time based on anticipated traffic congestion caused by three traffic lights and about 10,000 vehicles that are expected to visit the store each day.
As the appeal states: “The effect of the traffic delay is ‘grid-lock’ in front of the Market Basket site, particularly during the evening peak hours.”
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Alex Goldschmidt | Permalink
Raynham Wal-Mart project facing delays [The Enterprise (Mass.)]
A final decision, involving possible construction of second Wal-Mart supercenter within the town, could be delayed for years if appeals of a negative court decision on Jan. 22 are filed by Demoulas Super Markets.
Town Planner Richard McCarthy, referring to a trial scheduled for Jan. 22 at Bristol Superior Court in Fall River, said that if Demoulas Super Markets Inc. of Tewksbury n parent company of Market Basket supermarkets and owner of the Market Basket Plaza on Route 138 in Raynham n receives a negative decision on Jan. 22 and then files a series of appeals “it’s not inconceivable that it go on for years.”
Referring to similar appeals, filed by abutting residents, of a Superior Court decision associated with the proposed expansion of another Wal-Mart supercenter located 10 minutes away off Route 44 in Raynham, McCarthy said that “it took three years for a final decision in 2000.”
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Alex Goldschmidt | Permalink
It has been a long, strange trip for Salvas v. Wal-Mart, the Massachusetts wage case first filed back in 2001, and now the highest court in Massachusetts is set to weigh in on whether Salvas can proceed as a class action.
The case was originally certified back in December of 2004, as a class of over 50,000 current and former Wal-Mart employees alleging they had been denied wages and meal/rest breaks. Wal-Mart appealed, and in November 2006 a second judge decertified the class on the basis that each associate’s situation was unique and therefore a class action was not proper. The 2006 decertification also included another significant decision:
The judge, who also excluded the testimony of the employees’ expert witness, said the employees could not rely on Wal-Mart’s payroll records to prove their case without first demonstrating that they are overwhelmingly accurate.
Well, Salvas and Wal-Mart can now prepare for Round 3, as the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has agreed to hear the Salvas appeal. And Wal-Mart might start considering ways to discredit the accuracy of its own payroll methods. According to Salvas attorney Robert Bonsignore:
Federal and state statutes require those records to be accurate, and Wal-Mart uses them to pay taxes and report its financial performance to shareholders...It’s good enough to pay the Wal-Mart family executives millions of dollars in bonuses and . . . it’s good enough to pay the store managers $100,000 or more in bonuses. But the court says it’s not good enough to pay the employees, period.
Sounds about right.
SJC gets Wal-Mart suit [Boston Herald]
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Corey Himrod | Permalink
Many communities are eager to see a new Wal-Mart come to town, but few think of the effect the retailer will have if and when it leaves. This article from Minnesota’s St. Cloud Times gives a local perspective to the retailer’s global prospects. Visit Battle-Mart for more information about fighting Wal-Mart in your local community.
Wal-Mart’s exit is boon, bane for communities [St. Cloud Times (Minn.)]
An empty Wal-Mart building sits along a stretch of road in Little Falls and shoppers have been rerouted to a newer, bigger Wal-Mart down the street.
Its owners have taken care of the old building after the Wal-Mart Supercenter was built in August. It’s been repainted a shade of light green, masking signs of what once thrived there.
At any given time, about 300 to 400 former Wal-Mart stores sit empty around the nation, in some cases for as long as five to seven years, said Ken Stone, a retired professor from Iowa State University who has studied Wal-Mart for about 20 years. Those empty buildings can be a blight to a community and area businesses if they sit untouched for too long.
“It’s a real problem, there’s no question about it,” Stone said.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Alex Goldschmidt | Permalink
Last year, Maryland garnered headline after headline for its Fair Share bill, a bill requiring private companies with more than 10,000 employees to spend at least 8 percent of their payroll on employee health benefits or make a contribution to the state’s insurance program for the poor. The bill, which ultimately effected only Wal-Mart, was shot down in federal court. Now, as the national debate over the health care crisis continues, the name on everyone’s lips isn’t the Governator, Hillary, or one of the myriad of GOP candidates jockeying for pole position on the issue - its a little fella named ERISA.
And, by little fella, I mean huge hulking piece of federal legislation likely to solve any insomnia issues you may have, should you choose to put it to the test and read it. Still, ERISA, or the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, has already shot down state attemps to solve their own health care woes in Maryland and New York. And California might be next on the list to test ERISA’s mighty reach.
From The Christian Science Monitor:
ERISA, which stands for the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, shields businesses from state and local regulation of the benefits they offer workers, including health insurance. Without the law, national companies in particular could achieve little uniformity in their benefit plans.
But that uniformity comes at a cost: The law limits the abilities of state legislatures to serve as laboratories for healthcare solutions. Courts have already applied ERISA to strike down efforts in Maryland and Suffolk County, N.Y., that would compel employers to cover more people.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Corey Himrod | Permalink
Opponents hope traffic solution will jam up Freetown mall [Boston Globe]
When officials from KGI Properties LLC heard about an 80-acre parcel of land on a former fly ash dump with access to a major highway, they saw opportunity - a prime location for a shopping center with two large retail stores.
But when Brian R. Dunning, who lives in the sleepy Payne’s Cove area, studied KGI’s plans for the 450,000-square-foot “Payne’s Crossing” development, he saw what he considers to be a pending disaster for Freetown.
The battle has raged ever since. Many residents, convinced that a Lowe’s home improvement store and a Wal-Mart are headed their way, have rallied to block the development they fear will choke their roadways, endanger threatened turtles, and pollute the bay. Their Assonet Bay Action Committee now boasts more than 300 supporters.
It is, by their own estimation, an uphill battle. Dunning offers this sober evaluation: “I think the odds are in favor of the developer. But it’s a little bit like David and Goliath. I just know that if this goes in, the town will be forever changed.”
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Alex Goldschmidt | Permalink
Wal-Mart pulls out of Lancaster [Sentinel & Enterprise (Mass.)]
Wal-Mart announced Friday it has dropped its controversial plan to build a 24-hour Supercenter in town, saying it has scaled back the pace at which it will open these stores nationally.
“At this time our corporation has made the decision that this project is not in sync with our overall growth strategy,” said Christopher Buchanan, a company spokesperson.
Wal-Mart is still building another Supercenter—though not a 24-hour one—at a new retail development nearby in Leominster. It is expected to open by summer 2008, according to Buchanan.
The retail titan first announced plans for an approximately 217,000-square-foot store on Old Union Turnpike, just off Route 2, in May 2006.
Since then the project has taken several turns, culminating in today’s announcement: the formation of Our Lancaster First, an opposition group; a special town meeting proposal to put all large-scale retail development here on hold; a reduction in the store’s size by about 30,000 square feet; a lawsuit that was dismissed; and plan approval by the Planning Board.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Alex Goldschmidt | Permalink
View Wal-Mart Watch's videos on YouTube