• Case Studies

• ADA Discrimination
• Misclassification (Enterprise)
• Misclassification (FedEx)
• Misclassification (RadioShack)
• Missed Meal and Rest Breaks (KFC)
• Missed Meal and Rest Breaks (Wal-Mart)
• Off-The-Clock Work
• On-Duty Meal Periods
• Gender Discrimination
• Tip Pooling

• Clients

• Industry Experience

Plaintiff Meal And Rest Break Case Study

Savaglio et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Case Details

This class action lawsuit involved the allegation that California Wal-Mart Stores denied 116,000 hourly employees their meal periods and failed to pay the “California premium” of one hour of regular pay for each time an hourly worker was not given a proper meal period. We were retained by the plaintiffs in this case, and Dr. Banks’ testimony focused on when Wal-Mart knew it had a systemic problem with missed meal periods, how Wal-Mart’s management practices and business strategies caused these violations, and how Wal-Mart concealed these violations by eliminating further collection of critical (non)compliance data and by compelling employees to sign improper meal period waivers. In the words of the lead plaintiff attorney, Jessica Grant, “Dr. Banks’ expert testimony was the centerpiece of the Savaglio trial.”

Our Study

• Collected data systematically from internal memos, policy documents, and deposition testimony.
• Analyzed data to evaluate Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.’s business model, operational strategies, management control systems and processes, management roles and responsibilities, hourly associate responsibilities, and meal and rest break compliance data. 
• Assessed the role Wal-Mart’s labor scheduling system played in the frequent meal and rest period violations.

Results

After four months of trial and 10 days of Dr. Banks’ testimony (including five days of cross-examination), plaintiffs prevailed. The jury awarded plaintiffs a total of $172 million, $115 million of which was for punitive damages—the first time a jury in California awarded punitive damages in a meal period case. The National Law Journal ranked the Savaglio verdict as the tenth largest in 2005, and the largest verdict in an employment law case during that same year. Following a subsequent bench trial, Ms. Grant was able to obtain a permanent injunction against Wal-Mart that required the retailer to implement various policies and practices designed to secure its future compliance with California law. Ms. Grant stated that, “Dr. Banks’ testimony was instrumental in obtaining this important equitable relief that will impact Wal-Mart hourly workers in the years to come.”

Subsequent to this trial, Dr. Banks developed a protocol that companies can use to analyze their management and business practices to identify potential compliance weaknesses. She has also identified ways in which companies could implement controls to ensure future compliance.