Family Dollar 2012 Annual Report Download - page 64

• Connecticut – Cook, et al. v. Family Dollar Stores of Connecticut, Inc., was filed on October 5, 2011,
in the Superior Court of the State of Connecticut seeking unpaid overtime pay for a class of current and
former Connecticut store managers whom plaintiffs claim are not properly classified as exempt from
overtime under Connecticut law. The parties have concluded class discovery. The Company has filed
summary judgment seeking dismissal of one of the named plaintiffs’ claims, Cook. The Court will
determine shortly whether it will consider the summary judgment motion prior to any briefing on class
issues.
• Kentucky – Barker v. Family Dollar, Inc., was filed on February 17, 2010, in Circuit Court in Jefferson
County, Kentucky seeking unpaid overtime, compensation for unpaid breaks and for seventh day work
under Kentucky law for a class of current and former Kentucky store managers. The Company
removed this matter to the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. Discovery
has now concluded. The parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment and await the ruling
from the Court.
• Missouri – Twila Walters et. al. v. Family Dollar Stores of Missouri, Inc., was originally filed on
January 26, 2010, seeking unpaid overtime for a class of current and former Missouri store managers
who presently reside in Missouri and whom plaintiffs claim are not properly classified as exempt from
overtime under Missouri law. This matter is pending in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri
(the “Circuit Court”). On May 10, 2011, the Circuit Court certified the class under the Missouri
Minimum Wage Law and common law. The Company sought appeal of the class certification decision
with the Missouri Court of Appeals and the Missouri Supreme Court, but both courts declined to hear
the appeal. The parties are engaged in merits discovery and the trial is scheduled for February 25, 2013.
• New Jersey – Hegab v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey on March 3, 2011, seeking unpaid overtime pay for a class of current and former
New Jersey store managers whom plaintiffs claim are not properly classified as exempt from overtime
pay under New Jersey law. The parties are now engaged in class discovery.
• New York – Youngblood, et al. v. Family Dollar Stores of New York, Inc. et al., was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on April 2, 2009. Rancharan v. Family
Dollar Stores, Inc., was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Queens County on
March 4, 2009, was removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
on May 6, 2009, and was transferred to the Southern District of New York where the case has been
consolidated with Youngblood. The parties have a preliminary agreement to resolve this matter for a
maximum payment of $14 million. As of August 25, 2012, the Company recorded an $11.5 million
litigation charge based on its estimate of the most likely payout under the preliminary settlement
agreement. The motion for preliminary approval of the settlement is currently scheduled to be filed
with the Court on or before October 19, 2012.
• Pennsylvania – Itterly v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., which was formerly pending in the N.C. Federal
Court, was remanded back to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
on February 8, 2012. In Itterly, plaintiffs are seeking unpaid overtime for a class of current and former
Pennsylvania store managers whom plaintiffs claim are not properly classified as exempt from
overtime pay under Pennsylvania law. Discovery closed in June 2012. The Company has filed
summary judgment seeking dismissal of Itterly’s claims in their entirety.
In general, the Company continues to believe that its store managers relevant to this litigation are “exempt”
employees under the FLSA and have been and are being properly compensated under both federal and state laws.
The Company further believes that these actions are not appropriate for collective or class action treatment. The
Company intends to vigorously defend the claims in these actions. No assurances can be given that the Company
will be successful in the defense of these actions, on the merits or otherwise. The Company cannot reasonably
estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may result from these actions, with the exception of the
preliminary settlement of the Rancharan/Youngblood case.
60