Case Developments

NEWS FLASH
August 26, 2010

URGENT

WE ARE TRYING TO LOCATE TWO GENTLEMEN WHO WORKED AS JANITORS WITH THE ZAVALAS IN WAL-MART STORES IN NEW JERSEY - 2003

1. HIPOLITO PALACIOS

2. FELIPE CONDADO

THEY MAY HAVE RETURNED TO MEXICO. IF YOU KNOW THEM, THEIR TELEPHONE NUMBERS, ADDRESSES:

PLEASE CALL OR EMAIL JAMES LINSEY
(212) 356-0214
JLINSEY@CWSNY.COM

* THANK YOU *

NEWS FLASH
July 23, 2010

Re: Zavala et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Case Status Report Letter

Dear Client:

We regret to inform you that in a decision issued June 25, 2010, Chief Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr., of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, denied plaintiffs’ motion for final certification and granted Wal-Mart’s motion for decertification of the collective action in this case. This order of the Court means that effective that date, you are no longer a party to this lawsuit. A copy of the Court’s decision (in English) is posted under recent developments on our website. Additionally, a hard copy will be sent to you upon your request.

We are actively considering what, response, if any, we can recommend in these circumstances. Meanwhile, the Court has scheduled a conference for August 11, 2010, which we will attend. We will advise you shortly on our recommendations.

Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions before we next communicate with you very soon.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

James L. Linsey, Esq. Thomas N. Ciantra, Esq. Cohen, Weiss and Simon LLP 330 West 42nd Street, 25th Floor New York, NY 10036-6976 (212) 563-4100

Gilberto Garcia, Esq. Garcia and Kricko Court Plaza South West Wing, Suite 350 21 Main Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 (201) 525-0053

NEWS FLASH
July 23, 2010

Opinion denying class certification.

NEWS FLASH
February 18, 2010

Dispute Continues Over Number of People to be Included in the Case
We Request Trial Date

Dear Client:

We wrote to you in our last report letter of December 12, 2008, that by a decision dated September 26, 2008, Judge Greenaway limited this case to the 114 plaintiffs on the attached list at Attachment A and agreed with Wal-Mart on the method of computation of damages.

On October 14, 2008, we filed a motion requesting the court to reconsider its ruling. As we have reported to many of you by telephone and e-mail correspondence, the motion for reconsideration was denied on June 8, 2009.

As we also reported earlier, we and Wal-Mart have exchanged thousands of pages of documents. Additionally, Wal-Mart took the depositions of seven plaintiffs. That is a procedure where a person appears and answers questions under oath in front of a court reporter who records the proceedings. All of that was completed by 2008.

Thus, on November 13, 2009, we filed a motion with the court to move this case to trial as soon as possible. We first asked the court to reaffirm its earlier decision to make this a collective case where it can rule on the claims of all 114 plaintiffs remaining in the case. In support of our motion we are very happy to have received a detailed sworn statement from a man named Christopher Walters who was Wal-Mart's largest janitorial contractor across the United States. In his affidavit he describes how Wal-Mart's executives at the highest levels of the company conspired to deprive janitors of your lawful wages. A copy of our motion and the sworn testimony of Christopher Walters may be viewed at the August 26, 2009 NEWS FLASH below.

Wal-Mart has opposed our request to bring this case to trial for 114 plaintiffs and argues that the case should be limited to only the 17 named plaintiffs in this case listed at Attachment B. We will advise as soon as the court rules on the motion and trial.

As you have by now well learned, the American justice system is very slow sometimes and can be delayed by events beyond our control. In fact, just a few days ago (February 9, 2010) the United States Senate voted to approve the promotion of Judge Greenaway to a position on a higher court. That almost certainly means that another judge at the district court will be appointed to take over this case. We will advise you on this as soon as we have more information.

As you know, this case has been going on for over 6 years now, and may continue for some more years to come. Nevertheless, we will continue to pursue this case vigorously on your behalf.

We will continue to send you report letters like this one. You may also visit our website at www.walmartjanitors.com to obtain additional information from time to time.

PLEASE CONTINUE TO KEEP US INFORMED OF YOUR CURRENT ADDRESSES (INCLUDING EMAIL ADDRESSES) AND TELEPHONE NUMBERS EVEN IF YOUR NAMES DO NOT APPEAR ON ATTACHMENT A OR ATTACHMENT B.

Thank you for your attention.

Best wishes for you and your family.

Sincerely,

James L. Linsey, Esq. Thomas N. Ciantra, Esq. Cohen, Weiss and Simon LLP 330 West 42nd Street, 25th Floor New York, NY 10036-6976 (212) 563-4100

Gilberto Garcia, Esq. Garcia and Kricko Court Plaza South West Wing, Suite 350 21 Main Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 (201) 525-0053

ATTACHMENT A
114 Claimants remaining in the case after the Court's Decisions of
September 26, 2008 and June 9, 2009

1. Balga, Bronislav
2. Bartik, Vladimir
3. Blazek, Miroslav
4. Bohuslav, Vlastimil
5. Brambora, Milos
6. Bubla, Jan
7. Buttler, Petr
8. Camacho, Consuelo
9. Capsky, Pavel
10. Cejkova, Markcta
11. Cizek, Roman
12. Condado, Felipe
13. Czajkowski, AI1ur
14. Denicia, Octavio
15. Dvorak, Josef
16. Dzbanek, Milan
17. Federska, Ewa
18. Federski, Andrezj
19. Fikcjs, Adam
20. Flckal, Ladislav
21. Gaspar, Milos
22. Cetzel, Ondrej
23. Golaszcwska, Helena
24. Golaszewski, Kazmicrz
25. Gomez, Eunice
26. Halla, Jiri
27. Haman, Jaroslav
28. Haynes, Diana
29. Herak, Radek
30. Hlobil, Petr
31. Hokr, Michal
32. Ing,Ota
33. Janik, Pavel
34. Jaros, Teresa
35. Jiranek, Lukas
36. Josefikova, Eva
37. Justa, Jiri
38. Karlikova, Gabriela
39. Kasik, Miloslav
40. Kasik, Ondrej
41. Kasikova, Eva
42. Keller, Jan
43. Khol, Bohumil
44. Kieweg, Petr
45. Kobjakova, Marketa
46. Kocur, Michal
47. Koprowski, Ryszard
48. Kovalev, Pavel
49. Kramar, Vaclav
50. Krcmel, Karel
51. Krcmcl, Milan
52. Krcmlova, Anna
53. Krikova, Bozcna
54. Kulhanek, Miroslav
55. Libis, Jaroslav
56. Libis, Roman
57. Libuse, Hellerova
58. Malichova, Vera
59. Marsic, Jan
60. Martinez, Marisol
61. Matiaskova, Dana
62. Mazal, Lubomir
63. Miklaszewicz, Dariuz
64. Modlitba, Radim
65. Muric, Rene
66. Musil, Ales
67. Nemeth, Robc11
68. Nicbicszczanski, Miroslaw
69. Nikolov, Alexandre
70. Nikolova, Bernadctte
71. Ondrichova, Gabriela
72. Palacios, Hipolito
73. Perkova, Marketa
74. Pfauser, Jiri
75. Pfauserova, Hana
76. Pinlcrova, Lcnka
77. Pokorna, Alena
78. Pokorny, Gustav
79. Polak, Pavel
80. Polaskova, Maric
81. Prokop, Libor
82. Prokopova, Aneta
83. Provaznik, Michal
84. Provaznikova, Katerina
85. Rotisova, Zdenka
86. Rua, Hemando
87. Ruzicka, Bronislav
88. Saleta, Ludek
89. Skopek, Pavel
90. Stem, Michal
91. Suba, Gyorgy
92. Szczcsiak, Ryszard
93. Szczesiak, Teresa
94. Tasnerova, Vlasta
95. Tello Rueda, Carlos Albelio
96. Teply, Karel
97. Tlustov, Pavel
98. Tolentino, Angel
99. Trzeciak, Stanislaw
100. Tuma, Radek
101. Urbina, Francisco
102. Vitek, Radim
103. Welser, Marek
104. Zachar, Ladislav
105. Zacharova, Jana
106. Zahradnik, Laclislav
107. Zak, Jaromir
108. Zavala, Julio
109. Zavala Robles, Victor M.
110. Zavala Torres, Victor Manuel
111. Zdenek, Ton
112. Zednik, Petr
113. Zetak, Raclim
114. Zita, Bronislav

ATTACHMENT B
Wal-Mart seeks to limit the case to only the following Individual Named Plaintiffs

Victor Zavala Torres
C. Hipolito Palacios
Antonio Flores
Felipe Candado
Octavio Denicia
Luis M. Gutierrez
Maximino Mendez
Daniel Antonio Cruz
Arturo Angel Zavala Robles
Eunice Gomez
Carlos Alberto Tello Rueda
Petr Zednik
Teresa Jaros
Jiri Pfauser
Hana Pfauservoa
Pavel Kunc
Martin Macak

NEWS FLASH
August 26, 2009

Largest Contractor Testifies for Janitors

CHRISTOPHER WALTERS WAS WAL-MART'S LARGEST JANITORIAL CONTRACTOR ACROSS THE UNITED STATES. IN HIS AFFIDAVIT HE DESCRIBES HOW WAL-MART'S EXECUTIVES AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS OF THE COMPANY CONSPIRED TO DEPRIVE JANITORS OF YOUR LAWFUL WAGES.

Read:
Declaration of Christopher Walters
Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Class Certification

NEWS FLASH

December 15, 2008

Re: Wal-Mart Refuses to Settle; More Litigation Ahead

Dear Client:

We wrote to you earlier this year that the Court had ordered settlement discussions. Judge Greenaway met with attorneys for Wal-Mart and with us at the Courthouse in Newark, New Jersey on May 20, June 11, and September 17, 2008. Unfortunately, we soon learned that Wal-Mart was not interested in any serious settlement discussions. Thus, the litigation continues.

In the course of the discussions, Judge Greenaway asked for the parties to submit statements on the following two questions:

1. How many janitors should be in the case?
2. What is the proper way to calculate any backpay that Wal-Mart may owe you?

Judge Greenaway decided both questions in favor of Wal-Mart.

First, Judge Greenaway decided that any person who did not submit by October 1, 2007 the questionnaire sought by Wal-Mart and approved by the Court cannot participate in the case. The Judge ruled for Wal-Mart here even though some of you may have completed a substantially identical questionnaire earlier and submitted documents, including photographs, store numbers, telephone numbers, and names of store managers, all proving that you worked at a Wal-Mart store. Nonetheless, the Judge limited the case to only the 114 people on the attached list who completed the Wal-Mart questionnaire. If your name is not on this list, you are not entitled to any damages, unless we can get this decision reconsidered by the District Judge or reversed on appeal. EVERYONE (EVEN IF YOUR NAME DOES NOT APPEAR ON THE ATTACHED LIST) SHOULD KEEP US ADVISED OF ANY CHANGES IN YOUR ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBERS AND EMAIL ADDRESSES.

Second, Judge Greenaway decided that the only evidence that the Court would consider on the question of the number of hours your weekly salary was intended to cover is what is contained in the Wal-Mart questionnaire. As a result, any overtime pay that you may be owed would be calculated at only one-half times (.5 times) the rate calculated by dividing your weekly salary by the number of hours stated in the Wal-Mart questionnaire rather than the full time and a half (1.5 times) called for in the Fair Labor Standards Act. This substantially -- and wrongly, in our opinion -- reduces amounts of back pay that Wal-Mart may owe you.

On October 14, 2008, we asked Judge Greenaway to reconsider his decision on both of these questions, but he has not yet ruled on our request. If he denies our request, we will have to wait to address these questions in any appeal we may take to the Court of Appeals.

As you have by now well learned, the American justice system is very slow sometimes. The case has been going on for over 5 years now, and probably will continue for some more years to come. Nevertheless, we will continue to pursue this case vigorously on your behalf.

We will continue to send you report letters like this one. You may also visit our website at www.walmartjanitors.com to obtain additional information from time to time.

Thank you for your attention.

Best wishes for you and your family in the New Year.

Sincerely,

James L. Linsey, Esq. Thomas N. Ciantra, Esq. Cohen, Weiss and Simon LLP 330 West 42nd Street, 25th Floor New York, NY 10036-6976 (212) 563-4100

Gilberto Garcia, Esq. Garcia and Kricko Court Plaza South West Wing, 3rd Floor 21 Main Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 (201) 525-0053

1.	Balga, Bronislav
2.	Bartik, Vladimir
3.	Blazek, Miroslav
4.	Bohuslav, Vlastimil
5.	Brambora, Milos
6.	Bubla, Jan
7.	Buttler, Petr
8.	Camacho, Consuelo
9.	Capsky, Pavel
10.	Cejkova, Markcta
11.	Cizek, Roman
12.	Condado, Felipe
13.	Czajkowski, AI1ur
14.	Denicia, Octavio
15.	Dvorak, Josef
16.	Dzbanek, Milan
17.	Federska, Ewa
18.	Federski, Andrezj
19.	Fikcjs, Adam
20.	Flckal, Ladislav
21.	Gaspar, Milos
22.	Cetzel, Ondrej
23.	Golaszcwska, Helena
24.	Golaszewski, Kazmicrz
25.	Gomez, Eunice
26.	Halla, Jiri
27.	Haman, Jaroslav
28.	Haynes, Diana
29.	Herak, Radek
30.	Hlobil, Petr
31.	Hokr, Michal
32.	Ing,Ota
33.	Janik, Pavel
34.	Jaros, Teresa
35.	Jiranek, Lukas
36.	Josefikova, Eva
37.	Justa, Jiri
38.	Karlikova, Gabriela
39.	Kasik, Miloslav
40.	Kasik, Ondrej
41.	Kasikova, Eva
42.	Keller, Jan
43.	Khol, Bohumil
44.	Kieweg, Petr
45.	Kobjakova, Marketa
46.	Kocur, Michal
47.	Koprowski, Ryszard
48.	Kovalev, Pavel
49.	Kramar, Vaclav
50.	Krcmel, Karel
51.	Krcmcl, Milan
52.	Krcmlova, Anna
53.	Krikova, Bozcna
54.	Kulhanek, Miroslav
55.	Libis, Jaroslav
56.	Libis, Roman
57.	Libuse, Hellerova
58.	Malichova, Vera
59.	Marsic, Jan
60.	Martinez, Marisol
61.	Matiaskova, Dana
62.	Mazal, Lubomir
63.	Miklaszewicz, Dariuz
64.	Modlitba, Radim
65.	Muric, Rene
66.	Musil, Ales
67.	Nemeth, Robc11
68.	Nicbicszczanski, Miroslaw
69.	Nikolov, Alexandre
70.	Nikolova, Bernadctte
71.	Ondrichova, Gabriela
72.	Palacios, Hipolito
73.	Perkova, Marketa
74.	Pfauser, Jiri
75.	Pfauserova, Hana
76.	Pinlcrova, Lcnka
77.	Pokorna, Alena
78.	Pokorny, Gustav
79.	Polak, Pavel
80.	Polaskova, Maric
81.	Prokop, Libor
82.	Prokopova, Aneta
83.	Provaznik, Michal
84.	Provaznikova, Katerina
85.	Rotisova, Zdenka
86.	Rua, Hemando
87.	Ruzicka, Bronislav
88.	Saleta, Ludek
89.	Skopek, Pavel
90.	Stem, Michal
91.	Suba, Gyorgy
92.	Szczcsiak, Ryszard
93.	Szczesiak, Teresa
94.	Tasnerova, Vlasta
95.	Tello Rueda, Carlos Albelio
96.	Teply, Karel
97.	Tlustov, Pavel
98.	Tolentino, Angel
99.	Trzeciak, Stanislaw
100.	Tuma, Radek
101.	Urbina, Francisco
102.	Vitek, Radim
103.	Welser, Marek
104.	Zachar, Ladislav
105.	Zacharova, Jana
106.	Zahradnik, Laclislav
107.	Zak, Jaromir
108.	Zavala, Julio
109.	Zavala Robles, Victor M.
110.	Zavala Torres, Victor Manuel
111.	Zdenek, Ton
112.	Zednik, Petr
113.	Zetak, Raclim
114.	Zita, Bronislav

NEWS FLASH

Re: Wal-Mart Agrees to Settlement Negotiations

We write to report on recent developments in your lawsuit against Wal-Mart. At a Court appearance on October 5, 2007, the Court suggested that the parties consider entering into settlement talks with a mediator in an effort to settle the case. A mediator does not decide issues in the case and would have no power to compel a particular settlement but functions, instead, to help the parties reach an acceptable compromise. We expressed an interest in pursuing settlement discussions; Wal-Mart said that it would consider the issue.

Wal-Mart has now said that it is willing to participate in mediated settlement discussions. We will now select a mediator. It is likely that the mediator will be a retired judge. Many retired judges have sought work as mediators and are, usually, seen as fair and impartial. Over the next several weeks and before we meet with the mediator, we will meet with representative plaintiff janitors in New Jersey to discuss settlement. We intend to have a number of janitors present during the mediation sessions (as the mediator finds acceptable). We will provide you with further reports concerning the mediation as we proceed.

We are now heading to an important phase in this case. Please keep us advised of any changes in your address and telephone numbers (home phone and any mobile phones). Please also contact us with any questions you may have.

NEWS FLASH

I. DISCOVERY:

• Documents: On June 1, 2007, we received over 45,000 pages of additional documents from Wal-Mart to help us prove your case. These documents were produced by Wal-Mart only after we won a Court Order on April 4, 2007, requiring Wal-Mart to comply with normal court procedures. We still believe that Wal-Mart has not fully complied with the Court's Order, and so on August 3, 2007, we again filed a motion in the Court seeking to sanction, i.e. punish, Wal-Mart for its failure to obey the earlier Court Order. Our latest request will be argued in the Court on October 5, 2007. We will soon report on the results.

• Depositions: A deposition is where a witness is questioned in person, in a lawyer's office, under oath, with attorneys for both sides present. In August and September, 2007, janitors were available to Wal-Mart for questioning under oath at our law offices here in New York City. So far, Wal-Mart has taken the deposition of about 8 former janitors. As the lawyers for all janitors in this case, we have been present at these depositions. The depositions have been excellent, helping us to prove your case for backpay. Most of this case is simple common-sense: It is the Wal-Mart managers (whose job it is to insure to their own bosses that the stores are kept clean) who inspect the janitors' work and direct the janitors to clean up better when the stores are not as clean as Wal-Mart wants.

• In October, 2007, we will travel to Milwaukee, Wisconsin to take the deposition of the Johnson Wax Company to ask for documents to explain why the Johnson Wax "Wal-Mart Maintenance Manual" (that Johnson Wax developed to teach workers how to apply Johnson's floor wax products at the Wal-Mart Stores) came to be translated into Polish, and other languages other than English. We think the answer is obvious, but, again, we will report on the results after the deposition.

II. OVERTIME PAY TIME DEADLINE:

• On May 4, 2007, the Court denied our request to permit a janitor to file an overtime and minimum wage claim past the deadline of June 30, 2006.

III. RACKETEERING CLAIMS:

• On August 28, 2006, the Court dismissed our claims against Wal-Mart for violating United States racketeering laws. Racketeering violations would have entitled janitors to triple, i.e. three times, the money damages we seek. Racketeering violations would also allow us to claim money damages for all janitors who worked for contractors at Wal-Mart stores, not only those janitors who filed consent forms with the Court before June 30, 2006. On April 13, 2007, the Court denied our request to file an immediate appeal with the appeals court. Now, we will have to wait until the overtime and minimum wage claims are decided, and then we will appeal the racketeering claims dismissal.

IV. IMPORTANT:

• This case is very important. Please keep us advised of any changes in your address and telephone numbers (home phone and any mobile phones). Please also contact us with any questions you may have.

NEWS FLASH

Plaintiffs Respond to Wal-Mart's Second Motion to Dismiss

After Wal-Mart filed a second motion asking the court to dismiss plaintiffs' racketeering claims, plaintiffs filed a strong response on March 21, 2006. Click here to review a copy of our response. Our response is based in part on evidence we obtained in November 2005 connected with the federal government's criminal investigation of Wal-Mart, evidence which shows that top Wal-Mart management directed contractors to set up multiple shell corporations to better exploit the labor of migrant janitors. Wal-Mart filed a reply to our brief on May 5, 2006. We expect the Court to rule on the new racketeering claims in several months.

NEWS FLASH

REQUEST TO EXTEND TIME FOR PERSONS TO JOIN CASE

On November 30, 2005, we filed a request to the Court to extend the deadline for additional persons to join this case to obtain money damages from Wal-Mart for non-payment of overtime and minimum pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Our request is based on the fact that Wal-Mart admits that it was unable to provide accurate names and addresses of janitorial workers who worked through contractors at its stores from January 2000 to the present. Many of the janitors are now scattered around the United States and, indeed, around the world. Persons who wish to join this case continue to contact us at our law firms, and continue to send us the required documents to join the case. We strongly urge persons who worked as janitors at Wal-Mart stores in the United States through contractors during the time period from January 1, 2000 through the present to contact us about how to join this important case. Click here to go to a confidential computer link to submit information to join this case.

Second Amended Complaint Filed

On November 21, 2005, plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint. Click here to review the document. The Second Amended Complaint contains more detailed allegations concerning Wal-Mart's criminal racketeering activity that only became public in November 2005 after a federal court in Arkansas granted our motion to open to the public confidential files connected to search the warrant the U.S. government obtained to search Wal-Mart's headquarters in 'Operation Rollback'. Click here to review Exhibit A to the Complaint (the affidavit of the government agent supporting the search warrant application.) The government's statement includes excerpts from tape recorded conversations with Wal-Mart management and other evidence showing Wal-Mart's direct involvement in the exploitative immigrant hiring scheme. In particular, after raids at Wal-Mart stores in 1997, a Wal-Mart senior vice president instructed Wal-Mart's leading maintenance contractor to set up dummy companies to hide the employment of undocumented migrant janitors. As he told the contractor (using an ethnic insult to refer to the Polish workers Wal-Mart exploited in many of its stores): "I like those Polocks." Click here to see all other exhibits to Second Amended Complaint.

NEWS FLASH

Court Affirms Right of Janitors To Sue Wal-Mart for Unpaid Overtime and False Imprisonment, Permits Plaintiffs To Refile Racketeering Claims

On October 7, 2005, U.S. District Judge Joseph Greenaway issued his decision on the motion to dismiss this lawsuit that Wal-Mart filed on March 9, 2004. Click here to read the Court's decision.

On the central claim for overtime pay, the Court rejected Wal-Mart's arguments that undocumented workers have no right to recover unpaid minimum wages or overtime and that only contractors and not Wal-Mart are responsible for pay for the janitors. The Court's ruling gives any janitor who worked at Wal-Mart the chance to join this case and show that they were denied minimum wages or overtime pay. To assert your claim against Wal-Mart, you must file a consent to joint this lawsuit by no later than November 30, 2005. Click here for further information. If you fail to join this suit you may not be able to recover any lost wages from Wal-Mart.

On our claim that Wal-Mart falsely imprisoned janitors by locking them in the stores during their overnight shifts, the Court likewise denied Wal-Mart's motion to dismiss. This ruling permits janitors to sue Wal-Mart for damages based on its wide-spread practice of locking janitors in its stores during their over-night shifts. We are asserting large punitive damages on behalf of janitors who were locked in the stores.

On the racketeering claims, the Court found that the complaint did not include sufficient detailed allegations to support the claims. Judge Greenaway gave plaintiffs 45 days to file an amended complaint with additional information. We intend to do so. Finally, the Court dismissed the claimed civil rights violation against Wal-Mart. The Judge concluded that the civil rights act only protected groups defined by unchangeable characteristics, such as race or mental retardation.

Overall, the October 7, 2005 decision of the Court is a big win for plaintiffs in this case! But, of course, cases like this are complex and can take several years to resolve. We are committed and will vigorously pursue janitors' claims against Wal-Mart. If you have joined this lawsuit, make sure to tell us if your address or telephone number has changed. Click here to e-mail us with updated information. If you worked as a janitor at Wal-Mart and would like to learn more about how to join this lawsuit, click here.

NEWS FLASH

Court Approves Notice of this Lawsuit;
Sets November 30, 2005 Deadline for Janitors to Join Lawsuit

In a conference on May 16, 2005, the Court approved a Notice that Wal-Mart is required to post in its stores telling janitors about this lawsuit and how they may join it. The Notice will be posted from June 1 through November 30, 2005.

Under the Court's order, janitors have until November 30, 2005 to join this lawsuit by signing and filing a Court-approved consent form. Janitors who do not meet this November 30, 2005 deadline may lose their potential rights to recover money for unpaid wages and overtime from Wal-Mart.

If you worked as a janitor at Wal-Mart from year 2000 to the present through a contractor, you are eligible to participate in this lawsuit and may have a claim for unpaid wages or overtime or both.

To join this lawsuit, you must file a consent by November 30, 2005.

Click here to review the Court-approved Notice.

Click here to send a questionnaire to lawyers for the janitors.

NEWS FLASH

Wal-Mart Pays $11 Million to Avoid Federal Criminal Charges Related to Operation Roll Back

On March 14, 2005, the United States filed a lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. under federal immigration law. Click here to review the complaint.

Under that part of the immigration law (Title 8 Section 1324a(f)(2) of the U.S. Code), the U.S. Attorney General may sue an employer who either directly hires unauthorized aliens or who does so through a contractor only if there is reasonable cause to believe that the employer engages in a pattern or practice of hiring undocumented workers.

The same day the U.S. government sued Wal-Mart, Wal-Mart signed a Stipulation in Compromise and a Consent Decree was entered settling the litigation. Under the Consent Decree, Wal-Mart agreed to pay $11 million to the United States. This is reported to be the largest amount ever recovered by the United States in connection with the employment of undocumented migrant labor.

None of the $11 million will be paid to janitors who worked at Wal-Mart.

The Consent Decree also contains a five-year permanent injunction barring Wal-Mart from knowingly hiring, recruiting, and continuing to employ aliens who are not legally authorized to work in the United States.

Click here to review the Stipulation in Compromise and the Consent Decree.

NEWS FLASH

We are very pleased to report that on December 29, 2004, Federal District Judge Joseph A. Greenaway, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, in Newark, New Jersey, issued the first significant ruling in the case. The Court's Order ruled only on the FLSA claims for overtime and unpaid wages in the lawsuit, and ordered as follows:

1. The plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of the FLSA claims as a collective action is granted. This means that FLSA claims from all contract janitors who cleaned Wal-Mart stores anywhere in the United States since January, 2000 can conditionally proceed in a single lawsuit before Judge Greenaway in a single federal court in Newark, New Jersey.
2. Plaintiffs are authorized to notify other potential plaintiffs through a court-approved notice. We expect to have such a notice available for worldwide dissemination in February, 2005.
3. Other potential plaintiffs shall have up to 6 months from the time of the posting of the court-approved notice to join the lawsuit and claim money damages from Wal-Mart Stores. Persons from all over the world can obtain the necessary consent forms by contacting jlinsey@cwsny.com or by submitting a confidential response at the websites www.walmartamerika.com or www.walmartjanitors.com.
4. Wal-Mart is ordered to produce to the plaintiffs the names, addresses and nationalities of former and current contract janitors since January 2000, and all relevant Wal-Mart maintenance contracts and contract information for former and current contractors who supplied janitorial labor since January 2000.

This first ruling by the Court is excellent! Click here to see Court Order of December 29, 2004. A ruling on the remainder of the claims is expected at any time now.

NEWS FLASH

CZECH REPUBLIC FILES AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF

On October 1, 2004, the Government of the Czech Republic, filed an amicus curiae (friend of the Court) brief in plaintiffs' case before Federal District Judge Joseph A. Greenaway, Jr. In this important document, the Czech Republic is careful to note that it does not in any way condone, promote or support unlawful immigration or work in the United States. The document then continues as follows:

The message of the Czech Republic here is measured and strong. The plaintiffs from around the world respectfully offer their sincere gratitude to the Government of the Czech Republic for its important amicus curiae brief filed with the Court in this historic case.

Click here to view entire amicus curiae brief of the Czech Republic in Zavala et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

NEWS FLASH

COURT SETS HEARING ON OCTOBER 20, 2004, AT 9:30 A.M.

4040 Martin Luther King, Jr. Federal Building & U.S. Courthouse
50 Walnut Street, Newark, New Jersey, USA

United States District Judge Joseph A. Greenaway, Jr. has ordered a hearing at the above time and date to consider 1. Plaintiffs' Motion for Facilitated Notice Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA); and 2. Wal-Mart's Motion to Dismiss.

This is excellent news!

This means that all of the janitors' claims (including the Racketeering claims) will be initially considered by the Court very soon. If the Court agrees with plaintiffs and denies Wal-Mart's motion to dismiss in whole or in part, we will proceed to discovery, i.e. demand documents and oral testimony under oath from Wal-Mart and its officials. In our Motion for Facilitated Notice, we also ask that the Court order appropriate notice so that janitors who were not paid properly for their work at Wal-Mart stores throughout the United States can learn of their right to participate in this historic case.

The hearing is open to the public and may be attended by any interested person.

NEWS FLASH

NEW COURT DOCUMENTS CONNECT HIGH WAL-MART OFFICIALS TO EXPLOITATION OF UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANT JANITORS

Mongolians in a tiny town in Arkansas? Czechs in a little village in Alabama? Polish workers in Connecticut and Georgia? Slovaks in Virginia? Ukrainians in Mississippi? Etc., etc., etc....

Did Wal-Mart know and participate in the exploitation of thousands of undocumented immigrants who cleaned its stores in towns across the United States?

What do you think?

It is impossible for Wal-Mart to deny that it knew that undocumented workers cleaned its stores, seven nights a week, almost 365 days a year. Wal-Mart store managers knew. Indeed, many store managers even locked in the undocumented janitor workers at night and returned to unlock them from the stores in the morning. Those same Wal-Mart managers heard the strange languages and saw the foreign faces, looking through the Company's glass windows, waiting to be released in the mornings.

But new Court filings now show that, years ago, even the highest Wal-Mart executives knew, or should have known, that the Company was brutally exploiting undocumented immigrant labor from across the globe to clean its stores at substandard wages!

On August 3 and 6, 2004, plaintiffs filed with the Court letters written to Wal-Mart past President and Chief Executive Officer David Glass, and current President and Chief Executive Officer Lee Scott, begging them to investigate and stop the exploitation of undocumented workers used to clean Wal-Mart stores. The first letter was written in 1999 by Professor Greta McCaughrin, a Russian language professor at Washington & Lee University in Lexington, Virginia to then Wal-Mart President David Glass clearly telling him what was going on. Click here to see the professor's letter to David Glass (with later handwritten edits by the professor).

In June, 2002, Raymond Drude, a cleaning contractor in Louisiana, wrote to current Wal-Mart President and CEO Lee Scott, to inform him of specific stores in Mississippi that were allegedly using undocumented Ukrainian janitors. Mr. Drude pleaded to Lee Scott:

Mr. Scott, my questions to you are the following:
As much of a Red, White and Blue, flag waving, community oriented, retail giant Wal-Mart professes to be-
Are you going to allow this to continue?
Why would Wal-Mart do business with companies that hire illegal aliens?

Click here to see the Drude letter to Lee Scott. These letters to successive Wal-Mart Presidents and Chief Executive Officers have been widely reported in the media recently, including The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, and CNN.

QUESTION: DO YOU HAVE MORE LETTERS OR OTHER EVIDENCE THAT WAL-MART EXECUTIVES KNEW OF AND PARTICIPATED IN THE EXPLOITATION OF UNDOCUMENTED WORKERS AT ITS STORES?

CLICK HERE TO CONTACT US WITH ANY SUCH INFORMATION.

NEWS FLASH

MEXICO SUPPORTS PLAINTIFFS

The Government of Mexico has filed a strong statement of support for the plaintiffs and against Wal-Mart. In a July 12, 2004 statement to the Court, Mexico cites the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The statement states: "In light of said principles, Mexico has thoroughly reviewed the Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in response to defendant's motion to dismiss, dated May 3, 2004. The legal arguments made by the plaintiffs in that brief fully coincide with the position that [the Government of Mexico] has invariably taken regarding the protection of human rights - including labor rights - of Mexican nationals residing abroad, regardless of their migratory status."

With its statement of support, Mexico also filed a lengthy (166 pages) advisory opinion issued by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on September 17, 2003. That opinion, known as OC-18/03 "Legal Status and Rights of Undocumented Migrants," unanimously concluded: "That the principles of equality and non-discrimination are fundamental for the safeguard of human rights in both international and domestic law . . . ." and "That the migratory status of a person cannot constitute a justification to deprive him of the enjoyment and exercise of human rights, including those of a labor-related nature . . . ."

For its strong statement of support, plaintiffs say to the Government of Mexico:

¡Muchas Gracias!

Mexico Statement of Support

Older Developments

NOTICE MOTION AND OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS

On March 11, 2004, after we learned that Wal-Marts lawyers were trying to interview janitors who were arrested in the Operation Rollback raids, plaintiffs filed a motion asking the Court to order Wal-Mart to give janitors notice of this lawsuit by posting papers at its stores. This motion argues that notice is appropriate so that janitors can learn of this lawsuit and have an opportunity to join and try to collect back money owed to janitors who were not paid overtime required by law and, for some periods, not paid even the minimum wage. Wal-Marts efforts to speak with possible plaintiffs underscores the need for immediate notice of this case so that people with claims may pursue them. If you believe you have a claim and wish to pursue it, do not speak to Wal-Mart before retaining counsel. The Notice Motion also requests some immediate discovery of Wal-Mart to help locate janitors who worked for Wal-Mart and its cleaning contractors.

On May 3, 2004, plaintiffs filed their Opposition Brief in response to Wal-Marts motion to dismiss this case. The Opposition Brief makes very powerful and compelling legal arguments supporting this lawsuit for back wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1871 and the common law of false imprisonment.

Final papers on the Notice Motion and the Motion to Dismiss will be filed on June 1, 2001. Then the Court will schedule oral argument on the motions. Thereafter, the Court will issue its first important rulings on this historic case.

Nationwide Class Action Complaint Brought Against Wal-Mart on Behalf of Its Janitors

On November 10, 2003, lawyers filed a federal class action racketeering and labor law suit against Wal-Mart. The case was filed on behalf of all janitors at Wal-Mart and Sam's Club stores who were not paid lawful wages.

The case alleges that Wal-Mart- the largest private employer in the world- and its maintenance contractors joined in a fraudulent scheme to exploit workers in Wal-Mart and Sam's Club stores nationwide.

Complaint

First Amended Complaint Filed

On February 2, 2004, lawyers filed a First Amended Complaint. The First Amended Complaint names 17 Wal-Mart janitors as Class Representatives, including citizens of Mexico, the Czech Republic, Poland and Slovakia. Thousands of other Wal-Mart janitors, both in the United States and other countries, may be eligible to recover backpay through this lawsuit. Fill out the attached Questionnaire and follow the progress of this case through this website. It is important to contact us immediately if you have not done so already.

The First Amended Complaint also adds allegations of false imprisonment based on Wal-Mart's widespread policy of locking janitors in its stores during their overnight shifts. The First Amended Complaint adds allegations concerning the operation of Wal-Mart's scheme with its maintenance contractors at Wal-Mart stores across the United States, including stores in New Jersey, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Mississippi, and Texas. Here, the amended complaint is based on interviews with large numbers of janitors and the sworn statements of federal and state law enforcement agents in a U.S. Government lawsuit brought to seize the property (including bank accounts, houses and other assets) of a number of Wal-Mart's maintenance contractors. Click here to see the Government's sworn complaint in that Forfeiture Suit.