Case: Smith v. Jackson

3:01-cv-00367 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

Filed Date: May 14, 2001

Closed Date: 2007

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

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 in…

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)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attrorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4798722/parties/smith-v-city-of-jackson/


Judge(s)

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)

Judge(s)

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)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Brand, Samuel M. Jr. (Mississippi)

Goldstein, Thomas C. (District of Columbia)

Horn, Dennis L. (Mississippi)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Begley, Samuel L. (Mississippi)

Crutcher, R. Pepper Jr. (Mississippi)

Martin, Heather White (Mississippi)

Nager, Glen David (District of Columbia)

Stimley-Priester, E. Charlene (Mississippi)

Teeuwissen, Pieter (Mississippi)

Williams, J. Anthony (Mississippi)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

3:01-cv-00367

Docket (PACER)

Smith v. City of Jackson

Oct. 10, 2007

Oct. 10, 2007

Docket
77

3:01-cv-00367

Motion for Summary Judgment Granted

Smith v. City of Jackson

2002 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 27284

Sept. 6, 2002

Sept. 6, 2002

Order/Opinion

02-60850

Opinion (Court of Appeals)

Smith v. City of Jackson

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

351 F.3d 183, 2003 U.S.App.LEXIS 23125

Nov. 13, 2003

Nov. 13, 2003

Order/Opinion

03-01160

Opinion (Supreme Court)

Smith v. City of Jackson

Supreme Court of the United States

544 U.S. 228, 125 S.Ct. 1536

March 30, 2005

March 30, 2005

Order/Opinion
98

3:01-cv-00367

Amended Answer to Complaint and Affirmative Defenses

Smith et al. v. City of Jackson et al.

2006 WL 1479308

April 4, 2006

April 4, 2006

Pleading / Motion / Brief

Resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4798722/smith-v-city-of-jackson/

Last updated Aug. 10, 2022, 3:04 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
114

FINAL JUDGMENT; that this matter before the Court on the parties' stipulation that it should be dismissed with prejudice in consequence of their resolution of their underlying differences; therefore, this action is dismissed with prejudice, the parties to bear only their own costs and attorney fees incurred in connection therewith. Signed by Judge William H. Barbour Jr. on 10/10/07 (SEC)

Oct. 10, 2007

Oct. 10, 2007

RECAP

Case Details

State / Territory: Mississippi

Case Type(s):

Equal Employment

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):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: No

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Outcome: Unknown

Defendants

City of Jackson, City

Defendant Type(s):

Law-enforcement

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

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Any published opinion

U.S. Supreme Court merits opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Mixed

Nature of Relief:

None

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Voluntary Dismissal

Issues

General:

Disparate Treatment

Discrimination-area:

Pay / Benefits

Discrimination-basis:

Age discrimination

Race:

Race, unspecified

Affected Gender:

Female

Male