Case: EEOC v. Autozone

2:00-cv-02923 | U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee

Filed Date: Sept. 29, 2000

Closed Date: March 24, 2009

Clearinghouse coding complete

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 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 prom…

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.

Summary Authors

Justin Kanter (6/2/2008)

Mackenzie Walz (3/24/2018)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4639775/parties/eeoc-v-autozone-inc/


Judge(s)

Bryant, Edward G. (Tennessee)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Bannon, Jeffrey (Tennessee)

Beck, Terry (Tennessee)

Borek, Thomas J. (Tennessee)

Attorney for Defendant

Christy, Walter W (Louisiana)

Expert/Monitor/Master/Other

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Documents in this case

2:00-cv-02923

Docket [PACER]

EEOC v. Autozone Inc

Sept. 3, 2013

Sept. 3, 2013

Docket
137

2:00-cv-02923

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

EEOC v. Autozone Inc

March 31, 2003

March 31, 2003

Order/Opinion

258 F.Supp.2d 822

221

2:00-cv-02923

Order Denying [Defendant's] Motion for Protective Order and to Quash

EEOC v. Autozone Inc

Feb. 16, 2005

Feb. 16, 2005

Order/Opinion

2005 WL 8156700

230

2:00-cv-02923

Agreed Order Dismissing Plaintiff EEOC's Claim Concerning Failure to Hire Female Technicians

EEOC v. Autozone Inc

May 16, 2005

May 16, 2005

Order/Opinion
245

2:00-cv-02923

Order Dismissing Action of Intervening Plaintiff Constance Amos

EEOC v. Autozone Inc

July 6, 2005

July 6, 2005

Order/Opinion
244

2:00-cv-02923

Order Dismissing Plaintiff EEOC's Pattern or Practice Claim Concerning Failure to Promote African Americans into Official/Manager Positions

EEOC v. Autozone Inc

July 7, 2005

July 7, 2005

Order/Opinion
290

2:00-cv-02923

Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment

EEOC v. Autozone Inc

Aug. 29, 2006

Aug. 29, 2006

Order/Opinion

2006 WL 2524093

320

2:00-cv-02923

Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment

EEOC v. Autozone Inc

Aug. 13, 2007

Aug. 13, 2007

Order/Opinion
380

2:00-cv-02923

Memorandum Opinion Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

EEOC v Autozone, Inc.

March 20, 2009

March 20, 2009

Order/Opinion

2009 WL 778986

Resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4639775/eeoc-v-autozone-inc/

Last updated March 25, 2026, 4:51 a.m.

ECF Number Date Description Link
1 Sept. 29, 2000

COMPLAINT (Summons(es)NOT issued) ; Filing fee $ waived (WBE) (Entered: 10/02/2000)

RECAP
2 Oct. 17, 2000

SETTING LETTER ; scheduling conference set for 8:30 12/6/00 (EHG) (Entered: 10/17/2000)

RECAP
3 Nov. 3, 2000

WAIVER OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS by defendant Autozone, Inc. (EHG) (Entered: 11/03/2000)

RECAP
4 Nov. 13, 2000

MOTION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE by defendant Autozone, Inc. for attorney Walter W. Christy, Leslie W. Ehret, Tracy K. Hidalgo, Thomas E. Gottsegen to appear pro hac vice (EHG) (Entered: 11/14/2000)

RECAP
5 Nov. 13, 2000

MOTION by defendant Autozone, Inc. to continue scheduling conference (..set for 12/6/00) (EHG) (Entered: 11/14/2000)

RECAP
6 Nov. 14, 2000

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla granting dft's motion to continue scheduling conference (..set for 12/6/00) [5-1] ; scheduling conference continued to 12/1/00 @ 8:30 a.m. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 11/15/2000)

RECAP
7 Nov. 14, 2000

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla granting defendant, Autozone, Inc., motion for attorney Walter W. Christy, Leslie W. Ehret, Tracy K. Hidalgo, Thomas E. Gottsegen to appear pro hac vice [4-1] (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 11/15/2000)

RECAP
8 Nov. 14, 2000

ANSWER by defendant Autozone, Inc. to [1-1] (EHG) (Entered: 11/15/2000)

RECAP
9 Nov. 27, 2000

NOTICE OF FILING: REPORT OF PARTIES' PLANNING MEETING by plaintiff EEOC, defendant Autozone, Inc. (EHG) (Entered: 11/28/2000)

RECAP
10 Nov. 30, 2000

NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant Autozone, Inc. by Lisa A. Krupicka (EHG) (Entered: 12/04/2000)

RECAP
12 Dec. 1, 2000

MINUTES: Rule 16(b) Conf 12/1/00. Plaintiff's experts ddl 11/1/01; dfts experts ddl 1/1/02. Walter Christy and Jef Feibelman will not be allowed to participate as lead counsel in this case. Autozone will define categories of job descriptions to EEOC by Fri., 12/22/00 (80-85% of the information) with the remainder due by Fri., 12/29/00. Dft's motion to determine the temporal scope of litigation or to limit the scope of discoery is due by 12/15/00; pla's response is ude by 12/28/00. The scheduling conf is continued to Thursday, 12/28/00 @ 2:00 p.m. Presiding Judge: McCalla PLA Atty: Celia Liner, Deidra Liner DFT Atty: Lisa Krupicka, Leslie Ehret C/R: Brenda Parker (EHG) (Entered: 12/04/2000)

RECAP
11 Dec. 4, 2000

SETTING LETTER ; scheduling conference set for 2:00 12/28/00 (EHG) (Entered: 12/04/2000)

RECAP
13 Dec. 5, 2000

TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 12/1/00 of Scheduling Conference Volumes 1 Court Reporter: Brenda Parker [document placed in separate folder] (EHG) (Entered: 12/05/2000)

RECAP
14 Dec. 6, 2000

ORDER FOLLOWING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE.. by Judge Jon P. McCalla ...(1) dft shall produce information relating to the job categories at issue in this case by 12/22/00. (2) The parties shall submit briefs on the question of the applicable time period covered by this lawsuit..Dft shall submit its brief by 12/15/00. Pla shall submit its response by 12/28/00. (3) Pla shall submit a first supplement to its 26(a)(1) disclosures by 12/18/00. ... ;(4) a follow-up conference set for 2:00 12/28/00 (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 12/07/2000)

RECAP
15 Dec. 13, 2000

ORDER OF RECUSAL by Judge Jon P. McCalla: The Court hereby recuses itself in this matter and returns the file to the Clerk of Court for reassignment. Case reassigned to Chief Judge Julia S. Gibbons (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 12/14/2000)

RECAP
16 Dec. 14, 2000

NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT... from Judge McCalla to Judge Gibbons. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 12/14/2000)

RECAP
17 Dec. 22, 2000

SETTING LETTER ; scheduling conference set for 9:00 1/10/01 (EHG) (Entered: 12/22/2000)

RECAP
18 Jan. 10, 2001

MINUTES: ; scheduling conference satisfied 9:00 1/10/01. Scheduling order to enter. Schedule set as follows: join parties 2/01/01; amend pleadings 2/01/01; discovery 3/01/02; pla experts 11/01/01; dft experts 1/01/02; dispositive/sumjgm motions 5/01/02; jury trial 8/19/02; est trial length 10 days; Another scheduling conf toward end of year to discuss possibility of settlement. Presiding Judge: Gibbons PLA Atty: Deidre Smith, Celia Liner DFT Atty: Walter Christy, Allison Smith, Jef Feibelman C/R: Mark Dodson (EHG) (Entered: 01/12/2001)

RECAP
60 Jan. 13, 2001

RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION by plaintiff EEOC to motion to reopen and extend deadline for amending the pleadings (filed w/ exhibits 1-4)[53-1] (PWM) (Entered: 11/14/2001)

RECAP
19 Jan. 23, 2001

RULE 16(b) SCHEDULING ORDER Judge Julia S. Gibbons ; ...ddl for amending pleadings and to join additional parties 2/1/01; discovery 3/1/01; pla's expert disclosures 11/1/01; dft's expert disclousres 1/1/02; ddl for filing potentially dispositive motions 5/1/02; case set for trial 8/19/02; trial will take 10 days. Another scheduling conf will be set toward the end of 2001 to discuss the possibility of settlement. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 01/24/2001)

RECAP
20 Feb. 5, 2001

ORDER AMENDING SCHEDULING ORDER by Judge Julia S. Gibbons discovery ddl set 3/1/02 (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 02/05/2001)

RECAP
21 May 7, 2001

SETTING LETTER:status conference set for 11/21/01 at 9:00 Courtroom 1 11th flr. (PWM) (Entered: 05/08/2001)

RECAP
22 June 1, 2001

MOTION by plaintiff EEOC for special admission to participate in a particular case to allow Thomas J. Borek to appear on behalf of pla EEOC (PWM) (Entered: 06/04/2001)

RECAP
23 June 4, 2001

ORDER by Judge Julia S. Gibbons granting motion for special admission to participate in a particular case to allow Thomas J. Borek to appear on behalf of pla EEOC [22-1] (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 06/06/2001)

RECAP
24 June 28, 2001

MOTION by intervenor plaintiff Constance Amos to intervene (PWM) (Entered: 06/29/2001)

RECAP
25 June 28, 2001

MEMORANDUM by intervenor plaintiff Constance Amos in support of motion to intervene [24-1] (PWM) (Entered: 06/29/2001)

RECAP
26 July 3, 2001

ORDER by Judge Julia S. Gibbons granting motion to intervene [24-1] For good cause shown, the motion is granted.(cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 07/06/2001)

RECAP
27 July 9, 2001

MOTION by defendant Autozone, Inc. to substitute attorney Thomas E. Gottsegen for Madeline D. West (PWM) (Entered: 07/09/2001)

RECAP
28 July 10, 2001

ORDER by Judge Julia S. Gibbons granting motion to substitute attorney Madeline D. West for Thomas E. Gottsegen [27-1], for dft AutoZone, Inc.; substituting attorney Madeline D. West for Thomas E. Gottsegen; (cc: all counsel) (BAG) (Entered: 07/12/2001)

RECAP
29 July 17, 2001

MOTION by defendant Autozone, Inc. for attorney Madeline Doucet West to appear pro hac vice (PWM) (Entered: 07/18/2001)

RECAP
30 July 19, 2001

ORDER by Judge Julia S. Gibbons granting motion for attorney Madeline Doucet West to appear pro hac vice for dft Autozone [29-1] (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 07/19/2001)

RECAP
31 Aug. 22, 2001

TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 8/20/01 of In-Chambers Conference Volumes 1 Court Reporter: Mark Dodson ( documents placed in seperate folder) (PWM) (Entered: 08/22/2001)

RECAP
32 Aug. 27, 2001

MOTION by plaintiff EEOC to recuse Judge Gibbons from this case (PWM) (Entered: 08/28/2001)

RECAP
33 Aug. 27, 2001

MEMORANDUM by plaintiff EEOC in support of motion to recuse Judge Gibbons from this case [32-1] (PWM) (Entered: 08/28/2001)

RECAP
34 Sept. 5, 2001

RESPONSE by intervenor plaintiff Constance Amos to motion to recuse Judge Gibbons from this case [32-1] (PWM) (Entered: 09/07/2001)

RECAP
35 Sept. 11, 2001

MEMORANDUM by defendant Autozone, Inc. in opposition to motion to recuse Judge Gibbons from this case [32-1] (PWM) (Entered: 09/12/2001)

RECAP
36 Sept. 11, 2001

SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM by defendant Autozone, Inc. in opposition to pla's motion requesting Judge Gibbons recuse herslf from this case[35-1] (PWM) (Entered: 09/12/2001)

RECAP
37 Sept. 11, 2001

MINUTES: for Type of hearing held: Chambers Conference Discussion re Motion to recuse. Court will reule as soon as possible trial date 9/16/02. Presiding Judge: J. Gibbons PLA Atty: T.Beck & T. DFT Atty: Feibelman, Krupicka, Donati, Kriegel, Christy, Smith C/R: Mark Dodson (PWM) (Entered: 09/17/2001)

RECAP
38 Sept. 27, 2001

MOTION by plaintiff EEOC for protective order (PWM) (Entered: 09/28/2001)

RECAP
39 Sept. 27, 2001

MEMORANDUM by plaintiff EEOC in support of motion for protective order [38-1] (filed with exhibits 1-4) (PWM) Modified on 09/28/2001 (Entered: 09/28/2001)

RECAP
40 Sept. 28, 2001

ORDER by Judge Julia S. Gibbons denying motion to recuse Judge Gibbons from this case [32-1]..... While the court will not transfer the case at the present time, the court will nevertheless likely transfer the case to a visiting judge, many of who will be assisting in the district, at an appropriate future tiem. That course will assure that the judge's identity is not ultimately an issue in the case, yet will avoid giving a single party or the newspaper control over the choice of a judge. In terms of the timing of any transfer, the court notes that his case has been pending a full yr & has been before this judge for some nine months. Other than the signing of routine orders, only 2 things requiring judicial attention have occurred- setting a schedule for progress of the case and resolving this-media-generated recusal issue. That trend appears likely to continue, and there will be ample time to determine who is available to assist w/ this matter after a full schedule for visiting judges is established. (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 10/01/2001)

RECAP
41 Oct. 2, 2001

ORDER OF REFERENCE by Judge Julia S. Gibbons referring to Mag Judge J. D. Breen the motion for protective order [38-1] This matter is hereby referred to the US Mag Judge for a detmerination. Any exceptions to the mag judge's order shall be made by motion w/n 10 days of order. (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 10/03/2001)

RECAP
42 Oct. 9, 2001

SETTING LETTER: hearing on pla's motion for a protective order has been set for 10/10/01 at 10:00, before Mag Judge Breen; (BAG) (Entered: 10/09/2001)

RECAP
43 Oct. 9, 2001

MEMORANDUM by defendant Autozone, Inc. in opposition to the EEOC'S motion for protective order [38-1] (filed w/ Exhibit 1) (PWM) Modified on 10/10/2001 (Entered: 10/10/2001)

RECAP
44 Oct. 10, 2001

SUPPLEMENT DECLARATION OF CELIA S. LINER by plaintiff EEOC re motion for protective order [38-1] (PWM) (Entered: 10/10/2001)

RECAP
45 Oct. 10, 2001

MINUTES: denying motion for protective order [38-1] Type of hearing held: Motion Hearing - Court requires pla to produce investigator to be available for discovery; Court will withhold ruling on damages until after experts disclosure 11/01/01; Dft may not depose any EEOC lawyers; Pla may file motion to bifurcate discovery/trial. Presiding Judge: J. PLA Atty: C. Liner & D. Smith DFT Atty: W. Christy & A. Smith C/R: Brenda Parker (PWM) (Entered: 10/19/2001)

RECAP
46 Oct. 22, 2001

MOTION by plaintiff EEOC to bifurcate the issues of liability and individual relief during the trial of this case & to bifourcate the discovery in this case. (PWM) (Entered: 10/23/2001)

RECAP
47 Oct. 22, 2001

MEMORANDUM by plaintiff EEOC in support of motion to bifurcate the issues of liability and individual relief during the trial of this case & to bifourcate the discovery in this case. [46-1] (PWM) (Entered: 10/23/2001)

RECAP
48 Oct. 23, 2001

ORDER by Mag Judge J. D. Breen denying motion for protective order [38-1].... As to informaotin regarding the facts and methodology underlying the EEOC's statistics adn computaiton of damages, the court was advised that the EEOC will be revealing its epert witness list, as well as providing Rule 26(a) expert reports, on or before 11/1/01. At that point, the dft would e in a position to determine which, if any of the experts it would intend to depose concerning the statistics and computation of damages. Once all of eh depositions described herein have been completed, the court may revisit the issue as to whether the dft would be entitlted to take the deposition of the pla's counsel concerning the EEOC's investigation leading up to the filing of these charges, as well as any additional investigation that has been undertaken concerning alleged ongoing discrimination by dft. (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 10/23/2001)

RECAP
49 Oct. 24, 2001

TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 1/10/01 of Proceedings before Julia Gibbon Volumes 1 Court Reporter: Mark Dodson (documents placed under seperate folder) (PWM) (Entered: 10/24/2001)

RECAP
50 Oct. 26, 2001

MOTION by plaintiff EEOC for leave to modify the rule 16(b) scheduling order (PWM) (Entered: 10/29/2001)

RECAP
51 Oct. 26, 2001

MEMORANDUM by plaintiff EEOC in support of motion for leave to modify the rule 16(b) scheduling order (filed w/ exhibits 1-5 & proposed order) [50-1] (PWM) (Entered: 10/29/2001)

RECAP
52 Oct. 26, 2001

CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTATION by plaintiff EEOC (PWM) (Entered: 10/29/2001)

RECAP
53 Oct. 29, 2001

MOTION by defendant Autozone, Inc. to reopen and extend deadline for amending the pleadings (PWM) (Entered: 10/30/2001)

RECAP
54 Nov. 2, 2001

MOTION by defendant Autozone, Inc. to extend time to file dft's opposition to the EEOC's motion for bifurcated trial and bifurcated discovery (PWM) (Entered: 11/05/2001)

RECAP
55 Nov. 2, 2001

MEMORANDUM by defendant Autozone, Inc. in support of motion to extend time to file dft's opposition to the EEOC's motion for bifurcated trial and bifurcated discovery [54-1] (PWM) (Entered: 11/05/2001)

RECAP
56 Nov. 5, 2001

MOTION by defendant Autozone, Inc. for attorney Ellen Shirer Kovach to appear pro hac vice (PWM) (Entered: 11/06/2001)

RECAP
57 Nov. 7, 2001

ORDER by Judge Julia S. Gibbons granting motion to extend time to file dft's opposition to the EEOC's motion for bifurcated trial and bifurcated discovery [54-1] Dft AutoZone, Inc., is hereby granted until 11/16/01, to file its opposition to pla EEOC's motion to Bifurcate the Issues of Liability and Individual Relief During the Trial of this case and to Bifurcate the Discovery in this case (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 11/07/2001)

RECAP
58 Nov. 8, 2001

ORDER by Judge Julia S. Gibbons granting motion for attorney Ellen Shirer Kovach to appear pro hac vice [56-1] IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Ellen Shirer kovach of the firm Frilot, Partridge, Kohnke & Clements, LC is hereby admitted as counsel pro hac vice for dft AutoZone Inc.(cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 11/08/2001)

RECAP
59 Nov. 8, 2001

RESPONSE by defendant Autozone, Inc. to motion for leave to modify the rule 16(b) scheduling order [50-1] (PWM) (Entered: 11/09/2001)

RECAP
61 Nov. 16, 2001

MEMORANDUM by defendant Autozone, Inc. in opposition to motion to bifurcate the issues of liability and individual relief during the trial of this case & to bifourcate the discovery in this case. (document placed under seperate cover) (filed w/ exhibits a & b) [46-1] (PWM) Modified on 11/16/2001 (Entered: 11/16/2001)

RECAP
62 Nov. 21, 2001

REPLY by defendant Autozone, Inc. brief in support of Autozone's motion to reopen and extend deadline for amending the pleadings re [53-1] (PWM) (Entered: 11/27/2001)

RECAP
63 Nov. 21, 2001

MINUTES: discovery ddl set 5:00 9/1/02 dispositive motion filing ddl set 5:00 10/1/02 jury trial set 9:00 1/21/03 which is expeted to last 10 days Type of hearing held: Status Conference Court will entered order denying bifurcation of disc. New deadlines estabilshed Plas experts 4/1/02; Dfts experts 6/1/02; Discovery 9/1/02; Presiding Judge: J. Gibbons PLA Atty: D. Smith & T. Borak DFT Atty: T. Hidalgo, W. Christy, R. Kriegel(all by phone) C/R: Brenda Parker (PWM) (Entered: 11/29/2001)

RECAP
64 Nov. 29, 2001

ANSWER by defendant Autozone, Inc. to intervene and affirmative defenses [1-1]; jury demand (PWM) (Entered: 12/03/2001)

RECAP
65 Dec. 7, 2001

ORDER ON DEADLINES SET AT STATUS CONFERENCE by Judge Julia S. Gibbons Pla's expert disclosures ddl 4/1/02; Dft's expert disclosures ddl 6/1/02; discovery ddl set 5:00 9/1/02; potentially dispositive motion filing ddl set 5:00 10/1/02; trial set 9:30 1/21/03 which is expected to last 10 days. (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 12/10/2001)

RECAP
66 Dec. 14, 2001

MOTION by defendant Autozone, Inc. to withdraw atty Thomas E. Gottsegen (PWM) (Entered: 12/17/2001)

RECAP
67 Dec. 21, 2001

ORDER by Judge Julia S. Gibbons granting motion to withdraw atty Thomas E. Gottsegen [66-1] IT IS ORDERED ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Thomas E. Gottsegen, be and is hereby withdrawn as counsel of record for AutoZone, Inc. (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 12/26/2001)

RECAP
68 Feb. 25, 2002

ORDER ON MOTION TO BIFURCATE THE ISSUES OF LIABILITY AND INDIVIDUAL RELIEF AND TO BIFURCATE DISCOVERY by Judge Julia S. Gibbons denying motion to bifurcate the issues of liability and individual relief during the trial of this case & to bifourcate the discovery in this case. ..Moreover bifurcation of discovery would result in further delay in the resolution of this case, which has already been pending for some 17 months. In addition bifurcation of discovery would render settlement of the case almost impossible. The motion to bifurcate discovery is denied. With respect to the motion to bifurcate the issues of liability and individual relief, that motion is premature. After discovery is concluded, the court can evaluate the manner in which the case should be tried and make an appropriate resolution of the bifurcation motion in conneciton w/ final pretrial preparation. The EEOC may renew this motion after the close of discovery. [46-1] (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 02/26/2002)

RECAP
69 Feb. 25, 2002

ORDER OF TRANSFER by Judge Julia S. Gibbons Case reassigned to Chief Judge James D. Todd in exchange for an equivalent case (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 02/26/2002)

RECAP
70 March 1, 2002

MOTION by plaintiff EEOC to compel discovery (PWM) (Entered: 03/04/2002)

RECAP
71 March 1, 2002

MEMORANDUM by plaintiff EEOC in support of motion to compel discovery [70-1] (filed w/ exhibits A-O) Document placed under seperate cover. (PWM) (Entered: 03/04/2002)

RECAP
72 March 1, 2002

CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTATION REGARDING PLA EEOC'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY by plaintiff EEOC (PWM) (Entered: 03/04/2002)

RECAP
73 March 6, 2002

ORDER OF REFERENCE by Chief Judge James D. Todd referring to Mag Judge J. D. Breen the motion to compel discovery [70-1] for disposition - (cc: counsel) (EJC) (Entered: 03/06/2002)

RECAP
74 March 14, 2002

MOTION by defendant Autozone, Inc. to extend time to respond to pla's motion to compel (PWM) (Entered: 03/15/2002)

RECAP
75 March 14, 2002

MEMORANDUM by defendant Autozone, Inc. in support of motion to extend time to respond to pla's motion to compel [74-1] (PWM) (Entered: 03/15/2002)

RECAP
76 March 14, 2002

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE by defendant Autozone, Inc. (PWM) (Entered: 03/15/2002)

RECAP
77 March 22, 2002

ORDER by Mag Judge J. D. Breen granting motion to extend time to respond to pla's motion to compel [74-1] Dft Auto Zone is hereby granted until 3/29/02, to file its response to Pla's motion to compel. (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 03/25/2002)

RECAP
78 March 26, 2002

SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION by defendant Autozone, Inc. to extend time to respond to pla's motion to compel [74-1] (PWM) (Entered: 03/27/2002)

RECAP
79 March 26, 2002

MEMORANDUM by defendant Autozone, Inc. in support of supplemental motion for extension of time to respond to plas' motion to compel [78-1] (PWM) (Entered: 03/27/2002)

RECAP
80 March 26, 2002

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT by defendant Autozone, Inc. (PWM) (Entered: 03/27/2002)

RECAP
81 March 28, 2002

ORDER by Chief Judge James D. Todd granting motion to compel discovery [70-1] - until 4/12/02 to file its response to Plf's motion to compel - (cc: all counsel) (EJC) (Entered: 03/28/2002)

RECAP
82 March 28, 2002

MOTION by plaintiff EEOC for leave to modify the fule 16(b) scheduling Order (PWM) (Entered: 04/01/2002)

RECAP
83 March 28, 2002

MEMORANDUM by plaintiff in support of motion for leave to modify the fule 16(b) scheduling Order [82-1] (PWM) (Entered: 04/01/2002)

RECAP
84 March 28, 2002

CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTATION by plaintiff EEOC (PWM) (Entered: 04/01/2002)

RECAP
85 April 2, 2002

ORDER ON PLF EEOC UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TOMODIFY THE RULE 16(b) SCHEDULING ORDER by Chief Judge James D. Todd granting motion for leave to modify the fule 16(b) scheduling Order [82-1] Plfs' expert discl are due 9/1/02; Dft's expert discl are due 10/1/02; ddln for completing discovery is 1/1/03 and ddln for filing potentially dispositive motions is 3/1/03. Trial in this matter will be rescheduled for some time during the month of June 2003. The parties will receive a notice of the trial date. all counsel) (EJC) (Entered: 04/03/2002)

RECAP
86 April 12, 2002

MEMORANDUM by defendant Autozone, Inc. in opposition to motion to compel discovery [70-1] (document placed in seperate cover) (filed w/ exhibits 1-10) (Former Emp) (Entered: 04/12/2002)

RECAP
87 April 15, 2002

MOTION by defendant Autozone, Inc. to dismiss or to limit monetary relief or to limit temporal scope (PWM) (Entered: 04/16/2002)

RECAP
88 April 15, 2002

MEMORANDUM by defendant Autozone, Inc. in support of motion to dismiss or to limit monetary relief or to limit temporal scope (and on the issue of Laches) (filed w/ exhibits 1-14) (document placed under seperate cover) [87-1] (PWM) (Entered: 04/16/2002)

RECAP
89 April 18, 2002

MOTION by plaintiff EEOC for leave to file reply brief (PWM) (Entered: 04/19/2002)

RECAP
90 April 18, 2002

MEMORANDUM by plaintiff EEOC in support of motion for leave to file reply brief [89-1] (PWM) (Entered: 04/19/2002)

RECAP
91 April 18, 2002

MOTION by plaintiff EEOC for leave to file reply brief - CJT w/p/o - FMRJ 4/22/02 (EJC) (Entered: 04/23/2002)

RECAP
92 April 22, 2002

PROPOSED ORDER submitted by plaintiff EEOC - OJT (EJC) (Entered: 04/23/2002)

RECAP
93 April 30, 2002

UNOPPOSED MOTION by plaintiff EEOC for extended 30 days to reponse to dft's motion to dismiss or to limit monetary relief or to limit temporal scope (PWM) (Entered: 05/01/2002)

RECAP
94 April 30, 2002

MEMORANDUM by plaintiff EEOC in support of motion for extended 30 days to reponse to dft's motion to dismiss or to limit monetary relief or to limit temporal scope [93-1] (PWM) (Entered: 05/01/2002)

RECAP
95 April 30, 2002

CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTATION by plaintiff EEOC (PWM) (Entered: 05/01/2002)

RECAP
96 May 2, 2002

ORDER by Chief Judge James D. Todd granting motion to dismiss or to limit monetary relief or to limit temporal scope [87-1] - Plf is granted 30 days from the date of service of Dft's motion to dismiss to respond to that motion - (cc: all counsel) (EJC) (Entered: 05/03/2002)

RECAP
97 May 7, 2002

ORDER DIRECTING DFT TO REFILE ITS RESONSE & GRANTING PLA'S MOTION TO FILE A REPLY BRIEF. by Mag Judge J. D. Breen granting motion for leave to file reply brief [89-1] The dft is directed to resubmit its brief in respone to the pla's moiton to compel, limiting the pgs to 20 in number. Dft shall submit said responsive brief w/n 15 days of the entry of this order. Failure to do so may result in the motion of the pla being granted. In addition, the pla is granted 10 days from the submission of the dft's brief to file a reply brief, limited to 5 pgs in number. Both the responsive brief and reply brief shall be double spaced. (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 05/08/2002)

RECAP
98 May 15, 2002

RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS OR TO LIMIT TEMPORAL SCOPE AND ON THE ISSUE OF LACHES by plaintiff EEOC to [87-1] w/attached Exhibits [document placed in separate folder] (EHG) (Entered: 05/16/2002)

RECAP
99 May 20, 2002

ORDER by Mag Judge J. D. Breen : dft Autozone's motion to exceed the twenty page limit and to submit a twenty-seven page response is hereby GRANTED. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 05/21/2002)

RECAP
100 May 22, 2002

MEMORANDUM by defendant Autozone, Inc. in opposition to Plf EEOC's motion to compel - CJt - FMRJ 5/23/02 (EJC) (Entered: 05/24/2002)

RECAP

Case Details

State / Territory:

Tennessee

Case Type(s):

Equal Employment

Special Collection(s):

EEOC Study — in sample

Key Dates

Filing Date: Sept. 29, 2000

Closing Date: March 24, 2009

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, on behalf of one or more workers.

Plaintiff Type(s):

EEOC Plaintiff

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

EEOC

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

Private Entity/Person

Autozone, Inc.

Autozone, Inc.

Case Details

Causes of Action:

Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e

Other Dockets:

Western District of Tennessee 2:00-cv-02923

Available Documents:

Any published opinion

Trial Court Docket

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Defendant

Relief Granted:

None

Source of Relief:

Litigation

Amount Defendant Pays: 0

Issues

General/Misc.:

Pattern or Practice

Discrimination Area:

Disparate Treatment

Hiring

Promotion

Discrimination Basis:

Race discrimination

Sex discrimination

Affected Race(s):

Black

Affected Sex/Gender(s):

Female

EEOC-centric:

Direct Suit on Merits

Private Party intervened in EEOC suit

Recommended Citation