Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02303/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02303-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

University of Phoenix, Inc., an Arizona

corporation, and Apollo Group, Inc., an

Arizona corporation, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-2303-PHX-MHM

ORDER

The Court has reviewed the parties’ memoranda addressing the question of whether

this action is properly considered a “pattern or practice” case. Although the Plaintiffs

brought the action under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5 (“§ 706”) as opposed to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-6

(“§ 707”) — the traditional provision used for pattern or practice cases — the Court finds

that there is authority to support the Plaintiffs’ claim that pattern or practice actions may be

brought under either section. See EEOC v. Int’l Profit Associates, Inc., No. 01-C-4427, 2007

WL 3120069, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 23, 2007) (“the EEOC is statutorily authorized to bring

a pattern or practice action to enjoin systematic unlawful employment practices, as defined

by 42 U.S.C. § 200e-2(a)(1), under either section 706 or 707.”). The Defendants have cited

to no authority to the contrary. Although the Plaintiffs had previously failed to specify that

this is a pattern or practice case, the Defendants should have been on notice that the Plaintiffs

intended to bring pattern or practice claims based on the number and type of allegations made

Case 2:06-cv-02303-MHM Document 332 Filed 09/23/08 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

in the case. Further, the Defendants have not indicated how they will be prejudiced by such

a reading of the Plaintiffs’ Complaint; to the contrary, the Plaintiffs assert that this will have

no effect on the type or amount of discovery in the case. Accordingly, the Court finds that

the Plaintiffs may proceed with their pattern or practice claims. 

IT IS ORDERED permitting the Plaintiffs to proceed with the construction of this

case as alleging a pattern or practice of discrimination.

DATED this 19th day of September, 2008.

Case 2:06-cv-02303-MHM Document 332 Filed 09/23/08 Page 2 of 2