Retailers Expected To Challenge 'Big Box' Ordinance
Mega-retailers, such as Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Target Corp., might be headed to court after the Chicago City Council passed a controversial wage ordinance July 26. In a 35 to 14 vote, the City Council overwhelming passed a "big-box" living-wage ordinance. The ordinance requires stores of at least 90,000 square...
July 28, 2006 at 07:38 AM
2 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Mega-retailers, such as Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Target Corp., might be headed to court after the Chicago City Council passed a controversial wage ordinance July 26.
In a 35 to 14 vote, the City Council overwhelming passed a “big-box” living-wage ordinance. The ordinance requires stores of at least 90,000 square feet operated by firms with $1 billion or more in annual sales to pay employees a minimum of $9.25 an hour in wages and $1.50 in benefits. By 2010, these figures will rise to $10 an hour in wages and $3 in benefits, according to the legislation.
Although no formal suit has been filed, companies, such as Wal-Mart, and trade organizations, such as the Illinois Retail Merchants Association, are expected to challenge the legislation in court. Legal experts predict that the suits will be brought under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, citing that the legislation unfairly singles out the retailers.
Other cities have passed similar living-wage ordinances, including Santa Fe, N.M. and San Francisco. However, Santa Fe's law is much broader, applying to firms that employ more than 25 people while San Francisco's law applies only to businesses that have government contracts.
Chicago's “big-box” ordinance is scheduled to take effect next July and will affect an estimated 38 stores in the city.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'We Are Far From Finished': Amazon Pro Bono Program Raises Sights After Championing Justice From West Virginia to Ukraine
5 minute readAdvertising Tech Likely to Draw More Scrutiny in 2025 Over Consumers' Data, Lawyers Say
5 minute readIn-House Moves of the Month: Boeing Loses Another Lawyer, HubSpot Legal Chief Out After 2 Years
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Data Breach Lawsuit Against Byte Federal Among 1,500 Targeting Companies in 2024
- 2Counterfeiters Ride Surge in Tabletop Games’ Popularity, Challenging IP Owners to Keep Up
- 3Health Care Data Breach Class Actions Saw December Surge in NY Courts
- 4Florida Supreme Court Disbars 3, Suspends 11, Reprimands 1 in Final Disciplinary Order of 2024
- 5Chief Justice Roberts Ends Year With Defense Against 'Illegitimate' Attacks on Judiciary
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250