home

Wal-Mart: Jury Awards $172 Million to Workers for Denied Lunch Breaks

By Jeralyn, Section Law Related
Posted on Fri Dec 23, 2005 at 04:59:44 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

A jury in Alameda, California sent a strong message to Wal-Mart yesterday in returning a verdict against the company for $172 million. The winning plaintiffs were 116,000 Wa-Mart employees who sued in a class action alleging the company denied them lunchbreaks.

TChris wrote about the lawsuit here:

Wal-Mart's lawyers reserved their right to give an opening statement until after the employees rest their case -- a sign, perhaps, that Wal-Mart isn't sure what defense it might have to the allegations. Wal-Mart might be playing for the fumble.

My last post on Wal-Mart and its mis-treatment of undocumented workers is here on Huffington Post.

< Senate Votes to Lift Ban on Student Aid for Non-Violent Drug Offenders | Alito Advocated Overturning Roe v. Wade in '85 Memo >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Wal-Mart: Jury Awards $172 Million to Workers for Denied Lunch Breaks | 16 comments (16 topical)
    Re: Wal-Mart: Jury Awards $172 Million to Workers (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Dec 23, 2005 at 08:45:39 AM EST
    The news is better than your title.You need to put an "M" next to $172 in the title.

    Re: Wal-Mart: Jury Awards $172 Million to Workers (none / 0) (#2)
    by kdog on Fri Dec 23, 2005 at 08:53:12 AM EST
    In a word...cool.

    Re: Wal-Mart: Jury Awards $172 Million to Workers (none / 0) (#3)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Dec 23, 2005 at 09:02:23 AM EST
    They broke the law and they paid the piper. Although, $172 million/116,000 = about $1500/per employee. What's the attorney's take? 30% of each employee's $1500? Plus expenses? Ah well, better than nothing I guess.

    Re: Wal-Mart: Jury Awards $172 Million to Workers (none / 0) (#4)
    by Dadler on Fri Dec 23, 2005 at 10:39:42 AM EST
    Sarc, You instinctively have more venom for the lawyer who got justice for employees than for the mega-billions company that committed a willing crime for no other reason that raw greed and wretched inhumanity. Why?

    Re: Wal-Mart: Jury Awards $172 Million to Workers (none / 0) (#5)
    by nolo on Fri Dec 23, 2005 at 10:55:23 AM EST
    Sarcastic, if it hadn't been for the attorneys' efforts, the workers would still be getting bupkis. Moreover, if you'd read the article, you'd have noticed that the attorney fees won't be coming out of the workers' individual recoveries -- they'll be paid by Wal-Mart. This is the way it usually works in class actions, btw.

    Re: Wal-Mart: Jury Awards $172 Million to Workers (none / 0) (#6)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Dec 23, 2005 at 11:14:09 AM EST
    Good Lord, Dadler, venom? Did you actually read my post? Nolo, nope, I didn't read the linked article, guilty as charged, and I didn't know how class action suits are usually structured, thanks for setting me straight. I'm glad the workers will get the full settlement that they deserved...which was the actual point of my post, Dadler.

    Re: Wal-Mart: Jury Awards $172 Million to Workers (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Dec 23, 2005 at 11:51:13 AM EST
    Seems like only the judicial branch can protect Christmas from the right-wing cooks waging a war on the holiday season.

    Re: Wal-Mart: Jury Awards $172 Million to Workers (none / 0) (#8)
    by Dadler on Fri Dec 23, 2005 at 12:07:52 PM EST
    Sarc, Come on, bro. There was a clear tone in your first message. And it said the lawyers, to you, are somehow just as crooked or greedy in this case. That's the vibe I got and I wondered why that's your FIRST thought. I mean, you only started using figures to show what percentage of each employees chunk you thought might go to a lawyer -- a paradigm that proved to be based on assumption and not fact. Which is much of what the myth about frivolous lawsuits is based on. Assumption and not fact.

    Re: Wal-Mart: Jury Awards $172 Million to Workers (none / 0) (#9)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Dec 23, 2005 at 12:30:19 PM EST
    Huh? Dadler, for someone who spends so much time telling others to "think" and use their "g*d*mn free American imagination," I think you really didn't do much the former, and did too much of the latter, here. I said: a) Walmart got what they deserved, and b) (wrongly, clearly) that it didn't seem right that the lawyers are taking 30% portion of the $1500. fwiw, my whole comment came from the thought that $1500 seems like not enough, and therefore taking 30% of it ain't right. I don't know how to say it any clearer.

    Re: Wal-Mart: Jury Awards $172 Million to Workers (none / 0) (#10)
    by Che's Lounge on Fri Dec 23, 2005 at 07:07:04 PM EST
    That's an expensive lunch. But not really that much for Mall Wart. This is an entrirely acceptable business practice for them. They probably saved a portion of it by stretching the employees out like they did, and even more by avoiding the overhead of hiring an adequate number of employees. That's what happens when there's no organization to protect the workers.

    Re: Wal-Mart: Jury Awards $172 Million to Workers (none / 0) (#11)
    by jimcee on Fri Dec 23, 2005 at 07:48:17 PM EST
    The plaintiffs deserve thier award and Wal-Mart was wrong for thier actions. I doubt the 'no-lunch' policy was from the upper command levels of Wal-Mart but more the at the hand of a local meglomaniacal manager. Its not to say that the corporate culture of Wal-Mart didn't indirectly cause this situation to happen but I doubt very much that it is a company-wide policy. All said and done I still don't understand the paranoia that people have about Wal-Mart. If you don't like Wal-Mart? Don't shop there. If you don't like thier employment policies? Don't work there.

    Re: Wal-Mart: Jury Awards $172 Million to Workers (none / 0) (#13)
    by jimcee on Fri Dec 23, 2005 at 09:53:23 PM EST
    Ernest, You don't have to put up with thier sh*t, just ignore them. Vote with your money, afterall it is the perfect example of democracy, its better than an electoral vote. Money talks...yadda, yadda....

    Re: Wal-Mart: Jury Awards $172 Million to Workers (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Dec 23, 2005 at 11:15:34 PM EST
    All said and done I still don't understand the paranoia that people have about Wal-Mart.
    Wall-Mart is evil. They are the most powerfull retailer in the world. And when the Justice Department issues a slap on the wrist to Wall-Mart, well, Wall-Mart knows when to take a hint. And then they go on to screw a LOT of people. Believe me, I have been in litigation with this truly evil company (and I don't say that lightly).

    Re: Wal-Mart: Jury Awards $172 Million to Workers (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 24, 2005 at 05:44:43 AM EST
    But it's not fair to characterize Walmart as the antichrist. Our president proudly holds that title.

    Re: Wal-Mart: Jury Awards $172 Million to Workers (none / 0) (#16)
    by scarshapedstar on Sat Dec 24, 2005 at 10:21:50 PM EST
    I didn't know how class action suits are usually structured, thanks for setting me straight.
    You and every other right-winger on the planet. If I had a nickel for every time someone claimed that lawyers got $4 billion from the tobacco companies, I'd be... rich as a lawyer!

    Re: Wal-Mart: Jury Awards $172 Million to Workers (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 08:42:40 AM EST
    I'd like to know who these lawyers are because my company makes us work through lunch all the time with their famous "lunch meetings". we work unpaid overtime regularly and are told that if we cannot do it before closing time then we are not up to speed so we have to work over for free to keep our job. We are forced to go to mandatory, "lunch meetings" to discuss work issues and then told we should be grateful for the free lunch rather than our legally entitled lunch break. The one time I questioned it I was told that if I did not want to go then I could leave. What do you think that meant?

    Wal-Mart: Jury Awards $172 Million to Workers for Denied Lunch Breaks | 16 comments (16 topical)