THE HONORABLE TERENCE LUKENS

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

IN AND FOR KING COUNTY

DEBRA BARNETT, GEORGIE HARTWIG, and BELLA BLAUBERGS, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WAL‑MART STORES, INC., a Delaware corporation, d/b/a WAL‑MART, d/b/a SAM’S CLUB, d/b/a SUPERCENTER, Defendant.

NO. 01‑2‑24553‑8 SEA THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, RESTITUTION, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Plaintiffs, by their undersigned attorneys, for their Class Action Complaint against Defendant Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc., d/b/a Wal‑Mart, d/b/a Sam’s Club, d/b/a Supercenter, allege as follows:

I.  NATURE OF ACTION

1. DON’T DELETE

1.1. Plaintiffs Debra Barnett, Georgie Hartwig and Bella Blaubergs (“Plaintiffs”) bring this action against Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc. (including all Washington Wal‑Mart stores, Supercenters and Sam’s Clubs, collectively “Wal‑Mart” or “Defendant”) for engaging in a systematic scheme of wage abuse against its hourly paid employees in the state of Washington.  This scheme involved, inter alia, failing to record and pay for hourly employees’ off‑the‑clock work and overtime, and preventing such employees from taking and/or completing their rest and meal breaks.  As a result of its systematic scheme of failing to properly pay its hourly employees throughout Washington, Wal‑Mart has violated Washington common and statutory laws as described more particularly below.

II.  JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. DO NOT DELETE

2.1. Venue is proper in King County because Plaintiff Barnett resides in King County and worked for Defendant at a Wal‑Mart store located in King County where the violations alleged herein on her behalf occurred.  In addition, Defendant transacts business in King County and many of the specific acts, as well as the course of conduct charged herein, occurred in King County.

2.2. The Defendant is within the jurisdiction of this Court.  Wal‑Mart does tens of millions of dollars of business in the State of Washington and operates stores in King County.  Thus, Defendant has obtained the benefits of the laws of the State of Washington and the Washington retail and labor markets.

2.3. The total amount in controversy of the named Plaintiffs’ claims is less than Seventy‑Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000).  In addition, as master of their complaint, Plaintiffs assert no claims arising under federal law.  Rather, Plaintiffs allege claims for relief based solely on, and arising from, Washington law.  The claims of Plaintiffs and the Class members are individual claims for violations of Washington law described herein.  These claims do not unite or enforce a single title or right to which Plaintiffs and the Class have a common and undivided interest.

III.  PARTIES

3. DON’T DELETE

3.1. Plaintiff Debra Barnett.  Plaintiff Barnett worked from approximately October 1995 to March 1999 at the Wal‑Mart Discount Store in Auburn, Washington, located in King County.  On multiple occasions during her employment as a cashier and customer service manager (“CSM”), Plaintiff Barnett worked time off the clock for which she was never paid, worked overtime for which she was not paid, and was denied meal and rest breaks.  Plaintiff Barnett, as the lead CSM, ran the cashier meetings, scheduled the cashiers, and performed other time‑consuming tasks.  Plaintiff Barnett estimates that on average she worked 16‑20 hours per month for which she was not compensated.  These estimates do not include the substantial hours for which she received no compensation during the holidays and at inventory time.

3.2. Plaintiff Georgie Hartwig.  Plaintiff Hartwig worked from March 14, 1994, to October 9, 2000, at the Wal‑Mart Discount Store in Colville, Washington, located in Stevens County.  On multiple occasions during her employment as a freight receiving coordinator, sales associate, morning stocker, and department manager, Plaintiff Hartwig worked time off the clock for which she was never paid, worked overtime for which she was not paid, was locked into the store at night, and was denied meal and rest breaks.  On average, Plaintiff Hartwig estimates that she worked between two to five hours per week for which she was not compensated.  These estimates do not include the substantial hours for which she was not paid during the holidays and at inventory time.

3.3. Plaintiff Bella Blaubergs.  Plaintiff Bella Blaubergs worked from December 1997 to March 1999 at the Wal-Mart store in Mt. Vernon, Washington, located in Skagit County.  She worked as a fitting room attendant, a greeter, and a sales associate in the fabrics and crafts department.  While employed by Wal-Mart, Plaintiff Blaubergs worked time off the clock for which she was not paid, worked overtime for which she was not paid, was locked in the store at night after clocking out, and was regularly unable to take meal and rest breaks. 

3.4. Defendant Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in Bentonville, Arkansas.  Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc. is a corporation doing tens of millions of dollars of business within the State of Washington.  Indeed, Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc. operates a total of approximately 30 stores (including Wal‑Mart Stores, Supercenters and Sam’s Clubs) in Washington.  Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc. is an employer of thousands of employees in the State of Washington.

3.5. Sam’s Club is an operating segment of Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc. and operates at least two Sam’s Club stores in Washington.

IV.  CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

4. DON’T DELETE

4.1. Plaintiffs bring this case as a class action pursuant to Washington Civil Rule 23 on behalf of a Class consisting of:

All current and former hourly paid employees of Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc. (including Wal‑Mart Stores, Supercenters and Sam’s Clubs) in the state of Washington from September 10, 1995 to the present who have not held a salaried management position with Wal-Mart at any time from September 10, 1995 to the present (“the Class”).

Excluded from the Class are Defendant, any entity in which Defendant has a controlling interest or which has a controlling interest of Defendant, and Defendant’s legal representatives, assignees and successors.  Also excluded are the judge to whom this case is assigned and any member of the judge’s immediate family.

4.2. Plaintiffs believe there are at least tens of thousands of current and former hourly paid Wal‑Mart employees in the Class.  Given Defendant’s massive size and the systematic nature of Defendant’s failure to comply with Washington employment law and common law, the members of the Class are so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.

4.3. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the members of the Class because they were hourly employees who, like the members of the Class, sustained damages arising out of the Defendant’s campaign to force them to work off the clock, failure to pay wages, including overtime, and failure to provide meal and rest breaks.

4.4. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class members.  Plaintiffs have retained counsel competent and experienced in complex and class action litigation, including employment law.

4.5. Common questions of law and fact exist as to Plaintiffs and all members of the Class and predominate over any questions solely affecting individual members of the Class.  Among the questions of law and fact common to Plaintiffs and the Class are:

a. Whether Wal‑Mart has engaged in a pattern and/or practice in Washington of forcing or permitting Plaintiffs and the Class to work off the clock without compensation;

b. Whether Wal‑Mart has engaged in a pattern and/or practice in Washington of encouraging Plaintiffs and members of the Class to not report all time worked;

c. Whether Wal‑Mart has engaged in a pattern and/or practice in Washington of threatening Plaintiffs and the Class with discharge, demotion, or discrimination or otherwise intimidating Plaintiffs and the Class if they do not work off the clock;

d. Whether Wal‑Mart failed to permit meal and rest periods as required by Washington law and Wal‑Mart’s stated policy and its company‑wide agreements;

e. Whether Wal‑Mart failed to properly compensate Plaintiffs and the Class in connection with interruptions in the meal or rest breaks;

f. Whether Wal‑Mart failed to keep true and accurate time records for all hours worked by its employees and/or altered time records;

g. Whether Wal‑Mart failed to pay Plaintiffs and the Class for the work Wal‑Mart permitted them to perform;

h. Whether Wal‑Mart violated RCW 49.46.130;

i. Whether Wal-Mart violated RCW 49.46.090;

j. Whether Wal-Mart violated RCW 49.52.050;

k. Whether Wal‑Mart violated WAC 296‑126‑023;

l. Whether Wal‑Mart violated WAC 296‑126‑0924 and 296-125-0287;

m. Whether Wal‑Mart violated RCW 19.86 et. seq; and

n. The nature and extent of class‑wide injury and the measure of compensation for such injury.

4.6. Class action treatment is superior to the alternatives for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy alleged herein.  Such treatment will permit a large number of similarly situated persons to prosecute their modest, purely economic, common claims in a single forum simultaneously, efficiently, and without the duplication of effort and expense that numerous individual actions would entail.  No difficulties are likely to be encountered in the management of this class action that would preclude its maintenance as a class action, and no superior alternative exists for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy.  The Class is readily identifiable from the Defendant’s records.

4.7. Defendant has acted on grounds generally applicable to the entire Class, thereby making final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief appropriate with respect to the Class as a whole.  Prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the Class would create the risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual members of the Class that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for Defendant.

4.8. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy since joinder of all members is impracticable.  Furthermore, the amounts at stake for many of the Class members, while substantial to them, are not great enough to hire an attorney to prosecute individual suits against Defendant.

4.9. Without a class action, Defendant will likely continue its course of illegal action which will cause further damage to Plaintiffs and the Class.

V.  SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS

5. DON’T DELETE

5.1. Beginning at a date unknown to Plaintiffs, but at least as early as September 10, 1995, Defendant committed, and continues to commit, acts of wage abuse against its hourly paid employees including, but not limited to: forcing or permitting Plaintiffs and the Class to work off‑the‑clock, failing to pay Plaintiffs and the Class wages, including overtime worked, and for interrupted work and rest breaks, altering payroll records, locking employees into its stores, and preventing Plaintiffs and the Class from taking and/or completing their rest/lunch breaks.

5.2. Wal‑Mart’s orchestrated program of forcing its hourly employees to work off the clock is, in part, carried out through its culture.  Wal‑Mart gives employees work assignments that Wal‑Mart knows or should know its employees cannot complete within their scheduled hours.  Wal‑Mart also creates pressure on its employees to complete their work assignments through intimidation, threats of discharge, and demotion, while at the same time precluding such employees from clocking in hours worked and necessary to accomplish their assignments outside their regular work schedule.  Consequently, employees must work after clocking out at the end of their shifts, before clocking in at the beginning of their shifts, and through lunch and rest breaks.

5.3. Wal‑Mart’s Store, District, Club/General, and Regional Managers in the state of Washington have financial incentives to suppress store expenses.  These Store, District, Club/General, and Regional Managers’ financial compensation and bonuses are enhanced by reduction of store expenses and lowering overhead costs, the largest component of which is employee payroll.  These Store, District, Club/General, and Regional Managers have adopted and are using methods to hold down pay to Wal‑Mart employees, including Plaintiffs and the Class.  Among those methods are forcing employees to work off the clock, understaffing Wal‑Mart stores, causing employees to work without receiving their required meal and rest breaks, and manipulating time and wage records to reduce the amounts paid to Plaintiffs and the Class.

5.4. Wal‑Mart engages in the practice of “locking in” employees overnight.  The practice involves physically locking employees in the store overnight so that they cannot leave the store premises.  Employees are forced to clock out and continue working and/or wait for the store to be unlocked.

5.5. Wal‑Mart also requires its employees to attend meetings and computer training while off the clock.  In addition, Wal‑Mart systematically fails to hire sufficient numbers of employees to complete the work available, requiring employees to work through their lunch and rest periods and otherwise complete their tasks while off the clock.

5.6. Wal‑Mart also pressures its management to encourage its employees not to record all their time actually worked and/or not take their meal and rest breaks.  Indeed, Wal‑Mart’s practice is to pay little or no overtime.  Employees who record their overtime are reprimanded and often humiliated.  For example, in the Auburn store, the Store Manager would post the name of any employees who had recorded overtime next to the time clock as a reminder that doing so was against company policy.  Wal‑Mart also awards financial bonuses to its store managers based on factors (i.e., net profit ratios, which are affected by payroll ratios) that encourage such managers to grossly understaff their stores.  Wal‑Mart employees are generally aware of this bonus system and its impact on staffing.

5.7. Wal‑Mart also causes its employees to work through meal and rest breaks and to interrupt their meal and rest breaks to perform work.

5.8. Wal‑Mart hides behind its written policy that purports to forbid these unlawful labor practices while, at the same time, it maintains conditions that foster these unlawful practices.  If employees make an issue of not being paid for unrecorded time, or not being allowed to take their meal and rest breaks, Wal‑Mart feigns “ignorance” and blames the employee for violating written company policy.  Wal‑Mart unfairly, fraudulently, and unlawfully uses its no off‑the‑clock policy as a two‑edged sword against its hourly paid employees: Wal‑Mart uses its written policies to shield itself from paying for off‑the‑clock work and overtime and then terminates employees who complain about having to do such work.

5.9. Wal‑Mart knew or should have known that the employees were working off the clock by virtue of the fact that (a) its managers have been present in stores when off‑the‑clock work was occurring; (b) it assigns work that cannot be accomplished during an employee’s shift and makes threats or intimidating remarks if the assigned work is not completed, but refuses to allow the employee to clock in the additional time which is necessary to accomplish such work; and (c) it systematically under‑staffs its stores.

VI.  FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Breach of Contract:  Working Off The Clock)

6. DO NOT DELETE

6.1. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation set forth in the preceding paragraphs.

6.2. At the time Plaintiffs and members of the Class accepted employment with Wal‑Mart, they were hired to work at a fixed hourly wage rate.  Plaintiffs and Class members were expressly told the rate they would earn for each hour worked.  While no written employment agreement was entered into, Plaintiffs and Class members were provided with a copy of the Associate Handbook (the “Handbook”), which they were told embodied the terms of their employment and to which they were directed to refer if they had any questions regarding their employment.

6.3. This Handbook is a standardized, uniform document used throughout the state of Washington, which is presented on a take‑it‑or‑leave‑it basis.  Indeed, given the unequal bargaining power between Plaintiffs, Class members and Defendant, neither Plaintiffs nor any of the Class members had an opportunity to negotiate the terms of their employment contracts.

6.4. Defendant breached its contract with Plaintiffs and the Class members by not paying for all hours worked and by failing to pay wages according to Washington law.

6.5. The Handbook provides:

Always clock in before beginning your work day and at other appropriate times; ask your supervisor for specific details.  If you forget to do this, notify your supervisor immediately so corrections can be made.  Your hard work is appreciated and we want to pay you for this work.  Remember working off the clock is not only against Wal‑Mart policy ‑‑ it’s against the law.  Always clock in when you are working ‑‑ Always!  There are no exceptions. (emphasis in original)

Wal‑Mart appreciates enthusiastic associates, but in no case are you to ever volunteer your off‑duty time by performing work for our Company without clocking in.

6.6. The employment contract between Plaintiffs and the Class members and Wal‑Mart arises from the Handbook, Defendant’s other express policies, and the parties’ express agreements.

6.7. For many of the hours Plaintiffs and the Class worked “off the clock” during their tenure with Defendant, they received no compensation from Defendant.  Defendant’s failure to pay Plaintiffs and the Class for the time worked off the clock violates the parties’ employment agreements.  Hours that Plaintiffs and Class members worked “off the clock” were at the direction and behest of Defendant.

6.8. Defendant is liable to Plaintiffs and the Class for the damages incurred as a result of Defendant’s failure to pay Plaintiffs and the Class for their off‑the‑clock work.

VII.  SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Breach of Contract:  Failure To Provide Rest and Meal Breaks)

7. DO NOT DELETE

7.1. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation set forth in the preceding paragraphs.

7.2. Wal‑Mart entered into contracts with each employee under which Wal‑Mart agreed to provide them with rest and meal breaks if they worked a certain amount of time in a workday.  More specifically, the Handbook provides:  “No associate should work over six hours without taking at least a 30‑minute lunch or dinner break.  Remember to clock in and out for meal periods.  Please follow this policy.  There are no exceptions.”

7.3. Wal‑Mart breached this agreement by failing to provide Plaintiffs and the Class with the agreed rest and meal breaks and failing to compensate them for the entire period at their regular rate of pay in instances where rest and meal breaks were interrupted to perform work.

7.4. Accordingly, Defendant is liable to Plaintiffs and the Class for damages incurred as a result of Defendant’s failure to provide rest and meal breaks and compensation in instances where rest and meal breaks were interrupted to perform work in accordance with the agreements between the parties.

VIII.  THIRD Claim for relief

(Minimum Wage Act:  RCW 49.46.130)

8. DO NOT DELETE

8.1. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation set forth in the preceding paragraphs.

8.2. RCW 49.46.130 provides in relevant part that “no employer shall employ any of his employees for a workweek longer than 40 hours unless such employee receives compensation for his employment in excess of the hours above specified at a rate not less than one and one‑half times the regular rate at which he is employed.”

8.3. By the actions alleged above, Defendant violated the provisions of RCW 49.46.130.

8.4. As a result of the unlawful acts of Defendant, Plaintiffs and the Class have been deprived of overtime compensation in amounts to be determined at trial, and pursuant to RCW 49.46.090 are entitled to recovery of such amounts, including interest thereon, attorneys’ fees and costs.

IX.  FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Unpaid Wages On Termination:  RCW 49.48)

9. DO NOT DELETE

9.1. Plaintiffs and the Class reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation set forth in the preceding paragraphs.

9.2. RCW 49.48.010 provides:  “When any employee shall cease to work for an employer, whether by discharge or by voluntary withdrawal, the wages due him on account of his employment shall be paid to him at the end of the established pay period.”  The statute further provides that it shall be unlawful “for any employer to withhold or divert any portion of an employee’s wages.”

9.3. By the actions alleged above, Defendant violated the provisions of RCW 49.48.010.

9.4. As a result of the unlawful acts of Defendant, Plaintiffs and the Class have been deprived of overtime and straight time compensation in amounts to be determined at trial, and pursuant to RCW 49.48.030 are entitled to recovery of such amounts, including interest thereon, attorneys’ fees and costs.

X.  FIFTH Claim for relief

(Payment of Wages Less Than Entitled:  RCW 49.46.090)

10. DO NOT DELETE

10.1. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation set forth in the preceding paragraphs.

10.2. Under RCW 49.46.090, employers must pay employees all wages to which they are entitled under the Washington Minimum Wage Act.  If the employer fails to do so, RCW 49.46.090 requires that the employer pay the employees the full amount of the statutory minimum wage rate less any amount actually paid to the employee.

10.3. By the actions alleged above, Defendant violated the provisions of RCW 49.46.090 and the WMWA by failing to pay any wage whatsoever to its employees when they worked off the clock and/or missed all or part of their breaks and/or had their time records altered to reduce the amount of time for which they were recorded to have worked.

10.4. As a result of the unlawful acts of Defendant, Plaintiffs have been deprived of regular and overtime compensation in an amount to be determined at trial.  Pursuant to RCW 49.46.090 and 49.48.030, Plaintiffs and the Class are entitled to recover attorneys’ fees and costs of suit.

XI.  SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Failure to Provide Meal and Rest Breaks:  RCW 49.12.010)

11. DO NOT DELETE

11.1. Plaintiffs and the Class reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation set forth in the preceding paragraphs.

11.2. RCW 49.12.010 provides “The welfare of the state of Washington demands that all employees be protected from conditions of labor which have a pernicious effect on their health.  The state of Washington, therefore, exercising herein its police and sovereign power declares that inadequate wages and unsanitary conditions of labor exert such pernicious effect.”

11.3. WAC 296‑126‑092 and WAC 296-125-0287 provide that employees, including minors, shall be allowed a meal period of at least 30 minutes on the employer’s time for each five hours worked.  WAC 296‑126‑092 and WAC 296-125-0287 further provide that employees, including minors, shall be allowed a rest period of not less than ten minutes on the employer’s time for each four hours worked.  By the actions alleged above, Defendant violated the provisions of WAC 296‑126‑092 and WAC 296-125-0287.  This, in turn, constitutes a violation of RCW 49.12.010.

11.4. As a result of the unlawful acts of Defendant, Plaintiffs and the Class have been deprived of compensation for missed and shortened meal and rest breaks in amounts to be determined at trial. Pursuant to RCW 49.48.030, Plaintiffs and the Class are entitled to recover attorneys’ fees and costs of suit.

XII.  SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Willful Refusal To Pay Wages:  RCW 49.52.050)

12. DO NOT DELETE

12.1. Plaintiffs and the Class reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation set forth in the preceding paragraphs.

12.2. RCW 49.52.050(2) provides that any employer who “willfully and with intent to deprive the employee of any part of his wages, shall pay any employee a lower wage than the wage such employer is obligated to pay such employee by any statue, ordinance, or contract” shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

12.3. RCW 49.52.070 provides that any employer who violates the foregoing statute shall be liable in a civil action for twice the amount of wages withheld, together with costs of suit and a reasonable attorney fee.

12.4. By the actions alleged above, Defendant violated the provisions of RCW 49.52.050.

12.5. WAC 296‑126‑092 and WAC 296-125-0287 provide that employees, including minors, shall be allowed a meal period of at least 30 minutes on the employer’s time for each five hours worked.  WAC 296‑126‑092 and WAC 296-125-0287 further provide that employees, including minors, shall be allowed a rest period of not less than ten minutes on the employer’s time for each four hours worked.  By the actions alleged above, Defendant violated the provisions of WAC 296‑126‑092 and WAC 296-125-0287, which constitutes a violation of RCW 49.52.050.

12.6. As a result of the unlawful acts of Defendant, Plaintiffs and the Class have been deprived of overtime and straight time compensation in amounts to be determined at trial, and pursuant to RCW 49.52.070 are entitled to recovery of twice such amounts, including interest thereon, attorneys’ fees and costs.

XIII.  EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Violation of Washington’s Consumer Protection Act:  RCW 19.86)

13. DO NOT DELETE

13.1. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation set forth in the preceding paragraphs.

13.2. Defendant engaged in unfair or deceptive acts or practices when it:  (i) failed to pay Plaintiffs and Class members wages for off‑the‑clock work; (ii) prevented Plaintiffs and Class members from taking rest and meal breaks; (iii) failed to pay Plaintiffs and Class members for the periods during which their rest and meal breaks were interrupted; (iv) failed to pay Plaintiffs and Class members for overtime worked; (v) violated RCW 49.46.30; (vi) violated WAC 296‑126‑023; and (vii) violated WAC 296‑126‑092 and 296-125-0287.

13.3. Defendant’s unfair or deceptive acts or practices repeatedly occurred in Defendant’s trade or business, and were capable of deceiving a substantial portion of the public.

13.4. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant’s unfair or deceptive acts or practices, Plaintiffs and the Class have suffered actual damages, in that Plaintiffs and Class members were wrongfully denied the payment of wages, were forced to work off the clock, and were prevented from taking rest and meal breaks.

13.5. As a result of Defendant’s unfair and deceptive practices, Plaintiffs and the Class are entitled, pursuant to RCW 19.86.090, to recover treble damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and costs.

XIV.  PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, on their own behalf and on behalf of the members of the Class, pray for judgment against the Defendant as follows:

1. Certification of the proposed plaintiff Class;

2. A declaration that Defendant is financially responsible for notifying all Class members of its wage and hour violations;

3. Appoint Plaintiffs Barnett, Hartwig and Blaubergs as Class representatives;

4. Appoint the undersigned counsel as Class counsel;

5. Declare that the actions complained of herein violate WAC 296‑126‑092; WAC 296-126-0287; RCW 49.52.050; RCW 49.52.070; RCW 49.12.010; RCW 49.46.130; and RCW 49.46.090;

6. Award Plaintiffs and the Class compensatory and exemplary damages;

7. Enjoin Defendant and its officers, agents, successors, employees, representatives, and any and all persons acting in concert with them, as provided by law, from engaging in each of the unlawful practices, patterns, and policies set forth herein;

8. Award Plaintiffs and the Class attorneys’ fees and costs, as allowed by law;

9. Award Plaintiffs and the Class pre‑judgment and post‑judgment interest, as provided by law; and

10. Grant such other and further relief as this Court deems necessary, just, and proper.

DATED this 1^st day of November, 2002.

TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC

By: Beth E. Terrell, WSBA #26759___

Christopher I. Brain, WSBA #5054

Beth E. Terrell, WSBA #26759

Amanda M. Steiner, WSBA#29147

700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5600

Seattle, Washington  98104‑5056

(206) 682‑5600

LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP

James M. Finberg, CSB #114850

Eve Cervantez, CSB #164709

Joy A. Kruse

275 Battery Street, 30th Floor

San Francisco, California  94111‑3339

Telephone:  (415) 956‑1000

Attorneys for Plaintiffs