University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name EEOC v. AutoNation d/b/a Mullinax Ford North Canton n/k/a Mullinax Ford North Canton, Inc. EE-OH-0009
Docket / Court 5:06-cv-01972-JRA ( N.D. Ohio )
State/Territory Ohio
Case Type(s) Equal Employment
Special Collection EEOC Study -- in sample
Attorney Organization EEOC
Case Summary
The Philadelphia district office of the EEOC brought this suit against Mullinax Ford North Canton, Inc. (previously known as AutoNation Corporation), an Ohio car dealership, in August 2006, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The complaint alleged that managers at the ... read more >
The Philadelphia district office of the EEOC brought this suit against Mullinax Ford North Canton, Inc. (previously known as AutoNation Corporation), an Ohio car dealership, in August 2006, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The complaint alleged that managers at the dealership harassed a black complainant due to his race, creating a hostile work environment, and retaliated against him after he complained by creating intolerable employment conditions that led to his constructive discharge, all in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The complainant, a black male, was granted leave to intervene in December 2006. The parties were subsequently in mediation from January 2007 to June 2007. Discovery occurred and a joint motion for a protective order was granted in September 2007. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment in October 2007, which was denied in February of 2008. Afterwards, the parties settled by entry of a consent decree in April 2008.

The consent decree, which has a five year duration, included non-discrimination and non-retaliation clauses, required the expungement of the complainant's record and a guarantee that Mullinax would not reveal anything to future employers about the complaint or the suit, and required Mullinax to develop an anti-discrimination and anti-retaliation policy that would include a process for filing complaints. Additionally, Mullinax was required to post a notice regarding this suit and to distribute its policy to all employees. Managers and supervisors are to be given instructions to prevent discrimination in their areas of work, and all employees are to be given anti-discrimination and anti-retaliation training. If the EEOC suspects non-compliance, it is to inform Mullinax, which then has twenty days to either demonstrate its compliance or remedy the breach, after which the EEOC may go to the Court for relief. Mullinax is required to report on complaints, maintain records of them, and report its compliance with these requirements, and the EEOC is allowed to access Mullinax' records and interview its employees in order to verify this compliance. In addition, Mullinax also agreed to pay a total of $150,000.00 to settle the claims of two individuals and for one complainant's attorneys' fees.

Shankar Viswanathan - 05/28/2008


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Content of Injunction
Develop anti-discrimination policy
Discrimination Prohibition
Expungement of Employment Record
Implement complaint/dispute resolution process
Monitoring
Post/Distribute Notice of Rights / EE Law
Provide antidiscrimination training
Recordkeeping
Reporting
Retaliation Prohibition
Discrimination-area
Discharge / Constructive Discharge / Layoff
Discipline
Harassment / Hostile Work Environment
Other Conditions of Employment (including assignment, transfer, hours, working conditions, etc)
Discrimination-basis
Race discrimination
EEOC-centric
Direct Suit on Merits
Private Party intervened in EEOC suit
General
Disparate Treatment
Retaliation
Plaintiff Type
EEOC Plaintiff
Private Plaintiff
Race
Black
Causes of Action Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000e
Defendant(s) Mullinax Ford North Canton, Inc.
Plaintiff Description Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, on behalf of one or more workers.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations EEOC
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted No
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Damages
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Settlement
Form of Settlement Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Order Duration 2008 - 2013
Case Closing Year 2008
Case Ongoing No
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
Case Studies Megacases, Diversity, and the Elusive Goal of Workplace Reform
Written: Mar. 01, 2008
By: Nancy Levit (University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law)
Citation: 49 B.C. L. Rev. 367 (2008)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Second Generation Employment Discrimination: A Structural Approach
By: Susan Sturm (Columbia Law School)
Citation: 101 Colum. L. Rev. 458 (2001)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

Docket(s)
5:06-cv-01972-JRA (N.D. Ohio) 04/21/2008
EE-OH-0009-9000 PDF | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Complaint 08/17/2006
EE-OH-0009-0001 PDF | Detail
First Amended Complaint 04/13/2007
EE-OH-0009-0002 PDF | Detail
Joint Stipulated Protective Order 09/20/2007 (N.D. Ohio)
EE-OH-0009-0003 PDF | Detail
Order [re: Summary Judgment] 02/04/2008 (N.D. Ohio)
EE-OH-0009-0004 PDF | Detail
Consent Decree 04/21/2008
EE-OH-0009-0005 PDF | Detail
Judges None on record
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers None on record
Defendant's Lawyers None on record
Other Lawyers None on record

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -