Case: Koger v. Texaco, Inc.

4:04-cv-00205 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia

Filed Date: Aug. 30, 2004

Closed Date: June 13, 2008

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On August 30, 2004 the plaintiff filed a complaint in the District Court for the Northern District of Georgia alleging racial discrimination against herself and others similarly situated by her direct employer, Protiva, Inc., individuals who managed that company, and Texaco, Inc. and Shell Oil Company, the owners of the gas station where she worked. Specifically she alleged that she had been unlawfully demoted from her position as store manager in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Title VII be…

On August 30, 2004 the plaintiff filed a complaint in the District Court for the Northern District of Georgia alleging racial discrimination against herself and others similarly situated by her direct employer, Protiva, Inc., individuals who managed that company, and Texaco, Inc. and Shell Oil Company, the owners of the gas station where she worked. Specifically she alleged that she had been unlawfully demoted from her position as store manager in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Title VII because she was Caucasian and defendant operators wished to only employ managers of their racial descent, South Asian.

Each party filed a motion for summary judgment as discovery proceeded. On September 21, 2006 the Magistrate Judge submitted a report recommending that the defendants' motions be granted. On March 28, 2007, however, the district court (Judge Carnes) granted the defendants' motions regarding belatedly raised retaliation claims but denied the other motions for summary judgment on the basis that the defendants had failed to demonstrate that they either were not the plaintiff's joint employer (in the case of Shell and Texaco) or that the stated reasons for demoting the plaintiff were not a mere pretext (in the case of Protiva). The parties reached a settlement awarding the plaintiff unspecified monetary damages on August 9, 2007.

Summary Authors

Michael Perry (7/31/2010)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4790293/parties/koger-v-texaco-inc/


Judge(s)

Carnes, Julie E. (Georgia)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Dickson, Bonny Elizabeth (Tennessee)

Hall, Cynthia D. (Tennessee)

Attorney for Defendant

Marlett, Eric John (Georgia)

McGahren, Matthew Francis (Georgia)

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

4:04-cv-00205

Docket

June 13, 2008

June 13, 2008

Docket
6

4:04-cv-00205

Amended Complaint

March 3, 2005

March 3, 2005

Complaint
76

4:04-cv-00205

Order and Opinion (Adopting in part and rejecting in part the Magistrate Judge's Final Report and Recommendation)

March 28, 2007

March 28, 2007

Order/Opinion

Resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4790293/koger-v-texaco-inc/

Last updated Aug. 19, 2025, 4:46 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
76

ORDER and OPINION ADOPTING IN PART and DECLINING IN PART the 72 Magistrate Judge's Final Report and Recommendation. Instead, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART 38 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court will issue a separate Order concerning a trial date, the date by which the pretrial order must be filed, and a date, and process, by which the parties determine if the case can be resolved through settlement. Signed by Judge Julie E. Carnes on 3/28/07. (ddm)

March 28, 2007

March 28, 2007

RECAP

Case Details

State / Territory: Georgia

Case Type(s):

Equal Employment

Special Collection(s):

Multi-LexSum (in sample)

Key Dates

Filing Date: Aug. 30, 2004

Closing Date: June 13, 2008

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Former white manager of a convenience store.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: No

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Denied

Defendants

Texaco, Inc. (White Plains), Private Entity/Person

Shell Oil Company (Houston), Private Entity/Person

Protiva, Inc, (Catoosa), Private Entity/Person

Defendant Type(s):

Retailer

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1981

Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e

Available Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Mixed

Nature of Relief:

Damages

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Private Settlement Agreement

Amount Defendant Pays: Unknown

Issues

General/Misc.:

Pattern or Practice

Discrimination Area:

Demotion

Disparate Treatment

Discrimination Basis:

Race discrimination

Affected Race(s):

American Indian/Alaskan Native

Black

White