A proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit against Walmart for allegedly deceiving purchasers of weighed meat products in their advertising was reached. As a specific meat product closed in on their expiration dates, the lawsuit alleges that Walmart would place them on sale using a unit price. The class asserts that the unit price ultimately was not accurate at final checkout leaving customers to pay more per unit than the package advertised. These products included fish, poultry, pork, and beef. Some packaged foods were also included.

The settlement, worth up to $9.5 million, was submitted on August 7, 2020 in the Southern District of Florida for preliminary approval. If approved, Walmart will begin with reimbursements at $4.5 million and, if necessary, increase that amount up to $9.5 million. The settlement includes up to $10.00 for undocumented purchases of weighed meats and $40 for documented purchases of weighed meats. Documented weighed meats may include receipts or proof of purchase but does not need to include regular packaging. Attorneys fees and costs were also included. Attorneys calculated the average overcharge to purchasers nationwide was approximately $1.67 per purchase.

The class contains all persons who purchased weighed meats at Walmart in the United States from February 13, 2015 to the date the notice of settlement is issued.

The case is Kukorinis v. Walmart Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-20592 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.


This blog is intended to provide information to the general public and to practitioners about developments that may impact Oregon class actions.

Sign up to receive Class Actions Blog posts in your inbox!

A $54.6 million jury verdict for truckers who said Walmart violated California law by not paying minimum wage for breaks and other work interruptions was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit. Walmart challenged a November 2016 jury verdict in favor of a class of more than 800 truckers for almost $55 million in damages on claims the retailer violated California law requiring minimum wages for all work. While it found Walmart — which paid workers based on their activities — did not short workers for certain aspects of their work, the jury found the company owed wages for mandatory 10-hour layovers between driving periods, pre- and post-trip inspections, and rest breaks.

Under California law, employers owe workers minimum wage for work interruptions in which they nonetheless have “control” over employees. The verdict built on pretrial rulings by the district court that Walmart’s written policy denied workers minimum wage for these interruptions, with the jury finding that Walmart shorted workers in practice, too.

Walmart argued that it did not control workers in writing or in fact, saying the court and the jury misread its policy. But the majority disagreed, saying the policy as written exerted “control” over workers because they had to get “permission to enjoy one of the most fundamental privileges that all employees enjoy — the autonomy to go home when they are not working.” And the workers offered ample evidence for the jury to conclude that Walmart so restricted them in practice, the panel said.

The case is Ridgeway et al. v. Walmart Inc., cases number 17-15983 and 17-16142, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.


This blog is intended to provide information to the general public and to practitioners about developments that may impact Oregon class actions.

Sign up to receive Class Actions Blog posts in your inbox!


walmartA class-action lawsuit has been filed in Indiana against Walmart relating to a facility where PCBs were discovered.  PCBs — or polychlorinated biphenyls — are highly toxic man-made carcinogens that accumulate in the body.

Continue reading “Class action filed against Walmart over PCBs”