Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Latest NewsPay & benefitsPay structures

Court orders Wal-Mart to pay £98m to California workers

by John Charlton 9 Jan 2006
by John Charlton 9 Jan 2006

Wal-Mart has been ordered to pay $172.3m (£98m) to California workers it prevented from taking meal breaks, in the second of more than 40 similar suits facing the world’s largest retailer.

The jury’s verdict came after a three-month trial in which Wal-Mart was accused of not giving 116,000 current and former employees lunch breaks or compensation over a four-year period.

The case began in 2001, when five store employees claimed they were not compensated after being forced to work through their breaks. The case then extended, covering thousands of workers in California, where employees working more than five hours must get 30-minute breaks or an extra hour’s pay.

In a statement, Wal-Mart said the case is about old compliance issues and denied breaking the law. The company is to appeal because it feels the punitive damages are disproportionate to the severity of the claim.

Wal-Mart’s stated policy prohibits employees from working unpaid overtime and the company says it pays workers for breaks that are interrupted.

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

OptOut
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

But the company has been found guilty in the past of forcing employees to work ‘off the clock’. In 2002, about 90 Oregon Wal-Mart employees were awarded about $2,000 each, after working unpaid overtime for five years, while a Colorado case on the same issue was settled for $50m (£28m).

The retail giant also came under fire from US unions last year, after a leaked memo revealed that managers were being encouraged to give overweight workers more physically demanding duties.

John Charlton

previous post
Thomas Cook about turn gets it out of tight spot
next post
London Underground claims strike by Tube staff has little impact

You may also like

Performance management is broken: how can we rebuild?

11 Jul 2025

Gregg Wallace case: don’t be too hasty to...

11 Jul 2025

‘Replace sick notes with gym’, Streeting tells GPs

11 Jul 2025

Workers with second jobs at an all-time high

11 Jul 2025

How using data can transform return-to-office mandates

11 Jul 2025

Ministers loosen fire and rehire proposals in Employment...

10 Jul 2025

£188k tribunal award for director sacked after cardiac...

10 Jul 2025

It’s no secret – parity in the workplace...

10 Jul 2025

Firms’ salary secrecy means ‘they lose out on...

10 Jul 2025

Court of Appeal rules that Ryanair agency pilot...

9 Jul 2025

  • Empower and engage for the future: A revolution in talent development (webinar) WEBINAR | As organisations strive...Read more
  • Empowering working parents and productivity during the summer holidays SPONSORED | Businesses play a...Read more
  • AI is here. Your workforce should be ready. SPONSORED | From content creation...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2025

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2025 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+