Reynolds V. Alabama Department of Transportation
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Reynolds v. Alabama DOT United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division March 16, 1994, Decided ; March 16, 1994, FILED, ENTERED CIVIL ACTION NO. 85-T-665-N Reporter: 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20921 JOHNNY REYNOLDS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ALABAMA WILLIAM FLOWERS, on behalf of himself and all similarly DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, et al., situated persons (non-class employees), WILSON FOLMAR, Defendants. on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons (non- class employees), GEORGE KYSER, on behalf of himself Counsel: [*1] LAURIE EDELSTEIN, Special Master, and all similarly situated persons (non-class employees), special master, [PRO SE], Rabinowitz, Boudin, Standard, BECKY POLLARD, on behalf of herself and all similarly Krinsky & Lieberman, P.C., New York, NY. WINN S. L. situated persons (non-class employees), [*3] RONNIE FAULK, Special Master, special master, [PRO SE], Mobile, POUNCEY, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated AL. persons (non-class employees), TERRY ROBINSON, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons (non-class For JOHNNY REYNOLDS, individually on behalf of himself employees), TIM WILLIAMS, on behalf of himself and all and as representative of a class of black employees of the similarly situated persons (non-class employees), intervenor- Highway Department, State of Alabama, similarly situated, plaintiffs: Raymond P. Fitzpatrick, Jr., David P. Whiteside, plaintiff: Leonard Gilbert Kendrick, Montgomery, AL. Jr., Whiteside & Fitzpatrick, Birmingham, AL. Richard J. Ebbinghouse, Robert L. Wiggins, Jr., Jon C. Goldfarb, Gregory O. Wiggins, C. Paige Williams, Rebecca For GARY MACK ROBERTS, JAMES E. FOLSOM, JR., as Anthony, Gordon, Silberman, Wiggins & Childs, Governor of the State of Alabama, defendants: William F. Birmingham, AL. Julian L. McPhillips, Jr., McPhillips, Gardner, William K. Thomas, R. Taylor Abbot, Jr., Cabaniss, Shinbaum, Gill & Stoner, Montgomery, AL. Rick Harris, Johnston, Gardner, Dumas & O'Neal, Birmingham, AL. Glassroth & Associates, Montgomery, AL. Robert M. Weinberg, Jeff Sessions, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Alabama State House, Montgomery, For CECIL PARKER, FRANK REED, OUIDA MAXWELL, AL. Patrick H. Sims, Cabaniss, Johnston, Gardner, Dumas & MARTHA ANN BOLEWARE, PEGGY VONSHERIE O'Neal, Mobile, AL. For HALYCON VANCE BALLARD, ALLEN, JEFFERY W. BROWN, intervenor-plaintiffs: individually and as Director of Personnel Department, State Leonard Gilbert Kendrick, Montgomery, AL. Richard J. of Alabama, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL, STATE OF Ebbinghouse, Robert L. Wiggins, Jr., Jon C. Goldfarb, ALABAMA, defendants: Bert S. Nettles, Lisa Wright Gregory O. Wiggins, C. Paige Williams, Rebecca Anthony, Borden, London, Yancey, Elliott & Burgess, Birmingham, Gordon, Silberman, Wiggins & Childs, Birmingham, AL. AL. William F. Gardner, William K. Thomas, R. Taylor Julian L. McPhillips, Jr., McPhillips, Shinbaum, Gill & Abbot, Jr., Cabaniss, Johnston, Gardner, Dumas & O'Neal, Stoner, Montgomery, AL. Rick Harris, Glassroth & Birmingham, AL. Robert M. Weinberg, [*4] Jeff Sessions, Associates, [*2] Montgomery, AL. For ROBERT Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Alabama JOHNSON, intervenor-plaintiff: Leonard Gilbert Kendrick, State House, Montgomery, AL. Patrick H. Sims, Cabaniss, Montgomery, AL. Richard J. Ebbinghouse, Robert L. Johnston, Gardner, Dumas & O'Neal, Mobile, AL. For Wiggins, Jr., Jon C. Goldfarb, Gregory O. Wiggins, C. Paige DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, STATE OF Williams, Rebecca Anthony, Gordon, Silberman, Wiggins & ALABAMA, defendant: Bert S. Nettles, Lisa Wright Borden, Childs, Birmingham, AL. Claudia H. Pearson, Longshore, London, Yancey, Elliott & Burgess, Birmingham, AL. Nakamura & Quinn, Birmingham, AL. Julian L. McPhillips, William F. Gardner, William K. Thomas, R. Taylor Abbot, Jr., McPhillips, Shinbaum, Gill & Stoner, Montgomery, AL. Jr., Cabaniss, Johnston, Gardner, Dumas & O'Neal, Rick Harris, Glassroth & Associates, Montgomery, AL. Birmingham, AL. Robert M. Weinberg, Jeff Sessions, Florence Belser, intervenor-plaintiff, [PRO SE], Montgomery, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Alabama AL. For WILLIAM ADAMS, on behalf of himself and all State House, Montgomery, AL. Jack Franklin Norton, similarly situated persons (Non-Class Employees), CHERYL Alabama Department of Transportation, Legal Division, CAINE, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated persons Montgomery, AL. Patrick H. Sims, Cabaniss, Johnston, (non-class employees), TIM COLQUITT, on behalf of Gardner, Dumas & O'Neal, Mobile, AL. himself and all similarly situated persons (non-class employees), 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20921, *4 Page 2 of 20 Judges: Myron H. Thompson, UNITED STATES DISTRICT are race-neutral, the court need not engage in strict-scrutiny JUDGE. Mag. Judge John L. Carroll analysis to determine if any race-conscious relief is legal. Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469, 503, 506, 109 S. Opinion by: Myron H. Thompson Ct. 706, 727, 728, 102 L. Ed. 2d 854 (1989); Peightal v. Metro. Dade County, 940 F.2d 1394, 1399 (11th Cir. 1991) Opinion (majority opinion). The court concludes that the provisions of Consent Decree I are neither illegal nor against public policy. ORDER United States v. Alexandria, 614 F.2d 1358, 1362 (5th Cir. 1980); Harris v. Graddick, 615 F. Supp. 239, 242 (M.D. Ala. The court has before it motions relating to the approval of 1985) (Thompson, J.). The court therefore determines that certain segments of a proposed consent decree submitted to there is no just reason to delay the approval of Consent the court by the parties on November 18, 1993, and Decree I. preliminarily approved by the court on November 19, 1993. Pursuant to the court's order of January 24, 1994, the The court will consider [*7] final approval of Consent proposed decree has been divided into three segments: Decrees II and III separately at a later time. Plaintiffs' and intervenors' motions with respect to Consent Decree II will Consent [*5] Decree I contains all provisions of the therefore by denied without prejudice. proposed decree which are unopposed by the intervenors; Accordingly, it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT, and DECREE of the court: Consent Decree II contains certain provisions of the proposed decree to which the intervenors object, (1) That the motion to implement unopposed parts of including provisions which the intervenors contend proposed consent decree, filed by the plaintiffs on March 7, are "race-conscious" and the plaintiffs contend are 1994, is granted as to Consent Decree I and denied without not; and prejudice as to Consent Decree II; Consent Decree III contains certain other provisions (2) That the motion for approval of unresolved objections to of the proposed decree to which the intervenors non-race-conscious aspects of consent decree, filed by the object, namely, the provisions that the parties and intervenors on March 9, 1994, is denied without prejudice. intervenors agree are "race-conscious," as set forth in the "Joint Statement Pursuant to P 4 of the Order DONE, this the 16th day of March, 1994. Entered January 24, 1994," filed by the parties and the intervenors on February 1, 1994.On March 7, Myron H. Thompson 1994, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking approval of Consent Decrees I and II. Subsequently, the parties UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE and the intervenors resolved certain of the intervenors' objections to provisions contained in CONSENT DECREE I Consent Decree II and moved those provisions to a revised Consent Decree I. On March 9, 1994, This lawsuit was filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act intervenors filed a motion requesting the court to of 1964, as amended, and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and § 1983 adopt their proposed revisions to the provisions of alleging racial discrimination in employment. The case has Consent Decree II. The parties and intervenors are in been certified and maintained as a class action on behalf of agreement that Consent Decree I, as revised, the following: contains only "race-neutral" [*6] provisions; the A. All black merit system employees employed by the intervenors do not object to the court's approval of Alabama Highway Department at any time since May 21, Consent Decree I. 1979, with said class represented by plaintiffs Johnny The court finds Consent Decree I to be "fair, adequate, and Reynolds, Ouida Maxwell, and Martha [*8] Ann Boleware; reasonable." Pettway v. American Cast Iron Pipe Co., 576 and F.2d 1157, 1214 (5th Cir. 1978), cert. denied,439 U.S. 1115, B. All black non-merit system employees of the Alabama 99 S. Ct. 1020, 59 L. Ed. 2d 74 (1979); Paradise v. Wells, 686 Highway Department and all black non-employees who have F. Supp. 1442, 1444-46 (M.D. Ala. 1988) (Thompson, J.). unsuccessfully sought employment as merit system Furthermore, because the parties and intervenors agree that employees with the Alabama Highway Department at any the provisions of Consent Decree I 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20921, *8 Page 3 of 20 time since May 21, 1979, with said class represented by plaintiffs Peggy Vonsherrie Allen and Jeffrey Brown. (g) Use of monetary incentives to attract black candidates by starting persons having the EIT in a GCE pay grade no lower A recess in the trial of the case for the purpose of settlement than pay grade 2. negotiations has resulted in the Consent Decree which follows. The following terms and provisions of this Consent (h) The Highway Department will fund a program in Decree are accordingly agreed to in final and complete cooperation