Nearly 10 years ago, Delores Killingsworth Barber, then 25 and an employee at a Roosevelt Boulevard Walmart, took the witness stand in a Philadelphia courtroom and told a judge and jury that the retail giant was "stealing our time."
It got worse during the holidays, when, she testified, workers were told to "do whatever it takes to get it done, and if that meant missing your break, that's what had to be done."
Many years and boxes of legal documents later, the workers should be paid for those missed breaks.
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court said it would not take up a lost-wages case involving 186,000 current and former Wal-Mart Stores Inc. employees, clearing the way for the workers, all from Pennsylvania, and their lawyers to receive $187 million in the class-action suit.
With interest, the employees, who had been owed $140 million of the $187 million, will now split $224 million, said their attorney, Michael D. Donovan of Donovan Litigation Group in Berwyn.
"Wage theft will not be tolerated, and class actions are an optimal way for large numbers of workers to recover wages stolen by their employers," Donovan said Monday.
Wal-Mart spokesman Randy Hargrove said: "We are disappointed the Supreme Court decided not to review our case. While we continue to believe these claims should not be bundled together in a class-action lawsuit, we respect the court's decision."
The case began in 2002, when Michelle Braun, working at the Walmart store in Franklin Mills, joined other colleagues in filing a wage-and-hour lawsuit against the retailer.
By the time the case went to trial before Common Pleas Court Judge Mark I. Bernstein in 2006, there were seven similar wage-and-hour class-action lawsuits around the country and about 50 smaller cases.
At trial in Philadelphia, Braun, one of the named plaintiffs in the case, testified that she had clocked out from her job at the Franklin Mills Walmart but was locked inside and forced to work, without pay, after her shift ended.
In October 2006, the Philadelphia jury found that the workers were owed $140 million in unpaid wages when they worked off the clock, through their breaks, from March 1998 through April 2006.
Wal-Mart appealed, saying that the class should not have been certified and that each of the 186,000 workers should have had to testify individually about his or her particular circumstances.
Pennsylvania's Supreme Court affirmed the jury verdict in December 2014, saying that Wal-Mart's own records provided the necessary evidence.
The retailer appealed that ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. The justices' decision Monday not to hear the case let stand the ruling by Pennsylvania's high court.
A broader issue - and one with legal ramifications beyond this case - was the extent to which each plaintiff should have to testify about individual circumstances or if, instead, employees' attorneys can use formulas to determine fault and damages.
Donovan said many of the other cases were settled when workers' lawyers agreed that the employees would file individual claims for their wages.
He did not agree to that condition because it would have negatively affected the ability to file wage-and-hour class-action lawsuits.
Hargrove said that over the last decade, Wal-Mart "has taken additional steps, including enhancing our time-keeping systems. We want to make sure we pay employees for every hour worked and provide paid meal and rest breaks."