University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name EEOC v. Autozone EE-TN-0011
Docket / Court 2:00-cv-02923-SHM-sta ( W.D. Tenn. )
State/Territory Tennessee
Case Type(s) Equal Employment
Special Collection EEOC Study -- in sample
Attorney Organization EEOC
Case Summary
The Memphis and Washington D.C. offices of the EEOC brought suit against Autozone, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee in September 2000. While we do not have a copy of the complaint, it seems the complaint alleged that Autozone, Inc. engaged in a pattern or ... read more >
The Memphis and Washington D.C. offices of the EEOC brought suit against Autozone, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee in September 2000. While we do not have a copy of the complaint, it seems the complaint alleged that Autozone, Inc. engaged in a pattern or practice of race and gender discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. More specifically, the defendant allegedly discriminated against females and Blacks in hiring and promoting. The Court dismissed the pattern or practice claims of failure to hire female applicants for technician positions and failure to promote Black employees to official/manager positions on May 16, 2005 and July 7, 2005, respectively. An intervenor plaintiff was allowed to enter the suit, but her claim was subsequently dismissed in July 2005.

The defendant, Autozone, filed a motion for summary judgment on July 8, 2005. Judge Samuel Mays of the District Court granted in part and denied in part this motion for summary judgment on August 29, 2006. Judge Mays granted the motion with regard to the EEOC's claims for a pattern or practice of disparate treatment and disparate impact but denied with regard to the EEOC's claims for individual disparate treatment and failure to comply with the record keeping requirements of Title VII. EEOC v. Autozone, Inc., No. Civ. 00-2923, 2006 WL 2524093.

Henceforth, the EEOC pursued individual discrimination claims alleging failure to promote Black employees into official/manager positions. Autozone, Inc. subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment which was granted in part and denied in part by Judge Mays on August 13, 2007. Specifically, Autozone's motion was granted as to the EEOC's failure-to-promote claims on behalf of nine employees and the EEOC's failure-to-hire claims on behalf of twelve applicants; Autozone's motion for summary judgment as to the EEOC's failure-to-hire claims on behalf of five applicants was denied.

With two claimants remaining in the case with failure-to-hire claims, the Court held a bench trial from August 18, 2008 to August 20, 2008. In a memorandum of opinion, Judge Mays discussed his findings of facts and law and found in favor of the defendant, Autozone. Judge Mays concluded that the EEOC failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Autozone's stated non-discriminatory reasons for hiring males over the two female plaintiffs remaining in this case were a pretext for gender discrimination. Therefore, the EEOC failed to prove that Autozone discriminated against the two remaining plaintiffs. Judge Mays entered the judgment on March 24, 2009. This case is now closed.

Justin Kanter - 06/02/2008
Mackenzie Walz - 03/24/2018


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Affected Gender
Female
Discrimination-area
Hiring
Promotion
Discrimination-basis
Race discrimination
Sex discrimination
EEOC-centric
Direct Suit on Merits
No EEOC Final Resolution Type
Private Party intervened in EEOC suit
General
Disparate Treatment
Pattern or Practice
Plaintiff Type
EEOC Plaintiff
Private Plaintiff
Race
Black
Causes of Action Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000e
Defendant(s) Autozone, Inc.
Autozone, 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
Filed Pro Se No
Prevailing Party Defendant
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief None
Source of Relief Litigation
Filing Year 2000
Case Closing Year 2009
Case Ongoing No
Docket(s)
2:00-cv-02923-SHM-sta (W.D. Tenn.)
EE-TN-0011-9000.pdf | Detail
Date: 09/03/2013
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Order on Plaintiff's Motion for a Protective Order [ECF# 48] (W.D. Tenn.)
EE-TN-0011-0001.pdf | Detail
Date: 10/23/2001
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Denying Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on the Issue of Laches, Denying Defendant's Motion to Limit the Temporal Scope, and Denying Defendant's Motion to Limit Monetary Relief (258 F.Supp.2d 822) (W.D. Tenn.)
EE-TN-0011-0007.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 03/31/2003
Source: Google Scholar
Order Denying [Defendant's] Motion for Protective Order and to Quash [ECF# 221] (W.D. Tenn.)
EE-TN-0011-0002.pdf | Detail
Date: 02/16/2005
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Agreed Order Dismissing Plaintiff EEOC's Claim Concerning Failure to Hire Female Technicians [ECF# 230] (W.D. Tenn.)
EE-TN-0011-0003.pdf | Detail
Date: 05/16/2005
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Dismissing Action of Intervening Plaintiff Constance Amos [ECF# 245] (W.D. Tenn.)
EE-TN-0011-0004.pdf | Detail
Date: 07/06/2005
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Dismissing Plaintiff EEOC's Pattern or Practice Claim Concerning Failure to Promote African Americans into Official/Manager Positions [ECF# 244] (W.D. Tenn.)
EE-TN-0011-0005.pdf | Detail
Date: 07/07/2005
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (2006 WL 2524093 / 2006 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 61784) (W.D. Tenn.)
EE-TN-0011-0008.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 08/29/2006
Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF# 320] (W.D. Tenn.)
EE-TN-0011-0006.pdf | Detail
Date: 08/13/2007
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Memorandum Opinion Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law [ECF# 380] (2009 WL 778986) (W.D. Tenn.)
EE-TN-0011-0009.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 03/20/2009
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Bryant, Edward G. Court not on record [Magistrate]
EE-TN-0011-9000
Mays, Samuel H. Jr. (W.D. Tenn.)
EE-TN-0011-0009 | EE-TN-0011-9000
Plaintiff's Lawyers Bannon, Jeffrey (Tennessee)
EE-TN-0011-9000
Beck, Terry (Tennessee)
EE-TN-0011-9000
Borek, Thomas J. (Tennessee)
EE-TN-0011-9000
Donati, Donald A. (Tennessee)
EE-TN-0011-9000
Kores, Katharine W. (Tennessee)
EE-TN-0011-9000
Kriegel, Reva M. (Tennessee)
EE-TN-0011-9000
Krupicka, Lisa (Tennessee)
EE-TN-0011-9000 | EE-TN-0011-9000
Liner, Celia S. (Tennessee)
EE-TN-0011-9000
Rapport, Adele (Tennessee)
EE-TN-0011-9000
Reams, Gwendolyn Young (Tennessee)
EE-TN-0011-9000
Smith, Deidre (Tennessee)
EE-TN-0011-9000
Stewart, C. Gregory (District of Columbia)
EE-TN-0011-9000
Williams, Faye A. (Tennessee)
EE-TN-0011-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Christy, Walter W (Louisiana)
EE-TN-0011-9000
Ehret, Leslie Weill (Louisiana)
EE-TN-0011-9000
Feibelman, Jef (Tennessee)
EE-TN-0011-9000
Gottsegen, Thomas E. (Louisiana)
EE-TN-0011-9000
Kern, Tracy E (Louisiana)
EE-TN-0011-9000
Kovach, Ellen Shirer (Louisiana)
EE-TN-0011-9000
West, Madeline Doucet (Louisiana)
EE-TN-0011-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -