Weatherly v. Ala. State Univ.

Decision Date03 September 2013
Docket NumberNo. 12–13414.,12–13414.
PartiesJacqueline WEATHERLY, Cynthia Williams, and Lydia Burkhalter, Plaintiffs–Appellees, v. ALABAMA STATE UNIVERSITY, Defendant–Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Harold William Wasden, Kristin Taylor Parsons, Burr & Forman, LLP, Mobile, Al, Monica L. Arrington, Arrington & Arrington, Joseph L. Fitzpatrick, Jr., J. Fitzpatrick & Associates, LLC, Mark Gonzalo Montiel, Mark G. Montiel, PC, Montgomery, AL, Candis A. McGowan, Wiggins Childs Quinn & Pantazis, LLC, Birmingham, AL, Sam Heldman, The Gardner Firm, Washington, DC, for PlaintiffsAppellees.

Bryan Andrew Grayson, Taffi S. Stewart, Stephen E. Whitehead, Lloyd Gray Whitehead & Monroe, PC, Birmingham, AL, Kenneth L. Thomas, Alabama State University, Montgomery, Al, Frederic A. Bolling, Richele T. Harris, Thomas Means Gillis & Seay, PC, Birmingham, AL, Mark Englehart, Englehart Law Offices, Montgomery, AL, H. Lewis Gillis, Ramadanah Salaam–Jones, Thomas Means Gillis & Seay, PC, Montgomery, AL, DefendantAppellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. D.C. Docket No. 2:10–cv–00192–WHA–TFM.

Before TJOFLAT and DUBINA, Circuit Judges, and EVANS,* District Judge.

DUBINA, Circuit Judge:

The facts of this case should greatly concern every taxpaying citizen of the State of Alabama, especially because it involves a public institution largely funded with tax dollars paid by the people of Alabama. This appeal stems from complaints of three former employees of AppellantDefendant Alabama State University (ASU), who allege they were subjected to a hostile work environment and retaliation during their employment. Following a jury verdict in favor of AppelleesPlaintiffs Jacqueline Weatherly (Weatherly), Lydia Burkhalter (Burkhalter), and Cynthia Williams (Williams) (collectively Appellees), ASU appeals the district court's denial of its motion to sever Appellees' claims from each other, the district court's order awarding equitable relief, and the final judgment entered in Appellees' favor. After reviewing the record, reading the parties' briefs, and having the benefit of oral argument, we affirm the orders of the district court and the judgment entered on the jury's verdict in favor of Appellees.

I.
A. Factual Background1

Appellees' claims center on allegations that they were subjected to discrimination and retaliation at the hands of two ASU employees who served as their superiors: Dr. John Knight (“Knight”) and LaVonette Bartley (“Bartley”). 2 Knight held various high-level administrative positions at ASU during the seven-year period in which Appellees collectively submit they were subjected to a hostile work environment and retaliation. Specifically, Knight served as special assistant to the president, acting president, and then as chief operating officer. In addition, Knight was, and continues to be, a member of the Alabama State Legislature. Bartley served under Knight as ASU's associate executive director in the Office of the Special Assistant to the President. For clarity's sake, we divide the remainder of the factual background to recount the facts as they relate to each Appellee individually.

1. Jacqueline Weatherly

Weatherly began working for Bartley at ASU in January 2002. Weatherly testified at trial that Bartley's use of the term “nigger” in the workplace was commonplace. [R. 226 at 228–30.] Indeed, Bartley routinely made comments in Weatherly's presence like, “I'm tired of nigger shit” and would mockingly refer to ASU's mass transportation as the “nigger bus line.” [ Id. at 229.] Weatherly endured these racial slurs from 2002 “all the way through” 2008 [R. 227 at 62–63], save a brief period during 2003 when Weatherly worked in a different office [R. 226 at 232–34].

In March 2008, Bartley, apparently enraged at Weatherly's inability to multitask, told Weatherly that she was “sick and tired of this nigger shit” and stated “bitch, you need to do what I asked you to do.” [ Id. at 244–45.] Weatherly verbally reported the incident to ASU Human Resources (“HR”) and requested a transfer. An HR official responded that nothing could be done. Thereafter, on March 20, 2008, Weatherly submitted a written complaint against Bartley to HR. [ Id. at 251–52.] Again, Bartley's behavior did not improve and no one at ASU addressed the situation. Due to stress and anxiety Weatherly incurred as a result of her employment at ASU, her doctor “took [her] off work.” [ Id. at 271]. On June 2, 2008, Weatherly was transferred to a different department. She testified that she had been “humiliated,” “stunned,” “degraded,” “hurt[ ],” and “embarrass[ed] by Bartley's conduct. [ Id. at 246; R. 227 at 82.]

2. Lydia Burkhalter

Burkhalter worked as a senior administrative secretary for Knight from 2007 to 2009. She also reported to Bartley and Appellee Williams. At trial, Burkhalter offered testimony that she was subjected to sexual and racial harassment at the hands of Knight and Bartley.

As to Bartley, Burkhalter testified that, starting in August 2008, she heard Bartley “use the word ‘nigger,’ ‘nigga,’ ‘nigga shit,’ ‘bitch,’ ‘stupid bitches,’ ‘fat bitch,’ and ‘white bitch’ in the office; Burkhalter also testified that Bartley said things like, “I'm sick of this nigga shit. These stupid bitches can't do anything right. And, they ain't nothing but some niggas.” [R. 227 at 261.] At times, Bartley's racial barrage was directed at Burkhalter, and other times, it was cast elsewhere. Burkhalter contends that Bartley asked her what race she was, and when Burkhalter said that she was biracial and did not have to choose black or white, Bartley “looked [her] up and down ... and curled her nose and walked away.” [ Id. at 265.] Bartley's abusive conduct was also aimed at Burkhalter's family, as she called Burkhalter's seven-year-old son “a nigger,” upsetting him so much that he crawled under his mother's desk and curled up in the fetal position. [ Id. at 241, 280–81.]

Bartley's verbal assault was not limited to racial comments but included sexual remarks as well. Bartley described Burkhalter's breasts as “melons” and her derrière as “hams,” and Bartley commented on Burkhalter's thong underwear and its accompanying panty lines in the presence of another employee. [ Id. at 269–70.] Bartley also expressed an inappropriate intrigue with Burkhalter's tattoos, telling Appellee Williams that she should make [Burkhalter] strip to see how many other tattoos [she] had and where.” [ Id. at 281.] Bartley's inappropriate behavior was also physical, as she sometimes positioned herself in the office so that she could touch Burkhalter. For example, when Burkhalter was in the small printing/faxing area, Bartley would “come up behind [Burkhalter] and rub her body up against [Burkhalter's] body.” [ Id. at 273.] Likewise, while Burkhalter was sitting at her desk, Bartley “would lean on [Burkhalter's] shoulders and put her breasts” on Burkhalter. [ Id. at 274–75.]

Burkhalter testified that she was also sexually harassed by Knight. Knight commented on Burkhalter's appearance, remarking how pretty she was and telling her he liked his coffee sweet like [her] and the color of [her] complexion.” [ Id. at 295–96.] Knight also made awkward and inappropriate requests, asking Burkhalter to dance for him the way she had danced at a party. [ Id. at 305.] On Burkhalter's birthday, Knight called her after work and asked what the “wildest thing” she could do for her birthday would be and told her to think of a “special thing” she wanted for her birthday and tell him. [ Id. at 306.]

Burkhalter's attempts to put an end to her superiors' inappropriate conduct were unsuccessful. Although Bartley initially apologized after Burkhalter complained about her behavior, Bartley then “reverted right back to the way she was, with her comments, with her slurs ... [and i]f anything, ... it became more frequent.” [ Id. at 282–83.] For his part, Knight instructed Burkhalter that she “was not allowed to document anything that happened to [her] in his office; that if anything was going on, [she] was to notify him verbally and only him.” [ Id. at 297.] On May 5, 2009, Burkhalter submitted a written complaint to HR, describing an incident when Bartley ran at Burkhalter as if to attack her. Burkhalter's various complaints all went unanswered.

Burkhalter testified that, in May 2009, she began to suffer from migraines, anxiety, loss of sleep and appetite, and high blood pressure. She filed an EEOC charge on May 15, 2009, a Friday. She was out sick the next Monday, May 19, and let ASU know she was going to the doctor. She thereafter faxed a note to HR. Burkhalter remained out of work the rest of the week and returned the following week. Upon Burkhalter's return, she learned that she had been terminated because she had “abandon[ed] her job. [R. 229 at 19.] Knight testified that he made the decision to terminate Burkhalter. Burkhalter testified that when she was terminated, she felt “humiliated,” “degraded,” “scared,” “worthless,” and like [t]hey had stripped [her] from [her] life.” [ Id. at 26.] Burkhalter explained that she continues to suffer the effects of her experience at ASU, including anxiety and trouble sleeping.

3. Cynthia Williams

Williams became a permanent employee at ASU in January 2008. Like Burkhalter and Weatherly, she reported to Bartley. Williams testified that in late July or early August 2008, she began to experience a hostile work environment at the hands of Bartley. During this timeframe, Bartley “consistently” referred to Williams as a “nigger[ ] and “bitch[ ].” [R. 225 at 168]. Bartley also made comments such as, “talk to the nigger side of the hand because the white side does not want to hear it” and we got to dress professional; we don't dress like niggers.” [ Id. at 183, 191.]

Knight made it clear to Williams that he was not interested in hearing about complaints against him or Bartley, telling her ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
49 cases
  • Nelson v. City of Albuquerque
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico
    • October 20, 2017
    ...to "judgment" means "final judgment," but other courts have determined that it has that meaning. See Weatherly v. Alabama State Univ., 728 F.3d 1263, 1271 (11th Cir. 2013) (" Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 50(b) and 59(b) require the motion to be filed within 28 days after the entry of fi......
  • Williams v. First Advantage LNS Screening Solutions, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Florida
    • March 2, 2017
    ...being reasonably diligent in seeking employment substantially equivalent to the position [ ]he was denied.’ " Weatherly v. Ala. State Univ. , 728 F.3d 1263, 1272 (11th Cir. 2013) (quoting Smith v. Am. Serv. Co. of Atlanta , 796 F.2d 1430, 1431 (11th Cir. 1986) ). Plaintiff therefore had a d......
  • Carbone v. Cable News Network, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • December 13, 2018
    ...Outdoors, Inc. v. Bloomberg , 552 F.3d 1290, 1294 (11th Cir. 2008), and questions concerning our jurisdiction, Weatherly v. Ala. State Univ. , 728 F.3d 1263, 1269 (11th Cir. 2013).III. DISCUSSIONWe divide our discussion in two parts. First, we consider whether the motion-to-strike procedure......
  • Arthur v. JP Morgan Chase Bank
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • June 13, 2014
    ...this action.III. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION We review the existence of subject matter jurisdiction de novo. Weatherly v. Ala. State Univ., 728 F.3d 1263, 1269 (11th Cir. 2013). Subject matter jurisdiction is fundamental to our power to hear and decide cases, and we must raise questions abo......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Frequent Evidentiary Battles
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Trial Objections
    • May 5, 2022
    ...involved a transfer to a division known for its prevalent racism and a recent racially motivated murder. Weatherly v. Ala. State Univ. , 728 F.3d 1263, 1272-73 (11th Cir. 2013). In a Title VII race and sex discrimination case, former university employees demonstrated sufficient efforts to m......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT