Ross Stores, the parent company behind Ross Dress for Less, has racked up nearly $17.8 million in recorded penalties and settlements since 2000. The lawsuits against Ross Dress for Less span at least 34 separate actions, covering misleading “Compare At” price tags, unpaid overtime, unsafe children’s clothing, illegal hazardous waste dumping, workplace safety failures, and employment discrimination. The biggest single hit was a $4.85 million deceptive pricing class action; the biggest regulatory penalty was a $3.9 million children’s product safety fine.1Good Jobs First. Violation Tracker – Ross Stores
The Compare At Pricing Class Action
The most visible consumer lawsuit against Ross was Jacobo v. Ross Stores, Inc., filed in 2015 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Shoppers alleged that Ross put inflated “Compare At” numbers on merchandise tags to make discounts look steeper than they were, and that those comparison prices did not reflect what other retailers actually charged. The complaint invoked California’s False Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law.2Top Class Actions. Consumers Snag $4.85M Settlement in Ross Deceptive Pricing Class Action
Ross settled for $4.85 million in November 2017. The class covered anyone who bought comparison-priced items at any Ross store nationwide between June 20, 2011, and the settlement date. Class members did not receive cash. They received merchandise certificates redeemable at Ross, convertible to cash at 75 percent of face value within a year. Payouts began in November 2019, with reported gift card values reaching about $10.49.2Top Class Actions. Consumers Snag $4.85M Settlement in Ross Deceptive Pricing Class Action
Ross also agreed to injunctive relief: updated pricing policies, enhanced monitoring and training, and in-store signage nationwide explaining how the comparison prices are set.3Manatt, Phelps & Phillips. Ross Settles Deceptive Pricing Suit for $5M
Wage and Hour Cases
Ross has paid out roughly $4.5 million across five wage and hour matters since 2000.1Good Jobs First. Violation Tracker – Ross Stores
Assistant Manager Overtime Settlement
In 2008, Ross agreed to pay $1.2 million to current and former assistant store managers who said the company misclassified them under federal labor law and shorted them on overtime.4Law360. Ross Stores to Pay $1.2M to Settle Overtime Claims
Janitor Wage Claims
Two cases targeted Ross’s use of janitorial contractor USM Inc. In Vasquez et al. v. USM Inc. et al., filed in the Northern District of California in November 2013, more than 2,400 janitors who worked at California Ross stores alleged that Ross failed to ensure its contractor paid minimum wages and overtime, invoking a 2003 California law that holds companies responsible for making sure janitorial contractors can fund proper wages.5SFGate. Janitors at Ross to Share $1 Million Settlement
That case settled in early 2015 for a combined $2.3 million, with $1 million to the janitors and $1.3 million to attorneys’ fees and costs. USM funded the settlement, and both companies denied wrongdoing. A related action resolved in 2016 for another $1 million.6Law360. Ross Stores Inks $2.3M Deal in Janitors Minimum Wage Row1Good Jobs First. Violation Tracker – Ross Stores
Lyle v. Ross Stores
In 2023, former employee Jacqueline Lyle filed a proposed class action in the Middle District of Tennessee. She alleged Ross violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by making hourly workers perform tasks off the clock, work through unpaid meal periods, and by editing time records to avoid overtime.7Top Class Actions. Ross Class Action Alleges Company Fails to Pay Employees Overtime Wages Lyle voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice on November 15, 2023, before class certification or settlement. She retained the right to refile.8PACER Monitor. Lyle v. Ross Stores, Inc.
Children’s Clothing Drawstring Penalties
Ross has paid the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission twice for selling children’s jackets and hooded sweatshirts with drawstrings, a design the CPSC treats as a strangulation hazard. The first penalty, in 2009, was $500,000 and covered four series of garments distributed between 2006 and 2008.9CPSC. Ross Stores Agrees to $3.9 Million Civil Penalty
The second, in 2013, was $3.9 million. The CPSC charged that between January 2009 and February 2012, Ross sold or held for sale about 23,000 children’s garments across 12 product lines with drawstrings at the neck or waist, from brands including Puma, YMI Jeanswear, and Me Jane. Six of those 12 product lines were distributed entirely after an August 2011 federal rule that formally designated drawstrings in children’s outerwear as a substantial product hazard.10GovInfo. Ross Stores Settlement Agreement – Federal Register
Along with the fine, Ross committed to creating a dedicated product safety role, auditing outerwear at distribution centers before shipping to stores, using a point-of-sale register lock to block recalled items from being sold, and maintaining a confidential channel for employees to report safety concerns.11Federal Register. Ross Stores Inc. Provisional Acceptance of Settlement Agreement
Hazardous Waste Dumping in California
In December 2020, Ross agreed to a $3.335 million settlement with 38 California District Attorneys and two City Attorneys to resolve claims it illegally dumped hazardous waste at ordinary municipal landfills. The civil action, filed in Monterey County Superior Court, covered more than 441 Ross and dd’s Discounts stores across California over roughly seven years.12CBS News San Francisco. Ross Stores Environmental Waste Settlement
Prosecutors said Ross sent waste from spills, damaged goods, and customer returns to regular landfills. Inspections turned up electronic devices, batteries, mercury-containing compact fluorescent lamps, aerosol products, cleaning agents, and other flammable, toxic, and corrosive materials. The company was also accused of failing to keep hazardous waste manifests, train employees, or maintain required hazardous materials business plans.13County of Monterey. Ross Stores Hazardous Waste Settlement Announcement14CalCUPA. Final Judgment – Ross Stores Inc.
The $3.335 million broke out as $2.55 million in civil penalties, $340,000 for supplemental environmental projects, and $445,000 to reimburse investigation costs. Ross could shave $600,000 off the penalties by completing at least $1.2 million in voluntary environmental improvement work. The company also had to hire a full-time California environmental compliance employee, run annual independent third-party audits of dumpsters and compactors at a minimum of five percent of its California stores for five years, and train all employees on hazardous waste awareness.14CalCUPA. Final Judgment – Ross Stores Inc.
EPA Pesticide Fine
In July 2023, the EPA fined Ross $55,000 for selling six unregistered pesticide products in violation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. Inspectors found the products at stores in Aiea, Hawaii, and Concord, California, in early 2021. They included CIF and Domestos brand disinfecting wipes and sprays that claimed to kill 99.9 percent of bacteria, plus an Avalanche brand phone screen protector marketed as “antimicrobial.” Products making those claims have to be registered with the EPA and backed by safety and efficacy data.15EPA. EPA Penalizes Ross Stores for Unregistered Disinfectants
Employment Discrimination Settlements
In 2006, the EEOC sued Ross in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of a Russian employee who alleged the company denied her a promotion-related pay increase because of her accent. Under a January 2007 consent decree, Ross paid her $20,000, expunged her personnel file, implemented a complaint procedure, and agreed to biennial anti-discrimination training for supervisors.16Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. EEOC v. Ross Stores, Inc.
In March 2012, the Department of Justice settled a claim that Ross discriminated against a non-U.S. citizen during hiring at a San Ysidro, California store. The DOJ said Ross refused a valid Employment Authorization Document, demanded a green card, withdrew the job offer, and imposed excessive document requirements on non-citizens that it did not impose on U.S. citizens. Ross reinstated the worker, paid $6,384 in back pay plus interest and $10,825 in civil penalties, and trained HR staff on proper employment verification.17U.S. Department of Justice. Justice Department Settles Document Abuse Claim Against Ross Stores Inc.
Workplace Safety Citations
OSHA has cited Ross at least 18 times since 2002, with total penalties over $336,000. Individual fines have generally been modest, from a few thousand dollars up to about $79,000.1Good Jobs First. Violation Tracker – Ross Stores
One 2010 citation came out of a Las Vegas store where a trash compactor jammed twice in a single day. OSHA found that employees were directed to climb into the machine to clear the jams despite manufacturer warnings prohibiting entry, exposing them to the risk of the compactor activating. The “serious” citation carried an initial $6,300 penalty.18OSHA. Ross Dress for Less Violation Detail – Las Vegas As recently as 2025, Ross was hit with a $7,060 OSHA penalty for a workplace safety violation.1Good Jobs First. Violation Tracker – Ross Stores
Customer and Employee Injury Suits
Ross has also been sued by customers and workers for injuries. A California jury awarded $5.4 million to a woman hurt in a slip-and-fall caused by wax buildup on a Ross store floor, finding the store negligent for letting the hazard persist without warning.
In Ross Stores, Inc. v. Miller, a Houston employee sued after being physically assaulted by a coworker and won a jury verdict. The Texas Court of Appeals reversed in November 2020, holding that the parent company, Ross Stores, Inc., was not liable for the actions of employees of its subsidiary, Ross Dress for Less, Inc. The court said a parent corporation’s general safety policies alone do not establish the direct operational control needed to impose liability.19FindLaw. Ross Stores, Inc. v. Miller
One boundary worth flagging for Texas shoppers and workers: Ross is a workers’ compensation “non-subscriber” in Texas, so it doesn’t carry traditional workers’ comp coverage. Injured Texas employees aren’t locked into the workers’ comp system and can bring personal injury claims against the company directly, though they generally have to prove negligence.