Thread: Federal judge refuses to dismiss Wal-Mart janitors' lawsuit

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/12853981.htm


Posted on Sat, Oct. 08, 2005


Federal judge refuses to dismiss Wal-Mart janitors' lawsuit

Associated Press


NEWARK, N.J. - A federal judge has allowed a group of illegal immigrant janitors to proceed with a lawsuit seeking overtime pay from discount retailer Wal-Mart.

U.S. District Judge Joseph Greenaway on Friday threw out a motion from Wal-Mart lawyers to dismiss the collective action suit filed by the janitors, who were among those rounded up in immigration raids at Wal-Mart stores two years ago.

While allowing claims on overtime pay and paying below the minimum wage to stand, Greenaway did dismiss three other claims against Wal-Mart, including one that alleged workers were subject to involuntary servitude.

The judge also tossed out a charge that the company violated federal racketeering laws but gave the plaintiffs 45 days to submit more evidence to support their claim.

Their lawyer, James Linsey, planned to refile the charges.

Linsey said the original lawsuit was filed by 17 workers in New Jersey, but now includes "several hundred" who worked in stores nationwide.

Wal-Mart spokesman Marty Hires declined to comment until attorneys for the company could examine the ruling.

Last May, Wal-Mart agreed to pay an $11 million civil fine to end a federal probe into the use of illegal immigrants at stores in 21 states, including New Jersey.

Wally Mart has a Dept of Homeland Security office in their Arkansas Headquarters. I guess this is to ensure that they are not breaking any laws?

The illegals need to be deported and Wal_Mart Needs a 1 Billion dollar fine.

U.S. District Judge Joseph Greenaway on Friday threw out a motion from Wal-Mart lawyers to dismiss the collective action suit filed by the janitors, who were among those rounded up in immigration raids at Wal-Mart stores two years ago.

Even if they were illegal, ya gotta pay them whats due. Hopefully, other businesses are watching this and are shedding any illegals they have hired.

www.forbes.com

Wal-Mart Can't Clean Up
Michael Maiello, 10.10.05, 2:47 PM ET

Wal-Mart Stores fended off a racketeering charge on Friday, but a U.S. judge decided that a lawsuit brought against the behemoth retailer by the undocumented workers who once buffed its superstore floors can proceed. Wal-Mart will have to answer to charges of not paying these workers fair wages and overtime, and that its store managers locked the doors on overnight cleaning crews, keeping them prisoner until the doors were opened the next morning to let in bargain-hunting shoppers.

New York City labor lawyer James Linsey, who represents several hundred illegal workers in their lawsuit against Wal-Mart (nyse: WMT - news - people ), promises to resubmit the racketeering allegations. But he says he is pleased that the heart of his complaint--that the workers were underpaid and mistreated--withstood Wal-Mart's motion to dismiss.

In March, Wal-Mart agreed to pay $11 million to end a four-year-old U.S. government criminal investigation into its hiring practices (see: "It's Not Over For Wal-Mart"). But it still faced a massive class-action suit filed on behalf of the workers. Linsey said at that time that the accusation of racketeering--that Wal-Mart had deliberately conspired to hire illegals on a national basis--carried such a stigma that it might motivate the retailer to settle with his clients. Now, even if the racketeering accusations are brought back into the case, Linsey no longer seems hopeful about a settlement. Wal-Mart has fought the workers' case for 16 months.

U.S. District Judge Joseph Greenaway's decision to let stand the wage charges, which were brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, helps explain the court's thinking about the claims of undocumented workers. First, he rejected Wal-Mart's argument that because the workers are illegal, they can't seek relief from the law. Greenaway wrote, "This court only joins a growing chorus acknowledging the right of workers to seek relief for work already performed under the Fair Labor Standards Act."

Next, he rejected Wal-Mart's assertion that since the janitors worked for contractors rather than Wal-Mart directly, Wal-Mart was not their employer. Greenaway also rejected Wal-Mart's claim that the wage issue should be dismissed because it had paid above minimum wage to some of the workers and "near" minimum wage to several others. "Simply put," Greenaway wrote, "payment of 'near' the lawful minimum wage is not payment of the minimum wage."

On the allegations of false imprisonment, the workers will have the opportunity, as a class, to sock Wal-Mart with punitive damages, should they win this issue at trial. Linsey says he'll be able to present testimony not only from workers who were locked into the stores but from their friends, family members and neighbors who sometimes couldn't find the workers because of their confinement.

"This is potentially more costly [than other aspects of the case]," says Linsey. "Punitive damages are based on the type of punishment it would take to get the attention of someone who did something very bad."

The Wal-Mart trial will continue to wind on slowly. Linsey has 45 days to resubmit his racketeering claim, and then Wal-Mart will have another go at getting it dismissed.

Wal-Mart didn't return calls for comment.

Wool-Mort needs to do what they used to. Buy American so We Can Buy American.

Now with current practices, they can move their operation to China. Their new motto should read (In china) We buy Chinese so You Can Buy Chinese!