University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name EEOC v. AutoNation d/b/a Mullinax Ford North Canton n/k/a Mullinax Ford North Canton, Inc. EE-OH-0009
Docket / Court 5:06-cv-01972-JRA ( N.D. Ohio )
State/Territory Ohio
Case Type(s) Equal Employment
Special Collection EEOC Study -- in sample
Attorney Organization EEOC
Case Summary
The Philadelphia district office of the EEOC brought this suit against Mullinax Ford North Canton, Inc. (previously known as AutoNation Corporation), an Ohio car dealership, in August 2006, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The complaint alleged that managers at the ... read more >
The Philadelphia district office of the EEOC brought this suit against Mullinax Ford North Canton, Inc. (previously known as AutoNation Corporation), an Ohio car dealership, in August 2006, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The complaint alleged that managers at the dealership harassed a black complainant due to his race, creating a hostile work environment, and retaliated against him after he complained by creating intolerable employment conditions that led to his constructive discharge, all in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The complainant, a black male, was granted leave to intervene in December 2006. The parties were subsequently in mediation from January 2007 to June 2007. Discovery occurred and a joint motion for a protective order was granted in September 2007. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment in October 2007, which was denied in February of 2008. Afterwards, the parties settled by entry of a consent decree in April 2008.

The consent decree, which has a five year duration, included non-discrimination and non-retaliation clauses, required the expungement of the complainant's record and a guarantee that Mullinax would not reveal anything to future employers about the complaint or the suit, and required Mullinax to develop an anti-discrimination and anti-retaliation policy that would include a process for filing complaints. Additionally, Mullinax was required to post a notice regarding this suit and to distribute its policy to all employees. Managers and supervisors are to be given instructions to prevent discrimination in their areas of work, and all employees are to be given anti-discrimination and anti-retaliation training. If the EEOC suspects non-compliance, it is to inform Mullinax, which then has twenty days to either demonstrate its compliance or remedy the breach, after which the EEOC may go to the Court for relief. Mullinax is required to report on complaints, maintain records of them, and report its compliance with these requirements, and the EEOC is allowed to access Mullinax' records and interview its employees in order to verify this compliance. In addition, Mullinax also agreed to pay a total of $150,000.00 to settle the claims of two individuals and for one complainant's attorneys' fees. The docket sheet doesn't show any further enforcement took place; the case was presumably closed in 2013.

Shankar Viswanathan - 05/28/2008
- 06/11/2017

compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Content of Injunction
Develop anti-discrimination policy
Discrimination Prohibition
Expungement of Employment Record
Implement complaint/dispute resolution process
Post/Distribute Notice of Rights / EE Law
Provide antidiscrimination training
Retaliation Prohibition
Discharge / Constructive Discharge / Layoff
Harassment / Hostile Work Environment
Other Conditions of Employment (including assignment, transfer, hours, working conditions, etc)
Race discrimination
Direct Suit on Merits
Private Party intervened in EEOC suit
Disparate Treatment
Plaintiff Type
EEOC Plaintiff
Private Plaintiff
Causes of Action Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000e
Defendant(s) Mullinax Ford North Canton, Inc.
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 2008 - 2013
Case Closing Year 2013
Case Ongoing No
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
  Microsoft Gender Discrimination Class Action Lawsuit
Date: Oct. 14, 2016
By: Outten & Golden
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Age Discrimination Class Action seeks Fair Employment for Older PwC Applicants
Date: Apr. 27, 2016
By: Outten & Golden
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Smith Barney Gender Discrimination
Date: August 2008
By: Outten & Golden
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Megacases, Diversity, and the Elusive Goal of Workplace Reform
Date: Mar. 1, 2008
By: Nancy Levit (University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law Faculty)
Citation: 49 B.C. L. Rev. 367 (2008)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Second Generation Employment Discrimination: A Structural Approach
Date: Apr. 1, 2001
By: Susan Sturm (Columbia Law School Faculty)
Citation: 101 Colum. L. Rev. 458 (2001)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

5:06-cv-01972-JRA (N.D. Ohio)
EE-OH-0009-9000.pdf | Detail
Date: 04/21/2008
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
EE-OH-0009-0001.pdf | Detail
Date: 08/17/2006
First Amended Complaint
EE-OH-0009-0002.pdf | Detail
Date: 04/13/2007
Joint Stipulated Protective Order (N.D. Ohio)
EE-OH-0009-0003.pdf | Detail
Date: 09/20/2007
Order [re: Summary Judgment] (N.D. Ohio)
EE-OH-0009-0004.pdf | Detail
Date: 02/04/2008
Consent Decree
EE-OH-0009-0005.pdf | Detail
Date: 04/21/2008

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -