Naro v. Walgreen Co. Employee Clothing Reimbursement Settlement
Last verified September 11, 2026Source: atticusHow ClaimWatch verifies cases
This settlement is closed to new claims. You can still see what it was about and follow the case in court below. Looking for money you can still claim? Browse open settlements →
What happened
Walgreens allegedly violated California labor law by failing to reimburse employees who worked in retail stores and/or pharmacies for business expenses they incurred when purchasing clothing from Walgreens' third-party clothing vendors. Walgreens has denied the claims and agreed to settle to avoid litigation expenses.
Do you qualify?
Former and current employees of Walgreen Co. and Walgreen Pharmacy Services Midwest, LLC who worked in Walgreens' retail stores and/or pharmacies in California and purchased clothing items at their own expense from one of Walgreens' third-party clothing vendors at any time from May 31, 2018, through July 8, 2025.
How to file
Details about how to file a claim are not provided on this summary page. You should download and review the Long Form Notice, Settlement Documents, and Frequently Asked Questions section on the website for complete claim filing instructions and deadlines.
Common questions
- Is the Naro v. Walgreen Co. Employee Clothing Reimbursement Settlement notice real, or a scam?
- Atticus Administration is the settlement administrator for this case. Claims are filed at walgreencosettlement.com. Filing a class action claim is always free — no legitimate settlement charges you to claim, and no administrator will ask for payment, a gift card, or your full Social Security number by email or text. If a notice asks for any of those, it is not from the administrator. When in doubt, ignore the link you were sent and go to the official settlement website directly.
- When will payments from the Naro v. Walgreen Co. Employee Clothing Reimbursement Settlement be sent?
- Class action payouts typically take 12 to 24 months after the claim deadline, and longer if the settlement is appealed. Payments cannot be issued until the court grants final approval and any appeals are resolved.
Who's involved
Plaintiffs
- California Labor and Workforce Development Agency
- Trish Gonzalez
- Serena Naro
Defendants
- Walgreen Pharmacy Services Midwest, LLC
- Walgreen Co
Counsel for plaintiffs
Parties and counsel from the public court docket. Listing an attorney here isn't an endorsement, and ClaimWatch isn't affiliated with any of them.
New to class actions?
This summary was generated from public settlement documents and may contain errors. Confirm eligibility, deadlines, and payment terms on the official settlement website before filing. ClaimWatch is not a law firm and this is not legal advice. Filing a claim is free.
More employment settlements
View all →Perry v. Alatrade Foods WARN Act Settlement
Plaintiff alleges that Alatrade Foods violated the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act by failing to provide at least 60 days' advance notice before a mass layoff or plant closing at its Phenix City, Alabama facility between February and August 2025. Alatrade denies all allegations and maintains it did not violate the WARN Act.
Payments to settlement class members will be made as back pay consisting of 100% wages with standard payroll taxes withheld
Rad v. SkinSpirit Essential Settlement
SkinSpirit Essential, an employer in California, allegedly violated wage and hour laws by misclassifying employees and failing to pay required wages to non-exempt employees. The settlement includes both individual wage payments to class members and penalties under California's Private Attorney General Act.
AOCLSC INC. Wage and Hour Settlement
Former employees of AOCLSC INC. sued the company for alleged wage and hour violations. The company has agreed to settle by paying back wages to non-exempt hourly employees who worked during the class period and paying penalties under the California Private Attorney General Act.
PacBell Settlement
Pacific Bell Telephone Company allegedly violated California labor laws by treating the use of accrued kin-care and paid sick-days as unprotected absences subject to discipline, in violation of Labor Code sections 233, 234, and 246.5. The company allegedly committed unfair business practices and is liable for civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). Defendant denies all allegations.
A sum of money based on the number of workweeks worked from January 1, 2021 to October 23, 2025