Skip to main content
Retail

Fred Meyer Stores, Inc.

54 federal employment cases from public court records (20002024)

23 with a published ruling · 31 open dockets

What public court records show

Public federal court records list Fred Meyer Stores, Inc. as an employer in 54 employment matters between 2000 and 2024.

Of the 22 matters with a recorded outcome, the most common were: 11 ended in a ruling for the worker, 6 ended in a ruling for the employer, 4 had a mixed result, and 1 were sent back to a lower court.

Workers obtained a favorable ruling in about 50% of matters with a recorded outcome.

The most common claims on record were Retaliation, Wrongful Termination, and Discrimination.

Cases were filed across 6 states, most often in OR.

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.

54
Federal Cases
50%
Plaintiff Win Rate

Does not imply wrongdoing — many cases are dismissed or resolved without findings of liability.

6
States
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

About this employer

Fred Meyer Stores, Inc. appears in 22 federal employment-law court rulings on record. These cases sit within the retail sector, where wage-and-hour, scheduling, and Title VII harassment claims are the dominant categories. The set below covers rulings that produced written federal-court decisions; private settlements, EEOC charges resolved without litigation, and state-court cases are not included.

The cases primarily involve Retaliation (7 of 22), Wrongful Termination (6 of 22), Discrimination (3 of 22). Browse the linked claim hubs for outcome statistics and other employers facing the same allegations. Retaliation, Wrongful Termination and Discrimination.

Applicable statutes referenced across these rulings include: NLRA (29 U.S.C. §§ 151-169) — The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) protects the rights of employees to organize, form or join labor unions, bargain collectively through representatives of their choosing, and engage in other concerted activities for mutual aid or protection. See the NLRA reference page for filing deadlines, employee thresholds, and remedies. NLRA.

Rulings span Oregon (2), California (2), North Carolina (2), Colorado (1). Oregon 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. Oregon rulings, California rulings, North Carolina rulings and Colorado rulings.

Case Outcomes

Plaintiff Win
11 (50%)
Defendant Win
6 (27%)
Mixed Result
4 (18%)
Remanded
1 (5%)

Case Stages

The stage at which courts issued Fred Meyer Stores, Inc.’s 22 stage-identified rulings.

Appeal
19 (86%)
Summary judgment
2 (9%)

Of the 2 summary-judgment rulings, 0 ended the case in Fred Meyer Stores, Inc.’s favor and 2 let the worker’s claims continue.

Motion to dismiss
1 (5%)
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.

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 →

Federal cases

public court records

One row per case · a badge means the case reached a published ruling · plaintiff names redacted

Employee v. Harris Teeter, LLC
D.S.C. · Dec 2024
Open docket
Employee v. Fred Meyer Stores Inc
E.D. Wash. · Jul 2024
Open docket
Employee v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA
E.D. Pa. · Apr 2024 · Pennsylvania · Discrimination
Plaintiff Win
Employee v. Fred Meyer Stores, Inc.
D. Alaska · Feb 2023
Open docket
Employee v. Fred Meyer Stores Inc
W.D. Wash. · Dec 2022
Open docket
Employee v. Harris Teeter
N.C. Ct. App. · Sep 2022 · Wrongful Termination
Plaintiff Win
Employee v. Harris Teeter
N.C. Ct. App. · Sep 2022 · Wrongful Termination
Plaintiff Win
Employee v. Ralphs Grocery Company
C.D. Cal. · Aug 2021 · California · Disability Discrimination
Mixed Result
Employee v. Fred Meyer Stores, Inc.
D. Alaska · Jul 2021
Open docket
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Ralphs Grocery Company
S.D. Cal. · Sep 2020
Open docket
Employee v. Ralphs Grocery Company
C.D. Cal. · May 2019
Open docket
Employee v. Harris Teeter, LLC
W.D.N.C. · Oct 2017
Open docket
Employee v. Fred Meyer Stores, Inc.
D. Or. · Aug 2017
Open docket
Fred Meyer Stores, Inc. v. Employee
D.C. Circuit · Aug 2017
Mixed Result
Employee v. Fred Meyer Jewelers, Inc.
D. Or. · Jul 2017
Open docket
King Soopers, Inc. v. Employee
D.C. Circuit · Jun 2017 · Retaliation
Mixed Result
Employee v. Fred Meyer Stores Inc
W.D. Wash. · Nov 2016
Open docket
Employee v. HARRIS TEETER, LLC
D.D.C. · Oct 2016
Open docket
Employee v. National Labor Relations Board
9th Circuit · Sep 2016 · California · Retaliation
Defendant Win
Employee v. Fred Meyer Stores, Inc.
D. Or. · Sep 2016
Open docket
Employee v. King Soopers, Inc.
D. Colo. · Apr 2016 · Colorado
Plaintiff Win
Employee v. Harris Teeter, LLC
S.D. Ga. · Apr 2016
Open docket
Employee v. Fred Meyer Stores of Ohio Inc
W.D. Wash. · Dec 2015
Open docket
Employee v. Fred Meyer Stores, Inc.
D. Or. · Dec 2015
Open docket
Employee v. Fred Meyer Jewelers Inc
W.D. Wash. · Aug 2015
Open docket
Showing 25 of 54

Understand your employment rights

Free, private, no sign-up required.

Check My Rights

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.