Case: Reynolds v. Alabama Department of Transportation

2:85-cv-00665 | U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama

Filed Date: May 21, 1985

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On May 21, 1985, a group of African American applicants for merit positions and employees eligible for promotion to merit positions at the Alabama Department of Transportation (ALDOT) filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, against ALDOT, the Alabama Department of Personnel, and the State of Alabama. Represented by private counsel, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had engaged in a variety of discriminatory practices against African Am…

On May 21, 1985, a group of African American applicants for merit positions and employees eligible for promotion to merit positions at the Alabama Department of Transportation (ALDOT) filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, against ALDOT, the Alabama Department of Personnel, and the State of Alabama. Represented by private counsel, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had engaged in a variety of discriminatory practices against African American employees in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, §2000e, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. According to the complaint, the defendants had engaged in a pattern or practice of discriminatory behavior that had led to disparate treatment of African Americans and had a disparate impact upon them. Specifically, the defendants allegedly discriminated in hiring, testing, promotions, and training by manipulating the hiring and promotion procedures so as to exclude African Americans from all but menial jobs. The plaintiffs sought injunctive relief and damages. The case was assigned to District Judge Myron Thompson.

On October 8, 1986 Judge Thompson certified three classes:

1. All black merit system employees of the highway department employed since May 21, 1979;

2. All black non-merit system employees of the department who have unsuccessfully sought employment as merit system employees since May 21, 1979; and

3. All black non-employees who have unsuccessfully applied for merit system employment since May 21, 1979.

On January 16, 2001, the plaintiffs and defendants agreed to divide the plaintiffs into two classes. For the rest of the litigation, black plaintiffs fell into one of two classes:

1. All black merit system employees employed at any time since May 21, 1979; and

2. All black individuals who unsuccessfully applied for merit system employment at any time since May 21, 1979. (The docket does not include this combining of classes, but an explanation can be found in 251 F.3d 1350, at 1353 n.2).

Because much of this docket predates Pacer, we do not know exactly what happened during the early years of this case. On September 21, 1990, Judge Thompson denied a joint motion to approve a consent decree between the defendants and each of the classes. The court did not approve the decree because, after mailing the decree notices to over 4,000 class members, the court received approximately 200 objections, including four from the six named plaintiffs. Specifically, Judge Thompson noted that the named plaintiffs would receive substantial back-pay awards while other members of the classes would receive only token sums without any individualized treatment of their claims. Moreover, the consent decree would bar class members from pursuing their own claims. Finally, the proposed injunctive relief risked both adversely affecting black applicants, and being found illegal under recent Supreme Court precedent (Johnson v. Transportation Agency, 480 U.S. 616 (1987); United States v. Paradise, 480 U.S. 149 (1987)). The court therefore rejected the consent decree, but encouraged the parties to continue seeking a settlement. 790 F.Supp. 1101.

In 1992, the matter went to trial. In 1993, while trial was underway, the parties once again negotiated a settlement. This time, the decree required the defendants to implement objective hiring criteria, follow hiring and promotion protocols, recruit qualified African-Americans, use objective testing methods, and specify minimum qualifications only when they were actually necessary for the job. It also prohibited discrimination and provided for reporting to the court. Specifically, it set quotas requiring that 33% of positions in each job classification be set aside for African-American applicants. To satisfy this requirement, ALDOT was expected to implement an aggressive recruiting campaign. It further demanded the implementation of a grievance procedure for employees. Finally, the agreement provided for further adjudication of individual damage claims to remedy past discrimination. (We do not have access to the original consent decree, but the 11th Circuit opinion includes a description, Reynolds v. Roberts, 251 F.3d 1350).

Several white employees of ALDOT intervened to challenge the race-conscious provisions in the settlement, and Judge Thompson certified a separate class for these intervenors—all non-black employees of ALDOT.

Based on the intervenors’ concerns, the newly proposed consent decree was then divided into three parts: provisions all parties agreed were race-neutral; provisions that the intervenors deemed race-conscious but the plaintiffs contended were race-neutral; and provisions that all parties agreed were race-conscious. On March 16, 1994, Judge Thompson approved only the first part of the new proposed consent decree. This portion created new procedures and qualifications for hiring and promotions at ALDOT. It also required a study of all employees to identify any employees who were assigned duties associated with higher job classifications, and to reclassify these employees to that higher job classification. It further established a grievance process. 1994 WL 899259.

Disputes quickly arose over the implementation of the consent decree.

Issue: Number of Graduate Civil Engineers for Hire

On April 23, 1996, Judge Thompson held for the plaintiffs that the defendants were required to hire ten additional Graduate Civil Engineers (“GCE”), not “up to ten” additional GCEs as the defendants had argued. The court further held that the defendants were required to provide specified benefits to these employees. 1996 WL 420834.

Issue: Personnel Department Validation Study

On July 15, 1997, Judge Thompson appointed a monitor to facilitate implementation. In essence, the decree could not be implemented until the Personnel Department completed a validation study, but the department continued to seek extensions on the deadline. Meanwhile, the ALDOT failed to implement changes to the hiring standards without the study. Judge Thompson ordered the parties to submit proposals for the appointment of a monitor to help create and implement an open and fair personnel procedure for the defendants. 972 F.Supp. 566.

Issue: Article 15 of 1994 Consent Decree

The parties also disputed Article 15 of the 1994 consent decree, which stated:

“In the event such job classification study discloses that existing distinctions in the levels of multi-grade jobs do not reflect actual differences in duties, responsibilities, or qualifications, the jobs will be collapsed or restructured so that (i) they will reflect the actual distinctions, if any, shown by the study and (ii) are capable of being administered and utilized so that only persons occupying that classification perform the duties associated with it on a regular or non-emergency basis.”

On April 17, 1996, after completing the study required by the consent decree, the State Personnel Board recommended and approved a new classification system.

The plaintiffs objected to aspects of the new classification system, arguing that it was inconsistent with the empirical results of the study and that it failed to satisfy the consent decree. Specifically, they requested an injunction modifying the classification plan by collapsing classifications to form one Engineering Assistant classification and one Civil Engineer classification.

The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Charles S. Coody. The magistrate recommended that, because the differences in each of the classifications were merely progressions in proficiency, the Engineering Assistant and Civil Engineer jobs be classified into single classifications as requested by the plaintiffs. Over the defendants’ objections, the District Judge adopted the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations on February 11, 1998.

The defendants appealed the decision, but their appeal was stayed from June 1999 to January 2002 as the parties attempted to agree on an alternative multi-grade classification. The stay was lifted after the attempt at settlement failed. Despite the stay of the appeal, no stay was implemented for the order requiring a new classification system. The defendants failed to comply, and the plaintiffs moved to hold them in contempt based on this failure. The defendants then implemented the requirements of the February 11, 1998 order. The Eleventh Circuit finally ruled on the appeal on July 22, 2003, vacating the 1998 order. The Eleventh Circuit held that the plaintiffs had failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that the proposed classifications did not reflect actual distinctions shown in the SPD study. 338 F.3d 1201.

The intervening class also raised issues over how Article 15 was implemented. Specifically, the article entitled each ALDOT employee “to complete a form listing the job duties she was performing and the percentage of time she spent on each duty. Each employee whose form indicated that she was spending a majority of her time performing duties associated with a higher job classification was to be reclassified to the higher level.” On September 20, 1999, the intervenors moved to order ALDOT to show cause why it should not be held in contempt for failing to comply with this component of Article 15. The District Court referred the issue to a special master on April 30, 2003. On August 10, 2004, the Eleventh Circuit held that the intervening class had standing to bring this motion. 380 F.3d 1303. On March 15, 2017, Judge Thompson preliminarily approved a settlement agreement between the defendants and 213 individual intervenors as to Article 15 claims. This order provisionally certified a class composed of “the remaining 213 non-black members of the intervenor Contempt Relief Settlement Class, who are those individual intervenors with remaining Article 15 claims.” The agreement granted $1,000 to each of the 213 class members in resolution of any remaining claims as to reclassification. 2017 WL 1086771. The court further approved attorneys’ fees totaling $150,000 for the intervenors’ counsel. 2017 WL 2466508.

Issues as to Article 15 remained dormant for several years. (For a more detailed history of litigation and procedure, see 2014 WL 3517773).

Issue: Reclassification

Related, the parties litigated over whether a section of the proposed settlement that required the reclassification of African-Americans to the Graduate Civil Engineer position if they met every qualification for the position other than the Engineer in Training examination requirement, which had not been demanded of white applicants. Specifically, the paragraph in the proposed settlement read: “Black persons (a) who are employed as of the effective date of the Settlement Decree with the Highway Department in jobs other than PCE [Professional Civil Engineer], GRE [Graduate Registered Engineer], or GCE, and (b) have a degree in Civil Engineering or Civil Engineering Technology will, within 90 days following the effective date of the Settlement Decree, be offered reclassification to the GCE job.”

On January 23, 1998, Judge Thompson approved this component and ordered its implementation into the settlement agreement. 996 F. Supp. 1118. On May 23, 2001, however, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals (Judges Tjoflat, Hull, and Propst) vacated this ruling. The Circuit Court held that Judge Thompson’s ruling was not an implementation of an agreed upon consent decree, but rather an implementation of a contentious paragraph by its own initiative. The intervenors had never approved of the Consent Decrees II and III, and ALDOT had withdrawn its consent because it believed the decrees were unconstitutional in light of Ensley Branch, N.A.A.C.P. v. Seibels, 31 F.3d 1548 (11th Cir. 1994), and In re Birgminham Reverse Discrimination Employment Litig., 20 F.3d 1525 (11th Cir. 1994). Due to the contention, such a ruling required proper procedure and litigation. 251 F.3d 1350.

Issue: No-Overlap Provision

The parties also disputed a no-overlap provision in the consent decree, which stated: “Minimum qualifications will not be utilized on examination announcements or to preclude an applicant from examination unless the minimum qualification bears a manifest relationship to skills, knowledges, or abilities necessary to the performance of the job at entry without a brief orientation period and such skills, knowledges or abilities are not addressed in the examination process.”

On December 13, 2001, the defendants moved to remove this provision, arguing that it was novel and contrary to general employment practice. The court appointed a special master to consider and make recommendations on the issue. The special master held a three-day hearing and found that the defendants had made a good faith effort to comply with the no-overlap provision, but had failed because it was unworkable. The District Court implemented the recommendation and effectively removed the no-overlap provision from the consent decree. The plaintiffs appealed the decision, but the Eleventh Circuit upheld the removal of the no-overlap provision on July 22, 2003. 338 F.3d 1221 (a more thorough description of the history of the motion can be found in the Eleventh Circuit opinion).

The removal of the no-overlap provision created problems later in the case when the defendants were held in contempt for failure to comply with the parts of the consent decree that were dependent on the no-overlap provision. On August 30, 2005, Judge Thompson ordered an 85% refund in these fines because the provisions were impossible to implement without the no-overlap provision. He did not order a 100% refund because the defendants were at fault for failure to comply with aspects of the consent decree unrelated to the no-overlap provision. Moreover, he held the defendants at fault for their failure to realize the provision was impossible to implement. 2005 WL 2108141.

Issue: Alleged Misuse of the Grievance Process

The plaintiffs also moved for an injunction prohibiting the defendants from using the grievance process to skirt the competitive requirements of the race-neutral consent decree. As explained by Judge Thompson, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had established a secretive practice where by “a favored employee whose supervisor has selected him or her to fill an out-of-class position would file a grievance to be provisionally promoted to the new out-of-classification position and possibly receive back pay from the time of the appointment, the employee and the supervisor would then enter into a ‘settlement’ of the grievance, and the employee would then receive a provisional appointment, with back pay, to the position pursuant to the so-called settlement agreement. Employees whom their supervisors disfavored, for whatever reason, could not compete for the position, no matter how well qualified.” On March 3, 1998, Judge Thompson issued an injunction requiring an end to this practice. 996 F. Supp. 1130. The non-black employee intervenors appealed the decision, and on March 29, 2000 the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals (Judges Tjoflat, Dubina, and Story) vacated the order because it prevented the intervenors from using the grievance process developed in the implemented consent decree. 207 F.3d 1288.

Issue: Exams

From October through December of 2002, the plaintiffs also claimed that the certain exams did not comply with provisions in the consent decree requiring the State Personnel Department to search “for effective alternative devices which would have a lesser disparate impact.” Allegedly, the exams were not weighted in such a way so as to minimize adverse impact and the tests were not sufficiently valid. On December 19, 2003 District Judge Thompson denied the motion, holding that the exams and the scores were valid. 295 F. Supp.2d 1298.

Issue: Class Certifications

As discussed above, since January 2001, the plaintiffs were divided into two classes. In October 2001, the defendants moved to decertify the Hiring class, which had been defined as “all African Americans who contend they have been denied hiring opportunities with the Department on the basis of race any time after May 21, 1979.” The defendants argued that the 11th Circuit’s February 2, 2000 opinion had held that individual hiring class members had to individually demonstrate they had been discriminated against using the McDonnel Douglas framework (202 F.3d 1303). The defendants’ argued that the Hiring class certification was no longer appropriate. The parties litigated over the issue for several years, until Judge Thompson granted the motion to decertify the class “after the court has had input from the parties as to how decertification should be made” on November 10, 2008. 2008 WL 4876763.

On May 1, 2012, the Special Master submitted a recommendation on how this decertification should be carried out. 2012 WL 3100768. Judge Thompson adopted this recommendation on July 30, 2012. 2012 WL 3101283.

On March 19, 2015, the court issued a final decertification of the hiring class, finding that the defendants had complied with the procedures for decertification set out in the Nov. 2008 order.

MONETARY DISPUTES

Civil Contempt

On June 25, 1998, District Court Judge Thompson found the defendants in civil contempt for their continued failure to implement most of the consent decree. 10 F. Supp. 2d 1263. On January 31, 2000, he found them again in civil contempt and imposed weekly sanctions for failure to comply by the deadline. 84 F. Supp. 2d 1339. The defendants paid these sanctions repeatedly until February 2005. Over this time, the defendants paid $19,367,000 in sanctions fees. On February 16, 2005, Judge Thompson suspended the fines as the court sought to determine the defendants’ compliance with the consent decree. By 2006, the defendants were refunded $5,774,109.33 of the fees paid. In 2007, the defendants sought a refund of the remaining $13,592,890.67, arguing that their failure to comply with the consent decree had been a result of delays that were not caused by their actions. They further argued that with the return of these fees, they would be able to fund training and recruitment programs to improve diversity within the department and to cover attorneys’ fees. On January 2, 2008, Judge Thompson adopted the special master’s report and recommendation ordering the return of the contempt fees to the court from the U.S. Treasury, to allow the court to consider how best to redistribute the funds. 2008 WL 45529. On April 10, 2008, Judge Thompson ordered $838,500 be refunded to the defendants and referred the issue of the remaining funds to the special master. 2008 WL 1701419.

The remaining funds stayed with the Court and brought about significant litigation. The plaintiffs and intervenors sought an order requiring the funds be used to compensate the victims of the defendants’ contempt, while the defendants continued to seek reimbursement so they could use the funds for training and recruiting. On August 18, 2009, Judge Thompson adopted the Special Master’s recommendation denying all party’s motions. Instead the funds remained with the court as individual contempt claims were resolved. 2009 WL 2579346.

Plaintiffs’ Individual Contempt

The defendants’ failure to comply with the consent decree also brought about individual contempt claims by the plaintiffs. On May 29, 2001, the parties agreed to a settlement agreement resolving the plaintiffs’ individual monetary contempt claims through May 2001. It did not resolve any individual non-monetary remedies for contempt or restrict the plaintiffs’ right to seek monetary relief for contempt continuing after May 2001. (A description of this history can be found in the Special Master’s June 19, 2008 report, 2008 WL 5666570). On February 24, 2009, Judge Thompson adopted the Special Master’s September 10, 2008 report holding that individual plaintiffs might be entitled to “make whole contempt relief for racial harassment” distinct from the settled issue of racial discrimination (2009 WL 465449, adopting ECF 8319).

Over the next several years, Judge Thompson considered several individual plaintiff motions for individual contempt claims. He denied most of them based on the special master’s recommendation. These recommendations can be found in the documents below.

- On November 24, 2009, Judge Thompson adopted the Special Master’s recommendation denying a motion for an individual contempt claim, on the theory of judicial estoppel – the plaintiff had not included these facts in the September 2001 settlement. 2009 WL 4456339.

- On February 22, 2010, Judge Thompson adopting Special Master’s recommendations denying plaintiff’s claim for individual contempt because “any instatement claims that were not ripe in March 2003 are to be pursued, if at all” in a separate lawsuit. 2010 WL 653843.

- On April 21, 2010, Judge Thompson adopted the Special Master’s recommendation denying an individual contempt claim based on judicial estoppel. 2010 WL 16582284, adopting 2010 WL 1663853

- On April 29, 2010, Judge Thompson adopted the Special Master’s recommendation denying a plaintiff’s claim for individual contempt regarding training and instatement, but denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment regarding job rotation. 2010 WL 1740882, adopting 2010 WL 1740890.

- On April 29, 2010, Judge Thompson adopted Special Master’s recommendation granting individual-contempt claim as to job rotation but denying it as to his promotion claim. 2010 WL 1740880, adopting ECF 8531.

- On November 28, 2011, Judge Thompson adopted the Special Master’s recommendation granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to an individual contempt claim. 2011 WL 6000880, adopting 2010 WL 8032042.

- On August 30, 2010, the Special Master recommended that an individual claimant’s claims be denied in part and granted in part. 2010 WL 8032041. On November 28, 2011, Judge Thompson rejected this recommendation after it came to light that the individual was now retired. 2011 WL 6000849. He referred the claim back to the special master. On March 8, 2012, the Special Master recommended that defendant’s motion for summary judgment be granted. 2012 WL 1119559. On April 3, 2012, Judge adopted recommendation granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment. 2012 WL 1110121.

- On November 22, 2011, Judge Thompson adopted the Special Master’s December 3, 2010 recommendation granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to an individual contempt claim regarding instatement, training, and job rotation but allowing the individual plaintiff to pursue a claim as to whether he was disadvantage in taking a qualifying exam. 2011 WL 5858457 adopting 2010 WL 8020469.

- On November 28, 2011, Judge Thompson adopted the Special Master’s January 3, 2011 recommendation allowing a plaintiff to proceed on an individual contempt claim as to his preclusion from promotion. 2011 WL 6000875 adopting 2011 WL 6000767.

- On December 5, 2011, Judge Thompson adopted the Special Master’s March 1, 2011 recommendations that the defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to an individual contempt claim be granted. 2011 WL 6029944, adopting 2011 WL 6029954.

- On July 6, 2011, Judge Thompson adopted the Special Master’s April 26, 2011 recommendation that the defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to an individual contempt claim be granted. 2011 WL 2650244, adopting 2011 WL 2650488.

- On November 28, 2011 Judge Thompson adopted the Special Master’s June 28, 2011 recommendation that the defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to an individual contempt claim be granted. 2011 WL 5974399, adopting 2011 WL 5984410.

- On February 13, 2012, Judge Thompson adopted the Special Master’s November 2, 2011 recommendation that the defendant’s motion for summary judgment be granted as to the provision appointment process, the backlog appointment process, and Article XIV of the consent decree; but that the individual plaintiff be allowed to proceed with claims regarding promotions and job rotations. 2012 WL 444009, adopting 2011 WL 77277435.

- On November 21, 2011, Judge Thompson adopted the Special Master’s recommendation that all but individual’s the job rotation or training claims be denied. 2011 WL 5858389, adopting ECF 8718.

- On December 2, 2013, Judge Thompson adopted the Special Master’s recommendation granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to an individual contempt claim. 2013 WL 6230491.

- On March 31, 2014, Judge Thompson adopted the Special Master’s recommendation granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to an individual contempt claim. 2014 WL 1345979

- On August 18, 2014, Judge Thompson adopted the Special Master’s recommendation granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to an individual contempt claim. 2014 WL 4071591.

Throughout 2017 and into 2019 various individual contempt motions were raised and then dismissed by defendants against plaintiffs.

Back pay issue

Meanwhile, the parties had been litigating over the appropriate back pay award for several years. On April 16, 1997, Judge Thompson ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiff class $34,732,487.00 in back pay. On March 18, 1998, he entered an order explaining how this number was reached. He clarified that the number reached was a reflection of negotiations, and not the amount to which each party might otherwise be entitled. For example, class members were to receive one time payments of back pay, rather than back pay and front pay. 996 F. Supp. 1156.

The ALDOT appealed the decision, alleging that the District Court erred in interpreting the approved Consent Decree to establish a “class-wide liability,” thereby removing a need for class members to demonstrate that they were denied promotions or back pay because of their race. The Eleventh Circuit agreed, and vacated the District Court’s opinion regarding back pay. The Circuit Court held that the defendant had not been found guilty of anything, and criticized the attorneys from both sides for litigation that had “led to nothing but the expenditure of time and considerable resources.” 202 F.3d 1303.

New settlement agreement

On January 16, 2001, the defendants and plaintiffs both moved for approval of a proposed settlement. Fairness hearings were held, where the intervening non-black employees opposed the agreement. On August 29, 2001, Judge Thompson denied the motion, holding that the proposed settlement required the consent of the intervenors. 261 F. Supp. 2d 1331. On September 25, 2001, the parties submitted a modified settlement agreement with the approval of all parties. Judge Thompson approved the settlement agreement the next day. 265 F. Supp. 2d 1289. The agreement placed a three-month moratorium on the sanction fees the defendants had been paying for their failure to comply with the earlier consent decree.

It further vacated the August 29, 2001 order and, based on later court opinions, it appears the January 16, 2001 settlement agreement was later held valid.

In 2006, issues arose over the appropriate interest rate to be paid on the January 2001 settlement. In a Special Master recommendation, the Court stated that the settlement awarded the plaintiff class:

1. $40,000,000 in back pay, compensatory damages, and interest;

2. $4,600,000 for the defendants’ contempt of the consent decree;

3. an amount equal to the amount paid to the Adams intervenors in settlement of their claims relating to defendants’ contempt of the consent decree; and

4. An amount for settlement of certain plaintiff class members’ grievances equal to the amount paid to the Adams intervenors in settlement of Adams intervenor class members’ grievances.

The recommendation further stated that, in September 2001, the intervenors had received $2,400,000 to settle their contempt claims and $1,450,000 to settle their grievances, though no record of these payments can be found in the docket. At that time the plaintiff were not awarded the matching amounts as required by the January 2001 settlement. Later, the defendants failed to pay the appropriate interest for the missed payments, so the Court ordered the defendants to pay an additional $129,803.18 in interest. 2006 WL 3063463

Cost of the Special Master

In October 2002, Honorable Carlos González was appointed as special master. Throughout the course of the case, he addressed a wide range of issues including individual contempt claims. For several years the defendants covered the cost of the Special Master, but in December 2007, they moved to amend the order that had allocated the cost solely to the defendants. They argued that, because they had reached full compliance with the then expired consent decree, circumstances had sufficiently changed to warrant and amendment. Moreover, because the plaintiffs were not liable for the cost of the special counsel, they lacked incentive to expedite a resolution of the issues. On October 27, 2008, Judge Thompson denied the motion, stating “it is finally possible to glimpse a light at the end of the tunnel of this litigation, and the court will not tolerate the unfounded injection of matters that threaten to unduly prolong resolution.” Nonetheless, he left open the option for the defendants to develop a record that the plaintiffs and intervenors had “engag[ed] in a pattern of injecting frivolous matters into this litigation” and seek reimbursement for future costs. 2008 WL 4767725. There appears to have been no further litigation on the issue.

COMPLIANCE

On October 1, 2004, the defendants moved for the court to find them in compliance with Article 19 of the consent decree, which stipulated the grievance procedure to be offered by the defendants. The plaintiffs and intervenors objected to the motion, arguing that the defendants had failed to comply with Article 19 because only ALDOT had offered a grievance procedure. Therefore, employees had no way to file grievances about the State Personnel Department (“SPD”). On August 2, 2006, Judge Thompson granted the defendants’ motion in part, holding that they were in compliance with Article 19 in so far as employees could file grievances about ALDOT, but that they were not entirely in compliance because of grievance process failed to appropriately address complaints against SPD. The parties were directed to come up with another process to address these complaints. Judge Thompson also found the defendants in compliance with Article 1. 2006 WL 2190588.

Throughout 2006, the District Court found the defendants in compliance with several other components of the consent decree (Article 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14) (2006 WL 2576839; 2006 WL 2669343; 2006 WL 3924790)

On June 7, 2017, Judge Thompson issue a final opinion on the intervening non-black plaintiffs. As noted above, the intervenors had originally joined the litigation in 1990, objecting to the race-conscious provisions of the original consent decree. After the new settlement in 2001, the intervening plaintiffs proceeded on cases of individual contempt against the defendants. 16 years later, the two parties reached a settlement agreement on the individual contempt claims, and the court certified the settlement class.

On October 17, 2017, Judge Thompson entered partial final judgement on on the intervenor-contempt-relief settlement class in the action, terminating the class of intervenors.

Although litigation has slowed considerably, the case is ongoing as to individual contempt claims.

Summary Authors

Michael Perry (11/16/2010)

MJ Koo (3/18/2017)

Carter Powers Beggs (12/2/2019)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4122320/parties/reynolds-v-depttransportation/


Judge(s)

Barkett, Rosemary (Florida)

Carnes, Edward Earl (Alabama)

Coody, Charles S. (Alabama)

Dubina, Joel Fredrick (Alabama)

Edmondson, James Larry (Georgia)

Hill, James Clinkscales (Florida)

Hull, Frank M. (Georgia)

Propst, Robert Bruce (Alabama)

Story, Richard W. (Georgia)

Thompson, Myron Herbert (Alabama)

Judge(s)

Barkett, Rosemary (Florida)

Carnes, Edward Earl (Alabama)

Coody, Charles S. (Alabama)

Dubina, Joel Fredrick (Alabama)

Edmondson, James Larry (Georgia)

Hill, James Clinkscales (Florida)

Hull, Frank M. (Georgia)

Propst, Robert Bruce (Alabama)

Story, Richard W. (Georgia)

Thompson, Myron Herbert (Alabama)

Tjoflat, Gerald Bard (Florida)

Watkins, William Keith (Alabama)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Adams, Russell Wayne (Alabama)

Alstyne, Abigail Pruyn Van (Alabama)

Anthony, Rebecca (Alabama)

Atha, Steven L. (Alabama)

Blizzard, Henry Wallace III (Alabama)

Brown, Gary L (Alabama)

Calamusa, Rocco Jr. (Alabama)

Childs, Robert F. Jr. (Alabama)

Clark, Richard Scott (California)

Cooper, James Michael (Alabama)

Donahue, Susan Gale (Alabama)

Ebbinghouse, Richard J (Alabama)

Fitzpatrick , Raymond P. Jr. (Alabama)

Gaines, Eden J. Brown (Alabama)

Gill, Richard Hamilton (Alabama)

Goldfarb, Jon Craig (Alabama)

Harris, Rick (Alabama)

Logan, Stanley W. (Alabama)

Mattison, Deborah A. (Alabama)

Page, Kimberly C. (Alabama)

Simon, Kell Ascher (Texas)

Wiggins, Ann K. (Alabama)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Abbot, Richard Taylor Jr. (Alabama)

Agricola, Algert Swanson Jr. (Alabama)

Ayers, Marc James (Alabama)

Barnett, Henry Clay Jr. (Alabama)

Bates, Roger Lee (Alabama)

Baugh, Robert Richardson (Alabama)

Borden, Lisa Wright (Alabama)

Boyd, David R. (Alabama)

Burford, Steve Ray (Alabama)

Byrne, David Bryson Jr. (Alabama)

Campbell, Andrew P (Alabama)

Cook, Martha Reeves (Alabama)

Cowan, Joseph Lamar II (Alabama)

Daugherty, Robert Ryan (Alabama)

Elliott, Thomas Renfro Jr. (Alabama)

Forrester, Nathan A. (Alabama)

Gardner, William F. (Alabama)

Gratton, Gaile P. (Alabama)

Gray, William Patton Jr. (Alabama)

Hetzel, Tara S. (Alabama)

Hoaglund, Eric Daniel (Alabama)

Houston, Stacey Smith (Alabama)

Huffaker, R. Austin Jr. (Alabama)

Hughes, Charles Dennis (Alabama)

Ippolito, Jim Robert Jr. (Alabama)

Isler, Mai Lan Fogal (Alabama)

Jackson, Christina Harris (Alabama)

Keel, James Michael (Alabama)

King, Troy Robin (Alabama)

Leonard, Ellen Ruth (Alabama)

Long-Daniels, David Wayne (Georgia)

Loper, David M. (Alabama)

Lyons, Champ Jr (Alabama)

Mark, Robin Beardsley (Alabama)

McGowin, Anne Elizabeth (Alabama)

Mellon, David Roy (Alabama)

Mitchell, Christopher Marlowe (Alabama)

Morris, Laszlo Daniel Jr. (Alabama)

Nettles, Bert Sheffield (Alabama)

Norton, Jack Franklin (Alabama)

Osborn, Jason Michael (Alabama)

Powell, Charles A. IV (Alabama)

Proctor, Laura Ellison (Tennessee)

Pryor, William Holcombe Jr. (Alabama)

Redmond, Wesley Clyde (Alabama)

Scott, Stephen L. (Alabama)

Shattuck, R. Cooper (Alabama)

Sheffield, Erica L. (Alabama)

Shinbaum, Kenneth Jay (Alabama)

Sims, Patrick H. (Alabama)

Sinclair, Thomas O'Neal (Alabama)

Smith, Jacquelyn Demetrius (Alabama)

Stuedeman, Amy L. (Alabama)

Thomas, William Kenneth (Alabama)

Trippeer, Allen Robert (Alabama)

Tunstill, Wendy Tyler (Alabama)

Waggoner, Mark T (Alabama)

Wagner, Susan Salonimer (Alabama)

Walker, Marion Francis (Alabama)

Waller, Jonathan Hiett (Alabama)

Weinberg, Robert M. (Alabama)

Weller, Christopher W. (Alabama)

Wells, Barbara Jean (Alabama)

Whitehead, Christopher Kyle (Alabama)

Wise, Ronald W. (Alabama)

York, Cinda Ruth (Alabama)

Yuengert, Anne R (Alabama)

Other Attorney(s)

Arnwine, Barbara R. (District of Columbia)

Booth, Britt Searcy (Alabama)

Camp, Robert J. (Alabama)

Chachkin, Norman J. (New York)

Drake, Russell Jackson (Alabama)

Ferrante, Teresa A. (District of Columbia)

Goldman, C. Paige (Alabama)

Henderson, Thomas J. (District of Columbia)

Hunter, Chuck (Alabama)

Jones, Elaine R. (New York)

Kendrick, Leonard Gilbert (Alabama)

Lathram, Othni James (Alabama)

McDermott, Mickey John Glen (Alabama)

McPhillips, Julian Lenwood Jr. (Alabama)

Murray, William Robert (Alabama)

Prestwood, Alvin T. (Alabama)

Price, Joseph Victor Jr. (Alabama)

Rodgers, Karen Sampson (Alabama)

Seymour, Richard Talbot (New York)

Umbach, Arnold William Jr. (Alabama)

Vinik, Sandra Lois (Alabama)

Whatley, Joe R. Jr. (Alabama)

Whiteside, David P. Jr. (Alabama)

Expert/Monitor/Master

Edelstein, Laurie (Alabama)

Faulk, Winn S. L. (Alabama)

Gonzalez, Carlos A. (Georgia)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

Docket [PACER]

Reynolds v. Department of Transportation

March 15, 2017 Docket
82

Order

Reynolds v. Bass

Oct. 8, 1986 Order/Opinion

Order

Reynolds v. King

790 F.Supp. 1101

Sept. 21, 1990 Order/Opinion
553

Opinion (Approving Portion I of the Consent Decree)

1994 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 20921

March 16, 1994 Order/Opinion
835

Order Regarding Attorney's Fees and Expenses for Plaintiffs for Work through May 2, 1994

926 F.Supp. 1448

Nov. 21, 1995 Order/Opinion
989

Opinion (Interpreting and Enforcing a Portion of the 1994 Consent Decree)

1996 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 10691

April 23, 1996 Order/Opinion
1985

Opinion (Requiring the appointment of a monitor to facilitate the implementation of the consent decree)

972 F.Supp. 566

July 15, 1997 Order/Opinion
2277

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge

Nov. 19, 1997 Magistrate Report/Recommendation
2413

Opinion (Adopting one portion of the proposed consent decree)

996 F.Supp. 1118

Jan. 23, 1998 Order/Opinion
2450

Order

Feb. 11, 1998 Order/Opinion

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4122320/reynolds-v-depttransportation/

Last updated May 13, 2022

ECF Number Description Date Link
7694

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Accordingly, it is recommended that the Court grant the defendants' MOTION for Refund of all Fines and Accrued Interest Paid for contempt of Articles II and III (Doc. No. 7405). That portion of the Defendants' mo tion (Doc. No. 7405) asking the Court to terminate the civil contempt fines for articles II and III should be denied as Moot since the Court had previously order the suspension of said fines; See Docket No. 7667 at 13; The Defendants should certify t o the Court the amount they have paid as civil contempt fines for Articles II and III and seek from the Court an order directing the Clerk of Court to return said amonts to the Defendants; Objections to R&R due by 4:00 on 3/28/2005. Signed by C.A. Gonzalez, Special Master on 3/4/05. (vmc, )

March 4, 2005 RECAP
7726

ORDER as follows: 1) Pursuant to agreement of the defendants, plaintiffs, and Adams intervenors, the defendants' quarterly supplemental testing schedule, dated 4/8/05 (attached to the notice of filing (Doc. no. 7725 ), is approved, adopted, and entered by the Court; The schedule supplements the schedule previously adopted and entered by the Court on 12/9/03 (Doc. no. 7074 ), as subsequently supplemented; 2) The quarterly testing schedule includes SPD's schedule for both non-project a nd project classifications; With regard to the project schedule, the parties reserve their respective positions as to whether the MQs for those classifications are valid and/or have been approved; 3) The defendants are ENJOINED and RESTRAINED from failing to comply with the supplemental schedule attached to the notice of filing (doc. no. 7725 ). Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 4/21/05. (vmc, )

April 21, 2005 RECAP
7797

ORDER Accordingly, The Defendants' demand that the SPD be paid $250 per hour for Dr. Buster's expert testimony in their pending motion for Article VIII compliance is rejected.. Signed by C.A. Gonzalez on 6/27/05. (vmc, )

June 27, 2005 RECAP
7798

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 7752 MOTION for Order Requiring Defendants to Pay Funds Related to Grievance Settlement filed by Johnny Reynolds; that the Plaintiff's Motion to Recover Funds 7752 be denied; Objections to R&R due by 7/7/2005; within (10) days. Signed by C.A. Gonzalez on 6/27/05. (vmc, )

June 27, 2005 RECAP
7800

ORDER Based upon plaintiffs' response Doc. No. 7799 , it is Ordered that defendants' motions for approval of minimum qualifications, etc. Doc. Nos. 7605 , 7610 , 7611 ,& 7794 are granted and the minimum qualifications at issue are approved . Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 6/30/05. (vmc, )

June 30, 2005 RECAP
7824

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS that the Intervenors' 7732 MOTION for an Interim Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; further recommending that if the Court adopts this report and recommendation, that th e Intervenors and Defendants review the current fee petition consistent with the findings and procedures set forth above in Sections II(C)(2)(i)-(vii), and that fees and expenses be paid to the Intervenors in amounts authorized by this report and recommendation; Objections to R&R due by 4:00 p.m. on 8/22/2005. Signed by Carlos Gonzalez on 8/1/05. (djy, ) Modified on 8/1/2005 to reflect signed by Special Master Gonzalez and not by Judge Thompson (qc/djy, ).

Aug. 1, 2005 RECAP
7845

ORDER it is the Order, Judgment, and Decree of the court as follows: 1) The plaintiffs' and the Adams intervenors' objections 7708 and 7706 are sustained; 2) The special master's recommendation 7694 is rejected; 3) The defendants ' motion to terminate Article II and III civil contempt fines and for refund of all fines and accrued interest paid pursuant to the order of civil contempt for Articles II and III 7405 is denied; 4) The plaintiffs' and the Adams interveno rs' objections 7735 and 7736 are overruled; 5) The defendants' motion for modification of the 2000 contempt order 7728 is granted in part; 6) The defendants are entitled to a refund of 85 % of all fines and accrued interest paid pursuant to the 2000 order of civil contempt for Articles II and III; 7) After conferring with the clerk of the court and, in any event by no later than 9/6/05, the parties are to submit to the court a jointly agreed upon calculation of the amount of this 85% refund. Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 8/30/05. (Attachments: # 1 civil appeals checklist) (vmc, )

1 civil appeals checklist

View on PACER

Aug. 30, 2005 RECAP
7878

ORDER directing that the Special Master's 7798 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION is NOT ADOPTED at this time and the plf's 7752 MOTION to recover funds is referred back to the Special Master, as further set out in order . Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 9/23/05. (djy, )

Sept. 23, 2005 RECAP
7879

ORDER it is Ordered as follows: 1) The defendants' objections 7841 and Adams intervenors' objections 7842 are overruled, with leave to renew the objections when the Special Master enteres a final recommendation for the specific sum, if any, that the Adams intervenors should receive as interim attorneys' fees; 2) The Special Master's 7824 Report and Recommendations is "preliminarily" adopted, and the defendants and the Adams intervenors are to comply forthwith with the Special Master's directives; 3) 7732 MOTION for Interim Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses filed by William Adams are granted in part and denied in part as set forth in the Special Master's report and recommendation 7824 .. Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 9/23/05. (Attachments: # 1 appeals checklist)(vmc, )

1 appeals checklist

View on PACER

Sept. 23, 2005 RECAP
7908

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 7732 MOTION for Attorney Fees Interim Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses filed by William Adams, Accordingly it is recommended that of the $146,106.18 in fees and expenses sought by the Intervenors in their first interim fee request 7732 that $43,136.25 be deducted from that amount for a total award of $102,969.93; Objections to R&R due by 11/14/2005. Signed by C.A. Gonzalez on 11/2/05. (vma, )

Nov. 2, 2005 RECAP
7909

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 7849 Second MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses (Interim Award) filed by William Adams, Accordingly, it is recommended that the Intervenors' second interim requestfor fees and expenses 7849 be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED INPART consistent with this Recommendation. Specifically, it is recommended that of the$118,133.18 in fees and expenses sought by the Intervenors, $73,447.50 be deducted for atotal award of $44,685.68; Objections to R&R due by 11/14/2005. Signed by C.A. Gonzalez on 11/2/05. (vma, )

Nov. 2, 2005 RECAP
7930

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 7857 MOTION to Alter Judgment 7845 Order on Report and Recommendations, Order on Motion to Modify,,,,,,,, filed by Department of Personnel, State of Alabama,, Department of Transportation, State of Alabama, it is Rec ommended that the Defendants' Motion to Alter or Amend be granted in part and denied in part; It is recommended that the defendants be found to have been in compliance with Article II, 2()a) on 9/1/01; It is recommended that the Defendants be fo und in compliance with Article III, 2(b), (c), and (d) on 10/12/01, and that consistent with the reasoning set forth above, that the defendants be refunded $303,959.33 in remaining Article II and Article III contempt fines; It is further recommended that additional evidence be submitted on the issue of compliance with regard to Article II, 2(b) and Article III, 2(a); Objections to R&R due by 12/22/2005. Signed by C.A. Gonzalez, Special Master on 12/5/05. (vma, )

Dec. 5, 2005 RECAP
7964

ORDER it is the Order, Judgment and Decree of the court as follows: 1) The objections filed by the plaintiffs on 12/22/05 7939 , are overruled; 2) ADOPTING 7930 Report and Recommendations; 3)The clerk of the court is to refund $303,959.33 to the defendants, consistent with the special master's recommendation; 4) The defendants' motion to alter or amend 7857 is referred back to the Special Master todetermine whether the defendants are entitled to anyrefund of fines attributable to Article II, 2(b) andArticle III, 2(a). Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 2/6/06. (Attachments: # 1 appeals checklist)(furn: Nancy Lett)(vma, )

1 appeals checklist

View on PACER

Feb. 6, 2006 RECAP
7966

ORDER With the understanding that the defendants' motion for summary judgment on Article XIV compliance 7777 is not granted as to paragraph 3 of Article XIV and after a de novo review of the record, it is ORDERED as follows 1) The plaintiffs 039; objection 7935 to Special Master Gonzalez's report and recommendation is overruled; 2) The Special Master's Report and Recommendation 7824 , as amended 7906 & 7929 , is ADOPTED; 3) Defendants' 7777 Motion for Summary Judgm ent on Article XIV compliance is granted in part and denied in part; 4) The defendants' 7453 Motion for finding of compliance with Article XIV is granted as 1 & 2 (a); 5) The court reserves judgment on the defendants' motion for a finding of compliance with Article XIV 7453 as to 2(b) & 3, pending further report and recommendation by the Special Master. Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 2/7/06. (Attachments: # 1 civil appeals checklist)(vma, )

1 civil appeals checklist

View on PACER

Feb. 7, 2006 RECAP
7968

ORDER Based on the oral agreement of the parties during the on-the-record status conference held on 2/7/06, it is ORDERED as follows: 2) The Adams intervenors' motion for contempt relief and modification 4691 is referred to Special Master Carlos Gonzalez to the extent it contains requests for make-whole individual contempt relief; 2) Said motion is denied in all other respects as moot. Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 2/7/06. (vma, )

Feb. 7, 2006 RECAP
7973

ORDER it is the Order, Judgment and Decree of the court as follows: 1) The objections filed by the defendants on 11/14/05 7919 , are overruled, except as to the portion of fees relating to the decree-extension matters; 2) ADOPTING 7908 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS, except the portion of the recommendation relating to the decree-extension matters; 3) The Adams intervenors are awarded only 70 % of the $7,400.00 relating to the decree-extension matters that they requested; 4) Granting in part and denying in part 7732 MOTION for Attorney Fees Interim Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses filed by William Adams; 5) The defendants are to pay to the Adams intervenors $101,119.93 in interim fees for the period of Janua ry to April, 2005; The court's decision was affected by the following considerations, in light of the parties' oral arguments on 2/7/06 as further set out in order. Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 2/21/06. (Attachments: # 1 appeals checklist)(vma, )

1 appeals checklist

View on PACER

Feb. 21, 2006 RECAP
7974

ORDER it is the Order, Judgment and Decree of the court as follows: 1) The objections filed by the defendants on 11/14/05 7920 , are overruled; ADOPTING 7909 Report and Recommendations, 3) Granting in part and denying in part 7849 Motion for Att orney Fees, filed by William Adams as further set out in order; 4) The defendants are to pay to the Adams intervenors $44,685.68 in interim fees for the period of May to August 2005. Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 2/21/06. (Attachments: # 1 appeals checklist)(vma, )

1 appeals checklist

View on PACER

Feb. 21, 2006 RECAP
7976

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 7516 Motion for Finding of Compliance with Article VIII be granted and that as respects each individual paragraph of Article VIII that the Defendants be found in compliance as of the following dates: Paragraph One, 5/2 4/05; Paragh Tow, 7/31/05; Paragraphs Three, Four and Fice, 9/22/04; It is further Recommended that the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 7811 ; the Intervenors' Motion for Summary Judgment 7812 ; and the Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment 7814 all be denied as moot; Objections to R&R due by 3/10/2006. Signed by C.A. Gonzalez on 2/21/06. (vma, )

Feb. 21, 2006 RECAP
7979

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 7949 Third MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses for the period of September 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005 filed by William Adams, it is recommended that the Intervenors' Third Request for Fees and Exp enses 7949 be granted in part and denied in part without prejudice; In particular, it is recommended that the Intervenors be awarded $14,333.33 in fees and expenses as outlined above in section II(H), and that fees in the amount of $11,923.75 be denied (deferred) without prejudice with leave to refile a claim for this amount at a later date; Objections to R&R due by 3/13/2006. Signed by C.A. Gonzalez on 2/27/06. (vma, )

Feb. 27, 2006 RECAP
7987

ORDER 1) ADOPTING 7979 Report and Recommendations; 2) granting in part and denying in part 7949 Third MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses for the period of September 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005 filed by William Adams, as further set out; 3) The defendants are to pay to the intervenors $14,333.33 in interim fees for the period of September to December 2005. Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 3/14/06. (vma, )

March 14, 2006 RECAP
7988

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 7857 MOTION to Alter Judgment 7845 Order on Report and Recommendations, it is Recommended that the Defendants' Motion to Alter or Amend 7857 as respects Article II, 2(b) and Article III, 2(a) be denied; Objections to R&R due by 3/27/2006. Signed by C.A. Gonzalez on 3/16/06. (vma, )

March 16, 2006 RECAP
7999

ORDER 1) ADOPTING 7988 Report and Recommendations; 2) To the extent the court's order of 2/6/06 doc. no. 7964 , reserved judgment on the dfts' 7857 MOTION to Alter or amend, as it relates to the contempt fines imposed for dfts' failure to comply with Article II, 2(b) and Article III, 2(a) of Consent Decree I, said motion to alter or amend is denied. Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 3/28/06. (Attachments: # 1 appeals checklist)(vma, )

1 appeals checklist

View on PACER

March 28, 2006 RECAP
8034

ORDER it is the Order, Judgment, and Decree of the court as follows: 1) In light of the notices filed by defendants on 4/5/06 doc. no. 8020 and 4/25/06 doc. no. 8033 , the objection filed by the intervenors on 3/10/06 doc. no. 7982 is overruled as moot; 2) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 7976 Report and Recommendations; 3) Granting 7439 MOTION For Finding of Compliance With Article VIII of Consent Decree I and Termination of Weekly Contempt Fines on Article VIII filed by Department of Transportation, State of Alabama. Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 4/27/06. (Attachments: # 1 appeals checklist)(vma, )

1 appeals checklist

View on PACER

April 27, 2006 RECAP
8055

ORDERING and DECLARING that the defs are in compliance with the following provisions of Consent Decree I: Article III, 3 and 12; Article VI, 1 and 2; Article Vii, 4 and 5; Article IX, 1, 2, 3, and 6; Article XI, 22, and all paragraphs of Article XIII that have not already terminated, that is 1 (a) & (c), 2, 3(d), and 11. Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 6/1/06. (djy, )

June 1, 2006 RECAP
8071

ORDERING and DECLARING that the defendants are in compliance with the following provisions of Consent Decree I: Article VI, 3 and 4; and Article XI, 11, as further set out in order. Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 6/23/06. (djy, )

June 23, 2006 RECAP
8072

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS that the defs be found in compliance with the requirements of Article XIX, 4, except the erporting provisions required by Sections II (L) and (Q) of the Joint Reporting Appendix; further recommending that the defs take the simple steps necessary to bring them into compliance with L and Q; further recommending that the Court find the defs not in compliance with the Revised Complaint Procedure to the extent the defs do not process grievances against the SPD, as further set out in recommendation; Objections to R&R due by 7/11/2006. Signed by Special Master Carlos Gonzalez on 6/26/06. (djy, )

June 26, 2006 RECAP
8092

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of Special Master that the 8037 Fourth MOTION for Attorney Fees be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART and that the Adams intervenors be awarded $40,894.25 in fees; Objections to R&R due by 8/10/2006. Signed by Special Master Carlos Gonzalez on 7/25/06. (djy, )

July 25, 2006 RECAP
8096

ORDER directing as follows: (1) Special Master Carlos Gonzalez's REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8093 is adopted; (2) the defs' 7992 MOTION Finding of Compliance with Article I of Consent Decree I is granted; (3) the defs are to carry out the terms of their agreement with the plfs, as set forth in the recommendation at pages 2 and 3. Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 8/2/06. (Attachments: # 1 civil appeals checklist)(djy, )

1 civil appeals checklist

View on PACER

Aug. 2, 2006 RECAP
8098

ORDER directing as follows: (1) ADOPTING 8092 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of Special Master; (2) the Adams intervenors' 8037 Fourth MOTION for Attorney Fees and expenses is granted in part and denied in part; (3) the intervenors are awarded $40,894.25 in fees. Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 8/14/2006. (Attachments: # 1 civil appeals checklist)(djy, )

1 civil appeals checklist

View on PACER

Aug. 14, 2006 RECAP
8116

ORDER directing as follows: (1) Special Master Carlos Gonzalez's 8099 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS is adopted; (2) the defs' 8065 motion for finding of compliance with Article VII, 1 and 2, of Consent Decree I is granted; (3) it is DECLARED that the defs are in compliance with the following provisions of Consent Decree I: Article VII, 1 and 2. Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 9/6/06. (Attachments: # 1 civil appeals checklist)(djy, )

1 civil appeals checklist

View on PACER

Sept. 6, 2006 RECAP
8117

ORDER directing as follows: (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8106 of the Special Master; (2) GRANTING 8064 Motion for Finding of Compliance with Article IX, 4 and 5, of Consent Decree I; (3) DECLARING that the defendants are in compliance with the following provisions of Consent Decree I: Article IX, 4 and 5. Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 9/7/06. (Attachments: # 1 civil appeals checklist)(wcl, )

1 civil appeals checklist

View on PACER

Sept. 7, 2006 RECAP
8130

OPINION AND ORDER, after an independent and de novo review of the record, it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT and DECREE of the court as follows: (1) the defendants' objections 8053 are overruled; (2) Special Master Gonzalez' 8042 REPORT AND RECO MMENDATION is adopted; (3) the plfs' 7752 MOTION to recover funds is granted; (4) it is DECLARED that the appropriate interest rate to apply to the grievance and contempt settlements is 3.5%; therefore, the plfs are entitled to $74,5 52.95 in interest improperly deducted from the grievance settlement for an alleged overpayment of interest on the contempt settlement; the plfs are also entitled to $55,250.23 in interest under the grievance settlement; finally, the plfs are als o entitled to interest from 4/28/2004, at the rate of 3.5% on the unpaid sum of $129,803.18 ($74,552.95 + $55,250.23); (5) the defs' 7932 MOTION for Summary Judgmentis denied as moot; the court adding comments, as further set out in order. Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 10/27/06. (Attachments: # 1 civil appeals checklist)(djy, )

1 civil appeals checklist

View on PACER

Oct. 27, 2006 RECAP
8134

ORDER directing as follows: (1) Special Master Carlos Gonzalez's REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8124 regarding compliance with Article XIV is approved; (2) defs' 7453 MOTION for Finding of Compliance with Article XIV of Consent Decree is granted as to 2(b) and 3 of Article XIV; (3) the court declares that defs are in compliance with 2(b) and 3 of Article XIV. Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 11/1/06. (Attachments: # 1 civil appeals checklist)(djy, )

1 civil appeals checklist

View on PACER

Nov. 1, 2006 RECAP
8143

OPINION AND ORDER directing as follows: (1) the defs' objections 8087 are overruled; (2) the plfs' objections 8140 are overruled; (3) Special Master Gonzalez's 8072 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION is adopted and modified; (4) the defs& #039; oral motion to modify is granted; (5) the defs' 7457 Motion for a finding of compliance is granted as to Article XIX 7, as further set out in order; (6) the defs' motion for a finding of compliance 7457 is granted in all other res pects as to Article XIX, including 4, and it is declared that the defendants are fully in compliance with Article XIX subject to the additional implementation of 7 as indicated in the preceding paragraph. Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 12/6/06. (Attachments: # 1 civil appeals checklist)(djy, )

1 civil appeals checklist

View on PACER

Dec. 6, 2006 RECAP
8156

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of Special Master that the Intervenors' 8122 Fifth MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses be GRANTED and that the Intervenors receive an additional $9,204 in fees for work performed on the Article XIV compliance motion, the balance having previously been paid by the Dfts; Objections to R&R due by 1/23/2007. Signed by Special Master C.A. Gonzalez on 1/8/2007. (wcl, )

Jan. 8, 2007 RECAP
8162

ORDER directing as follows: (1) ADOPTING 8156 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of Special Master Gonzalez; (2) granting the intervenors' 8122 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses to the extent set forth in that report and recommendation, that is to the extent that the intervenors are entitled to attorney's fees and expenses in the amount of $9,204. Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 1/25/07. (Attachments: # 1 civil appeals checklist)(djy, )

1 civil appeals checklist

View on PACER

Jan. 25, 2007 RECAP
8177

ORDER, JUDGMENT and DECREE of the court as follows: (1) plfs' objections 8142 are overruled; (2) ADOPTING 8139 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of the Special Master; (3) defs' 8066 motion for finding of compliance with Article III, 2 is granted, as further set out in order. Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 3/26/07. (Attachments: # 1 civil appeals checklist)(djy, )

1 civil appeals checklist

View on PACER

March 26, 2007 RECAP
8216

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 8194 Sixth MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses filed by William Adams, it is Recommended that the Intervenors' Sixth Motion for An Award of Fees and Expenses, Doc. no. 8194 , be granted in part and denie d in part; It is specifically recommended that the Intervenors receive $5,122.54 in fees for services provided between January 2007 through April 2007; The $390.00 in requested fees related to the Defendants' effort to recover contempt fines should be held in abeyance, and the $53.75 for time spent reviewing the Defendants' claim for fees related to the Rosalyn Cook-Deyampert issues should be denied; It is further Recommended that the Intervenors receive $353.92 in expenses; In all the Intervenors shold receive $5,476.46 in fees and expenses for January 2007 through April 2007; Objections to R&R due by 7/2/2007. Signed by C.A. Gonzalez, Special Master on 6/12/07. (vma, )

June 12, 2007 RECAP
8253

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS It is Ordered that the Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. no. 8241 ) be granted; It is further Recommended that the 8179 MOTION Defendants' Motion to Recover Contempt Fines filed by Department of Transportation , State of Alabama be granted in part and denied in part; and that the 8178 MOTION Defendants' Motion for Refund of Contempt Fines Related to Article 15 filed by Department of Transportation, State of Alabama be granted in part and denied in part as further set out in order; Objections to R&R due by 12/21/2007. Signed by C.A. Gonzalez, Special Master on 11/30/07. (vma, )

Nov. 30, 2007 RECAP
8264

ORDER ADOPTING the Special Master's 8253 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION to the extent that it calls for the contempt fines to be returned to this court. The defendants' 8178 motion and 8179 motion are granted to the extent that the defenda nts seek the return of the funds. (3) The court does not, at this time, resolve any of the parties' objections to the special master's recommendation, and the court will retain all funds pending resolution of the objections. The clerk of th e court is DIRECTED to take appropriate action to secure the return of the $13,592,890.67 in contempt fines from the United States Treasury to the district court. Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 1/2/2008. Copies furnished to AG, SC, DH, Financial. (dmn)

Jan. 2, 2008 RECAP
8285

OPINION AND ORDER directing as follows: (1) def Alabama Dept of Transportation's objections 8208 & 8231 are sustained; (2) the special master's reommendation 8216 is vacated; (3) the Adams intervenors' sixth motion for interim award of attorneys' fee and expenses 8194 is remanded to the special master for further proceedings consistent with this order. Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 3/4/08. (Attachments: # 1 civil appeals checklist)(djy, )

1 civil appeals checklist

View on PACER

March 4, 2008 RECAP
8299

ORDER, JUDGMENT AND DECREE of the court as follows: (1) the plfs' objections 8262 , the intervenors' objections 8260 , and the defendants' objections 8261 are OVERRULED; (2) ADOPTING 8253 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of the Special Master; (3) the defendants' 8178 MOTION for Refund of Contempt Fines Related to Article 15 and 8179 MOTION to Recover Contempt Fines are granted in part; (4) the defendants are entitled to be refunded the sum of $838,500.00 of the Artic le XV contempt fines previously paid into the court, all parties have agreed to the refunds of this amount; (5) directing the clerk of court to arrange for the disbursement of $838,500.00 to the defendants; (6) the issue of the use of the remain ing funds is referred back to the special master so that he may, as he has requested, engage in "a more careful consideration of the use of such funds." recommendation 8253 , at 30. Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 4/10/08. (Attachments: # 1 civil appeals checklist)(djy, )

1 civil appeals checklist

View on PACER

April 10, 2008 RECAP
8308

ORDER (1) ADOPTING Special Master's REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; (2) the Adams intervenors' motion for interim award of attorneys' fees and expenses 8194 is granted to the extent of $2,654.70 and is denied in all other respects; (3) the Adams intervenors shall have and recover from defs the sum of $2,654.70 as attorneys' fees and expenses. Signed by Honorable Myron H. Thompson on 5/23/08. (Attachments: # 1 civil appeals checklist)(djy, )

1 civil appeals checklist

View on PACER

May 23, 2008 RECAP
8324

OPINION. Signed by Honorable Myron H. Thompson on 10/27/08. (Attachments: # 1 appeals checklist)(vma, )

1 appeals checklist

View on PACER

Oct. 27, 2008 RECAP
8325

ORDER it is the Order, Judgment, and Decree of the court that the 8255 Motion to Amend special master referral orders (doc. no. 8255 ) is denied without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Myron H. Thompson on 10/27/08. (Attachments: # 1 appeals checklist) (vma, )

1 appeals checklist

View on PACER

Oct. 27, 2008 RECAP
8330

OPINION AND ORDER that 7756 special master's recommendation is adopted in part and rejected in part; that 5277 defendants' motion to certify is granted to the extent that the hiring class will be decertified after the court has had inpu t from the parties as to how decertification should be made; that on or before November 17, 2008, the parties are to file briefs on how the court should decertify the hiring class. Signed by Honorable Myron H. Thompson on 11/10/2008. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Appeals Checklist)(cc, )

1 Civil Appeals Checklist

View on PACER

Nov. 10, 2008 RECAP
8371

OPINION AND ORDER, it is Ordered as follows: 1) The special master's recommendation (doc. no. 8310 ), as amended (doc. no. 8319 ), is adopted as to all remaining issues, albeit for slightly different reasons; 2) The defendants' motion for partial summary judgment (doc. no. 8273 is denied, albeit without prejudice, as to all remaining issues as further set out in order. Signed by Honorable Myron H. Thompson on 2/24/09. (Attachments: # 1 appeals checklist)(vma, )

1 appeals checklist

View on PACER

Feb. 24, 2009 RECAP
8399

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS it is recommended that the Defendants' 8372 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Department of Transportation, State of Alabama, Department of Personnel, State of Alabama be granted in part and denied in part in conformity with this Report and Recommendation; Objections to R&R due by 5/27/2009. Signed by Honorable C.A. Gonzalez, Special Master on 5/1/09. (vma, )

May 1, 2009 RECAP
8425

ORDER as follows: 1) The Adams intervenors' objections (doc. no. 8408 are overruled; 2) The plaintiffs' objections (doc. no. 8409 are overruled; 3) ADOPTING 8399 Report and Recommendations; 4) Granting in part and denying in part 8372 defendants' motion for partial summary judgment on intervenors' individual contempt claims as set forth in the recommendation (doc. no. 8399 ).. Signed by Honorable Myron H. Thompson on 6/18/09. (vma, )

June 18, 2009 RECAP
8437

(VACATED PER ORDER OF 7/6/09) ORDER (1) ADOPTING Special Master's REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8406 , to which no objections have been filed; (2) the defendants' 8385 MOTION for Summary Judgment is granted; (3) judgment is entered in favor of the defendants and against the plfs as to Nenea Torbert's individual contempt claim, with the plfs and Torbert taking nothing as to this claim. Signed by Honorable Myron H. Thompson on 7/2/09. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Appeals Checklist)(djy, ) Modified on 7/6/2009 (QC/djy, ).

1 Civil Appeals Checklist

View on PACER

July 2, 2009 RECAP
8442

ORDER directing as follows: (1) the plfs' 8440 MOTION to vacate the court's order and judgment is granted; (2) the order entered on 7/2/09 8437 is VACATED; (3) the special master's 8406 recommendation is set for submission on 7/8/09, with any objections due by that date. Signed by Honorable Myron H. Thompson on 7/6/09. (djy, )

July 6, 2009 RECAP
8465

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS that the Intervenors' 8415 MOTION for partial Summary Judgment be granted, and that the defendants came into compliance with Article VI, 1 be conclusively established as May 27, 2003; If the Court adopts the May 27, 2003 date as the date of compliance, it is further RECOMMENDED that the Court direct that the Intervenors' 15 claims for individual contempt of Article XV, 1 be transferred to Judge Gordon for mediation at Judge Gordons convenience; Objections to R&R due by 8/26/2009. Signed by Special Master C.A. Gonzalez on 8/5/09. (djy, )

Aug. 5, 2009 RECAP
8480

OPINION. Signed by Honorable Myron H. Thompson on 8/18/09. (djy, )

Aug. 18, 2009 RECAP
8481

JUDGMENT, in accordance with the memorandum opinion, it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT and DECREE of the court as follows: (1) the Adams intervenors' objections 8392 and 8434 are overruled; (2) the plfs' objections 8393 are overruled; (3) the special master's REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 8378 is adopted; (4) the defs' motion to recover contempt fines 8179 is denied without prejudice; (5) the Adams intervenors' motion for entry of further orders regarding disposition of co ntempt fines 8361 is denied without prejudice; directing the clerk to enter this document on the civil docket as a final judgment pursuant to Rule 58 FRCP. Signed by Honorable Myron H. Thompson on 8/18/09. (Attachments: # 1 civil appeals checklist)(djy, )

1 civil appeals checklist

View on PACER

Aug. 18, 2009 RECAP
8495

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of Special Master that defendants' 8432 motion for application of judicial estoppel to the individual contempt claim of Leroy Williams be GRANTED and that Mr. Williams not be permitted to pursue his individual contempt claim ; Objections to R&R due by 9/22/2009. Signed by Special Master C.A. Gonzalez on 8/31/09. (djy, )

Aug. 31, 2009 RECAP
8535

OPINION. Signed by Honorable Myron H. Thompson on 11/24/2009. (wcl, )

Nov. 24, 2009 RECAP
8536

JUDGMENT, it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT, and DECREE of the court: (1) The special master's 8495 Recommendation regarding Leroy Williams's individual contempt claims against dfts is adopted; (2) The dfts' 8432 Motion for Judicial Estopp el concerning Leroy Williams is granted; (3) Williams is estopped from seeking and, thus, cannot pursue his individual contempt claim against the dfts; DIRECTING the clerk to enter this document on the civil docket as a final judgment pursuant to Rule 58 FRCP. Signed by Honorable Myron H. Thompson on 11/24/2009. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Appeals Checklist) (wcl, )

1 Civil Appeals Checklist

View on PACER

Nov. 24, 2009 RECAP
8599

OPINION. Signed by Honorable Myron H. Thompson on 2/22/10. (djy, )

Feb. 22, 2010 RECAP
8600

JUDGMENT, In accordance with the memorandum opinion entered this date, it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT, and DECREE of the court as follows: (1) the plfs' objections 8446 are overruled; (2) the Special Master's 8406 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION i s adopted; (3) the defs' 8385 motion for summary judgment is granted on the individual-contempt claim of claimant Nenea Torbert regarding "suspension"; (4) judgment is entered in favor of the defs and against the plfs as to claimant Nenea Torbert's individual-contempt claim regarding "suspension," with plfs and claimant Torbert taking nothing as to this claim; directing the clerk to enter this document on the civil docket as a final judgment pursuant to Rule 58 FRCP. Signed by Honorable Myron H. Thompson on 2/22/10. (Attachments: # 1 civil appeals checklist)(djy, )

1 civil appeals checklist

View on RECAP

Feb. 22, 2010 RECAP
8601

OPINION. Signed by Honorable Myron H. Thompson on 2/22/10. (djy, )

Feb. 22, 2010 RECAP
8602

JUDGMENT, in accordance with the memorandum opinion entered this date, it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT, and DECREE of the court: (1) the plfs' 8555 objections are sustained; (2) the Adams Intervenors' 8553 objections are overruled without pre judice; (3) the defs' 8554 objections are overruled without prejudice; (4) the special master's 8546 recommendation regarding claimant Garcia Long's individual contempt claim against the defs is adopted in part; (5) the defs' 8403 motion for summary judgment is granted on the individual-contempt claim of claimant Garcia Long regarding "Senior Real Property Valuation Analyst classification"; (6) Judgment is entered in favor of the defs and against the plfs as t o claimant Garcia Long's individual-contempt claim regarding "Senior Real Property Valuation Analystclassification," with the plfs and claimant Long taking nothing as to this claim; directing the clerk to enter this document on the civil docket as a final judgment pursuant to Rule 58 of the FRCP. Signed by Honorable Myron H. Thompson on 2/22/10. (Attachments: # 1 civil appeals checklist)(djy, )

1 civil appeals checklist

View on RECAP

Feb. 22, 2010 RECAP
8640

OPINION. Signed by Honorable Myron H. Thompson on 4/21/10. (djy, ) Modified on 4/21/2010 to reflect as signed on 4/20/10 (qc/djy, ).

April 21, 2010 RECAP
8641

JUDGMENT, in accordance with the memorandum opinion entered this date, it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT, and DECREE of the court: (1) the special master's 8617 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION regarding Jameria Moore's individual contempt claims agains t defs is adopted; (2) the defs' 8469 motion for summary judgment concerning Jameria Moore is granted; Judgment is entered in favor of the defs and against Jameria Moore, with Moore taking nothing on her individual contempt claims; directing the clerk to enter this document on the civil docket as a final judgment pursuant to Rule 58 FRCP. Signed by Honorable Myron H. Thompson on 4/20/10. (Attachments: # 1 civil appeals checklist)(djy, )

1 civil appeals checklist

View on PACER

April 21, 2010 RECAP
8646

OPINION AND ORDER directing as follows: (1) the plfs' 8544 objections are overruled; (2) the defs' 8542 objections are overruled; (3) the 8531 special master's recommendation is adopted; (4) the defs' 8410 motion for summa ry judgment is granted on claimant Jeff Pennington's individual-contempt claim regarding "job rotation"; (5) the defs' 8410 motion for summary judgment is denied on claimant Pennington's individual-contempt claim regarding "promotion"; (6) judgment is entered in favor of the defs and against the plfs as to claimant Pennington's individual-contempt claim regarding "job rotation"; further ORDERING that this matter is referred back to the special master for further appropriate proceedings. Signed by Honorable Myron H. Thompson on 4/29/10. (Attachments: # 1 civil appeals checklist)(djy, )

1 civil appeals checklist

View on PACER

April 29, 2010 RECAP
8647

OPINION AND ORDER directing as follows: (1) the plfs' 8578 objections are overruled; (2) the defs' 8565 objections are overruled; (3) the 8559 special master's recommendation is adopted; (4) the defs' 8457 motion for summa ry judgment is granted on claimant Elred Jones's individual-contempt claims regarding "training" and "instatement"; (5) the defs' 8457 motion for summary judgment is denied on claimant Jones's individual-contempt claim regarding "job-rotation"; (6) judgment is entered in favor of the defs and against the plfs as to claimant Jones's individual-contempt claim regarding "training" and "instatement"; further ORDERING that this matter is referred back to the special master for further appropriate proceedings. Signed by Honorable Myron H. Thompson on 4/29/10. (Attachments: # 1 civil appeals checklist)(djy, )

1 civil appeals checklist

View on PACER

April 29, 2010 RECAP
8650

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of the Special Master that the defendants' 8471 MOTION for Summary Judgment be GRANTED; Objections to R&R due by 5/28/2010. Signed by Special Master C. A. Gonzalez on 5/3/10. (djy, )

May 3, 2010 RECAP
8683

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of Special Master that the intervenors' 8618 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment be DENIED; the defendants' 8621 MOTION to Stay response to intervenors' 8618 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment is DENIED as moot; Objections to R&R due by 8/27/2010. Signed by Special Master C.A. Gonzalez on 8/2/10. (djy, )

Aug. 2, 2010 RECAP
8688

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of Special Master that the defendants' 8655 MOTION for Summary Judgment Concerning Gary B. Smith be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; Objections to R&R due by 9/27/2010. Signed by Special Master C.A. Gonzalez on 8/30/10. (djy, )

Aug. 30, 2010 RECAP
8708

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of Special Master that the re 8441 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Lawrence Kromtit's Individual Contempt Claim be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part in conformity with the report and recommendation; Objections to R&R due by 1/10/2011. Signed by Special Master C.A. Gonzalez on 12/8/10. (djy, )

Dec. 8, 2010 RECAP
8710

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of the Special Master that defendants' 8522 MOTION for Summary Judgment concerning Samuel Poole be DENIED and that Poole be permitted to proceed with his individual contempt claim to the extent he alleges that the de fendants' contempt of the Consent Decree precluded his promotion to CEM prior to March 2003; Objections to R&R due by 1/26/2011. Signed by Special Master C.A. Gonzalez on 1/3/11. (djy, ) Modified on 1/3/2011 to reflect as the Special Master's report and recommendation (qc/djy, ).

Jan. 3, 2011 RECAP
8713

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of Special Master that defendants' 8488 MOTION for Summary Judgment concerning Glenn McCovey be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, and that McCovey be permitted to proceed with his Individual Contempt Claim to the extent he alleges that the defendants' failure to provide him job rotation or training affected his promotion opportunities; Objections to R&R due by 2/8/2011. Signed by Special Master C.A. Gonzalez on 1/19/11. (djy, )

Jan. 19, 2011 RECAP
8719

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of Special Master that defendants' 8477 MOTION for Summary Judgment concerning Jeffrey Hollingsworth be GRANTED; Objections to R&R due by 3/25/2011. Signed by Special Master C.A. Gonzalez on 3/1/11. (djy, )

March 1, 2011 RECAP
8723

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of Special Master that the defendants' 8429 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Nathan Gilmore's Individual Contempt Claims be GRANTED; Objections to R&R due by 7/31/2011. Signed by Special Master C.A. Gonzalez on 6/28/11. (djy, )

June 28, 2011 RECAP
8724

OPINION. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 7/6/11. (djy, )

July 6, 2011 RECAP
8725

JUDGMENT, in accordance with the memorandum opinion entered this date, it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT and DECREE of the court: (1) ADOPTING 8722 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of the special master regarding claimant Eddie Curry's individual-contempt cl aim against defendants; (2) the defendants' 8466 motion for summary judgment is granted; (3) judgment is entered in favor of the defendants and against claimant Curry, with claimant Curry taking nothing by his individual-contempt claim; directing the clerk to enter this document on the civil docket as a final judgment pursuant to Rule 58 FRCP. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 7/6/11. (Attachments: # 1 civil appeals checklist)(djy, )

1 civil appeals checklist

View on PACER

July 6, 2011 RECAP
8734

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of Special Master that the dfts' 8450 MOTION for Summary Judgment be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; Objections to R&R due by 12/5/2011. Signed by Special Master C.A. Gonzalez on 11/2/2011. (wcl, )

Nov. 2, 2011 RECAP
8735

OPINION AND ORDER directing as follows: ORDER, JUDGMENT and DECREE of the court: (1) the plaintiffs' 8718 objections are overruled; (2) the Special Master's 8713 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION is adopted; (3) the defendants' 8488 Moti on for Summary Judgment is denied on claimant Glenn McCovey's individual-contempt claim regarding "job rotation and training"; (4) the defendants' 8488 motion for summary judgment is granted on all of claimant McCovey's oth er individual-contempt claims; (5) judgment is entered in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiffs as to all of claimant McCovey's individual-contempt claims except his "job rotation or training" claim; further ORDERING that this matter is referred back to the special master for further appropriate proceedings. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 11/21/11. (Attachments: # 1 civil appeals checklist)(djy, )

1 civil appeals checklist

View on PACER

Nov. 21, 2011 RECAP
8736

OPINION AND ORDER; ORDER, JUDGMENT and DECREE of the court as follows: (1) the plf's 8712 & defendants' 8709 objections are overruled; (2) the special master's 8708 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION is adopted; (3) the defendants' [ 8441] Motion for Summary Judgment is denied on claimant Lawrence Kromtit's individual-contempt "out-of-classification" claim; (4) the defendants' 8441 motion for summary judgment is granted on all of claimant Kromtit's othe r individual-contempt claims; (5) judgment is entered in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiffs as to all of claimant Kromtit's individual-contempt claims except his "out-of-classification" claim; further ORDERING that this matter is referred back to the special master for further appropriate proceedings. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 11/22/11. (Attachments: # 1 civil appeals checklist)(djy, )

1 civil appeals checklist

View on PACER

Nov. 23, 2011 RECAP
8737

OPINION. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 11/28/11. (djy, )

Nov. 28, 2011 RECAP
8738

JUDGMENT, in accordance with the memorandum opinion entered this date, it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT and DECREE of the court as follows: (1) the plaintiffs' 8731 Objections are overruled; (2) the special master's 8723 REPORT AND RECOMMENDAT ION is adopted; (3) the defendants' 8429 MOTION for Summary Judgment is granted on the individual-contempt claims of claimant Nathan Gilmore; (4) judgment is entered in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiffs as to claimant Gilmore& #039;s individual-contempt claims, with the plaintiffs and claimant Gilmore taking nothing as to claimant Gilmore's claims; directing the clerk to enter this document on the civil docket as a final judgment pursuant to Rule 58 FRCP. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 11/28/11. (Attachments: # 1 civil appeals checklist)(djy, )

1 civil appeals checklist

View on PACER

Nov. 28, 2011 RECAP
8739

OPINION. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 11/28/11. (djy, )

Nov. 28, 2011 RECAP
8740

JUDGMENT, in accordance with the memorandum opinion entered this date, it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT and DECREE of the court as follows: (1) the plaintiff's 8669 Objections are overruled; (2) the special master's Report and Recommendation is adopted; (3) the defendants' 8471 Motion for Summary Judgment is granted on the individual-contempt claims of claimant Eddie Gregory; (4) judgment is entered in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiffs as to claimant Gregory's i ndividual-contempt claims, with the plaintiffs and claimant Gregory taking nothing as to claimant Gregory's claims; directing the clerk to enter this document on the civil docket as a final judgment pursuant to Rule 58 FRCP. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 11/28/11. (Attachments: # 1 civil appeals checklist)(djy, )

1 civil appeals checklist

View on PACER

Nov. 28, 2011 RECAP
8741

OPINION AND ORDER, it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT and DECREE of the court as follows: (1) the defendants 8714 and 8715 Objections are overruled; (2) the special master's 8710 Report and Recommendation is adopted; (3) the defendants' 8522 Motion for Summary Judgment is denied on claimant Samuel Poole's individual-contempt claims; further ORDERING that this matter is referred back to the special master for further appropriate proceedings. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 11/28/11. (Attachments: # 1 civil appeals checklist)(djy, )

1 civil appeals checklist

View on PACER

Nov. 28, 2011 RECAP
8743

OPINION AND ORDER directing as follows: (1) the special master's 8688 Report and Recommendation is rejected without prejudice; (2) the plaintiff's and the defendants' 8694 and 8696 Objections are overruled without prejudice; (3) the defendants' 8655 motion for summary judgment with regard to claimant Gary B. Smith's individual-contempt claims is referred back to the special master for further proceedings in light of claimant Smith's retirement. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 11/28/11. (Attachments: # 1 civil appeals checklist)(djy, )

1 civil appeals checklist

View on PACER

Nov. 29, 2011 RECAP
8747

OPINION. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 12/5/11. (djy, )

Dec. 5, 2011 RECAP
8748

JUDGMENT, in accordance with the 8747 memorandum opinion entered this date, it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT and DECREE of the court as follows: (1) the plf's 8721 Objections are overruled; (2) the special master's 8719 REPORT AND RECOMMENDA TION is adopted; (3) the defendants' 8477 Motion for Summary Judgment is granted on the individual-contempt claims of claimant Jeffrey Hollingsworth; (4) judgment is entered in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiffs as to claimant Hollingsworth's individual-contempt claims, with the plaintiffs and claimant Hollingsworth's claims; directing the clerk to enter the document on the civil docket as a final judgment pursuant to Rule 58 FRCP. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 12/5/11. (Attachments: # 1 civil appeals checklist)(djy, )

1 civil appeals checklist

View on PACER

Dec. 6, 2011 RECAP
8749

ORDER directing that on or before 12/22/2011, the special master shall file a report, as further set out in order. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 12/5/11. (djy, )

Dec. 6, 2011 RECAP
8788

OPINION AND ORDER that plaintiffs' 8755 and defendants' 8744 objections are overruled; that the special master's 8734 recommendation is adopted; that defendants' 8450 motion for summary judgment is denied on claimant Kenne th Larkin's individual-contempt "out-of-classification" and "rotation" claims; that defendants' 8450 motion for summary judgment is granted on all of claimant Larkin's other individual-contempt claims; that judgme nt is entered in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiffs as to all of claimant Larkin's individual-contempt claims except his "out-of-classification" and "rotation" claims; that this matter is referred back to the special master for further appropriate proceedings. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 2/13/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Appeals Checklist)(cc, )

1 Civil Appeals Checklist

View on PACER

Feb. 14, 2012 RECAP
8801

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of Special Master that the defendants' 8655 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Gary B. Smith's individual contempt claim be GRANTED; to the extent consistent herewith, the special master readopts his prior R&R on Gary Smith's ICC, Docket No. 8688 ; Objections to R&R due by 3/30/2012. Signed by Special Master C.A. Gonzalez on 3/8/12. (djy, ) Modified on 3/8/2012 to correct typographical error in text (qc/djy, ).

March 8, 2012 RECAP
8807

OPINION AND ORDER that defendants' 8521 objections are overruled; that the special master's 8465 recommendation is adopted; that the Adams intervenors' 8415 motion for partial summary judgment is granted as set forth in said reco mmendation; that the court agrees with the special master that it is time to end the relitigation and relitigation of the issue of whether Article XV compliance was achieved in December 1996 or in May 2003 or sometime in between; that this order does not mean that any particular claimant is entitled to relief; that this matter is referred back to the special master for further appropriate proceedings. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 3/19/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Appeals Checklist)(cc, )

1 Civil Appeals Checklist

View on PACER

March 19, 2012 RECAP
8809

ORDER, JUDGMENT and DECREE of the court as follows: (1) the Adam intervenors' 8686 Objections are overruled; (2) the Special Master's Report and Recommendation 8683 is adopted; (3) the Adams intervenors' 8618 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is denied; further ORDERING that this matter is referred back to the special master for further appropriate proceedings. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 3/21/12. (Attachments: # 1 civil appeals checklist)(djy, )

1 civil appeals checklist

View on PACER

March 22, 2012 RECAP
8820

OPINION. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 4/3/12. (djy, )

April 4, 2012 RECAP
8821

JUDGMENT, in accordance with the Memorandum opinion entered this date, it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT and DECREE of the court as follows: (1) the Special Master's 8801 Report and Recommendation is adopted; (2) the defendants' 8655 Motion for Summary Judgment is granted on the individual-contempt claims of claimant Gary Smith; (3) judgment is entered in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiffs as to claimant Smith's individual-contempt claims, with the plaintiffs and claim ant Smith taking nothing as to claimant Smith's claims; directing the clerk to enter this document on the civil docket as a final judgment pursuant to Rule 58 FRCP. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 4/3/12. (Attachments: # 1 civil appeals checklist)(djy, )

1 civil appeals checklist

View on PACER

April 4, 2012 RECAP
8840

RESPONSE in Opposition defendants' 8829 MOTION for Certificate of Appealability of March 12, 2012 Order 8807 for Interlocutory Appeal and for Stay or, in the Alternative, for Reconsideration filed by William Adams. (Fitzpatrick, Raymond) Modified on 5/1/2012 to remove repetitive docket text (qc/djy, ). (Entered: 04/27/2012)

April 27, 2012 PACER
8841

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of Special Master that (1) the proposed notice attached hereto as Exhibit A be approved; (2) that to the extent possible, all those who returned participation or Opt-out Forms receive personal notice, and that class members who returned neither form also receive personal notice to the extent their addresses can be reasonably ascertained; (3) that personal notice by First Class Mail be utilized, and; (4) that costs for confirming addresses, printing the notices and mailing the notices be paid from the contempt fines on account with the Court; if the court approves this R&R, then within 30 days thereafter, plaintiffs' counsel should submit for approval a budget and description of services from a third-party vendor who can provide the services required to ensure notice to class members of the decertification; Objections to R&R due by 5/25/2012. Signed by Special Master C.A. Gonzalez on 5/1/12. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(djy, ) (Entered: 05/01/2012)

1 Exhibit A

View on PACER

May 1, 2012 RECAP
8842

ORDER directing that the special master is allowed until 5/22/2012 to comply with the court's 8811 order of 3/26/2012. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 5/1/12. (djy, ) (Entered: 05/01/2012)

May 1, 2012 PACER
8843

Response to Order re 8838 Terminate Motions, Order,, 8817 Order, of Special Master by Department of Personnel, State of Alabama, Department of Transportation, State of Alabama. (Wells, Barbara) (Entered: 05/04/2012)

May 4, 2012 PACER
8844

REPLY BRIEF re 8840 Response in Opposition to Motion, Defendants' Reply to the Adams Intervenors' Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Certifiy March 19, 2012 Order for Interlocutory Appeal and for Stay or, in the alternative, for Reconsideration filed by Department of Personnel, State of Alabama, Department of Transportation, State of Alabama. (Weller, Christopher) (Entered: 05/04/2012)

May 4, 2012 PACER
8845

RESPONSE in Support re 8824 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Article 19 Individual Contempt Claims filed by Department of Personnel, State of Alabama, Department of Transportation, State of Alabama. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit "1")(Wells, Barbara) (Entered: 05/07/2012)

1 Exhibit "1"

View on PACER

May 7, 2012 PACER
8846

MOTION for Leave to File Intervenors' Motion for Leave to Submit Sur-Reply in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Art. 19 Individual Contempt Claims by William Adams. (Fitzpatrick, Raymond) (Entered: 05/10/2012)

May 10, 2012 PACER

State / Territory: Alabama

Case Type(s):

Equal Employment

Special Collection(s):

Private Employment Class Actions

Key Dates

Filing Date: May 21, 1985

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

All African American employees of the Alabama Department of Transportation since May 21, 1979.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: No

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

Alabama Department of Transportation (Montgomery, Montgomery), State

Alabama State Personnel Department (Montgomery, Montgomery), State

Defendant Type(s):

Transportation

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

42 U.S.C. § 1981

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

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Monetary Relief

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Damages

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Litigation

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Amount Defendant Pays: An estimated $65,000,000

Order Duration: 1994 - None

Content of Injunction:

Hire

Promotion

Retroactive Seniority

Discrimination Prohibition

Utilize objective hiring/promotion criteria

Follow recruitment, hiring, or promotion protocols

Comply with advertising/recruiting requirements

Other requirements regarding hiring, promotion, retention

Provide antidiscrimination training

Implement complaint/dispute resolution process

Reporting

Monitoring

Issues

General:

Disparate Impact

Disparate Treatment

Pattern or Practice

Discrimination-area:

Hiring

Promotion

Testing

Training

Discrimination-basis:

Race discrimination

Race:

Black

Race, unspecified

White

EEOC-centric:

Direct Suit on Merits