Dollar General 2015 Annual Report Download - page 140

10-K
DOLLAR GENERAL CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
8. Commitments and contingencies (Continued)
which the Commission alleges that the Company’s criminal background check policy has a disparate
impact on ‘‘Black Applicants’’ in violation of Title VII and seeks to recover monetary damages and
injunctive relief on behalf of a class of ‘‘Black Applicants.’’ The Company filed its answer to the
complaint on August 9, 2013.
The Court has bifurcated the issues of liability and damages for purposes of discovery and trial.
Fact discovery related to liability is to be completed on or before November 16, 2016. In response to
various discovery motions, the court has entered orders requiring the Company’s production of
documents, information and electronic data for the period 2004 to present.
Currently pending is the EEOC’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment relating to two of the
Company’s defenses challenging the sufficiency of the Commission’s conciliation efforts and the scope
of its investigation. The Company has opposed this motion as prematurely-filed in light of the status of
various discovery issues.
The Company believes that its criminal background check process is both lawful and necessary to a
safe environment for its employees and customers and the protection of its assets and shareholders’
investments. The Company also does not believe that this matter is amenable to class or similar
treatment. However, at this time, it is not possible to predict whether the action will ultimately be
permitted to proceed as a class or in a similar fashion or the size of any putative class. Likewise, at this
time, it is not possible to estimate the value of the claims asserted, and no assurances can be given that
the Company will be successful in its defense of this action on the merits or otherwise. For these
reasons, the Company cannot estimate the potential exposure or range of potential loss. If the matter
were to proceed successfully as a class or similar action or the Company is unsuccessful in its defense
efforts as to the merits of the action, the resolution of this matter could have a material adverse effect
on the Company’s consolidated financial statements as a whole.
On May 23, 2013, a lawsuit entitled Juan Varela v. Dolgen California and Does 1 through 50
(‘‘Varela’’) was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Riverside. In the
original complaint, the Varela plaintiff alleges that he and other ‘‘key carriers’’ were not provided with
meal and rest periods in violation of California law and seeks to recover alleged unpaid wages,
injunctive relief, consequential damages, pre-judgment interest, statutory penalties and attorneys’ fees
and costs and seeks to represent a putative class of California ‘‘key carriers’’ as to these claims. The
Varela plaintiff also asserts a claim for unfair business practices and seeks to proceed under California’s
Private Attorney General Act (the ‘‘PAGA’’). The Company filed its answer to the complaint on July 1,
2013.
On November 4, 2014, the Varela plaintiff filed an amended complaint to add Victoria Lee Dinger
Main as a named plaintiff and to add putative class claims on behalf of ‘‘key carriers’’ for alleged
inaccurate wage statements and failure to provide appropriate pay upon termination in violation of
California law. The Company filed its answer to the amended complaint on December 23, 2014. The
parties have been ordered to engage in informal discovery. A mediation was held in November 2015,
which was unsuccessful.
On January 15, 2015, a lawsuit entitled Kendra Pleasant v. Dollar General Corporation, Dolgen
California, LLC, and Does 1 through 50 (‘‘Pleasant’’) was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Bernardino in which the plaintiff seeks to proceed under the PAGA
for various alleged violations of California’s Labor Code. Specifically, the plaintiff alleges that she and
66