University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name EEOC v. KROGER COMPANY et al EE-TX-0194
Docket / Court 3:98-cv-00242 ( N.D. Tex. )
State/Territory Texas
Case Type(s) Disability Rights-Pub. Accom.
Equal Employment
Special Collection EEOC Study -- in sample
Attorney Organization EEOC
Case Summary
In February 1998, the Dallas District Office of the EEOC filed this suit against The Kroger Co. and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 745 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. We do not have a copy of the complaint. However, according to the consent decree, ... read more >
In February 1998, the Dallas District Office of the EEOC filed this suit against The Kroger Co. and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 745 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. We do not have a copy of the complaint. However, according to the consent decree, the complaint alleged that the defendant violated the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") by requiring all employment applicants to fill out medical questionnaires and undergo medical tests before they were offered employment. In addition, the defendant allegedly violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA") by using physical tests that had a disparate impact on older applicants. Specifically, the defendant used a physical abilities test to evaluate applicants that used age as a factor in the scoring. A charging party intervened in the suit in March 1998. After some scheduling orders and discovery, the charging party's complaint was voluntarily dismissed in June 1999. The EEOC and the defendant then settled their claims in August 1999 through a consent decree.

The one-year decree required the defendant to provide applicants who have met all other job requirements with a written statement that they have been conditionally offered a job dependent on the results of a physical abilities test, drug screening, and physical exam. In addition, the defendant was required to investigate alternative physical abilities tests that did not use age in the evaluation formula and to pay $240,000 to the complainants named in the EEOC's complaint.

Kevin Wilemon - 06/19/2007


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Content of Injunction
Other requirements regarding hiring, promotion, retention
Reporting
Discrimination-area
Hiring
Medical Exam / Inquiry
Discrimination-basis
Age discrimination
Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)
EEOC-centric
Direct Suit on Merits
Private Party intervened in EEOC suit
General
Disparate Impact
Disparate Treatment
Plaintiff Type
EEOC Plaintiff
Private Plaintiff
Causes of Action Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.
Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et seq.
Defendant(s) International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 745
The Kroger Co.
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 1999 - 2000
Case Closing Year 1999
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)
3:98-cv-00242 (N.D. Tex.) 08/09/1999
EE-TX-0194-9000 PDF | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Consent Decree 08/09/1999
EE-TX-0194-0001 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
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 -