Beginning on April 2, 2014, plaintiff Francisca Guillen, a former assistant store manager for Dollar Tree, allegedly began to have trouble receiving her wage statements, as she had to print them from the cash registers in the store where she worked, or any Dollar Tree store, while in the presence of co-workers and customers. Guillen, acting as the lead plaintiff in a certified class of over 5,000 employees who worked at Dollar Tree’s retail stores in California at any time on or after April 2, 2014, who received their wages via direct deposit or pay card, and did not enter into an arbitration agreement with Dollar Tree, sued Dollar Tree Stores Inc. Guillen, relying on a 2006 Division of Labor Standards Enforcement Opinion Letter, alleged that Dollar Tree’s police violated the Labor Code. Specifically, she alleged that the store’s sole method of distributing electronic wage statements was not easily accessible in accordance with state law. Guillen Curtis Patton was initially the lead plaintiff, but he ultimately dismissed his claims. Thus, the court entered an order recaptioning the case from “Patton v. Dollar Tree Stores Inc.” to “Guillen v. Dollar Tree Stores Inc.” right before trial. The class’ counsel contended that the retail store’s employees who were paid by direct deposit or pay cards did not routinely receive hard copies of their wage statements at the time of each payment of wages. Counsel contended that, instead, the employees could only print their wage statements from cash registers in the stores where they worked, or at any Dollar Tree store, and that they could only access their statements during store hours, while in the presence of co-workers and customers. The class’ counsel contended that wage statements were not easily accessible because, instead of receiving paper statements or having an online portal, wage statements were only available in Dollar Tree stores, printed on receipt paper, and that employees could only access their last five wage statements. In addition, counsel contended that corporate employees, as well as employees of Dollar Tree’s subsidiary, Family Dollar, had access to wage statement information via a company website. Defense counsel contended that Dollar Tree’s method of delivery of wage statement information electronically was designed with convenience in mind for its retail store associates and that the method was in compliance with California law. Counsel also contended that employees could just as easily access wage statement information through the register stub system and receive a hard copy wage statement. Defense counsel further contended that Dollar Tree’s register stub system provided all of the required wage statement information to employees at Dollar Tree stores for free, just like employees who received hard copy wage statements with a live paycheck. In addition, counsel contended that employees could print as many copies of their wage statements as they wanted through Dollar Tree’s cash registers. The information and completeness of the wage statements provided through the register stub system was not at issue, as the parties agreed the register statements did not exclude any lawfully required information., Guillen, on behalf of herself and other similarly-situated class members, sought recovery of statutory penalties under California Labor Code § 226(e).