Case: EEOC v. University of Phoenix, Inc.

2:06-cv-02303 | U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona

Filed Date: Sept. 25, 2006

Closed Date: 2008

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On September 25, 2006, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), on behalf of a class of non-Latter Day Saints employees, filed a lawsuit in the District Court of Arizona, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, against the University of Phoenix, Inc. The EEOC sought injunctive relief, compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, and other forms of affirmative relief claiming that the defendants engaged in …

On September 25, 2006, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), on behalf of a class of non-Latter Day Saints employees, filed a lawsuit in the District Court of Arizona, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, against the University of Phoenix, Inc. The EEOC sought injunctive relief, compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, and other forms of affirmative relief claiming that the defendants engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination against a class of employees who were not members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints by treating them less favorably with regard to their terms and conditions of employment and retaliating against them for their complaint of discrimination.

On April 18, 2007, the EEOC filed an amended complaint adding Apollo Group, Inc. as a defendant. On May 2, 2008, the District Court (Judge Mary H. Murguia) granted and denied in part the plaintiff-intervenors' motions to intervene. On May 20, 2008, the District Court (Judge Murguia), among other things, granted the plaintiffs' motion for certification (text entry only; no PDF available). On May 21, 2008, the District Court (Judge Murguia) denied the defendant's motion for reconsideration. The defendants appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (Judges William Cameron Canby, Jr. and Edward Leavy) but its petition for permission to appeal was denied on August 14, 2008. Then, on September 19, 2008, the District Court (Judge Murguia) permitted the plaintiffs to construct their case as one involving a pattern or practice of discrimination.

On November 7, 2008, the District Court (Judge Mary H. Murguia) entered a consent decree where the defendant, among other things, agreed to issue letters of apology, pay the class members $1,875,000, and pay private counsel fees in the amount of $100,000.

Summary Authors

Jason Chester (10/21/2008)

Perry Miska (5/18/2014)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4775927/parties/equal-employment-opportunity-commission-v-university-of-phoenix-inc/


Judge(s)

Canby, William Cameron Jr. (Arizona)

Leavy, Edward (Oregon)

Murguia, Mary Helen (Arizona)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Kruse, Katherine (Arizona)

O'Neill, Mary Jo (Arizona)

Padegimas, Sandra (Arizona)

Rosas, Lucila G. (Arizona)

Shanley, Sally C. (Arizona)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Foster, Brian J. (Arizona)

Hayden, William R. (Arizona)

Judge(s)

Canby, William Cameron Jr. (Arizona)

Leavy, Edward (Oregon)

Murguia, Mary Helen (Arizona)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Kruse, Katherine (Arizona)

O'Neill, Mary Jo (Arizona)

Padegimas, Sandra (Arizona)

Rosas, Lucila G. (Arizona)

Shanley, Sally C. (Arizona)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Foster, Brian J. (Arizona)

Hayden, William R. (Arizona)

Mitchell, Matthew Drew (Arizona)

Woodard, Joshua Robert (Arizona)

Other Attorney(s)

Wells, Patricia Kirtley (Arizona)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

Docket

Nov. 7, 2008 Docket
1

Complaint

Sept. 25, 2006 Complaint
21

First Amended Complaint

April 18, 2007 Complaint
149

Order granting motions to intervene

2008 WL 1971396, 2008 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 38717

May 2, 2008 Order/Opinion
218

Order denying the defendant's motion for reconsideration

May 21, 2008 Order/Opinion
309

Ninth Circuit Order denying petition for permission to appeal

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Aug. 14, 2008 Order/Opinion
332

Order permitting the plaintiffs to proceed with the construction of the case as alleging a pattern or practice of discrimination

Sept. 19, 2008 Order/Opinion
344

Consent Decree

Nov. 7, 2008 Order/Opinion

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4775927/equal-employment-opportunity-commission-v-university-of-phoenix-inc/

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

ECF Number Description Date Link
149

ORDER granting the motion to intervene by Shelly Chambers Thompson 60 . FURTHER ORDERED granting in part and denying in part the motions to intervene by Darry Thornton and Falonia Edenburgs, 43 , and Francine Muscianisi and Alyssa Polk 44 . FURTHE R ORDERED denying the motion to intervene by Morseller Ector, Mark Ector, and Jennifer Hallman 46 . FURTHER ORDERED denying the motions to strike claims or alternatively for declaratory judgment 81 , 85 . Signed by Judge Mary H Murguia on 5/1/08.(KMG)

May 2, 2008 RECAP
332

ORDER - IT IS ORDERED permitting the Plaintiffs to proceed with the construction of this case as alleging a pattern or practice of discrimination. Signed by Judge Mary H Murguia on 9/19/08. (SAT)

Sept. 23, 2008 RECAP

State / Territory: Arizona

Case Type(s):

Equal Employment

Special Collection(s):

EEOC Study — in sample

Key Dates

Filing Date: Sept. 25, 2006

Closing Date: 2008

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, on behalf of non-Latter Day Saints employees alleging religion discrimination.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

EEOC Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

EEOC

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

Apollo Group, Inc., Private Entity/Person

University of Phoenix, Inc., Private Entity/Person

Defendant Type(s):

College/University

Case Details

Causes of Action:

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

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Monetary Relief

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Attorneys fees

Damages

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Amount Defendant Pays: 1,975,000

Order Duration: 2008 - 2012

Content of Injunction:

Reporting

Recordkeeping

Provide antidiscrimination training

Monitor/Master

Post/Distribute Notice of Rights / EE Law

Apology

Discrimination Prohibition

Develop anti-discrimination policy

Retaliation Prohibition

Issues

General:

Disparate Treatment

Pattern or Practice

Retaliation

Discrimination-area:

Discharge / Constructive Discharge / Layoff

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

Discrimination-basis:

Religion discrimination

EEOC-centric:

Private Party intervened in EEOC suit