AutoZone Lawsuit: Major Cases, Settlements & Verdicts

AutoZone, the Memphis-based auto parts retailer, has been the target of a wide range of lawsuits over the past two decades. The most consequential AutoZone lawsuits include a $185 million pregnancy discrimination jury verdict, a $48.9 million California class action over its rewards program, repeated Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) disability suits, multiple wage-and-hour class actions, a recent privacy settlement worth up to $1.23 million, and an ERISA challenge to its 401(k) plan that the company won at trial in September 2025. Outcomes have gone both ways: some cases produced large payouts, and several ended in AutoZone’s favor.

Website Tracking Privacy Settlement

In Farst v. AutoZone, Inc., filed in Pennsylvania’s Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas, plaintiffs alleged AutoZone secretly tracked visitors on AutoZone.com using third-party session replay technology from vendors including Tealeaf, Quantum Metric, and Glassbox. The complaint said those tools intercepted mouse movements, clicks, keystrokes, search terms, and identifying data in violation of the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act.¹

AutoZone denied the allegations but agreed to a settlement worth up to $1,233,820. Eligible Pennsylvania residents who ordered on AutoZone.com between January 1, 2022, and the settlement date, and who were not enrolled in AutoZone Rewards, could file a claim for a $20 cash payment. The court gave preliminary approval on July 16, 2025, set a November 13, 2025 claims deadline, and granted final approval on November 25, 2025, dismissing the case with prejudice.²³

The $185 Million Pregnancy Discrimination Verdict

Rosario Juarez, a former AutoZone employee, sued the company in 2008 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, alleging she was demoted and fired because of her pregnancy and then harassed and retaliated against for complaining. In November 2014, a jury sided with her on every claim and returned one of the largest pregnancy discrimination awards on record: $879,719.52 in compensatory damages and $185 million in punitive damages.⁴

AutoZone filed post-trial motions seeking a new trial and challenging the punitive damages. Before those were resolved, the parties jointly moved to dismiss the case on July 20, 2015, strongly indicating a confidential settlement. The amount AutoZone actually paid has never been disclosed.⁴

$48.9 Million California Rewards Program Settlement

In Hughes et al. v. AutoZone Parts, Inc., roughly 4.8 million California customers alleged AutoZone quietly changed the terms of its Rewards program. The program originally promised a $20 reward after five qualifying purchases with no stated time limit. Plaintiffs said AutoZone later imposed expiration windows so that credits expired after 12 months and rewards after 90 days, causing members to lose accumulated credits and earned rewards without adequate notice.⁵

The Los Angeles Superior Court granted final approval and entered judgment on July 29, 2020. AutoZone was required to reinstate or issue more than $48.9 million in rewards. Class members who had lost a reward received one of equal value; those who had lost credits received an immediately usable reward with no further purchase required. AutoZone denied the allegations and entered the settlement without admitting liability.⁵

EEOC Disability Discrimination Cases

The EEOC has sued AutoZone repeatedly under the Americans with Disabilities Act. By 2014 the agency had filed at least four such suits, and AutoZone’s record was mixed.⁶

In the most significant case, a federal jury in central Illinois awarded $600,000 to a parts sales manager with a back impairment. AutoZone had required him to mop floors despite his disability, and the mopping caused further injury. After the trial judge reduced punitive damages to the $200,000 statutory cap and added $115,000 in back pay, the total judgment stood at $424,000. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the verdict and an injunction requiring AutoZone to provide reasonable accommodations in all its central Illinois stores.⁷

Other resolutions include a 2009 Arizona consent decree of $140,000 and ADA training after AutoZone failed to promote a visually impaired employee and barred her guide dog, and a $150,000 settlement of a 2014 EEOC lawsuit challenging a nationwide attendance policy that assessed points for absences with no exception for disability-related needs, resulting in termination at 12 points.⁶⁸

Race Discrimination Cases

In 2014, the EEOC sued AutoZone alleging managers at a Chicago store tried to limit non-Hispanic staffing on the belief that Hispanic customers preferred Hispanic employees. A Black sales manager, Kevin Stuckey, was allegedly ordered to transfer to a distant store and was fired when he refused. The district court granted AutoZone summary judgment, and in 2017 the Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that the lateral transfer was not an adverse employment action because it did not reduce pay, benefits, or responsibilities.⁹

In a separate case, Michigan resident Nayonn Gray sued AutoZone under federal civil rights law after an employee allegedly refused to exchange his car battery because of his race, pointing to the employee’s remark, “Put me on Facebook, the white power oppressor, man,” as evidence of racial animus. AutoZone said the remark was sarcastic and that the exchange was denied because Gray had requested four battery replacements in three months, outside normal warranty terms. Both the district court and the Sixth Circuit ruled for AutoZone, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Gray’s appeal in May 2023.¹⁰

Wage-and-Hour and Overtime Litigation

A 2010 nationwide collective action filed in Arizona federal court alleged AutoZone improperly classified store managers as exempt from overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The case covered roughly 1,475 managers, excluding California, where managers were already nonexempt. Days before trial, and after the judge denied AutoZone’s motion to decertify the class, the parties settled for an undisclosed amount.¹¹

A California class action, Carl Myart v. AutoZone, Inc., alleged the company failed to pay all regular and overtime wages, provide meal and rest breaks, reimburse uniform-related expenses, and keep accurate time records. That case settled in 2011 for $4.5 million, and AutoZone agreed to change timekeeping procedures so that hourly California employees could remain on the clock while completing closing tasks such as setting store alarms.¹²

Additional wage-and-hour claims were consolidated in multidistrict litigation (MDL No. 2159) in the Northern District of California, addressing missed meal and rest breaks, off-the-clock work, and related violations. In one branch of that litigation, the Ninth Circuit in 2019 affirmed the denial of class certification, finding plaintiffs could not show a uniform company policy of violations and that individual inquiries would predominate.¹³

401(k) ERISA Lawsuit

In 2019, two employees filed Iannone et al. v. AutoZone, Inc. in the Western District of Tennessee, alleging AutoZone and its investment advisors breached their ERISA fiduciary duties by failing to monitor fees and performance in the company’s 401(k) plan. The complaint targeted the plan’s stable value fund (the Prudential Guaranteed Income Fund), the GoalMaker default investment tool, and recordkeeping fees paid to Prudential.¹⁴

Before trial, defendant Northern Trust Corporation, the plan’s investment advisor, settled for $2.5 million. Class members did not need to take action to receive their share.¹⁵

AutoZone itself fought the case through a seven-day bench trial. On September 30, 2025, Judge Mark S. Norris ruled in AutoZone’s favor in a 41-page opinion, finding that the investment committee met quarterly, consistently monitored the plan, and made changes to lower fees and replace default options within a reasonable timeframe. The court concluded AutoZone was not required to pursue the most aggressive investment strategy and that plaintiffs had failed to identify specific funds that consistently and significantly underperformed.¹⁶

Nevada Customer Assault Verdict

In a 2022 incident at an AutoZone in Clark County, Nevada, employee Jose Guerra punched customer Ernesto Raymundo-Lazaro during a verbal confrontation over alleged racial remarks. Guerra was later convicted of criminal battery. Raymundo-Lazaro and his wife sued AutoZone for roughly $10 million in compensatory damages plus punitive damages, arguing the company was vicariously liable because the assault occurred within the scope of Guerra’s employment and that a store manager negligently failed to intervene.¹⁷

AutoZone argued that Guerra had finished helping the customer and was trying to clock out when the confrontation escalated, placing the assault outside the scope of his employment, and characterized Raymundo-Lazaro as the instigator. On August 25, 2025, the jury returned a defense verdict, finding AutoZone not liable.¹⁷

2023 Employee Data Breach

Separately from the session replay case, AutoZone disclosed in November 2023 that it had discovered unauthorized access to its network. The breach, linked to the widely exploited MOVEit file transfer vulnerability, exposed the names and Social Security numbers of approximately 184,995 current and former employees. AutoZone began notifying affected individuals on November 21, 2023. As of mid-2024, law firms were investigating potential class action claims, though no resulting lawsuit is confirmed in the available record.¹⁸

1
ClassAction.org. AutoZone Settlement Ends Class Action Lawsuit Over Alleged Data Tracking
2
Angeion Group. Notice of Class Action and Proposed Settlement, Farst v. AutoZone
3
Angeion Group. Final Approval Order, Farst v. AutoZone
4
Bricker Graydon LLP. Fate of the $185 Million Pregnancy Discrimination Verdict Against AutoZone Revealed
5
PR Newswire. AutoZone to Provide $48.9 Million in Rewards to California Customers Under Class Action Settlement
6
EEOC. EEOC Sues AutoZone for Fourth Time for Violating Americans With Disabilities Act
7
EEOC. Judgment Against AutoZone Affirmed in EEOC Disability Discrimination Case
8
Law360. AutoZone to Pay $150K to End EEOC Absence Policy Suit
9
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. EEOC v. AutoZone, Inc., No. 15-3201
10
SCOTUSgate. Gray v. Autozoners LLC, No. 22-917
11
Sommers Schwartz. AutoZone Settles Overtime Action Days Before Trial
12
Top Class Actions. AutoZone Wage and Hour Overtime Class Action Settlement
13
FindLaw. In Re AutoZone Inc. Wage and Hour Employment Practices Litigation
14
FindLaw. Iannone v. AutoZone Inc., Case No. 19-cv-2779
15
AutoZone 401(k) Settlement. Iannone et al. v. AutoZone Inc. Settlement Notice
16
Law360. AutoZone Prevails in Class Action Over 401(k) Fees
17
CVN. Jury Clears AutoZone in $10M Battery Lawsuit
18
MyInjuryAttorney.com. Data Breach Investigation: AutoZone