Case: Webster v. Fulton County, GA

1:96-cv-02399 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia

Filed Date: Sept. 9, 1996

Closed Date: Feb. 24, 2005

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On September 9, 1996 plaintiffs, business owners and a business seeking landscaping contract work from Fulton County, filed suit against Fulton County, GA in the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. They alleged discrimination based on race and sex in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, state law, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Specifically they alleged that Fulton County operated an illegal Minority and Female Business Enterp…

On September 9, 1996 plaintiffs, business owners and a business seeking landscaping contract work from Fulton County, filed suit against Fulton County, GA in the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. They alleged discrimination based on race and sex in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, state law, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Specifically they alleged that Fulton County operated an illegal Minority and Female Business Enterprise program that discriminated against whites and males because it established a pattern or practice of engaging in disparate treatment of businesses owned by whites and/or males even when these businesses submitted lower bids and performed superior work. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief, monetary damages, and fees and costs.

After extensive discover, on February 12, 1999 the district court (Judge Thomas Thrash) denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granted in part and denied in part the defendant's motion for summary judgment. On March 1, 1999 the district court (Judge Thrash) denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The case proceeded to a bench trial. On June 11, 1999 the district court (Judge Thrash) ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on the basis of a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Plaintiffs were granted declaratory and injunctive relief such that the program was declared unconstitutional and Fulton County was enjoined from using racial, ethnic or gender participation goals in accepting or rejecting bids, determining whether bidders are responsive and responsible bidders and in the awarding of Fulton County contracts.

Defendant appealed but on July 19, 2000 the Eleventh Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals (Judge Anderson, Judge Dubina, and Judge Hill) affirmed. In the meantime a jury trial concerning any monetary damages was conducted and on February 24, 2000 the plaintiffs were awarded $8,750.00 plus costs of $4,399.83. On September 18, 2000 the district court (Judge Thrash) awarded plaintiffs additional fees and costs totaling $1,105,608.09. The Supreme Court declined to issue a writ of certiorari on March 29, 2001. On June 22, 2001 and April 10, 2003 plaintiffs were awarded supplemental fees totaling $110,791.37 for work on various unsuccessful appeals.

During discovery the plaintiffs added a retaliation claim alleging that the defendant had ceased to notify them or award them contracts after they had filed suit. The district court (Judge Thrash) had dismissed this claim on February 12, 1999. After the trial plaintiffs appealed this ruling to the Eleventh Circuit. On February 28, 2002 the Eleventh Circuit (Judge Edmondson, Judge Wilson, and Judge Paul) reversed the district court. On March 11, 2004, however, the district court (Judge Thrash) granted defendant summary judgment on this claim. On February 24, 2005 the Eleventh Circuit affirmed without opinion and the case came to a close.

Summary Authors

Michael Perry (8/25/2010)

People


Judge(s)

Edmondson, James Larry (Georgia)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Barge, Richmond Mason (Georgia)

Attorney for Defendant

Brantley, Overtis Hicks (Georgia)

Carr, J. Scott (Georgia)

Chandler, Patricia A. (Florida)

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

99-12216

Docket

Webster v. Fulton Count, GA

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

June 22, 2001

June 22, 2001

Docket

00-11644

Docket

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

June 6, 2003

June 6, 2003

Docket

1:96-cv-02399

Docket

April 28, 2009

April 28, 2009

Docket
136

1:96-cv-02399

Order (Denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granting in part and denying in part defendant's motion for summary judgment)

Feb. 12, 1999

Feb. 12, 1999

Order/Opinion

44 F.Supp.2d 1359

176

1:96-cv-02399

Order (Ruling for the plaintiff after a bench trial)

June 11, 1999

June 11, 1999

Order/Opinion

51 F.Supp.2d 1354

00-11644

Brief of Appellants

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

May 30, 2000

May 30, 2000

Pleading / Motion / Brief

00-11644

Initial Brief: Appellee-Respondent

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

July 3, 2000

July 3, 2000

Pleading / Motion / Brief
350

1:96-cv-02399

Order (Awarding fees and costs)

Sept. 18, 2000

Sept. 18, 2000

Order/Opinion

112 F.Supp.2d 1339

00-11644

00-15227

Opinion (Reversing the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's retaliation claims)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Feb. 28, 2002

Feb. 28, 2002

Order/Opinion

283 F.3d 1254

Docket

Last updated Dec. 19, 2024, 4:58 p.m.

Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.

Case Details

State / Territory: Georgia

Case Type(s):

Equal Employment

Special Collection(s):

Private Employment Class Actions

Key Dates

Filing Date: Sept. 9, 1996

Closing Date: Feb. 24, 2005

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

White and/or male owners of contracting businesses in Fulton County and those businesses.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: No

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Denied

Defendants

Fulton County, GA (Atlanta, Fulton), County

Defendant Type(s):

Sanitation/Public Works

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

42 U.S.C. § 1981

Constitutional Clause(s):

Equal Protection

Available Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Mixed

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Damages

Source of Relief:

Litigation

Content of Injunction:

Discrimination Prohibition

Amount Defendant Pays: $1,291,595.14

Issues

General/Misc.:

Pattern or Practice

Retaliation

Discrimination Area:

Disparate Treatment

Hiring

Discrimination Basis:

Race discrimination

Sex discrimination

Affected Race(s):

White

Affected Sex/Gender(s):

Male