Rosario Juarez v. AutoZone Stores, Inc. (Case No. 08-CV-00417-WVG)
Decided
November 17, 2014
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting
Hon. William V. Gallo
Juarez v. AutoZone Stores, Inc., Case No. 08-CV-00417-WVG (S.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2014), was a court case in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California which is believed to be the largest single-plaintiff employment verdict in United States history at $185,872,719.52.[1][2][3] This case is also believed to be the largest punitive damages verdict awarded to a single plaintiff in an employment discrimination lawsuit.[4][5]
Rosario Juarez worked for AutoZone beginning in December 1999 as a cashier. She was promoted to the position of Part Sales Manager in 2001 where she hit a glass ceiling and remained in that position for 3 years.
During the five years since she joined AutoZone, Ms. Juarez noticed that male employees were treated more favorably than female employees. In particular, less experienced male employees were promoted to vacant store manager positions and other promotions far more often than women, regardless of experience and knowledge. Although qualified for open store manager positions in her district, Ms. Juarez was frequently passed over for promotion in favor of less experienced and qualified male employees.
The practice of promoting male employees to better positions faster than female employees permeated AutoZone in the past. Most often women were relegated to service as delivery drivers. When possible, younger attractive women were sought for these positions to encourage predominantly male operated repair shops to place orders. Women at AutoZone have rarely been promoted beyond assistant store manager or part sales manager positions.[citation needed]
Unknown to the plaintiff,[citation needed] AutoZone's California operations were subject to a legal requirement that women were to be provided greater opportunity for employment and advancement. Senior managers were required to keep statistical records concerning the hiring and promotion of women. The requirement resulted from a gender discrimination claim brought against Chief Auto Parts. AutoZone acquired Chief after the legal requirement was imposed and was therefore obligated to comply until it expired sometime in 2004. After the legal requirement expired, a meeting was held to announce that statistics pertaining to women in the workplace no longer needed to be collected. A district manager who was present at the meeting testified about how AutoZone leaders celebrated in reaction to the announcement. According to the witness, who was then an AutoZone District Manager the Vice President of the Western Division said “we can finally start getting rid of these women.” Another corporate leader (who was later placed in charge of Plaintiff in San Diego) remarked that “women weren’t worth sh#t” to AutoZone. The same leader was also credited with telling a district manager that he needed to fire the women in his district stores if he hoped to be promoted to a regional manager himself.
In 2004, shortly after the end of the legal requirement expired, Plaintiff Ms. Juarez complained to upper management that she had been unfairly passed over for promotion to store manager. Ms. Juarez specifically asked if she would be required to file a lawsuit in order to get promoted. Shortly after complaining, Plaintiff was informed she would be put in a Store Manager Training program for several months. Male employees who worked for AutoZone did not have to go through this training program which was only required for store manager candidates who came from other companies. Plaintiff received no actual training in the program and continued to serve as an assistant manager for other stores in the San Diego Market. Eventually in October 2004, Plaintiff was given her first opportunity to serve as a store manager.
Plaintiff excelled in the Store Manager position and had a positive impact on her store's sales and appearance. At this time, her supervisor was a woman District Manager. After several months, Ms. Juarez was assigned a different district manager, a male, who was demeaning and condescending to Plaintiff and the other women in her store. Male employees in the store would receive pats on the back and jolly greetings, while Plaintiff and her female assistant manager were treated coldly by the district manager with little positive encouragement or interaction. Although Plaintiff's store was steadily improving in response to her efforts, the district manager would continuously comment that she could not handle the job.
In August 2005, Ms. Juarez became pregnant. At first she kept her condition secret for fear that the district manager would become more critical and upset. In late October 2005, Plaintiff received a favorable performance evaluation wherein she “met expectations” overall. However, the evaluation included multiple unfair comments. Although she was fearful of the consequences, Ms. Juarez felt that company rules required her to disclose her condition to the district manager. In early November 2005, Ms. Juarez told the district manager she was pregnant. The meeting was witnessed by two assistant managers who testified at trial. Upon hearing the news, the district manager became visibly upset. He sarcastically responded, "Congratulations....I guess." Later the district manager stated, "I feel sorry for you." Immediately after being informed Ms. Juarez was pregnant, the district manager became more aggressive, mean and critical of Ms. Juarez. Suddenly, nothing was being done correctly. Time-consuming work assignments had to be redone, even though no need for a redo existed. Before knowing of the pregnancy the district manager gave the store short “fix-it-lists” of approximately 15 items to be addressed. Afterward, the lists became several pages and sometimes containing as many as 70 nitpicking items. Yelling criticisms and public humiliation followed. The district manager repeatedly remarked in front of workers and customers that he did not believe Plaintiff could perform the work in her “condition” and told her to “step down.” Even though Plaintiff and her managers worked tirelessly, and often off the clock, to address the unwarranted “fix-it-lists,” Ms. Juarez was placed on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP). At all times while on the PIP, Ms. Juarez and her sales team met or beat sales targets set by the company. Nevertheless, the company falsely claimed she failed to improve and meet expectations.
In February 2006, Ms. Juarez was demoted back to assistant manager and placed in a different store. Ms. Juarez lost her bonuses and overtime pay. She was replaced by a male store manager who was not given “fix-it-lists.” Ms. Juarez worked until she was nine months pregnant and then went out on maternity leave one week before the birth of her second child. While on leave in April 2006, Ms. Juarez filed a charge of gender and pregnancy discrimination with California Department of Fair Employment and Housing concerning her demotion from store manager. A key document in this case was a letter from AutoZone's legal department, called “AutoZoner Relations” to the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing in response to the discrimination complaint filed by Ms. Juarez. In a July 2006 letter, AutoZoner Relations claimed to have "thoroughly investigated" the claims of Ms. Juarez and found no problem. However, at trial evidence clearly demonstrated that AutoZoner Relations never spoke to any of the obvious witnesses to the conduct including Plaintiff and the people who worked with Plaintiff in her store.
Following her maternity leave, Ms. Juarez returned to her demoted position in 2007. While employed, Ms. Juarez filed a lawsuit in San Diego state court in January 2008, challenging her demotion as discrimination based on gender and pregnancy. She was deposed by AutoZone in October 2008, as part of her lawsuit. On November 20, 2008, Ms. Juarez was fired by AutoZone because she was allegedly not trustworthy. However, during discovery, AutoZone's person most knowledgeable witnesses indicated that the reasons for Plaintiff's termination were unknown. At trial, the witnesses “remembered” that the termination was probably related to an incident when loss prevention managers investigated a situation where another employee lost $400 cash while Plaintiff was in charge of the store. Alternatively, the company claimed that the termination may have been related to Plaintiff's refusal to fully cooperate in the $400 investigation by loss prevention.
During the course of litigation, AutoZone continued the date for trial because the company's loss prevention manager who investigated the missing $400 became pregnant. Months after the continuance, but before this trial, the company fired this loss prevention manager (while she was pregnant) for allegedly falsifying a store audit. The loss prevention manager testified to additional information not provided at the deposition she gave when still employed. According to the witness, the investigation into the missing $400 was requested by high level upper management. The investigation was prioritized over other incidents involving larger amounts of missing cash. She was specifically instructed to target Ms. Juarez rather than the subordinate employee who the loss prevention manager actually suspected to have lost the cash. Contrary to the allegations of the company, the loss prevention manager confirmed that Ms. Juarez acted appropriately during the investigation and answered all questions concerning the incident. The loss prevention manager stated she provided a detailed report to AutoZoner Relations immediately following the investigation which was never produced by the company and was not brought to trial.
When Ms. Juarez was suspended for the incident on the day of the investigation, the loss prevent manager suspected retaliation had occurred; unfortunately, she did not say so at her deposition under pressure from AutoZone's lawyers to say only what she knew for absolute certain and for fear of retaliation. Several former AutoZone employees testified about a pervasive fear of retaliation at the company. One of Ms. Juarez's assistant managers testified he was fired a few months after she was demoted in retaliation for supporting Ms. Juarez as a store manager.
Declarations submitted by the company in support of AutoZone's summary judgment motions indicated that “AutoZoner Relations” had recommended both the demotion and termination of Ms. Juarez. In closing argument, counsel for Ms. Juarez argued that the illegal demotion and termination were orchestrated and/or ratified by the company's legal department. AutoZone did not call a single woman employee to say she was fairly treated by the company.
AutoZone's attorneys strenuously argued that there was no evidence to support Plaintiff's claims. Further, AutoZone claimed that Plaintiff was a manipulative liar who used threats to receive promotions. In closing, AutoZone's lead trial counsel asked the jury to ignore the evidence about their own upper management's statements. Its counsel argued that the company had additional witnesses and documents to support its position, but the company did not want to waste the time presenting the information.[6][7][8][9][10]
Verdict
The verdict in favor of Plaintiff included $393,749.52 in past wages, $228,960 in future wages, and $250,000 for past emotional distress for garden variety emotional harm such as anger, anxiety, emotional distress, worry and the like. Plaintiff testified to the shame and embarrassment she felt after her demotion. At the time of her termination, she was a single mother caring for her two young children. During a lengthy period of unemployment, she and her children would make burritos and sell them just to make money to survive. Although Ms. Juarez eventually found new employment with a different auto parts company, the difference between the earnings and benefits resulted in significant financial losses. The ability to earn bonuses and overtime pay as a store manager at AutoZone as compared to jobs without such benefits supported future wage loss, even though gainfully employed at the time of trial.[11][12] The jury deliberated for a day and a half before finding for Plaintiff on all claims asserted.[13]
Punitive damages phase
Following the liability phase, Plaintiff presented the testimony of an economist to assess the company's ability to pay punitive damages. Using AutoZone's public financial disclosures, it was established that the cash flow of the company, after all operational expenses, is $20,798,192 a week. Although on paper the company had a negative net worth of $1 billion, Plaintiff's economist explained the company's net worth is not a reliable indicator of the company's ability to pay because the excess cash was used to repurchase its stock, which had the effect of making outstanding shares more valuable. Plaintiff's economist further testified that AutoZone had the ability to pay a $100,000,000 punitive damage award after only four weeks of operations. Defendant's economist, who was unaware of the company's cash flow, testified about the company's negative net worth but offered no comment regarding what amount of punitive damages the company could pay.
In opposition to any award of punitive damages, the company offered the testimony of attorney Allison Smith, the director AutoZoner Relations from its headquarters in Memphis, TN. Ms. Smith testified that she had come from Memphis to tell the jury that the company had heard their verdict and would be examining its “processes.” Ms. Smith told the jury that she wanted to speak with the jury to hear why they had found liability. On cross-examination, Ms. Smith acknowledged that this case was not the first time a California jury had sent the company a message about “retaliation.” She acknowledged a prior 2010 verdict in Sacramento, where AutoZone fired a district manager for “falsifying an audit” after he reported that a human resources manager used the “N” word in reference to customers and employees of AutoZone. Ms. Smith was asked what AutoZone had done as a result of the 2010 jury finding and she responded that AutoZone had paid the judgment.
As to financial condition, Ms. Smith confirmed that the company's current public filing with the SEC reported that all pending litigation against the company “individually or in the aggregate” was “not material to the company’s financial condition.” This became a stipulated fact during the punitive damages phase of trial.
In the closing argument for punitive damages, Plaintiff's counsel argued that the reprehensibility of the conduct was extremely high because the unlawful acts were committed by the legal department which was responsible for guiding operations around the world. Counsel suggested that more than a hundred million dollars would be required to ensure that the Board of Directors took a hard look at their legal department and "clean house." Specifically, counsel suggested that the award should equate to one week of the company's extra cash for each year of injustice suffered by Plaintiff. Counsel expressed a hope that the verdict would come to be known as the “Juarez Award” which would stand for the proposition that women are an equal part of the workplace, that they have a right to work pregnant, and that retaliation will not be tolerated. In opposition, AutoZone argued that it had heard the message and no further punitive damages were required.[14] The jury deliberated one day before reaching its punitive damage verdict.[15]
Lead Counsel Nancy E. Pritikin, Littler Mendelson, P.C., San Francisco, CA
Gregg Sindici, Littler Mendelson, P.C., San Diego, CA
Liliya Stanik, Littler Mendelson, P.C., San Diego, CA[16]
Related Research Articles
Punitive damages, or exemplary damages, are damages assessed in order to punish the defendant for outrageous conduct and/or to reform or deter the defendant and others from engaging in conduct similar to that which formed the basis of the lawsuit. Although the purpose of punitive damages is not to compensate the plaintiff, the plaintiff will receive all or some of the punitive damages in award.
Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants, also known as the McDonald's coffee case and the hot coffee lawsuit, was a highly publicized 1994 product liability lawsuit in the United States against the McDonald's restaurant chain.
AutoZone, Inc. is an American retailer of aftermarket automotive parts and accessories, the largest in the United States. Founded in 1979, AutoZone has 6,978 stores across the United States, Mexico, Puerto Rico, Brazil and the US Virgin Islands. The company is based in Memphis, Tennessee.
The Civil Rights Act of 1991 is a United States labor law, passed in response to United States Supreme Court decisions that limited the rights of employees who had sued their employers for discrimination. The Act represented the first effort since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to modify some of the basic procedural and substantive rights provided by federal law in employment discrimination cases. It provided the right to trial by jury on discrimination claims and introduced the possibility of emotional distress damages and limited the amount that a jury could award. It added provisions to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protections expanding the rights of women to sue and collect compensatory and punitive damages for sexual discrimination or harassment.
Lynne C. Hermle is an attorney specializing in employment law. She is a partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP's Menlo Park, California office. She also serves on the firm's management committee, the "first partner from the firm's Silicon Valley office to serve, and the second woman ever chosen".
BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996), was a United States Supreme Court case limiting punitive damages under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Dennis Jacobs is a senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
The California Fair Employment and Housing Act of 1959, codified as Government Code §§12900 - 12996, is a California statute used to fight sexual harassment and other forms of unlawful discrimination in employment and housing, which was passed on September 18, 1959.
Capitol Records, Inc. v. Thomas-Rasset was the first file-sharing copyright infringement lawsuit in the United States brought by major record labels to be tried before a jury. The defendant, Jammie Thomas-Rasset, was found liable to the plaintiff record company for making 24 songs available to the public for free on the Kazaa file sharing service and ordered to pay $220,000.
The Jason Scott case was a United States civil suit, brought against deprogrammer Rick Ross, two of his associates, and the Cult Awareness Network (CAN), for the abduction and failed deprogramming of Jason Scott, a member of the United Pentecostal Church International. Scott was eighteen years old at the time of the abduction and thus legally an adult. CAN was a co-defendant because a CAN contact person had referred Scott's mother to Rick Ross. In the trial, Jason Scott was represented by Kendrick Moxon, a prominent Scientologist attorney.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that the due process clause usually limits punitive damage awards to less than ten times the size of the compensatory damages awarded and that punitive damage awards of four times the compensatory damage award is "close to the line of constitutional impropriety".
Miller v. Universal City Studios, Inc., is a case where an appeals court found that although the plaintiff apparently deserved to prevail, it reversed the jury verdict and remanded the case for retrial because it found reversible error in the trial judges' instructions to the jury. The appellate court found that the judge's jury instructions, which included the statement that the labor of research by an author is protected by copyright, had been given in error. The court noted that plaintiff, over the objection of the defense, had urged the district court judge to include this instruction.
Naugle v. Philip Morris was a landmark 2009 court case in which a jury awarded the plaintiff Lucinda Naugle $300 million. The award included $56.6 million in compensatory damages for medical expenses and $244 million in punitive damages. At the time, the verdict was the largest award given to an individual suing a tobacco company, and was featured on NBC, ABC, 60 Minutes, and The New York Times. In 2012, the verdict amount for punitive damages was reduced to $36.8 million.
Lawrance A. Bohm is an American lawyer who is most noted for winning what is believed to be the two largest single-plaintiff employment verdicts in United States history: $185,872,719.52 in Juarez v. AutoZone Stores, Inc. and $167,730,488.00 in Chopourian v. Catholic Healthcare West. Bohm has won several other large verdicts protecting and defending civil and workplace rights. Bohm has represented clients in several high-profile cases.
Ellen Pao v. Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers LLC and DOES 1-20 is a lawsuit filed in 2012 in San Francisco County Superior Court under the law of California by executive Ellen Pao for gender discrimination against her employer, the venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins. Overlapping with a number of studies condemning the representation of women in venture capital, the case was followed closely by reporters, advocacy groups and Silicon Valley executives. Given the tendency for similar cases to reach settlements out of court, coverage of Pao v. Kleiner Perkins described it as a landmark trial once it began in February 2015. On March 27, 2015 the jury found in favor of Kleiner Perkins on all counts.
Chopourian v. Catholic Healthcare West, No. 2:09-CV-02972, was a court case in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California which, at the time, was believed to be the largest single-plaintiff employment verdict in United States history at $167,720,488. The record has since been surpassed by the verdict in Juarez v. AutoZone Stores, Inc., Case No. 08-CV-00417-WVG at $185,872,719.52.
Debra S. Katz is an American civil rights and employment lawyer and a founding partner of Katz Banks Kumin in Washington, D.C. She is best known for representing alleged victims of sexual assault and sexual harassment, notably Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, Vanessa Tyson, Chloe Caras, and accusers of Congressmen Pat Meehan and Eric Massa, and whistleblowers facing retaliation, including most recently Dr. Rick Bright. Katz's primary practice areas at her firm are employment and whistleblower law, where she represents victims of workplace discrimination and retaliation.
Gibson's Bakery v. Oberlin College was an Ohio legal case concerning libel, tortious interference, and infliction of distress. The case ultimately involved questions about the responsibilities of universities during student protests.
Owen Diaz vs. Tesla was a discrimination lawsuit filed against electric car manufacturer Tesla, Inc. The plaintiff, Owen Diaz, was an elevator operator at the Tesla Fremont Factory in California between 2015 and 2016. The lawsuit stated that Diaz faced constant harassment including racial slurs. According to the state's Department of Fair Employment and Housing, the Fremont factory is racially segregated and Black workers testify that they are subjected to racist slurs, racial drawings, and are given the most menial and physically demanding work. Working conditions at the plant are so unacceptable, the organization states, that many Black employees have been forced to quit. J. Bernard Alexander III, one of Diaz's lawyers, told jurors that the use of the “n-word” was pervasive and virtually everywhere at Fremont factory.
Chelsey Glasson is an American user researcher, writer, and workers' rights advocate. She sued Google, her former employer, for pregnancy discrimination, which ended in an undisclosed settlement after two years of litigation. She has successfully lobbied for pregnancy anti-discrimination and labor rights laws in Washington State.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
