Walmart loses Pennsylvania lawsuit over work breaks

Wal-Mart Loses PA. Suit of work breaks

Wal-Mart's Loss in Pennsylvania regarding work breaks and off the clock labor:

The legal issue, the law that applies, an analysis of the case, and conclusion

One of the most frequent, and serious allegations regarding Wal-Mart's unofficial corporate policy is its endorsement of the illegal practice of forcing workers to work 'off the clock' during their scheduled breaks. In Pennsylvania, a jury found Wal-Mart Stores Inc. guilty of forcing Pennsylvania employees to work "off the clock" during their rest breaks. The jury mandated that Wal-Mart pay the workers $78.47 million in damages to current and former employees. The damages awarded broke down to $2.5 million for the employee's off-the-clock labor and $76 million for the worker's lost rest breaks from the period between March of 1998 and May of 2006. ("Pennsylvania jury fines Wal-Mart $78 million," MSNBC, 2006)

The employees' attorney explained that Wal-Mart employees were forced to work through their breaks against Pennsylvanian state law. According to the state's law: "If your employer allows breaks, and they last less than 20 minutes, you must be paid for the break." ("Pennsylvania Department of Labor & Industry: Wage and Hourly Division," 2006) However, Wal-Mart was found to have mandated that workers work during their allotted paid breaks as a contingent part of their employment. The workers swiped their cards, meaning that they were 'off the clock,' and on break, but were required to continue to work, even though this additional labor was not factored into their paycheck as additional hours. This essentially forced these workers to work more time, for free. Also, workers who should have been paid overtime were not paid overtime, because part of their labor occurred when the 'clock' said they were not officially working, but during the allotted break period.

This is not the first time that Wal-Mart has been accused of this practice. Also, Pennsylvania's statute is not unique. According to Wal-Mart's 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2005, to its shareholders regarding the numerous suits: "The [Wal-Mart] Company is a defendant in numerous cases containing class-action allegations in which the plaintiffs have brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")," or corresponding state statutes, as in Pennsylvania. ("Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Form 10-Q," 2005, p.7) "The plaintiffs in these lawsuits are current and former hourly associates who allege, among other things, that the company forced them to work 'off the clock,' or failed to provide work breaks, or otherwise claim they were not paid for work performed." ("Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Form 10-Q," 2005, p.7)

For example, according to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act as well as Pennsylvania law, overtime pay should equate to one and a half times an employee's regular rate of pay for all hours worked over forty hours during a regular workweek. ("General Information on the Fair Labor Standards Act," U.S. Department of Labor, 2006) However, because many Wal-Mart employees were forced to work more than the regular workweek, but because they were not officially on the clock, their extra labor was disregarded in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. It should be noted that a state could have more stringent or additional labor standards regarding the fair treatment of workers, but not less stringent standards than the federal government. The workers sued under Pennsylvania rather than federal law, but regardless of the venue, Wal-Mart's practices regarding overtime were in violation of both federal and state standards regarding overtime.

Regarding work breaks, federal law, like Pennsylvania law, also does not require lunch or coffee breaks. "However, when employers do offer short breaks (usually lasting about 5 to 20 minutes), federal law considers the breaks work-time that must be paid," which they were not in the case of Wal-Mart ("Breaks and Meal Periods," U.S. Department of Labor, 2006) the case was argued before Philadelphia's Court of Common Pleas. The employees' attorneys argued that Wal-Mart employees were forced to work through their breaks "because the company wanted to maximize profits." ("Pennsylvania jury fines Wal-Mart $78 million," MS.NBC, 2006) at times, the attorney may have used a sympathetic or emotional strategy to win the case, rather than deploying concrete legal evidence. "Wal-Mart doesn't understand anything but numbers," he said. "In order for Wal-Mart to understand this, it needs to see numbers, big numbers." He even asked the jury to "send a message to corporate America," although the judge struck this remark from the record. ("Pennsylvania jury fines Wal-Mart $78 million," MS.NBC, 2006)