Filed Date: May 14, 2001
Closed Date: 2007
Clearinghouse coding complete
On May 14, 2001, several police officers 40 years of age or older filed a lawsuit against the City of Jackson, Mississippi and the Jackson Police Department under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, alleged age discrimination and asked the court for injunctive and declaratory relief, as well as compensatory damages. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that a pay plan adopted by the city violated the ADEA and caused disparate treatment and disparate impact. The pay plan granted raises to all police officers and police dispatchers in the city's attempt to bring the starting salaries of police officers up to regional averages, but those who had less than five years of tenure received proportionately greater raises when compared to the former pay than those with more seniority.
According to the PACER docket, on June 7, 2002, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. On September 6, 2002, the court (Judge William H. Barbour) granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case with prejudice. The court found that the officers had failed to demonstrate that the city had conducted unlawful age discrimination, that the city had a legitimate reason for the pay plan, and that the ADEA did not enable claims of disparate impact. Smith v. City of Jackson, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27284 (S.D. Miss. 2002).
The plaintiffs appealed the case. On November 16, 2003, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment regarding disparate impact and vacated the judgment of the District Court regarding disparate treatment, and remanded the case back to the District Court. Smith v. City of Jackson, 351 F.3d. 183 (5th Cir. 2003). Following oral argument, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. Smith v. City of Jackson, 544 U.S. 228 (2005).
According to the PACER docket, on March 30, 2007, a settlement conference was held but no agreement was reached. On October 10, 2007, the court (Judge Barbour) dismissed the case with prejudice due to resolution of the parties' underlying differences and the parties were ordered to bear their own costs and attorney fees.
Summary Authors
Emily Kuznick (4/14/2008)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4798722/parties/smith-v-city-of-jackson/
Anderson, Linda Randle (Mississippi)
Barbour, William Henry Jr. (Mississippi)
Breyer, Stephen Gerald (District of Columbia)
Brand, Samuel M. Jr. (Mississippi)
Begley, Samuel L. (Mississippi)
Anderson, Linda Randle (Mississippi)
Barbour, William Henry Jr. (Mississippi)
Breyer, Stephen Gerald (District of Columbia)
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader (District of Columbia)
Higginbotham, Patrick Errol (Texas)
Kennedy, Anthony McLeod (District of Columbia)
King, Carolyn Dineen (Texas)
O'Connor, Sandra Day (District of Columbia)
Scalia, Antonin (District of Columbia)
Souter, David Hackett (District of Columbia)
Stevens, John Paul (District of Columbia)
Stewart, Carl E. (Louisiana)
Thomas, Clarence (District of Columbia)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4798722/smith-v-city-of-jackson/
Last updated July 4, 2023, 3:02 a.m.
State / Territory: Mississippi
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Private Employment Class Actions
Key Dates
Filing Date: May 14, 2001
Closing Date: 2007
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Police officers and dispatchers with more than 5 years of tenure
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Outcome: Unknown
Defendants
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et seq.
Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e
Available Documents:
U.S. Supreme Court merits opinion
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Mixed
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Issues
General:
Discrimination-area:
Discrimination-basis:
Race:
Affected Sex or Gender: