Case: United States v. Director Alabama Personnel Department

2:68-cv-02709 | U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama

Filed Date: June 12, 1968

Closed Date: Dec. 31, 2014

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On June 12, 1968 the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama against the State of Alabama under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e. et seq. (Title VII). The DOJ asked the court for injunctive relief, alleging that the defendant had violated Title VII by discriminating against applicants for employment on the basis of race by bypassing higher ranked African-American applicants in favor of lower ranked white applicants.The …

On June 12, 1968 the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama against the State of Alabama under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e. et seq. (Title VII). The DOJ asked the court for injunctive relief, alleging that the defendant had violated Title VII by discriminating against applicants for employment on the basis of race by bypassing higher ranked African-American applicants in favor of lower ranked white applicants.

The complaint alleged that the Alabama Personnel Department discriminated on the basis of race by hiring lower ranked white applicants over higher ranked African-American applicants. A no-bypass rule was instituted by the Alabama Personnel Department. On July 28, 1970, United States brought this action to enforce the federal requirement that state personnel engaged in administration of federally financed grant-in-aid programs be recruited, hired and promoted or demoted on merit basis, without discrimination on the grounds of race or color (317 F.Supp 1079, D.C.Ala. 1970). The District Court (Judge Frank M. Johnson, Jr.) ordered: that the affected African-American applicants be offered the first available position with the rate of pay he would have and seniority rights; that African-American applicants be appointed to positions other than custodial, domestic, laborer or laboratory aide, unless another position is filled; that the defendants not appoint or offer a position to a lower-ranking white applicant over a higher-ranking available African-American applicant.

In May of 2002, in order to determine whether the no-bypass rule was still necessary, the state defendants hired statistical experts to examine the racial composition of the Alabama workforce as well as the racial patterns of recent selections in the workforce.

On February 11, 2003, a white employee of the Alabama Department of Corrections (ADC) who had claimed that he had been denied a promotion because of the no-bypass rule, moved to intervene. He alleged, among other things, that the no-bypass rule was unconstitutional and must be modified or ended.

On February 11, 2003, the United States and the state defendants began discussions on the results of the statistical analysis and proposed to terminate the no-bypass rule, as the problems, aimed at by the no-bypass rule, were remedied. On March 20, 2003, the United States and the state defendants entered a joint motion to terminate the no-bypass rule.

On May 22, 2003, representatives of African-American employees of the State of Alabama moved to intervene to oppose termination or modification of the no-bypass rule and to otherwise enforce it. On January 20, 2004, the Court (Judge Myron Thompson) granted both the white employee of ADC and the African-American employees the right to intervene under the permissive intervention rule. On February 28, 2004, the ADC employee filed a motion to terminate the no-bypass rule.

On April 21, 2004, the white employee of the ADC filed a motion to certify class. On the same day, non-black employees filed a motion to intervene. On March 28, 2005, the Court (Judge Myron Thompson) denied both motions conditionally until after the court determined the scope of discovery and the scope of its inquiry into the joint motion to terminate the no-bypass rule.

On May 9, 2005, the white employee moved for preliminary injunction. On May 20, 2005, the Court (Judge Myron Thompson) issued an order, treating the joint motion to terminate the no-bypass rule as a motion for preliminary injunction, and granted both the motion as well as ADC employee's preliminary injunction motion. The court suspended the no-bypass rule effective no later than June 20, 2005, pending final resolution of the challenges to the rule. The court reasoned that the special change in circumstances warranted the suspension of the rule.

On June 1, 2005 the ADC employee filed a motion for interim award of attorneys' fees. On September 09, 2005 the white employee filed a motion for summary judgment. On the same day, the state defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the joint motion to terminate no-bypass rule.

On June 30, 2006, the Court (Judge Myron Thompson) issued a judgment, permanently terminating the no-bypass rule. The court reasoned that the no-bypass rule was no longer an appropriate tool, and that there was no longer a fit between the practices and the rule. United States v. Director Alabama Personnel Department, 444 F.Supp.2d 1192 (M.D. Ala. 2006).

On September 17, 2007, the Court granted the plaintiff-intervenor's motion for attorney's fees to the extent that plaintiff-intervenor recovered $61,499.70 for fees and expenses. The state defendants filed an appeal against the order granting attorney's fees to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

On July 1, 2008, the plaintiff-intervenor filed a motion for attorney's fees on appeal, which was denied without prejudice on the same day.

On August 19, 2008, the Eleventh Circuit issued a judgment per curiam, affirming the District Court's grant of attorney's fees to the plaintiff-intervenor. United States v. Director Alabama Personnel Department, 281 Fed.Appx. 960 (11th Cir. 2008).

On November 30, 2012, the Court (Judge Myron Thompson) issued an order terminating and dissolving all outstanding injunctions and orders issued in this case, with the last of them terminating on December 31, 2014.

Summary Authors

Katie Campos (11/27/2007)

Zhandos Kuderin (7/10/2014)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5324254/parties/united-states-v-dir-al-personnel-dpt/


Judge(s)

Barkett, Rosemary (Florida)

Carnes, Edward Earl (Alabama)

Coody, Charles S. (Alabama)

Edmondson, James Larry (Georgia)

Johnson, Frank Minis Jr. (Alabama)

Thompson, Myron Herbert (Alabama)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Acosta, R. Alexander (District of Columbia)

Adelstein, Jay (District of Columbia)

Boyd, David R. (Alabama)

Canary, Leura Garrett (Alabama)

Judge(s)

Barkett, Rosemary (Florida)

Carnes, Edward Earl (Alabama)

Coody, Charles S. (Alabama)

Edmondson, James Larry (Georgia)

Johnson, Frank Minis Jr. (Alabama)

Thompson, Myron Herbert (Alabama)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Acosta, R. Alexander (District of Columbia)

Adelstein, Jay (District of Columbia)

Boyd, David R. (Alabama)

Canary, Leura Garrett (Alabama)

Curran, Stephen J. (District of Columbia)

Dees, Morris S. Jr. (Alabama)

DeMent, Ira (Alabama)

Himmelman, Harold (District of Columbia)

Leonard, Jerris (District of Columbia)

Martin, Marybeth (District of Columbia)

Rose, David L. (District of Columbia)

Ruzicho, Andrew [Jack] Jack (District of Columbia)

Seeley, Sharon (District of Columbia)

Snyder, Patricia A. (Alabama)

Tejani, Sharyn A. (District of Columbia)

Vines, Kenneth E. (Alabama)

Watson, Patricia A. (Alabama)

Whitsett, Louis Clifford (District of Columbia)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Acton, E. Ray (Alabama)

Anderson, Susan B. (Alabama)

Baker, Beverly P. (Alabama)

Barnett, Henry Clay Jr. (Alabama)

Baxley, William J. (Alabama)

Borden, Lisa Wright (Alabama)

Byrne, Alice Ann (Alabama)

Campbell, Andrew P (Alabama)

Fleming, Margaret L. (Alabama)

Foster, J. Eugene (Alabama)

Gallion, MacDonald (Alabama)

Hetzel, Tara S. (Alabama)

Hosp, Edward Andrew (Alabama)

Huntley, Willie J. Jr. (Alabama)

Hyde, Robbie (Alabama)

Isler, Mai Lan Fogal (Alabama)

King, Troy Robin (Alabama)

Lightfoot, Warren B Jr (Alabama)

Madison, Gordon (Alabama)

McQueen, William N. (Alabama)

Meadows, Richard N. (Alabama)

Park, John J. Jr. (Alabama)

Pettigrew, Jaime L. (Alabama)

Price, J. Victor Jr. (Alabama)

Pryor, William Holcombe Jr. (Alabama)

Simpson, James A. (Alabama)

Sims, Patrick H. (Alabama)

Smith, David Michael (Alabama)

Stapp, Mary Lee (Alabama)

Sykes, Bernard F. (Alabama)

Thagard, Thomas W. Jr. (Alabama)

Ussery, R. Frank (Alabama)

Walker, Jordan Dorman (Alabama)

Weller, Christopher W. (Alabama)

Wells, Barbara Jean (Alabama)

Williams, Mark Jefferson (Alabama)

Other Attorney(s)

Abbott, Taylor (Alabama)

Adams, Russell Wayne (Alabama)

Blizzard, Henry Wallace III (Alabama)

Brown, Gary L (Alabama)

Calamusa, Rocco Jr. (Alabama)

Childs, Robert F. Jr. (Alabama)

Clark, Richard Scott (California)

Cohen, J. Richard (Alabama)

Cooper, James Michael (Alabama)

Donahue, Susan Gale (Alabama)

Fitzpatrick , Raymond P. Jr. (Alabama)

Levin, Joseph J. Jr. (Alabama)

Mattison, Deborah A. (Alabama)

Perkins, Byron Renard (Alabama)

Simon, Kell Ascher (Texas)

Wiggins, Ann K. (Alabama)

Expert/Monitor/Master

Gardner, William F. (Alabama)

Huron, Douglas (District of Columbia)

Musso, Joe (Alabama)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

Docket (USCA)

USA v. Flowers

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Feb. 4, 2008 Docket

Docket [PACER]

Nov. 30, 2012 Docket
64

Memorandum Opinion

United States v. Frazer

317 F.Supp. 1079

July 28, 1970 Order/Opinion

District Court Opinion

NAACP v. Allen

340 F.Supp. 703

March 24, 1972 Order/Opinion
659

Complaint and Motion to Modify Injunction of Plaintiff-Intervenor Timothy D. Pope

United States of America v. Flowers

Jan. 28, 2004 Complaint
662

Order

United States v. Flowers

Feb. 26, 2004 Order/Opinion
666

Complaint-In-Intervention of Eugene Crum, et al

United States of America v. Flowers

March 12, 2004 Complaint
667

Complaint-In-Intervention of Johnny Reynolds, et al

United States of America v. Flowers

March 12, 2004 Complaint
717

Order

United States of America v. Flowers

March 28, 2005 Order/Opinion
735

Order [Granting Preliminary Relief]

United States of America v. Flowers

372 F.Supp.2d 1319

May 20, 2005 Order/Opinion

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5324254/united-states-v-dir-al-personnel-dpt/

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

ECF Number Description Date Link
723

ORDER FOR ALL PARTIES TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing, as to the following: (1) why plf USA and the state defs' joint 634 Motion to terminate the no-bypass rule and plf-intervenor Pope's 659 Motion to modify injunction as to the no-bypass rul e should not be treated as also requests for preliminary relief; and (2) why said requests for preliminary relief should not be granted as outlined in this order; Show Cause Response due by 5/9/2005; further ORDERING that, by no later than 5/20/2005, the court will resolve whether preliminary relief should be granted, as further set out in order. Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 4/29/05. (djy, )

April 29, 2005 RECAP
724

ORDER directing as follows: (1) the court's 718 Order is vacated; (2) the Reynolds and Crum plfs-intervenors 702 MOTION to Strike is denied on the merits; (3) the Reynolds and Crum plfs-intervenors 702 alternative motion for additional dis covery and expert reports is granted to the extent set out in order; (4) US Mag Judge Charles S. Coody is to resolve all disputes regarding the depositions, including where and when they should be taken; further ORDERING as follows: (1) the court 9;s 721 Order is vacated; (2) the Reynolds and Crum plf-intervenors are allowed until 5/27/2005 to respond to the defs' 707 MOTION in Limine; (3) plf USA, state defs, and plf-intervenor Pope are allowed until 5/27/05 to respond to the 719 MOTION in Limine to Exclude the Expert Report, Opinions, and Testimony of Drs. Joan Haworth and Janet Thornton; (4) the Court will decide after 5/27/05 whether the motions in limine should be set for oral argument or an evidentiary hearing; further O RDERING that the parties are referred to Mag. Judge Coody to see if a plan can be developed for more extensive, but still quite limited, discovery by the Reynolds and Crum plf-intervenors, as further set out in order; Further ORDERING as follows: (1) plf USA and the state defs' joint 634 Motion to terminate the no-bypass rule and plf-intervenor Pope's 659 Motion to modify injunction as to the no-bypass rule are set for final and summary disposition, without oral argument, pursuant to Rule 56 of the FRCP on 9/19/2005, as further set out; (2) the parties are allowed until 8/1/2005 to complete all Discovery; (3) by 8/15/2005, the parties are jointly to develop and submit to the court a record of the evidence, as further set out; (4) plf USA, the state defs, and plf-intervenor Pope are allowed until 8/29/2005 to file their briefs; (5) the Reynolds and Crum plf-intervenors are allowed until 9/12/2005 to file their brief; (6) plf USA, the state defs, and plf-intervenor Pope are allowed until 9/19/2005 to file their replies; (7) the briefs should address whether the motions at issue can be resolved pursuant to Rule 56, as further set out; (8) the parties must cite their briefs, as set out in order. Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 4/29/05. (djy, )

April 29, 2005 RECAP
735

ORDER: 634 JOINT MOTION to terminate the no-bypass rule is TREATED as a Motion for Preliminary Relief filed by defendants and said motion is granted. 732 Motion for Preliminary Relief is GRANTED. Pending final resolution of the joint motion to te rminate the no-bypass rule (Doc. No. 634 and the motion to modify injunction as to the no-bypass rule (Doc. No. 659), the application of the no-bypass rule is suspended, effective no later than 6/20/2005. The court assumes that the defendants need a reasonable period of time to put this suspension into effect in an orderly and fair manner. Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 5/20/2005. (dmn)

May 20, 2005 RECAP
779

OPINION. An appropriate judgment will be entered. Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 6/30/06. (sl, )

June 30, 2006 RECAP
789

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER, Granting 740 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Timothy D. Pope, 781 Second MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses filed by Timothy D. Pope to the extent that plaintiff-intervenor Pope shall have and recover from defendants Tommy G. Flowers, et al, the total sum of $61,499.70 for fees and expenses. Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 9/17/07. (Attachments: # 1 appeals checklist)(vma, )

1 appeals checklist

View on PACER

Sept. 17, 2007 RECAP

State / Territory: Alabama

Case Type(s):

Equal Employment

Key Dates

Filing Date: June 12, 1968

Closing Date: Dec. 31, 2014

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

The United States Department of Justice filing on behalf of African American applicants/employees, with a white employee and several black employees later intervening

Plaintiff Type(s):

U.S. Dept of Justice plaintiff

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

U.S. Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Division

Southern Poverty Law Center

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

Director Alabama Personnel Department (Montgomery, Montgomery), State

Alabama State Employees, State

Alabama Department of Corrections, State

Defendant Type(s):

Corrections

Sanitation/Public Works

Jurisdiction-wide

Case Details

Causes of Action:

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

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Mixed

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Attorneys fees

Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order

Source of Relief:

Litigation

Amount Defendant Pays: $61,499.70

Order Duration: 1968 - 2014

Content of Injunction:

Follow recruitment, hiring, or promotion protocols

Promotion

Hire

Retroactive Seniority

Preliminary relief granted

Other requirements regarding hiring, promotion, retention

Discrimination Prohibition

Develop anti-discrimination policy

Utilize objective hiring/promotion criteria

Issues

General:

Disparate Treatment

Pattern or Practice

Discrimination-area:

Hiring

Promotion

Seniority

Testing

Discrimination-basis:

Race discrimination

Race:

Black

White