Skip to main content

Appeals Court Refuses to Rehear Claim that Autozone Unlawfully Segregrated its Workforce


EEOC v. Autozone - Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals


Facts:  To make things concise, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") alleged that Autozone violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when it transferred a Hispanic employee and an African American employee from one store to another in order to separate its workers at each store by race.  The EEOC alleged that Autozone was attempting to segregate its store employees by race and moving these two particular employees was done to accomplish that purpose.  A panel of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ultimately found that no violation of Title VII had occurred in this instance.  The EEOC subsequently asked for an en bank rehearing of the panel's decision.

Holding:  Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it unlawful for an employer to "limit, segregate, or classify his employees...in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."  The Court of Appeals held that this "separate-but-equal" arrangement was permissible under Title VII so long as the separate facilities really were "equal".  In short, unless it can be established that an employer's intentional maintenance of racially segregated facilities diminish an employee's "pay, benefits, or job responsibilities", then the employer has not violated Title VII.

In this instance, there was no evidence that the employees that were transferred or the alleged segregation of the workforce impacted the pay, benefits, or job responsibilities of the employees.  Subsequently, with no violation of the law having been found to exist (based upon the application of the caselaw to the facts), the EEOC was left with little to rely upon in its request for a rehearing.

Judgment:  The Seventh Circuit declined the EEOC's request for an en banc rehearing on the grounds that the caselaw and evidence in the record did not warrant a review.

The Takeaway:  I do not come across many requests for a rehearing (let alone a request for an en banc rehearing before an entire Court of Appeals), but this was an interesting one.  While the Court's opinion here is rather short, it summarized the facts and applicable law quite well.  I think the thing to key in on in this case is the fact that the EEOC could not establish that this alleged segregation of some of Autozone's stores diminished an employee's "pay, benefits, or job responsibilities".  In essence, that is what the heart of the Court's analysis turned on, based upon the allegations.  Without being able to establish that Autozone's alleged segregation of employees "violated" this key principle, it in essence sunk their argument for an en banc rehearing.

Majority Opinion Judge:  Per Curiam

Date:  November 21, 2017

Opinion:  http://hr.cch.com/ELD/EEOCAutozone112117.pdf
 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more