Contingent Liabilities

6 Months Ended

Aug. 31, 2012

Contingent Liabilities [Abstract]

Contingent Liabilities

13.Contingent Liabilities

On April 2, 2008, Mr. John Fowler filed a putative class action lawsuit against CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC and CarMax Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc. in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.  Subsequently, two other lawsuits, Leena Areso et al. v.  CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC and Justin Weaver v. CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC, were consolidated as part of the Fowler case.  The allegations in the consolidated case involved: (1) failure to provide meal and rest breaks or compensation in lieu thereof; (2) failure to pay wages of terminated or resigned employees related to meal and rest breaks and overtime; (3) failure to pay overtime; (4) failure to comply with itemized employee wage statement provisions; and (5) unfair competition/California’s Labor Code Private Attorney General Act.  The putative class consisted of sales consultants, sales managers, and other hourly employees who worked for the company in California from April 2, 2004, to the present.  On May 12, 2009, the court dismissed all of the class claims with respect to the sales manager putative class.  On June 16, 2009, the court dismissed all claims related to the failure to comply with the itemized employee wage statement provisions.  The court also granted CarMax’s motion for summary adjudication with regard to CarMax’s alleged failure to pay overtime to the sales consultant putative class.  The plaintiffs appealed the court's ruling regarding the sales consultant overtime claim.  On May 20, 2011, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the court’s ruling in favor of CarMax.  The plaintiffs filed a Petition of Review with the California Supreme Court, which was denied.  As a result, the plaintiffs’ overtime claims are no longer part of the case.

The claims currently remaining in the lawsuit regarding the sales consultant putative class are: (1) failure to provide meal and rest breaks or compensation in lieu thereof; (2) failure to pay wages of terminated or resigned employees related to meal and rest breaks; and (3) unfair competition/California’s Labor Code Private Attorney General Act.  On June 16, 2009, the court entered a stay of these claims pending the outcome of a California Supreme Court case involving unrelated third parties but related legal issues.  Subsequently, CarMax moved to lift the stay and compel the plaintiffs’ remaining claims into arbitration on an individualized basis, which the court granted on November 21, 2011.  Plaintiffs filed an appeal that is currently pending with the California Court of Appeal.  The Fowler lawsuit seeks compensatory and special damages, wages, interest, civil and statutory penalties, restitution, injunctive relief and the recovery of attorneys’ fees.  We are unable to make a reasonable estimate of the amount or range of loss that could result from an unfavorable outcome in these matters.

We are involved in various other legal proceedings in the normal course of business.  Based upon our evaluation of information currently available, we believe that the ultimate resolution of any such proceedings will not have a material effect, either individually or in the aggregate, on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.