Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Aug. 29, 2021

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

Note 11—Commitments and Contingencies

Legal Proceedings

The Company is involved in a number of claims, proceedings and litigations 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 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 an action commenced in August 2013 under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) alleging violation of California Wage Order 7-2001 for failing to provide seating to employees who work at entrance and exit doors in California warehouses. Canela v. Costco Wholesale Corp., et al. (Case No. 2013-1-CV-248813; Santa Clara Superior Court). 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.

In December 2018, a depot employee raised similar claims, alleging that depot employees in California did not receive suitable seating or reasonably comfortable workplace temperature conditions. Lane v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. CIVDS 1908816; San Bernardino Superior Court). The Company filed an answer denying the material allegations of the complaint. In October 2019, the parties reached an agreement to settle for an immaterial amount the seating claims on a representative basis, which received court approval in February 2020. The workplace temperature claims continue in litigation.

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). The complaint seeks relief under the California Labor Code, including civil penalties and attorneys’ fees. In October 2019, the parties reached an agreement on a class settlement for an immaterial amount, which received court approval in January 2021.

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.). The Company filed an answer denying the material allegations of the complaint. In December 2019, the court issued an order denying class certification. In January 2020, the plaintiffs dismissed their Labor Code claims without prejudice, and the court remanded the action to state court. The remand was appealed; the appeal is in abeyance due to a pending settlement for an immaterial amount that was agreed upon in February 2021. The preliminary approval hearing of the settlement is scheduled for October 2021.

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.). Relief is sought under the California Labor Code, including civil penalties and attorneys' fees. The Company has moved for partial summary judgement, and the parties have filed competing motions regarding class certification. In August 2019, the plaintiff filed a companion case in state court seeking penalties under PAGA. Rough v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. FCS053454; Sonoma County Superior Court). Relief is sought under the California Labor Code, including civil penalties and attorneys' fees. The state court action has been stayed pending resolution of the federal action.

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-EMC; N.D. Cal.). The Company filed an answer denying the material allegations of the complaint. In June 2021, the plaintiff agreed to dismiss his claims for failure to provide meal and rest breaks and to pay minimum wages. In July 2021, the parties reached an agreement settling for an immaterial amount the remaining claim and related derivative claims.

In April 2020, an employee, alleging underpayment of sick pay, filed a class and representative action against the Company, alleging claims under California law for failure to pay all wages at termination and for Labor Code penalties under PAGA. Kristy v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. 5:20-cv-04119; N.D. Cal.). The case was stayed due to the plaintiff's bankruptcy, and his individual claim was settled for an immaterial amount. A request for dismissal of the class and representative action is pending.

In July 2020, an employee filed an action under PAGA on behalf of all California non-exempt employees alleging violations of California Labor Code provisions regarding meal and rest periods, minimum wage, overtime, wage statements, reimbursement of expenses, and payment of wages at termination. Schwab v. Costco Wholesale Corporation (Case No. 37-2020-00023551-CU-OE-CTL; San Diego County Superior Court). In August 2020, the Company filed a motion to strike portions of the complaint, which was denied, and an answer has been filed denying the material allegations of the complaint.

In December 2020, a former employee filed suit against the Company asserting collective and class claims on behalf of non-exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law for failure to pay for all hours worked on a weekly basis and failure to provide proper wage statements and notices. The plaintiff also asserts individual retaliation claims. Cappadora v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. 1:20-cv-06067; E.D.N.Y.). An amended complaint was filed, and the Company has denied the material allegations of the amended complaint. In August 2021, a former employee filed a similar suit, asserting collective and class claims on behalf of non-exempt employees under the FLSA and New York law. Umadat v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. 2:21-cv-4814; E.D.N.Y.). The Company has not yet responded to the complaint.

In February 2021, a former employee filed a class action against the Company alleging violations of California Labor Code regarding payment of wages, meal and rest periods, wage statements, reimbursement of expenses, payment of final wages to terminated employees, and for unfair business practices. Edwards v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. 5:21-cv-00716: C.D. Cal.). In May 2021, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was granted with leave to amend. In June 2021, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which the Company moved to dismiss later that month. The court granted the motion in part in July 2021 with leave to amend. In August 2021, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint and filed a separate representative action under PAGA asserting the same Labor Code claims and seeking civil penalties and attorneys' fees. The Company has filed an answer to the second amended class action complaint denying the material allegations.

In July 2021, a former temporary staffing employee filed a class action against the Company and a staffing company alleging violations of the California Labor Code regarding payment of wages, meal and rest periods, wage statements, the timeliness of wages and final wages, and for unfair business practices. Dimas v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2021-0006024; San Joaquin Superior Court). The Company has not yet responded to the complaint.

Beginning in December 2017, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has consolidated numerous cases concerning the impacts of opioid abuses filed against various defendants by counties, cities, hospitals, Native American tribes, third-party payors, and others. In re National Prescription Opiate Litigation (MDL No. 2804) (N.D. Ohio). Included are 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 a hospital in Texas, class actions filed on behalf of infants born with opioid-related medical conditions in 40 states, and class actions and individual actions filed on behalf of individuals seeking to recover alleged increased insurance costs associated with opioid abuse in 43 states and American Samoa. Claims against the Company in state courts in New Jersey, Oklahoma, Utah, and Arizona have been dismissed. The Company is defending all of the pending matters.

The Company and its CEO and CFO were 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 alleged violations of the federal securities laws stemming from the Company’s disclosures concerning internal control over financial reporting. A consolidated amended complaint was filed on April 16, 2019. On November 26, 2019, the court entered an order dismissing the consolidated amended complaint and granting the plaintiffs leave to file a further amended complaint. A further amended complaint was filed on March 9, which the court dismissed with prejudice on August 19, 2020. On July 20, 2021, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal.

Members of the Board of Directors, one other individual, and the Company were 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). 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). In light of the dismissal in Johnson noted above, the plaintiffs in the derivative actions agreed voluntarily to dismiss their complaints.

On June 23, 2020, a putative class action was filed against the Company, the “Board of Directors,” the “Costco Benefits Committee” and others under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Dustin S. Soulek v. Costco Wholesale, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-937. The class is alleged to be beneficiaries of the Costco 401(k) plan from June 23, 2014, and the claims are that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties in the operation and oversight of the plan. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, damages, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees. On September 11, 2020, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, and on September 21 the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which the defendants have also moved to dismiss.

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.