Dollar General 2014 Annual Report Download - page 149

10-K
DOLLAR GENERAL CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
8. Commitments and contingencies (Continued)
On September 8, 2014, a lawsuit entitled Sally Ann Carpenter v. Dolgencorp, Inc. was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia (Case No. 2:14-cv-25500)
(‘‘Carpenter’’). The Carpenter plaintiff seeks to proceed on a collective basis under the FLSA on behalf
of herself and other former and current store managers in the state of West Virginia who were
allegedly improperly classified as exempt executive employees under the FLSA. The Carpenter plaintiff
seeks to recover overtime pay, liquidated damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs.
The Company filed its answer to the complaint on September 30, 2014. On February 13, 2015, the
court entered a scheduling order that, among other things, requires the Carpenter plaintiff to file a
motion for conditional certification of her FLSA claims on or before April 24, 2015. The Company’s
response is due to be filed 30 days after the Carpenter plaintiff files her motion for conditional
certification.
On October 31, 2014, a lawsuit entitled Ronda Hood v. Dollar General Corporation was filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (Case No. 2:14-cv-02512-JTM-DEK)
(‘‘Hood’’). The Hood plaintiff seeks to proceed on a nationwide collective basis under the FLSA on
behalf of herself and other similarly situated store managers who were allegedly improperly classified as
exempt executive employees under the FLSA. The Hood plaintiff seeks to recover overtime pay,
liquidated damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. The Hood plaintiff also asserts individual causes of
action for alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Louisiana Human Rights Act,
the Family Medical Leave Act, and negligent infliction of emotional distress and seeks damages for
those claims including back wages, compensatory damages, liquidated and/or punitive damages,
reinstatement and/or front pay, interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs.
The Company filed its answer to the complaint on January 16, 2015. A status conference has been
scheduled for April 9, 2015, and trial is set for November 9, 2015.
The Company believes that its store managers are and have been properly classified as exempt
employees under the FLSA and that the Carpenter and Hood actions are not appropriate for collective
action treatment. The Company has obtained summary judgment in some, although not all, of its
pending individual or single-plaintiff store manager exemption cases in which it has filed such a motion.
At this time, it is not possible to predict whether the Carpenter or Hood matter ultimately will be
permitted to proceed collectively, and no assurances can be given that the Company will be successful
in its defense of either action 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 if either of these
actions was to proceed. For these reasons, the Company is unable to estimate any potential loss or
range of loss in either matter; however, if the Company is not successful in its defense efforts, the
resolution of Carpenter or Hood could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated
financial statements as a whole.
On April 9, 2012, the Company was served with a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia entitled Jonathan Marcum, et al. v. Dolgencorp. Inc. (Civil Action
No. 3:12-cv-00108-JRS) (‘‘Marcum’’) in which the plaintiffs, one of whose conditional offer of
employment was rescinded, allege that certain of the Company’s background check procedures violate
the Fair Credit Reporting Act (‘‘FCRA’’). Plaintiff Marcum also alleges defamation. According to the
complaint and subsequently filed first and second amended complaints, the plaintiffs seek to represent
a putative class of applicants in connection with their FCRA claims. The Company responded to the
75