Case: Hall v. Best Buy Co.

0:04-cv-04812 | U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota

Filed Date: Nov. 17, 2004

Closed Date: 2007

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On November 17, 2004, employees of Best Buy Co. filed a complaint against their employer in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. The plaintiffs alleged that Best Buy had discriminated against employees on the basis of their age, and that such action constituted a violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA") of 1967, 29 US.C. § 621. Specifically, the plaintiffs contended that Best Buy had engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination whereby th…

On November 17, 2004, employees of Best Buy Co. filed a complaint against their employer in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. The plaintiffs alleged that Best Buy had discriminated against employees on the basis of their age, and that such action constituted a violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA") of 1967, 29 US.C. § 621. Specifically, the plaintiffs contended that Best Buy had engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination whereby they used performance plans, job assignments, ratings, quotas, rankings or other measures to pressure its older employees and other similarly situated employees to quit and/or to justify their terminations.

The plaintiffs also contended that Best Buy had discriminated with respect to training opportunities and job assignments, such as by giving younger employees the opportunity to learn new technology and assigning those employees to positions where they could utilize that new technology, while channeling many of the older employees into positions involving older technology which was becoming obsolete. They asked the court for back pay plus benefits, as well as reinstatement at their old positions or a comparable financial award.

The plaintiffs never sought class certification in the case at hand, and they could not reach a settlement agreement when they tried in 2006. The court (Judge Michael J. Davis) ultimately dismissed the case with prejudice on June 12, 2007.

Summary Authors

Julianne Nowicki (7/25/2010)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4675285/parties/hall-v-best-buy-company-inc/


Judge(s)

Boylan, Arthur J. (Minnesota)

Davis, Michael James (Minnesota)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Boehmke, Julie L. (Minnesota)

Brandt, Craig A. (Minnesota)

Foster, Wood R. Jr. (Minnesota)

Knocke, Laurie A. (Minnesota)

Olson, Jennifer J. (Minnesota)

Shulman, David L. (Minnesota)

Snyder, Stephen J. (Minnesota)

Streitz, Jay B. (Minnesota)

Judge(s)

Boylan, Arthur J. (Minnesota)

Davis, Michael James (Minnesota)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Boehmke, Julie L. (Minnesota)

Brandt, Craig A. (Minnesota)

Foster, Wood R. Jr. (Minnesota)

Knocke, Laurie A. (Minnesota)

Olson, Jennifer J. (Minnesota)

Shulman, David L. (Minnesota)

Snyder, Stephen J. (Minnesota)

Streitz, Jay B. (Minnesota)

Ukabam, Ugo A. (Minnesota)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Crone, Kari Thoe (Minnesota)

Evans, Janet C (Minnesota)

Heller, Lisa L (Georgia)

Lentz, Charles O. (Minnesota)

Mintzer, Joel A. (Minnesota)

Pierce, Kelly K. (Minnesota)

Poulos, Sara Anspach (Minnesota)

Slaughter, Stacy P. (Minnesota)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

Docket

Hall v. Best Buy

June 12, 2007 Docket
1

Complaint

Hall v. Best Buy Company, Inc.

Nov. 17, 2004 Complaint
10

1st Amended Complaint, Part 1

Hall v. Best Buy Company, Inc.

Dec. 23, 2004 Complaint
11

1st Amended Complaint (Part 2)

Hall v. Best Buy Company, Inc.

Dec. 23, 2004 Complaint
14

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS COUNT THREE OF PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED COMPLAINT

Hall v. Best Buy Company, Inc.

Jan. 10, 2005 Pleading / Motion / Brief
29

Second Amended Complaint (Part 1)

Hall v. Best Buy Company, Inc.

March 24, 2005 Complaint
30

Second Amended Complaint (Part 2)

Hall v. Best Buy Company, Inc.

March 24, 2005 Complaint
32

ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS COUNT THREE OF PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED COMPLAINT

Hall v. Best Buy Company, Inc.

April 4, 2005 Order/Opinion
233

Order

Hall v. Best Buy Company, Inc.

June 15, 2006 Order/Opinion

Opinion

2006 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 40235

June 15, 2006 Order/Opinion

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4675285/hall-v-best-buy-company-inc/

Last updated May 12, 2022, 8 p.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link
132

ORDER AFFIRMING 106 Order on Motion for Protective Order, Order on Motion to Compel(Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Michael J Davis on 10/28/2005. (SMS)

Oct. 28, 2005 RECAP
139

ORDER Dismissing Opt-In Plaintiff Kenneth Clarin's Claims(Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Michael J Davis on 01/12/2006. (SMS)

Jan. 12, 2006 RECAP
214

ORDER removing case from trial block 212 Notice of Hearing(Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Michael J Davis on 06/14/2006. (SMS)

June 14, 2006 RECAP
233

ORDER (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Michael J Davis on 06/15/2006. (SMS)

June 15, 2006 RECAP
399

ORDER granting 388 Motion for Leave to File a Combined Response to Defendants' Motions for Partial Summary Judgment on Individual Age Discrimination Claims (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Michael J Davis on 08/11/2006. (SMS)

Aug. 11, 2006 RECAP
493

ORDER setting October 31, 2006 deadline re: submissions(Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Michael J. Davis on 10/26/2006. (SMS)

Oct. 26, 2006 RECAP

State / Territory: Minnesota

Case Type(s):

Equal Employment

Special Collection(s):

Private Employment Class Actions

Key Dates

Filing Date: Nov. 17, 2004

Closing Date: 2007

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Older employees of Best Buy Co. that had suffered from age discrimination at Best Buy

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: No

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

Best Buy, Private Entity/Person

Case Details

Causes of Action:

Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et seq.

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: None Yet / None

Nature of Relief:

None

Source of Relief:

None

Issues

General:

Pattern or Practice

Discrimination-area:

Discharge / Constructive Discharge / Layoff

Other Conditions of Employment (including assignment, transfer, hours, working conditions, etc)

Training

Discrimination-basis:

Age discrimination

Affected Gender:

Female

Male