2.2.0.25falsefalse11201 - Disclosure - Note 12. Legal Proceedingstruefalsefalse1falsefalseUSDfalsefalse2/1/2010 - 1/31/2011
USD ($)
USD ($) / shares
$Duration_2_1_2010_To_1_31_2011http://www.sec.gov/CIK0000104169duration2010-02-01T00:00:002011-01-31T00:00:00Unit12Standardhttp://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217USDiso42170Unit15Standardhttp://www.xbrl.org/2003/instancepurexbrli0Unit16Dividehttp://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217USDiso4217http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instancesharesxbrli0Unit1Standardhttp://www.xbrl.org/2003/instancesharesxbrli0USDUSD$2true0wmt_LegalProceedingsAbstractwmtfalsenadurationLegal proceedings [Abstract]falsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalse1falsefalsefalse00falsefalsefalsefalsefalseOtherxbrli:stringItemTypestringLegal proceedings [Abstract]falsefalse3false0wmt_LegalProceedingsTextBlockwmtfalsenadurationOpen legal proceedings in the normal course of business, including product liability and other litigation and contingencies.falsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalseterselabel1falsefalsefalse00<div>
<p style="margin-top: 18px; margin-bottom: 0px;"><font style="font-family: Times New Roman;" class="_mt" size="2"><b>Note 12. Legal Proceedings </b></font></p>
<p style="margin-top: 6px; margin-bottom: 0px;"><font style="font-family: Times New Roman;" class="_mt" size="2">The Company is involved in a number of legal proceedings. The Company has made accruals with respect to these matters, where appropriate, which are reflected in the Company's consolidated financial statements. For some matters, the amount of liability is not probable or the amount cannot be reasonably estimated and therefore accruals have not been made. However, where a liability is reasonably possible and material, such matters have been disclosed. The Company may enter into discussions regarding settlement of these matters, and may enter into settlement agreements, if it believes settlement is in the best interest of the Company's shareholders. The matters, or groups of related matters, discussed below, if decided adversely to or settled by the Company, individually or in the aggregate, may result in liability material to the Company's financial condition or results of operations. </font></p>
<p style="margin-top: 12px; margin-bottom: 0px;"><font style="font-family: Times New Roman;" class="_mt" size="2"><b>Wage-and-Hour Class Action:</b> The Company is a defendant in <i>Braun/Hummel v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc</i>., a class action lawsuit commenced in March 2002 in the Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs allege that the Company failed to pay class members for all hours worked and prevented class members from taking their full meal and rest breaks. On October 13, 2006, a jury awarded back-pay damages to the plaintiffs of approximately $<font class="_mt">78</font> million on their claims for off-the-clock work and missed rest breaks. The jury found in favor of the Company on the plaintiffs' meal-period claims. On November 14, 2007, the trial judge entered a final judgment in the approximate amount of $<font class="_mt">188</font> million, which included the jury's back-pay award plus statutory penalties, prejudgment interest and attorneys' fees. The Company believes it has substantial factual and legal defenses to the claims at issue, and on December 7, 2007, the Company filed its Notice of Appeal. </font></p>
<p style="margin-top: 12px; margin-bottom: 0px; font-size: 1px;"> </p>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"><font style="font-family: Times New Roman;" class="_mt" size="2"><b>Gender Discrimination Class Action:</b> The Company is a defendant in<i> Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc</i>., a class-action lawsuit commenced in June 2001 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint alleges that the Company has engaged in a pattern and practice of discriminating against women in promotions, pay, training and job assignments. The complaint seeks, among other things, injunctive relief, front pay, back pay, punitive damages and attorneys' fees. On June 21, 2004, the district court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The class, which was certified by the district court for purposes of liability, injunctive and declaratory relief, punitive damages and lost pay, subject to certain exceptions, includes all women employed at any Wal-Mart domestic retail store at any time since December 26, 1998, who have been or may be subjected to the pay and management track promotions policies and practices challenged by the plaintiffs. </font></p>
<p style="margin-top: 12px; margin-bottom: 0px;"><font style="font-family: Times New Roman;" class="_mt" size="2">On August 31, 2004, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted the Company's petition for discretionary review of the ruling. On February 6, 2007, a divided three-judge panel of the court of appeals issued a decision affirming the district court's certification order. On February 20, 2007, the Company filed a petition asking that the decision be reconsidered by a larger panel of the court. On December 11, 2007, the three-judge panel withdrew its opinion of February 6, 2007, and issued a revised opinion. As a result, the Company's Petition for Rehearing En Banc was denied as moot. The Company filed a new Petition for Rehearing En Banc on January 8, 2008. On February 13, 2009, the court of appeals issued an Order granting the Petition. On April 26, 2010, the Ninth Circuit issued a divided (6-5) opinion affirming certain portions of the district court's ruling and reversing other portions. On August 25, 2010, the Company filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court seeking review of the Ninth Circuit's decision. On December 6, 2010, the Supreme Court granted the Company's petition for writ of certiorari. The Company filed its Brief for Petitioner on January 20, 2011; the Brief for Respondents was filed on February 22, 2011; and oral argument was held on March 29, 2011. </font></p>
<p style="margin-top: 12px; margin-bottom: 0px;"><font style="font-family: Times New Roman;" class="_mt" size="2">If the Company is not successful in its appeal of class certification, or an appellate court issues a ruling that allows for the certification of a class or classes with a different size or scope, and if there is a subsequent adverse verdict on the merits from which there is no successful appeal, or in the event of a negotiated settlement of the litigation, the resulting liability could be material to the Company's financial condition or results of operations. The plaintiffs also seek punitive damages which, if awarded, could result in the payment of additional amounts material to the Company's financial condition or results of operations. However, because of the uncertainty of the outcome of the appeal, because of the uncertainty of the balance of the proceedings contemplated by the district court, and because the Company's liability, if any, arising from the litigation, including the size of any damages awarded if plaintiffs are successful in the litigation or any negotiated settlement, could vary widely, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may arise from the litigation. </font></p>
<p style="margin-top: 12px; margin-bottom: 0px;"><font style="font-family: Times New Roman;" class="_mt" size="2"><b>Hazardous Materials Investigations:</b> On November 8, 2005, the Company received a grand jury subpoena from the United States Attorney's Office for the Central District of California, seeking documents and information relating to the Company's receipt, transportation, handling, identification, recycling, treatment, storage and disposal of certain merchandise that constitutes hazardous materials or hazardous waste. The Company has been informed by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Central District of California that it is a target of a criminal investigation into potential violations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA"), the Clean Water Act and the Hazardous Materials Transportation Statute. This U.S. Attorney's Office contends, among other things, that the use of Company trucks to transport certain returned merchandise from the Company's stores to its return centers is prohibited by RCRA because those materials may be considered hazardous waste. The government alleges that, to comply with RCRA, the Company must ship from the store certain materials as "hazardous waste" directly to a certified disposal facility using a certified hazardous waste carrier. The U.S. Attorney's Office in the Northern District of California subsequently joined in this investigation. The Company contends that the practice of transporting returned merchandise to its return centers for subsequent disposition, including disposal by certified facilities, is compliant with applicable laws and regulations. While management cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this matter, management does not believe the outcome will have a material effect on the Company's financial condition or results of operations. </font></p> </div>Note 12. Legal Proceedings
The Company is involved in a number of legal proceedings. The Company has made accruals with respect to these matters, wherefalsefalsefalsefalsefalseOtherus-types:textBlockItemTypestringOpen legal proceedings in the normal course of business, including product liability and other litigation and contingencies.No authoritative reference available.falsefalse12Note 12. Legal ProceedingsUnKnownUnKnownUnKnownUnKnownfalsetrue
