Brown v. Wal-Mart Store, Inc.

Background

This class action settled in early 2019. The court entered an order and final judgment approving the settlement on March 28, 2019, and retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement. The agreement required Walmart to provide seats to California front-end cashiers who chose to use them while working at front-end checkstands. It also required notice about the seating program and described circumstances in which Walmart could stop providing seats.

Barbara Waters, Samantha Fernandez, Destiney Lopez, and April Swoboda filed a motion for an order to show cause. An order to show cause would have required Walmart to explain why it should not be sanctioned for allegedly violating the settlement. The movants also sought limited discovery concerning Walmart’s alleged noncompliance and requested possible monetary sanctions. They were not class representatives and were not represented by class counsel, but they stated that they were class members or intended third-party beneficiaries of the settlement.

Walmart opposed the motion. Walmart also sought permission to file a sur-reply addressing new evidence and arguments in the movants’ reply. The court granted that administrative motion. The movants later sought to submit supplemental evidence; the court denied that motion as untimely.

Governing standard

The court explained that it has inherent authority to enforce its lawful orders through civil contempt. Civil contempt is a court procedure used to enforce an order, and the person seeking it must show by clear and convincing evidence that the other party violated a specific and definite court order. A violation need not be intentional, but contempt is generally inappropriate when the challenged conduct is based on a good-faith and reasonable interpretation of the order. The decision whether to find contempt is within the district court’s discretion.

Analysis

The movants argued that the settlement was violated because Walmart tied seating to the front-end-cashier position rather than to anyone working at a front-end checkstand. The court disagreed. It interpreted “front-end cashier” to mean a person employed in that position, consistent with the class definition. The settlement did not require Walmart to provide seats to employees with different job titles who were called on to fill in at cashier stations.

The movants also argued that requiring covered employees to request seats violated the settlement. The court rejected that argument because the settlement expressly contemplated that front-end cashiers would request seats.

The court considered declarations from current and former Walmart employees. It found that Waters’s declaration was insufficient because Walmart’s records showed that she viewed the training module and confirmed receiving and understanding notice of her right to request a stool. Fernandez was no longer employed as a front-end cashier after the seating program began and therefore lacked standing to assert a violation, even though she worked as a cashier at a front-end checkstand. Lopez’s lack of recollection about receiving notice did not establish a breach, and her earlier request for a seat occurred before the settlement took effect. Izaguirre held a position not covered by the settlement after the seating program began and therefore lacked standing. Romero did not state that he or another cashier wanted or requested a seat during his 2019 employment, and his records showed that he acknowledged the seating notice.

Swoboda’s declaration was different. She stated that she requested a seat three times from three managers in April or May 2020 because she was pregnant and experiencing swollen feet, but was not provided one at her checkstand. The court found that her declaration suggested a possible settlement violation, although the evidence as a whole did not justify issuing an order to show cause.

The movants also relied on investigators’ visits to 45 stores. The investigators observed 29 seats near the registers and eight seated cashiers among 281 working cashiers. The court held that these observations did not establish a violation because the settlement did not require a seat at every checkstand, require cashiers to use seats, or require seats to be visibly stored near a checkout station. The court also found insufficient support for the claim that Walmart failed to provide suitable seats or that managers generally required doctor’s notes.

Disposition

The court denied without prejudice the motion for an order to show cause and for discovery. “Without prejudice” means the request was not permanently barred from being brought again. The court stated that if the movants’ counsel found new evidence of a concrete settlement violation, that evidence should first be provided to class counsel and Walmart, followed by a good-faith meeting to try to resolve the issue.

Although it denied the requested order to show cause and discovery, the court ordered Walmart to provide class counsel and the court with an inventory of stools available for front-end-cashier use at each California store and the location of those stools. Walmart also had to submit the training-module notice to the court for private review. Finally, the court authorized any party to take Swoboda’s deposition by videoconference or similar technology, with Walmart’s questioning limited to four hours and the deposition completed by February 26, 2021.