Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Feb. 16, 2020

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

Note 10—Commitments and Contingencies

Legal Proceedings

The Company is involved in a number of claims, proceedings and litigation arising from its business and property ownership. In accordance with applicable accounting guidance, the Company establishes an accrual for legal proceedings if and when those matters reach a stage where they present loss contingencies that are both probable and reasonably estimable. There may be exposure to loss in excess of any amounts accrued. The Company monitors those matters for developments that would affect the likelihood of a loss (taking into account where applicable indemnification arrangements concerning suppliers and insurers) and the accrued amount, if any, thereof, and adjusts the amount as appropriate. As of the date of this Report, the Company has recorded immaterial accruals with respect to certain matters described below, in addition to other immaterial accruals for matters not described below. If the loss contingency at issue is not both probable and reasonably estimable, the Company does not establish an accrual, but will continue to monitor the matter for developments that will make the loss contingency both probable and reasonably estimable. In each case, there is a reasonable possibility that a loss may be incurred, including a loss in excess of the applicable accrual. For matters where no accrual has been recorded, the possible loss or range of loss (including any loss in excess of the accrual) cannot, in the Company's view, be reasonably estimated because, among other things: (i) the remedies or penalties sought are indeterminate or unspecified; (ii) the legal and/or factual theories are not well developed; and/or (iii) the matters involve complex or novel legal theories or a large number of parties.

The Company is a defendant in a class action alleging violation of California Wage Order 7-2001 for failing to provide seating to member service assistants who act as greeters in the Company’s California warehouses. Canela v. Costco Wholesale Corp., et al. (Case No. 5:13-CV-03598, N.D. Cal. filed July 1, 2013). The complaint seeks relief under the California Labor Code, including civil penalties and attorneys’ fees. The Company filed an answer denying the material allegations of the complaint. The action has been stayed pending review by the Ninth Circuit of the order certifying a class. In January 2019, an employee brought similar claims for relief concerning Costco employees engaged at member services counters in California. Rodriguez v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. RG19001310, Alameda Superior Court filed Jan. 4, 2019). The Company filed an answer denying the material allegations of the complaint. In December 2018, a depot employee raised similar claims, alleging that depot employees in California did not receive suitable seating or appropriate workplace temperature conditions. Lane v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Dec. 6, 2018 Notice to California Labor and Workforce Development Agency). The Company filed an answer denying the material allegations of the complaint. In October the parties reached an agreement to settle the seating claims on a class basis, which received court approval in February 2020.

In January 2019, a former seasonal employee filed a class action, alleging failure to provide California seasonal employees meal and rest breaks, proper wage statements, and appropriate wages. Jadan v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. 19-CV-340438 Santa Clara Superior Court filed Jan. 3, 2019). The complaint seeks relief under the California Labor Code, including civil penalties and attorneys’ fees. In October the parties reached an agreement on a class settlement, which is subject to court approval.

In March 2019, employees filed a class action against the Company alleging claims under California law for failure to pay overtime, to provide meal and rest periods and itemized wage statements, to timely pay wages due to terminating employees, to pay minimum wages, and for unfair business practices. Relief is sought under the California Labor Code, including civil penalties and attorneys' fees. Nevarez v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. 2:19-cv-03454 C.D. Cal. filed Mar. 25, 2019). The Company filed an answer denying the material allegations of the complaint. In May 2019, an employee filed a class action against the Company alleging claims under California law for failure to pay overtime, to provide itemized wage statements, to timely pay wages due to terminating employees, to pay minimum wages, and for unfair business practices. Rough v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. 2:19-cv-01340 E.D. Cal. filed May 28, 2019). Relief is sought under the California Labor Code, including civil penalties and attorneys' fees. In June 2019, an employee filed a class action against the Company alleging claims under California law for failure to pay overtime, to provide meal and rest periods, itemized wage statements, to timely pay wages due to terminating employees, to pay minimum wages, and for unfair business practices. Martinez v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. 3:19-cv-05624 N.D. Cal. filed June 11, 2019). The Company filed an answer denying the material allegations of the complaint. In August 2019, Rough filed a companion case in state court seeking penalties under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act. Rough v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. FCS053454, Sonoma County Superior Court, filed August 23, 2019). Relief is sought under the California Labor Code, including civil penalties and attorneys' fees. In September 2019, an employee re-filed a class action against the Company alleging claims under California law for failure to pay wages, to provide meal and rest periods and itemized wage statements, to timely pay wages due to terminating employees, to pay minimum wages, and for unfair business practices. Mosley v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. 2:19-cv-07935, C.D. Cal. filed Sept. 12, 2019). Relief is sought under the California Labor Code, including civil penalties and attorneys' fees.

In December 2017, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated numerous cases filed against various defendants by counties, cities, hospitals, Native American tribes, third-party payors, and others concerning the impacts of opioid abuse. In re National Prescription Opiate Litigation (MDL No. 2804) (N.D. Ohio). Included are federal cases that name the Company, including actions filed by counties and cities in Michigan, New Jersey, Oregon, Virginia and South Carolina, a third-party payor in Ohio, and class actions filed in thirty-eight states on behalf of infants born with opioid-related medical conditions. In 2019 similar actions were commenced against the Company in state courts in Utah and Arizona. Claims against the Company in state courts in New Jersey and Oklahoma have been dismissed. The Company is defending all of these matters.

The Company and its CEO and CFO are defendants in putative class actions brought on behalf of shareholders who acquired Company stock between June 6 and October 25, 2018. Johnson v. Costco Wholesale Corp., et al. (W.D. Wash. filed Nov. 5, 2018); Chen v. Costco Wholesale Corp., et al. (W.D. Wash. filed Dec. 11, 2018). The complaints allege violations of the federal securities laws stemming from the Company’s disclosures concerning internal control over financial reporting. They seek unspecified damages, equitable relief, interest, and costs and attorneys’ fees. On January 30, 2019, an order was entered consolidating the actions, and a consolidated amended complaint was filed on April 16. On November 26, the court entered an order dismissing the consolidated amended complaint and granting the plaintiffs leave to file a further amended complaint within 90 days.

Members of the Board of Directors, one other individual, and the Company are defendants in a shareholder derivative action related to the internal controls and related disclosures identified in the putative class actions, alleging that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties. Wedekind v. Hamilton James, Susan Decker, Kenneth Denman, Richard Galanti, Craig Jelinek, Richard Libenson, John Meisenbach, Charles Munger, Jeffrey Raikes, John Stanton, Mary Agnes Wilderotter, and Costco Wholesale Corp. (W.D. Wash. filed Dec. 11, 2018). The complaint seeks unspecified damages, disgorgement of compensation, corporate governance changes, and costs and attorneys' fees. Because the complaint is derivative in nature, it does not seek monetary damages from the Company, which is a nominal defendant. By agreement among the parties the action has been stayed pending further proceedings in the class actions. Similar actions were filed in King County Superior Court on February 20, 2019, Elliott v. Hamilton James, Susan Decker, Kenneth Denman, Richard Galanti, Craig Jelinek, Richard Libenson, John Meisenbach, Charles Munger, Jeffrey Raikes, John Stanton, Mary Agnes Wilderotter, and Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. 19-2-04824-7), April 16, 2019, Brad Shuman, et ano. v. Hamilton James, Susan Decker, Kenneth Denman, Richard Galanti, Craig Jelinek, John Meisenbach, Charles Munger, Jeffrey Raikes, John Stanton, Mary Agnes Wilderotter, and Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. 19-2-10460-1), and June 12, 2019, Rahul Modi v. Hamilton James, Susan Decker, Kenneth Denman, Richard Galanti, Craig Jelinek, John Meisenbach, Charles Munger, Jeffrey Raikes, John Stanton, Mary Agnes Wilderotter, and Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. 19-2-15514-1). These actions have also been stayed.

In November 2016 and September 2017, the Company received notices of violation from the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection regarding hazardous waste practices at its Connecticut warehouses, primarily concerning unsalable pharmaceuticals. The relief to be sought is not known at this time. The Company is seeking to cooperate concerning the resolution of these notices.

The Company does not believe that any pending claim, proceeding or litigation, either alone or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows; however, it is possible that an unfavorable outcome of some or all of the matters, however unlikely, could result in a charge that might be material to the results of an individual fiscal quarter or year.