Dollar General 2009 Annual Report Download - page 104

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 104 of the 2009 Dollar General annual report below. You can navigate through the pages in the report by either clicking on the pages listed below, or by using the keyword search tool below to find specific information within the annual report.

Page out of 131

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42
  • 43
  • 44
  • 45
  • 46
  • 47
  • 48
  • 49
  • 50
  • 51
  • 52
  • 53
  • 54
  • 55
  • 56
  • 57
  • 58
  • 59
  • 60
  • 61
  • 62
  • 63
  • 64
  • 65
  • 66
  • 67
  • 68
  • 69
  • 70
  • 71
  • 72
  • 73
  • 74
  • 75
  • 76
  • 77
  • 78
  • 79
  • 80
  • 81
  • 82
  • 83
  • 84
  • 85
  • 86
  • 87
  • 88
  • 89
  • 90
  • 91
  • 92
  • 93
  • 94
  • 95
  • 96
  • 97
  • 98
  • 99
  • 100
  • 101
  • 102
  • 103
  • 104
  • 105
  • 106
  • 107
  • 108
  • 109
  • 110
  • 111
  • 112
  • 113
  • 114
  • 115
  • 116
  • 117
  • 118
  • 119
  • 120
  • 121
  • 122
  • 123
  • 124
  • 125
  • 126
  • 127
  • 128
  • 129
  • 130
  • 131

DOLLAR GENERAL CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
9. Commitments and contingencies (Continued)
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 few 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.
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.
Subsequent to the announcement of the agreement relating to the Merger, the Company and its
directors were named in seven putative class actions alleging claims for breach of fiduciary duty arising
out of the Company’s proposed sale to investment funds affiliated with KKR. Each of the complaints
alleged, among other things, that the Company’s directors engaged in ‘‘self-dealing’’ by agreeing to
recommend the transaction to the Company’s shareholders and that the consideration available to such
shareholders in the transaction was unfairly low. On motion of the plaintiffs, each of these cases was
transferred to the Sixth Circuit Court for Davidson County, Twentieth Judicial District, at Nashville. By
order dated April 26, 2007, the seven lawsuits were consolidated in the court under the caption,
‘‘In re: Dollar General,’’ Case No. 07MD-1. On June 13, 2007, the court denied the Plaintiffs’ motion
for a temporary injunction to block the shareholder vote that was then held on June 21, 2007. On
June 22, 2007, the Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint making claims substantially similar to those
93