|
LITIGATION MATTERS
|
6 Months Ended |
|---|---|
|
Aug. 03, 2013
|
|
| Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] | |
| LITIGATION MATTERS |
LITIGATION MATTERS
In 2006, a former store manager filed a collective action against the Company in Alabama federal court claiming 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, however granted the Company's motion to decertify on November 2, 2012. The individual claims of the four named plaintiffs proceeded to trial and on March 1, 2013, the jury returned verdicts in all four cases in favor of the Company. The individual claims of the remaining 261 opt-in plaintiffs were dismissed without prejudice and approximately 61 of these plaintiffs filed individual suits in various federal courts throughout the country. Plaintiffs appealed the decertification Order and the jury verdicts to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. Thereafter the appeal was dismissed and all of the cases of the individual plaintiffs were resolved for immaterial amounts which are included in the accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements.
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 is ongoing. No trial date has been set.
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, was selling goods and products in Dollar Tree stores in violation of an exclusive right of Winn-Dixie to sell and distribute such items. It sought 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 2012. On August 10, 2012, the Court issued its 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 was entered and Winn-Dixie has appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.
In the summer of 2011, a collective action lawsuit was filed against the Company in federal court in Illinois by an assistant store manager and other hourly associate, each alleging she was forced to work off the clock in violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The case was transferred to the Eastern District of Virginia in June 2012 and the Virginia federal judge ruled that all claims made on behalf of assistant store managers under both the FLSA and state law should be dismissed. The court, however, did conditionally certify under the FLSA a class of all hourly sales associates who worked for Dollar Tree from October 2, 2009 to the present. Notice to the putative class was issued and approximately 6,280 plaintiffs opted into the case. Phase I certification discovery is complete and certification briefing begins in September 2013. No trial date has been set. Four other FLSA collective action lawsuits were filed against the Company in federal courts in Georgia, Colorado, Florida and Michigan alleging essentially the same claims. These cases have been resolved, pending court approval, for immaterial amounts which are included in the accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements.
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 the Company failed to provide paid, duty-free 10 minute rest breaks to assistant store managers who worked for periods in excess of three and one-half hours. The alleged relevant time period is July 13, 2008 to the present. The Company removed the case to federal court, however, it was remanded to state court when plaintiff indicated the damages sought were less than $5.0 million, the jurisdictional amount under the federal Class Action Fairness Act. No trial date has been set.
In August 2012, two former store managers, under California's Private Attorney General Act (PAGA), instituted suit in a California state court, on behalf of themselves and others similarly aggrieved in the state of California, alleging they were misclassified by the Company as exempt employees. The Company removed the case to federal court. Discovery is complete and the Company's Motions for Summary Judgment and to Dismiss under PAGA have been filed but not ruled upon. The case is scheduled for trial in November 2013.
In February 2013, a former assistant store manager on behalf of himself and those similarly aggrieved filed a representative claim under California's Private Attorney General Act, alleging the Company failed to provide meal and rest periods; failed to pay minimum, regular and overtime wages; failed to maintain accurate time records and wage statements; and failed to pay wages due upon termination of employment. The Company removed the case from a California state court to federal court. Discovery has commenced and no trial date has been set.
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 those matters which are not settled and cannot estimate a potential range of loss.
|