O'Reilly Automotive Stores, Inc.
85 distinct federal employment cases from public court records (2000–2026)
13 trusted published court opinions across 7 distinct cases · 8 docket-only cases without a recorded end date
What public court records show
Public federal court records list O'Reilly Automotive Stores, Inc. as an employer in 85 distinct federal employment cases between 2000 and 2026.
Of the 13 trusted published opinions analyzed, the most common outcomes were: 5 ended in a ruling for the employer, 2 settled, 2 were dismissed, and 2 were sent back to a lower court.
The most common claims on record were Failure To Accommodate, Discrimination, and Wage Theft.
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 7 distinct cases.
Jurisdictions represented in the analyzed opinions.
About this employer
O'Reilly Automotive Stores, Inc. appears in 13 trusted published federal employment opinions. Recent written decisions on record:
Daisy Merchant v. OReilly Auto Enterprises, LLC (2025) — Remanded. Daisy Merchant filed a lawsuit against O'Reilly Auto Enterprises, claiming she was discriminated against and wrongfully terminated from her job. O'Reilly tried to move the case from state court to federal court. Read the ruling.
Pipich v. O'Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC (2025) — Settlement. Workers at O'Reilly Auto Enterprises filed a class action lawsuit claiming the company violated California labor laws in several ways. They alleged the company failed to give employees proper meal and rest breaks, wrongfully deducted pay for COVID-19 screenings and security inspections, and provided incorrect wage stat… Read the ruling.
Vasquez v. O'Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC (2024) — Defendant Win. Wardia Vasquez sued O'Reilly Auto Enterprises, claiming the company discriminated against her based on age, failed to accommodate a disability, stole wages, wrongfully terminated her employment, and retaliated against her for raising concerns. Read the ruling.
The published opinions primarily involve Failure to Accommodate (5 of 13), Discrimination (4 of 13), Wage Theft (4 of 13). Browse the linked claim hubs for outcome statistics and other employers facing the same allegations. Failure to Accommodate, Discrimination and Wage Theft.
Applicable statutes referenced across these rulings include: ADA (42 U.S.C. §§ 12111-12117) — The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities in all aspects of employment. See the ADA reference page for filing deadlines, employee thresholds, and remedies. ADA.
Published opinions span California (8), Maine (2). 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 Maine 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
13 analyzed opinions have a classified procedural stage.
Of the 2 summary-judgment opinions, 2 ended the case in O'Reilly Automotive Stores, Inc.’s favor and 0 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.
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.