Case: EEOC v. BLOCKBUSTER VIDEO

2:04-cv-02007 | U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona

Filed Date: Sept. 24, 2004

Closed Date: June 8, 2007

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

In September 2004, the EEOC's Phoenix District Office brought this suit against Blockbuster, a video rental chain, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. We do not have a copy of the complaint. However, according to an EEOC press release, the complaint alleged that Blockbuster violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by failing to make a reasonable accommodate for the charging party's religious beliefs. Specifically, the defendant refused to allow the charging part…

In September 2004, the EEOC's Phoenix District Office brought this suit against Blockbuster, a video rental chain, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. We do not have a copy of the complaint. However, according to an EEOC press release, the complaint alleged that Blockbuster violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by failing to make a reasonable accommodate for the charging party's religious beliefs. Specifically, the defendant refused to allow the charging party, a Jewish employee, to wear his yarmulke at work in contradiction of his religious beliefs. The parties settled in June 2005 through a consent decree.

According to the EEOC press release, the two-year decree required the defendant to: provide Title VII training for its employees, post notices prohibiting Title VII discrimination, amend its employee handbook to provide for exceptions to the dress code to accommodate employees' religious beliefs, send the charging party an apology letter, and pay the charging party $50,000.

The decree was entered in June 2005 and scheduled to last until June 2007. No further docket entries exist, so the case is presumably now closed.

Summary Authors

Michele Marxkors (6/1/2007)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

2:04-cv-02007

Docket (PACER)

EEOC v. Blockbuster Inc.

Feb. 5, 2007

Feb. 5, 2007

Docket

2:04-cv-02007

EEOC Litigation Settlements (June 2005)

EEOC v. Blockbuster, Inc.

No Court

June 8, 2005

June 8, 2005

Press Release

Resources

Docket

Last updated Aug. 6, 2022, 3:10 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

COMPLAINT FILED (MRB) (Entered: 09/27/2004)

Sept. 24, 2004

Sept. 24, 2004

2

RETURN OF SERVICE EXECUTED summons/complaint upon Amy St Lawrence (statutory agent) for dft Blockbuster Inc on 9/29/04 (SAT) (Entered: 10/05/2004)

Sept. 30, 2004

Sept. 30, 2004

3

STIPULATION for Extension of Time until 12/10/04 for Defendant to Respond/answer to Plaintiff EEOC's Complaint [1−1] by pla, dft [3−1] (first request) (SAT) (Entered: 11/12/2004)

Nov. 8, 2004

Nov. 8, 2004

4

ORDER by Judge Frederick J. Martone that the parties have stipulated [3−1] to an extension of time for defendant to Respond/answer to Plaintiff EEOC's Complaint [1−1], IT IS ORDERED that defendant Blockbuster Inc shall have until 12/10/04 to file its answer to the Complaint (cc: all counsel) (SAT) (ADI−ICMS, ). (Entered: 11/12/2004)

Nov. 12, 2004

Nov. 12, 2004

5

MOTION (Application) of Attorney for Admission to Practice Pro Hac Vice Pursuant to Local Rule 1.5(b)(3) as to Thomas A Linthorst, atty for dft [5−1] (SAT) (Entered: 12/03/2004)

Nov. 29, 2004

Nov. 29, 2004

Pro Hac Vice $100 Fee Paid as to Thomas A Linthorst (BAS) Modified on 04/01/2005 (Entered: 12/06/2004)

Dec. 6, 2004

Dec. 6, 2004

Pro Hac Vice $100 Fee Paid as to George A Stohner (BAS) Modified on 04/01/2005 (Entered: 12/16/2004)

Dec. 16, 2004

Dec. 16, 2004

6

MOTION (Application) of Attorney for Admission to Practice Pro Hac Vice Pursuant to Local Rule 83.1(b)(3) as to George A Stohner, atty for dft [6−1] (SAT) (Entered: 12/16/2004)

Dec. 16, 2004

Dec. 16, 2004

7

ORDER by Judge Frederick J. Martone that the Motion (Application) of Attorney for Admission to Practice Pro Hac Vice Pursuant to Local Rule 83.1(b)(3) as to George A Stohner, atty for dft [6−1] is granted (cc: all counsel) (SAT) (ADI−ICMS, ). (Entered: 01/10/2005)

Jan. 10, 2005

Jan. 10, 2005

8

STIPULATION for Extension of Time until 2/18/05 for Defendant to Respond/answer to Plaintiff EEOC's Complaint [1−1] by pla, dft [8−1] (Third Request) (SAT) (Entered: 01/21/2005)

Jan. 20, 2005

Jan. 20, 2005

9

ORDER by Judge Frederick J. Martone that parties having stipulated to an extension of time for defendant to answer the Complaint [1−1] by pla, dft [8−1], IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Blockbuster Inc shall have until 2/18/05 to file its answer to the Complaint (cc: all counsel) (SAT) (ADI−ICMS, ). (Entered: 01/26/2005)

Jan. 26, 2005

Jan. 26, 2005

10

MOTION (Joint) for Entry of Consent Decree by pla, dft [10−1] (SAT) (Entered: 03/24/2005)

March 23, 2005

March 23, 2005

11

ORDER by Judge Frederick J. Martone setting a hearing on the Motion (Joint) for Entry of Consent Decree by pla, dft [10−1] at 3:30 on 5/27/05; FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file a joint memorandum ten days before the hearing addressed to two issues specified in this order (cc: all counsel) (SAT) (ADI−ICMS, ). (Entered: 04/11/2005)

April 11, 2005

April 11, 2005

12

JOINT MEMORANDUM by pla, dft re court's order of April 8, 2005 [11−1] (CMM) (Entered: 05/16/2005)

May 13, 2005

May 13, 2005

13

NOTICE OF ASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL/ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for dft by Lisa Marie Coulter (SAT) (Entered: 05/19/2005)

May 19, 2005

May 19, 2005

14

MINUTE ENTRY before Judge Frederick J. Martone. Crt Rptr: L.Schroeder−Willis. Appearances: David Lopez Mary O'Neill for plas, Amy Gittler, George Stohner telephonic and Lisa Coulter for dfts Hearing held. IT IS ORDERED taking under advisement on 5/27/05 the motion (Joint) for Entry of Consent Decree by pla, dft [10−1]. Court order to follow. [cc: FJM]] [14−1] (TCA) (Entered: 05/31/2005)

May 27, 2005

May 27, 2005

15

Transcript Designation and Ordering Form by dft Blockbuster Inc re 5/27/05 Consent Decree Hearing (LSP) (Entered: 06/03/2005)

June 1, 2005

June 1, 2005

16

CONSENT DECREE/ JUDGMENT (signed by all parties) This decree resolves all claims of the Commission against dft including back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, interest, injunctive relief, attorney's fees, and costs arising out of, or from the issues in this lawsuit. [10−1] (cc: all counsel) (KMG) (ADI−ICMS, ). (Entered: 06/08/2005)

June 8, 2005

June 8, 2005

17

CONSENT DECREE/JUDGMENT (Supplement) by Judge Frederick J. Martone: Granting Joint Motion for Entry of Consent Decree by pla, dft [10−1] with additional information regarding religious accommodation provisions of Title VII and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. To dismiss case. Note: the parties signatures can be found on document #16 (cc: all counsel) (KMG) (ADI−ICMS, ). (Entered: 06/08/2005)

June 8, 2005

June 8, 2005

18

TRANSCRIPT of Motion for entry of consent decree by Court Reporter: Linda Schroeder−Willis for the following date(s): 5/27/05 (SRB) (Entered: 06/14/2005)

June 14, 2005

June 14, 2005

19

TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION AND ORDER FORM for Entry of Consent Decree by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for proceedings held on 05/27/2005 before Judge Frederick J. Martone. (Lopez, P) (Entered: 02/05/2007)

Feb. 5, 2007

Feb. 5, 2007

Case Details

State / Territory: Arizona

Case Type(s):

Equal Employment

Special Collection(s):

EEOC Study — in sample

Key Dates

Filing Date: Sept. 24, 2004

Closing Date: June 8, 2007

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, on behalf of one or more workers.

Plaintiff Type(s):

EEOC Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

EEOC

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

Blockbuster, Inc., Private Entity/Person

Case Details

Causes of Action:

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

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Damages

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Amount Defendant Pays: 50000

Order Duration: 2005 - 2007

Content of Injunction:

Apology

Post/Distribute Notice of Rights / EE Law

Provide antidiscrimination training

Discrimination Prohibition

Issues

General:

Disparate Treatment

Discrimination-area:

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

Discrimination-basis:

Religion discrimination

EEOC-centric:

Direct Suit on Merits