Wal-Mart Hit With $78M Fine
Wal-Mart must pay at least $78 million for violating Pennsylvania state labor laws by forcing employees to work through rest breaks and off the clock, a jury decided Friday.
Michael Donovan, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, had asked the jury for at least that amount in compensatory damages for what he said were missed or shortened breaks, or time employees worked off the clock.
He will now seek an additional $62 million in damages because the jury found that Wal-Mart acted in bad faith. Common Pleas Court Judge Mark Bernstein is expected to rule on that issue later.
The class-action suit involves 187,000 current and former employees who worked at Wal-Mart and Sam's Clubs in Pennsylvania from March 1998 through May of this year. The jury found Thursday that the nation's biggest retailer violated state labor laws.
Wal-Mart attorney Neil S. Manne said the company plans to appeal both the class certification and the jury's findings.
"It will be a very broad ranging appeal," said Manne.
Lead plaintiff Dolores Hummel, who worked at a Sam's Club in Reading from 1992-2002, charged in her suit that she had to work through breaks and after quitting time to meet work demands in the bakery. She said she worked eight to 12 unpaid hours a month, on average, to meet work demands.
After the jury ruled on Friday, Hummel said the lawsuit was necessary "to show how we were treated working at Wal-Mart — working off the clock and not getting paid."
The plaintiffs used electronic evidence, such as systems that show when employees are signed on to cash registers and other machines, to help win class certification during several days of hearings last year.
Wal-Mart had a corporate policy that gives hourly employees in Pennsylvania 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.
© 2009 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Michael Donovan, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, had asked the jury for at least that amount in compensatory damages for what he said were missed or shortened breaks, or time employees worked off the clock.
He will now seek an additional $62 million in damages because the jury found that Wal-Mart acted in bad faith. Common Pleas Court Judge Mark Bernstein is expected to rule on that issue later.
The class-action suit involves 187,000 current and former employees who worked at Wal-Mart and Sam's Clubs in Pennsylvania from March 1998 through May of this year. The jury found Thursday that the nation's biggest retailer violated state labor laws.
Wal-Mart attorney Neil S. Manne said the company plans to appeal both the class certification and the jury's findings.
"It will be a very broad ranging appeal," said Manne.
Lead plaintiff Dolores Hummel, who worked at a Sam's Club in Reading from 1992-2002, charged in her suit that she had to work through breaks and after quitting time to meet work demands in the bakery. She said she worked eight to 12 unpaid hours a month, on average, to meet work demands.
After the jury ruled on Friday, Hummel said the lawsuit was necessary "to show how we were treated working at Wal-Mart — working off the clock and not getting paid."
The plaintiffs used electronic evidence, such as systems that show when employees are signed on to cash registers and other machines, to help win class certification during several days of hearings last year.
Wal-Mart had a corporate policy that gives hourly employees in Pennsylvania 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.
Popular on MoneyWatch
- When it comes to vacations, the U.S. stinks
- Snapple co-founder Leonard Marsh dies at 80
- Reverse cell phone lookup service is free and simple
- TGI Fridays nailed for doctoring booze
- Amy's Baking Company could face legal 'nightmare'
- How Bernanke's testimony affects investors
- My company is ending OT pay, but not OT work
- Help! My boss is promoting the wrong person
The democrats axis of Evil.
1. George Bush
2. America
3. Global Warming
4. Christians
5. Wal-Mart
6. Judeo-Christian ethics
7. Republicans
8. America's Allies
9. Fetuses
10. Rush Limbaugh and talk radio
11. Joe Lieberman
12. Low taxes
13. Capitalism
14. Self sufficiency
15. Fox News
16. Taking positions on tough issues
17. Marriage
18. Home Schooling
19. Old People
20. logic
21. God
22. Religion
23. Freedom of Speech
24. Freedom of the Press
25. Anyone who opposes their views and gives logical reasons for it
26. Rick Santorum
27. ABC
27. The Army
100,236,654,934. Terrorism and Fascism
The democrats axis of Evil.
1. George Bush
2. Global Warming
3. Christians
4. Judeo-Christian ethics
5. Republicans
6. America's Allies
7. Fetuses
8. Rush Limbaugh and talk radio
9. Joe Lieberman
10. Low taxes
11. Capitalism
12. Self sufficiency
2. America
3. Global Warming
4. Christians
5. Wal-Mart
6. Judeo-Christian ethics
7. Republicans
8. America's Allies
9. Fetuses
10. Rush Limbaugh and talk radio
11. Joe Lieberman
12. Low taxes
13. Capitalism
14. Self sufficiency
15. Fox News
16. Taking positions on tough issues
17. Marriage
18. Home Schooling
19. Old People
20. logic
21. God
22. Religion
23. Freedom of Speech
24. Freedom of the Press
25. Anyone who opposes their views and gives logical reasons for it
26. Rick Santorum
27. ABC
27. The Army
100,236,654,934. Terrorism and Facism
"...but 78 million dollars, don't make me laugh. That is exactly the sort of thing that is ruining our country. You can sum it up with a five letter word--------GREED"
Whose greed you talking about? The employees who were forced to work off the clock and certainly make less than $10 an hour? Or were you thinking about the multi-billion dollar conglomerate that forced them to work off the clock; the same one that got caught a few years ago paying illegal aliens about $0.25 an hour to clean the stores?
If you've never worked for Wal-Mart, it's hard to imagine the abuse this retailer shovels out on it's workforce every day. I HAVE worked for them, so it's hard for me to imagine anyone defending them for ripping off their workforce...AGAIN. I think if you spent a week or two as one of their associates you may change your mind a bit...