Posted on 01/03/2007 6:20:39 PM PST by traumer
Wal-Mart Employees Ask Judge for Another $72 Million in Damages, Interest in Break-Time Case
PHILADELPHIA (AP) -- Wal-Mart workers in Pennsylvania who won a $78.5 million judgment for working off the clock and through rest breaks returned to court Wednesday to seek another $72 million in damages and interest.
They argue that about 125,000 plaintiffs in the class-action suit deserve an additional $500 each in damages, or $62 million, under Pennsylvania labor laws because the jury found that the world's largest retailer acted in bad faith. These so-called liquidated damages are designed to compensate people for the delay in payment.
The remaining 61,000 plaintiffs -- who do not qualify for those damages because of legal time limits -- should share in $10 million in interest on the back pay, lawyer Michael Donovan argued.
Wal-Mart Stores Inc., which denies wrongdoing and is appealing the jury award, opposed the added damages and interest. Company attorneys said that Donovan merely estimated the number of potential plaintiffs, and has not proven that each was shortchanged.
"They don't even know who they are," Wal-Mart lawyer Brian Flaherty said.
The workers already are expected to receive anywhere from about $50 to a few thousand dollars each from the initial award, depending on how long they worked for the company.
Philadelphia Common Pleas Judge Mark Bernstein did not immediately rule on the issues argued Wednesday. He questioned why Donovan sought liquidated damages of $500 per worker when the statute could be interpreted to allow $500 in damages each time a worker was shortchanged.
"If I'm a claimant, I'm entitled to everything the law says I'm entitled to, and if that's $500 every time I was shorted and I was shorted 24 times a year, then it's $12,000," Bernstein said.
Donovan said he did not interpret the state wage law that way. He added that Wal-Mart's lack of record-keeping would make it impossible to determine the number of individual violations.
Bernstein oversaw the five-week trial, which culminated in October when the jury rejected Wal-Mart's claim that some employees voluntarily chose to work through breaks and that the off-the-clock work was minimal.
The suit covers current and former employees who worked at Wal-Mart and Sam's Clubs in Pennsylvania from March 1998 through May 2006.
Wal-Mart, based in Bentonville, Ark., earned $11.2 billion in profits on $312.4 billion in sales in the last fiscal year. Donovan argued at trial that the unpaid work gave Wal-Mart an unfair advantage in the marketplace.
Lead plaintiff Dolores Hummel said she put in about 10 hours each month off the clock to keep up with demands at a Sam's Club in Reading, where the single mother worked for 10 years to support her son. Sam's Clubs are a division of Wal-Mart.
Donovan has also petitioned the court for more than $40 million in legal fees, plus $5.5 million in expenses. Wal-Mart, which must pay the fees unless the verdict is overturned, objected to the request and asked for more details.
Wal-Mart is appealing a $172 million verdict in a similar California case and settled a Colorado suit over unpaid wages for $50 million.
Wal-Mart policy in Pennsylvania gives hourly employees one paid 15-minute break during a shift of at least three hours and two such breaks, plus an unpaid 30-minute meal break, on a shift of at least six hours.
Answer: The scumbag lawyers are grabbing the millions and there's jack squat left over for the chumps. A few of the chumps got a tad upset by this realization and so the scumbag lawyers are trying to shut them up for $500 each.
I just can't help but wonder how Walmart was able to pull the wage law wool over 125,000+ employees. Maybe some employees at a couple stores ended up working for free but 125,000????
Usually it seems that one is paid for 15 minute breaks whether they take them or not. Working through lunch breaks have to be paid if the employee for the most part is doing his job duties.
WalMart Ping.
WalMart Ping...........
Thanks for the ping.
Thank you for the ping.
Not enough caffeine yet this morning, and I hit the wrong list first :(
Happy New Year to ya!!!!
Glad to know you've got your priorites straight :)
I worked at wally world for over 7 years and quit this past November...I'm certainly not taking their side here, but you have to realize that alot of the policy you are talking about has only recently been implimented...and there are still members of management who will look the other way if you aren't taking breaks...their jobs depend on you getting yours done...
Management is now attempting to force out any long term associates...by this I mean, anybody with 7 years or more and those with 15 or more years are being offered a severance package that is laughable...I would love to see Lee Scott survive a week on it...you don't start pissing off over a million associates without some repercussions...
now, how does one "force" someone to work off the clock?
is it a case of she punched out and the manager asked ehr to do something not realisd that she was punched out?
or was she maybe a slacker like some of the kids i've had to work with that didn't bother to do her job while on the clock and the manager, like most managers everywhere wasn't going to pay her to not work?
or is she like me and occasionally gets right to work and forgets to punch in?
i'd like to know alot more of the details of this.
Wal-Mart paid their fines. These hosers, under the guidance of their lawyer(s), are looking for more cash, plain and simple.
I challenge any of these slackers to follow me around for a day on the farm. Mandatory breaks? ROFLMAO! (Well, meals and a chance to use the toilet, but that's standard anywhere you work.)
My last job in the outside world was in retail. 10 hour days; I brought my lunch, and I was LUCKY to be able to get a bathroom break once a day. I worked 2.5 days a week (job shared) and crammed 28 hours into those three days.
People are wimps. Total whiners. Be gone with you! I tire of you! ;)
This is on of the reasons why unions are necessary.
Cheaper labor.
There is an alternative to the lawyers and government intervention: unions. Let workers organize and fight for their rights together.
I would be in favor of making unions membership mandatory for everybody who works. Hey, let even managers have their own unions!
AMEN!
Scary!!!
"I would be in favor of making unions membership mandatory for everybody who works."
Sarcasm?
Why? It would not be Communist style union - you would have full rights to vote and be active in a union. Also you could join/form alternative Republican conservative union.
Think about it like car insurance - it is mandatory in many places, but you can chose the insurance company and options. The difference is that you cannot appoint/vote for the management of the insurance company but in the union you could.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.