Overbrook man settles lawsuit with Wal-Mart concerning overtime pay
An Overbrook man and Wal-Mart Stores Inc. have apparently settled the man's proposed federal class-action lawsuit seeking overtime pay for current and former assistant managers.
James Jenko filed the lawsuit in February and a judge never approved the lawsuit as a class action, so the settlement apparently only covers his individual claims.
Jenko, a former assistant manager, claimed that the Bentonville, Ark., retailer was violating state wage laws by not paying assistant managers overtime. The company, which has 133 stores in Pennsylvania, denied that state law requires it to pay the eight to 10 assistant managers at each store overtime.
Lawyers for both sides on Monday filed a motion to dismiss the case and the court docket shows they reached an agreement during mediation. The filing doesn't provide any details of the settlement and the lawyers and a company spokesperson couldn't immediately be reached for comment.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Rossi: Just wait until Ben comes back
- Bell’s last-second TD lifts Steelers over Chargers
- Steelers defense displays resiliency in victory over Chargers
- Pittsburgh considering self-insured health benefits to cut costs
- Pirates coach Sofield interviews for Padres manager
- Steelers notebook: Receiver Bryant inactive for game vs. Chargers
- Sisters of St. Francis of the Providence of God sell 33-acre Whitehall home
- Central Valley, New Castle face WPIAL hearing over fight before football game
- Looking toward home opener, Penguins work to end scoring drought
- Tomlin on Bell’s late TD: ‘We were going to go for it’
- Wiz Khalifa’s ‘See You Again’ gets 2 AMA nominations