Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. AutoZone, Inc.

Decision Date30 September 2022
Docket Number14-cv-3385
PartiesEQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. AUTOZONE, INC. and AUTOZONERS, LLC, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Robert M. Dow, Jr. United States District Judge

In its governing second amended complaint [134][1] (“Complaint”), Plaintiff United States Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC) brings suit against Defendants AutoZone, Inc. and Autozoners, LLC (together, Defendants) for alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. Currently before the Court are EEOC's motion for partial summary judgment [297] and Defendants' motion for summary judgment [303]. For the following reasons, EEOC's motion for partial summary judgment [297] is denied and Defendants' motion for summary judgment [303] is granted in part and denied in part. Defendant AutoZone, Inc. is entitled to summary judgment on the claims brought against it. Defendants are also entitled to summary judgment on claimant Gomez's (1) retaliation claim and (2) failure to accommodate claim, but only to the extent EEOC seeks relief from the rotating shift requirement as a reasonable accommodation. Defendant's motion for summary judgment is otherwise denied. This case is set for a telephonic status hearing on October 17, 2022, at 9:45 a.m. Participants should use the Court's toll-free, call-in number 877-336-1829 passcode is 6963747 I Background

The following facts are taken from the parties' Local Rule 56.1 statements and supporting exhibits, see [265-3] [280-1], [280-2], [280-3], [292], [293], and are undisputed except where a dispute is noted.

A. The Parties

Plaintiff EEOC brings this lawsuit on behalf of eight claimants who were employed at AutoZone retail stores between 2009 and 2011. Defendant Autozoners, LLC (Autozoners) is a Nevada limited liability corporation doing business throughout the United States, including within this district. See [134] at 2. Defendant AutoZone, Inc. (AutoZone) is Autozoners' holding corporation and also a Nevada corporation. Id; see also [280-3] at 2. It is disputed which Defendant-Autozoners or AutoZone-employed the claimants. Defendants maintain that AutoZoners “is the entity that employed all claimants, all managers with responsibility over the claimants, and all decision-makers in this matter,” and AutoZone “is simply a holding company.” [280-3] at 1-2. EEOC disputes this on the basis that Defendants' employees understood that they were employed by an entity called “AutoZone” and not AutoZoners; and that AutoZone issued handbooks and attendance correction action forms to Defendants' employees. See id. at 2.

Claimants Gonzala Gomez (“Gomez”), Herman Matasar (“Matasar”), Adrian Viguera (“Viguera”), and Julio Lozada (“Lozada”) were employed by one or both Defendants at stores in the greater Chicago area, which were part of the Chicago Region at the time of the claimants' separations from Defendants. See [280-3] at 2-3. Tina Cleveland (“Cleveland”) was the Regional Human Resources Manager (“RHRM”) over the Chicago Region and, thus, had responsibility with respect to the stores in which claimants Gomez, Matasar, Lozada, and Viguera worked. See [280-3] at 3. She was a decision maker for the aggrieved individuals' terminations; Defendants maintain that she was the sole decisionmaker, while EEOC disputes this. See id.

Claimant Gary Clay[2] worked at an AutoZone in Waukegan, Illinois, which is part of the Milwaukee Region. [280-3] at 3. Claimant Dawn Blyden (formerly Devereau) (“Blyden”) was the RHRM over the Milwaukee Region, and thus over the store in which Clay worked. Id. Defendants maintain that Blyden decided to discharge Clay; EEOC disputes that Blyden was the sole decisionmaker. Id.

Claimants Kyle Jackson (“Jackson”),[3] Sean Robbins (“Robbins”), and Jerald Lindsey (“Lindsey”) were employed at AutoZone stores in the St. Louis Region. See [280-3] at 3-4. Rebecca Peetz (“Peetz”) was the RHRM over the St. Louis Region and, thus, had responsibility with respect to the stores in which claimants Jackson, Lindsey, and Robbins worked. She was a decision maker for the aggrieved individuals' terminations; Defendants maintain that she was the sole decisionmaker, while EEOC disputes this. See [280-3] at 4.

B. The Governing Second Amended Complaint

The EEOC alleges that all of the claimants made requests to have disability-related absences excused or covered by accrued vacation time. [280-3] at 4. However, the EEOC alleges, Defendants failed to make exceptions to their “no fault” attendance policy. Id. According to the EEOC, the claimants would not have been discharged but for absences that were inextricably linked to their disabilities. Id. at 4-5. The EEOC alleges that Defendants' conduct was intentional and done with malice or reckless indifference to the claimants' federally protected rights. See id. at 5. C. Defendants' Store Operations

The AutoZone stores at which the claimants' work consisted of: (a) only “do it yourself or DIY stores, which just sold to retail customers; (b) stores with both DIY and commercial departments, where the commercial departments serviced repair shops, tire stores, and other commercial accounts; or (c) hub stores, which had DIY, commercial, and hub departments. The “hub” department was like a warehouse and made deliveries to other AutoZone stores in the area.

The Store Manager was the highest-ranking manager on site who was regularly at the store. However, Store Managers have no authority to make termination decisions. See [280-3] at 5-6. Store Managers report to District Managers. District Managers, who oversee eight to twelve stores, also lack authority to make termination decisions. See id. at 6. District Managers report to the Regional Manager. While Regional Managers make termination decisions with respect to other issues, they do not decide to terminate individuals for attendance policy violations or job abandonment. See id. Decisions to terminate individuals for attendance policy violations or job abandonment are made by the RHRMs; it is disputed whether the RHRMs are the sole decisionmakers (as Defendants claim) or not (as EEOC claims). See id; [293] at 3.

Parts Sales Manager (“PSM”) is also a management position. PSMs are responsible for opening and closing the store and completing paperwork that requires a password, which provides greater access to information such as the manager's next-day review, processing returns, and receiving merchandise. See [280-3] at 7. A PSM would be the highest-ranking manager in the store if the Store Manager was not present and if the store either had no Assistant Store Manager or the Assistant Store Manager was also absent. Id.

Employees at a store are either Full-Time or Part-Time. AutoZone defines “FullTime” as being able to work any and all hours and days of the week that the stores are open. [280-3] at 7.

PartTime employees, in contrast, can limit their availability to work. However, EEOC disputes that this policy was consistently applied. See [280-3] at 7-8. According to Defendants, full-time managers are required to be able to work rotating shifts, meaning they will work some opening shifts, some closing shifts, and some mid-shifts depending on the day, and that they will not have a set schedule (working the same days/hours each week). Id. at 8. EEOC disputes this on the basis that Defendants have “indicated there are situations where full-time managers are given fixed schedules.” Id. EEOC cites to Gomez's testimony concerning her experience working at a different store (2257), which was under a different manager; she named three employees (Efrain, Paula, and Julio), two of whom were PSMs, who worked on a 7:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. scheduled without weekends or holidays. According to Defendants, Store 2257 had five to 6 PSMs and an assistant manager and store manager, while Store 2593 only had 3 or 4 PSMs and a store manager. [272-1] at 50. According to Defendants, there must be at least one manager and one other employee (who could also be a manager) present in order for the store to open. See [280-3] at 8-9. While EEOC does not dispute that this is Defendants' policy, it points out that Defendants' witnesses could not remember any time a store did not open and one witness recalled managers opening the store without another employee present. See id.

D. Attendance and the Points System

Defendants' employee handbook (“Handbook”) notified employees that they were expected to report to work on time and work all scheduled hours because [w]hen an AutoZoner is absent or late for work, it creates a hardship for other AutoZoners and jeopardizes customer service in AutoZone stores.” [280-3] at 9. EEOC disputes that all employees received the Handbook or received any training on attendance. See id. The Handbook also advised employees that “continued tardiness, unauthorized and/or unexcused absenteeism” could lead to discipline, including termination. Id. Employees were terminated for attendance issues during this time period, before AutoZone's formal points system went into effect. See [270-32] at 48. Employees were further advised that if they failed to call in or report to work for two consecutive days, AutoZone will “assume[] the AutoZoner has abandoned the job, and the AutoZoner's employment is automatically terminated.” [280-3] at 9.

The parties dispute how important it is for AutoZone employees to show up, and show up on time, for their scheduled shifts. EEOC claims that [a]t AutoZone, employees within a job title are fungible and are often called upon to cover each other's shifts and may even cover at stores other than their own.” [293] at 3; see also [292] at 2-3. EEOC points out...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT