|
LITIGATION MATTERS
|
6 Months Ended |
|---|---|
|
Jun. 30, 2012
|
|
| LITIGATION MATTERS [Abstract] | |
| LITIGATION MATTERS |
9. LITIGATION MATTERS
In 2006, a former store manager filed a collective action against the Company in Alabama federal court. She claims that she and other store managers should have been classified as non-exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act and received overtime compensation. The Court preliminarily allowed nationwide (except California) certification. At present, approximately 265 individuals are included in the collective action. The Company’s motion to decertify the collective action was dismissed without prejudice in 2010. The Company filed another motion to decertify on February 29, 2012, which now awaits decision by the Court. There is no scheduled trial date.
In 2009, 34 plaintiffs filed a class action Complaint in a federal court in Virginia, alleging gender pay and promotion discrimination under Title VII. In 2010, the case was dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The appeal has been fully briefed by the parties and oral arguments were conducted in January 2012. The parties await a decision of the appellate court which is expected in 2012.
In April 2011, a former assistant store manager, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, instituted a class action in a California state court primarily alleging a failure by the Company to provide meal breaks, to compensate for all hours worked, and to pay overtime compensation. The Company removed the case to federal court which denied Plaintiffs’ motion for remand of the case to state court. Discovery in this case is at an early stage. There is no trial date.
In June 2011, Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. and various of its affiliates instituted suit in federal court in Florida alleging that the Company, in approximately 48 shopping centers in the state of Florida and five other states where Dollar Tree and Winn-Dixie are both tenants, is selling goods and products in Dollar Tree stores in violation of an exclusive right of Winn-Dixie to sell and distribute such items. It seeks both monetary damages and injunctive relief. At approximately the same time, Winn-Dixie also sued Dollar General, Inc. and Big Lots, Inc. making essentially the same allegations against them and seeking the same relief. The Court consolidated the three cases and they proceeded to trial, without a jury, in May of this year. On August 10, the Court issued a Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. The ruling denied Winn-Dixie's claim for monetary damages, either compensatory or punitive, and, of the original 48 Dollar Tree stores at issue, granted plaintiff's request for injunctive relief with respect to just one store. A final Order incorporating these findings and conclusions, and dismissing the case is anticipated in September or October. In the summer and fall of 2011, five collective action lawsuits were filed against the Company in federal courts in Georgia, Colorado, Florida, Michigan and Illinois by different assistant store managers, each alleging he or she was forced to work off the clock in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiffs also assert various state law claims for which they seek class treatment. The Georgia suit sought statewide class certification. The state-based claims in the Georgia action have been dismissed and on the Company’s motion the case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia where it awaits rulings on a pending motion to dismiss. The Florida, Colorado, Michigan and Illinois cases seek nationwide certifications. The Illinois case, in addition to assistant store managers, also includes a purported class of all other hourly store associates, and makes the same allegations on their behalf. The Company filed motions to dismiss and motions to transfer venue to the Eastern District of Virginia in each of the four cases. The Illinois case was transferred in June to the Eastern District of Virginia where it awaits ruling on the pending motion to dismiss. To date, the only cases in which plaintiffs have sought class certification are the Illinois and Colorado actions. The Colorado case is scheduled to proceed to trial in March 2013 and the Florida case in July 2013. The Illinois and Georgia cases which were transferred to the Eastern District of Virginia await entry of a Scheduling Order.
In May 2012, three associates who were formerly employed at the Company’s distribution center in Joliet, Illinois filed a Rule 23 class action lawsuit in federal court in Illinois alleging that at the time of their termination of employment, they failed to receive compensation for their accrued paid time off. They brought this case on behalf of themselves and those former associates similarly situated. A stay of the case has been granted upon motion by both parties so that a possible early resolution of the matter could be explored. No trial date has been set.
In July 2012, a former non-exempt hourly associate who alleges his primary duty was to work the cash register, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, filed a Complaint under the California Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”), in a California state court, alleging the Company failed to provide suitable seating as allegedly required by state law. The Company has removed the case to federal court, filed its Answer to the Complaint and is currently investigating the plaintiff’s allegations. No Scheduling Order has been entered.
In July 2012, a former assistant store manager, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, filed a class action Complaint in a California state court, alleging a failure of the Company to provide paid ten-minute rest breaks to assistant store managers in California who worked one or more work periods in excess of three and one-half hours during which they were relieved of all duties. The alleged relevant time period is July 13, 2008 to the present. The Company has just begun its investigation of the allegations contained in the Complaint.
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 lawsuits will not have a material effect on its results of operations for the period in which they are resolved. Based on the information available to the Company, including the amount of time remaining before trial, the results of discovery and the judgment of internal and external counsel, the Company is unable to express an opinion as to the outcome of these matters and cannot estimate a potential range of loss.
|