Wal-Mart Wage & Hour Class Action Lawsuit Heads to Supreme Court

Former Wal-Mart employees have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold a $188 million verdict against the retail giant, asserting that Wal-Mart’s claim that the plaintiffs won as the result of an unfair “trial by formula” is without merit.

The massive wage and hour class action lawsuit was brought by Wal-Mart employees who were allegedly not paid for working during meal breaks.

Overview of Wal-Mart Employee Class Action Lawsuit

In the Wal-Mart wage and hour class action lawsuit, two Wal-Mart employees sued Wal-Mart on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated employees for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The plaintiffs alleged they were not paid for meal breaks, and cited their Employee Handbook that hourly employees who work between three and six hours per shift must be paid for one short break, and hourly employees who work more than six hours per shift must be paid for two short breaks.

According to federal labor laws, an employee handbook is an enforceable document and employers are bound by the representations in the handbook. The Wal-Mart employees claimed that, contrary to their employee handbook, Wal-Mart frequently denied them their meal and short breaks and, when they did receive those breaks, they were not paid for that time.

Although federal law does not require employers to provide meal and short breaks, the FLSA requires employers that do offer meal and short breaks to pay their employees for interrupted meal breaks, i.e., meal periods in which employees perform work, and for all short breaks.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of Pennsylvania’s Superior Court that Wal-Mart’s employee handbook constituted a contract and that Wal-Mart had, among other labor law violations, breached that contract.

The court ordered Wal-Mart to pay approximately $188 million to the Class, which was composed of approximately 187,000 Wal-Mart employees who worked in Pennsylvania between 1998 and 2006.

On March 13, 2015, Wal-Mart filed a petition with the United States Supreme Court to review whether the Pennsylvania courts incorrectly subjected Wal-Mart to a “trial by formula” to produce class-wide “common” evidence on key elements of only six plaintiffs’ claims.

Wal-Mart’s legal team claims the retail giant’s right to due process was violated and that the wage and hour class action lawsuit was unfair since the U.S. Supreme Court prohibited a similar “trial by formula” defense in a 2011 case (Dukes v. Wal-Mart).

However, attorneys for the former Wal-Mart employees argue that Wal-Mart is trying to extend the Dukes v. Wal-Mart logic from arguing that a handful of employees can’t speak for the class to functionally arguing that every employee must speak for the class.

Meal Break Laws

Under the FLSA, if employers do give meal breaks voluntarily, they do not have to pay employees while they’re on such work breaks. However, the breaks must be bona fide meal breaks for employers to be relieved of break pay.

For example, an employer who voluntarily offers a daily meal break by policy, but who does not pay employees while they’re on their meal break, must allow employees to take the whole break without working. Otherwise, it is not a bona fide meal break under the FLSA. Instead, it counts as work time, for which the employer must pay employees.

In other words, employers can’t simply label work breaks as meal, dinner or lunch breaks to evade paying employees while they’re on such breaks. Employers must allow employees to take meal breaks free of work duties.

The Walmart Wage and Hour Cases are Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Braun, and Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Hummel, Case Nos. 14-1123 and 14-1124, before the U.S. Supreme Court.

UPDATE: The Walmart, Sam’s Club hourly employee class action settlement is now open! Click here for more information! 

Join a Free Wage & Hour Class Action Lawsuit Investigation

If you were forced to work off the clock or without overtime pay within the past 3 years, you have rights – and you don’t have to take on the company alone.

Get a Free Case Evaluation Now