NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
File Name: 17a0492n.06
No. 16-6475
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
LINDA KING, ) FILED
) Aug 23, 2017
Plaintiff-Appellant, ) DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
)
v. ) ON APPEAL FROM THE
) UNITED STATES DISTRICT
AUTOZONERS, LLC ) COURT FOR THE WESTERN
) DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
Defendant-Appellee. )
)
)
BEFORE: MERRITT, BATCHELDER, and CLAY, Circuit Judges.
ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. Linda King was a Claims Coordinator in
the Risk Management department of AutoZoners, LLC (“AutoZone”). In that role, she was
responsible for preparing a weekly Corporate Accident Review Board (CARB) report; engaged
in subrogation work for tractor-trailer collisions; reviewed and reconciled payments over $5,000
on a report from AutoZone’s third-party administrator and provider of claims management
services; and completed various clerical tasks. In January 2013, AutoZone hired a new director
of Risk Management, who later restructured the department with an increased focus on analytics,
automation, and efficiency. The restructuring eliminated the Claims Coordinator position,
resulting in King’s termination in September 2013. The restructuring also created a new
position, Associate Risk Analyst.
No. 16-6475, Linda King v. AutoZoners, LLC
Following King’s termination, her supervisor temporarily assumed responsibility for
production of the CARB report and permanently assumed King’s other duties. AutoZone
subsequently hired Max Mosely as the new Associate Risk Analyst. Mosely, who has an MBA,
took over preparation of the CARB report and is now able to complete the report in
approximately two hours, significantly less time than King required for the task. Eventually, he
became responsible for preparing approximately thirty other reports for the company through
data queries and analysis.
King is an African-American woman over the age of 40 and sued on claims of age
discrimination, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 623, and
race and gender discrimination, as well as retaliation, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2, 2000e-3. The district court granted summary judgment on
all claims. It held that she abandoned her retaliation claim at summary judgment, failed to
exhaust her administrative remedies for her gender discrimination claim, and could not make out
her prima facie case on her race and age discrimination claims. As to this last holding, the
district court found that she produced no evidence demonstrating that she was replaced by a non-
protected employee, because her supervisor took over most of her tasks and Mosely took over
the remaining task. It also found that she failed to demonstrate that a similarly situated, non-
protected employee received more favorable treatment than she did. Specifically, it found that
Mosely was not a valid comparator to King. Aside from the overlap of the CARB report’s
production, which he streamlined, his role at the company was different. Furthermore, he did not
yet work at AutoZone at the time of King’s termination.
On appeal, King argues that the district court erred by holding that she had abandoned her
retaliation claim and by finding that she had not established the prima facie case for her race and
-2-
No. 16-6475, Linda King v. AutoZoners, LLC
age discrimination claims. After carefully reviewing the record, the applicable law, and the
parties’ briefs, we conclude that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to
AutoZone on all counts. The district court’s opinion carefully and correctly sets out the law
governing the issues raised and clearly articulates the reasons underlying its decision. Thus, the
issuance of a full written opinion by this court would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, for
the reasons stated in the district court’s opinion, we AFFIRM.
-3-