Haro

Haro v. Walmart Inc.

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMarch 18, 20241:21-cv-00239California10,029 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

I. BACKGROUND

20 A. Factual Background 21 In 2020, Defendant Walmart, Inc. (“Walmart”) implemented a company-wide policy 22 requiring all hourly paid employees to pass a COVID-19 health screening (the “screening”) 23 before clocking in for a shift. (Doc. 127 at 6). The policy applied in every Walmart store in 24 California, and if employees refused the screening, they were sent home on Level 1 unpaid leave. 25

1 Under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. § 1715, “[n]ot later than 10 days after a proposed 26 settlement of a class action is filed in court, each defendant that is participating in the proposed settlement shall serve upon the appropriate State official of each State in which a class member resides and the appropriate Federal official, 27 a notice of the proposed settlement[.]” Defendant indicates it intended to file the notice by December 26, 2023. (Doc. 127 at 20-21). 28 2 On January 4, 2024, the parties consented to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Magistrate Judge. (See Docs. 129-131). 1 (Id.). The policy required all hourly employees to “(1) report to a designated location at a 2 Walmart store, (2) possibly wait in line standing six feet apart…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.