Dollar Tree, Inc.
195 distinct federal employment cases from public court records (2010–2026)
8 trusted published court opinions across 8 distinct cases · 8 docket-only cases without a recorded end date
What public court records show
Public federal court records list Dollar Tree, Inc. as an employer in 195 distinct federal employment cases between 2010 and 2026.
Of the 8 trusted published opinions analyzed, the most common outcomes were: 3 ended in a ruling for the employer, 3 were dismissed, 1 settled, and 1 had a mixed result.
The most common claims on record were Wage Theft, Wrongful Termination, and Failure To Accommodate.
Cases were filed across 4 states, most often in KS.
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 8 distinct cases.
Jurisdictions represented in the analyzed opinions.
About this employer
Dollar Tree, Inc. appears in 8 trusted published federal employment opinions. Recent written decisions on record:
HOWARD v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. (2024) — Mixed Result. Howard brought a lawsuit against Dollar Tree Stores claiming the company failed to pay him properly and wrongfully fired him. The case involved questions about whether Howard was classified correctly as an employee and whether he received required overtime pay. Read the ruling.
Boynton v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs. (2022) — Defendant Win. Ms. Boynton worked for Family Dollar Stores and quit her job. She then applied for unemployment benefits, claiming she had good reason to leave. However, the Ohio Unemployment Compensation Review Commission denied her benefits, saying she quit without "just cause." Boynton disagreed and took the case to court, arguing… Read the ruling.
Boylan v. Dollar Tree (2019) — Dismissed. An employee filed a discrimination lawsuit against Dollar Tree in federal court in Kansas. The employee claimed they experienced unfair treatment based on a protected characteristic, but the specific details weren't disclosed in this ruling. Read the ruling.
The published opinions primarily involve Wage Theft (2 of 8), Wrongful Termination, Failure to Accommodate. Browse the linked claim hubs for outcome statistics and other employers facing the same allegations. Wage Theft, Wrongful Termination and Failure to Accommodate.
Applicable statutes referenced across these rulings include: FLSA (29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219) — The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) establishes minimum wage, overtime pay, recordkeeping, and child labor standards affecting full-time and part-time workers in the private sector and in federal, state, and local governments. See the FLSA reference page for filing deadlines, employee thresholds, and remedies. FLSA.
Published opinions span Kansas (2), North Carolina (1), Illinois (1), California (1). Kansas 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. Kansas rulings, North Carolina rulings, Illinois rulings and California 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
8 analyzed opinions have a classified procedural stage.
Of the 1 summary-judgment opinions, 0 ended the case in Dollar Tree, Inc.’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.
- 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.
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.