University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name EEOC v. BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Company EE-NM-0010
Docket / Court 1:02-cv-01644-JB-RHS ( D.N.M. )
State/Territory New Mexico
Case Type(s) Equal Employment
Special Collection EEOC Study -- in sample
Attorney Organization EEOC
Case Summary
The Phoenix District Office of the EEOC brought this suit against BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Los Angeles (doing business as Phoenix Coca-Cola Bottling Company) in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico in December 2002. The complaint alleged race discrimination in violation ... read more >
The Phoenix District Office of the EEOC brought this suit against BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Los Angeles (doing business as Phoenix Coca-Cola Bottling Company) in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico in December 2002. The complaint alleged race discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The defendant allegedly subjected the complainant to race discrimination through disparate treatment of the complainant in the terms and conditions of his employment and discharging him because he was African American. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendant, which was reversed by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Los Angeles, 450 F. 3d 476 (10th Cir. 2006)).

The defendant sought review by the Supreme Court, on the question: "If an employer with no discriminatory motive fires a subordinate based in part on the influence of another employee with a discriminatory motive, can the employer be held liable for discrimination under Section 703(a) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?" The Court granted review in January 2007. In April 2007, however (prior to any oral argument) the defendant dismissed the case from the Supreme Court. The matter was therefore reopened in the district court. There, the parties entered into a consent decree that required the defendant to pay the complainant $250,000; train its employees; post and distribute a notice of employee rights under federal anti-discrimination laws; and submit semiannual reports to the EEOC.

Kevin Wilemon - 05/29/2008


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Content of Injunction
Discrimination Prohibition
Expungement of Employment Record
Neutral/Positive Reference
Post/Distribute Notice of Rights / EE Law
Provide antidiscrimination training
Reporting
Retaliation Prohibition
Discrimination-area
Discharge / Constructive Discharge / Layoff
Discipline
Other Conditions of Employment (including assignment, transfer, hours, working conditions, etc)
Discrimination-basis
Race discrimination
EEOC-centric
Direct Suit on Merits
General
Disparate Treatment
Plaintiff Type
EEOC Plaintiff
Causes of Action Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000e
Defendant(s) BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Los Angeles
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 None on record
Order Duration 2004 - 2006
Case Closing Year 2004
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 ]

Links The Oyez Project, BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Los Angeles v Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, (No. 06-341).
www.oyez.org
Posted: Apr. 18, 2007
By: Oyez Project (IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

Docket(s)
1:02-cv-01644-JB-RHS (D.N.M.) 04/11/2008
EE-NM-0010-9000 PDF | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Complaint 12/30/2002
EE-NM-0010-0001 PDF | Detail
Memorandum Opinion and Order [Dismissing Some Claims] 08/19/2003 (D.N.M.)
EE-NM-0010-0002 PDF | Detail
Memorandum Opinion and Order [Granting Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses] 08/28/2003 (D.N.M.)
EE-NM-0010-0003 PDF | Detail
Memorandum Opinion and Order [Denying Motion for Clarification] 10/01/2003 (D.N.M.)
EE-NM-0010-0004 PDF | Detail
Memorandum Opinion and Order [Granting Defendant's Motion for S/J; Dismissing Case] 06/10/2004 (2004 WL 3426757 / 2004 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 28277) (D.N.M.)
EE-NM-0010-0009 PDF | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
[Opinion Reversing Grant of S/J] 06/07/2006 (450 F.3d 476)
EE-NM-0010-0008 PDF | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Google Scholar
[Order Granting Cert.] 01/05/2007 (549 U.S. 1105)
EE-NM-0010-0010 PDF | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Westlaw
[Order Dismissing Cert.] 04/12/2007 (549 U.S. 1334)
EE-NM-0010-0011 PDF | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Westlaw
Consent Decree 04/11/2008
EE-NM-0010-0007 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 -