Case: EEOC v. WAL-MART STORES, INC.

2:01-cv-01104 | U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona

Filed Date: June 20, 2001

Closed Date: Jan. 3, 2002

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

In June 2001, the EEOC district office in Phoenix, Arizona brought this suit against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., a national retailer of consumer goods, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. The complaint is not currently available. After very little discovery, the parties settled and a consent decree was entered in January 2002. Although the consent decree is not available, the docket states that the defendant agreed to pay a total of $190,572.17.

Summary Authors

Joel Pettit (7/17/2007)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

2:01-cv-01104

Docket (PACER)

EEOC v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Jan. 3, 2002

Jan. 3, 2002

Docket

Resources

Docket

Last updated Sept. 5, 2022, 3:17 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

COMPLAINT FILED (LSP) (Entered: 06/21/2001)

June 20, 2001

June 20, 2001

3

RETURN OF SERVICE EXECUTED summons/complaint upon dft Wal-Mart Stores Inc on 6/25/01 (DMT) (Entered: 06/29/2001)

June 26, 2001

June 26, 2001

4

NOTICE by pla of service of order for scheduling conference, order, joint pretrial statement on dft (DMT) (Entered: 07/13/2001)

July 12, 2001

July 12, 2001

5

ANSWER to complaint [1-1] by dft (DMT) (Entered: 07/17/2001)

July 17, 2001

July 17, 2001

REMARK as to Wal-Mart Stores Inc re atty Gregory S Muzingo Wal-Mart Stores Inc 702 SW 8th St Bentonville AR 72716 removed from database for noncompliance w/admissions deadline of 08/19/01 pty represented by local counsel (BAS) (Entered: 09/07/2001)

Sept. 7, 2001

Sept. 7, 2001

6

MOTION for admission pro hac vice as to Gregory S Muzingo, atty for dft [6-1] (DMT) (Entered: 10/29/2001)

Oct. 24, 2001

Oct. 24, 2001

7

ORDER by Judge Paul G. Rosenblatt granting motion for admission pro hac vice as to Gregory S Muzingo, atty for dft [6-1] (cc: all counsel) (DMT) (Entered: 10/30/2001)

Oct. 30, 2001

Oct. 30, 2001

8

NOTICE of service of discovery by pla. (DMT) (Entered: 11/06/2001)

Nov. 2, 2001

Nov. 2, 2001

9

STIPULATION to extend time to 12/10/01 for filing case management plan by pla, dft , and to strike scheduling conference by pla, dft (DMT) (Entered: 11/27/2001)

Nov. 26, 2001

Nov. 26, 2001

10

MINUTE ORDER In light of the parties ongoing settlement negotiations, IT IS ORDERED that the Scheduling Conference set for December 10, 2001 is VACATED. It is rescheduled for Monday, January 14, 2002 at 1:30 p.m. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties are to file the Joint Case Management Report no later than fourteen days prior to the conference. (cc: all counsel) [10-2] (TCA) (Entered: 11/30/2001)

Nov. 30, 2001

Nov. 30, 2001

11

MINUTE ORDER: In light of the recently filed Consent Decree, IT IS ORDERED that the Scheduling Conference set for January 14, 2002 is VACATED. (cc: all counsel) [11-2] (KCB) (Entered: 01/02/2002)

Jan. 2, 2002

Jan. 2, 2002

12

CONSENT DECREE APPROVED by Judge Paul G. Rosenblatt that dft to pay pla total of $190,572.17 and offer employment terminating case (cc: all counsel) (DMT) (Entered: 01/03/2002)

Jan. 3, 2002

Jan. 3, 2002

Case Details

State / Territory: Arizona

Case Type(s):

Equal Employment

Special Collection(s):

EEOC Study — in sample

Key Dates

Filing Date: June 20, 2001

Closing Date: Jan. 3, 2002

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

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Private Entity/Person

Case Details

Causes of Action:

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

Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Damages

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Amount Defendant Pays: 190527.17

Issues

General:

Disparate Treatment

EEOC-centric:

Direct Suit on Merits