United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. AutoZone, Inc.
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10903
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- Kevin Stuckey, a black sales manager at AutoZone from 2008–2012, was transferred multiple times among Chicago stores without loss of pay, benefits, or job responsibilities.
- In July 2012 AutoZone transferred Stuckey from a predominantly Hispanic-serving Kedzie Avenue store to another store; Stuckey did not report to the new assignment and instead filed an EEOC charge alleging racial discrimination.
- EEOC sued under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(2), claiming AutoZone intentionally "limit[ed], segregate[d], or classif[ied]" employees to make the Kedzie store predominantly Hispanic.
- The transfer was undisputedly lateral (no demotion, pay cut, or reduced responsibilities); Stuckey admitted he did not mind the transfer and the new store was closer to the (outdated) address in his personnel file.
- District court granted summary judgment for AutoZone, concluding the transfer was not an adverse employment action; EEOC appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a § 2000e-2(a)(2) claim requires proof that the challenged action deprived or tended to deprive the employee of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affected employment status | EEOC: No such proof required; any racially motivated limitation/segregation/classification violates (a)(2) automatically | AutoZone: Plaintiff must show adverse effect on opportunities/status; absent that, no § (a)(2) liability | Court: Plaintiff must show the action deprived or tended to deprive employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affected status; EEOC’s automatic-violation reading rejected |
| Whether the July 2012 lateral transfer satisfied § 2000e-2(a)(2) elements | EEOC: Transfer was motivated by race to create a predominantly Hispanic workforce, so it violated (a)(2) | AutoZone: Transfer was lateral with no adverse effect; no liability | Court: No reasonable jury could find the lateral transfer deprived or tended to deprive Stuckey of opportunities or adversely affect his status; summary judgment for AutoZone affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Chaney v. Plainfield Ctr., 612 F.3d 908 (7th Cir. 2010) (involved § 2000e-2(a)(1) hostile-work-environment/BFOQ issues, not (a)(2))
- Kyles v. J.K. Guardian Sec. Servs., Inc., 222 F.3d 289 (7th Cir. 2000) (job-tester standing under § 2000e-2(a)(2); addressed injury/standing, not substantive element waiver)
- Minor v. Centocor, Inc., 457 F.3d 632 (7th Cir. 2006) (contrast between (a)(1) adverse-action requirement and broader scope of (a)(2))
- Herrnreiter v. Chicago Hous. Auth., 315 F.3d 742 (7th Cir. 2002) (purely lateral transfer with no demotion is not a materially adverse employment action under Title VII)
- Lucero v. Nettle Creek Sch. Corp., 566 F.3d 720 (7th Cir. 2009) (same principle regarding lateral transfers and adverse-action requirement)