Case Notes

“In each of these cases, former assistant store managers of the defendant Wal-Mart Stores Inc. sue to recover allegedly unpaid overtime pay,” Hornak said, outlining the basis of the suits, one of which was brought under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the other under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.

Andrew Swank brought the case under the state law.

“The principal thrusts of the defendant's efforts to dismiss Swank are the assertions that plaintiffs have failed to plead that assistant managers across Pennsylvania work more than 40 hours in a work week, and that under no set of circumstances could the Swank case ever be certified as a class action pursuant to Rule 23,” Hornak said, referring to the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure that governs class action lawsuits.

Wal-Mart had argued the case should be dismissed.

“But courts grant motions to dismiss class allegations before class discovery only in 'the rare few [cases] where the complaint itself demonstrates that the requirements for maintaining a class action cannot be met,'” Hornak said, quoting from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania's 2012 opinion in Goode v. LexisNexis Risk & Information Analytics Group.

If discovery could show there is a viable class, then a motion to strike that class is to be denied, the judge said.

At the end of his opinion, Hornak said, “One more thing.” He then addressed an apparently novel argument made by Wal-Mart that the company's lawyers should be treated as the lawyers who represent all of the assistant managers in Pennsylvania; there are about 1,600 of them across the more than 140 Wal-Mart stores in the state, according to court documents. ' Saranac Hale Spencer, The Legal Intelligencer

'

'

'

Wal-Mart Hit with Two Overtime Suits

Two wage-and-hour lawsuits, one brought as a class action and the other as a collective action, are proceeding against Wal-Mart. The company had moved to dismiss both suits, which allege that assistant store managers weren't paid for their overtime hours, but a federal judge in Pittsburgh denied the motions and allowed the suits to proceed.

U.S. District Judge Mark R. Hornak of the Western District of Pennsylvania declined to combine the cases, as had been requested by the plaintiffs.

“In each of these cases, former assistant store managers of the defendant Wal-Mart Stores Inc. sue to recover allegedly unpaid overtime pay,” Hornak said, outlining the basis of the suits, one of which was brought under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the other under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.

Andrew Swank brought the case under the state law.

“The principal thrusts of the defendant's efforts to dismiss Swank are the assertions that plaintiffs have failed to plead that assistant managers across Pennsylvania work more than 40 hours in a work week, and that under no set of circumstances could the Swank case ever be certified as a class action pursuant to Rule 23,” Hornak said, referring to the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure that governs class action lawsuits.

Wal-Mart had argued the case should be dismissed.

“But courts grant motions to dismiss class allegations before class discovery only in 'the rare few [cases] where the complaint itself demonstrates that the requirements for maintaining a class action cannot be met,'” Hornak said, quoting from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania's 2012 opinion in Goode v. LexisNexis Risk & Information Analytics Group.

If discovery could show there is a viable class, then a motion to strike that class is to be denied, the judge said.

At the end of his opinion, Hornak said, “One more thing.” He then addressed an apparently novel argument made by Wal-Mart that the company's lawyers should be treated as the lawyers who represent all of the assistant managers in Pennsylvania; there are about 1,600 of them across the more than 140 Wal-Mart stores in the state, according to court documents. ' Saranac Hale Spencer, The Legal Intelligencer

'

'

'