Reynolds v. Butts

• Citation: 251 F.3d 1350
• Decision Date: 23 May 2001
• Docket Number: No. 98-6102,98-6102
• Parties: (11th Cir. 2001) JOHNNY REYNOLDS, individually and on behalf of himself and as a representative of a class of black employees of the Highway Department, State of Alabama, similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, WILLIAM ADAMS, CHERYL CAINE, TIM COLQUITT, WILLIAM FLOWERS, et al., Intervenors-Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. JIM BUTTS, in his official capacity as Director of the Alabama Department of Transportation, HALYCON VANCE BALLARD, individually and as Director of Personnel Department, State of Alabama; et al., Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)

Page 1350

251 F.3d 1350 (11th Cir. 2001)

JOHNNY REYNOLDS, individually and on behalf of himself and as a representative of a class of black employees of the Highway Department, State of Alabama, similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, WILLIAM ADAMS, CHERYL CAINE, TIM COLQUITT, WILLIAM FLOWERS, et al., Intervenors-Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. JIM BUTTS, in his official capacity as Director of the Alabama Department of Transportation, HALYCON VANCE BALLARD, individually and as Director of Personnel Department, State of Alabama; et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 98-6102.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT.

May 23, 2001.

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama D.C. Docket No. 85-00665-CV-T-N

Before TJOFLAT and HULL, Circuit Judges, and PROPST^*, District Judge.

TJOFLAT, Circuit Judge:

This is the latest in a series of appeals arising out of a dispute involving the Alabama Department of Transportation (the "Department"), classes of black merit system employees and prospective merit system employees (the plaintiffs), and a class of white employees (the "Adams Intervenors"). See Reynolds v. Roberts, 202 F.3d 1303 (11th Cir. 2000) ("Reynolds I"); Reynolds v. Roberts, 207 F.3d 1288 (11th Cir. 2000) ("Reynolds II"). The question presented in this appeal is whether the district court may, sua sponte, enter an injunction that affects the legal rights of the parties without either (1) entertaining evidence and ruling upon the objections of the affected parties or (2) obtaining the consent of the affected parties. We hold that such sua sponte entry of an injunction is improper. We therefore reverse.

I.

The lengthy procedural history of this litigation is set forth in our opinions in Reynolds I, 202 F.3d at 1305-11, and Reynolds II, 207 F.3d at 1292-98. Here, we recite an abbreviated version of that history and then focus on the factual and procedural history relevant to the instant appeal.

A.

The named plaintiffs brought this suit against the Department¹ in May 1985, on behalf of all black employees and former employees of the Department and all unsuccessful black applicants for positions within the Department. Alleging race discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the plaintiffs sought monetary and injunctive relief under those statutes and under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In October 1986, the court certified three plaintiff classes.²

After the parties joined issue and engaged in discovery, they entered into settlement negotiations. In 1988, and again in 1991, they presented a proposed consent decree to the district court for approval. On each occasion, some members of the plaintiff classes objected to the entry of the decree; the district court sustained their objections and refused to enter the decree.

In June 1992, the case proceeded to trial before the court. Near the end of the plaintiffs' case, the parties asked the court to recess the proceeding indefinitely so that they could engage in further settlement negotiations. The court granted their request. In November 1993, they reached a partial settlement in the form of a proposed consent decree. The proposed decree provided a range of prospective class-wide injunctive relief. Among other things, it set hiring and promotion quotas for blacks - 33% of the positions in each job classification in the Department would be set aside for blacks. To ensure an adequate pool for this set-aside program, the decree directed the Department to mount an aggressive recruiting campaign at historically black colleges and universities. Finally, the decree required the Department to establish a grievance procedure for its employees.

The parties presented the proposed decree to the district court. The court, in turn, scheduled a hearing for January 19, 1994 to entertain objections from members of the plaintiff classes or others likely to be affected (like white employees of the Department) by the terms of the proposed decree. On January 13, a group of white Department employees (the Adams Intervenors) moved the court for leave to intervene on behalf of the Department's non-black employees to challenge the race-conscious provisions of the proposed decree - specifically, the 33% quota requirement for all job classifications in the Department. The court granted the motion, Reynolds v. Roberts, 846 F. Supp. 948, 953-54 (M.D. Ala. 1994), and subsequently certified an additional class, consisting of the Department's non-black employees.³ Importantly, the court did not permit the Adams Intervenors to present additional factual evidence in support of their objections. Id. at 954. Instead, the court allowed the Adams Intervenors to argue, based only on evidence already received in the plaintiffs' case "that the factual predicate is not sufficient as a matter of law to warrant the type or extent of race-conscious relief contained in the proposed decree." Id.

The January 19 hearing was held as scheduled. Over 200 people attended the hearing, including many non-black employees of the Department. The objections to the race-conscious aspects of the proposed consent decree were such that the parties withdrew it and, with leave of court, went back to the drawing board. By late February 1994, the parties agreed to divide the previously proposed decree into three parts, which they called (and still call) Consent Decrees I, II, and III. Consent Decree I contained the provisions that all sides agreed provided only race-neutral prospective relief. Consent Decrees II and III contained provisions that were acceptable to the plaintiffs and the Department, but were opposed as race-conscious by the Adams Intervenors.⁴

B.

The parties submitted Consent Decree I to the district court for approval, and, on March 7, the court held a hearing on the fairness of the proposal. No one other than the parties' attorneys appeared at the hearing, and no one objected to the entry of the decree. The court approved the decree and, by order entered March 16, 1994, adopted Consent Decree I in full.⁵ The court noted at that time that it would "consider final approval of Consent Decrees II and III separately at a later time." The court explicitly held that "[p]laintiffs' and intervenors' motions with respect to Consent Decree II [are] denied without prejudice."⁶

On April 16, 1997, three years after the entry of Consent Decree I, the court entered a money judgment for $34,732,487 (back-pay plus interest) in favor of one of the plaintiff classes. The court's rationale was that Consent Decree I operated as an admission of classwide liability by the Department - that the Department had discriminated against the plaintiff classes, and the individual members thereof, with respect to its hiring and promotion decisions. See Reynolds v. Ala. Dep't of Transp., 996 F.Supp. 1156 (M.D. Ala. 1998) (memorandum opinion explaining the basis for the entry of judgment on April 16, 1997). The Department and the Adams Intervenors appealed, and on February 2, 2000 we vacated both the district court's judgment on money damages and its determination that Consent Decree I established classwide liability. Reynolds I, 202 F.3d at 1311.

On September 15, 1997,⁷ the parties resumed trial on the remaining issues.⁸ In the midst of this trial, the district court twice queried the Adams Intervenors about their objections to paragraph four of proposed Article Thirteen (which had been a part of Consent Decree II).⁹ Then, on January 23, 1998, without a motion before it and without further argument or briefing from the parties, the court entered an order and injunction adopting the paragraph. Reynolds v. Ala. Dep't of Transp., 996 F.Supp. 1118 (M.D. Ala. 1998). No other portions of Consent Decrees II and III have been entered. Thus, it is this sole paragraph from Consent Decree II that is at issue in this appeal.¹⁰

The challenged paragraph reads:

Offers of reclassification of incumbent employees to GCE [Graduate Civil Engineer]:

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.

II.

A district court's decision to approve, modify, or not modify a consent decree is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Stovall v. City of Cocoa, 117 F.3d 1238, 1240 (11th Cir. 1997). As explained below, however, this appeal does not involve a consent decree as such but rather an injunction issued sua sponte by the district court. The district court's action was in the form of a decision made as a matter of law, on the court's own motion. We therefore apply de novo review.

III.

A.

As described supra Part I.B, the district court approved and entered Consent Decree I on March 16, 1994. Such entry was proper because all parties agreed to Consent Decree I. The parties disagreed as to Consent Decrees II and III, however, because they contained provisions that at least some of the parties believed to be race-conscious. The court did not, therefore, enter Consent Decrees II and III.

The plaintiffs contend that Consent Decrees II and III remain pending before the district court for entry. We disagree, particularly since the Department has withdrawn its consent after informing the district court that it believes that Consent Decrees II and III are unconstitutional in light of Ensley Branch, N.A.A.C.P. v. Seibels, 31 F.3d 1548 (11th Cir. 1994), and In re Birmingham Reverse Discrimination Employment Litig., 20 F.3d 1525 (11th Cir. 1994).¹¹ The plaintiffs alone currently support the entry of Consent Decrees II and III. In this...