Court rules Wal-Mart class action can proceed
Class Action News
[##_1L|1268931702.jpg|width="131" height="91" alt=""|_##]WAL-MART Stores Inc, the world's largest retailer, must face a class-action lawsuit by New Jersey workers claiming the company forced them to work through breaks and cheated them of overtime pay, the state Supreme Court ruled. The decision yesterday reversed two lower-court rulings that denied the hourly workers the right to sue as a group. The trial court "abused its discretion in declining to certify" the class action, the court said.
The high court certified a class covering about 72,000 former and current Wal-Mart workers. One legal expert said the decision "isn't good news for Wal-Mart".
"My speculation is that a jury is likely to find for the plaintiffs, given New Jersey juries and the pretty strong evidence put on elsewhere," said Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond in Virginia. Wal-Mart, based in Bentonville, Arkansas, faces more than 70 US wage-and-hour suits, including class actions by employees claiming the company failed to pay for all hours worked or didn't compensate them properly for overtime.
Since December 2005, juries in Pennsylvania and California have awarded Wal-Mart workers a total of $US251 million ($A303 million) in pay and damages over such claims.
"We're disappointed with the decision and we're studying the opinion," Wal-Mart spokesman John Simley said.
Workers' lawyer Judy Spanier said her clients were "very pleased" with the decision. "It essentially adopts every argument we made," she said.
The ruling sends the case back to state court in New Brunswick for pretrial evidence-gathering.
The trial court first refused to grant class-action status, saying the case would be unmanageable. A mid-level appeals court upheld the decision. The Supreme Court found both lower courts were in error.
The workers claim Wal-Mart forced them to work through meal breaks, locked them in retail stores after they clocked out and coerced them into working off the clock.
The New Jersey action class will cover current and former hourly Wal-Mart staff employed from May 30, 1996, to the present.
Related listings
-
Class Action Suit Planned Against Casey's
Class Action News 05/30/2007[##_1L|1119118476.jpg|width="130" height="90" alt=""|_##]Two former assistant managers at Casey's General Stores say the convenience store chain didn't pay them overtime wages. Kristina Jones and Kim Marrs say they plan to file a class action lawsuit...
-
Apple, labels slapped with class action suit
Class Action News 05/24/2007A small record label has filed a class action lawsuit against Apple and other digital music stores as well as the major record labels that carry its catalog of tracks. Dawg Music, which is run by bluegrass musician David Grisman and his partner Craig...
-
Orthodontic Patient Files Class Action Complaint
Class Action News 05/23/2007[##_1L|1333231965.jpg|width="101" height="102" alt=""|_##]Align Technology, Inc. (NASDAQ: ALGN) , the inventor of Invisalign(R), a proprietary method of straightening teeth without wires or brackets, announced today that the Company has been notified...
Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC
A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party
Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party
However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.