Dollar General 2015 Annual Report Download - page 141

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 141 of the 2015 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 168

  • 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
  • 132
  • 133
  • 134
  • 135
  • 136
  • 137
  • 138
  • 139
  • 140
  • 141
  • 142
  • 143
  • 144
  • 145
  • 146
  • 147
  • 148
  • 149
  • 150
  • 151
  • 152
  • 153
  • 154
  • 155
  • 156
  • 157
  • 158
  • 159
  • 160
  • 161
  • 162
  • 163
  • 164
  • 165
  • 166
  • 167
  • 168

10-K
DOLLAR GENERAL CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
8. Commitments and contingencies (Continued)
other similarly situated non-exempt California store-level employees were not paid for all time worked,
provided meal and rest breaks, reimbursed for necessary work related expenses, and provided with
accurate wage statements and seeks to recover unpaid wages, civil and statutory penalties, interest,
attorneys’ fees and costs. On March 12, 2015, the Company filed a demurrer asking the court to stay all
proceedings in the Pleasant matter pending an issuance of a final judgment in the Varela matter. The
court granted the Company’s demurrer and stayed proceedings until resolution of the Varela matter.
Subsequently, the Pleasant plaintiff moved to transfer this matter to the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Riverside where the Varela matter is pending, which the Company
opposed. The court denied the Pleasant plaintiff’s motion to transfer.
On February 20, 2015, a lawsuit entitled Julie Sullivan v. Dolgen California and Does 1 through 100
(‘‘Sullivan’’) was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda in
which the plaintiff alleges that she and other similarly situated Dollar General Market store managers
in the State of California were improperly classified as exempt employees and were not provided with
meal and rest breaks and accurate wage statements in violation of California law. The Sullivan plaintiff
also alleges that she and other California store employees were not provided with printed wage
statements, purportedly in violation of California law. The plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid wages,
including overtime pay, civil and statutory penalties, interest, injunctive relief, restitution, and attorneys’
fees and costs.
On April 8, 2015, the Company removed this matter to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California and filed its answer on the same date. On April 29, 2015, the Sullivan
plaintiff amended her complaint to add a claim under the PAGA. The Company’s response to the
amended complaint was filed on May 14, 2015. The plaintiff’s motion for class certification was filed on
March 12, 2016. The matter has been set for trial on October 31, 2016. A mediation conducted in early
March 2016 was unsuccessful.
The Company believes that its policies and practices comply with California law and that the
Varela, Pleasant, and Sullivan actions are not appropriate for class or similar treatment. The Company
intends to vigorously defend these actions; however, at this time, it is not possible to predict whether
the Varela, Pleasant, or Sullivan action ultimately will be permitted to proceed 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 Varela, Pleasant, or Sullivan action. 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 any of these actions could have a
material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial statements as a whole.
In December 2015, the Company was notified of seven lawsuits in which the plaintiffs allege
violation of state consumer protection laws relating to the labeling, marketing and sale of Dollar
General private-label motor oil. Six of these lawsuits were filed in various federal district courts of the
United States: Bradford Barfoot and Leonard Karpeichik v. Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the Southern
District of Florida on December 18, 2015) (‘‘Barfoot’’); Milton M. Cooke, Jr. v. Dollar General
Corporation (filed in the Southern District of Texas on December 21, 2015) (‘‘Cooke’’); William Flinn v.
Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the District Court for New Jersey on December 17, 2015) (‘‘Flinn’’); John J.
McCormick, III v. Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the District Court of Maryland on December 23, 2015)
(‘‘McCormick’’); David Sanchez v. Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the Central District of California on
67