Posts Tagged ‘ Wal-Mart ’

CVS Lawsuit: No Sitting Down on the Job!

June 8th, 2012. By AbiK

Well, if the Eagles were to write a lyric for the decision in the CVS cashier seat lawsuit it might be “you can check out anytime you like, but I can never sit.” Or something like that.

Yes, a judge in California has ruled that CVS cashiers don’t have a right to a seat while they’re working the cash register. If you recall, both Wal-Mart and Home Depot were recently hit with similar labor law class action lawsuits—only in those cases it was over chairs for greeters, not cashiers.

In the Home Depot case, the court ruled in favor of the employees who brought the lawsuit; not so with CVS as the job of cashier does not “reasonably permit the use of a seat”. CVS also argued in its defense that they could not maintain the company’s commitment excellent customer service if cashiers were to be sitting down on the job (gives a whole new meaning to that phrase, huh?). I’m not sure what defines “excellent” customer service, but I guess sitting down might make it harder for CVS cashiers to go grab a pack of smokes for a customer or perhaps quickly bag toiletries.

The ‘sit on the job’ CVS lawsuit alleged violations of California’s 2004 Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (aka the “Sue your Boss” law). The lawsuit was brought by former CVS employee Nykeya Kilby—who, btw, was terminated after working at CVS for eight months. Cause of termination: missing work. But the interesting thing here is that Kilby apparently never requested a chair while employed. Go figure.

So if you’re keeping score, it’s Greeters: 1, Cashiers: 0 —for now.

 

Tags: CVS Cashier, CVS Class Action, CVS Lawsuit, Home Depot, Labor Law, Labor Violation, Wal-Mart
Posted in Class Action, Employment | No Comments »

Riddle: How Many Make a Class for a Wal-Mart Class Action?

September 1st, 2010. By LucyC

Question: How many people does it take to make a class in a class action lawsuit?

Answer: That depends on how much money you have to spend.

Faced with a potential class action lawsuit over allegations that the world’s largest private employer discriminated (discriminates?) against its female employees, Wal-Mart has so far managed to avoid a trial by insisting that the roughly 1 million women who worked for them since 2001 don’t constitute a class. That’s nine years of legal wrangling and it ain’t over yet.

Just as a quick reference, according to one legal dictionary I checked the definition of a class is: “a lawsuit that allows a large number of people with a common interest in a matter to sue or be sued as a group.” That seems fairly straight forward to me. As indeed it did to a federal court judge in 2004, who ruled that the women do constitute a class. Wal-Mart, apparently having the funds available to drag this out—appealed the decision, but in April, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals also ruled that the 1 million women constitutes a class, and that the case could proceed.

But no. Not yet. Wal-Mart—the harbingers of “Save Money. Live Better.”—seem to be following their own advice to the letter, figuring it’s likely cheaper to fight this now than risk going to court or paying a settlement—both outcomes they are very familiar with—is taking the matter to the Supreme Court. 

A recent editorial in the NY Times states this is “probably a smart legal move, given the Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: Discrimination, Employment, Fair Pay, Wal-Mart, Walmart
Posted in Employment | 2 Comments »

7 Game-Changing Settlements of 2009

December 15th, 2009. By Kristine B

We’re in the countdown to year-end and looking over some of the more impactful settlements LawyersAndSettlements.com has covered over the past year. When we’re talking impactful, everyone around here has an opinion—so we had to throw in some criteria. To get the nod for impact, a settlement had to be one of two things: 1. High dollar value; or 2. Precedent-setting—or at least have the potential to influence similar cases to follow. (Sounds simple, but you try getting Stephen, John, Jaime, Michelle and Ben to settle in on just 7 settlements with just those criteria…) So here we go…7 game-changing settlements for ’09…

1) Family takes on GlaxoSmithKline  

Michelle David filed a lawsuit against GlaxoSmithKline, alleging the company’s antidepressant, Paxil was responsible for her son’s birth defects. David said she had taken Paxil while pregnant and was not aware of the potential side effects. GlaxoSmithKline said that birth defects occur in between three and five percent of all live births, regardless of Paxil use. 

A jury found, in a 10-2 decision, that GlaxoSmithKline’s officials were negligent in failing to warn David’s doctor about the risks of Paxil. The jury also found that Paxil was a factual cause of the little boy’s heart problems. David was awarded $2.5 million.

Why it’s impactful:There are 600 or so lawsuits alleging Paxil caused birth defects waiting in Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: Asbestos, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Philip Morris, Wal-Mart, Wyeth
Posted in Settlement | No Comments »