Dollar General 2008 Annual Report Download - page 100

98
liquidated damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. On August 15, 2006, the Richter plaintiff filed
a motion in which she asked the court to certify a nationwide class of current and former store
managers. The Company opposed the plaintiff’ s motion. On March 23, 2007, the court
conditionally certified a nationwide class of individuals who worked for Dollar General as store
managers since August 7, 2003. The number of persons who will be included in the class has not
been determined, and the court has not approved the Notice that will be sent to the class.
On May 30, 2007, the court stayed all proceedings in the case, including the sending of
the Notice, to evaluate, among other things, certain appeals pending in the Eleventh Circuit
involving claims similar to those raised in this action. That stay was extended through May 15,
2009. During the stay, the statute of limitations has been tolled for potential class members. If
the court ultimately permits Notice to issue, the Company will have an opportunity at the close
of the discovery period to seek decertification of the class, and the Company expects to file such
a motion if necessary.
The Company believes that its store managers are and have been properly classified as
exempt employees under the FLSA and that this action is not appropriate for collective action
treatment. The Company intends to vigorously defend this action. However, at this time, it is not
possible to predict whether the court ultimately will permit this action to proceed collectively,
and no assurances can be given that the Company will be successful in the defense on the merits
or otherwise. If the Company is not successful in its efforts to defend this action, the resolution
could have a material adverse effect on the Company’ s financial statements as a whole.
On May 18, 2006, the Company was served with a lawsuit entitled Tammy Brickey,
Becky Norman, Rose Rochow, Sandra Cogswell and Melinda Sappington v. Dolgencorp, Inc.
and Dollar General Corporation (Western District of New York, Case No. 6:06-cv-06084-DGL,
originally filed on February 9, 2006 and amended on May 12, 2006 (“Brickey”)). The Brickey
plaintiffs seek to proceed collectively under the FLSA and as a class under New York, Ohio,
Maryland and North Carolina wage and hour statutes on behalf of, among others, assistant store
managers who claim to be owed wages (including overtime wages) under those statutes. At this
time, it is not possible to predict whether the court will permit this action to proceed collectively
or as a class. However, the Company believes that this action is not appropriate for either
collective or class treatment and that the Company’ s wage and hour policies and practices
comply with both federal and state law. The Company plans to vigorously defend this action;
however, no assurances can be given that the Company will be successful in the defense on the
merits or otherwise, and, if it is not successful, the resolution of this action could have a material
adverse effect on the Company’ s financial statements as a whole.
On March 7, 2006, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama (Janet Calvert v. Dolgencorp, Inc., Case No. 2:06-cv-00465-VEH
(“Calvert”)), in which the plaintiff, a former store manager, alleged that she was paid less than
male store managers because of her sex, in violation of the Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (“Title VII”). The complaint subsequently was amended to
include additional plaintiffs, who also allege to have been paid less than males because of their
sex, and to add allegations that the Company’ s compensation practices disparately impact
females. Under the amended complaint, Plaintiffs seek to proceed collectively under the Equal