|6 Months Ended
Aug. 04, 2018
|Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
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 certified the case as a state-wide class action.
In April 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. On November 7, 2017, the jury found in favor of the Company. The plaintiff has filed an appeal from the verdict.
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. The plaintiff is seeking statutory damages of $100 to $1,000 per violation for the disclosure form claims.
In July 2017, two former employees filed suit in federal court in California, seeking to represent a class of current and former non-exempt employees alleging that the Company’s dress code required them to purchase such distinctive clothing that it constituted a uniform and the Company’s failure to reimburse them for the clothing violated California law. The former employees seek restitution, damages, penalties and injunctive relief. The Company entered into a settlement agreement which was recently rejected by the court. The parties are reconsidering the terms of the settlement. The Company has accrued the amount in the rejected agreement.
In August 2017, 43 current and former employees filed suit against the Company in state court in California alleging improper classification as exempt employees which they allege resulted in, among other things, their failure to receive overtime compensation, rest and meal periods, accurate wage statements, and final pay upon termination of employment. The Company removed the case to federal court. As required by that court’s order, each plaintiff refiled his or her case individually so that the cases would be tried individually and not as a class. In June 2018, the Company mediated the 43 cases together. The expected settlement amount is immaterial and has been accrued.
In August 2017, a former employee brought suit in California state court on a Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA") representative basis alleging the Company failed to provide him and all other California store associates with suitable seating when they were performing cashier functions. The parties are engaged in discovery.
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 November 2017, a current employee filed a PAGA representative action in California state court alleging the Company failed to make wage statements readily available to California store employees who do not receive paper checks. The lawsuit has been dismissed with prejudice.
In February 2018, a current store manager filed a statewide class action in Missouri state court alleging the Company’s store managers are improperly classified as exempt employees thereby entitling them to overtime pay, liquidated damages and damages for unjust enrichment. The case was dismissed with prejudice.
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 April 2017, a former store employee filed a lawsuit in California state court alleging off the clock work primarily for bag checks, failure to provide rest and meal breaks, and related claims. The court granted the Company’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the case pending the outcome of the arbitration proceedings. Subsequently, the court allowed the plaintiff to amend her complaint to include PAGA claims which are not subject to arbitration. However, those claims remain stayed pending the outcome of the arbitration proceeding.
In December 2017, a former assistant store manager filed suit in California state court asserting PAGA claims on behalf of herself and other store managers and assistant store managers seeking wages for alleged off the clock work, noncompliant rest and meal breaks and related claims.
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.
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 August 2018, a former store manager filed a nationwide collective action in federal court in Texas asserting that she and other similarly situated store managers were improperly classified as exempt employees and are therefore owed overtime pay and other related compensation.
Family Dollar Resolved Matters
In June 2017, a former store employee filed suit in California state court asserting PAGA claims on behalf of herself and other allegedly aggrieved employees alleging the Company willfully caused their work time to go under reported so they failed to receive pay for time worked and related claims. The lawsuit has been dismissed without prejudice.