Commitments and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Nov. 20, 2022

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

Note 8—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 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. 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 monitor the matter for developments that will make the 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 July 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. (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. A bench trial was held in June and July; no decision has been issued.

In June 2022, a business center employee raised similar claims alleging failure to provide seating to employees who work at membership refund desks in California warehouses and business centers. Rodriguez v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. 22CV012847; Alameda 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 settled for an immaterial amount the seating claims on a representative basis, which received court approval in February 2020. The parties settled the temperature claims for an immaterial amount in April 2022, and court approval was received in May 2022. A February 2023 hearing has been set for a final report on the settlement.

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. Settlement for an immaterial amount was agreed upon in February 2021. Final court approval of the settlement was granted on May 3, 2022. A proposed intervenor has appealed the denial of her motion to intervene.

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. In September 2021, the court granted Costco’s motion for partial summary judgment and denied 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 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, failure to pay certain non-exempt employees on a weekly basis, and failure to provide proper wage statements and notices. The plaintiff also asserted 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 denied the material allegations of the amended complaint. Based on an agreement in principle concerning settlement of the matter, involving a proposed payment by the Company of an immaterial amount, the federal action has been dismissed. In April 2022, Cappadora and a second plaintiff filed an action against the Company in New York state court, asserting the same class claims asserted in the federal action under the New York Labor Law and seeking preliminary approval of the class settlement. Cappadora and Sancho v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Index No. 604757/2022; Nassau County Supreme Court). The state court granted preliminary approval of the settlement in October 2022.

In August 2021, a former employee filed a similar suit, asserting class claims on behalf of certain non-exempt employees under New York Labor Law for failure to pay on a weekly basis. Umadat v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. 2:21-cv-4814; E.D.N.Y.). The Company filed an answer, denying the material allegations of the complaint. In April 2022, a former employee filed a similar suit, asserting class claims on behalf of certain non-exempt employees under New York Labor Law, as well as under the Fair Labor Standards Act, for failure to pay on a weekly basis and failure to pay overtime. Burian v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. 2:22-cv-02108; E.D.N.Y.). In September 2022, an amended complaint was filed, asserting class claims on behalf of certain non-exempt employees under New York Labor Law for failure to pay on a weekly basis. The Company responded by requesting permission to file a motion to dismiss. The court has not responded.

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 filed an answer to the second amended class action complaint, denying the material allegations. The Company also filed an answer to the PAGA representative action, denying the material allegations. On September 27, 2022, the parties reached a settlement for an immaterial amount. The settlement requires court approval.

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 moved to compel arbitration of the plaintiff's individual claims and to dismiss the class action complaint. On September 7, 2021, the same former employee filed a separate representative

action under PAGA, asserting the same Labor Code violations and seeking civil penalties and attorneys' fees. The case has been stayed pending the motion to compel in the related case.

In September 2021, an employee filed a class action against the Company alleging violations of the California Labor Code regarding the alleged failure to provide sick pay, failure to timely pay wages due at separation from employment, and for violations of California's unfair competition law. De Benning v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. 34-2021-00309030-CU-OE-GDS; Sacramento Superior Court). The Company answered the complaint in January 2022, denying its material allegations. In April 2022, a settlement for an immaterial amount was agreed upon, subject to court approval. The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on October 28, 2022. A final approval hearing is set for February 10, 2023.

In March 2022, an employee filed a class action against the Company alleging violations of the California Labor Code regarding the failure to: pay wages, provide meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, timely pay final wages, and reimburse business expenses. Diaz v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. 22STCV09513; Los Angeles Superior Court). The Company filed an answer denying the material allegations.

In May 2022, an employee filed a PAGA-only representative action against the Company alleging claims under the California Labor Code regarding the payment of wages, meal and rest periods, the timeliness of wages and final wages, wage statements, accurate records and business expenses. Gonzalez v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. 22AHCV00255; Los Angeles Superior Court).

Beginning in December 2017, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation 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.

Members of the Board of Directors, six corporate officers and the Company are defendants in a shareholder derivative action related to chicken welfare and alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. Smith, et ano. v. Vachris, et al., Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of King, No, 22-2-08937-7SEA, (filed 6/14/22, as amended, 6/30/22); The complaint seeks from the individual defendants damages, injunctive relief, costs, and attorneys' fees. A motion to dismiss the amended complaint has been filed.

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; 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.