LEGAL PROCEEDINGS |
3 Months Ended |
|---|---|
Apr. 29, 2017 | |
| Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] | |
| LEGAL PROCEEDINGS |
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
The Company is a defendant in legal proceedings including those described below and 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 is now considering the employee’s motion to certify the case as a state-wide class action.
In April 2015, a former store manager filed a class action along with Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA") claims in California state court alleging store managers were improperly classified as exempt employees and, among other things on behalf of all California store employees, did not receive overtime compensation and meal and rest periods. The former employee also brought class action claims asserting the Company failed to make wage statements readily available to employees who did not receive paper checks. The Company removed the case to federal court where the Court denied certification of the classification issue and related claims but has not ruled on the PAGA claims. The Court did certify a wage statement class.
In April 2016, the Company was served with a putative class action in Florida state court brought by a former store employee asserting the Company violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act in the way it handled background checks. Specifically, the former employee alleged the Company used disclosure forms that did not meet the statute’s requirements and failed to provide notices accompanied by background reports prior to taking adverse actions against prospective and existing employees based on information in the background reports. The plaintiff is seeking statutory damages of $100 to $1,000 per violation.
In April 2016, a former store manager filed a lawsuit in California state court alleging individual claims of pregnancy and disability discrimination in addition to asserting PAGA claims on behalf of herself and other store managers alleging they were improperly classified as exempt and therefore, among other things, did not receive overtime compensation and meal and rest periods. The classification claims have been stayed pending the outcome of other lawsuits which were previously filed alleging similar PAGA claims.
In July 2016, a former non-exempt sales associate filed in federal court in Arkansas a putative nationwide collective action alleging the Company forced sales associates and assistant store managers to work off the clock while clocked out for meal breaks and, as a result, underpaid regular and overtime pay. In September 2016, the court granted the Company’s motion to compel arbitration. To date, the former associate has not initiated any arbitration proceedings.
In March 2017, a former store manager filed suit in a state court in Florida, seeking to represent a collective, alleging failure to pay non-exempt employees minimum wage for all time worked and overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and, individually, alleging race discrimination and retaliation in violation of federal and state civil rights laws. Pursuant to Court order, the case has been sent to arbitration.
Family Dollar Active Matters
In 2008, a complaint was filed alleging discriminatory practices with respect to the pay of Family Dollar's female store managers. Among other things, the plaintiffs seek recovery of back pay, monetary and punitive remedies, interest, attorneys' fees, and equitable relief. In June 2016, the United States District Court in North Carolina ordered that the case be continued for merits discovery. The court also certified the case as a class action of approximately 30,000 current and former female store managers employed as far back as July 2002. A preliminary settlement has been reached in this case and has been properly recorded by the Company. Other aspects of the settlement agreement are still being finalized.
In 2014, a putative class action was filed in a California Federal Court by a former employee alleging that the Company had a policy of requiring employee bag checks while the employees were not clocked in for work. As a result of those actions, the employee alleges the Company violated California law by failing to provide meal periods and rest breaks, failing to pay regular and overtime wages for work performed off the clock, failing to provide accurate wage statements, failing to timely pay all final wages and by engaging in unfair competition. He has also alleged PAGA claims. The former employee dismissed his individual claims after the court ruled that the claims were subject to arbitration. The court ruled that the PAGA claims may proceed.
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.
Family Dollar Resolved Matters
In 2015, former employees filed a nationwide class action in federal court in Connecticut alleging the Company had violated ERISA by overcharging employees who purchased supplemental life insurance through a Company sponsored plan. In March 2016, the district court dismissed the lawsuit. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the lawsuit.
|