Summary of the Lawsuit
This lawsuit alleges that Defendant Walmart Inc. violated the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (“USERRA”) by failing to provide paid leave to employees who took short-term military leave despite providing paid leave for other types of comparable short-term military leave.
Summary of the Claims
The Complaint alleges that since 2004 Walmart has maintained a policy and practice of failing to provide paid leave to employees who take military leave while employees who are absent for a short time period for a non-military reasons, such as jury duty or bereavement, are provided paid leave and are paid their normal wages during that time. The Complaint alleges that paid leave is provided indefinitely for employees on jury duty leave and for up to three days for bereavement leave. These practices have been ongoing since at least October 10, 2004.
The Complaint alleges that from 2004 to 2008, Walmart did not provide any pay to employees who took 4 days or more of military leave; from 2008 through June2017, Walmart provided differential pay to employees who took limited types of military leave lasting 4 days or more; and, from June 2017 to present, Walmart provided differential pay to employees who took most types of military leave lasting 4 days or more. However, since 2004, Walmart has provided full pay to employees who took jury duty leave without offsetting the pay the employees received from the government for the jury duty service.
Class Action Allegations
This lawsuit is brought on behalf of the following class:
All current and former employees who work or worked for Walmart at a location in a jurisdiction covered by USERRA (i.e., the United States and its territories) from October 10, 2004 to the present; (B) who took Short-Term Military Leave (i.e., 30 days or less) in one or more years during their employment with Walmart from October 10, 2004 to the present, (C) and during such period of Short-Term Military Leave did not receive the regular wages or salary that they would have earned had they continued to work their ordinary work schedules. Excluded from the class are the Judge assigned to the case and any of his or her relatives.
Status of the Litigation
The Complaint was filed on December 31, 2020.
Plaintiff reached a settlement on behalf of the Class to settle the claims in this litigation and filed the Motion for Class Certification and Preliminary Approval of the Settlement on January 15, 2021.
The Court granted the Motion for Class Certification and Preliminary Approval on April 30, 2021. A final fairness hearing is currently set for October 14, 2021 by video conference.
Whom to Contact for More Information
If you area member of the proposed class or you have information which might assist us in the prosecution of these allegations, please contact one of the following persons:
R. Joseph Barton, Esq. (email@example.com)
Ming Siegel, Paralegal (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Block & Leviton LLP
1735 20th Street NW
Washington, DC 20009
Block & Leviton is co-counsel in this litigation with Outten & Golden LLP, Gupta Wessler PLLC, Law Office of Thomas Jarrard PLLC, and Crotty & Son Law Firm PLLC.