Legal Proceedings |
6 Months Ended |
|---|---|
Aug. 03, 2019 | |
| Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] | |
| Legal Proceedings | Legal Proceedings The Company is a defendant in legal proceedings including the class, collective, representative and large cases described below as well as several thousand individual claims in arbitration. The Company will vigorously defend itself in these matters. The Company does not believe that any of these matters will, individually or in the aggregate, have a material effect on its business or financial condition. The Company cannot give assurance, however, that one or more of these matters will not have a material effect on its results of operations for the quarter or year in which they are resolved.
The Company assesses its legal proceedings and reserves are established if a loss is probable and the amount of such loss can be reasonably estimated. Many, if not substantially all, of the contingencies described below are subject to significant uncertainties and, therefore, determining the likelihood of a loss and the measurement of any loss can be complex and subject to judgment. With respect to legal proceedings where the Company has determined that a loss is reasonably possible but not probable, the Company is unable to estimate the amount or range of the reasonably possible loss due to the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of and uncertainties regarding legal proceedings. The Company’s assessments are based on estimates and assumptions that have been deemed reasonable by management, but that may prove to be incomplete or inaccurate, and unanticipated events and circumstances may occur that might cause the Company to change those estimates and assumptions. Management’s assessment of legal proceedings could change because of future determinations or the discovery of facts which are not presently known. Accordingly, the ultimate costs of resolving these proceedings may be substantially higher or lower than currently estimated.
Dollar Tree Active Matters
In April 2015, a distribution center employee filed a class action in California state court with allegations concerning wages, meal and rest breaks, recovery periods, wage statements and timely termination pay. The employee filed an amended complaint in which he abandoned his attempt to certify a nation-wide class of non-exempt distribution center employees for alleged improper calculation of overtime compensation. The Company removed this lawsuit to federal court. The court certified the case as a state-wide class action.
In August 2018, a former employee brought suit in California state court as a class action and as a Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”) representative suit alleging the Company failed to provide all non-exempt California store employees with compliant rest and meal breaks, accrued vacation, accurate wage statements and final pay upon termination of employment.
In December 2018, two former employees brought a PAGA suit in California state court alleging that Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. and Dollar Tree Distribution, Inc. failed to provide non-exempt California store and distribution center employees with rest and meal breaks, suitable seating, overtime pay, minimum wage for all time worked, reporting time pay, accurate wage statements, timely payment of wages during and upon termination of employment, failed to reimburse business expenses, and made unlawful deductions from wage payments.
Several lawsuits have been filed against Dollar Tree, Family Dollar and their vendors alleging that personal powder products caused cancer. The Company does not believe the products it sold caused the illnesses. The Company believes these lawsuits are insured and is being indemnified by its third party vendors.
Dollar Tree Resolved Matters
In 2015, a former store manager filed a class action in California federal court alleging, among other things, that the Company failed to make wage statements readily available to employees who did not receive paper checks. In 2017, a jury found in favor of the Company. In 2019, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the jury verdict. In July 2019, the plaintiff filed a petition with the Supreme Court of the United States seeking a review of the decision.
Family Dollar Active Matters
In January 2017, a customer filed a class action in federal court in Illinois alleging the Company violated various state consumer fraud laws as well as express and implied warranties by selling a product that purported to contain aloe when it did not. The requested class is limited to the state of Illinois. The Company believes that it is fully indemnified by the entities that supplied it with the product.
In January 2018, a former store manager and a former assistant store manager filed suit in California state court asserting class claims on behalf of themselves and their respective classes seeking to recover for working off the clock, noncompliant rest and meal periods and related claims. The plaintiffs have amended their complaint to add a PAGA claim but have also agreed to stay the PAGA and class claims pending the arbitration of their individual claims.
In July 2019, a customer filed a nationwide class action in federal court in Pennsylvania on behalf of all customers with mobility disabilities alleging the Company violated the public accommodation requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act by systemically blocking the aisles with merchandise. The customer seeks a permanent injunction requiring the Company to remove all access barriers and giving the customer authority to monitor the Company’s compliance.
Family Dollar Resolved Matters
In June 2018, a former store manager filed suit in California state court asserting class and PAGA claims on behalf of himself and a class of current and former employees for alleged off the clock work, alleged failure to receive compliant rest and meal breaks and related claims. In May 2019, the case was resolved.
In December 2018, a former assistant store manager filed a PAGA suit in California state court alleging the Company failed to provide rest and meal breaks, failed to pay minimum, regular and overtime wages, failed to maintain accurate records and provide accurate wage statements, failed to timely pay wages due upon termination of employment and failed to reimburse employees for business expenses. In April 2019, the case was dismissed without prejudice.
|