Wal-Mart Loses Legal Suit about Work Breaks

Paper Summary:

In this article, the writer discusses Wal-Mart's legal loss in a suit in Pennsylvania regarding work breaks and off the clock labor. The writer explores the legal issue and examines the law that applies. Further, the writer presents an analysis of the case. The writer concludes that the weakness of Wal-Mart's case, despite its insistence it will appeal, is further underlined by the fact that it could not deny that some employees were not compensated for their breaks. The writer also notes that Wal-Mart maintains that there should be less of a financial settlement given to the wronged employees than was ultimately awarded.

From the Paper:

"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. 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."

Sample of Sources Used:

• "Breaks and Meal Periods." U.S. Department of Labor. 2006. [21 Oct 2006] http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/workhours/breaks.htm
• "General Information on the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)." U.S. Department of Labor. 2006. [21 Oct 2006]<http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/whd/mwposter_PF.htm>
• "Pennsylvania Department of Labor & Industry: Wage and Hourly Division." The Department of Labor and Industry: PA. Last modified January 13, 2006. [21 Oct 2006]<http://www.dli.state.pa.us/landi/cwp/view.asp?A=142&Q=61106#10>
• "Pennsylvania jury fines Wal-Mart $78 million: Largest retailer found to have forced Employees to work during breaks." MSNBC. October 13, 2006. [21 Oct 2006]<http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15251910/>
• "Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Form 10-Q." October 31, 2005. . [21 Oct 2006]<http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/104169/000010416905000019/wmt10q_q3fy2006.htm>

More papers on Wal-Mart Loses Legal Suit about Work Breaks:

• Case Study # 90521 : "Wrongful Death Suit"
• Case Study # 64828 : "Law Suit against the School District"
• Research Paper # 144807 : "Gerald Dworkin, H.L.A. Hart and Legal Theory"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: