Guaranteed Rate, Inc.
13 distinct federal employment cases from public court records (2010–2024)
3 trusted published court opinions across 2 distinct cases
What public court records show
Public federal court records list Guaranteed Rate, Inc. as an employer in 13 distinct federal employment cases between 2010 and 2024.
The most common claims on record were Wage Theft, Retaliation, and Discrimination.
Cases were filed across 2 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 2 distinct cases.
Jurisdictions represented in the analyzed opinions.
About this employer
Guaranteed Rate, Inc. appears in 3 trusted published federal employment opinions. Recent written decisions on record:
Peters v. Guaranteed Rate, Inc. (2024) — Mixed Result. An employee named Peters sued Guaranteed Rate, Inc., claiming the company failed to properly pay workers according to federal wage laws. Peters sought to bring a collective action, meaning multiple employees with similar complaints could join the lawsuit together rather than each suing separately. Read the ruling.
Peters v. Guaranteed Rate, Inc. (2024) — Plaintiff Win. This case involved a worker named Peters who sued their employer, Guaranteed Rate, Inc., claiming the company violated wage laws. Peters alleged that the company engaged in wage theft and violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which is the federal law that sets rules for minimum wage, overtime pay, and other wor… Read the ruling.
Dukes v. Guaranteed Rate Incorporated (2024) — Dismissed. An employee filed a lawsuit against Guaranteed Rate Incorporated claiming the company had retaliated against them and discriminated against them based on protected characteristics, likely related to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Read the ruling.
The published opinions primarily involve Wage Theft, Retaliation, Discrimination. Browse the linked claim hubs for outcome statistics and other employers facing the same allegations. Wage Theft, Retaliation and Discrimination.
Published opinions span California (2), Arizona (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 and Arizona rulings.
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 employers with published opinions
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.