Case 3:06-cv-00862-TJC-MCR Document 9 Filed 12/18/2006 Page 1 of 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

~TEDSTATESEQUALE~LOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

EVA CRAWFORD,

Case No.: 3:06-cv-862-J-32MCR

Intervenor, v.

AUTOZONE, INC.

Defendant.
------------------------------~/
INTERVENOR'S COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

1. This suit is brought and jurisdiction lies pursuant to §706 of the

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5.

This Court has original jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§1343(a)(4). This suit is also brought pursuant to the Florida Civil Rights

Act of 1992, Fla. Stat. 760 et seq., over which this Court has supplemental

jurisdiction.

2. Intervenor, Eva Crawford, is a citizen of the United States and

the state of Florida, and at all times material to this Complaint was a resident

of Bradford County, Florida.

1

Case 3:06-cv-00862-TJC-MCR Document 9 Filed 12/18/2006 Page 2 of 8
3. Defendant, Autozone, Inc. is a corporation licensed to do business in the state of Florida and in the city of Starke, Florida.
4. Defendant, Autozone, Inc., at all times material to this Complaint, has employed fifteen (15) or more employees, and is an "employer" within the meaning of Title VII and the Florida Civil Rights Act.
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT 5. The Intervenor has filed timely administrative charges of employment discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). The EEOC has filed a Civil Action with the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville, Division, wherein Intervenor has filed a Motion to Intervene. All of the discriminatory employment practices alleged herein were committed within the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division. 6. Intervenor also dual filed her charge of employment discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations. Intervenor has complied with all conditions precedent before filing suit under the Florida Civil Rights Act in that this lawsuit was filed after this matter had been pending before the Florida Commission on Human Relations for more than 180 days. This lawsuit was further filed within four years of the discriminatory acts complained of herein.
2

Case 3:06-cv-00862-TJC-MCR Document 9 Filed 12/18/2006 Page 3 of 8
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
7. Ms. Crawford worked for the Defendant, as Manager of the Commercial Department, from on or about November of 2000 until on or about January 12,2006 when she was unlawfully terminated. On or about October of 2005, Mr. Steve Wilber became the Parts Sales Manager working at the same location as Plaintiff.
8. On a regular and daily basis, Mr. Wilber subjected Plaintiff to a sexually hostile work environment. This included several overtly sexual comments including, but not necessarily limited to, the following: claiming that he is "hung like a horse"; claiming that older men are better lovers; asking if Plaintiff has ever eaten "cooter"; asking if Plaintiff has ever eaten "mountain oysters" and explaining that it meant bull testicles; references to "eating pussy" and other slang references to female genitalia; claiming that he had to deal to "fuck" a customer's daughter ten times in exchange for a part; stating that he is going to put mistletoe on his belt for Christmas, apparently suggesting that his private parts should be kissed, stating that he used to have an 18 year old wife and that he didn't know whether to spank or "fuck" her, etc.
9. Ms. Crawford repeatedly complained of sexual harassment to the Store Manager, Mike Bowen, who eventually communicated to the District Manager, Sonny Raymond, that Ms. Crawford had complained.
3

Case 3:06-cv-00862-TJC-MCR Document 9 Filed 12/18/2006 Page 4 of 8
Although Mr. Wilbur was eventually transferred to another store, this was after Plaintiff had repeatedly and regularly been harassed. Further, the District Manager tenninated Ms. Crawford for supposedly having participated in sexual comments. Defendant's articulated reason for tenninating Ms. Crawford is untrue and is merely a pretext for discrimination based on sex and unlawful retaliation for complaining of sex discrirninationlharassment. Plaintiff would not have been tenninated but for these unlawful motivations.
10. While the administrative charge in this case was pending, the employer then acknowledged that Plaintiff herself did not participate in the harassment or use inappropriate language. Rather, the employer gave an alternative explanation and claimed that it terminated Plaintiff for not complaining about the sexual harassment soon enough. This alternative explanation is also false and pretextual. Plaintiff began complaining of the harassment at the same time as other employees, but Plaintiff was the only one tenninated for it.
COUNT I SEX DISCRIMINATION AND HARASSMENT, AND
UNLAWFUL RETLATION, IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VIIOF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, AS AMENDED IN 1991,42 U.S.C. 2000e ET SEQ. 11. Intervenor restates and realleges each and every factual allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 10.
4

Case 3:06-cv-00862-TJC-MCR Document 9 Filed 12/18/2006 Page 5 of 8
12. During her employment, Plaintiff was subjected to unwelcome sexual harassment. It was sufficiently severe such that it affected the terms and conditions of Plaintiffs' employment. It also affected Plaintiff in a tangible way since it culminated in the termination of her employment. The employer knew about said harassment, but failed to take prompt remedial action, and terminated Plaintiff instead.
l3. The reasons that the employer has given for the termination of Plaintiff's employment are merely pretext for discrimination based on sex and unlawful retaliation. Moreover, Plaintiff would not have been termination but for these unlawful motivations.
WHEREFORE, Intervenor demands a trial by jury and relief in the form of economic damages, backpay and frontpay, compensatory damages and emotional distress damages, lost benefits, punitive damages, attorney's fees and costs with prejudgment interest thereon, injunctive relief including reinstatement, and any other such relief that Intervenor may be entitled to under the law or in equity.
COUNT II SEX DISCRIMINATION AND HARASSMENT, AND ULAWFUL RETALIATION, IN VIOLATION OF THE FLORIDA CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1992 FLA. STAT. 760 ET SEQ. 14. Intervenor restates and realleges each and every factual allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 10.
5

Case 3:06-cv-00862-TJC-MCR Document 9 Filed 12/18/2006 Page 6 of 8
15. During her employment, Plaintiff was subjected to unwelcome sexual harassment. It was sufficiently severe such that it affected the terms and conditions of Plaintiffs' employment. It also affected Plaintiff in a tangible way since it culminated in the termination of her employment. The employer knew about said harassment, but failed to take prompt remedial action, and terminated Plaintiff instead.
16. The reasons that the employer has given for the termination of Plaintiff's employment are merely pretext for discrimination based on sex and unlawful retaliation. Moreover, Plaintiff would not have been termination but for these unlawful motivations.
17. Defendant's discrimination and retaliation caused, continues to cause, and will cause Intervenor to suffer substantial damages for lost wages, and other pecuniary losses, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other non-pecuniary losses.
WHEREFORE, Intervenor demands a trial by jury and relief in the form of economic damages, backpay and frontpay, compensatory damages and emotional distress damages, lost benefits, punitive damages, attorney's fees and costs with prejudgment interest thereon, injunctive relief including reinstatement, and any other such relief that Intervenor may be entitled to under the law or in equity.
6

Case 3:06-cv-00862-TJC-MCR Document 9 Filed 12/18/2006 Page 7 of 8
DEMAND FOR JURy TRIAL Intervenor hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
Respectfully submitted, MAGID & WILLIAMS, P.A. 3100 University Boulevard South Suite ll5 Jacksonville, Florida 32216 (904) 725-6161 Telephone (904) 725-3410 Facsimile lsi P. Daniel Williams P. Daniel Williams, Esq. Florida Bar No. 0036625 dan@magidwilliams.com Leonard S. Magid, Esq. Florida Bar No. 0717101 len@magidwilliams.com
7

Case 3:06-cv-00862-TJC-MCR Document 9 Filed 12/18/2006 Page 8 of 8
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 18th day of December, 2006, I electronically filed Intervenor's Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system which will send a notice of electronic filing to the following:
Cheryl A. Cooper, Esquire United States Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower, Suite 2700 2 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131-1805 and by U.S. Mail to: Richard A. Hammond, Esquire Jennifer R. Guckert, Esquire The Kullman Firm 1640 Lelia Drive, Suite 120 Jackson, Mississippi 39216
/s/ P. Daniel Williams P. Daniel Williams, Esquire
8

 
 FILED

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

, 20Gb )EP 2CJ I A 8: 58

UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
AUTOZONE, INC.
Defendant.

)

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO.

)

)

COMPLAINT

)

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

)

)

) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF REQUESTED

)

)

)

NATURE OF TI IE ACTION

This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII") and Title I

of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, to correct unlav.'ful employment practices on the basis of sex.

female. and retaliation and to provide appropriate relief due to Eva Cnmford ("Cra\\ford") and a

class of similarly situated womcn who were adversely affected by such practices. As stated with

greater particularity in the paragraphs below. the United States Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission (hereinafter the "EEOC" or "Commission") alleges that Defendant discriminated

against Ms. Crawford and a class of similarly situated women bccause of their sex by subjecting

them to sexual harassment in violation of Title VII. Furthermore. the Commission contends that

Defendant terminated Ms. Cn1\vfon.l in retaliation for asserting her rights in violation of Title

VII.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.c. §§ 451, 1331, 1337,

1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706 (f)(l) and (3) of

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. as amended. 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(f)(l) and (3) ("'Title VII") and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991.42 U.S.C. § 1981a.
2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Jacksonville Division.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff. the EEOC. is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration. interpretation and enforcement of Title VII. and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII. 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(t)(I) and (3). 4. At all relevant times. Defendant has been a Tennessee corporation continuously doing business in the State of Florida and the City of Starke. and has continuously had at least IS employees. 5. At all relevant times. Defendant has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce \vithin the meaning of Sections 70 I(b). (g) and (h) of Title VII. 42 U .S.c. §§ 2000e(b). (g) and (h).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 6. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Eva Crawford filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 7, Since at least September 2005, Defendant has engaged in unla\\ful employment practices in violation of Sections 703(a) and 704(a) of Title VII. 42 U.S.c. § 2000e-2(a) and §2000e-3(a).
a. E\'a Crawford began working for Defendant at its Starke, Florida facility on or
2

about November 13,2001. On or about April 6. 2003. she was Commercial Manager at the store.

b. Steve Wilber began \vorking as a Parts Sales Manager at Defendant's Starke, Florida facility on or about September 21.2005.

c. From September :2005 through December 2005, ~vlr. Wilber regularly made ul1\ve\come sexual advances and highly offensive sexual comments to Ms. Crawford and other similarly situated women.

d. During September, October. November. and December 2005. Ms. Cra\\ford and other similarly situated women complained about the sexual harassment to the Store Manager. Ms. Crawford also complained about the harassment to the District Manager.

e. On or about January 11, 2006. Defendant began investigating the sexual harassment complaints.

f. Defendant terminated Ms. Crawford on January 12, 2006.

8.

The effect of the unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph

seven (7) above has been to deprive Eva Crawford and a class of similarly situated women of

equal employment opportunities, and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees

because of their sex and/or in retaliation for opposing unlawful employment practices.

9. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were intentional.

10. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph seven (7) above

were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Eva

Cra\\iord and a class of similarly situated women.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wheretore. the Commission requests that this Court:

A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, its officers, successors,

assigns and all persons in active concert or participation with it. from engagIng In sexual

harassment or any other employment practice which discriminates on the basis of sex.

3

B. Grant a permanent injunction enJollllllg Defendant. its officers. successors. assigns and all persons in active concert or panicipation with it. from retaliating against any employee for participating in protected activity.
C. Order Defendant to institute and carry OLit policies. practices, and programs which provide equal employment oppOItunities for women which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices.
D. Order Defendant to make whole Eva Crawford by providing appropriate back pay with prejudgment interest. in amounts to be determined at trial. and other affinnative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices, including but not limited to, reinstatement, rightful-place hiring, and front pay.
E. Order Defendant to make whole Eva Crawford by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the employment practices described in paragraph seven (7) above, including but not limited to. out-or-pocket losses. medical expenses and job search expenses, in amounts to be determined at trial.
F. Order Defendant to make whole Eva Crawford and a class of similarly situated women by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the employment practices described in paragraph seven (7) above, including but not limited to. emotional pain. suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, and humiliation. in amounts to be determined at trial.
G. Order Defendant to pay punitive damages for its malicious and reckkss conduct described in paragraph seven (7) above, in an amount to be determined at trial.
H. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest.
4

H. Award the Commission its costs of this action. JURY TRIAL DEMAND
The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its Complaint.
Respectfully Submitted,
RONALD S. COOPER General Counsel JAtv1ES 1. LEE Deputy General Counsel GWENDOL YN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel DELNER FRANKLIN-THOMAS Regional Attorney
Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower. Suite 2700 Two South Biscayne Boulevard Miami. FL 33131-1805 Tel.: (305) 808-1783 Fax: (305) 808-1835 maritza.!!.omez({Lccoc .gOY
5

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

and

EVA CRAWFORD,

Plaintiff/Intervenor,

vs.

Case No. 3:06-cv-862-J-32MCR

AUTOZONE, INC.,

Defendant. _____________________________________/

O R D E R

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order

(Doc. 19) filed on October 3, 2007. Plaintiffs, the United States Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and Eva Crawford (“Crawford”) (collectively

“Plaintiffs”) filed a response (Doc. 22) on October 26, 2007. Defendant filed a reply brief

(Doc. 31) on November 15, 2007 and Plaintiffs filed a sur-reply (Doc. 33) on November

16, 2007. The Court has considered the parties’ arguments and finds Defendant’s

Motion for Protective Order is due to be granted.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, the EEOC, filed sexual harassment and retaliation claims against

Defendant for violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-

-1-

5(f)(1). (Doc. 1). Plaintiff Crawford intervened in the case and filed her own claims for

violation of Title VII and the Florida Civil Rights Act on the basis of sexual discrimination,

harassment and retaliation. (Doc. 9). During discovery, the EEOC served Defendant

with numerous requests for production which included, inter alia, requests for

Defendant’s policies, procedures, and training manuals relating to sexual harassment

and/or retaliation. Defendant responded to the EEOC’s requests, objecting to the

requests as overly-broad, irrelevant, and unduly burdensome; however, Defendant also

stated that without waiving its objections, it would produce documentation of its policies

and training materials, including its Store Handbook, its Code of Conduct, and excerpts

of its Human Resources Toolbook. (Doc. 19, pp. 2-3).

Defendant contends that

on the date it provided over 1,000 pages to the EEOC in response to the EEOC’s

discovery requests, Defendant informed the EEOC that the production of certain

documents would be subject to the execution of a confidentiality agreement. (Doc. 31,

p. 2). Evidently, the parties thereafter circulated proposed confidentiality agreements

and discussed such proposed agreements, albeit ultimately they were unable to agree

on this issue. Id. Defendant states that during these discussions it made various

compromises as to which documents would be governed by the confidentiality order.

Id.

In September 2007, Defendant supplemented its responses to the EEOC’s

request for production of documents and specifically noted that its “Investigative

Interviewing” training content, forms, and examination materials (the “training manual”)

are proprietary, confidential, and subject to protection under Rule 26(c)(7). Id. Plaintiffs

-2-

dispute that Defendant’s training manual should be the subject of a confidentiality order. Defendant now moves for a protective order limiting the use and dissemination of
the training manual. (Doc. 19, p. 1). Defendant clearly explains it is not seeking to prohibit Plaintiffs from discovering this information; rather, it wants assurance that Plaintiffs will not use the information for purposes outside of this litigation. Id. at 3. Defendant states it developed its human resources training manual for the purpose of training its management level employees on investigative techniques. Id. Defendant’s Director of Human Resources and Training, Ann Morgan, certifies that Defendant does not share this information with the public and in fact, has only provided access to this information to three of its five Divisional Human Resources Managers. (Doc. 19-3). Ms. Morgan further certifies that no other employees have access to this training manual. Id. Both Ms. Morgan and Defendant state Defendant invested a great deal of time and effort in creating the training manual and the policies within it. Id; (Doc. 19, p.4). They further assert the training manual and the policies within the training manual enable Defendant to differentiate itself from its competitors. (Docs. 19, p. 4; 19-3). Finally, Defendant contends its competitors would gain an unfair advantage if they gained access to the training material. Id.
Plaintiffs oppose the entry of a confidential order for two reasons. First, Plaintiffs argue Defendant waived its right to assert a confidentiality objection. (Doc. 22, pp. 4-5). Second, Plaintiffs argue that Defendant has failed to meet its burden demonstrating that the training manual is proprietary or confidential. Id. at 5-9.
-3-

II. ANALYSIS A court may enter a protective order upon motion of a party “for good cause
shown.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). Upon a finding of good cause, the Court may make any order “which justice requires to protect a party from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression or undue burden or expense, including” . . .”that a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information not be revealed or be revealed only in a designated way.” Id. Moreover, the Court may agree to enter a protective order when it is necessary to expedite the flow of discovery material, promote prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality, and facilitate the preservation of material arguably worthy of protection. DYC Fishing, Ltd. v. Beaver Street Fisheries, Inc., Case No. 3:05-cv-481-J-25TEM, 2007 WL 1655389, *2 (M.D. Fla. June 6, 2007) (citing McCarthy v. Barnett Bank of Polk County, 876 F.2d 89, 91 (11th Cir. 1989) and In re Alexander Grant & Co. Litigation, 820 F.2d 352, 356 (11th Cir. 1987).
A. Waiver As an initial matter, the Court finds Defendant has not waived any argument it has concerning confidentiality. In their brief, Plaintiffs cite cases to support their contention that because Defendant did not initially object to disclosure of the training manual based on confidentiality, they have now waived such objection. This argument is unsupported, however, by the cases Plaintiffs cite. To the contrary the cases on which Plaintiffs rely make it clear that a court has discretion to excuse the failure to object in a timely manner. See United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC v. Ivaco, No. 1:01-CV-0426-CAP, 2002 WL 31932875, *4 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 13, 2003); Blumenthal
-4-

v. Drudge, 186 F.R.D. 236, 240 (D. D.C. 1999). Notably, “minor procedural violations, good faith attempts at compliance, and other mitigating circumstances will militate against finding waiver.” Ivaco, 2002 WL at *4.
Defendant, in its initial response to the EEOC’s request for production, objected on various bases; however, Defendant’s response did not include a confidentiality objection. On the other hand, Defendant’s response did note that it would only produce “excerpts from its Human Resources Toolbook.” Nevertheless, on the date Defendant produced documents responsive to the EEOC’s requests, Defendant informed the EEOC that production of certain documents would be subject to a confidentiality order. The parties then engaged in discussions concerning the text of proposed agreements. Indeed, Plaintiffs were put on notice that Defendant believed several of its documents constituted confidential information. Thus, the circumstances in this case do not necessitate a finding that Defendant waived its confidentiality objection.
B. Commercial Information The parties dispute whether Defendant’s training manual constitutes a trade secret or other confidential research, development or commercial information and whether Defendant has shown good cause to keep such information private. Pursuant to Rule 26(c)(7), upon finding a showing of good cause, the Court may enter an order which prevents a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information from being revealed or which only allows such information to be revealed in a designated way. Although “good cause” is not subject to a precise
-5-

definition, “it generally signifies a sound basis or legitimate need to take action.” In re Alexander, 820 F.2d at 356.
In determining whether Defendant has shown good cause, the undersigned is required to balance Plaintiffs’ interest in obtaining access to this information and using it outside of this litigation against Defendant’s interest in keeping the information confidential. Id. (“[T]his circuit has superimposed a “balancing of interests” approach to Rule 26(c).”); Farnsworth v. Procter & Gamble Co., 758 F.2d 1545, 1547 (11th Cir. 1985) (stating that “the federal courts have superimposed a somewhat more demanding balancing of interests approach to the Rule” which requires a court to balance one party’s interest in obtaining the information from the other party’s interest in keeping it confidential).
Defendant argues it has shown good cause for this Court to issue a protective order because the undisputed facts demonstrate the training manual was specifically developed by Defendant, used only with certain management employees, is not publicly available, and represents valuable development and commercial information of Defendant. (Doc. 31, p. 3). Rule 26(c) does not provide an absolute privilege which shields trade secrets and similar confidential information from discovery. Empire of Carolina, Inc. v. Mackle, 108 F.R.D. 323, (S.D. Fla. 1985). A party resisting discovery of confidential information is required to show that the information sought is confidential and that disclosure might be harmful. Id; DYC Fishing, Ltd., 2007 WL at *1 (finding that because the requested documents were confidential and disclosure could cause potential injury to defendant, defendant’s interests in keeping the information
-6-

confidential far outweighed plaintiff’s desire for free use of the discovered documents), but see Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. v. Phosphate Engineering and Const. Co., Inc.,153 F.R.D. 686, 688 (M.D. Fla. 1994) (requiring proof that information is confidential and disclosure would be harmful before issuing a protective order).
Importantly, Defendant has taken adequate precautions to keep the requested information in its training manual confidential. In fact, only three of Defendant’s five managers have access to the information. Moreover, Defendant utilized substantial time and resources in developing its training manual. Despite Plaintiffs’ assertion that this information is not related to Defendant’s business of selling automobile parts, the training manual is an integral part of Defendant’s business because a company’s human resources department and human resources practices may play a vital role in hiring and retaining employees. Thus, the training manual is confidential commercial information.
Defendant and Ms. Morgan represent that Defendant ‘s training program is intended to teach the regional human resources managers how to consistently conduct investigations with respect and integrity. (Doc. 19-3, p. 2). They believe Defendant’s approach to teamwork and its business environment, as reflected by its training manual, differentiates it from its competition. Arguably, disclosing this information could cause harm to Defendant in that other companies, including its competitors, would have an opportunity to gain insight into Defendant’s private business operations and may piggyback off Defendant’s efforts and work product, which Defendant took precautions to protect; however, the Court is not convinced that disclosure of these materials would
-7-

in fact result in harm to Defendant. Nevertheless, the fact that Defendant is willing to disclose this information to Plaintiffs as long as Plaintiffs agree to use it for purposes of this litigation only, in addition to the fact that Plaintiffs have failed to offer any justification for use of this information outside of this litigation, leads this Court to conclude that such information should not be disclosed outside of this litigation.
Before concluding, however, the Court notes Plaintiffs assert two additional points which merit discussion. First, Plaintiffs argue that Defendant cannot use evidence of the investigation as a sword to prove its affirmative defense, yet also shield Plaintiff from the training materials Defendant used to conduct its investigation regarding the incidents alleged in this case. (Doc. 22, p. 8). This argument is inapplicable because Defendant is not using the training manual as a shield; it is willing to disclose such information, so long as Plaintiffs maintain its confidentiality.
Next, although Plaintiffs assert it seeks to use the training materials for litigation, they also argue that public access to the courts outweighs any privacy interest of Defendant regarding these materials. (Doc. 22, p. 9). Plaintiffs misconstrue the common law and First Amendment right to access as they apply to this issue. The Eleventh Circuit has provided a clear explanation of these rights in Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2001). Specifically the Eleventh Circuit has noted that the First Amendment right of access to civil cases is more limited than in criminal cases -- which requires a court to find a compelling governmental interest before it limits access to a proceeding. Id. at 1310. The court articulated that “[m]aterials merely gathered as a result of the civil discovery process . . . do not fall
-8-

within the scope of the constitutional right of access’s compelling interest standard.” Id. (citing Alexander Grant & Co. Litigation, 820 F.2d 352, 355 (11th Cir. 1987). Moreover,
“discovery materials and proceedings are not public components of a civil trial . . .they
are conducted in private as a matter of modern practice. . . .Therefore, restraints placed
on discovered, but not yet admitted, information are not a restriction on a traditionally
public source of information.” Id. at 355 n. 6. Finally, the Eleventh Circuit noted that
“public disclosure of discovery material is subject to the discretion of the trial court and
the federal rules that circumscribe that discretion.” Id. at 355. As Chicago Tribune Co.
makes clear, the First Amendment does not guarantee a right of access to discovery
material and thus, there is no First Amendment right of access to Defendant’s training
manual at this time.
The Eleventh Circuit also explains the common-law right of access in Chicago
Tribune Co., stating:
[b]eyond establishing a general presumption that criminal and civil actions should be conducted publicly, the common-law right of access includes the right to inspect and copy public records and documents. The right to inspect and copy is not absolute, however, and a judge’s exercise of discretion in deciding whether to release judicial records should be informed by a ‘sensitive appreciation of the circumstances that led to . . . [the] production [of the particular document in question.] Not unlike the Rule 26 standard, the common-law right of access requires a balancing of competing interests.
Id. at 1311. (internal citations omitted). The Court distinguished items which are
considered public or judicial records from those that are not, stating that the media and
public presumptively have access to the former, but not the latter. Id. Finally, the court
described situations which require heightened scrutiny when a court conceals records
-9-

from the public and media, id; however, these situations described are inapplicable to the instant case.
Here, Defendant seeks an order designating its training manual as confidential and requests Plaintiffs not use this material outside of this litigation. Notably, Defendant’s proposed protective order permits use of the training manual at trials, hearings, or depositions, and also permits it to be copied as an exhibit to depositions, motions, or other court filings in this litigation. Thus, limiting Plaintiffs’ use of these materials for purposes of this litigation only will not infringe the common-law right to access. Moreover, upon balancing the parties’ competing interests, the Court finds Defendant’s interest in keeping its commercial documents confidential outweighs Plaintiffs’ arguments otherwise. In fact, Plaintiffs fail to assert any basis for wanting to use this information outside of this litigation. Similarly, Plaintiffs fail to offer any persuasive argument regarding why Defendant’s training manual should not be designated confidential or subject to Defendants’ proposed protective order.
In sum, the Court finds Defendant’s training manual is confidential commercial information. Although Defendant has not demonstrated with particularity the harm that will occur upon disclosure of this material, Defendant is not seeking to preclude Plaintiff from obtaining this information. Rather, it seeks to disclose the requested information under the guarantee that this information will not be used outside this litigation. Plaintiffs are directed to refrain from any public disclosure of Defendant’s training manual outside of this litigation. See American Standard Inc. V. Humphrey, 2007 WL 1812506, *3 (M.D. Fla. 2007) (requiring plaintiff to refrain from disclosing confidential
-10-

information to anyone other than parties and representatives of parties, and further limiting Plaintiff’s use of the information to matters pertaining to the instant litigation, despite the fact that defendant failed to show disclosure of confidential information would be harmful).
Finally, the Court has considered Defendant’s proposed protective order (Doc. 19-4 ), and finds the entry of this order is appropriate to expedite the flow of discovery material, promote the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality, and facilitate the preservation of material arguably worthy of protection. DYC Fishing, Ltd., 2007 WL at *2. The Court adopts the terms of the Proposed Protective Order drafted by the parties and attached to this Order.1 The parties are hereby bound by the terms of the attached Protective Order. Notably, the Protective Order permits any party to apply to the Court for a modification of such order.
Accordingly, after due consideration, it is hereby
1 The Court has revised the order by deleting the term “Proposed” in the order’s title and has revised a clerical error in the proposed order, i.e., it changed the word “Defendants” to “Plaintiffs” in paragraph 1 to reflect Defendant’s presumed intentions.
-11-

ORDERED: 1. Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order (Doc. 19) is GRANTED. 2. The parties shall be bound by the terms of the attached Protective Order. 3. Plaintiffs are directed to limit disclosure of Defendant’s “Investigative Interviewing” training content, forms, and examination materials for use in this litigation only.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Jacksonville, Florida this 7th day of December, 2007.

Copies to: Counsel of Record

MONTE C. RICHARDSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-12-

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

and

EVA CRAWFORD,

Plaintiff/Intervenor,

vs.

Case No. 3:06-cv-862-J-32MCR

AUTOZONE, INC.,

Defendant. _____________________________________/

O R D E R

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiff/Intervenor’s Motion to Quash and/or

Motion for Protective Order (Doc. 26) filed on November 8, 2007. Defendant filed a

response (Doc. 32) on November 16, 2007. Accordingly, this matter is ripe for review.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, the EEOC, filed sexual harassment and retaliation claims against

Defendant for violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-

5(f)(1). (Doc. 1). Plaintiff Crawford intervened in the case and filed her own claims for

violation of Title VII and the Florida Civil Rights Act on the basis of sexual discrimination,

harassment, and retaliation. (Doc. 9). On or about October 15, 2007, Defendant

served Plaintiff Crawford’s current employer, Discount Auto Parts, with a subpoena

-1-

requiring it to produce the “employment records of [Plaintiff Crawford], including but not limited to her, [sic] personnel file, payroll report(s), benefits file, and any and all performance evaluations, disciplinary actions, counselings, and records re termination and/or eligibility for rehire.” (Doc. 26-2). Defendant, however, failed to provide Plaintiffs with notice of the subpoena and thus, failed to provide Plaintiffs with an opportunity to object before serving the subpoena on Discount Auto Parts. On November 8, 2007, after receiving notice of the subpoena, Plaintiff Crawford filed this Motion, requesting the Court to quash the subpoena or alternatively, to issue a protective order. (Doc. 26). Prior to Plaintiff Crawford’s filing of this Motion, however, Discount Auto Parts provided a package of documents to Defendant in an apparent effort to comply with the subpoena. (Doc. 26, p. 12). Defendant has not yet inspected the documents and has agreed not to inspect them until resolution of this Motion. Id. II. ANALYSIS
As an initial matter, Defendant argues Plaintiff Crawford lacks standing to object to the subpoena. (Doc. 32, pp. 2-3). Ordinarily a party does not have standing to quash a subpoena served on a third party unless the party seeks to quash based on a personal right or privilege relating to the documents being sought. See State of Fla. ex rel. Butterworth v. Jones Chemicals, Inc., 1993 WL 388645 at *2 (M.D.Fla. 1993) (“Generally, it is the person to whom a subpoena is directed who has standing to seek a motion to quash.”). When, however, a party alleges a “personal right or privilege,” courts may confer standing on a party. See Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Southeast Floating Docks, Inc., 231 F.R.D. 426, 429 (M.D. Fla. 2005). “Personnel files and records and
-2-

[sic] are confidential in nature and . . . in most circumstances, they should be protected from wide dissemination. Williams v. Board of County Comm’rs, No. Civ. A. 98-2485JTM, 2000 WL 133433, at *1 (D. Kan. Jan. 21, 2000) (citations omitted). When, however, a plaintiff brings a claim for discrimination and seeks damages for emotional distress, the plaintiff may have waived some of her privacy interests. See e.g., Brady v. Central Indiana Regional Blood Center, No. 1:99-MC-19, 1999 WL 33912610, *1 (N.D. Ind. Oct. 6, 1999) (stating that by bringing a Title VII claim of harassment or retaliatory discharge, the plaintiff waives most of her privacy interests). It is thus, arguable that Plaintiff Crawford may have waived some of her privacy interests when she asserted her claims against Defendant; however, because the Court cannot find as a matter of law that Plaintiff Crawford has waived all of her privacy interests, in addition to the fact that she has standing to bring a motion for a protective order under Federal Rule 26, the Court finds Plaintiff Crawford has standing to contest the subpoena.
Before addressing the parties’ substantive arguments, the Court will consider Plaintiff Crawford’s argument that the subpoena should be quashed because she was not given prior notice of Defendant’s intent to serve the subpoena. (Doc. 26, p. 12). Rule 45(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires “prior notice” of a subpoena; however, it does not define prior notice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(b)(1). Prior notice has been interpreted by some courts as a requirement that the party issuing the subpoena must provide notice to all opposing parties before it issues the subpoena to a non-party. Butler v. Biocore Medical Technologies, Inc., 348 F.3d 1163, 1173 (10th Cir. 2003) (finding that Rule 45(b)(1) requires notice to be given prior to service of a
-3-

subpoena). On the other hand, other courts have determined that as long as the subpoena is served simultaneously on both the opposing party and the non-party, Rule 45(b)(1)’s prior notice requirement is met. Florida Media, Inc. v. World Publications LLC, 236 F.R.D. 693, 694-95 (M.D. Fla. 2006) (noting that the Eleventh circuit has not interpreted “prior notice” under Rule 45(b)(1) and interpreting “prior notice” to mean simultaneously with the service of the subpoena) (internal citations omitted). Here, Defendant does not dispute that prior notice is required; rather, Defendant inadvertently failed to give any notice to Plaintiffs. Defendant argues, however, that because Plaintiffs had constructive notice of the subpoena and thus, had an opportunity to object, there was no harm caused by Defendant’s inadvertent failure to give prior notice. (Doc. 32, p. 8). Moreover, Defendant points to the fact that it has not yet viewed the documents as further evidence that Plaintiff was not harmed by its failure to provide prior notice. Id.
Unfortunately, Discount Auto Parts learned of the subpoena and responded to it before Plaintiff Crawford had an opportunity to object. Notably, however, Plaintiff Crawford has not asserted that she has been harmed by the fact that Discount Auto Part was served with the subpoena. Because Plaintiffs had an opportunity to object to the subpoena, as evidenced by the instant Motion, and because Defendant has not yet viewed the documents provided by Discount Auto Parts, the Court will decline to quash the subpoena on the basis of notice.
Plaintiff Crawford makes several substantive arguments as to why the subpoena should be quashed and/or a protective order entered. Each of her arguments center
-4-

around her concerns that the documents are private and confidential or that they are irrelevant to her claims.1 (Doc. 26, pp. 3-6, 8-8-9, 11-12). Notably, Plaintiff Crawford seeks to prevent Defendant from obtaining any of her employment records from Discount Auto Parts – her current employer. (Doc. 26,p. 13). Defendant, on the other hand, argues all of Plaintiff Crawford’s personnel records from Discount Auto Parts are relevant because she placed her employment with Discount Auto Parts at issue by filing a complaint alleging discrimination and retaliation and seeking damages including front pay, job search expenses, emotional pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and humiliation. (Doc. 32).
While Plaintiff Crawford has waived some of her privacy interests by bringing these claims against Defendant, the Court cannot summarily conclude that Plaintiff has waived all of her privacy interests in her personnel records from her current employment. Rather, it is incumbent upon this Court to determine if Plaintiff Crawford waived her privacy interest in the particular documents Defendant requested and whether such documents are relevant to Plaintiff’s claims.
As mentioned above, Defendant seeks Plaintiff Crawford’s entire personnel file, however, it has specifically requested her “payroll report(s), benefits file, and any and all
1 Plaintiff also makes the argument that the after acquired evidence defense does not justify Defendant’s subpoenas. (Doc. 26, p. 9). Defendant, however, states it has not claimed it is seeking Plaintiff Crawford’s personnel file for “after-acquired evidence” purposes. (Doc. 32, p.7). Rather, Defendant has identified the specific personnel documents it seeks and explains why the documents are relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. Thus, the Court need not determine whether the after-acquired evidence doctrine applies in this case because its findings concerning relevance of the documents requested and Plaintiff’s privacy interests are dispositive of Plaintiff’s motion, despite whether or not the after-acquired evidence doctrine applies.
-5-

performance evaluations, disciplinary actions, counselings, and records re termination and/or eligibility for rehire.” (Doc. 26-2). Defendant argues that factors such as Plaintiff Crawford’s future in the position from which she was terminated, her work and life expectancy, her obligation to mitigate damages, the availability of comparable employment, and the time reasonably required to find substitute employment are relevant to the issue of whether Plaintiff Crawford is entitled to front pay. (Doc. 26, p. 4). Specifically, Defendant asserts a claim for front pay involves consideration of additional factors other than financial damages.
Front pay is often sought by plaintiffs in lieu of reinstatement of their previous job. Front pay is a monetary award designed to make the plaintiff whole for a reasonable future period, so that the plaintiff can reestablish her rightful place in the job market. Goss v. Exxon Office Systems Co., 747 F.2d 885, 889 (3rd Cir. 1984). In determining front pay awards, a court is obligated to determine when the cut off date for the award will be, and in making this determination a court should consider how long it will take or did take the plaintiff to secure comparable employment. Shore v. Federal Exp. Corp., 777 F.2d 1155, 1160 (6th Cir. 1985); see also American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Job Discrimination §2649, 45 C. Am. Jur. 2d (2007). Defendant is correct that a claim for front pay involves consideration of other factors outside of financial damages; however, Defendant fails to sufficiently explain how the majority of Plaintiff Crawford’s personnel file is relevant to her claim for front pay. In fact, the Court does not deem the majority of this file relevant to Plaintiff’s request for front pay with the exception of Plaintiff Crawford’s payroll reports and benefits file.
-6-

Defendant next notes Plaintiff Crawford seeks damages for medical expenses, emotional pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and humiliation. (Doc. 32, p. 6). Defendant argues it is entitled to discover whether any other events or situations could have contributed to Plaintiff Crawford’s mental state and to determine whether her emotional condition could have been exacerbated by her current emotional state. Id. Thus, Defendant argues Plaintiff Crawford’s performance evaluations, disciplinary actions, counselings, and records regarding termination and/or eligibility for rehire are relevant and discoverable. The Court agrees. Plaintiff Crawford states, in the Intervenor’s Complaint, that in addition to suffering pecuniary losses, “Defendant’s discrimination and retaliation caused, continues to cause, and will cause [Plaintiff Crawford] to suffer substantial damages for . . .mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other non-pecuniary losses.” (Doc. 9, p. 6). As such, Plaintiff Crawford has placed her emotional state at issue in this case. Because Plaintiff Crawford claims she suffers continuing emotional damages, the Court finds Defendant is entitled to discover Plaintiff Crawford’s performance evaluations, disciplinary actions, counselings, and records regarding her termination and/or eligibility for rehire because Defendant should be provided an opportunity to determine if Plaintiff Crawford’s mental state may be affected by events or situations pertaining to her current employment. Thus, the documents Defendant seeks are relevant to Plaintiff Crawford’s claims and the damages she seeks.
Defendant also notes Plaintiff Crawford has made a claim for job search expenses and thus, Defendant argues it is entitled to obtain Plaintiff Crawford’s
-7-

application to work and payroll documents because they will presumably contain information such as the date Plaintiff Crawford applied to work at Discount Auto Parts and when she actually began working. (Doc. 32, p. 5). The Court agrees. The Defendant is entitled to this information.
Finally, Defendant notes it is willing to agree to a protective order proscribing the document’s distribution. (Doc. 32, p. 3). Thus, the parties should make every effort to come up with a mutually agreeable confidentiality agreement which will enable Plaintiff to protect her personal records from being distributed to persons outside this litigation.
Accordingly, after due consideration, it is hereby ORDERED: Plaintiff/Intervenor’s Motion to Quash and/or Motion for Protective Order (Doc. 26) is DENIED. The parties are instructed, prior to viewing the information provided by Discount Auto Parts, to confer in good faith in an effort to mutually agree upon a confidentiality order to protect Plaintiff Crawford’s personal records from being distributed to persons outside this litigation. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Jacksonville, Florida this 18th day of December, 2007.

Copies to: Counsel of Record

MONTE C. RICHARDSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
-8-

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
EVA CRAWFORD,
Intervenor, v.
AUTOZONE, INC.,
Defendant.

Case No. 3:06-cv-862-J-32MCR

ORDER Upon review of the recent filings in this case, the Court has determined to vacate the upcoming pretrial and trial settings, permit the additional requested discovery and briefing, and set the case for argument on the summary judgment motion. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED: 1. Intervenor Eva Crawford’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 41) is GRANTED to the extent that counsel shall confer to set a date or dates for Mr. Sonny Raymond’s deposition, which, consistent with intervenor’s counsel’s representation, will be conducted in a manner allowing for every reasonable accommodation that Mr. Raymond’s health may require. Unless Mr. Raymond’s doctor directs otherwise (in which case defendant shall so notify the Court), the parties shall have completed the deposition by March 31, 2008.

2. Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File a Reply (Doc. 46) is GRANTED to the extent that no later than April 15, 2008, defendant may supplement its summary judgment motion by up to 15 pages to include material referenced in its motion for leave to file a reply (Doc. 46) as well as to include any arguments based on the deposition of Mr. Raymond.
3. No later than May 5, 2008, plaintiff and intervenor may supplement their responses to summary judgment by up to 10 pages each.
4. This case is hereby SET for oral argument on the motion for summary judgment on Tuesday, July 1, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. before the undersigned in Courtroom 10B, United States Courthouse, 300 North Hogan Street, Jacksonville, Florida.1
5. The March 18, 2008 Final Pretrial Conference and April 7-18, 2008 trial term settings are VACATED, to be reset as appropriate following decision on summary judgment. The parties need not file their pretrial statement until further Order.
DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida this 22nd day of February, 2008.
s. Copies: counsel of record
1Persons entering the Courthouse must present photo identification to Court Security Officers. Although cell phones, laptop computers, and similar electronic devices are not usually allowed in the building, counsel are permitted to bring such devices with them for purposes of this hearing upon presentation of a copy of this Order to Court Security Officers.
2

 
 Case 3:06-cv-00862-TJC-MCR Document 101 Filed 12/24/08 Page 1 of 9 PageID 1112

UNITED ST~TES J)ISTRICI' COURT MIDDLE DISTRICI' OFII'LORIDA JACKSONVILLE DMSION

':' ••., ' ~ "- tJ •, II'), ,. I

l ,_ ~ J - v -

.

• ' ; . .:·

'""I

UNlTED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTVNITY COMMISSION,
PlaiD tiff, and EVA CRAWFORD,
PldDtlff·IDterveaor,
v.
AVTOZONE, INC.,
Defeadaat.
I

Cue No. 3:06-c:v-862-TJc-32MCR

CONQNT DECRQ 1. This CoiLieut Decree ('"Decno") is made aud ernterod into by and between Plaiuti1l; the United Statea Equal Employment OppommftyCommlasion (tho"Commisaion"or ''BBOC''), Bva
Crawford ("Ptamdff-Jot=vcnor'' or ""Crawford") aud Defendant, AutoZonc. Inc. ('COcfendant' or "AutoZono"). The Commission, Eva Crawford, and Dofeudant aro colloctivoly referred to aa tho "Parties" throughout tllis Docrce.
2. Tho CommiAAfon mcd this aadon OD Soptomber29, 2006 underTitle VII oftho Civil
Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section2000o et1eq. ("Title VIr') aDdTitle 1oftho Civil Rights Act of1991 to conect alleged unlawfbl omploymc:ot practices on the basis of&cllt, female, BDd retaliation and to provide appropriate reliefto Eva Crawford and other similarly situated individuals who were

Case 3:06-cv--00-8-6-2---T-J--C~~·--M···C··-R·-· ...D....o·c··u···m-··e···n··t· 1-·0···1-··--F-i-l·-ed··--1--2--/-2-.4-/-0--8----P--·a--g-e---2-··of--9--PageID 1113
adversely affected by such practices. During the litigation. BBOC DIIDlod Regina Carter as a similarly situated iudividual ("Carter'').
3. The Court granted Ms. Crawfbrd'a Motion to Intervene intbia actioo. Like the EEOC, tho Plaintiff.Intervenor alleged that Defendant violated Titlo W aod Tide L Ms. Crawford's
Complaint also alleged that Defendant violated the Florida Civil R.ighta Act of 1992, f!l. .s,sm.
§§760,sa.
4. In the intereatofresolviDg tbismaUc:r, to avoid the cost Oflltigadoa. aad aa aresult of
having qaged in compRhousivo BGttlDDlODt nogotiatioaa, the Parties bavo aszeed that this action
should be flnally rarolvcd by the entry of tbia Docroo. Thla Decree ia final and biDding on the Parties, their aucceaaora and 888igna.
S. Defendant atatea 1hat the settlement and tbia Consent Decree arc in no way au admission of 1111)' fault or liabllity on tho part ofDef'endanl
6. The Parties agree that this Deoreu resolves all claims against Defendant alleged in EEOC Chaqo NumberS 10-2()()6..00651Cand tho BBOC Complahlt filed in this action. The Parties f:brther agree that tbJs Decree does not roaolvo any other Cbaraca of Discrimination or any other claims that may be pending with tho BBOC other than the Charge rcfened to in this paragraph.
L JliNDINGS 7. Having carefUlly examined tho terms and provisions ofthia Dec:roo, andbaaed oa tho pleaclinss, record, and stipulations of tho parties, the Court flnds tho following:
a. This Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this action and of tho Parties.
2

Case 3:06-cv-0-0-8-6-2---T-J-C---M··C·-·R······D·-·o..c..u...m....e. ·n·--t--1····0-1-------F--·il·e··d···-1-·2-·/·2···4·-/··0-8·····P··-a···g-·e..3....o..f. 9··-P-·a·-g··eID 1114
b. No party aball contest the juriadiction of this Pcdcral Court to caforoc this Decree and ita terms or1ho right ofEEOC to bring an enforccmcnt suit upon aUcacd breach ofany term(s) ofthis Decree.
-c. The ~ ofIbis Docrco aro adequate, fmr, reasonable, equitable, and just The rights ofthe Claimants and the publlc interest 111"0 adequately protected by this Decree.
d. This Decree CODfotms with the Pedoral Rules ofCivil Procedure aml'lltle VII and is not in derogation ofthe rights or privileges of any person. Tho entry ofthis Docnc will fUrther the objocdvea ofTitlo VII and will be in tho best interestB ofBva CJawforcl, Rosina Carter, AutoZonc, BBOC and tho pubUo.
e. The terms ofthis Decree are and aba11 be binctins upon 1he present and
fUture ropreaentativcs, aaonts, cllrectora, and officers ofAutoZone. NOW, TIIEREJlORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT: D. GENERAL INJUNCTIVE PROVISIONS 8. Defendant, ita officen, IIIIU188en. employees, agcota and partners, succossors and
assigns, aro enjoined from eagagiDa in conductthat discriminates ontho baais ofsex in violawm of ·tttle Vll oftho CivU Rights Aetof 1964,as amended.
9. Dofeadant, ita ofticers, managers, agents and partnel8, IIUCCe8801'8 and asaigDs, and aU persona acting in concert with it agree that they wUI not diBCriminate nor retaliate against any
employee in violation ofTitle vn.
3

Case 3:06-cv-00862-TJC-MCR Document 101 Filed 12/24/08 Page 4 of 9 PageID 1115
DL .ADOPTION AND DISTRIBUTION OF ANTI·DISCRIMINATION POLICY
10. Defauimt has Inplace a writtenpoHoyprohibitiug ~ barassmeDt mlreiBlialioa. The policy is and shall continuo to bo distributed to aU ofDofendant'a cmployccsaad management staff and is aud shall continuo to bo inoludod in relevant policy manuals and tho Employee Handbook U80d by Defendant. 'I'ho poHcy is and aha1J continuo to be bpt and mainllUnod in a CODBpicuous and acceaaiblo place for aU omployeea BUd printed in a font that is easily logiblo.
Defendant maintaiDa and abal1 continue to maintain recorda dcmoiwtratins that tho policy baa been
aclmowleClgcd 8Dd reviewed by oach employee. Defendant provides and aba1J continuo to provide on-line and other trainiDg to employees related to ita ami-sexual haraasmont and retaliadon policy.
IV. TRAINING 11. In order to ftutber casure the offcctivo implementation of Defendant's lllltidismimination poUci"" Defendant wlll conduct annual training throughout tho duration of this Decree in Store Nos. 271, 272, 281 (Jaobonvillo), 298 (Palatka), 408 (Neptune Beach), 1052
(Middleburg), 2459 (Starke), and 3178 (St. Mays. OA) for ita employees, Including its IMMgm& aDd supervisory persoamel in those stores, with specifio emphasis on recopizins aoxual baraasmellt and acts that CODBtitute unJaw1bl retaUationaad the propcrprocodure to bo foUowod ifthey become aware ofsexual barassmoDt or retaliation in the workplaoo and/or ifthoy receive a complaiul ofsuch haruasment or retaliation for complaining about sexual baraasmont. Defendant will provide to
BBOC, within at least two (2) weeks beforeconducting the firsttrainins ineachyearthroughout the Decree, any training materials to bo usod at tho training seaaion. The tl1liniDs will be conducted by
Nancy Stephens, National Director ofFie1d Human Resources. The first trainiDg shall tako place within sixty (60) calcodardaya ofentry ofthis Decree. Tho remainder ofthe training acaaiODS shall
4

Case 3:06-cv-00862-TJC-MCR Document 101 Filed 12/24/08 Page 5 of 9 PageID 1116
take place within six calcadar months ofeuuy ofthis Dccno BDCI amwally thereafter lhrougbout the duration of this Decree. Defendant agrees to cortify in wridq to tho BBOC annually, on the anniversaey date oftho Decree throughout lhc duration oftbo Docreo, the date&, locations, and tho
D8IDC and job title ofanploycca wbo atteaded such trainiJ1s. 12. Defendant agrees that the tminins doscnDed inpa1'1181'8Ph 11 shall be given to all new
lDIDilger& and supetViaors in Store Nos. 271,272, 281 (1acboavillc), 2518 (Palatka), 408 (Neptuae Beac.b), J052 (Mlddleburs), 2459 (Staib), aud 3178 (Sl Marya, OA), who did not attend tho 81Ulual training, within thirty (30) calcodardiya ofbeing placed in amanagementor supervisory position in such stores.
V. POSTING 13. Within five (S) busincaa daynftereutry oftbia Decree, AutoZcmo shall post an eight and a half(8 ~)inches by oleven {11) inches lamio•ted copy oftho Notice attachod as ExhibitA to this Decree. The Notice shall bo postccl at Defendant's StoreNo. 24S9 (Starke) for the duration of this Docree in a cxmsplcuoue location accessible to all employees (i.e. employee buUeun board). Tho Notice shall remaiD posted throuahout tho duration of this Decree. Defendant shall tab all
reasonable steps to ODBUM that tho postfDa is uot altered, defaced or covered by any other materia~ AutoZone shall certify to BEOC in w.ritJDs wi1hiD ten (10) buslnosa daya after cntiy ofthe Decree
that the Notice has been properly posted. VJ. RECORD KEEPING
14. For tho duration of this Dcscreo, AutoZono shall maintain and make available for
inspection aud copyiDg by BBOC upon reasonable notice recorda (includiDg D&DJ.C, last known home address and telephone number, complaint and resolution of the complaint) of each person
5

Case 3:06-cv-00862-TJC-MCR Document 101 Filed 12/24/08 Page 6 of 9 PageID 1117
complalnhtg about harassment on tho basis of sex aadlor retaliation for complaining about harassment on the basis ofsex atDofcadanl's StoreNos. 271,272,281 (IackBonvillo), 298 (Palatka). 408 (Neptune Beach), 1052 (Middleburs), 2459 (S1Brb). and 3178 (St. Malyi, OA).
IS. AutoZcme shall provide the last known homo address and telephone DUIDba' for all porsons in Store Noa. 271. 272, 281 (JacbonvWo), 298 (Palatka). 408 (Neptune Beach), 1052 (Middleburg), 2459 (Starke), aad 3178 (St. Marya, OA) within ita employ dwina tho term oftho Decree whom BBOC requests aad identifies for purposes ofverifYins compliance with this Dccroo, within ten (10) bwdnesa daya ofBBOC's request. In tho evCDt that BBOC is unable to contact an employee for purposc:a of verifyiaa compl.buu:e with this Decree. it aba1l notifY AutoZone and
AutoZon.o shall. wi.tbin ton (10) businesa days, provide BBOC with tho employee's scheduled hours
ofwork over tho next seven (7) day period. 16. Notbiug ccmtaincd inthis Docree sba11 beCODSUUed to limit any obligation AutoZone
may otherwise bavo to maintain recorda under'Titlo vn or any other law or regulation.
VD. REPORTING 17. Throuabout the duration of this Decroo AutoZone sbalJ fumisb to BBO"' the following written reports annually on tho BDDivcrsarydate ofthis Decree. Bachreport shaD cootain:
a. A do&cription of oach complaiat of harassment on tho basis of su amJ/or retaliation forcomplaJnlna aboutbarassmeoton tho basis ofsox at Dofcudant's StoreNos. 271,272, 281 (Jacksonville), 298 (Palatka), 408 (Nep~o Beach), 1052 (Middleburg), 2459 (Starke), and 3178 (St. Mary's, GA) including the names, last known homo address and phone number of the
compJ.ainina parties, D8D1C8 ofwitnesses. and the resolution ofsuch complaint, OCCUIIiDa within tho
twelve (12) month period preceding tho report. Information identifyins AutoZono employees
6

Case 3:06-cv-00862-TJC-MCR Document 101 Filed 12/24/08 Page 7 of 9 PageID 1118
produced pursuant to this Decroo will only bo used to verifY and &.oiUtatc compliauco with this
Decree. b. AcertificationbyAutoZono tbat lhe Notice required to beposted inParasraPh
13, above, remained posted durina tho entire twclw (12) monlh period preceding the report.
VDL EXPUNGEMENT OF ENTRIES J'ROM PERSONNEL RECORDS 18. Deft:ndaot agreos to rwnove from Bva Crawford's personnol file any c:orrcctivo action related to her termination. within ten (10) bualncsa days oftbo entry oftbis Decree. Defendant ftuthor qreea to provide positive letters ofrofcnlco to Bva Crawtbrd aad Regina Carter, dated tho date of Cllltry of~ Decreo.
JX. MONETARY RELIEF 19. Defendant shall pay a lump sum in the amount of $150,000.00 to resolve this
litigation oa described in attached Bxhibit B. All payments and 1099a aball issue within fifteen (IS)
business days fiom tho Court's execution ofthis Decree, by certified mail to BvaCrawford c/o Philip Dauiol W11lJams, Baq., Magid & WillJ.ama. P.A., 3100 Uaivcraity Boulevard South. Suite liS, Jacksonville, FL32216; and_to ResfuaCarter, 1530\YeatMadiscm Street, Apartmont C-6, Starke, FL
32091. Acopy of tho payments and 10998 sbaU be forwlllded to tho attention ofCarla Von Oreift
Trial Attorney, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity CammiiBion. 501 Bast Polk Street. 10111 Ploor, Tampa, Florida, 33602.
20. IfDefondant faillto.teoder tho payment described inparqraph 19 above and Bxlu'bit B, in violation ofthis Decree, then Defeadaat shall pay interoat on the de&.ulted payment at the rate calculated PW&uant to 26 U.S.C. Section 6621(b) untll the same is paid, and boar any additional
7

Case 3:06-cv-00862-TJC-MCR Document 101 Filed 12/24/08 Page 8 of 9 PageID 1119
costs iDCUITed by tbe BEOC or Crawford, inoluding attomcy's foes, caused by tho aon-compliaace or dolay oftbc Defendant.
X. DISPUTE RESOLUTION 21. In the event that BEOC believes that Defendant has falled to comply wltb any provisiOD(a) of tho Docrco, BBOC shall have the right to seek Court intemmtion. Addidonally, no party aha1l contest 1M Court's jwisdicdon to hear a di&puta arising from the Decree norcballengc BBOC's ability to bring an action to cmoroo tho terms oftho Decree in this Court.
XL COSTS 22. BachParty shall bearita own costs associated with thia Udgation, includingattomeys' fees, crxcept as DOted in Bxhibit B.
XII. DURATION OJ CONSENT DECREE 23. All provisiooa of this Decree abaU be in ~ for a period of two (2) years immediately following entry ofthe Decree.
~of~ SOORDBRED,ADJtJIJGEDAND DECIIBED,
8

Case 3:06-cv-00862-TJC-MCR Document 101 Filed 12/24/08 Page 9 of 9 PageID 1120

AGREED TO: li'OR TBE PLAlN'I'D'I', UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORI'UNlTY COMMISSION

by: ~~flu,~ ~O!J:er

nate: 1t..Gtl!c.MA.WJ..OOf

U.S. EqaaJ Employmeat Opportwdq Commtmoa

MlamlDJstrictOfBce

ODe Bllcayae 'IVwer, SuiCe 2700

2 Soatb Bllc:aJu Bou1nard

MJmaJ, J'lorida 33131

'Ncplaoue: (305) 808-1853

FacsJmlle: (305) ~1835

AGRBJmTO:

I'OR. TBB f'LAJNTIPli'-INTERVBNOB.

EVA CRAWFORD

br. Pb./tra}ale;lW,llllaAml~ l,~.

Date

Maald a WIWamJ, P.A.

3100 Ualvenlty Bou18YIIl'd 8Gatll, Salt11 U5
.JockiOJntlle, :n,mu;

Teleplloae: <'04) '725-4i161

Facdmlle: (!104) ?25-3410

AGREED TO:
FOil TBK DEFENDANT
Atri'OZONE

by:

11'. Dulel Wood, .Jr.,pro

TBB ICtJLLMAN li'IRM

A Prof'ealcmal Law Corporatloa

600 Uamntty Park Place, Suite 340

·.~gllam,AL3520f

.

Telephone: (205) 871-5858

J!aaJmlle: (Z05) 871a74

AIJIOtD.U10111&-
LM'""pAie~

9

Case 3:06-cv-00862-TJC-MCR Document 101-2 Filed 12/24/08 Page 1 of 1 PageID 1121
EXHIBIT A NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED PURSUANT TO A CONSENT DECREE BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION AND AUI'OZONE. INC.
This notice is beiDa posted pursuant to a Consent Dccroe entered by the Court in BP.0C v.
AutoZgap. Inc.. Case No. 3:06-cv-862-J-32MCR. Tho UDlted Statce Bqua1 BmplO)'IDCDt
Opportunity Commission ("EEEC'') filed Ibis Sllit aUesma tbat Defendaot cliscrfmiaa1cd apfnst an
Qmployec and otha- aimilarly situated 1ndMdua1a because ofher sex. female. BBOC allcaed that
Bva Crawford. a tbnnar ·Commerolal Speclalist and other similarly situated individuals at Defendant'a Starke, Plorida atoro, were subjected to sexual barassmeot by Dofeadanfa Parts Sales Managerin tho form ofrqJoalod IICIINilly offimsive oommcms. BBOC also aasarted that Dofendant t1n:d Ms. Crawford In retaUadon for ClODiplainfq about the acaual barasamam. AutoZollo denies
these aUeptions. A settlement was reached which resolved tho case and requites posdng this notice.
AutoZono policy prohibits cUscrlm1nation against ~loyeea baaed sex in violation oM'ide
vn VII of the Civil Rights Mt of 1964 ('"'11tle VII"), 'fitle protects individuals from employment
diacrimiisa.tion becauao of their raoo, relision, color, DBtional origiD. and/or sex. Titlo W also protects individuals from retaliation tOr bavfns complained ofan unlawt\al employment practice. AutoZone does not condon" employment discrimination of any kiDd as set forth in fcclonlantidiscrimiJiation laws, iacludb:Ja, but not limited to, sexual baraaamcat and Rtaliation.
Furthermore, AutoZono assurea ita employees that it aupporta 'ntleVU and will not talco any action B&aiuat BD individual bocauao he/she has exercised his/her right under tho law to oppose
discriminatory acta or to file charps with the B.BOC. Appropriate coneetive actiou. up to and
including t.:nuinadoo, aba1J bQ takca apiostany employee (iDcludiug DlBDII8emcnt personnel) found to violate tho poUeiea regarding discrimlnatiou, based upon the circumstance& involved.
BB0C enforces the federal laws agaJnat discrimhaation In employment on the basis of disability, raco, color, religjcm, Dalioaal origin, sex, and age. If you believe you have been discriminated aplnst, you may telephone tho Miami District Office of tho Bqua1 Employment Opportunity Commisaion at (30S) 808-1740, BBOC charges no fees and baa mnployees who epoak lansuases other than Bngllsh.
This Notice must remain posted for two (2) years ftom the date below and must not be altered, defaced or covmd by any other material. Any questious about this Notice ofcompliance with ita terms may be directed to: AutoZono Settlement, c/o BBOC. 1 Biscayne 'lOwer, 2 South
Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2700, Miami, Florida 33131. Signed this _ _ _ _ _ day of_ _ _ _ __, 2008.
PRESIDENT/CEO, AUI'OZONE, INC.
DO NOT REMOVE BEI'ORE _ _ _ _ _ ___.10_.
10

Case 3:06-cv-00862-TJC-MCR Document 101-3 Filed 12/24/08 Page 1 of 1 PageID 1122

EXBIBITB ALLOCATION OP' MONETARY-RELIEF

AutoZono aarccs to pay a total srosa 8lltOUDt ofODe Huudrcd Fifty Thouaaud Dollara aDd No

Cents ($150,000.00) to resolve all claJms aato all pal11cs in this litiptiou, which will be payable aa

follows:

1. Acbcck mado payablo to Eva Crawfonl in t= amount ofFour HUDdnd Dollara aod

No Cents ($400.00), less allappUeablo payroll and other taxes, wlthboldiDp ud other deducticms

RqUired byJaw paid lnaettlemeotofolalms for lost wups. AutoZonosball isaua Ms. Cmwfbrd aW-2

for this 111DDUUt;

2.

A obeck mado payablo to Maafd & WUUama, P.A. in tho amount ofForty-Bisht

ThouBaDd Six HUildn=d Plfty-Slx Dollan and Porty-FourCeall ($48,6.56.44), tbr attomaya' fees aod

~ AutoZonc abal1 iaaue Masid & W's1llama. P.A. a 1099 fbr this amount;

3.

A chack mado payablo to Bva Crawford in the amount of Seventy 'IhousaDd Nino

Hundred Porty-Tbrco Doiiiii'B and Fifty-Six Cents ($70,943.56), with no deductions orwitbholdings,

in settlenumt ofclaims forpUDidve aud compoasatory damaaea tbat are not wasoa. AutoZono aha1l

iaauo Ms. Crawford 1 1099 for tbla lllllOUDt; and

4.

Acheck mado payablo to RogiDa Carter In tho amount of'Ibirty Thouaand Do1Jm

($30,000.00), with no doductioJI8 or withholdfnas, in seulument of claims tbr puuitlve and

CO.mpenaatm)' dama808 that arc not wqea. AutoZono shalJ issue Ms. Carter I 1099 for tb1s amount.

II

 
 Case: 3:06-cv-862 As of: 06/03/2017 02:29 PM EDT 1 of 9
ADMCLOSED
U.S. District Court Middle District of Florida (Jacksonville) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:06−cv−00862−TJC−MCR

United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Autozone, Inc. Assigned to: Judge Timothy J. Corrigan Referred to: Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson Cause: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Sex)
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 09/29/2006 Date Terminated: 12/24/2008 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Carla Johanna Von Greiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 501 E. Polk St., Ste. 1000 Tampa, FL 33602 813/202−7903 Fax: 813/228−2045 Email: carla.vongreiff@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cheryl A. Cooper Equal Employment Opportunity Commission One Biscayne Tower Ste 2700 2 S Biscayne Blvd Miami, FL 33131 305/808−1853 Fax: 305/808−1835 Email: cheryl.cooper@eeoc.gov TERMINATED: 02/14/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

Maria Kate Boehringer Equal Employment Opportunity Commission One Biscayne Tower Ste 2700 2 S Biscayne Blvd Miami, FL 33131 305/808−1790 Fax: 305/808−1835 Email: maria.boehringer@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Maritza I. Gomez U.S. EEOC One Biscayne Tower, Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131 305/530−6012 Email: maritza.gomez@eeoc.gov TERMINATED: 10/24/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY

Nora Ellen Curtin EEOC 2 South Biscayne Blvd. Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131 305/808−1789 Fax: 305/808−1835 Email: nora.curtin@eeoc.gov

Case: 3:06-cv-862 As of: 06/03/2017 02:29 PM EDT 2 of 9
LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Intervenor Plaintiff Eva Crawford

represented by Philip Daniel Williams Magid &Williams, PA Suite 115 3100 University Blvd S Jacksonville, FL 32216 904/725−6161 Fax: 904/725−3410 Email: court@magidwilliams.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Autozone, Inc.

represented by Cecily L. Kaffer Jackson Myrick Kullman Firm 63 S Royal St PO Box 1287 Mobile, AL 36633−1287 251/432−1811 Fax: 251/433−1230 Email: clk@kullmanlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
F. Daniel Wood , Jr. The Kullman Firm Suite 340 600 University Park Place Birmingham, AL 35209 205/871−5858 Fax: 205/871−5874 Email: fdw@kullmanlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Robbins Guckert Amedisys, Inc. 5959 S Sherwood Forest Blvd Baton Rouge, LA 70816 225/299−3873 Email: jennifer.guckert@amedisys.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas J. Woodford The Kullman Firm 63 S Royal St Mobile, AL 36602 251/432−1811 Fax: 251/433−1230 Email: tjw@kullmanlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:06-cv-862 As of: 06/03/2017 02:29 PM EDT 3 of 9

Date Filed 09/29/2006 10/02/2006 10/03/2006 10/16/2006 10/18/2006 10/23/2006 10/24/2006 12/03/2006 12/07/2006 12/18/2006 12/22/2006
12/22/2006 12/27/2006 12/27/2006 01/25/2007 01/31/2007 02/15/2007 02/16/2007

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against Autozone, Inc.; jury demand; injunctive relief requested, filed by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(SPW) (Entered: 10/02/2006)
Summons issued as to Autozone, Inc. (SPW) (Entered: 10/02/2006)
2 AMENDED STANDING ORDER: Filing of documents that exceed twenty−five pages. Signed by All Divisional Judges on 5/25/05. (DH ) (Entered: 10/03/2006)
3 NOTICE of designation under Local Rule 3.05 − track 2. Signed by Deputy Clerk on 10/16/2006. (JMAP) (Entered: 10/16/2006)
4 MOTION to substitute attorney by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Cooper, Cheryl) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson. (Entered: 10/18/2006)
6 LETTER/NOTICE by Autozone, Inc. regarding service of process on behalf of entity. (DH) (Entered: 10/24/2006)
5 ORDER granting 4 Motion to substitute attorney. Added attorney Cheryl A. Cooper for United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Signed by Judge Monte C. Richardson on 10/24/2006. (LGH) (Entered: 10/24/2006)
7 MOTION to intervene by Crawford, Eva. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Intervenor Complaint)(Williams, Philip) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson. (Entered: 12/03/2006)
8 ORDER granting 7 Motion to intervene. Ms. Crawford is directed to file and serve the Intervenor's Complaint no later than 12/21/06. Signed by Judge Monte C. Richardson on 12/7/2006. (LGH) (Entered: 12/07/2006)
9 INTERVENOR'S COMPLAINT filed by Crawford, Eva.(Williams, Philip) (Entered: 12/18/2006)
10 ANSWER and affirmative defenses to complaint of United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by Autozone, Inc..(Guckert, Jennifer) (MODIFIED ON 12/27/2006 AS TO DATE; COUNSEL NOTIFIED TO REFILE)(SJW, ). (Entered: 12/22/2006)
11 ANSWER to intervenor complaint of Eva Crawford by Autozone, Inc..(Guckert, Jennifer) (MODIFIED ON 12/27/2006 AS TO DATE; COUNSEL NOTIFIED TO REFILE) (SJW, ). (Entered: 12/22/2006)
12 ANSWER and affirmative defenses to complaint of United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by Autozone, Inc..(Guckert, Jennifer) (Entered: 12/27/2006)
13 ANSWER to intervenor complaint of Eva Crawford by Autozone, Inc..(Guckert, Jennifer) (Entered: 12/27/2006)
14 NOTICE of unavailability of counsel byUnited States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from February 13, 2007 to February 26, 2007. (Cooper, Cheryl) (Entered: 01/25/2007)
15 CASE MANAGEMENT REPORT. (Cooper, Cheryl) (Entered: 01/31/2007)
16 MOTION for F. Daniel Wood Jr. to appear pro hac vice by Autozone, Inc.. (Guckert, Jennifer) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson. (Entered: 02/15/2007)
17 CASE MANAGEMENT AND SCHEDULING ORDER: Discovery due by 11/16/2007, Dispositive motions due by 12/21/2007, Pretrial statement due by 3/13/2008, Final Pretrial Conference set for 3/18/2008 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 10 B before Judge Timothy J. Corrigan, Jury Trial set for 4/7/2008 − 4/18/2008 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10 B before Judge Timothy J. Corrigan. ORDER appointing Audrey Moran as mediator in this action. Mediation shall occur on or before 1/30/2008. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 2/16/2007.

Case: 3:06-cv-862 As of: 06/03/2017 02:29 PM EDT 4 of 9

02/22/2007 10/03/2007 10/18/2007 10/19/2007 10/26/2007 11/02/2007 11/05/2007 11/07/2007 11/08/2007 11/09/2007 11/13/2007 11/13/2007 11/13/2007
11/15/2007 11/16/2007

(Attachments: # 1 docket sheet# 2 mediation report)(JMAP, ) (Entered: 02/16/2007)
18 ORDER granting 16 motion to appear pro hac vice. Signed by Judge Monte C. Richardson on 2/22/2007. (MOH) (Entered: 02/22/2007)
19 MOTION for protective order by Autozone, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, Certificate of Good Faith# 2 Exhibit B, Declaration of Ann Morgan# 3 Exhibit C, Proposed Protective Order)(Chrestman, Jennifer) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson. (Entered: 10/03/2007)
20 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response as to 19 MOTION for Protective Order and Consolidated Memorandum in Support Thereof by plaintiffs. (Cooper, Cheryl) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson. Modified on 10/19/2007 (DH). (Entered: 10/18/2007)
21 ENDORSED ORDER granting 20 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to 19 MOTION for protective order. Responses due by 10/26/2007. Signed by Judge Monte C. Richardson on 10/19/2007. (MOH) (Entered: 10/19/2007)
22 RESPONSE in opposition re 19 MOTION for protective order filed by Crawford, Eva, United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Cooper, Cheryl) (Entered: 10/26/2007)
23 MOTION for Leave to File Reply in Support of Motion for Protective Order 19 by Autozone, Inc. (Wood, F.) Modified on 11/5/2007 as to text (DH). (Entered: 11/02/2007)
24 NOTICE of mediation to be held on December 5, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. before Paul Remillard. (Cooper, Cheryl) (Entered: 11/05/2007)
25 ORDER directing the parties to participate in a 3.01(g) conference, and granting 23 Motion for leave to file reply no later than 11/15/07. Plaintiffs may file a sur−reply no later than 11/20/07. Signed by Judge Monte C. Richardson on 11/7/2007. (LGH) (Entered: 11/08/2007)
26 MOTION to Quash and/or MOTION for Protective Order by Crawford, Eva. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A # 2 Exhibit B)(Williams, Philip) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson. Modified on 11/9/2007 as to text (DH). (Entered: 11/08/2007)
27 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by Autozone, Inc.. (Wood, F.) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson. (Entered: 11/09/2007)
28 MOTION to withdraw 27 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by Autozone, Inc.. (Wood, F.) (Entered: 11/13/2007)
29 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by Autozone, Inc.. (Wood, F.) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson. (Entered: 11/13/2007)
30 ORDER granting 28 Motion to withdraw previously filed joint motion for enlargement of time and substitute ; granting 29 Revised joint motion for enlargement of time. The discovery deadline is extended through December 12, 2007 for the limited purpose of completing witness depositions. The dispositive motion deadline is extended through January 14, 2008. All other dates set forth in the Case Management and Scheduling Order [17−4] shall remain unchanged. Signed by Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson on 11/13/2007. (LGH) (Entered: 11/13/2007)
31 REPLY re 19 Motion for protective order, filed by Autozone, Inc.. (Wood, F.) Modified on 11/16/2007 as to text (DH). (Entered: 11/15/2007)
32 RESPONSE to motion re 26 MOTION to Quash and/or MOTION for Protective Order filed by Autozone, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−C)(Chrestman, Jennifer) Modified on 11/19/2007 (DH). (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/23/2007: # 2 Main Document, # 3 Exhibit) (MGG). (Entered: 11/16/2007)

Case: 3:06-cv-862 As of: 06/03/2017 02:29 PM EDT 5 of 9

11/16/2007 11/21/2007 12/07/2007 12/10/2007 12/18/2007 01/11/2008 01/14/2008 01/14/2008
02/04/2008 02/04/2008
02/04/2008
02/04/2008

33 SURREPLY to 31 Reply in Support of Motion for Protective Order filed by Crawford, Eva, United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Bell v. Georgia−Pacific Corp. Order)(Cooper, Cheryl) Modified on 11/20/2007 as to text (DH). (Entered: 11/16/2007)
34 ORDER directing the Clerk to redact private information and delete redundant information from 32 Defendant's Response to Intervenor's Motion to Quash and/or for Protective Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson on 11/20/2007. (LGH) (Entered: 11/21/2007)
35 ORDER granting 19 Motion for protective order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson on 12/7/2007. (Attachments: # 1 Protective Order) (LGH) (Entered: 12/07/2007)
36 MEDIATION REPORT Hearing held on 12/5/2005 Hearing outcome: impasse(DH) (Entered: 12/10/2007)
37 ORDER denying 26 Motion to quash and/or Motion for protective order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson on 12/18/2007. (LGH) Modified text on 12/19/2007 (SPW). (Entered: 12/18/2007)
38 MOTION for Leave to File Motion for and Brief in Support of Summary Judgment in Excess of Twenty−Five Pages by Autozone, Inc. (Wood, F.) Modified text on 1/14/2008 (DH). (Entered: 01/11/2008)
39 ENDORSED ORDER granting 38 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages: defendant's combined motion and memorandum may be up to 36 pages long; responses may be up to 30 pages long. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 1/14/2008.(SRW) (Entered: 01/14/2008)
40 MOTION for summary judgment and brief in support by Autozone, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−1, # 2 Exhibit A−2, # 3 Exhibit A−3, # 4 Exhibit B−1, # 5 Exhibit B−2, # 6 Exhibit C, # 7 Exhibit D, # 8 Exhibit E, # 9 Exhibit F, # 10 Exhibit G, # 11 Exhibit H, # 12 Exhibit I, # 13 Exhibit J, # 14 Exhibit K, # 15 Exhibit L, # 16 Exhibit M, # 17 Exhibit N, # 18 Exhibit O, # 19 Exhibit P)(Wood, F.) (Entered: 01/14/2008)
41 MOTION to compel Discovery and/or for Relief under Rule 56(f) by Eva Crawford. (Williams, Philip) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson. Modified on 2/20/2008 to correct typo (LRB). (Entered: 02/04/2008)
42 RESPONSE in opposition re 40 MOTION for summary judgment and brief in support filed by Eva Crawford. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit "A", # 2 Exhibit "B", # 3 Composite Exhibit "C", # 4 Exhibit "D")(Williams, Philip) Modified text on 2/5/2008 (DH). (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2008: # 5 Exhibit "B", # 6 Exhibit "C" − Composite) (DH). Modified on 2/5/2008. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION REDACTED FROM EXHIBITS B and C. (DH). Modified on 2/20/2008 to correct typo (LRB). (Entered: 02/04/2008)
43 NOTICE by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of Filing Deposition Transcripts in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Regina Carter's Deposition Transcript (pp. 1−60), # 2 Exhibit Regina Carter's Deposition Transcript (pp. 61−120), # 3 Exhibit Regina Carter's Deposition Transcript (pp. 121−192), # 4 Exhibit Eva Crawford's Deposition Transcript (pp. 1−72), # 5 Exhibit Eva Crawford's Deposition Transcript (pp. 73−132), # 6 Exhibit Eva Crawford's Deposition Transcript (pp. 133−211), # 7 Exhibit Lori McClellan's Deposition Transcript (pp. 1−56), # 8 Exhibit Lori McClellan's Deposition Transcript (pp. 57−105))(Cooper, Cheryl) (Entered: 02/04/2008)
44 NOTICE by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of Filing Deposition Transcripts in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit James Robert (J.R.) Payne's Deposition Transcript (pp. 1−60), # 2 Exhibit James Robert (J.R.) Payne's Deposition Transcript (pp. 61−120), # 3 Exhibit James Robert (J.R.) Payne's Deposition Transcript (pp. 121−169), # 4 Exhibit Stephen Wilber's Deposition Transcript (pp. 1−57), # 5 Exhibit Stephen Wilber's Deposition Transcript (pp. 58−117), # 6 Exhibit Stephen Wilber's Deposition Transcript (pp. 118−173), # 7 Exhibit Stephen

Case: 3:06-cv-862 As of: 06/03/2017 02:29 PM EDT 6 of 9

02/04/2008 02/07/2008 02/10/2008 02/14/2008 02/15/2008 02/19/2008 02/21/2008 02/22/2008
02/25/2008 03/18/2008 03/18/2008 03/30/2008 03/31/2008
04/15/2008 04/24/2008
05/05/2008

Wilber's Deposition Transcript (pp. 174−215))(Cooper, Cheryl) (Entered: 02/04/2008)
45 RESPONSE in opposition re 40 MOTION for summary judgment and brief in support filed by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Boehringer, Maria) (Entered: 02/04/2008)
46 MOTION for leave to file Reply Brief (In Support of Summary Judgment) by Autozone, Inc.. (Wood, F.) (Entered: 02/07/2008)
47 RESPONSE in opposition re 46 MOTION for leave to file Reply Brief (In Support of Summary Judgment) filed by Eva Crawford. (Williams, Philip) Modified text on 2/11/2008 (SPW). (Entered: 02/10/2008)
48 NOTICE by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of Withdrawal and Substitution of Counsel (Boehringer, Maria) (Entered: 02/14/2008)
49 ORDER granting 48 Notice of Withdrawal and Substitution of Counsel, which the Court treats as a Motion for Substitution of Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson on 2/15/2008. (LGH) (Entered: 02/15/2008)
50 RESPONSE in opposition re 41 MOTION to compel Discovery and/or for Relief under Rule 56(f) filed by Autozone, Inc.. (Wood, F.) (Entered: 02/19/2008)
51 MOTION for Cecily L. Kaffer to appear pro hac vice by Autozone, Inc.. (Wood, F.) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson. (Entered: 02/21/2008)
52 ORDER granting 41 Motion to compel to extent stated in Order (depo to be completed by 3/31/08); granting 46 Motion for leave to file reply (due by 4/15/08, 15 page limit); plaintiff &intervenor permitted to supplement responses (due by 5/5/08, 10 page limit each); vacating other pretrial and trial deadlines; SETTING case for argument on motion for summary judgment on 7/1/08 at 10:00 a.m., Courtroom 10B. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 2/22/2008.(SRW) (Entered: 02/22/2008)
53 ORDER granting 51 motion to appear pro hac vice upon payment of the appropriate fee. Signed by Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson on 2/25/2008. (LGH) (Entered: 02/25/2008)
54 RESPONSE re 52 Order filed by Autozone, Inc. (Kaffer, Cecily) Modified text on 3/19/2008 (DH). (Entered: 03/18/2008)
55 NOTICE of Appearance by Carla Johanna Von Greiff on behalf of United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Von Greiff, Carla) (Entered: 03/18/2008)
56 MOTION/REQUEST for Status Conference by Eva Crawford. (Williams, Philip) Modified on 3/31/2008 (DH). (Entered: 03/30/2008)
57 MOTION for Extension of Deadline to Complete Deposition and Request for Status Conference by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Von Greiff, Carla), Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson. Modified text on 4/1/2008 (DH). (Entered: 03/31/2008)
58 REPLY in support re 40 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Autozone, Inc. (Wood, F.) Modified text/document relationship on 4/15/2008 (DH). (Entered: 04/15/2008)
59 ORDER setting telephonic status conference on 5/13/08 at 11:00 a.m. The Motions for status conference and for relief from the current deadline for completing Mr. Raymond's deposition, 56 and 57 , are granted. Signed by Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson on 4/24/2008. (LGH) Modified associations, text on 5/7/2008 (SPW). (Entered: 04/24/2008)
60 SURREPLY re 58 Memorandum in support filed by Eva Crawford. (Williams, Philip) Modified text on 5/7/2008 (SPW). (Entered: 05/05/2008)

Case: 3:06-cv-862 As of: 06/03/2017 02:29 PM EDT 7 of 9

05/05/2008
05/13/2008 06/27/2008 07/01/2008
07/01/2008 07/07/2008
07/10/2008 07/10/2008 07/28/2008 08/06/2008
08/14/2008 08/21/2008 08/26/2008 08/29/2008 09/02/2008 09/10/2008 09/11/2008

61 RESPONSE re 58 Memorandum in support of Defendant's Reply In Support of Summary Judgment filed by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Von Greiff, Carla) (Entered: 05/05/2008)
62 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson: Status Conference held on 5/13/2008. (digital) (LGH) (Entered: 05/13/2008)
63 NOTICE Converting Hearing: Telephone Conference set for 7/1/2008 at 10:00 AM before Judge Timothy J. Corrigan; counsel for EEOC to initiate; see Notice for details. (JCD) (Entered: 06/27/2008)
64 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 7/1/2008: Motion Hearing re 40 MOTION for summary judgment and Status Conference; order to enter; parties to file papers by 7/10/2008 regarding parties' preference for reconvening the mediation versus a settlement conference with Judge Richardson. Court Reporter: Shannon Bishop. (JCD) (Entered: 07/01/2008)
65 ORDER denying 40 Motion for summary judgment. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 7/1/2008. (JCD) (Entered: 07/01/2008)
66 AMENDED CASE MANAGEMENT AND SCHEDULING ORDER: Pretrial statement due by 11/12/2008; Final Pretrial Conference set for 11/19/2008 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 10 B before Judge Timothy J. Corrigan; and, Jury Trial set for trial term commencing 12/1/2008 at 9:00 AM in Courtroom 10 B before Judge Timothy J. Corrigan. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 7/7/2008. (MD) (Entered: 07/07/2008)
67 NOTICE by Eva Crawford, United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Concerning Mediation or Settlement Conference. (Boehringer, Maria) Modified text on 7/11/2008 (DH). (Entered: 07/10/2008)
68 NOTICE by Autozone, Inc. Concerning Settlement Conference (Wood, F.) Modified text on 7/11/2008 (DH). (Entered: 07/10/2008)
69 ORDER setting case for settlement conference before Judge Richardson; directions to parties. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 7/28/2008. (JCD) (Entered: 07/28/2008)
70 NOTICE: All proceedings set before the Honorable Timothy J. Corrigan will now be held in COURTROOM 10D . Additionally, counsel are advised that cell phone and laptop storage lockers are now available at the Jacksonville Courthouse upon presentation to Court Security Officers of a valid Florida Bar card or Order of special admission pro hac vice. (SMS) (Entered: 08/06/2008)
71 ORDER notifying parties of scheduled settlement conference and their associated duties. Signed by Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson on 8/14/2008. (DAG) (Entered: 08/14/2008)
72 MOTION to substitute attorney by Autozone, Inc.. (Kaffer, Cecily) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson. (Entered: 08/21/2008)
73 ORDER denying without prejudice 72 Motion to substitute attorney. Signed by Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson on 8/26/2008.(DAG) (Entered: 08/26/2008)
74 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to Serve Memoranda for Settlement Conference by Autozone, Inc. (Wood, F.) Modified text on 8/29/2008 (DH). (Entered: 08/29/2008)
75 ORDER granting 74 Motion for Extension of Time to Serve Memoranda for Settlement Conference. Signed by Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson on 9/2/2008.(DAG) (Entered: 09/02/2008)
76 Amended MOTION to substitute attorney by Autozone, Inc.. (Kaffer, Cecily) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson. (Entered: 09/10/2008)
77 ORDER denying without prejudice 76 Motion to substitute attorney. Signed by Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson on 9/11/2008. (DAG) (Entered: 09/11/2008)

Case: 3:06-cv-862 As of: 06/03/2017 02:29 PM EDT 8 of 9

09/15/2008 09/15/2008
09/15/2008 09/16/2008 09/26/2008 09/26/2008 11/05/2008 11/07/2008 11/12/2008 11/12/2008 11/13/2008 11/14/2008 11/18/2008 11/19/2008 11/19/2008 11/19/2008 11/19/2008 11/20/2008

78 EMERGENCY MOTION for Leave for Corporate Representative to Appear at Settlement Conference by Telephone by Autozone, Inc. (Wood, F.) Modified text on 9/15/2008 (DH). (Entered: 09/15/2008)
79 RESPONSE in opposition re 78 EMERGENCY MOTION for Leave for Corporate Representative to Appear at Settlement Conference by Phone filed by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Boehringer, Maria) (Entered: 09/15/2008)
80 ORDER granting 78 Emergency Motion for Leave for Corporate Representative to Appear at Settlement Conference by Telephone. Signed by Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson on 9/15/2008. (SHS) (Entered: 09/15/2008)
81 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson: Settlement Conference held on 9/16/2008. (DIGITAL) (DAG) Modified filing date on 9/18/2008 (DH). (Entered: 09/17/2008)
82 NOTICE Regarding Settlement Discussions re 81 Settlement Conference by Autozone, Inc. (Kaffer, Cecily) Modified text on 9/29/2008 (DH). (Entered: 09/26/2008)
83 NOTICE by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 81 Settlement Conference (Boehringer, Maria) (Entered: 09/26/2008)
84 Joint MOTION To Participate In Local Rule 3.06 Conference By Telephone by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Von Greiff, Carla) (Entered: 11/05/2008)
85 ENDORSED ORDER granting 84 Motion to participate in Local rule 3.06 conference by telephone. Signed by Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson on 11/7/2008. (MOH) (Entered: 11/07/2008)
86 NOTICE of Hearing: Telephonic Status Conference set for 11/13/2008 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 5C with Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson (DAG) (Entered: 11/12/2008)
87 PRETRIAL STATEMENT by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Von Greiff, Carla) (Entered: 11/12/2008)
88 Minute Entry for telephonic status conference. Proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson: on 11/13/2008. (DAG) (Entered: 11/13/2008)
89 NOTICE of Hearing: Settlement Conference set for 11/20/2008 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 5 C before Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson. (DAG) (Entered: 11/14/2008)
90 Third MOTION to substitute attorney and Response to Court's Order by Autozone, Inc.. (Kaffer, Cecily) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson. (Entered: 11/18/2008)
91 MOTION to allow electronic equipment, specifically laptop computer, portable printer, and cellular telephone by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Boehringer, Maria) (Entered: 11/19/2008)
92 ENDORSED ORDER granting 91 Motion to allow electronic equipment. Signed by Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson on 11/19/2008. (DAG) (Entered: 11/19/2008)
93 ORDER granting 90 Motion to substitute attorney. Signed by Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson on 11/19/2008. (DAG) (Entered: 11/19/2008)
94 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Judge Timothy J. Corrigan: FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE held on 11/19/2008. Order Scheduling Trial to Enter. Court Reporter: Shannon Bishop. (MD) (Entered: 11/20/2008)
95 ORDER SCHEDULING TRIAL. Jury trial scheduled to commence on 12/8/08 at 8:45 a.m., in courtroom 10D before Judge Timothy J. Corrigan. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 11/20/2008. (MD) (Entered: 11/20/2008)

Case: 3:06-cv-862 As of: 06/03/2017 02:29 PM EDT 9 of 9

11/20/2008
11/21/2008 12/02/2008
12/21/2008
12/24/2008 12/24/2008

96 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson: Settlement Conference held on 11/20/2008. (DIGITAL) (DAG) (Entered: 11/21/2008)
97 NOTICE by Autozone, Inc. of Compliance (Wood, F.) (Entered: 11/21/2008)
98 ORDER vacating 95 order scheduling trial; removing case from trial calendar; parties to file settlement papers by 12/22/2008. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 12/2/2008. (JCD) (Entered: 12/02/2008)
99 Joint MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically Approval of Consent Decree by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Executed Consent Decree)(Boehringer, Maria) (Entered: 12/21/2008)
100 ORDER granting 99 Joint Motion for Approval of Consent Decree. Entered by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 12/24/2008. (SJW) (Entered: 12/24/2008)
101 CONSENT DECREE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(SJW) (Entered: 12/24/2008)