Sources compiled for Gloria Flores v. Walmart wage-and-hour discrimination case

Plaintiff Gloria Flores filed a federal complaint against Walmart Inc. in the United States District Court for the Central District of California that is docketed as 2:25-cv-10412, according to Dockets Justia. The docket shows a Complaint filed October 29, 2025 (Receipt No: ACACDC-40808496; Fee: $405) with attachments including a civil cover sheet and an exhibit of consent, and attorney William Marshall Hogg added to the party listing for Flores.

The suit is tagged as a Labor - Fair Standards matter and lists 29 U.S.C. § 201 Fair Labor Standards Act as a cause of action. Radar/Law summarized the complaint as brought "by Laurel Employment Law on behalf of an estimated class of over 100,000 hourly employees in California" and stated the complaint seeks "unpaid wages, liquidated damages and penalties under both FLSA and California law." The same summary alleges operational practices including that "Walmart systematically excluded various forms of additional compensation from overtime calculations" and "required employees to take meal periods after five hours of work due to understaffing."

State-court and PAGA filings in the Flores litigation date back to 2020. The record preserved in source notes shows Flores commenced Flores Class Action I on March 9, 2020 in the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, and filed a PAGA Complaint on May 29, 2020 that cited Cal. Lab. Code § 2698 et seq. and alleged violations of Labor Code sections 201, 202, 203, 204, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 1194 and 1197. Those state complaints included class claims for failure to pay lawful wages, failure to provide lawful meal and rest periods or compensation in lieu, untimely wage payments, and violations of wage statement and unfair competition rules.

Procedural history shows removal activity and pleadings across 2021 and 2022. One source records that Walmart removed a related Flores Class Action II to federal court on February 1, 2021, followed by plaintiff amended complaints on April 12 and May 3, 2021, and Walmart's Answer on June 3, 2021 asserting twenty-four affirmative defenses. The U.S. District Court remanded that removed matter back to San Bernardino Superior Court on November 1, 2022, where it was redesignated as Case No. CIVDSZOZ3061.

Trellis Law lists a separate or successor First Amended Complaint filed October 21, 2025 that raises multiple FEHA claims including Pregnancy Disability Leave, Pregnancy Discrimination, Sex Discrimination, hostile work environment-pregnancy harassment and retaliation, along with state wage claims such as failure to provide accurate wage statements under Labor Code § 226 and waiting time penalties under sections 201 and 203. Trellis also reports defendants filed a Cross-Complaint on December 10, 2025 and a First Amended Cross-Complaint on December 31, 2025 that, in the Trellis excerpt, alleges post-employment conduct involving a business named "Rays", an allegation not reflected in the Justia or Radar summaries.

The public summaries contain inconsistent filing dates and fragments: Dockets Justia and Radar identify the federal Complaint filing as October 29, 2025; Trellis states a March 13, 2024 complaint with an FAC October 21, 2025; and an Original Report excerpt references a February 17, 2026 filing in truncated form. Dockets Justia notes the docket listing was last retrieved December 26, 2025 and records notices filed November 5, 2025 assigning District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong and Magistrate Judge Maria A. Audero, a certificate of interested parties filed October 30, 2025, and that plaintiff demanded a jury.