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, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more