Dollar General 2008 Annual Report Download - page 101

99
Pay Act and as a class under Title VII, and request back wages, injunctive and declaratory relief,
liquidated damages, punitive damages and attorney’ s fees and costs.
On July 9, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion in which they asked the court to approve the
issuance of notice to a class of current and former female store managers under the Equal Pay
Act. The Company opposed plaintiffs’ motion. On November 30, 2007, the court conditionally
certified a nationwide class of females under the Equal Pay Act who worked for Dollar General
as store managers between November 30, 2004 and November 30, 2007. The notice was issued
on January 11, 2008, and persons to whom the notice was sent were required to opt into the suit
by March 11, 2008. Approximately 2,100 individuals have opted into the lawsuit. The Company
will have an opportunity at the close of the discovery period to seek decertification of the Equal
Pay Act class, and the Company expects to file such motion.
The plaintiffs have not yet moved for class certification relating to their Title VII claims.
The Company expects such motion to be filed within the next several months and will
strenuously oppose such a motion.
At this time, it is not possible to predict whether the court ultimately will permit the
Calvert action to proceed collectively under the Equal Pay Act or as a class under Title VII.
However, the Company believes that the case is not appropriate for class or collective treatment
and that its policies and practices comply with the Equal Pay Act and Title VII. The Company
intends to vigorously defend the action; however, 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
defending the Calvert action, its resolution could have a material adverse effect on the
Company’ s financial statements as a whole.
On July 30, 2008, the Company was served with a complaint filed in the District Court
for Dallas County, Iowa (Julie Cox, et al. v. Dolgencorp, Inc., et al – Case No. LACV-034423)
in which the plaintiff, a former store manager, alleges that the Company discriminates against
pregnant employees on the basis of sex and retaliates against employees in violation of the Iowa
Civil Rights Act. Cox seeks to represent a class of “all current, former and future employees
from the State of Iowa who are employed by Dollar General who suffered from, are currently
suffering from or in the future may suffer from” alleged sex/pregnancy discrimination and
retaliation and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief as well as equitable, compensatory and
punitive damages and attorneys’ fees and costs.
The plaintiff has not yet moved for class certification. At this time, it is not possible to
predict whether the court ultimately will permit the Cox action to proceed as a class. However,
the Company believes that the case is not appropriate for class treatment and that its policies and
practices comply with the Iowa Civil Rights Act. The Company intends to vigorously defend the
action; however, 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 defending this action, its
resolution could have a material adverse effect on the Company’ s financial statements as a
whole.