[UPDATED] Judge Robert King Jr. ruled in favor of workers on Monday in the Dakota County District Court of Hastings, Minnesota.
"Wal-Mart broke Minnesota labor law more than 2 million times over six years by forcing some employees to work without breaks and without full pay," costing the retail giant up to $2 billion not counting back wages for the 56,000 employees represented under the Braun v. Wal-Mart suit (Star Tribune).
---
So far, there are 80 class-action suits in 41 states against Wal-Mart , most of which concerns wage and off-the-clock issues. For this retail giant of over 1 million employees and 3,400 U.S. stores, public knowledge on these suits cannot possibly be helping its recent positive publicity campaign or its relationship with the investors, which is probably why many of these legal proceedings were not disclosed by the company. In fact, Wal-Mart is not required under law to reveal lawsuits against the company unless “the damages result in material financial losses that are more than 10 percent of the current assets of the company,” (Morrison).
Among the 80 lawsuits against Wal-Mart, Dukes v. Wal-Mart may be its largest with over 1.6 million plaintiffs. Originally filed by six women, Dukes have come to represent present and past female employees since 1998, making it the largest sex discrimination suit in history. The plaintiffs claimed Wal-Mart violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act (C 01-02252 MJJ) by systematically discriminating against women in promotions, pay, training, and job assignment. Female employees were paid less than men and frequently passed over for promotions, “despite having higher performance and greater seniority” than their male counterparts (C 01-02252 MJJ). The plaintiffs are seeking injunctive and declarative relief, front pay, back pay, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees (Morrison). Currently, Wal-Mart is disputing the “class-action” status of the suit, prolonging the legal proceeding and delaying the payment of damages to those affected.
In addition, there are numerous suits pending on issues of working off the clock without compensation, understaffing, falsified time cards, and forced miss breaks. In Savaglio v. Wal-Mart and Bran/Hummel v. Wal-Mart, Wal-Mart violated state laws by refusing to adequately provide meal and rest breaks (Morrison). In both cases, understaffing by management caused employees to miss breaks or to work before clocking in and to work after clocking out. The similarity of unlawful practices in these cases suggests a corporate hand may be involved in implementing these widespread policies in the Wal-Mart retail chain.