Rent-A-Center East, Inc.
52 distinct federal employment cases from public court records (2001–2025)
3 trusted published court opinions across 3 distinct cases · 4 docket-only cases without a recorded end date
What public court records show
Public federal court records list Rent-A-Center East, Inc. as an employer in 52 distinct federal employment cases between 2001 and 2025.
The most common claims on record were Failure To Accommodate, Wage Theft, and Discrimination.
Cases were filed across 3 states, most often in DC.
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 3 distinct cases.
Jurisdictions represented in the analyzed opinions.
About this employer
Rent-A-Center East, Inc. appears in 3 trusted published federal employment opinions. Recent written decisions on record:
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Rent-A-Center East, Inc. (2017) — Mixed Result. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued Rent-A-Center East on behalf of a transgender employee who alleged discrimination and wrongful termination based on their gender identity. Read the ruling.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Rent-A-Center, Inc. (2013) — Defendant Win. This case involved a dispute over religious accommodation at Rent-A-Center. An employee needed Saturdays off to observe their religion, but the company refused to provide this accommodation. Read the ruling.
Hutson v. Rent-A-Center, Inc. (2001) — Defendant Win. This case involved a worker named Hutson who sued Rent-A-Center for unpaid overtime wages. Hutson claimed his employer violated federal wage laws by not paying him time-and-a-half for hours worked over 40 per week. Read the ruling.
The published opinions primarily involve Failure to Accommodate, Wage Theft, Discrimination. Browse the linked claim hubs for outcome statistics and other employers facing the same allegations. Failure to Accommodate, Wage Theft and Discrimination.
Published opinions span District of Columbia (1), Georgia (1), Illinois (1). District of Columbia 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. District of Columbia rulings, Georgia rulings and Illinois rulings.
These published opinions sit within the retail sector, where wage-and-hour, scheduling, and Title VII harassment claims are the dominant categories.
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.