Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—SEXUAL HARASSMENT—W.D. Tenn.: Pinch, rumor of sex with coworker not enough to support hostile environment claim, (Aug 4, 2025)

By Ursula Furi-Perry, J.D.

Even if all of the AutoZone employee’s allegations were accepted as true, the conduct described did not rise to the level of being “severe or pervasive” enough to support her claims.

In a suit by a former AutoZone employee who claimed she was sexually harassed by a coworker who had authority over some aspects of her work, a federal court in Tennessee held that even if all of her allegations were accepted as true, the conduct described did not rise to the level of being “severe or pervasive” enough to support a Title VII hostile work environment claim. The court also granted summary judgment on her retaliation claim, holding that missing two days of work was a de minimis employment action, especially since the employee was then offered several comparable positions and multiple work location options, allowed time off to relocate after her car was shot in the parking lot, and never saw the perpetrator again, as he was fired (Morris v. AutoZoners, LLC, No. 2:24-cv-02409-SHL-cgc (W.D. Tenn. July 31, 2025)).

The employee was hired by AutoZone as a Commercial Specialist in 2023, reporting directly to the store manager, with the Commercial Sales Manager (CSM) having authority over some aspects of her work. She alleged that the CSM was effectively her supervisor and began making inappropriate comments almost immediately, including falsely telling coworkers that the two had engaged in sexual activity, which she denied. She also alleged an incident where the CSM pinched her buttocks while she was on a ladder, leaving a bruise. The employee claimed she reported his behavior to the store manager and district manager, though the defendants disputed these early reports.

Confrontation. On July 18, 2023, after a verbal confrontation with the CSM in which he allegedly yelled at her and told her to clock out and leave, the employee left the store and filed a complaint through AutoZone’s hotline. Human Resources promptly intervened and interviewed the CSM, who admitted to some misconduct (including falsely stating to management that he and the employee had sex), and was terminated on July 31.

Shooting. The next day, the employee’s car was shot in the parking lot of a store where she had been temporarily assigned. Although she believed the CSM was responsible, the company found no evidence tying him to the event. The employee ultimately resigned from AutoZone in mid-September 2023 and took a new job with a competitor.

She filed suit, asserting claims for sexual harassment and hostile work environment under Title VII; violation of the Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA); retaliation under Title VII and the THRA; and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED)/outrageous conduct. The company moved for summary judgment on all claims, arguing that there were no genuine issues of material fact and that, even if the employee’s version of events were accepted as true, her claims failed as a matter of law.

Hostile work environment. On this claim, the court concluded that—even if all of the employee’s allegations were accepted as true—the conduct described did not rise to the level of being “severe or pervasive” enough to support a Title VII or THRA claim. The incidents spanned roughly six weeks and included a buttocks pinch, rumor-spreading about a sexual relationship, and a hostile exchange at work. However, the court noted that after the July 18 hotline complaint, the employee was immediately moved away from the CSM, who was then terminated less than two weeks later. “Given the relatively short time frame at issue and management’s actions in moving her away from [the CSM] and terminating him, these incidents, viewing them in totality, are not “severe” or “pervasive” enough to constitute a hostile work environment claim from a reasonable person’s perspective,” the court stated.

Retaliation. The court also rejected the employee’s retaliation claim, which she attempted to prove trough her constructive discharge, as well as the reduction of her hours for a two-day period. The court held that missing two days of work was a de minimis employment action, especially since she was then offered several comparable positions. Regarding the alleged constructive discharge, the court emphasized that the employee was given multiple work location options, allowed time off to relocate after the shooting, and never saw the CSM again.

There was no evidence of an intent to force her resignation or that her conditions were intolerable to a reasonable person, the court stated. It rejected the employee’s argument that she was constructively discharged because the company did not tell the CSM to leave her alone and did not show her the recording of the shooting, holding that it was not in a position to tell him to stay away from her after terminating him. “Even if Plaintiff declined an option offered by Defendants because she perceived a potential connection to [the CSM,] the numerous options they did offer contradict any conclusion that Plaintiff was constructively discharged,” the court noted. “Defendants’ undisputed actions demonstrate their intent to support her, not to create intolerable working conditions or urge her to quit.”

IIED and outrageous conduct. The court also rejected the employee’s state-law claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and outrageous conduct, finding the alleged conduct failed to meet the high threshold of being “so outrageous that it is not tolerated by civilized society.” The pinch and hostile remarks, while inappropriate, occurred over a short period and did not amount to the kind of extreme behavior Tennessee courts have found actionable. Further, the plaintiff admitted that her belief that AutoZone management was protecting the CSM was based on a "gut feeling," not evidence, and the shooting incident occurred after his termination and was thus not attributable to AutoZone. The employee also did not demonstrate a “severe mental injury” under Tennessee law, as she had not sought counseling, medical care, or significant psychological symptoms beyond moving residences and feeling unsafe.

The case is No. 2:24-cv-02409-SHL-cgc.

Judge: Lipman, S.

Attorneys: Attorneys: Margaret Beth Brooks (Law Offices of Beth Brooks) for April Shaunta Morris. Tracy E. Kern (Jones, Walker, Waechter, Poitevent, Carrere & Denegre) for AutoZoners, LLC.

Companies: AutoZoners, LLC; AutoZone, Inc.

Cases: SexualHarassment Retaliation StateLawClaims TortClaims TennesseeNews