Case: WRIGHT v. SOUTH CENTRAL BELL

2:93-cv-01530 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama

Filed Date: July 30, 1993

Closed Date: 2003

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On July 30, 1993, African American employees of South Central Bell filed a lawsuit under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, against their employer in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, asked the court for injunctive and compensatory relief, claiming that South Central Bell had discriminated against them on the basis of their race. Specifically, Plaintiffs claimed that Defendant's use of the Tec…

On July 30, 1993, African American employees of South Central Bell filed a lawsuit under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, against their employer in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, asked the court for injunctive and compensatory relief, claiming that South Central Bell had discriminated against them on the basis of their race. Specifically, Plaintiffs claimed that Defendant's use of the Technical Telephone Ability Battery (T-Tab) test had an adverse impact on Defendant's African American employees, that the test was not validated, and that the test was not justified by business necessity.

The Court (Judge U.W. Clemon) certified the class on October 25, 1994. and

On March 30, 2001, the Court denied a motion by another employee to intervene in the case because it was untimely. The class was defined as "all African Americans who, at any time since September 2, 1990, have taken and failed to pass the Technical Telephone Ability Battery (T-Tab) Test administered by defendant South Central Bell."

The case was bifurcated for trial, and the Court issued its opinion regarding liability on September 10, 2002. The Court found that the T-Tab test had an adverse impact on black employees, that the test was not related to job performance, and that Defendant failed to consider alternative selection methods that would have caused a less adverse impact.

On February 7, 2003, the Court dismissed the case, without prejudice to the right of the parties to present the Court a proposed consent decree no later than March 1, 2003.

The parties filed a Joint Motion and Stipulation concerning the proposed Settlement Agreement on March 13, 2003.

The Court issued an Order preliminarily approving the proposed settlement agreement on March 17, 2003. Defendant agreed to pay $6,000,000 to Plaintiffs. The settlement fund was to be allocated among the class members. Defendant also agreed to pay Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs.

The Court issued final approval of the parties' settlement agreement on June 6, 2003. The Settlement deals only with the monetary award, but the Defendants stopped using the test in 1995 during the litigation.

Summary Authors

Haley Waller (11/13/2010)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5380656/parties/wright-v-so-central-bell/


Judge(s)

Clemon, U. W. (Alabama)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Childs, Robert F. Jr. (Alabama)

Fisher, Samuel (Alabama)

Attorney for Defendant

Barker, W. Corey (Georgia)

Jackson, Robert L III (Illinois)

Expert/Monitor/Master/Other

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

2:93-cv-01530

Docket

Wright v. South Central Bell

March 6, 2006

March 6, 2006

Docket
130

2:93-cv-01530

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO INTERVENE

Wright v. South Central Bell

March 30, 2001

March 30, 2001

Order/Opinion
131

2:93-cv-01530

MEMORANDUM OPINION ON LIABILITY ISSUE

Wright v. South Central Bell

Sept. 10, 2002

Sept. 10, 2002

Order/Opinion
153

2:93-cv-01530

DEFENDANT'S RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON MR. WRIGHT'S FAILURE TO FILE A TIMELY EEOC CHARGE AND MOTION TO DECERTIFY THE CLASS

Wright v. South Central Bell

Feb. 3, 2003

Feb. 3, 2003

Pleading / Motion / Brief
166

2:93-cv-01530

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Wright v. South Central Bell

Feb. 7, 2003

Feb. 7, 2003

Order/Opinion
173

2:93-cv-01530

JOINT MOTION AND STIPULATION CONCERNING PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Wright v. South Central Bell

March 13, 2003

March 13, 2003

Pleading / Motion / Brief
174

2:93-cv-01530

ORDER PRELIMINARILY APPROVING PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Wright v. South Central Bell

March 17, 2003

March 17, 2003

Order/Opinion
179

2:93-cv-01530

FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Wright v. South Central Bell

June 6, 2003

June 6, 2003

Order/Opinion

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5380656/wright-v-so-central-bell/

Last updated April 19, 2025, 2:12 p.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
131

MEMORANDUM opinion on Liability issue filed ( by Chief Judge U W. Clemon ) cm (DWC)

Sept. 10, 2002

Sept. 10, 2002

RECAP

Case Details

State / Territory: Alabama

Case Type(s):

Equal Employment

Special Collection(s):

Private Employment Class Actions

Key Dates

Filing Date: July 30, 1993

Closing Date: 2003

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

African American employees of South Central Bell

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: No

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

South Central Bell, Private Entity/Person

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1981

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

Available Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Monetary Relief

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

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: 6,000,000

Issues

Discrimination Area:

Disparate Impact

Promotion

Testing

Discrimination Basis:

Race discrimination

Affected Race(s):

Black