Commitments and Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Oct. 29, 2022

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments and contingencies

Legal proceedings

Employment practices

In March 2008, a group of private plaintiffs (the “Claimants”) filed a class and collective action lawsuit for an unspecified amount against Sterling Jewelers, Inc. (“SJI”), a subsidiary of Signet, in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York (“SDNY”), alleging that US store-level employment practices as to compensation and promotions discriminate on the basis of gender in purported violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) and the Equal Pay Act (“EPA”). In June 2008, the SDNY referred the matter to private arbitration with the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) where the Claimants sought to proceed on a class-wide basis. On February 2, 2015, the arbitrator issued a Class Determination Award in which she certified a class (estimated to include approximately 70,000 class members at the time) for the Claimants’ disparate impact claims for declaratory and injunctive relief under Title VII. On February 29, 2016, the arbitrator granted Claimants’ Motion for Conditional Certification of Claimants’ EPA Claims and Authorization of Notice, and notice to EPA collective action members was issued on May 3, 2016. The opt-in period for the EPA collective action closed on August 1, 2016, and the number of valid opt-in EPA Claimants is believed to be approximately 9,124. SJL challenged the arbitrator’s Class Determination Award with the SDNY. Although the SDNY vacated the Class Determination Award on January 15, 2018, on appeal the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (“Second Circuit”) held that the SDNY erred and remanded the case to the SDNY to decide whether the Arbitrator erred in certifying an opt-out, as opposed to a mandatory, class for declaratory and injunctive relief. On January 27, 2021 the SDNY ordered the case remanded to the AAA for further proceedings in arbitration on a class-wide basis. Subsequently, the arbitrator retired, and the parties selected a new arbitrator to oversee the proceedings moving forward. On October 8, 2021, the newly selected arbitrator issued an amended case management plan and scheduled the arbitration hearing to begin on September 5, 2022. SJI denies the allegations of the Claimants and has been defending the case vigorously.

On June 8, 2022, SJI and the Claimants reached a settlement agreement, which was subject to preliminary and final approval after notice to the class. The settlement provides for the dismissal of the arbitration with prejudice and includes payments by the Company totaling approximately $175 million. As a result of the settlement, the Company recorded a pre-tax charge of $190 million within other operating expense in the condensed consolidated statement of operations during the first quarter ended April 30, 2022. The settlement charge includes the payments to the Claimants, estimated employer payroll taxes, class administration fees and Claimants’ counsel attorney fees and costs. The arbitrator issued a preliminary approval of the settlement agreement on June 23, 2022 and a final approval order on November 15, 2022. The parties are seeking the SDNY’s confirmation of the arbitrator’s final approval award. If the SDNY confirms the final approval award in December 2022 and there are no appeals of that confirmation order, the Company expects to fund the settlement in the fourth quarter of Fiscal 2023.

On May 4, 2017, without any findings of liability or wrongdoing, SJI entered into a Consent Decree with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) settling a previously disclosed lawsuit that alleged that SJI engaged in intentional and disparate impact gender discrimination with respect to pay and promotions of female retail store employees since January 1, 2003. On May 4, 2017 the US District Court for the Western District of New York (“WDNY”) approved and entered the Consent Decree jointly proposed by the EEOC and SJI. The Consent Decree resolves all of the EEOC’s claims against SJI in this litigation, and imposes certain obligations on SJI including the appointment of an employment practices expert to review specific policies and practices, as well as obligations relative to training, notices, reporting and record-keeping. The Consent Decree does not require an outside third-party to monitor or require any monetary payment. The duration of the Consent Decree initially was three years and three months, set to expire on August 4, 2020, but on March 11, 2020, the WDNY approved a limited extension until November 4, 2021 of a few aspects of the Consent Decree terms regarding SJI’s compensation practices, and incorporating its implementation of a new retail team member compensation program into the overall Consent Decree framework. On October 11, 2021, SJI and the EEOC agreed to a tolling stipulation, which was submitted on October 22, 2021 and entered by the WDNY on November 4, 2021, and which extended certain deadlines of the Consent Decree until December 4, 2021. SJI and the EEOC have agreed to additional extensions of the tolling stipulation while the parties negotiated the terms of an amended Consent Decree for the limited purpose of completing certain statistical analyses on SJI’s initial pay and merit increase practices for its retail store employees that the employment practices expert was required to conduct during the term of the Consent Decree. The parties filed the Second Amended Consent Decree on April 15, 2022 and it was entered by the WDNY on April 22, 2022. The Second Amended Consent Decree expired on November 19, 2022.

Previously settled matters

Shareholder actions

As previously reported, on March 16, 2020, the Company entered into an agreement to settle a consolidated class action filed against the Company and certain former executives filed by various shareholders of the Company (the “Consolidated Action”). As a result of the settlement, the Company recorded a charge of $33.2 million during the fourth quarter of Fiscal 2020 in other operating income, net, which includes administration costs of $0.6 million and was recorded net of expected recoveries from the Company’s insurance carriers of $207.4 million. The settlement was fully funded in the second quarter of Fiscal 2021, and the Company contributed approximately $35 million of the $240 million settlement payment, net of insurance proceeds and including the impact of foreign currency. The Court granted final approval of the settlement on July 21, 2020.

Four additional actions were filed against the Company and certain former executives largely based on the same allegations as the Consolidated Action. Soon thereafter these four actions were filed, the Court entered orders staying these actions until entry of final judgment in the Consolidated Action. On June 27, 2020, the Company and plaintiffs in the four stayed actions (the “Opt-Out Plaintiffs”) reached a settlement in principle, which was finalized on July 10, 2020 requiring the Opt-Out Plaintiffs to rejoin the Consolidated Action. The Company recorded pre-tax charges related to the settlement of $7.5 million (net of expected insurance recovery) and $1.7 million during Fiscal 2021 and Fiscal 2022, respectively. The final amount owed to the Opt-Out Plaintiffs was paid during the first quarter of Fiscal 2023.