Sept. 19 (Bloomberg) -- Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the world's largest retailer, faces another challenge to its labor practices in a California courtroom, as opening arguments began today in a suit accusing the company of denying employees meal breaks.

As many as 115,919 current and former workers at 186 Wal-Mart and Sam's Club stores weren't given meal breaks or compensated for not taking them, Fred Furth, a lawyer for the workers, said today in opening arguments in Oakland. While Wal-Mart's lawyer declined to address the jury, the company has said making employees work through breaks violates company policy.

``Wal-Mart is a huge company with staggering profits'' which were ``earned on the backs of the working class,'' Furth told the jury. Most Wal-Mart workers can't question management about meal breaks, Furth said. ``Some of the braver ones did ask, and I'm going to prove Wal-Mart ignored their pleas to hire more help.''

Forty similar suits have been filed against Wal-Mart in other states, and companies such as California Pizza Kitchen Inc. and United Parcel Service Inc. face such claims in California.

The first portion of the trial, which started today, concerns allegations regarding meal breaks. At a second phase of the trial, Judge Ronald Sabraw, without a jury, will review additional claims related to overtime pay. An Oregon jury awarded 87 Wal-Mart workers about $2,000 each in an overtime lawsuit last year.

Neal Manne, a lawyer for Wal-Mart chose not to make an opening statement in court today. In a statement, the Bentonville, Arkansas-based company said its policy is to comply with all requirements of California law pertaining to meal periods.

Not `Corporate-Friendly'

``Jurors are not going to be corporate-friendly in California,'' said Arthur Silbergeld, an employment lawyer at Proskauer Rose in Los Angeles who isn't involved in the case. ``You need a very large company with very deep pockets to take the risk of going to trial in California with any employment case.''

Wal-Mart also faces a class-action lawsuit in federal court in San Francisco filed on behalf of as many as 1.6 million female employees alleging sexual discrimination. The Bentonville, Arkansas-based company is appealing a decision in that case that allows the women to sue as a group.

In an earlier interview, Wal-Mart spokeswoman Christi Gallagher declined to comment on the specifics of the overtime suit. She said workers in the Oregon case recovered damages for 838 hours of missed breaks out of a total of 72,000 hours that were alleged in the complaint.

`Highly Exaggerated'

``Which shows that some of these claims can be highly exaggerated,'' Gallagher said in an earlier e-mailed response to questions.

Furth said today during opening statements that the workers were owed as much as $66 million in damages and that he'll seek additional punitive damages as well. A previous ruling, which excluded from the lawsuit anyone employed by Wal-Mart before 2001, eliminated as many as 75,000 workers from the case.

Today Furth told the jury that Wal-Mart, in order to keep labor costs in check, routinely understaffed stores. Employees were denied, and not compensated for, meal breaks required after every five hours of work under California law, he said.

Furth told the jury that Wal-Mart conducted an internal, nationwide audit of its meal break policies after it settled a similar 1998 Colorado lawsuit. He showed the jury an October 2000 e-mail from an Wal-Mart operations employee to former Chief Operating Officer Don Harris describing the policy as a ``chronic problem'' with the company facing the most liability in California.

``I'm going to prove this case has been going on for five years,'' Furth told the jury.

In the second phase of the case, Furth will argue that workers were not given rest breaks or compensated for overtime pay.

`Disciplinary Action'

Wal-Mart's employee handbook says workers whose breaks or meals are interrupted to perform work will be paid for the missed time off. Under California law, employees must be paid for an hour of work if they miss two 30-minute meal breaks.

``Wal-Mart is disappointed that any individual was found to have worked `off-the-clock,''' Gallagher said in the earlier interview. ``Wal-Mart's policy is that any manager who is found to have required or even tolerated `off the clock' work is in violation of company policy and is subject to disciplinary action up to and including termination.''

Shares of Wal-Mart rose 14 cents to $44.01 in New York Stock Exchange composite trading.

The case is Andrea Savaglio v Wal-Mart Stores Inc., C-835687, Alameda County Superior Court, Oakland, California.

To contact the reporter about this story: Karen Gullo in San Francisco at kgullo@bloomberg.net.

Last Updated: September 19, 2005 19:36 EDT