6.Commitments and contingencies

Legal proceedings

From time to time, the Company is a party to various legal matters involving claims incidental to the conduct of its business, including actions by employees, consumers, suppliers, government agencies, or others. The Company has recorded accruals with respect to these matters, where appropriate, which are reflected in the Company’s consolidated financial statements. For some matters, a liability is not probable or the amount cannot be reasonably estimated and therefore an accrual has not been made.

Except as described below, the Company believes, based upon information currently available, that such matters, both individually and in the aggregate, will be resolved without a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial statements as a whole. However, litigation and other legal matters involve 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 matters, 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.

Wage and Hour Litigation

The Company is defending the following wage and hour matters (collectively the “Wage/Hour Litigation”):

California Wage/Hour Litigation (“Key Carriers”): Plaintiffs allege, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated current and former “key carriers,” that the Company failed to comply with California law, in some or all of the following respects: failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to provide accurate wage statements, and failure to provide appropriate termination pay. Plaintiffs seek to recover alleged unpaid wages, injunctive relief, consequential damages, pre-judgment interest, statutory penalties under the Private Attorney General Act (the “PAGA”) and attorneys’ fees and costs.

California Wage/Hour Litigation (“Non Key Carriers”): Plaintiff alleges, on behalf of herself and other current and former “hourly non-key carrier” employees, that the Company failed to comply with California law in some or all of the following respects: failure to pay for all time worked, failure to pay timely wages, failure to provide meal and rest breaks, and failure to provide accurate wage statements and appropriate termination pay. Plaintiff seeks to recover penalties under the PAGA, attorneys’ fees and costs, and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.

Pennsylvania Wage/Hour Litigation: Plaintiff, a former distribution center employee, alleges that he and other similarly situated current and former hourly distribution center employees were subjected to unlawful policies and practices and were denied regular and overtime wages in violation of federal and Pennsylvania law. Plaintiff seeks to proceed on a nationwide collective basis under federal law and a statewide class basis under Pennsylvania law and to recover alleged unpaid wages, liquidated damages, statutory damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

Tennessee Wage/Hour Litigation: Plaintiffs allege that they and other similarly situated current and former “key holders” were not paid for all hours worked in violation of federal, Illinois and Tennessee law. Plaintiffs seek to proceed on a nationwide collective basis under federal law and a statewide class basis under Tennessee and Illinois law and to recover alleged unpaid wages, statutory and common law damages, liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest and attorneys’ fees and costs. The Company has reached a preliminary agreement with plaintiffs, which must be submitted to and approved by the Court, to resolve this matter for an amount not material to the Company’s financial statements as a whole.

The Company is vigorously defending the Wage/Hour Litigation and believes that its policies and practices comply with federal and state laws and that these actions are not appropriate for class or similar treatment. At this time, it is not possible to predict whether these matters will be permitted to proceed as a class or other similar action, or the size of any putative class or classes. Likewise, except as to the resolution of the Tennessee Wage/Hour Litigation, at this time it is not possible to estimate the value of the claims asserted, and no assurances can be given that the Company will be successful in its defense of these matters on the merits or otherwise. For these reasons, except as to the resolution of the Tennessee Wage/Hour Litigation, 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 these actions could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial statements as a whole.

Other Employment Litigation

The Company is defending the following employment-related matters (collectively the “Employment Litigation”):

California Suitable Seating Litigation: Plaintiff alleges that the Company failed to provide her and other current and former California store employees with “suitable seats” in violation of California law. Plaintiff seeks to recover penalties under the PAGA, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

EEOC Litigation: The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) alleges that the Company’s use of post offer, pre-employment physical assessments, as applied to candidates for the general warehouse position in the Bessemer, Alabama distribution center, violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (“GINA”). The EEOC seeks injunctive and monetary relief for a class of applicants and employees under the ADA and GINA.

The Company is vigorously defending the Employment Litigation and believes that its employment policies and practices comply with federal and state law and that these matters are not appropriate for class or similar treatment. At this time, it is not possible to predict whether these matters will be permitted to proceed as a class or in a similar fashion, or the size of any putative class or classes. Likewise, at this time, it is not possible to estimate the value of the claims asserted, and no assurances can be given that the Company will be successful in its defense of these matters on the merits or otherwise. 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 these matters could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial statements as a whole.

Consumer/Product Litigation

In December 2015 the Company was first notified of several lawsuits in which plaintiffs allege violation of state law, including state consumer protection laws, relating to the labeling, marketing and sale of certain Dollar General private-label motor oil. Each of these lawsuits, as well as additional, similar lawsuits filed after December 2015, was filed in, or removed to, various federal district courts of the United States (collectively “the Motor Oil Lawsuits”).

On June 2, 2016, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) granted the Company’s motion to centralize the Motor Oil Lawsuits in a matter styled In re Dollar General Corp. Motor Oil Litigation, Case MDL No. 2709, before the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri (“Motor Oil MDL”). Subsequently, plaintiffs in the Motor Oil MDL filed a consolidated amended complaint, in which they seek to certify two nationwide classes and multiple statewide sub-classes and for each putative class member some or all of the following relief: compensatory damages, injunctive relief, statutory damages, punitive damages and attorneys’ fees. The Company’s motion to dismiss the allegations raised in the consolidated amended complaint was granted in part and denied in part. To the extent additional consumer lawsuits alleging violation of laws relating to the labeling, marketing and sale of Dollar General private-label motor oil have been or will be filed, the Company expects that such lawsuits will be transferred to the Motor Oil MDL.

In May 2017, the Company received a Notice of Proposed Action from the Office of the New Mexico Attorney General (the “New Mexico AG”) which alleges that the Company’s labeling, marketing and sale of certain Dollar General private-label motor oil violated New Mexico law (the “New Mexico Motor Oil Matter”). The State is represented in connection with this matter by counsel for plaintiffs in the Motor Oil MDL.

On May 25, 2017, in response to the Notice of Proposed Action, the Company filed an action in New Mexico federal court seeking a declaratory judgment that the New Mexico AG is prohibited by, among other things, the United States Constitution, from pursuing the New Mexico Motor Oil Matter and an order enjoining the New Mexico AG from pursuing such an action. (Dollar General Corporation v. Hector H. Balderas, D.N.M., Case No. 1:17-cv-00588). Thereafter, on June 20, 2017, the New Mexico AG filed an action in the First Judicial District Court, County of Santa Fe, New Mexico pertaining to the New Mexico Motor Oil Matter. (Hector H. Balderas v. Dolgencorp, LLC, Case No. D-101-cv-2017-01562). The Company removed this matter to New Mexico federal court on July 26, 2017, and filed a motion to dismiss the action. The matter was transferred to the Motor Oil MDL and the New Mexico AG has moved to remand it to state court. (Hector H. Balderas v. Dolgencorp, LLC, D.N.M., Case No. 1:17-cv-772). The Company’s and the New Mexico AG’s above-referenced motions are pending.

On September 1, 2017, the Mississippi Attorney General (the “Mississippi AG”), who also is represented by the counsel for plaintiffs in the Motor Oil MDL, filed an action in the Chancery Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County, Mississippi in which the Mississippi AG alleges that the Company’s labeling, marketing and sale of certain Dollar General private-label motor oil violated Mississippi law. (Jim Hood v. Dollar General Corporation, Case No. G2017-1229 T/1) (the “Mississippi Motor Oil Matter”). The Company removed this matter to Mississippi federal court on October 5, 2017, and filed a motion to dismiss the action. The matter was transferred to the Motor Oil MDL and the Mississippi AG moved to remand it to state court. (Jim Hood v. Dollar General Corporation, N.D. Miss., Case No. 3:17-cv-801-LG-LRA). The Company’s and the Mississippi AG’s above-referenced motions are pending.

On January 30, 2018, the Company received a Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”) from the Office of the Louisiana Attorney General requesting information concerning the Company’s labeling, marketing and sale of certain Dollar General private-label motor oil (the “Louisiana Motor Oil Matter”). In response to the CID, the Company filed a petition for a protective order on February 20, 2018 in the 19th Judicial District Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, Louisiana seeking to set aside the CID. (In re Dollar General Corp. and Dolgencorp, LLC, Case No. 666499). The Company’s petition is pending.

A mediation held in the Motor Oil MDL on February 26, 2018, was unsuccessful. On August 20, 2018, plaintiffs moved to certify two nationwide classes relating to their claims of alleged unjust enrichment and breach of implied warranties. In addition, plaintiffs moved to certify 17 statewide classes relating to their claims of alleged unfair trade practices/consumer fraud statutory claims.

The Company is vigorously defending these matters and believes that the labeling, marketing and sale of its private-label motor oil comply with applicable federal and state requirements and are not misleading. The Company further believes that these matters are not appropriate for class or similar treatment. At this time, however, it is not possible to predict whether these matters will be permitted to proceed as a class or in a similar fashion, whether on a statewide or nationwide basis, or the size of any putative class or classes. Likewise, at this time, it is not possible to estimate the value of the claims asserted, and no assurances can be given that the Company will be successful in its defense of these matters on the merits or otherwise. For these reasons, the Company is unable to estimate the potential loss or range of loss in these matters; however, if the Company is not successful in its defense efforts, the resolution of the Motor Oil MDL, the New Mexico Motor Oil Matter, the Mississippi Motor Oil Matter or the Louisiana Motor Oil Matter could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial statements as a whole.