Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Autozone, Inc.
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 3311
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- EEOC sued AutoZone on behalf of Shepherd alleging ADA discrimination and failure to accommodate for back injury caused by mopping duties.
- Shepherd requested accommodation to avoid mopping; AutoZone initially allowed but manager-level pressure undermined accommodations.
- September 12, 2003 flare-up led to medical leave; AutoZone advised against mopping but later terminated Shepherd’s employment after leave.
- First trial granted AutoZone summary judgment on accommodation claim; EEOC appealed and court remanded for trial on accommodation.
- Second trial awarded Shepherd back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, and an injunction; punitive damages later remitted to comply with cap.
- Court upheld most remedies but remanded to modify the first provision of the injunction with a time limit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue preclusion viability | EEOC contends preclusion does not apply due to different time periods. | AutoZone argues identical issue barred second verdict. | Not precluded; different periods meant different issues; remand denied judgment as a matter of law. |
| Expert testimony without report | EEOC argues treating physician exception allows without report. | AutoZone asserts Rule 26(a)(2)(B) violation precludes testimony. | No abuse of discretion; treating physician testimony permissible. |
| Compensatory damages | EEOC asserts $100,000 is supported by evidence of pain and life impact. | AutoZone seeks remittitur to $10,000. | Damages not monstrously excessive; affirmed $100,000. |
| Punitive damages | EEOC argues substantial evidence of malice or reckless indifference supports $500,000. | AutoZone seeks vacatur or remittitur to $10,000 for Due Process concerns. | Evidence supports punitive damages; award $200,000 permissible under Gore/Kolstad; due process not violated. |
| Injunction sufficiency and scope | EEOC seeks broad injunctive relief to enforce ADA compliance and policies. | AutoZone challenges obedience-injunction breadth and time limits. | Second and third provisions affirmed; first provision remanded for a reasonable time limit. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mobley v. Allstate Ins. Co., 531 F.3d 539 (7th Cir. 2008) (elements for ADA discrimination claim; qualification and accommodation)
- Matrix IV, Inc. v. American National Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago, 649 F.3d 539 (7th Cir. 2011) (elemental test for issue preclusion)
- H-D Mich., Inc. v. Top Quality Serv., Inc., 496 F.3d 755 (7th Cir. 2007) (interpretation of issue preclusion in the Seventh Circuit)
- Meyers v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., 619 F.3d 729 (7th Cir. 2010) (treating-physician exception to expert-report rule)
- Bruso v. United Airlines, Inc., 239 F.3d 848 (7th Cir. 2001) (agency/managerial liability and good-faith policy enforcement for punitive damages)
- Kolstad v. American Dental Ass’n, 527 U.S. 526 (1999) (three-part framework for punitive damages under § 1981a)
- Gore v. BMW of North America, Inc., 517 U.S. 559 (1996) (three Gore guideposts for due-process review of punitive damages)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003) (ratio and comparability guidance for punitive damages)
- Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471 (2008) (one-to-one punitive cap discussion; relevance limited in § 1981a context)
- Browning-Ferris Indus. of Vermont, Inc. v. Kelco Disposal, Inc., 492 U.S. 257 (1989) (comparing civil penalties to punitive damages; legislative judgments)