This case predates PACER. Hence, we do not have access to much information beyond the docket. This is what we do know:

On January 8, 2001, 11 individuals filed this putative class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. The case was assigned to District Judge Todd J. Campbell.

The Plaintiffs sued Toshiba America and Toshiba America Consumer Products under Title VII. Represented by private attorneys, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants discriminated on the basis of race, in violation of equal employment laws. We do not have details on the basis of their claims. However, based on the putative class, it appears that Toshiba allegedly discriminated against African-Americans in an employment context.

On March 9, 2001, the plaintiffs moved to stay the current litigation pending settlement negotiations. The Court approved their motion the same day. On June 6, the parties advised the Court that they were still undertaking serious settlement negotiations.

On December 21, 2001, the parties informed the Court that they had settled the case in principle. The parties submitted a stipulated settlement to the Court on February 25, 2002, as well as a motion for preliminary approval of settlement agreement. On March 15, the Court granted the motion pending certain revisions. On March 22, 2002, the parties entered an amended stipulation and settlement agreement, and a motion for the Court to preliminary approve the amended settlement agreement.

 A fairness hearing was held on May 24, to discuss additional details and changes to the settlement notice, individual form of release, and other matters.

We do not have details on the specific of the agreement. However, we do know that the final agreement at least included a $1.4 million settlement, as well as an agreement to implement specific anti-discrimination measures, including management training programs. Michael Ashley Stein, Same Struggle, Different Difference: ADA Accommodations as Antidiscrimination, 153 PENN. L.J. 579, 619 (2004).

On June 6, the Court ordered the parties to submit a proposed order of dismissal to the Court by September 1, 2002. On September 9, the parties had not yet done so. Accordingly, the Court ordered that the action be dismissed without prejudice. The Court further ordered that the parties could reopen this action if the settlement has not been consummated. 

There is no further action on the docket. The case is now closed.

Michael Beech - 02/27/2019


compress summary