Note 7 Commitments and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Jan. 02, 2021

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]

Contingencies

From time to time, the Company is a party to litigation, claims and other contingencies, including environmental, regulatory and employee matters and examinations and investigations by governmental agencies, which arise in the ordinary course of business. The Company records a contingent liability when it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of loss is reasonably estimable in accordance with ASC Topic 450, Contingencies, or other applicable accounting standards. As of January 2, 2021 and October 3, 2020, the Company had reserves of $39 million and $37 million, respectively, for environmental matters, warranty, litigation and other contingencies (excluding reserves for uncertain tax positions), which the Company believes are adequate. However, there can be no assurance that the Company's reserves will be sufficient to settle these contingencies. Such reserves are included in accrued liabilities and other long-term liabilities on the unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheets.

Legal Proceedings

Environmental Matters

The Company is subject to various federal, state, local and foreign laws and regulations and administrative orders concerning environmental protection, including those addressing the discharge of pollutants into the environment, the management and disposal of hazardous substances, the cleanup of contaminated sites, the materials used in products, and the recycling, treatment and disposal of hazardous waste. As of January 2, 2021, the Company had been named in a lawsuit and several administrative orders alleging certain of its current and former sites contributed to groundwater contamination. One such order demands that the Company and other alleged defendants remediate groundwater contamination at four landfills located in Northern California to which the Company may have sent wastewater in the past. The Company is participating in a working group of other alleged defendants to better understand its potential exposure in this action and has reserved its estimated exposure for this matter as of January 2, 2021. However, there can be no assurance that the Company's reserve will ultimately be sufficient.

In June 2008, the Company was named by the Orange County Water District in a suit alleging that its actions contributed to polluted groundwater managed by the plaintiff. The complaint seeks recovery of compensatory and other damages, as well as declaratory relief, for the payment of costs necessary to investigate, monitor, remediate, abate and contain contamination of groundwater within the plaintiff’s control. In April 2013, all claims against the Company were dismissed. The plaintiff appealed this dismissal and the appellate court reversed the judgment in August 2017. In November 2017, the California Supreme Court denied the Company’s petition to review this decision and, in December 2017, the Court of Appeal remanded the case back to the Superior Court for further proceedings. The first part of a multi-phase trial is scheduled to commence on April 12, 2021. The Company intends to contest the plaintiff’s claims vigorously.

Other Matters

In October 2018, a contractor who had been retained by the Company through a third party temporary staffing agency from November 2015 to March 2016 filed a lawsuit against the Company in the Santa Clara County Superior Court on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated Company contractors and employees in California, alleging violations of California Labor Code provisions governing overtime, meal and rest periods, wages, wage statements and reimbursement of business expenses. The complaint seeks certification of a class of all non-exempt employees, whether employed directly or through a temporary staffing agency, employed from four years before the filing of the initial complaint to the time of trial. Additionally, on November 1, 2019, another contractor retained through a temporary staffing agency filed a lawsuit against the Company in the Santa Clara County Superior Court. The complaint, which includes a single cause of action under California’s Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA"), alleges Labor Code violations substantially similar to those alleged in the October 2018 class action lawsuit and seeks penalties on behalf of the State of California and other “aggrieved employees” (defined to be current and former hourly, non-exempt employees employed by the Company between August 22, 2018 and the present). Although the Company continues to deny any wrongdoing, on November 19, 2020, the Company reached an agreement in principle to resolve all claims (the “Settlement”). Under the Settlement, which remains subject to court approval, the Company’s total payout will depend on the number and value of claims submitted by members of the settlement class to the claims administrator, and cannot exceed $5 million (but could be as low as approximately $3.5 million), inclusive of plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees, costs, and certain other items. On December 3, 2020, in connection with and in order to effect the Settlement, plaintiffs dismissed the PAGA complaint pending in Santa Clara County Superior Court and refiled it as a class and PAGA action in Kern County Superior Court.

In December 2019, the Company sued a former customer, Dialight plc (“Dialight”), in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to collect approximately $10 million in unpaid accounts receivable and net obsolete inventory obligations. Later the same day, Dialight commenced its own action in the same court. Dialight’s complaint, which asserts claims for fraudulent inducement, breach of contract, and gross negligence/willful misconduct, alleges that the Company fraudulently misrepresented its capabilities to induce Dialight to enter into a Manufacturing Services Agreement (the “Dialight MSA”), and then breached its obligations contained in the Dialight MSA relating to quality, on-time delivery and supply chain management. Dialight seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages. The Company intends to vigorously prosecute its claim against Dialight. Further, the Company strongly disagrees with Dialight’s allegations and intends to defend against them vigorously.

For each of the matters noted above, with the exception of the alleged violations of the California Labor Code described above, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate a range of possible loss at this time.