Subscribe Subscribe   Find us on Twitter Follow POL on Twitter  



Plaintiffs ask for $66 million, get three times that, from Wal-Mart

| No Comments

A California jury has just awarded $172 million to thousands of California employees at Wal-Mart Stores Inc. who claimed they were illegally denied lunch breaks. The retailer was ordered to pay $57 million in general damages and $115 million in punitive damages to 116,000 current and former employees for violating a 2001 state law that requires employers to give 30-minute, unpaid lunch breaks to employees who work at least six hours.

The lawsuit is one of about 40 tort suits nationwide alleging various workplace violations by Wal-Mart, and the first to go to trial. Wal-Mart settled a similar lawsuit in Colorado for $50 million.

In the suit, Wal-Mart claimed that workers did not demand penalty wages on a timely basis (Under the law, the company must pay workers a full hour's wages for every missed lunch.), and that in 2003 most workers agreed to waive their meal periods as the law allows. Wal-Mart attorney Neal Manne claimed the law did not allow for private lawsuits. He added that Wal-Mart did not believe the lunch law allowed for punitive damages.

Wal-Mart has recently argued for a substantial increase in minimum wages (thus making it very difficult for competitors to underprice it). It is now on the receiving end of this cartellization, as state labor laws are making it difficult to wring out the efficiencies that made the company famous and prosperous. Thus does heightened minimum wage legislation disguise itself as tort law.

Leave a comment

Once submitted, the comment will first be reviewed by our editors and is not guaranteed to be published. Point of Law editors reserve the right to edit, delete, move, or mark as spam any and all comments. They also have the right to block access to any one or group from commenting or from the entire blog. A comment which does not add to the conversation, runs of on an inappropriate tangent, or kills the conversation may be edited, moved, or deleted.

The views and opinions of those providing comments are those of the author of the comment alone, and even if allowed onto the site do not reflect the opinions of Point of Law bloggers or the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research or any employee thereof. Comments submitted to Point of Law are the sole responsibility of their authors, and the author will take full responsibility for the comment, including any asserted liability for defamation or any other cause of action, and neither the Manhattan Institute nor its insurance carriers will assume responsibility for the comment merely because the Institute has provided the forum for its posting.



Rafael Mangual
Project Manager,
Legal Policy

Katherine Lazarski
Manhattan Institute


Published by the Manhattan Institute

The Manhattan Insitute's Center for Legal Policy.