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)
Attorney for Plaintiff

Adams, Russell Wayne (Alabama)

Alstyne, Abigail Pruyn Van (Alabama)

Anthony, Rebecca (Alabama)

Attorney for Defendant

Abbot, Richard Taylor Jr. (Alabama)

Agricola, Algert Swanson Jr. (Alabama)

Expert/Monitor/Master/Other
Attorney 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)

Byrne, Alice Ann (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, Jimmie Robert (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)

Morgan, Laury Baswell (Alabama)

Morris, Laszlo Daniel Jr. (Alabama)

Nettles, Bert Sheffield (Alabama)

Norton, Jack Franklin (Alabama)

Osborn, Jason Michael (Alabama)

Parker, William G. (Alabama)

Patty, William Franklin (Alabama)

Powell, Charles A. IV (Alabama)

Prescott, George Robert (Alabama)

Proctor, Laura Ellison (Tennessee)

Pryor, William Holcombe Jr. (Alabama)

Redmond, Wesley Clyde (Alabama)

Scott, Stephen L. (Alabama)

Shattuck, Roland Cooper (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)

Taylor, Bryan McDaniel (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)

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

2:85-cv-00665

Docket [PACER]

Reynolds v. Department of Transportation

March 15, 2017

March 15, 2017

Docket
82

2:85-cv-00665

Order

Reynolds v. Bass

Oct. 8, 1986

Oct. 8, 1986

Order/Opinion

2:85-cv-00665

Order

Reynolds v. King

Sept. 21, 1990

Sept. 21, 1990

Order/Opinion

790 F.Supp. 1101

553

2:85-cv-00665

Opinion (Approving Portion I of the Consent Decree)

March 16, 1994

March 16, 1994

Order/Opinion

1994 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 20921

835

2:85-cv-00665

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

Nov. 21, 1995

Nov. 21, 1995

Order/Opinion

926 F.Supp. 1448

989

2:85-cv-00665

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

April 23, 1996

April 23, 1996

Order/Opinion

1996 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 10691

1985

2:85-cv-00665

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

July 15, 1997

July 15, 1997

Order/Opinion

972 F.Supp. 566

2277

2:85-cv-00665

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge

Nov. 19, 1997

Nov. 19, 1997

Magistrate Report/Recommendation
2413

2:85-cv-00665

Opinion (Adopting one portion of the proposed consent decree)

Jan. 23, 1998

Jan. 23, 1998

Order/Opinion

996 F.Supp. 1118

2450

2:85-cv-00665

Order

Feb. 11, 1998

Feb. 11, 1998

Order/Opinion

Docket

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

Last updated April 19, 2025, 12:06 p.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link

SKELETON CASE - LIVE DOCKET ENTRIES BEGIN AS OF 6/19/95. (dkt clerk)

May 21, 1985

May 21, 1985

PACER
1

COMPLAINT (dkt clerk) (djy, ). (Entered: 06/19/1995)

May 21, 1985

May 21, 1985

RECAP
18

Intervenor's COMPLAINT by Ouida Maxwell and Martha Ann Boleware against Gary Mack Roberts, Halycon Vance Ballard, Dept/Transportation, Dept. of Personnel, James E. Folsom Jr. (dkt clerk) (djy, ). (Entered: 06/19/1995)

July 8, 1985

July 8, 1985

PACER
30

AMENDMENT TO intervenor's COMPLAINT by Ouida Maxwell, Martha Ann Boleware : amending [18-1] intervenor complaint (dkt clerk) (djy, ). (Entered: 06/19/1995)

Nov. 15, 1985

Nov. 15, 1985

PACER
35

AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT by Johnny Reynolds amending [1-1] complaint (dkt clerk) (djy, ). (Entered: 06/19/1995)

Nov. 22, 1985

Nov. 22, 1985

PACER
36

Intervenor's COMPLAINT by Florence Belser against Gary Mack Roberts, Halycon Vance Ballard, Dept/Transportation, Dept. of Personnel, James E. Folsom Jr. (dkt clerk) (djy, ). (Entered: 06/19/1995)

Nov. 22, 1985

Nov. 22, 1985

PACER
39

AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT by Johnny Reynolds amending [1-1] complaint (dkt clerk) (djy, ). (Entered: 06/19/1995)

Dec. 5, 1985

Dec. 5, 1985

PACER
76

Intervenor's COMPLAINT by Peggy Vonsherie Allen against Gary Mack Roberts, Halycon Vance Ballard, Dept/Transportation, Dept. of Personnel, James E. Folsom Jr. (dkt clerk) (djy, ). (Entered: 06/19/1995)

March 18, 1986

March 18, 1986

PACER
78

Intervenor's COMPLAINT by Jeffery W. Brown against Gary Mack Roberts, Halycon Vance Ballard, Dept/Transportation, Dept. of Personnel, James E. Folsom Jr. (dkt clerk) (djy, ). (Entered: 06/19/1995)

March 18, 1986

March 18, 1986

PACER
81

AMENDMENT TO intervenor's COMPLAINT by Florence Belser : amending [36-1] intervenor complaint (dkt clerk) Modified on 06/19/1995 (djy, ). (Entered: 06/19/1995)

May 30, 1986

May 30, 1986

PACER
82

ORDER granting plaintiffs' 12/9/85 motion for class certification, as later amended several times; certifying a class consisting of (1) all black merit system employees of the highway department employed since 5/21/79, with said class being represented by plaintiffs Johnny Reynolds, Ouida Maxwell and Martha Boleware; (2) all black non-merit system employees of the department who have unsuccessfully sought employment as merit system employees since 5/21/79, said class being represented by Florence Belser; and (3) all black non-employees who have unsuccessfully applied for merit system employment since 5/21/79, said class being represented by Peggy Vonsherie Allen and Jeffery Brown ( signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson ), copies mailed to counsel. (dkt clerk) (djy, ). (Entered: 06/19/1995)

Oct. 8, 1986

Oct. 8, 1986

PACER

Pre-Trial Conference held before Judge Myron H. Thompson (dkt clerk)

Oct. 23, 1986

Oct. 23, 1986

PACER
85

AMENDMENT TO PRETRIAL ORDER [Defendants Wallace, Bass and Alabama State Highway Departments' motion to amend pretrial order (amendment contained therein) granted 10/31/86] (dkt clerk) (djy, ). (Entered: 06/19/1995)

Oct. 27, 1986

Oct. 27, 1986

PACER
92

PRETRIAL ORDER ( signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson ), copies mailed to counsel. (dkt clerk) (djy, ). (Entered: 06/19/1995)

Oct. 31, 1986

Oct. 31, 1986

PACER

Pre-Trial Conference held before Judge Myron H. Thompson (dkt clerk)

Oct. 16, 1987

Oct. 16, 1987

PACER
122

PRETRIAL ORDER ( signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson ), copies mailed to counsel. (dkt clerk) (Entered: 06/19/1995)

Nov. 5, 1987

Nov. 5, 1987

PACER
139

Intervenor's COMPLAINT by C. Campbell Wilson against Gary Mack Roberts, Halycon Vance Ballard, Dept/Transportation, Dept. of Personnel, James E. Folsom Jr. (dkt clerk) (Entered: 06/19/1995)

Feb. 26, 1988

Feb. 26, 1988

PACER
144

AMENDMENT TO intervenor's COMPLAINT by C. Campbell Wilson : amending [139-1] intervenor complaint (dkt clerk) (Entered: 06/19/1995)

March 11, 1988

March 11, 1988

PACER

Settlement Conference held before Judge Myron H. Thompson (dkt clerk)

Aug. 4, 1988

Aug. 4, 1988

PACER
189

FINAL JUDGMENT REGARDING C. CAMPBELL WILSON that Wilson be reinstated to employment with defendant State Highway Department at the Grove Hill Division with restoration of all benefits as if he had not been terminated, provided that he repay to the ERS all contributions to the ERS which have withdrawn by him plus interest as required by the ERS together with employee contributions to the ERS which would have been made by him from the date of termination to the date of reinstatement as further set out; that effective 11/1/88, Wilson will retire from employment with the Highway Department; that this final judgment concludes and resolves any and all claims and allegations which were or might have been asserted by or on behalf of Wilson; that each party shall bear his, her or its own costs; that pursuant to Rule 54(b) (FRCP) there is no just reason for delay in the entry of this final judgment regarding Wilson, ( signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson ), copies mailed to counsel. (dkt clerk) (djy, ). (Entered: 06/19/1995)

Aug. 4, 1988

Aug. 4, 1988

PACER

Settlement Conference held before Judge Myron H. Thompson on proposed consent decree and objections thereto. (dkt clerk)

Sept. 21, 1988

Sept. 21, 1988

PACER
227

ORDER that plaintiff Florence Belser shall no longer represent a class in this lawsuit but may continue as a plaintiff pro se; that the only two certified classes in this lawsuit shall be (1) all black merit system employees employed by the Alabama Highway Department since 5/21/79, with said class being represented by plaintiffs Reynolds, Maxwell and Boleware; and (2) all black non-merit system employees of the department and all black non-employees who have unsuccessfully sought employment as merit system employees since 5/21/79, with said class represented by plaintiffs Allen and Brown, ( signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson ), copies mailed to counsel and plaintiff Belser. VACATED INSOFAR AS BELSER MAY NO LONGER PROCEED AS A PRO SE PLAINTIFF PER ORDER OF 6-17-98. (dkt clerk) Modified on 06/17/1998 (Entered: 06/19/1995)

Nov. 30, 1990

Nov. 30, 1990

PACER
264

Intervenor's COMPLAINT by Cecil Parker against Gary Mack Roberts, Halycon Vance Ballard, Dept/Transportation, Dept. of Personnel, James E. Folsom Jr. (dkt clerk) (Entered: 06/19/1995)

March 22, 1991

March 22, 1991

PACER

Pre-Trial Conference held before Judge Myron H. Thompson (dkt clerk)

Oct. 4, 1991

Oct. 4, 1991

PACER
339

PRETRIAL ORDER ( signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson ), copies mailed to counsel. (dkt clerk) (djy, ). (Entered: 06/19/1995)

Oct. 7, 1991

Oct. 7, 1991

PACER
387

AMENDMENT TO intervenor's COMPLAINT by Cecil Parker : amending [264-1] intervenor complaint (dkt clerk) (djy, ). (Entered: 06/19/1995)

Jan. 15, 1992

Jan. 15, 1992

PACER
407

Intervenor's COMPLAINT by Frank Reed against Gary Mack Roberts, Halycon Vance Ballard, Dept/Transportation, Dept. of Personnel, James E. Folsom Jr. (dkt clerk) (djy, ). (Entered: 06/19/1995)

June 2, 1992

June 2, 1992

PACER

Non-jury trial held before Judge Myron H. Thompson 6/15/92 through 6/19/92; 6/22/92 through 6/25/92; 6/30/92 through 7/2/92; 9/14/92 through 9/17/92; 9/21/92 through 9/25/92; 9/28/92 through 10/2/92; 10/5/92 through 10/6/92; 10/13/92 through 10/16/92; 10/19/92 through 10/20/92; 10/22/92 through 10/23/92; 11/13/92; 11/18/92 through 11/20/92; 11/23/92 through 11/25/92. (dkt clerk)

June 15, 1992

June 15, 1992

PACER

Tele-conference held before Judge Myron H. Thompson on 9/17/02 (djy)

Sept. 17, 1992

Sept. 17, 1992

PACER
475

AMENDED intervenor's COMPLAINT by Frank Reed : amending [407-1] intervenor complaint (dkt clerk) (djy, ). (Entered: 06/19/1995)

April 28, 1993

April 28, 1993

PACER

Status Conference held before Judge Myron H. Thompson (dkt clerk)

Nov. 18, 1993

Nov. 18, 1993

PACER

Settlement Conference held before Judge Myron H. Thompson on proposed consent decree (dkt clerk)

Jan. 19, 1994

Jan. 19, 1994

PACER
553

CONSENT DECREE I ( signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson ), copies mailed to counsel and pro se parties. (dkt clerk) (djy, ). (Entered: 06/19/1995)

March 16, 1994

March 16, 1994

PACER
584

MOTION by Johnny Reynolds, Cecil Parker, Robert Johnson, Frank Reed, Ouida Maxwell, Martha Ann Boleware, Peggy Vonsherie Allen, Jeffery W. Brown for Hearing to determine method of back pay calculation (Exhibits A-B attached), referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (dkt clerk) (djy, ). (Entered: 06/19/1995)

Jan. 20, 1995

Jan. 20, 1995

PACER
585

MOTION by David Lampley to Consolidate Cases 95-T-60-N and 85-T-665-N referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (dkt clerk) (djy, ). (Entered: 06/19/1995)

Jan. 26, 1995

Jan. 26, 1995

PACER
598

MOTION to Intervene by Josh Chapple (proposed complaint in intervention attached), referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (dkt clerk) (djy, ). (Entered: 06/19/1995)

April 7, 1995

April 7, 1995

PACER
599

(A) NOTICE by plaintiffs of submission of grievances to the court for resolution re: HUDSON HINTON [with attachments]; (B) NOTICE by plaintiffs of submission of grievances to the court for resolution re: JESSIE SMITH [with attachments] [maintained in separate binder with other grievances]; referred to Judge Thompson. (dkt clerk) Modified on 07/11/1995 (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/23/2010: # 1 599B) (djy, ). (Entered: 06/22/1995)

April 11, 1995

April 11, 1995

PACER
601

NOTICE by plaintiffs of submission of grievance to the court for resolution re: DAVID LEE SIMS (with attachments) [maintained in separate binder with other grievances]; referred to Judge Thompson. (dkt clerk) Modified on 07/11/1995 (djy, ). (Entered: 06/22/1995)

April 26, 1995

April 26, 1995

PACER
607

(A) NOTICE by plaintiffs of submission of grievances to the court for resolution re: HELEN R. KIDD [with attachments]; (B) NOTICE by plaintiffs of submission of grievances to the court for resolution re: JAMES EDWARD FOSTER [with attachments] [maintained in separate binder with other grievances]; referred to Judge Thompson. (dkt clerk) Modified on 07/11/1995 (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/23/2010: # 1 607B) (djy, ). (Entered: 06/22/1995)

May 16, 1995

May 16, 1995

PACER
608

NOTICE by plaintiffs of submission of grievance to the court for resolution re: TERRI DENSON (with attachments) [maintained in separate binder with other grievances]; referred to Judge Thompson. (dkt clerk) Modified on 07/11/1995 (djy, ). (Entered: 06/22/1995)

May 18, 1995

May 18, 1995

PACER
609

(A) NOTICE by plaintiffs of submission of grievances to the court for resolution re: RICHARD TURNER [with attachments]; (B) NOTICE by plaintiffs of submission of grievances to the court for resolution re: LEON STEELE [with attachments] (C) NOTICE by plaintiffs of submission of grievances to the court for resolution re: ANGELA FULLER [with attachments] [maintained in separate binder with other grievances]; referred to Judge Thompson. (dkt clerk) Modified on 07/11/1995 (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/23/2010: # 1 609B, # 2 609C) (djy, ). (Entered: 06/22/1995)

May 19, 1995

May 19, 1995

PACER
611

(A) NOTICE by plaintiffs of submission of grievances to the court for resolution re: CHARLES E. LOCKETT [with attachments]; (B) NOTICE by plaintiffs of submission of grievances to the court for resolution re: CAROLYN FORD [with attachments] [maintained in separate binder with other grievances]; referred to Judge Thompson. (dkt clerk) Modified on 07/11/1995 (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/23/2010: # 1 611B) (djy, ). (Entered: 06/22/1995)

May 23, 1995

May 23, 1995

PACER
615

MOTION by Johnny Reynolds, Cecil Parker, Robert Johnson, Frank Reed, Ouida Maxwell, Martha Ann Boleware, Peggy Vonsherie Allen, Jeffery W. Brown to enforce Article XIII of Consent Decree I (Exhibits A-C attached), referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (dkt clerk) Modified on 06/20/1995 (djy, ). (Entered: 06/19/1995)

June 12, 1995

June 12, 1995

PACER

Status Conference held before Judge Myron H. Thompson on 6/15/95 (dkt clerk)

June 15, 1995

June 15, 1995

PACER
616

ORDER that the parties are to submit a revamped grievance procedure as discussed at the 06/15/95 status conference by 06/28/95 ( signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson ), copies mailed to counsel and pro se parties; furnished to TW. (dkt clerk) (djy, ). (Entered: 06/19/1995)

June 19, 1995

June 19, 1995

PACER
617

ORDER that the defendants submit a written response by 06/26/95 to the plaintiffs' motion to enforce Article XIII of Consent Decree; that the parties are to meet by no later than 06/28/95 to attempt to resolve the issues raised by said motion ( signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson ), copies mailed to counsel and pro se parties; furnished to TW. (dkt clerk) (djy, ). (Entered: 06/19/1995)

June 19, 1995

June 19, 1995

PACER
618

ORDER that the parties are to submit proposed procedures for handling the individual claims by 06/28/95 ( signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson ), copies mailed to counsel and pro se parties; furnished to TW. (dkt clerk) (djy, ). (Entered: 06/19/1995)

June 19, 1995

June 19, 1995

PACER
619

ORDER that the defendants file with the court by 06/26/95, the grievance procedures developed pursuant to Article XIX, Section 7 of Consent Decree I ( signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson ), copies mailed to counsel and pro se parties; furnished to TW. (dkt clerk) (djy, ). (Entered: 06/19/1995)

June 19, 1995

June 19, 1995

PACER
620

ORDER granting in part, denying in part motion for scheduling proceedings to determine the contested portion of the plaintiffs' attorney's fees filed 06/09/94; granting the motion to the extent it requests the court to set the question of the plaintiffs' attorney's fees for submission; the plaintiffs are to submit their request for attorney's fees and supporting material by 07/03/95; the defendants are to respond by 07/17/95; denying the motion to the extent it seeks a hearing; the court will determine whether a hearing is necessary upon consideration of the written submissions ( signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson ), copies mailed to counsel and pro se parties; furnished to TW. (dkt clerk) (djy, ). (Entered: 06/19/1995)

June 19, 1995

June 19, 1995

PACER
621

ORDER denying as moot the motion for extension of time regarding the plaintiffs' uncontested attorney's fees filed 06/01/94; denying, with leave to refile, the motion to enforce Article XXI of Consent Decree I filed 06/17/94 ( signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson ), copies mailed to counsel and pro se parties; furnished to TW. (dkt clerk) (djy, ). (Entered: 06/19/1995)

June 19, 1995

June 19, 1995

PACER
622

ORDER denying plaintiff Florence Belser's motion for enforcement of rights under consent decree filed 03/06/95 ( signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson ), copies mailed to counsel and pro se parties. (dkt clerk) (djy, ). (Entered: 06/19/1995)

June 19, 1995

June 19, 1995

PACER
623

ORDER denying Jerry H. Pogue's application for expedited consent decree enforcement filed 05/01/95; denying Jerry H. Pogue's application for order directing reinstatement, job restoration, and back-pay filed 05/01/95; denying Jerry H. Pogue's motion for reconsideration of the court's 05/10/95 order filed 05/22/95 ( signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson ), copies mailed to counsel and pro se parties. (dkt clerk) (djy, ). (Entered: 06/19/1995)

June 19, 1995

June 19, 1995

PACER
624

ORDER denying as moot the Adams intervenors' motion for interim award of attorney's fees ( signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson ), copies mailed to counsel and pro se parties. (dkt clerk) (djy, ). (Entered: 06/19/1995)

June 19, 1995

June 19, 1995

PACER
625

ORDER, set Status Conference 2:00 7/3/95, in chambers, before Judge Myron H. Thompson ( signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson ), copies mailed to counsel and pro se parties; furnished to TW, MT. (dkt clerk) (djy, ). (Entered: 06/19/1995)

June 19, 1995

June 19, 1995

PACER
626

ORDER denying as moot the defendants' motion for protective order filed 02/10/95 ( signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson ), copies mailed to counsel and pro se parties. (dkt clerk) (djy, ). (Entered: 06/19/1995)

June 19, 1995

June 19, 1995

PACER
627

ORDER denying, with leave to refile, plaintiffs' motion to enjoin further appointments filed 03/07/94 ( signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson ), copies mailed to counsel and pro se parties. (dkt clerk) (djy, ). (Entered: 06/19/1995)

June 19, 1995

June 19, 1995

PACER
628

ORDER terminating motion to correct errors in the text of Consent Decree I filed 03/24/94; terminating supplement to motion to correct errors filed 04/04/94; adopting the Alabama Department of Transportation's suggested corrections to the Consent Decree I as further set out in order ( signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson ), copies mailed to counsel and pro se parties. (dkt clerk) (djy, ). (Entered: 06/19/1995)

June 19, 1995

June 19, 1995

PACER
629

ORDER that the plaintiffs and defendants jointly submit by 06/28/95 a proposal for the expeditious hearing before a court-selected master of grievances filed under the current grievance procedure developed pursuant to Article XIX, Section 7 of Consent Decree I ( signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson ), copies mailed to counsel and pro se parties; furnished to TW. (dkt clerk) (djy, ). (Entered: 06/20/1995)

June 20, 1995

June 20, 1995

PACER
630

ORDER that the plaintiffs file an expert report describing the proposed classwise formula for handling the individual claims by 06/28/95 ( signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson ), copies mailed to counsel and pro se parties; furnished to TW. (dkt clerk) (djy, ). (Entered: 06/20/1995)

June 20, 1995

June 20, 1995

PACER
631

MOTION for William F. Gardner to Withdraw as Attorney referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (dkt clerk) (djy, ). (Entered: 06/21/1995)

June 21, 1995

June 21, 1995

PACER
632

MOTION by Dept/Transportation to Extend Time for 30 days on the deadline of 065/28/95 established by the orders entered by the court on 06/19/95 and 06/20/95 and status conference set for 07/03/95 ; referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (dkt clerk) (djy, ). (Entered: 06/21/1995)

June 21, 1995

June 21, 1995

PACER
633

NOTICE by Johnny Reynolds of submission of grievance to the court for resolution re: Johnny Reynolds (with attachments) [maintained in separate binder with other grievances]; referred to Judge Thompson. (dkt clerk) (djy, ). (Entered: 06/22/1995)

June 22, 1995

June 22, 1995

PACER
634

ORDER denying, with leave to renew, [631-1] motion for William F. Gardner to Withdraw as Attorney, denying [632-1] motion to Extend Time for 30 days on the deadline of 065/28/95 established by the orders entered by the court on 06/19/95 and 06/20/95 and status conference set for 07/03/95 that the clerk of the court mail this and all future order to London & Yancey law firm ( signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson ), copies mailed to counsel, pro se parties, Bert Nettles and Lisa Borden (with London & Yancey). (dkt clerk) Modified on 06/22/1995 (djy, ). (Entered: 06/22/1995)

June 22, 1995

June 22, 1995

PACER
635

NOTICE by plaintiffs of complaint procedure (with attachments); referred to Judge Thompson. (dkt clerk) (djy, ). (Entered: 06/23/1995)

June 22, 1995

June 22, 1995

PACER
636

Verified claims affidavit by Plaintiff/Classmember Jerry H. Pogue for definitive relief and appearance notice; referred to Judge Thompson. (dkt clerk) (djy, ). (Entered: 06/23/1995)

June 22, 1995

June 22, 1995

PACER
637

Letter by Attorney Lisa W. Borden requesting extension of 90 days to the deadlines established for 06/28/95; referred to Judge Thompson. (dkt clerk) (djy, ). (Entered: 06/23/1995)

June 22, 1995

June 22, 1995

PACER
638

Judge Thompson's letter to Attorney Lisa Borden advising that the request for an extension of 90 days on various matters must be made by formal motion and entering an appearance; copies mailed to counsel and pro se parties; sent to Ms. Borden by facsimile. (dkt clerk) (djy, ). (Entered: 06/23/1995)

June 22, 1995

June 22, 1995

PACER
639

NOTICE of Attorney Appearance for Dept/Transportation by Bert S. Nettles, Lisa Wright Borden; referred to Judge Thompson. (dkt clerk) (djy, ). (Entered: 06/23/1995)

June 23, 1995

June 23, 1995

PACER
640

MOTION by Dept/Transportation to Extend Time to file the submissions required pursuant to orders dated 06/19/95 and 06/20/95 and status conference scheduled for 07/03/95 ; referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (dkt clerk) (djy, ). (Entered: 06/23/1995)

June 23, 1995

June 23, 1995

PACER
642

ORDER denying [640-1] motion to Extend Time to file the submissions required pursuant to orders dated 06/19/95 and 06/20/95 and status conference scheduled for 07/03/95 ( signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson ), copies mailed to counsel and pro se parties. (dkt clerk) Modified on 06/26/1995 (djy, ). (Entered: 06/26/1995)

June 26, 1995

June 26, 1995

PACER
643

NOTICE of Compliance by Dept/Transportation re: grievance procedure (with attachments); referred to Judge Thompson. (dkt clerk) (djy, ). (Entered: 06/27/1995)

June 26, 1995

June 26, 1995

PACER
644

NOTICE of Compliance by Dept/Transportation re: response to plaintiffs' motion to enforce article XIII of consent decree I (Attachments maintained in separate binder); referred to Judge Thompson. (dkt clerk) (djy, ). (Entered: 06/27/1995)

June 26, 1995

June 26, 1995

PACER
645

RESPONSE by Dept/Transportation in opposition to [615-1] motion to enforce Article XIII of Consent Decree I by intervenor-plaintiffs, plaintiff referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (dkt clerk) (djy, ). (Entered: 06/27/1995)

June 27, 1995

June 27, 1995

PACER
646

MOTION by Johnny Reynolds to Extend Time for submission of expert report (with attachments); referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (dkt clerk) (djy, ). (Entered: 06/28/1995)

June 28, 1995

June 28, 1995

PACER
647

JOINT MOTION by Johnny Reynolds, Dept/Transportation to Extend Time for two days to respond to various deadlines ; referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (dkt clerk) (djy, ). (Entered: 06/28/1995)

June 28, 1995

June 28, 1995

PACER
648

RESPONSE by Dept/Transportation to [584-1] motion for Hearing to determine method of back pay calculation by intervenor-plaintiffs, plaintiff (with attachment A); referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (dkt clerk) (djy, ). (Entered: 06/29/1995)

June 28, 1995

June 28, 1995

PACER
649

ORDER denying [646-1] motion to Extend Time for submission of expert report except to the extent that the plaintiffs are allowed until 07/03/95 at 8:00 a.m. to file the required report with the court and furnish copies to the parties ( signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson ), copies mailed to counsel and pro se parties; furnished to TW. (dkt clerk) (djy, ). (Entered: 06/29/1995)

June 29, 1995

June 29, 1995

PACER
650

ORDER granting [647-1] joint motion to Extend Time for two days to respond to various deadlines to the extent that the responses must be filed by 4:00 p.m. on 06/30/95 ( signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson ), copies mailed to counsel and pro se parties; furnished to TW. (dkt clerk) (djy, ). (Entered: 06/29/1995)

June 29, 1995

June 29, 1995

PACER
651

Judge Thompson's letter to counsel re: Gardner's attendance at status conference on 07/03/95. (dkt clerk) (djy, ). (Entered: 06/30/1995)

June 30, 1995

June 30, 1995

PACER
652

Joint proposed agenda for status conference of 07/03/95; referred to Judge Thompson. (dkt clerk) (Entered: 06/30/1995)

June 30, 1995

June 30, 1995

PACER
653

MOTION by William Adams, Cheryl Caine, Tim Colquitt, William Flowers, Wilson Folmar, George Kyser, Becky Pollard, Ronnie Pouncey, Terry Robinson, Tim Williams for Sanctions against Robert L. Wiggins, Jr. (Exhibits A - E attached); referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (dkt clerk) Modified on 06/30/1995 (djy, ). (Entered: 06/30/1995)

June 30, 1995

June 30, 1995

PACER
654

Parties' joint proposal for expediting claims under Article Twenty of Consent Decree I; referred to Judge Thompson. (dkt clerk) (djy, ). (Entered: 06/30/1995)

June 30, 1995

June 30, 1995

PACER
655

Plaintiffs' reply to defendants' response to back-pay methodology. Referred to Judge Thompson. (dkt clerk) (djy, ). (Entered: 07/03/1995)

July 3, 1995

July 3, 1995

PACER
656

RESPONSE by Johnny Reynolds, Cecil Parker, Robert Johnson, Frank Reed, Ouida Maxwell, Martha Ann Boleware, Peggy Vonsherie Allen, Jeffery W. Brown to [653-1] motion for Sanctions against Robert L. Wiggins, Jr. by intervenor-plaintiffs (affidavit of C. Paige Williams attached), referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (dkt clerk) Modified on 07/03/1995 (djy, ). (Entered: 07/03/1995)

July 3, 1995

July 3, 1995

PACER
657

Plaintiffs' submission of expert report of Dr. Edwin Bradley on statistical methods of trial under Article Twenty of Consent Decree I (Exhibit A attached). Referred to Judge Thompson. (dkt clerk) (djy, ). (Entered: 07/03/1995)

July 3, 1995

July 3, 1995

PACER

Status Conference held before Judge Myron H. Thompson (dkt clerk)

July 3, 1995

July 3, 1995

PACER
658

ORDER that when the parties file pleadings, they refer to other pleadings and orders by both filing date and docket number, ( signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson ), copies mailed to counsel. (dkt clerk) (djy, ). (Entered: 07/05/1995)

July 5, 1995

July 5, 1995

PACER
659

ORDER that the parties are to engage in informal discussions through 7/14/95 to attempt to resolve the concerns raised by the plaintiffs' motion to enforce Article XIII of Consent Decree I (Doc #615); that, if the issues are not resolved informally, then the parties are to engage in formal mediation with Rodney Max or, if Max is unavailable, another mediator can be named by the court; that the defendants are to pay for said mediation, and it is to conclude by 8/4/95; that, if mediation is unsuccessful, said motion ([615-1]) to enforce Article XIII of Consent Decree I by plaintiffs is set for submission on 9/1/95; set plaintiffs' Brief and supporting materials deadline to 8/18/95 ; set defendants' Brief and supporting materials deadline to 9/1/95 ( signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson ), copies mailed to counsel; furnished to TW. (dkt clerk) (djy, ). (Entered: 07/05/1995)

July 5, 1995

July 5, 1995

PACER
660

ORDER, set Status Conference 3:00 7/27/95 in chambers before Judge Myron H. Thompson ( signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson ), copies mailed to counsel; furnished to TW and MT. (dkt clerk) (djy, ). (Entered: 07/05/1995)

July 5, 1995

July 5, 1995

PACER
661

ORDER denying [653-1] motion for Sanctions against Robert L. Wiggins, Jr.; that the Adams intervenors are to receive copies of all pleadings filed the the court, ( signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson ), copies mailed to counsel. (dkt clerk) (djy, ). (Entered: 07/05/1995)

July 5, 1995

July 5, 1995

PACER
662

ORDER, that by 7/12/95, the plaintiffs are to identify the basis for an injunction and in what manner the defendants are not "freezing" hiring; defendants' Response to Motion set to 7/19/95 for [641-1] motion for Reconsideration of [627-1] order denying motion to enjoin further appointments ( signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson ), copies mailed to counsel; furnished to TW. (dkt clerk) (djy, ). (Entered: 07/05/1995)

July 5, 1995

July 5, 1995

PACER
663

ORDER, modifying the order of 6/19/95 (Doc #620) to the extent that the plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenors are to submit their request for attorney's fees and supporting materials by 7/14/95; set plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenors' Brief deadline to 7/14/95 ; set defendants' Brief in response deadline to 7/28/95 ( signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson ), copies mailed to counsel; furnished to TW. (dkt clerk) (djy, ). (Entered: 07/05/1995)

July 5, 1995

July 5, 1995

PACER
664

ORDER granting [584-1] motion for Hearing to determine method of back pay calculation to the extent that the plaintiffs and defendants experts are to begin discussions immediately on developing a mutually agreeable formula to resolve the individual claims of the class members, that the plaintiffs' expert is to file an expert report by 7/28/95 as further set out, that the defendants' expert is to file an expert report by 8/11/95, that the parties are to notify the court by 8/25/95 whether they have agreed on a compromise formula as further set out; set Hearing for 10:00 9/14/95 in the second floor courtroom before Judge Myron H. Thompson ; that at said hearing, the parties will present evidence on the procedure to handle the individual claims of the class members, ( signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson ), copies mailed to counsel; furnished to TW, MT. (dkt clerk) (djy, ). (Entered: 07/05/1995)

July 5, 1995

July 5, 1995

PACER
665

ORDER that individual claims of class members are to be divided up into three groups: Group 1 - named plaintiffs, Group 2 - witnesses that testified at trial, and Group 3 - remainder of the plaintiff class; that plaintiffs have until 7/19/95 to file with the court the names of those people in Groups 1 and 2 who are pursuing individual relief based on evidence presented during the main trial of this cause; that, with regards to those people named by the plaintiffs, the defendants have until 8/2/95 to file motions under Rule 52 of FRCP or other motions that would not require the defendants to put on any evidence, ( signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson ), copies mailed to counsel; furnished to TW. (dkt clerk) (djy, ). (Entered: 07/05/1995)

July 5, 1995

July 5, 1995

PACER
666

ORDER that all grievances against the AL Dept of Transportation that are filed with the court before the court approves a revised grievance procedure will be handled under the following procedure: (1) The court will appoint a master or masters to conduct evidentiary hearings on the grievances, and the fees of such masters will be paid by the Dept of Transportation, (2) The master will submit to the court and send a copy to all parties a proposed findings of fact and recommendations for disposition of such grievances, (3) That any party may file written objections to such findings as provided by rules of court within 10 days after being served with a copy of said findings, and (4) The court will make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made, and the court may accept, reject or modify said findings or receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the master with instructions; that, unless an objection is received by 7/14/95, the court will assume that it has correctly summarized the agreement of the parties and that the parties have no objection to the procedures set out in this order, ( signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson ), copies mailed to counsel. (dkt clerk) (djy, ). (Entered: 07/05/1995)

July 5, 1995

July 5, 1995

PACER
667

ORDER that by 7/19/95, the defendants are to file with the court a proposed revised grievance procedure that incorporates the guidelines as further set out in this order; that by 7/26/95, the plaintiffs are to file any objections to said procedure and an explanation of those objections; setting the proposed revised grievance procedure for submission on 7/26/95, ( signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson ), copies mailed to counsel; furnished to TW. (dkt clerk) (djy, ). (Entered: 07/05/1995)

July 5, 1995

July 5, 1995

PACER
668

SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM by William Adams, Cheryl Caine, Tim Colquitt, William Flowers, Wilson Folmar, George Kyser, Becky Pollard, Ronnie Pouncey, Terry Robinson, Tim Williams in opposition to approval of proposed consent decree III referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (dkt clerk) (djy, ). (Entered: 07/06/1995)

July 5, 1995

July 5, 1995

PACER
669

ORDER granting [598-1] motion to Intervene by Josh Chapple to the extent that Chapple's case shall be treated as a separate lawsuit with CA No. 95-T-909-N, and that Chapple's case shall be viewed as having been filed on 4/7/95, the date of the filing of the motion to intervene, ( signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson ), copies mailed to counsel. (dkt clerk) (djy, ). (Entered: 07/06/1995)

July 6, 1995

July 6, 1995

PACER
670

ORDER denying [585-1] motion to Consolidate Cases 95-T-60-N and 85-T-665-N ( signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson ), copies mailed to counsel and pro se parties. (dkt clerk) (djy, ). (Entered: 07/10/1995)

July 10, 1995

July 10, 1995

PACER
671

NOTICE by plaintiffs of submission of grievance to the court for resolution re: TERRY CARSON (with attachments) [maintained in separate binder with other grievances]; referred to Judge Thompson. (dkt clerk) (djy, ). (Entered: 07/13/1995)

July 12, 1995

July 12, 1995

PACER

Case Details

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

Available 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

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

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

Order Duration: 1994 - None

Issues

General/Misc.:

Pattern or Practice

Discrimination Area:

Disparate Impact

Disparate Treatment

Hiring

Promotion

Testing

Training

Discrimination Basis:

Race discrimination

Affected Race(s):

Black

Race, unspecified

White

EEOC-centric:

Direct Suit on Merits