Case: EEOC v. AUTOZONE, INC.

4:99-cv-00736 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas

Filed Date: Sept. 28, 1999

Closed Date: 2001

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

In September 1999, the Little Rock Area Office of the EEOC brought this lawsuit against AutoZone, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas alleging discrimination on the basis of sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Specifically, the complaint alleged that the defendant subjected the charging party, a female employee, to a pattern or practice of failing to promote females based on sex, and by retaliating against the complainant following her opposition to the practice. Following discovery and defendant's failed motion for summary judgment, the parties settled the lawsuit in March 2001 through a consent decree.

The one-year decree, containing an agreement not to retaliate or discriminate, requires the defendant to: expunge complainant's employment record and provide a neutral reference, post notice of employee rights, and pay $10,000 to the complainant.

Summary Authors

Daisy Manning (10/29/2007)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

4:99-cv-00736

Docket (PACER)

EEOC v. AutoZone Inc.

March 9, 2001

March 9, 2001

Docket
1

4:99-cv-00736

Complaint

EEOC v. AutoZone Inc.

Sept. 28, 1999

Sept. 28, 1999

Complaint
25

4:99-cv-00736

Order [re: Summary Judgment]

EEOC v. AutoZone Inc.

March 1, 2001

March 1, 2001

Order/Opinion
28

4:99-cv-00736

Consent Decree

EEOC v. AutoZone Inc.

March 9, 2001

March 9, 2001

Order/Opinion

Resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/11240398/eeoc-v-autozone-inc/

Last updated Jan. 25, 2024, 3:16 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

COMPLAINT with jury demand; no summons issued (kjp) Modified on 09/29/1999 (Entered: 09/29/1999)

Sept. 28, 1999

Sept. 28, 1999

Clearinghouse
2

ANSWER by defendant (bsm) Modified on 12/06/2001 (Entered: 11/23/1999)

Nov. 22, 1999

Nov. 22, 1999

PACER
3

MOTION by local counsel for defendant for attorneys Walter W. Christy and Tracy Hidalgo to appear pro hac vice (bsm) Modified on 12/06/2001 (Entered: 11/23/1999)

Nov. 22, 1999

Nov. 22, 1999

PACER
4

ORDER by Judge Henry Woods granting motion for attorneys Walter W. Christy and Tracy Hidalgo to appear pro hac vice for deft Autozone, Inc. [3-1] (cc: all counsel) (bsm) (Entered: 11/26/1999)

Nov. 24, 1999

Nov. 24, 1999

PACER
5

MOTION for attorney Ellen S. Kovach to appear pro hac vice for deft (former empl) Modified on 12/06/2001 (Entered: 12/08/1999)

Dec. 7, 1999

Dec. 7, 1999

PACER
6

ORDER by Judge Henry Woods granting motion for attorney Ellen S. Kovach to appear pro hac vice for deft [5-1] (cc: all counsel) (bsm) (Entered: 12/09/1999)

Dec. 9, 1999

Dec. 9, 1999

PACER
7

FIRST REQUEST by pltf for Admissions of Fact (vjt) (Entered: 12/23/1999)

Dec. 22, 1999

Dec. 22, 1999

PACER
8

RESPONSE by defendant to pltf's first requests [7-1] for admissons of fact (bsm) Modified on 12/06/2001 (Entered: 01/26/2000)

Jan. 24, 2000

Jan. 24, 2000

PACER
9

NOTICE by plaintiff of taking deposition of Billy Rainwater and Dennis James on 4/5/00 at 8:30 a.m. (bsm) (Entered: 03/23/2000)

March 22, 2000

March 22, 2000

PACER
10

NOTICE by plaintiff of taking deposition of Ted Davis & Sherri Cook on 7/25/00 at l:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. (bsm) (Entered: 07/11/2000)

July 10, 2000

July 10, 2000

PACER
11

SCHEDULING ORDER by Judge Henry Woods; jury trial set for 9:30 a.m. on 3/12/01 in Little Rock, AR; discovery due 1/12/01; pretrial info sheet due 2/12/01 (cc: all counsel) (bsm) (Entered: 09/18/2000)

Sept. 15, 2000

Sept. 15, 2000

PACER
12

NOTICE by plaintiff of taking deposition of Walter W. Christy on 12/8/00 at 10:00 a.m. (bsm) (Entered: 11/15/2000)

Nov. 13, 2000

Nov. 13, 2000

PACER
13

MOTION by defendant for summary judgment (bsm) Modified on 12/06/2001 (Entered: 01/19/2001)

Jan. 19, 2001

Jan. 19, 2001

PACER
14

MEMORANDUM by defendant in support of motion for summary judgment [13-1] (bsm) Modified on 12/06/2001 (Entered: 01/19/2001)

Jan. 19, 2001

Jan. 19, 2001

PACER
15

STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED MATERIAL FACTS by defendant [13-1] (bsm) Modified on 12/06/2001 (Entered: 01/19/2001)

Jan. 19, 2001

Jan. 19, 2001

PACER
16

Documents submitted by defendant in support of deft's motion for summary judgment [13-1] (bsm) Modified on 12/06/2001 (Entered: 01/19/2001)

Jan. 19, 2001

Jan. 19, 2001

PACER
17

RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION by plaintiff to deft's motion for summary judgment [13-1] (bsm) (Entered: 02/08/2001)

Feb. 7, 2001

Feb. 7, 2001

PACER
18

RESPONSE by plaintiff to deft's Statement of Uncontested Material Facts [15-1] (bsm) (Entered: 02/08/2001)

Feb. 7, 2001

Feb. 7, 2001

PACER
19

PRETRIAL DISCLOSURE SHEET by defendant; estimated length of trial, four days (bsm) Modified on 12/06/2001 (Entered: 02/12/2001)

Feb. 12, 2001

Feb. 12, 2001

PACER
20

PRETRIAL DISCLOSURE SHEET by plaintiff; estimated length of trial, 3-4 days (bsm) (Entered: 02/12/2001)

Feb. 12, 2001

Feb. 12, 2001

PACER
21

MOTION by defendant to strike witness and incorporated brief in support (bsm) Modified on 12/06/2001 (Entered: 02/20/2001)

Feb. 20, 2001

Feb. 20, 2001

PACER
22

RESPONSE by plaintiff to deft's motion to strike witness [21-1] (bsm) (Entered: 02/26/2001)

Feb. 26, 2001

Feb. 26, 2001

PACER
23

BRIEF by plaintiff in support of response to deft's motion to strike witness [22-1] (bsm) (Entered: 02/26/2001)

Feb. 26, 2001

Feb. 26, 2001

PACER
24

ORDER by Judge Henry Woods denying deft's motion to strike witness; deft's alternative motion to depose Matthews is granted; pltf should make Mr. Matthews available for deposition in LR; motion to depose Margaret Dudash is denied and deft's motion to add witnesses is denied [21-1] (cc: all counsel) (bsm) (Entered: 03/02/2001)

March 1, 2001

March 1, 2001

PACER
25

ORDER by Judge Henry Woods denying deft's motion for summary judgment [13-1]; case will proceed to trial as scheduled (cc: all counsel) (bsm) (Entered: 03/02/2001)

March 1, 2001

March 1, 2001

Clearinghouse
26

MOTION by defendant in limine to exclude certain inadmissible evidence as listed in motion from the trial (bsm) Modified on 12/06/2001 (Entered: 03/05/2001)

March 2, 2001

March 2, 2001

PACER
27

MEMORANDUM by defendant in support of motion in limine [26-1] (bsm) Modified on 12/06/2001 (Entered: 03/05/2001)

March 2, 2001

March 2, 2001

PACER
28

CONSENT DECREE: by Judge Henry Woods this Consent Decree resolves all issues and claims arising out of pltf's complt in this cause arising out of Charge No. 251-97-1491 filed by Theresa Garner with the EEOC; provisions of this Decree shall continue to be effective and binding upon the parties for a period of one year from the date of the entry of this decree except for Section VI.C (neutral reference), which will be in effect permanently; defts and all persons acting with the deft agree that they will comply with the laws concerning, and will maintain and enforce deft's policies against employment practices which have the purpose or effect of discriminating against any employee because of their sex; defts agree to reemphasize their training program covering the requirements of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, regarding the prevention of sexual discrimination and retaliation; defts and all persons acting with deft agree that they will comply with the laws concerning and will maintain and enforce deft's policy against, taking any retaliatory measure against any employee for opposing practices made unlawful under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, or for making a charge or complt to the EEOC, testifying, or participating in any manner in any investigation, proceeding, or hearing under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended; deft will continue to post in its facilities the notice required to be posted pursuant to Title VII; deft will expunge from Theresa Garner's personnel records any unfavorable or adverse personnel comments regarding or leading up to her demotion with deft, including any reference to the charge of discrimination she filed or this litigation; deft shall deliver to Ms Garner a cashier's check in the amount of $10,000.00 within ten days after entry of this Decree; deft agrees to provide a neutral reference to any potential employers of Ms. Garner who request a job reference with no mention of Ms. Garner's charge of discrimination or this action will be made as part of the neutral reference; each party will bear its own costs, including atty's fees terminating case (cc: all counsel) (bsm) Modified on 03/14/2001 (Entered: 03/12/2001)

March 9, 2001

March 9, 2001

PACER

Case Details

State / Territory: Arkansas

Case Type(s):

Equal Employment

Special Collection(s):

EEOC Study — in sample

Multi-LexSum (in sample)

Key Dates

Filing Date: Sept. 28, 1999

Closing Date: 2001

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, on behalf of one or more workers.

Plaintiff Type(s):

EEOC Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

EEOC

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

AutoZone, Inc. (Little Rock, Arkansas), Private Entity/Person

AutoZone, Inc. (Little Rock, Arkansas), Private Entity/Person

Case Details

Causes of Action:

Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e

Available Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Monetary Relief

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Damages

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Amount Defendant Pays: 10000

Order Duration: 2001 - 2002

Content of Injunction:

Expungement of Employment Record

Neutral/Positive Reference

Retaliation Prohibition

Post/Distribute Notice of Rights / EE Law

Issues

General:

Pattern or Practice

Retaliation

Discrimination-area:

Disparate Treatment

Demotion

Pay / Benefits

Promotion

Discrimination-basis:

Sex discrimination

Affected Sex or Gender:

Female

EEOC-centric:

Direct Suit on Merits