Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-2_06-cv-01094/USCOURTS-alnd-2_06-cv-01094-1/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

EMMA WALTERS,

Plaintiff,

v.

AUTOZONE, INC.,

Defendant.

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

CIVIL ACTION NO.

06-AR-1094-S

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Before the court is the motion of plaintiff, Emma Walters

(“Walters”), to reconsider the court’s granting of summary

judgment. As grounds for reconsideration, Walters argues that the

court erred in dismissing her retaliation claim upon erroneously

finding that defendant Autozone Inc.’s (“Autozone”) reduction in

her hours did not constitute an “adverse employment action.” Had

Walters read the court’s memorandum opinion of June 12, 2007 more

carefully, she would have understood that the court resolved this

issue in her favor. The undisputed facts nevertheless led the

court to find that granting summary judgment was necessary. The

court held: 

Only Autozone’s reduction of Walters’s actual hours

arguably qualifies as an adverse employment action . . .

. While it is true that Walters was approved to work five

hours of overtime in Tarrant just as she was at Center

Point, the actual number of hours she worked each week

dropped from 50 to 45 after she transferred. This

reduction in hours could be construed as an alteration of

Walters’s compensation or employment terms, although

there is no evidence that Autozone ever promised Walters

that it would schedule her to work her maximum number of

approved overtime hours, so drawing the opposite

FILED

 2007 Jun-27 PM 02:26

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:06-cv-01094-WMA Document 49 Filed 06/27/07 Page 1 of 2
2

conclusion would be just as reasonable. Giving Walters

the benefit of every doubt and assuming that the

reduction in her actual hours constitutes an adverse

employment action, there is no evidence of any causal

connection between her complaints to Autozone or the EEOC

and the reduction in her hours. Walters correctly states

the applicable legal standard — that a plaintiff must

show that the decisionmaker was aware of the protected

conduct, and that the protected activity and the adverse

action were not wholly unrelated. See Gupta, 212 F.3d at

590. But Walters does not attempt to show that Burns or

Thomas, the only individuals who made the scheduling

decisions in Tarrant, had any idea that Walters had ever

made any complaints about sexual harassment. Moreover,

Walters testified that she does not recall ever speaking

to Burns about Sherer or about her EEOC charge. Since

there is no evidence of any causal connection between her

complaints and her reduction in hours, Walters cannot

establish a prima facie case of retaliation. 

Mem. Op. dated June 12, 2007 (Doc. No. 45), at 11-12 (emphasis

added). 

Walters’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED. 

DONE this 27th day of June, 2007.

_____________________________

WILLIAM M. ACKER, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-01094-WMA Document 49 Filed 06/27/07 Page 2 of 2