As retail titan Wal-Mart seeks to overturn a $187.6 million class action, one of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court justices hearing oral arguments Wednesday in Harrisburg questioned how the class of employees could have proven its case without using the company’s payroll records.
Wal-Mart’s counsel, Theodore J. Boutrous Jr. of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher in Los Angeles, argued that the payroll records were indeed admissible, but Boutrous argued that smaller class actions could have been brought attacking management practices at the store level or that the class action could have been divided into a two-part process in which the cases were looked at first for "truly common" issues en masse and then second, adjudicated in individual proceedings. Instead, the case was handled in "one fell swoop all mixed together," he said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
