Dollar General 2013 Annual Report Download - page 157

DOLLAR GENERAL CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
8. Commitments and contingencies (Continued)
District of Tennessee. The Buttry plaintiffs seek to proceed on a nationwide collective basis under the
FLSA and as a statewide class under Tennessee law on behalf of non-exempt store employees who
allegedly were not properly paid for certain breaks. The Buttry plaintiffs seek back wages (including
overtime), injunctive and declaratory relief, liquidated damages, compensatory and economic damages,
‘‘consequential’’ and ‘‘incidental’’ damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys’
fees and costs.
The Company filed its Answer on August 7, 2013. The plaintiffs filed their motion for conditional
certification of their FLSA on December 5, 2013. The Company filed its response to that motion on
February 3, 2014. The court set a hearing on the plaintiffs’ motion for conditional certification of their
FLSA claims on April 2, 2014.
The plaintiffs’ motion for certification of their statewide claims is due to be filed on or before
September 22, 2014. The court has set this matter for trial on February 17, 2015.
The Company believes that its wage and hour policies and practices comply with both the FLSA
and state law, including Tennessee law, and that the Wass and Buttry actions are not appropriate for
collective or class treatment. The Company intends to vigorously defend these actions; however, at this
time, it is not possible to predict whether the Wass or Buttry action ultimately will be permitted to
proceed collectively or as a class, and no assurances can be given that the Company will be successful
in its defense of these actions on the merits or otherwise. Similarly, at this time the Company cannot
estimate either the size of any potential class or the value of the claims asserted in the Wass and Buttry
actions. For these reasons, the Company is unable to estimate any potential loss or range of loss in
these matters; however, if the Company is not successful in its defense efforts, the resolution of one or
more of these actions could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial
statements as a whole.
On September 16, 2013, a lawsuit entitled Lisa Kocmich v. DolgenCorp, LLC (Case
No. 2013CA005841AX) (‘‘Kocmich’’) was filed in the Circuit Court of Manatee County, Florida. The
Kocmich plaintiff seeks to proceed on a nationwide collective basis under the FLSA on behalf of all
similarly situated non-exempt store employees who allegedly were not paid for all hours worked
(including overtime) as required by the FLSA. The Kocmich plaintiff seeks back wages, liquidated
damages and attorneys’ fees and costs.
The Company removed this matter to the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida (Case No. 8:13-cv-02705-RAL-MAP) on October 21, 2013. The Company filed its Answer on
November 4, 2013.
The parties have reached an agreement to resolve the Kocmich matter for an amount that is
immaterial to the Company’s consolidated financial statements as a whole.
On May 20, 2011, a lawsuit entitled Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., et al. v. Dolgencorp, LLC was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case No. 9:11-cv-80601-DMM)
(‘‘Winn-Dixie’’) in which the plaintiffs allege that the sale of food and other items in approximately 55
of the Company’s stores, each of which allegedly is or was at some time co-located in a shopping center
with one of plaintiffs’ stores, violates restrictive covenants that plaintiffs contend are binding on the
occupants of the shopping centers. Plaintiffs sought damages and an injunction limiting the sale of food
and other items in those stores. Although plaintiffs did not make a demand for any specific amount of
damages, documents prepared and produced by plaintiffs during discovery suggested that plaintiffs
80
10-K