A class action lawsuit, known as Russell, et al. v. Kohl’s Department Stores, Inc., Case No.: 5:15-cv-01143-RGK-SP, pending in U.S. District Court, Central District of California, alleges that Kohl’s used false “regular” and “original” prices, informing the shoppers that they were receiving 30% off the false regular or original pricing.

Kohl’s, of course, denied all allegations asserted but reached a settlement of over $6 million to resolve this conflict.

A court hearing is scheduled for September 12, 2016 where the court will determine if it will approve the settlement (fairness) and what fees and costs are to be awarded.

Perhaps, you may have received a class settlement notice in the mail, informing of the pending action and of the benefit to which you may be entitled.

So, you ever wondered or sensed that the actual selling prices were just too good to refuse, considering the “regular” or “original” prices?

Maybe, there is a conspiracy among some of the giant retailers to once again defraud the public? A similar class lawsuit against JCPenney is pending as well.

The court has not decided the merit or the liability issue.

Do not forget to claim your benefit if you are part of this class of persons in question.

Currently, our office is involved in an employment class action against a large trucking company for overtime, meal and break periods violations.

A class action lawsuit, known as Spann v. JCPenney Corporation, Inc., Case No.: 12-cv-0215FMO, pending in U.S. District Court, Central District of California, alleges that JCPenney used false “regular” and “original” prices for JCPenney’s private and exclusive branded products, apparently to deceive and to entice the customers to purchase the merchandise.

JCPenney, of course, denied all allegations asserted but reached a settlement of $50 million to resolve this dispute.

A court hearing is calendared for August 25, 2016 where the court will determine if it will approve the settlement (fairness) and what fees and costs are to be awarded.

Perhaps, you may have received a class settlement notice in the mail, informing of the pending action and of the benefit to which you may be entitled.

So, you ever wondered or sensed that the actual selling prices were just too good to refuse, considering the “regular” or “original” prices?

Remember to claim your benefit if you belong to part of this group of persons in question.

Presently, our office is involved in an employment class action against a large trucking company for overtime, meal and break periods violations.

A federal jury in New Hampshire rendered a verdict in favor of a Maureen McPadden in the sum of little over $31 million against Walmart for gender-based discrimination and retaliatory termination.

Ms. McPadden, a pharmacist, claimed that she was wrongfully discharged after complaining to Walmart management about the safety of customers as the staffers were filling the prescriptions improperly because of inadequate training.

Walmart fired Ms. McPadden on the ground that she lost a pharmacy key. This was, as asserted by the plaintiff, a pretext in retaliation to her voicing the concerns of safety.

She also stated that another male pharmacist who misplaced his key was simply disciplined but not terminated.

Of the $31 million verdict, there were punitive damages of about $15 million. Punitive damages are generally awarded if there is malice shown as well associated with the conduct of the defendant.

Do you think this will teach Walmart a lesson in the future?