Suit alleging Wal-Mart pay violations set for trial

A case alleging Wal-Mart Stores Inc . illegally docked workers' wages and refused to pay overtime to tens of thousands of employees in Massachusetts goes to trial next month, but a judge recently ruled that the workers couldn't sue over missed meal breaks.

Filed in Middlesex Superior Court five years ago by a handful of workers, the class-action lawsuit has since grown to include 65,000 current and former Wal-Mart employees. The trial is scheduled to start Oct. 25.

``There was secret manipulation of electronic pay records," said Medford lawyer Robert Bonsignore, who represents the workers. ``At times, managers inserted unpaid meal breaks, or they clocked people out a minute after they clocked in. No overtime was paid at all."

John Simley , a Wal-Mart spokesman in Bentonville, Ark., declined to comment, saying, ``It would not be appropriate to offer a statement on a case that has not been heard yet."

The Massachusetts lawsuit is among 70 separate state and federal cases, including some class actions, that have been filed on behalf of workers against Wal-Mart around the country.

The suit filed in Middlesex alleges that the Arkansas company violated an implied contract when it did not honor its own corporate policies saying workers were entitled to meal breaks based on the total number of hours worked. The workers allege they were routinely denied time to eat during their shifts.

The violations are said to have occurred over a 10-year period, beginning in 1995. The case was amended to cover workers who claimed their rights were violated after 2001.

This month, Massachusetts Superior Court Judge Thomas Murtagh threw out the meal break claims against Wal-Mart.

Murtagh ruled that the workers could not pursue their meal break claims because a section of state law invoked by their attorneys did not specifically create a right to sue an employer.

``There is no compensable law for missed, interrupted, or shortened meal periods," Murtagh said in his ruling.

The judge noted that under a separate section of the law, the workers could have filed complaints with the Massachusetts attorney general's office within 90 days after the violations occurred, or filed a civil claim for damages within three years.

Bonsignore said this week that the ruling ``results in the workers having no recourse."

He also said several workers contacted Attorney General Thomas Reilly , and that he and other lawyers provided Reilly's office with information they had collected four years ago, but no action was taken.

``Obviously, relying on the attorney general got these workers nowhere," said Bonsignore. ``An appeal will take several years."

Beth Stone , deputy press secretary for the attorney general, disputed Bonsignore's claim and said the office is conducting its own investigation into Wal-Mart. ``Hopefully, this recent decision will encourage the plaintiffs' attorney to share any evidence that it may have with the Commonwealth," she said.

Diane E. Lewis can be reached at dlewis@globe.com.