Copart Lawsuits: Discrimination, Fraud Verdicts, and Class Actions

Copart, Inc., the Dallas-based online vehicle auction company, has been named in a series of significant lawsuits covering gender discrimination, wage-and-hour violations, consumer fraud, and insurance coverage disputes, and has also brought its own multimillion-dollar case against a software vendor. The most prominent active matter is a 2025 discrimination and retaliation suit filed by a former global vice president of human resources. Recent Copart lawsuits also include a California wage class action that received final settlement approval in June 2026 and a Colorado consumer fraud verdict that survived appeal at $700,000.

Arnold Gender Discrimination and Retaliation Suit

The highest-profile pending case is Christine Arnold v. Copart, Inc., Cause No. DC-25-05579, filed in April 2025 in the 193rd District Court in Dallas County, Texas.¹ Arnold spent 17 years at Copart and rose to global vice president of human resources. She alleges she was fired in October 2022 for repeatedly raising concerns about gender discrimination, pay inequities, and sexual harassment.²

The Allegations

According to the complaint, Arnold discovered that five female vice presidents, including herself, had been excluded from stock option distribution lists that contained only male names. When she raised the disparity with her supervisor, Will Franklin, executive vice president of Americas operations and worldwide shared services, she says he told her to “not go there.”¹ After she pressed, Arnold received a stock package worth about $200,000, which the lawsuit characterizes as far less than what male counterparts received.²

The suit describes what it calls a “boys’ club” culture. Arnold alleges she was told to “look the other way” when male executives were seen with prostitutes at company-sponsored events, and that her team was forced to manage the fallout from male-only gatherings, including a yacht party in Miami, “Burn It Down” shooting parties at a company ranch in Celina, Texas, and a poker night held during the COVID-19 pandemic.³ At the time of her termination, the complaint says Copart had no women in the C-suite, only two women on its eleven-member board, and just three female vice presidents out of 27.⁴

Arnold’s attorney, Rogge Dunn, has pointed to an August 2021 text message in which Arnold allegedly complained to Copart’s chief operating officer about gender discrimination. The causes of action include retaliation, hostile work environment, and sexual harassment under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act. Arnold seeks damages exceeding $1 million for lost compensation, emotional pain, and mental anguish.¹

Copart’s Response and Case Status

Copart has called Arnold’s allegations “baseless.” In a 2023 filing responding to her earlier EEOC complaint, the company’s attorneys stated Arnold was terminated for using her position to “violate — and threaten to continue violating — Copart’s confidentiality policy.” Copart maintained that “at no point during Arnold’s entire employment with Copart did Arnold ever assert a complaint of any alleged gender discrimination” and accused her of creating “several fictional complaints.”²

As of mid-2026, the case remains active before Judge Bridgett N. Whitmore and appears to be in early stages, with no rulings, settlements, or trial dates recorded.⁵

Mejia California Wage-and-Hour Class Action

Edwin Mejia v. Copart, Inc., 2:24-cv-01705, was filed in February 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleged Copart failed to pay overtime, failed to pay minimum wages for off-the-clock work, denied timely meal and rest breaks, issued improper wage statements, and failed to reimburse work-related expenses, among other Labor Code violations.⁶

The class covered workers employed at Copart’s California locations from January 29, 2020, onward, roughly 1,500 employees and 120,000 class-period work weeks.⁷⁸⁹

McCurdy Colorado Fraud Verdict

In McCurdy v. Copart, No. 24CA0954, a Colorado jury found Copart liable for fraudulent nondisclosure and concealment in a vehicle sale to Courtney McCurdy and awarded $700,000 in damages. The trial court trebled that award under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act.¹⁰

On appeal, Copart argued McCurdy lacked standing due to the absence of privity, that evidence of fraudulent intent was insufficient, and that jury instructions on Colorado and Michigan salvage law were misleading. On May 29, 2025, the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the fraud verdict, finding that McCurdy had standing and that the evidence supported both the finding of fraudulent intent and the $700,000 in damages. The court reversed the consumer protection claim, ruling that McCurdy had failed to establish the “significant public impact” required under the CCPA. The case was sent back with instructions to remove the trebling, effectively reducing the award from more than $2 million to the original $700,000.¹⁰

Consumer Class Action Over Vehicle Listings

A separate proposed class action in the Central District of California alleged that Copart misrepresented vehicle conditions in its auction listings. On April 8, 2025, Judge John A. Kronstadt severed certain claims for equitable relief under California’s Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law and remanded them to state court. The federal court determined it lacked jurisdiction over those claims because the lead plaintiff was simultaneously seeking money damages, and the complaint failed to establish that money damages would be inadequate.¹¹

Copart v. Sparta Consulting: The Software Failure Verdict

Copart has also been the plaintiff in significant litigation. In Copart, Inc. v. Sparta Consulting, Inc., 2:14-cv-00046 in the Eastern District of California, Copart sued its software developer Sparta Consulting and parent company KPIT Infosystems after a custom SAP business management system failed. After a four-week jury trial in May 2018, the jury returned a verdict of more than $20 million in Copart’s favor on claims of professional negligence and fraud.¹²

The trial court found that Sparta had intentionally concealed technical shortcomings while continuing to accept millions in progress payments, conduct the court said transformed a potential breach of contract into an actionable tort under California’s Unfair Competition Law.¹³ In September 2018, a federal judge reduced the $20 million award to $9 million, ruling that the contract between the parties limited recoverable damages to what Copart had already paid the software company.¹⁴

Brock Disability Discrimination Sent to Arbitration

In Brock v. Copart of Washington, Inc., 3:18-cv-02012 in the District of Oregon, former general manager April Brock alleged disability discrimination under the ADA and Oregon state law, retaliation for whistleblowing, violation of the Oregon Family Leave Act, and wrongful discharge following her December 2017 termination. In February 2019, Senior Judge Anna J. Brown granted Copart’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that a 2016 arbitration agreement “clearly and unmistakably” delegated enforceability questions to the arbitrator. The court held that the Federal Arbitration Act preempted an Oregon statute imposing special notice requirements on employer arbitration agreements, and the case was dismissed without prejudice.¹⁵

Liberty Mutual Pollution Coverage Dispute

Copart was at the center of an insurance coverage fight after eight property owners in South Carolina alleged that chemical pollutants from a Copart salvage yard contaminated their land. Liberty Mutual, Copart’s insurer, argued it owed no duty to defend or indemnify. A Texas district court initially sided with Liberty Mutual, but the Fifth Circuit reversed in July 2023, holding that under Texas law the duty to defend and the duty to indemnify are “distinct and separate duties.” The appeals court sent the case back to determine whether Liberty Mutual must cover the underlying pollution settlement, while affirming that the insurer was not required to pay Copart’s defense costs.¹⁶

Consumer Complaint Patterns

Beyond formal lawsuits, Copart has accumulated 440 complaints at the Better Business Bureau over the three years leading up to mid-2026. The most common themes involve vehicles arriving in a condition different from their auction listings, undisclosed damage, unauthorized membership renewal charges, delayed refunds, and missing title documentation. Copart has consistently responded by pointing to its terms and conditions, which state that vehicles are sold “as-is” and that the company “expressly disclaims the accuracy or completeness” of vehicle information. The annual membership renewal fee is described as non-refundable under those same terms.¹⁷

1
Insurance Journal. Former Copart HR Executive Sues Over Gender Discrimination, Retaliation
2
CBS News Texas. North Texas Woman Sues Copart Over Discrimination and Retaliation
3
Androvett. Former Copart Inc Global Vice President of HR Brings Suit for Gender Discrimination
4
Financial Reg News. Copart Stock Slides Ahead of Q3 as Lawsuit Allegations Cast Shadow on Corporate Culture
5
Trellis Law. Christine Arnold vs Copart Inc
6
Copart Lawsuit. Mejia v. Copart Class Action
7
CABIA. Edwin Mejia vs Copart Inc et al
8
CourtListener. Edwin Mejia v Copart Inc
9
PACER Monitor. Edwin Mejia v Copart Inc et al
10
Midpage AI. McCurdy v Copart, 24CA0954
11
Bloomberg Law. Copart Vehicle Deception Suit Gets Severed, Sent to State Court
12
Law360. $20M Verdict Holds Software Co Liable for Botched Project
13
California Lawyers Association. Copart Inc vs Sparta Consulting Inc
14
Law360. Copart Inc v Sparta Consulting Inc Case Articles
15
GovInfo. Brock v Copart of Washington Inc, 3:18-cv-02012
16
Bloomberg Law. Liberty Mutual Pollution Insurance Suit Sent Back to Lower Court
17
BBB. Copart Inc BBB Complaints