Costco Wholesale Corporation
30 distinct federal employment cases from public court records (2014–2026)
24 trusted published court opinions across 23 distinct cases
What public court records show
Public federal court records list Costco Wholesale Corporation as an employer in 30 distinct federal employment cases between 2014 and 2026.
Of the 24 trusted published opinions analyzed, the most common outcomes were: 13 ended in a ruling for the employer, 4 had a mixed result, 2 ended in a ruling for the worker, and 2 were dismissed.
Plaintiffs won 2 of 21 adjudicated opinions (10%).
The most common claims on record were Discrimination, Retaliation, and Failure To Accommodate.
Cases were filed across 12 states, most often in CA.
These figures summarize publicly available U.S. federal court records only. Most workplace disputes are resolved privately and never appear in litigation. A case outcome reflects many factors and is not a finding that any employer violated the law.
Written decisions across 23 distinct cases.
2 of 21 adjudicated opinions ended in a plaintiff win.
Does not imply wrongdoing — many cases are dismissed or resolved without findings of liability.
Jurisdictions represented in the analyzed opinions.
About this employer
Costco Wholesale Corporation appears in 24 trusted published federal employment opinions. Recent written decisions on record:
Pamela Reeves v. Costco Wholesale Corporation (2026) — Defendant Win. Pamela Reeves claimed that Costco fired her because of her age, an illegal form of discrimination. The company said it terminated her for taking unpaid chips from the store—a policy violation—not because of her age. Read the ruling.
Geddings v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (2025) — Dismissed. A worker named Geddings filed a discrimination and hostile work environment complaint against Costco Wholesale Corp. To pursue a federal lawsuit, Geddings needed to first file a charge with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission, a required step in discrimination cases. Read the ruling.
Suarez v. Costco Wholesale Corporation (2023) — Mixed Result. Suarez filed a lawsuit against Costco claiming discrimination, harassment, and retaliation based on disability. The employee also alleged that Costco failed to provide reasonable workplace accommodations and created a hostile work environment. Costco asked the court to dismiss the entire case before trial. Read the ruling.
The published opinions primarily involve Discrimination (17 of 24), Retaliation (11 of 24), Failure to Accommodate (10 of 24). Browse the linked claim hubs for outcome statistics and other employers facing the same allegations. Discrimination, Retaliation and Failure to Accommodate.
Published opinions span California (8), Indiana (2), Illinois (2), Iowa (1). California is an EEOC deferral state, which extends the federal Title VII / ADA / ADEA filing deadline from 180 to 300 days. Browse state-specific employment rulings for jurisdictional patterns. California rulings, Indiana rulings, Illinois rulings and Iowa rulings.
These published opinions sit within the retail sector, where wage-and-hour, scheduling, and Title VII harassment claims are the dominant categories.
Opinion Outcomes
Opinion Stages
24 analyzed opinions have a classified procedural stage.
Of the 5 summary-judgment opinions, 4 ended the case in Costco Wholesale Corporation’s favor and 1 let the worker’s claims continue.
What do these stages mean?
- Appeal
- A higher court reviewing an earlier decision. Many published opinions come from this stage, after a lot has already happened in the case.
- Summary judgment
- A ruling where the judge decides the case — or part of it — without a trial, because one side argues the key facts are not in dispute. For workers, getting past this step is often the biggest hurdle.
- Motion to dismiss
- An early request — usually by the employer — to throw the case out before any evidence is gathered.
- Trial verdict
- A judge or jury heard the evidence and reached a decision. Relatively few disputes get this far.
- Settlement / consent decree
- The two sides resolved the dispute by agreement, sometimes with court approval. Most settlements are private and never show up in published opinions.
- Other rulings
- Procedural decisions and orders that do not fit the main stages above.
Published federal-court opinions only — most workplace disputes are resolved privately. This is not anyone’s odds, and not a finding that any employer violated the law.
Facing something similar? Check your rights →
Claim Types
What these numbers mean
A case is one lawsuit, identified by its court and docket number. The docket is the running court record for that same case — it is not an extra case.
A published opinion or ruling is a written court decision. One case can produce several opinions, so opinion counts and case counts answer different questions. Only trusted, reportable opinions are used in the outcome statistics on this page.
Docket entries are the individual filings inside a case — motions, orders, scheduling notices. We read them to confirm a case is real and to see where it got to, but an entry is never counted as a case or as an outcome. A single case can generate hundreds of entries.
Far fewer opinions than cases is normal. Many employment cases settle privately or close without a published opinion. No opinion here does not mean the worker lost; it means this public record does not show a reportable result.
Everything on this page comes from public federal court records. Where we are not confident a record is accurate, we leave it out rather than guess.
Federal court cases
public court recordsOne row per court+docket case · written opinions stay grouped inside their case · plaintiff names redacted
Other Retail employers
Browse trusted published opinions involving similar workplaces.
Data sourced from public federal court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes extracted using AI analysis. This information is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The presence of an employer on this page does not imply wrongdoing — many cases are dismissed or resolved without findings of liability.