Jury backs Wal-Mart workers
An Alameda County jury Thursday ordered Wal-Mart to pay $172 million to more
than 100,000 California employees in a class-action lawsuit that claimed the
retailer routinely denied the workers meal breaks.
Attorneys representing the employees said it was the first major jury award against
Wal-Mart involving employee pay. At least 32 similar suits are pending against
Wal-Mart in other states.
Wal-Mart issued a statement saying it would appeal the verdict, which gave the
employees $57 million in compensatory damages for the unpaid meal-periods
and $115 million in punitive damages.
The company's statement acknowledged that Wal-Mart ``had compliance issues''
with California law when the suit was filed in 2001. The law required a 30-minute
meal break within the first five hours of a shift, or an extra hour's pay.
But while admitting to non-compliance in the past, Wal-Mart said there was no
basis for punitive damages and said the problem has been corrected: ``Wal-Mart
has since taken steps to ensure all associates receive their meal periods,
including adopting new technology that sends alerts to cashiers when it is time for
their meal breaks. The system will automatically shut down registers if the cashier
does not respond.''
Carolyn Beasley-Burton, an attorney with the San Francisco-based Furth Firm that
brought the suit, said she expects more such verdicts against Wal-Mart in other
states.
than 100,000 California employees in a class-action lawsuit that claimed the
retailer routinely denied the workers meal breaks.
Attorneys representing the employees said it was the first major jury award against
Wal-Mart involving employee pay. At least 32 similar suits are pending against
Wal-Mart in other states.
Wal-Mart issued a statement saying it would appeal the verdict, which gave the
employees $57 million in compensatory damages for the unpaid meal-periods
and $115 million in punitive damages.
The company's statement acknowledged that Wal-Mart ``had compliance issues''
with California law when the suit was filed in 2001. The law required a 30-minute
meal break within the first five hours of a shift, or an extra hour's pay.
But while admitting to non-compliance in the past, Wal-Mart said there was no
basis for punitive damages and said the problem has been corrected: ``Wal-Mart
has since taken steps to ensure all associates receive their meal periods,
including adopting new technology that sends alerts to cashiers when it is time for
their meal breaks. The system will automatically shut down registers if the cashier
does not respond.''
Carolyn Beasley-Burton, an attorney with the San Francisco-based Furth Firm that
brought the suit, said she expects more such verdicts against Wal-Mart in other
states.
Comments