• Home
  • Our People
    • Christine Burns
    • David T. Barton
    • Alison Pulaski Carter
    • Alexandra Miller
    • Cecilia N. Nieto
  • Practice Areas
    • Employment Litigation
    • Employment Law Advice
    • Restrictive Covenants
    • Employment Contracts
    • Compliance
  • BurnsBarton Blog
  • Get Started
  • Contact and Directions

A Punitive Damages Award of $185 Million: How to Avoid the Zone of AutoZone

December 12, 2014
by Christine Burns
0 Comment

There has been a lot of buzz about the gigantic punitive damages award recently handed down in a pregnancy and sex discrimination case in California.  For us, it is an opportunity to examine what lessons can be learned.

Lesson No. 1:  Employers must thoroughly train their managers and top-level executives in the area of retaliation so that they understand that a court may infer retaliation, simply from (1) an internal complaint of discrimination and (2) an adverse employment action, such as termination, if the two events occur close in time.  Consequently, employers must take great precautions when terminating an employee who has complained of discrimination in the past.

Rosario Juarez, a manager at AutoZone, was terminated by her employer more than two years after she first filed a charge of pregnancy discrimination with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing and more than nine months after she filed her Complaint.  During the summary judgment phase, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California looked to a deposition in which Juarez participated six weeks before her termination to establish a causal connection between protected activity and termination.  Employers should take heed and seek legal counsel before deciding to terminate an employee who has complained of discrimination in the past or who is engaging in litigation.

Lesson No. 2:  Employers must also be absolutely certain they can corroborate their reason for termination so that it is not deemed pretextual by the court.  Here, AutoZone contended it terminated Juarez because she misplaced $400 from the cash register and failed to cooperate in an internal investigation surrounding the misplacement of the $400.  Although AutoZone’s Payroll Termination Report listed “policy violation” as the reason for termination, neither AutoZone nor its witnesses were able to point to a specific policy that Juarez violated.  And although another employee was involved in the misplacement of the cash, AutoZone did not discipline this employee.  Finally, an HR member testified at trial that managers could not be terminated for refusing to submit a statement in an internal investigation.  Employers should be cautious about enforcing their policies equally, and they must ensure that their managers understand their company policies.

Lesson No. 3:  Finally, employers must thoroughly train their managers and top-level executives on how to deal with pregnant employees.  Here, Juarez claims her manager consistently told her that he thought that she could no longer handle her job because she was pregnant, saying it was “too much for your condition.”  She also claims he encouraged her to step down and increased her workload.  Such comments and behavior – which directly relate to an employee’s pregnancy – are like kindling for a fire: they make employers highly vulnerable to liability for pregnancy discrimination.

This past July, the EEOC issued new guidelines under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.  And these guidelines may be tested by the Young v. UPS case, which is currently pending before the United States Supreme Court.

For more information about the AutoZone case, the new EEOC guidelines, or how to ensure your company is not liable for pregnancy or sex discrimination, please contact any of the attorneys at BurnsBarton PLC.

About the Author
Christine Burns is the managing partner of BurnsBarton PLC, a firm she started with her partners after practicing for over sixteen years as an associate and partner at Quarles & Brady LLP. Christine’s practice includes a broad spectrum of litigation, specifically focusing on labor and employment. She represents employers in all employment areas, with a special emphasis on providing front-end employment solutions, and on defending employers from civil rights, wrongful discharge, and class action litigation. Christine has tried a wide variety of cases before state and federal courts and juries.
Social Share
  • google-share

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

*
*

Contact BurnsBarton Attorneys

Please call or email any of our attorneys. We’ll talk with you about your needs and design a plan to accomplish your goals. Initial consultations are generally free and we offer flat-fee and alternative billing options for interested clients. Our rates are lower than the large firms we left, but it is our billing policies and practices that make us the most cost-efficient solution for employers in the Southwest.  
 
    Call 602-753-4500

About BurnsBarton PLC

BurnsBarton is a woman-owned business made up of big firm attorneys who have gone small to provide better client service at a lower cost. Our team has the horsepower necessary to handle big cases, while remaining committed to excellent client service. We focus on what we do best: advising and defending employers efficiently, effectively, and successfully. In short, we have “Big Law” experience, with better, more economical service.

Mission Statement

We protect good employers from all types of employment claims. We win cases, and we do so in the most cost-efficient manner possible. We work with the best people on the planet.  

certified-womens-business-enterprise-logo-small

Disclaimer

The information on this web site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should contact an attorney for advice on your individual situation. Contacting BurnsBarton PLC does not create an attorney-client relationship.

 

Address: 2201 E. Camelback Road Suite 360 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Phone: 602-753-4500
© 2012 - 2023 BurnsBarton PLC