From labor disputes cases to labor and employment publications, for your research, you’ll find solutions on Bloomberg Law®. Protect your clients by developing strategies based on Litigation...
AutoZone Inc. didn’t unlawfully discriminate based on race when it transferred a black sales manager from a store in a predominantly Hispanic neighborhood in Chicago to one in a predominantly black area ( EEOC v. AutoZone, Inc. , 2017 BL 210658, 7th Cir., No. 15-3201, 6/20/17 ).
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission didn’t show former AutoZone manager Kevin Stuckey experienced an “adverse employment action” because the lateral transfer wouldn’t diminish his wages, benefits, or employment opportunities, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit said June 20. It affirmed a district court’s dismissal of the EEOC’s lawsuit under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
The decision is significant because it said even if an employer is accused of assigning or segregating a worker because of race, the EEOC must show the challenged action deprived or tended to deprive the individual of employment opportunities.
The EEOC argued if an employer tries to “limit, segregate, or classify” employees based on race, the agency doesn’t have to prove “adverse action” to raise a Title VII claim.
But that reading of Title VII “cannot be squared with the plain statutory text,” which requires a showing that a transfer or other challenged employment action would adversely affect the worker’s employment status, Judge Diane S. Sykes wrote for the Seventh Circuit. Judges Frank H. Easterbrook and Michael S. Kanne joined the opinion.
The EEOC declined to comment June 21. Attorneys representing the company didn’t respond to Bloomberg BNA’s request for comment.
Stuckey began working as an AutoZone sales manager in 2008.
In July 2012, Stuckey was working in a store in a largely Hispanic neighborhood in Chicago. His supervisor, who is also black, told Stuckey he was being transferred to a store on the city’s South Side, which has a predominantly black population.
But Stuckey chose to quit rather than accept the transfer. Stuckey alleged that when he asked Robert Harris, the AutoZone district manager, why he was being transferred, Harris said he was trying to “keep the Kedzie store predominantly Hispanic.”
Stuckey’s transfer didn’t entail any reduction in pay, benefits, or job responsibilities. He also admitted that Harris never mentioned Stuckey’s race or the race of any other AutoZone employee during their conversation.
The EEOC alleged AutoZone violated a Title VII provision making it unlawful for employers to “segregate” their workforce by race “in any way that would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities” or otherwise “adversely affect his status” as an employee.
No evidence of diminished employment opportunities or “adverse” effects on employment status is needed when an employer engages in such workforce segregation, the agency argued.
The EEOC’s interpretation “eliminates much of the statutory text,” the court said. Title VII requires “case-specific proof” an employer’s challenged action actually had adverse effects on an individual’s employment status or would “tend to deprive” that individual of employment opportunities, Sykes wrote.
Nothing suggested the July 2012 transfer “even tended to deprive” Stuckey of any job opportunity, the court said.
An EEOC attorney in Washington represented the commission. Jones Walker LLP and SmithAmundsen LLC represented AutoZone.
To contact the reporter on this story: Kevin McGowan in Washington at firstname.lastname@example.org
Text of the opinion is available at http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/EEOC_v_AutoZone_Inc_No_153201_2017_BL_210658_7th_Cir_June_20_2017?doc_id=X1NHK8D10000N.
Copyright © 2017 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)