Commitments and contingencies	9 Months Ended
Oct. 31, 2014
Commitments and contingencies
Commitments and contingencies	7.Commitments and contingencies Legal proceedings On August 7, 2006, a lawsuit entitled Cynthia Richter, et al. v. Dolgencorp, Inc., et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama (Case No. 7:06-cv-01537-LSC) (“Richter”) in which the plaintiff alleges that she and other current and former Dollar General store managers were improperly classified as exempt executive employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and seeks to recover overtime pay, liquidated damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. On August 15, 2006, the Richter plaintiff filed a motion in which she asked the court to certify a nationwide class of current and former store managers. The Company opposed the plaintiff’s motion. On March 23, 2007, the court conditionally certified a nationwide class. On December 2, 2009, notice was mailed to over 28,000 current or former Dollar General store managers. Approximately 3,950 individuals opted into the lawsuit, approximately 1,000 of whom have been dismissed for various reasons, including failure to cooperate in discovery. On April 2, 2012, the Company moved to decertify the class. The plaintiff’s response to that motion was filed on May 9, 2012. On October 22, 2012, the court entered a memorandum opinion granting the Company’s decertification motion. On December 19, 2012, the court entered an order decertifying the matter and stating that a separate order would be entered regarding the opt-in plaintiffs’ rights and plaintiff Cynthia Richter’s individual claims. To date, the court has not entered such an order. The parties agreed to mediate the matter, and the court informally stayed the action pending the results of the mediation. Mediations were conducted in January, April and August 2013. On August 10, 2013, the parties reached a preliminary agreement, which was formalized and submitted to the court for approval, to resolve the matter for up to $8.5 million. On November 24, 2014, the court entered an order approving the settlement and dismissing the action. The Company has deemed the settlement probable and recorded such amount as the estimated expense in the second quarter of 2013. On September 8, 2014, a lawsuit entitled Sally Ann Carpenter v. Dolgencorp, Inc. was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia (Case No. 2:14-cv-25500) (“Carpenter”). The Carpenter plaintiff seeks to proceed on a collective basis under the FLSA on behalf of herself and other former and current store managers in the state of West Virginia who were allegedly improperly classified as exempt executive employees under the FLSA. The Carpenter plaintiff seeks to recover overtime pay, liquidated damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. The Company filed its answer to the complaint on September 30, 2014. A scheduling conference is scheduled for December 22, 2014. On October 31, 2014, a lawsuit entitled Ronda Hood v. Dollar General Corporation was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (Case No. 2:14-cv-02512-JTM-DEK) (“Hood”). The Hood plaintiff seeks to proceed on a nationwide collective basis under the FLSA on behalf of herself and other similarly situated store managers who were allegedly improperly classified as exempt executive employees under the FLSA. The Hood plaintiff seeks to recover overtime pay, liquidated damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. The Company’s answer is due to be filed on or before January 16, 2015. The Company believes that its store managers are and have been properly classified as exempt employees under the FLSA and that the Carpenter and Hood actions are not appropriate for collective action treatment. The Company has obtained summary judgment in some, although not all, of its pending individual or single-plaintiff store manager exemption cases in which it has filed such a motion. At this time, it is not possible to predict whether the Carpenter or Hood matter ultimately will be permitted to proceed collectively, and no assurances can be given that the Company will be successful in its defense of either action on the merits or otherwise. Similarly, at this time the Company cannot estimate either the size of any potential class or the value of the claims asserted if either of these actions was to proceed. For these reasons, the Company is unable to estimate any potential loss or range of loss in either matter; however, if the Company is not successful in its defense efforts, the resolution of Carpenter or Hood could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial statements as a whole. On April 9, 2012, the Company was served with a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia entitled Jonathan Marcum, et al. v. Dolgencorp. Inc. (Civil Action No. 3:12-cv-00108-JRS) (“Marcum”) in which the plaintiffs, one of whose conditional offer of employment was rescinded, allege that certain of the Company’s background check procedures violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”). Plaintiff Marcum also alleges defamation. According to the complaint and subsequently filed first and second amended complaints, the plaintiffs seek to represent a putative class of applicants in connection with their FCRA claims. The Company responded to the complaint and each of the amended complaints. The plaintiffs’ certification motion was due to be filed on or before April 5, 2013; however, plaintiffs asked the court to stay all deadlines in light of the parties’ ongoing settlement discussions (as more fully described below). On November 12, 2013, the court entered an order lifting the stay but has not issued a new scheduling order in light of the parties’ preliminary agreement to resolve the matter. The parties have engaged in formal settlement discussions on three occasions, once in January 2013 with a private mediator, and again in March 2013 and July 2013 with a federal magistrate. On February 18, 2014, the parties reached a preliminary agreement to resolve the matter for up to $4.08 million. On October 16, 2014, the court entered an order preliminarily approving the parties’ proposed settlement. The final fairness hearing is scheduled for February 26, 2015. The Company’s Employment Practices Liability Insurance (“EPLI”) carrier has been placed on notice of this matter and participated in both the formal and informal settlement discussions. The EPLI policy covering this matter has a $2 million self-insured retention. Because the Company believes that it is likely to expend the balance of its self-insured retention in settlement of this litigation or otherwise, it accrued $1.8 million in the fourth quarter of 2012, an amount that is immaterial to the Company’s consolidated financial statements as a whole. At this time, although probable, it is not certain that the court will approve the settlement. If the court does not approve the settlement and the case proceeds, it is not possible to predict whether Marcum ultimately will be permitted to proceed as a class action under the FCRA, and no assurances can be given that the Company will be successful in its defense on the merits or otherwise. At this stage in the proceedings, the Company cannot estimate either the size of any potential class or the value of the claims asserted by the plaintiffs if this matter were to proceed. For this reason, the Company is unable to estimate any potential loss or range of loss; however, if the Company is not successful in its defense efforts, the resolution of this matter could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial statements as a whole. In September 2011, the Chicago Regional Office of the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC” or “Commission”) notified the Company of a cause finding related to the Company’s criminal background check policy. The cause finding alleges that the Company’s criminal background check policy, which excludes from employment individuals with certain criminal convictions for specified periods, has a disparate impact on African-American candidates and employees in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (“Title VII”). The Company and the EEOC engaged in the statutorily required conciliation process, and despite the Company’s good faith efforts to resolve the matter, the Commission notified the Company on July 26, 2012 of its view that conciliation had failed. On June 11, 2013, the EEOC filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois entitled Equal Opportunity Commission v. Dolgencorp, LLC d/b/a Dollar General (Case No. 1:13-cv-04307) in which the Commission alleges that the Company’s criminal background check policy has a disparate impact on “Black Applicants” in violation of Title VII and seeks to recover monetary damages and injunctive relief on behalf of a class of “Black Applicants.” The Company filed its answer to the complaint on August 9, 2013. On January 29, 2014, the court entered an order, which, among other things, bifurcates the issues of liability and damages during discovery and at trial. On September 3, 2014, the court modified the scheduling order and ordered the parties to complete fact discovery related to liability by May 15, 2015. A status conference is scheduled for January 8, 2015. On July 29, 2014, the court entered an order compelling the Company to produce certain documents, information, and electronic data for the period 2004 to present. The Company believes that its criminal background check process is both lawful and necessary to a safe environment for its employees and customers and the protection of its assets and shareholders’ investments. The Company also does not believe that this matter is amenable to class or similar treatment. However, at this time, it is not possible to predict whether the action will ultimately be permitted to proceed as a class or in a similar fashion or the size of any putative class. Likewise, at this time, it is not possible to estimate the value of the claims asserted, and, therefore, the Company cannot estimate the potential exposure or range of potential loss. If the matter were to proceed successfully as a class or similar action or the Company is unsuccessful in its defense efforts as to the merits of the action, it could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial statements as a whole. On May 23, 2013, a lawsuit entitled Juan Varela v. Dolgen California and Does 1 through 50 (Case No. RIC 1306158) (“Varela”) was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Riverside in which the plaintiff alleges that he and other “key carriers” were not provided with meal and rest periods in violation of California law and seeks to recover alleged unpaid wages, injunctive relief, consequential damages, pre-judgment interest, statutory penalties and attorneys’ fees and costs. The Varela plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class of California “key carriers” as to these claims. The Varela plaintiff also asserts a claim for unfair business practices and seeks to proceed under California’s Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”). The Company removed the action to the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 5:13-cv-01172VAP-SP) on July 1, 2013, and filed its answer to the complaint on July 1, 2013. On July 30, 2013, the plaintiff moved to remand the action to state court. On September 13, 2013, notwithstanding the Company’s opposition, the court granted plaintiff’s motion and remanded the case. The Company filed a petition for permission to appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on September 23, 2013. Although the petition for permission to appeal remains pending, based on the Ninth Circuit’s denial of a similar petition filed by the Company in the Main matter (discussed below), the Company filed a petition for coordination of the Main and Varela matters on April 28, 2014. On June 6, 2013, a lawsuit entitled Victoria Lee Dinger Main v. Dolgen California, LLC and Does 1 through 100 (Case No. 34-2013-00146129) (“Main”) was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Sacramento. The Main plaintiff alleges that she and other “key holders” were not provided with meal and rest periods, accurate wage statements and appropriate pay upon termination in violation of California wage and hour laws and seeks to recover alleged unpaid wages, declaratory relief, restitution, statutory penalties and attorneys’ fees and costs. The Main plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class of California “key holders” as to these claims. The Main plaintiff also asserts a claim for unfair business practices and seeks to proceed under the PAGA. The Company removed this action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California (Case No. 2:13-cv-01637-MCE-KJN) on August 7, 2013, and filed its answer to the complaint on August 6, 2013. On August 29, 2013, the plaintiff moved to remand the action to state court. The Company opposed the motion. On October 28, 2013, the court granted plaintiff’s motion and remanded the case. The Company filed a petition for permission to appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on November 7, 2013. The plaintiff filed its opposition brief on November 15, 2013. The Ninth Circuit denied the petition for permission to appeal on April 10, 2014. As noted above, on April 28, 2014, the Company petitioned to consolidate the Main and Varela matters. Following the Company’s consolidation petition, the Main plaintiff agreed to dismiss her complaint, and the parties agreed that the Varela plaintiff would file an amended complaint to include the allegations asserted in the Main complaint. On November 4, 2014, the Varela plaintiff filed a stipulation with the court seeking an order to file an amended complaint. The court has not entered an order granting the filing of the amended complaint. The Company’s answer is due to be filed 35 days after the court enters the order granting the Varela plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. On July 22, 2014, a lawsuit entitled Oscar Avila v. Dolgen California, LLC and Does 1 through 50 (Case No. S-1500-CV-282549) (“Avila”) was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Kern. The Avila plaintiff alleges that he and other “key holders” were not provided with meal and rest periods, accurate wage statements and appropriate pay upon termination in violation of California wage and hour laws and seeks to recover alleged unpaid wages, declaratory relief, restitution, pre- and post- judgment interest, statutory penalties and attorneys’ fees and costs. The Avila plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class of California “key holders” as to these claims. The Avila plaintiff also asserts a claim for unfair business practices. The Company has not yet been served with this complaint, and there are no deadlines in this matter. On November 26, 2014, a lawsuit entitled Kendra Pleasant v. Dollar General Corporation, Dolgencorp, LLC and Does 1 through 50 (Case No. CIVDS1417709 (“Pleasant”) was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino. The Pleasant plaintiff alleges that she and other non-exempt employees were not paid for all time worked, reimbursed for necessary business related expenses, provided rest and meal breaks, and provided accurate wage statements in violation of California wage and hour laws. The Pleasant plaintiff seeks to recover alleged unpaid wages, restitution, interest, statutory penalties, unspecified damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. The Pleasant plaintiff also asserts a claim for unfair business practices and seeks to proceed under the PAGA. The Company has not yet been served with this complaint, and there are no deadlines in this matter. The Company believes that its policies and practices comply with California law and that the Varela, Main, Avila and Pleasant actions are not appropriate for class or similar treatment. The Company intends to vigorously defend these actions; however, at this time, it is not possible to predict whether the Varela, Main, Avila or Pleasant action ultimately will be permitted to proceed as a class, and no assurances can be given that the Company will be successful in its defense of these actions on the merits or otherwise. Similarly, at this time the Company cannot estimate either the size of any potential class or the value of the claims asserted in the Varela, Main, Avila and/or Pleasant actions. For these reasons, the Company is unable to estimate any potential loss or range of loss in these matters; however, if the Company is not successful in its defense efforts, the resolution of any of these actions could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial statements as a whole. On May 31, 2013, a lawsuit entitled Judith Wass v. Dolgen Corp, LLC (Case No. 13PO-CC00039) (“Wass”) was filed in the Circuit Court of Polk County, Missouri. The Wass plaintiff seeks to proceed collectively on behalf of a nationwide class of similarly situated non-exempt store employees who allegedly were not properly paid for certain breaks in violation of the FLSA. The Wass plaintiff seeks back wages, injunctive and declaratory relief, liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs. On July 11, 2013, the Company removed this action to the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri (Case No. 6:113-cv-03267-JFM). The Company filed its answer on July 18, 2013. On March 28, 2014, the Wass plaintiff moved for conditional certification of her FLSA claims and filed a supplemental brief on June 20, 2014. On July 25, 2014, the Company filed its response to plaintiff’s motion for conditional certification as well as a motion for summary judgment as to plaintiff’s individual claims. On October 16, 2014, the court granted the Company’s motion for summary judgment and denied as moot the plaintiff’s motion for conditional class certification of her FLSA claims. The parties subsequently agreed to resolve this matter for an amount not material to the Company’s consolidated financial statements as a whole. On July 2, 2013, a lawsuit entitled Rachel Buttry and Jennifer Peters v. Dollar General Corp. (Case No. 3:13-cv-00652) (“Buttry”) was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. The Buttry plaintiffs seek to proceed on a nationwide collective basis under the FLSA and as a statewide class under Tennessee law on behalf of non-exempt store employees who allegedly were not properly paid for certain breaks. The Buttry plaintiffs seek back wages (including overtime), injunctive and declaratory relief, liquidated damages, compensatory and economic damages, “consequential” and “incidental” damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs. The Company filed its answer on August 7, 2013. The plaintiffs filed their motion for conditional certification of their FLSA claims on December 5, 2013, to which the Company responded on February 3, 2014. On April 4, 2014, the court denied plaintiffs’ certification motion. Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration or in the alternative for permission to seek interlocutory appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on April 18, 2014. The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion on April 24, 2014. The plaintiffs subsequently petitioned the Sixth Circuit for a writ of mandamus and asked the district court to stay all deadlines in the underlying proceeding pending the Sixth Circuit’s ruling on the writ. On October 23, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied plaintiff’s petition for writ of mandamus. To date, the order entered by the district court to stay proceedings pending a decision by the appellate court regarding plaintiffs’ writ of mandamus has not been lifted. Because of the stay, the Buttry plaintiffs were not required to file their motion for certification of their statewide claims by September 22, 2014, the original deadline for such motion. At this time, the court has not set a new deadline for this motion, and this matter remains set for trial on February 17, 2015. On March 19, 2014, a lawsuit entitled Danielle Harsey v. Dolgencorp, LLC (Case No. 5:14-cv-00168-WTH-PRL) (“Harsey”) was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The Harsey plaintiff seeks to proceed on a nationwide collective basis under the FLSA and as a statewide class under the Florida Minimum Wage Act on behalf of all similarly situated non-exempt store employees who allegedly were not paid for all hours worked. The Harsey plaintiff seeks back wages (including overtime), liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs. The Company filed its answer on May 7, 2014. On August 19, 2014, the court entered a scheduling order, which among other things, requires plaintiff to file motions for class certification of her statewide claims and conditional certification of her claims under the FLSA on or before January 7, 2015. The Company’s response is due to be filed on or before February 23, 2015. The order further sets the matter for trial during the weeks of November 2, 9, or 16, 2015. On July 14, 2014, a lawsuit entitled Leslie Vincino v. Dolgencorp, LLC (Case No. 2014-CA-517) (“Vincino”) was filed in the Circuit Court, Eighth Judicial Circuit, for Levy County, Florida. The Vincino plaintiff seeks to proceed on a nationwide collective basis under the FLSA on behalf of all similarly situated non-exempt store employees who allegedly were not paid for all hours worked. The Vincino plaintiff seeks back wages (including overtime), liquidated damages, pre-judgment interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs. The Vincino plaintiff also asserts individual claims for violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act for alleged discrimination based on alleged unidentified disabilities. For the claims asserted under the Florida Civil Rights Act, the Vincino plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, back wages, front pay, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. On August 11, 2014, the Company removed this matter to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida (Case No. 1:14-cv-142-RS-GRJ). The Company filed its answer on August 18, 2014. On September 25, 2014, the court entered a scheduling order which requires plaintiff to file her motion for conditional class certification of her claims under the FLSA on or before February 23, 2015. The Company’s response is due to be filed on or before April 9, 2015. On September 8, 2014, a lawsuit entitled Joyce Riley v. Dolgencorp, LLC (Case No. 2:14-cv-25505) (“Riley”) was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. The Riley plaintiff seeks to proceed on a collective basis under the FLSA on behalf of all similarly situated non-exempt store employees in the state of West Virginia who allegedly were not paid for certain breaks. The Riley plaintiff seeks back wages (including overtime), liquidated damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. The Company filed its answer to the complaint on September 30, 2014. A scheduling conference is scheduled for December 22, 2014. The Company believes that its wage and hour policies and practices comply with both the FLSA and state law, including Tennessee and Florida law, and that the Buttry, Harsey, Vincino, and Riley actions are not appropriate for collective or class treatment. The Company intends to vigorously defend these actions; however, at this time, it is not possible to predict whether the Buttry, Harsey, Vincino or Riley action ultimately will be permitted to proceed collectively or as a class, and no assurances can be given that the Company will be successful in its defense of these actions on the merits or otherwise. Similarly, at this time the Company cannot estimate either the size of any potential class or the value of the claims asserted in the Buttry, Harsey, Vincino, and/or Riley actions. For these reasons, the Company is unable to estimate any potential loss or range of loss in these matters; however, if the Company is not successful in its defense efforts, the resolution of any of these actions could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial statements as a whole. On May 20, 2011, a lawsuit entitled Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., et al. v. Dolgencorp, LLC was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case No. 9:11-cv-80601-DMM) (“Winn-Dixie”) in which the plaintiffs allege that the sale of food and other items in approximately 55 of the Company’s stores, each of which allegedly is or was at some time co-located in a shopping center with one of plaintiffs’ stores, violates restrictive covenants that plaintiffs contend are binding on the occupants of the shopping centers. Plaintiffs sought damages and an injunction limiting the sale of food and other items in those stores. Although plaintiffs did not make a demand for any specific amount of damages, documents prepared and produced by plaintiffs during discovery suggested that plaintiffs would seek as much as $47 million although the court limited their ability to prove such damages. The case was consolidated with similar cases against Big Lots and Dollar Tree. The court issued an order on August 10, 2012 in which it (i) dismissed all claims for damages, (ii) dismissed claims for injunctive relief for all but four stores, and (iii) directed the Company to report to the court on its compliance with restrictive covenants at the four stores for which it did not dismiss the claims for injunctive relief. The Company believes that compliance with the August 2012 ruling will have no material adverse effect on the Company or its consolidated financial statements. On August 28, 2012, the Winn-Dixie plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (Docket No. 12-14527-B). Oral argument was conducted on January 16, 2014, and the appellate court rendered its decision on March 5, 2014, affirming in part and reversing in part the trial court’s decision. Specifically, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ claim for monetary damages but reversed the trial court’s decision denying injunctive relief as to thirteen additional stores and remanded for further proceedings. On March 26, 2014, the plaintiffs moved the appellate court for rehearing. That motion was denied on May 2, 2014. Subsequently, plaintiff filed a motion with the trial court on remand to dismiss stores not located in Florida from the case without prejudice, which the court denied on September 29, 2014. Further, the parties have, as directed by the trial court, submitted briefs in an effort to clarify the issues to be resolved on remand. On November 19, 2014, the court issued an order (i) permitting the parties to conduct additional discovery regarding the scope of the restrictive covenants at issue in light of the Eleventh Circuit’s decision, and (ii) scheduling a bench trial to resolve any outstanding issues on the court’s April 20, 2015 docket. At this time, the Company is unable to predict whether the trial court will enter an injunction as to any of the additional stores at issue; however, the Company does not believe that such an injunction, even if entered as to each remaining additional store at issue, would have a material adverse effect on the Company or its consolidated financial statements as a whole. The Company also is unable to predict whether the plaintiffs will seek further appellate review of the trial court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ claim for damages. If plaintiffs were to obtain further appellate review, and the Company were unsuccessful in its defense of such appeal, the outcome could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial statements as a whole. From time to time, the Company is a party to various other legal actions involving claims incidental to the conduct of its business, including actions by employees, consumers, suppliers, government agencies, or others through private actions, class actions, administrative proceedings, regulatory actions or other litigation, including without limitation under federal and state employment laws and wage and hour laws. The Company believes, based upon information currently available, that such other litigation and claims, both individually and in the aggregate, will be resolved without a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial statements as a whole. However, litigation involves an element of uncertainty. Future developments could cause these actions or claims to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations, cash flows, or financial position. In addition, certain of these lawsuits, if decided adversely to the Company or settled by the Company, may result in liability material to the Company’s financial position or may negatively affect operating results if changes to the Company’s business operation are required.

7.Commitments and contingencies

Legal proceedings

On August 7, 2006, a lawsuit entitled Cynthia Richter, et al. v. Dolgencorp, Inc., et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama (Case No. 7:06-cv-01537-LSC) (“Richter”) in which the plaintiff alleges that she and other current and former Dollar General store managers were improperly classified as exempt executive employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and seeks to recover overtime pay, liquidated damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. On August 15, 2006, the Richter plaintiff filed a motion in which she asked the court to certify a nationwide class of current and former store managers. The Company opposed the plaintiff’s motion. On March 23, 2007, the court conditionally certified a nationwide class. On December 2, 2009, notice was mailed to over 28,000 current or former Dollar General store managers. Approximately 3,950 individuals opted into the lawsuit, approximately 1,000 of whom have been dismissed for various reasons, including failure to cooperate in discovery.

On April 2, 2012, the Company moved to decertify the class. The plaintiff’s response to that motion was filed on May 9, 2012.

On October 22, 2012, the court entered a memorandum opinion granting the Company’s decertification motion. On December 19, 2012, the court entered an order decertifying the matter and stating that a separate order would be entered regarding the opt-in plaintiffs’ rights and plaintiff Cynthia Richter’s individual claims. To date, the court has not entered such an order.

The parties agreed to mediate the matter, and the court informally stayed the action pending the results of the mediation. Mediations were conducted in January, April and August 2013. On August 10, 2013, the parties reached a preliminary agreement, which was formalized and submitted to the court for approval, to resolve the matter for up to $8.5 million. On November 24, 2014, the court entered an order approving the settlement and dismissing the action. The Company has deemed the settlement probable and recorded such amount as the estimated expense in the second quarter of 2013.

On September 8, 2014, a lawsuit entitled Sally Ann Carpenter v. Dolgencorp, Inc. was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia (Case No. 2:14-cv-25500) (“Carpenter”). The Carpenter plaintiff seeks to proceed on a collective basis under the FLSA on behalf of herself and other former and current store managers in the state of West Virginia who were allegedly improperly classified as exempt executive employees under the FLSA. The Carpenter plaintiff seeks to recover overtime pay, liquidated damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

The Company filed its answer to the complaint on September 30, 2014. A scheduling conference is scheduled for December 22, 2014.

On October 31, 2014, a lawsuit entitled Ronda Hood v. Dollar General Corporation was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (Case No. 2:14-cv-02512-JTM-DEK) (“Hood”). The Hood plaintiff seeks to proceed on a nationwide collective basis under the FLSA on behalf of herself and other similarly situated store managers who were allegedly improperly classified as exempt executive employees under the FLSA. The Hood plaintiff seeks to recover overtime pay, liquidated damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

The Company’s answer is due to be filed on or before January 16, 2015.

The Company believes that its store managers are and have been properly classified as exempt employees under the FLSA and that the Carpenter and Hood actions are not appropriate for collective action treatment. The Company has obtained summary judgment in some, although not all, of its pending individual or single-plaintiff store manager exemption cases in which it has filed such a motion.

At this time, it is not possible to predict whether the Carpenter or Hood matter ultimately will be permitted to proceed collectively, and no assurances can be given that the Company will be successful in its defense of either action on the merits or otherwise. Similarly, at this time the Company cannot estimate either the size of any potential class or the value of the claims asserted if either of these actions was to proceed. For these reasons, the Company is unable to estimate any potential loss or range of loss in either matter; however, if the Company is not successful in its defense efforts, the resolution of Carpenter or Hood could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial statements as a whole.

On April 9, 2012, the Company was served with a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia entitled Jonathan Marcum, et al. v. Dolgencorp. Inc. (Civil Action No. 3:12-cv-00108-JRS) (“Marcum”) in which the plaintiffs, one of whose conditional offer of employment was rescinded, allege that certain of the Company’s background check procedures violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”). Plaintiff Marcum also alleges defamation. According to the complaint and subsequently filed first and second amended complaints, the plaintiffs seek to represent a putative class of applicants in connection with their FCRA claims. The Company responded to the complaint and each of the amended complaints. The plaintiffs’ certification motion was due to be filed on or before April 5, 2013; however, plaintiffs asked the court to stay all deadlines in light of the parties’ ongoing settlement discussions (as more fully described below). On November 12, 2013, the court entered an order lifting the stay but has not issued a new scheduling order in light of the parties’ preliminary agreement to resolve the matter.

The parties have engaged in formal settlement discussions on three occasions, once in January 2013 with a private mediator, and again in March 2013 and July 2013 with a federal magistrate. On February 18, 2014, the parties reached a preliminary agreement to resolve the matter for up to $4.08 million.

On October 16, 2014, the court entered an order preliminarily approving the parties’ proposed settlement. The final fairness hearing is scheduled for February 26, 2015.

The Company’s Employment Practices Liability Insurance (“EPLI”) carrier has been placed on notice of this matter and participated in both the formal and informal settlement discussions. The EPLI policy covering this matter has a $2 million self-insured retention. Because the Company believes that it is likely to expend the balance of its self-insured retention in settlement of this litigation or otherwise, it accrued $1.8 million in the fourth quarter of 2012, an amount that is immaterial to the Company’s consolidated financial statements as a whole.

At this time, although probable, it is not certain that the court will approve the settlement. If the court does not approve the settlement and the case proceeds, it is not possible to predict whether Marcum ultimately will be permitted to proceed as a class action under the FCRA, and no assurances can be given that the Company will be successful in its defense on the merits or otherwise. At this stage in the proceedings, the Company cannot estimate either the size of any potential class or the value of the claims asserted by the plaintiffs if this matter were to proceed. For this reason, the Company is unable to estimate any potential loss or range of loss; however, if the Company is not successful in its defense efforts, the resolution of this matter could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial statements as a whole.

In September 2011, the Chicago Regional Office of the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC” or “Commission”) notified the Company of a cause finding related to the Company’s criminal background check policy. The cause finding alleges that the Company’s criminal background check policy, which excludes from employment individuals with certain criminal convictions for specified periods, has a disparate impact on African-American candidates and employees in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (“Title VII”).

The Company and the EEOC engaged in the statutorily required conciliation process, and despite the Company’s good faith efforts to resolve the matter, the Commission notified the Company on July 26, 2012 of its view that conciliation had failed.

On June 11, 2013, the EEOC filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois entitled Equal Opportunity Commission v. Dolgencorp, LLC d/b/a Dollar General (Case No. 1:13-cv-04307) in which the Commission alleges that the Company’s criminal background check policy has a disparate impact on “Black Applicants” in violation of Title VII and seeks to recover monetary damages and injunctive relief on behalf of a class of “Black Applicants.” The Company filed its answer to the complaint on August 9, 2013.

On January 29, 2014, the court entered an order, which, among other things, bifurcates the issues of liability and damages during discovery and at trial. On September 3, 2014, the court modified the scheduling order and ordered the parties to complete fact discovery related to liability by May 15, 2015. A status conference is scheduled for January 8, 2015.

On July 29, 2014, the court entered an order compelling the Company to produce certain documents, information, and electronic data for the period 2004 to present.

The Company believes that its criminal background check process is both lawful and necessary to a safe environment for its employees and customers and the protection of its assets and shareholders’ investments. The Company also does not believe that this matter is amenable to class or similar treatment. However, at this time, it is not possible to predict whether the action will ultimately be permitted to proceed as a class or in a similar fashion or the size of any putative class. Likewise, at this time, it is not possible to estimate the value of the claims asserted, and, therefore, the Company cannot estimate the potential exposure or range of potential loss. If the matter were to proceed successfully as a class or similar action or the Company is unsuccessful in its defense efforts as to the merits of the action, it could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial statements as a whole.

On May 23, 2013, a lawsuit entitled Juan Varela v. Dolgen California and Does 1 through 50 (Case No. RIC 1306158) (“Varela”) was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Riverside in which the plaintiff alleges that he and other “key carriers” were not provided with meal and rest periods in violation of California law and seeks to recover alleged unpaid wages, injunctive relief, consequential damages, pre-judgment interest, statutory penalties and attorneys’ fees and costs. The Varela plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class of California “key carriers” as to these claims. The Varela plaintiff also asserts a claim for unfair business practices and seeks to proceed under California’s Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”).

The Company removed the action to the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 5:13-cv-01172VAP-SP) on July 1, 2013, and filed its answer to the complaint on July 1, 2013. On July 30, 2013, the plaintiff moved to remand the action to state court.

On September 13, 2013, notwithstanding the Company’s opposition, the court granted plaintiff’s motion and remanded the case. The Company filed a petition for permission to appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on September 23, 2013. Although the petition for permission to appeal remains pending, based on the Ninth Circuit’s denial of a similar petition filed by the Company in the Main matter (discussed below), the Company filed a petition for coordination of the Main and Varela matters on April 28, 2014.

On June 6, 2013, a lawsuit entitled Victoria Lee Dinger Main v. Dolgen California, LLC and Does 1 through 100 (Case No. 34-2013-00146129) (“Main”) was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Sacramento. The Main plaintiff alleges that she and other “key holders” were not provided with meal and rest periods, accurate wage statements and appropriate pay upon termination in violation of California wage and hour laws and seeks to recover alleged unpaid wages, declaratory relief, restitution, statutory penalties and attorneys’ fees and costs. The Main plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class of California “key holders” as to these claims. The Main plaintiff also asserts a claim for unfair business practices and seeks to proceed under the PAGA.

The Company removed this action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California (Case No. 2:13-cv-01637-MCE-KJN) on August 7, 2013, and filed its answer to the complaint on August 6, 2013. On August 29, 2013, the plaintiff moved to remand the action to state court. The Company opposed the motion. On October 28, 2013, the court granted plaintiff’s motion and remanded the case. The Company filed a petition for permission to appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on November 7, 2013. The plaintiff filed its opposition brief on November 15, 2013. The Ninth Circuit denied the petition for permission to appeal on April 10, 2014.

As noted above, on April 28, 2014, the Company petitioned to consolidate the Main and Varela matters. Following the Company’s consolidation petition, the Main plaintiff agreed to dismiss her complaint, and the parties agreed that the Varela plaintiff would file an amended complaint to include the allegations asserted in the Main complaint. On November 4, 2014, the Varela plaintiff filed a stipulation with the court seeking an order to file an amended complaint. The court has not entered an order granting the filing of the amended complaint. The Company’s answer is due to be filed 35 days after the court enters the order granting the Varela plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint.

On July 22, 2014, a lawsuit entitled Oscar Avila v. Dolgen California, LLC and Does 1 through 50 (Case No. S-1500-CV-282549) (“Avila”) was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Kern. The Avila plaintiff alleges that he and other “key holders” were not provided with meal and rest periods, accurate wage statements and appropriate pay upon termination in violation of California wage and hour laws and seeks to recover alleged unpaid wages, declaratory relief, restitution, pre- and post- judgment interest, statutory penalties and attorneys’ fees and costs. The Avila plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class of California “key holders” as to these claims. The Avila plaintiff also asserts a claim for unfair business practices. The Company has not yet been served with this complaint, and there are no deadlines in this matter.

On November 26, 2014, a lawsuit entitled Kendra Pleasant v. Dollar General Corporation, Dolgencorp, LLC and Does 1 through 50 (Case No. CIVDS1417709 (“Pleasant”) was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino. The Pleasant plaintiff alleges that she and other non-exempt employees were not paid for all time worked, reimbursed for necessary business related expenses, provided rest and meal breaks, and provided accurate wage statements in violation of California wage and hour laws. The Pleasant plaintiff seeks to recover alleged unpaid wages, restitution, interest, statutory penalties, unspecified damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. The Pleasant plaintiff also asserts a claim for unfair business practices and seeks to proceed under the PAGA. The Company has not yet been served with this complaint, and there are no deadlines in this matter.

The Company believes that its policies and practices comply with California law and that the Varela, Main, Avila and Pleasant actions are not appropriate for class or similar treatment. The Company intends to vigorously defend these actions; however, at this time, it is not possible to predict whether the Varela, Main, Avila or Pleasant action ultimately will be permitted to proceed as a class, and no assurances can be given that the Company will be successful in its defense of these actions on the merits or otherwise. Similarly, at this time the Company cannot estimate either the size of any potential class or the value of the claims asserted in the Varela, Main, Avila and/or Pleasant actions. For these reasons, the Company is unable to estimate any potential loss or range of loss in these matters; however, if the Company is not successful in its defense efforts, the resolution of any of these actions could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial statements as a whole.

On May 31, 2013, a lawsuit entitled Judith Wass v. Dolgen Corp, LLC (Case No. 13PO-CC00039) (“Wass”) was filed in the Circuit Court of Polk County, Missouri. The Wass plaintiff seeks to proceed collectively on behalf of a nationwide class of similarly situated non-exempt store employees who allegedly were not properly paid for certain breaks in violation of the FLSA. The Wass plaintiff seeks back wages, injunctive and declaratory relief, liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

On July 11, 2013, the Company removed this action to the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri (Case No. 6:113-cv-03267-JFM). The Company filed its answer on July 18, 2013.

On March 28, 2014, the Wass plaintiff moved for conditional certification of her FLSA claims and filed a supplemental brief on June 20, 2014. On July 25, 2014, the Company filed its response to plaintiff’s motion for conditional certification as well as a motion for summary judgment as to plaintiff’s individual claims.

On October 16, 2014, the court granted the Company’s motion for summary judgment and denied as moot the plaintiff’s motion for conditional class certification of her FLSA claims. The parties subsequently agreed to resolve this matter for an amount not material to the Company’s consolidated financial statements as a whole.

On July 2, 2013, a lawsuit entitled Rachel Buttry and Jennifer Peters v. Dollar General Corp. (Case No. 3:13-cv-00652) (“Buttry”) was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. The Buttry plaintiffs seek to proceed on a nationwide collective basis under the FLSA and as a statewide class under Tennessee law on behalf of non-exempt store employees who allegedly were not properly paid for certain breaks. The Buttry plaintiffs seek back wages (including overtime), injunctive and declaratory relief, liquidated damages, compensatory and economic damages, “consequential” and “incidental” damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

The Company filed its answer on August 7, 2013. The plaintiffs filed their motion for conditional certification of their FLSA claims on December 5, 2013, to which the Company responded on February 3, 2014. On April 4, 2014, the court denied plaintiffs’ certification motion. Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration or in the alternative for permission to seek interlocutory appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on April 18, 2014. The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion on April 24, 2014.

The plaintiffs subsequently petitioned the Sixth Circuit for a writ of mandamus and asked the district court to stay all deadlines in the underlying proceeding pending the Sixth Circuit’s ruling on the writ. On October 23, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied plaintiff’s petition for writ of mandamus. To date, the order entered by the district court to stay proceedings pending a decision by the appellate court regarding plaintiffs’ writ of mandamus has not been lifted.

Because of the stay, the Buttry plaintiffs were not required to file their motion for certification of their statewide claims by September 22, 2014, the original deadline for such motion. At this time, the court has not set a new deadline for this motion, and this matter remains set for trial on February 17, 2015.

On March 19, 2014, a lawsuit entitled Danielle Harsey v. Dolgencorp, LLC (Case No. 5:14-cv-00168-WTH-PRL) (“Harsey”) was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The Harsey plaintiff seeks to proceed on a nationwide collective basis under the FLSA and as a statewide class under the Florida Minimum Wage Act on behalf of all similarly situated non-exempt store employees who allegedly were not paid for all hours worked. The Harsey plaintiff seeks back wages (including overtime), liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs. The Company filed its answer on May 7, 2014.

On August 19, 2014, the court entered a scheduling order, which among other things, requires plaintiff to file motions for class certification of her statewide claims and conditional certification of her claims under the FLSA on or before January 7, 2015. The Company’s response is due to be filed on or before February 23, 2015. The order further sets the matter for trial during the weeks of November 2, 9, or 16, 2015.

On July 14, 2014, a lawsuit entitled Leslie Vincino v. Dolgencorp, LLC (Case No. 2014-CA-517) (“Vincino”) was filed in the Circuit Court, Eighth Judicial Circuit, for Levy County, Florida. The Vincino plaintiff seeks to proceed on a nationwide collective basis under the FLSA on behalf of all similarly situated non-exempt store employees who allegedly were not paid for all hours worked. The Vincino plaintiff seeks back wages (including overtime), liquidated damages, pre-judgment interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs. The Vincino plaintiff also asserts individual claims for violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act for alleged discrimination based on alleged unidentified disabilities. For the claims asserted under the Florida Civil Rights Act, the Vincino plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, back wages, front pay, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. On August 11, 2014, the Company removed this matter to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida (Case No. 1:14-cv-142-RS-GRJ). The Company filed its answer on August 18, 2014.

On September 25, 2014, the court entered a scheduling order which requires plaintiff to file her motion for conditional class certification of her claims under the FLSA on or before February 23, 2015. The Company’s response is due to be filed on or before April 9, 2015.

On September 8, 2014, a lawsuit entitled Joyce Riley v. Dolgencorp, LLC (Case No. 2:14-cv-25505) (“Riley”) was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. The Riley plaintiff seeks to proceed on a collective basis under the FLSA on behalf of all similarly situated non-exempt store employees in the state of West Virginia who allegedly were not paid for certain breaks. The Riley plaintiff seeks back wages (including overtime), liquidated damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

The Company filed its answer to the complaint on September 30, 2014. A scheduling conference is scheduled for December 22, 2014.

The Company believes that its wage and hour policies and practices comply with both the FLSA and state law, including Tennessee and Florida law, and that the Buttry, Harsey, Vincino, and Riley actions are not appropriate for collective or class treatment. The Company intends to vigorously defend these actions; however, at this time, it is not possible to predict whether the Buttry, Harsey, Vincino or Riley action ultimately will be permitted to proceed collectively or as a class, and no assurances can be given that the Company will be successful in its defense of these actions on the merits or otherwise. Similarly, at this time the Company cannot estimate either the size of any potential class or the value of the claims asserted in the Buttry, Harsey, Vincino, and/or Riley actions. For these reasons, the Company is unable to estimate any potential loss or range of loss in these matters; however, if the Company is not successful in its defense efforts, the resolution of any of these actions could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial statements as a whole.

On May 20, 2011, a lawsuit entitled Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., et al. v. Dolgencorp, LLC was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case No. 9:11-cv-80601-DMM) (“Winn-Dixie”) in which the plaintiffs allege that the sale of food and other items in approximately 55 of the Company’s stores, each of which allegedly is or was at some time co-located in a shopping center with one of plaintiffs’ stores, violates restrictive covenants that plaintiffs contend are binding on the occupants of the shopping centers. Plaintiffs sought damages and an injunction limiting the sale of food and other items in those stores. Although plaintiffs did not make a demand for any specific amount of damages, documents prepared and produced by plaintiffs during discovery suggested that plaintiffs would seek as much as $47 million although the court limited their ability to prove such damages. The case was consolidated with similar cases against Big Lots and Dollar Tree. The court issued an order on August 10, 2012 in which it (i) dismissed all claims for damages, (ii) dismissed claims for injunctive relief for all but four stores, and (iii) directed the Company to report to the court on its compliance with restrictive covenants at the four stores for which it did not dismiss the claims for injunctive relief. The Company believes that compliance with the August 2012 ruling will have no material adverse effect on the Company or its consolidated financial statements.

On August 28, 2012, the Winn-Dixie plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (Docket No. 12-14527-B). Oral argument was conducted on January 16, 2014, and the appellate court rendered its decision on March 5, 2014, affirming in part and reversing in part the trial court’s decision. Specifically, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ claim for monetary damages but reversed the trial court’s decision denying injunctive relief as to thirteen additional stores and remanded for further proceedings. On March 26, 2014, the plaintiffs moved the appellate court for rehearing. That motion was denied on May 2, 2014. Subsequently, plaintiff filed a motion with the trial court on remand to dismiss stores not located in Florida from the case without prejudice, which the court denied on September 29, 2014. Further, the parties have, as directed by the trial court, submitted briefs in an effort to clarify the issues to be resolved on remand. On November 19, 2014, the court issued an order (i) permitting the parties to conduct additional discovery regarding the scope of the restrictive covenants at issue in light of the Eleventh Circuit’s decision, and (ii) scheduling a bench trial to resolve any outstanding issues on the court’s April 20, 2015 docket.

At this time, the Company is unable to predict whether the trial court will enter an injunction as to any of the additional stores at issue; however, the Company does not believe that such an injunction, even if entered as to each remaining additional store at issue, would have a material adverse effect on the Company or its consolidated financial statements as a whole.

The Company also is unable to predict whether the plaintiffs will seek further appellate review of the trial court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ claim for damages. If plaintiffs were to obtain further appellate review, and the Company were unsuccessful in its defense of such appeal, the outcome could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial statements as a whole.

From time to time, the Company is a party to various other legal actions involving claims incidental to the conduct of its business, including actions by employees, consumers, suppliers, government agencies, or others through private actions, class actions, administrative proceedings, regulatory actions or other litigation, including without limitation under federal and state employment laws and wage and hour laws. The Company believes, based upon information currently available, that such other litigation and claims, both individually and in the aggregate, will be resolved without a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial statements as a whole. However, litigation involves an element of uncertainty. Future developments could cause these actions or claims to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations, cash flows, or financial position. In addition, certain of these lawsuits, if decided adversely to the Company or settled by the Company, may result in liability material to the Company’s financial position or may negatively affect operating results if changes to the Company’s business operation are required.