University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name EEOC v. MURRAY, INC. EE-TN-0081
Docket / Court 1:00-cv-00123 ( M.D. Tenn. )
State/Territory Tennessee
Case Type(s) Disability Rights-Pub. Accom.
Equal Employment
Special Collection EEOC Study -- in sample
Attorney Organization EEOC
Case Summary
In September 2000, the Memphis District Office of the EEOC, along with the Nashville office, brought this suit against defendants Murray, Inc. and International Union UAW Local 1621 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. While the complaint is not available, it can be ... read more >
In September 2000, the Memphis District Office of the EEOC, along with the Nashville office, brought this suit against defendants Murray, Inc. and International Union UAW Local 1621 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. While the complaint is not available, it can be gathered from other court documents that the EEOC alleged that the employer violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by terminating a forklift driver solely based on his having insulin-dependent diabetes. Additionally, the EEOC alleged that the defendant engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination through improper medical screening. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment in June 2001, arguing that the charging party was not disabled and that the medical screenings were proper.

The district court granted summary judgment to the defendant on the issue of whether the charging party was "disabled" under the ADA; the court ruled that the individual's diabetes did not, as the ADA requires, substantially limit any major life activity. However, the court denied summary judgment on the issue of whether the company's practice of medical screening was discriminatory. E.E.O.C. v. Murray, Inc., 175 F. Supp. 2d 1053 (M.D. Tenn. 2001). After the summary judgment ruling, the case was settled in February 2002 by consent decree. This decree has a term of one year and required the defendant to: pay to the complainant $5,000, to revise it's medical screening policy, to refrain from subjecting employees to medical tests unless necessary for business, and refrain from per se excluding individuals from forklift positions. Additionally, the decree required the defendant to post notice of rights.

Keri Livingston - 09/26/2007


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Content of Injunction
Post/Distribute Notice of Rights / EE Law
Reporting
Retaliation Prohibition
Discrimination-area
Discharge / Constructive Discharge / Layoff
Medical Exam / Inquiry
Discrimination-basis
Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)
EEOC-centric
Direct Suit on Merits
General
Disparate Treatment
Pattern or Practice
Plaintiff Type
EEOC Plaintiff
Causes of Action Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. ยงยง 12111 et seq.
Defendant(s) International Union UAW Local 1621
Murray Incorporated
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 2002 - 2003
Case Closing Year 2002
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)
1:00-cv-00123 (M.D. Tenn.) 02/27/2002
EE-TN-0081-9000.pdf | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Memorandum 11/13/2001 (175 F.Supp.2d 1053) (M.D. Tenn.)
EE-TN-0081-0002.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Google Scholar
Consent Decree 02/26/2002
EE-TN-0081-0001.pdf | Detail
Document Source: District Court
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 -