NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION

File Name: 17a0492n.06

No. 16-6475

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

LINDA KING,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

AUTOZONERS, LLC

Defendant-Appellee.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT 

COURT FOR THE WESTERN 

DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

BEFORE: MERRITT, BATCHELDER, and CLAY, Circuit Judges.

ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. Linda King was a Claims Coordinator in 

the Risk Management department of AutoZoners, LLC (“AutoZone”). In that role, she was 

responsible for preparing a weekly Corporate Accident Review Board (CARB) report; engaged 

in subrogation work for tractor-trailer collisions; reviewed and reconciled payments over $5,000 

on a report from AutoZone’s third-party administrator and provider of claims management 

services; and completed various clerical tasks. In January 2013, AutoZone hired a new director 

of Risk Management, who later restructured the department with an increased focus on analytics, 

automation, and efficiency. The restructuring eliminated the Claims Coordinator position, 

resulting in King’s termination in September 2013. The restructuring also created a new 

position, Associate Risk Analyst.
No. 16-6475, Linda King v. AutoZoners, LLC

-2-

Following King’s termination, her supervisor temporarily assumed responsibility for 

production of the CARB report and permanently assumed King’s other duties. AutoZone

subsequently hired Max Mosely as the new Associate Risk Analyst. Mosely, who has an MBA, 

took over preparation of the CARB report and is now able to complete the report in 

approximately two hours, significantly less time than King required for the task. Eventually, he 

became responsible for preparing approximately thirty other reports for the company through

data queries and analysis.

King is an African-American woman over the age of 40 and sued on claims of age 

discrimination, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 623, and 

race and gender discrimination, as well as retaliation, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights 

Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2, 2000e-3. The district court granted summary judgment on 

all claims. It held that she abandoned her retaliation claim at summary judgment, failed to 

exhaust her administrative remedies for her gender discrimination claim, and could not make out 

her prima facie case on her race and age discrimination claims. As to this last holding, the 

district court found that she produced no evidence demonstrating that she was replaced by a nonprotected employee, because her supervisor took over most of her tasks and Mosely took over 

the remaining task. It also found that she failed to demonstrate that a similarly situated, nonprotected employee received more favorable treatment than she did. Specifically, it found that 

Mosely was not a valid comparator to King. Aside from the overlap of the CARB report’s 

production, which he streamlined, his role at the company was different. Furthermore, he did not 

yet work at AutoZone at the time of King’s termination.

On appeal, King argues that the district court erred by holding that she had abandoned her 

retaliation claim and by finding that she had not established the prima facie case for her race and 
No. 16-6475, Linda King v. AutoZoners, LLC

-3-

age discrimination claims. After carefully reviewing the record, the applicable law, and the 

parties’ briefs, we conclude that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to 

AutoZone on all counts. The district court’s opinion carefully and correctly sets out the law 

governing the issues raised and clearly articulates the reasons underlying its decision. Thus, the 

issuance of a full written opinion by this court would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, for 

the reasons stated in the district court’s opinion, we AFFIRM.