Jordan v. Wilson, Civil Action No. 75-19-N.
| Decision Date | 20 December 1996 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 75-19-N. |
| Citation | 951 F.Supp. 1571 |
| Parties | Carolyn JORDAN, etc., et al., Plaintiffs, Sandra M. Pierce-Hanna, et al., Plaintiff-Intervenors, v. John WILSON, etc., et al., Defendants, Gordon M. Ledbetter and John D. Shumway, Defendant-Intervenors. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama |
J. Richard Cohen, Southern Poverty Law Center, Montgomery, AL.
Robert C. Black, Randall C. Morgan, Hill, Hill, Carter, Franco, Cole & Black, Montgomery, AL, for all defendants except Wade L. Moss and Montgomery City-County Personnel Bd.
Robert D. Segall, Copeland, Franco, Screws & Gill, Montgomery, AL, for Wade L. Moss and Montgomery City-County Personnel Bd.
M. Wayne Sabel, Argo, Enslen, Holloway & Sabel, Montgomery, AL, for Pierce & Oyler.
Thomas M. Goggans, Montgomery, AL, for white male police officers of the City of Montgomery and Ledbetter intervenors.
Thomas Tankersley, Montgomery, AL, for City of Montgomery.
Howard Mandell, Montgomery, AL, for plaintiff intervenor Roger Owens.
In this 21-year-old lawsuit, female officers in the Police Department of the City of Montgomery, Alabama, claimed that they were victims of a pattern and practice of gender discrimination. This lawsuit is now before the court on the defendants' motion to dismiss. Plaintiff-intervenor Sandra M. Pierce-Hanna, who represents a class composed of all past, present and future female officers in the department with regard to all employment practices except hiring, opposes the motion. Based on the record, including the evidence presented at a hearing held on November 27, 1996, the court agrees with the defendants that it is now time to bring this litigation to an end.
A general overview is necessary for proper resolution of the defendants' motion to dismiss. As is evident, this litigation is longstanding, and thus it has a long history. Fortunately, much of this history is documented in reported cases.
This lawsuit was originally brought in 1975 by Carolyn Jordan. Jordan named as defendants various officials of the City of Montgomery and its Police Department, charging them with gender discrimination in hiring. In 1976, in response to the original filing, this court found that officials of the city and its Police Department had failed "to employ females on the same basis as males,"1 and the court ordered city and police officials to hire, assign, promote, and compensate all female police officers on an equal basis with male officers.2 The court, in an 1976 order, broadly enjoined city and police officials "[f]rom engaging in any act or practice which has the purpose or effect of discriminating against any employee, any applicant, or any potential applicant for employment with the Montgomery Police Department because of the individual's sex."3
In September 1978, Sidney Williams, an African-American city police officer, intervened in another lawsuit, United States v. City of Montgomery, civil action no. 3739-N (M.D.Ala.), claiming, among other things that the Police Department had denied him a promotion to sergeant in retaliation for contacting the United States Department of Justice and because of racially-discriminatory employment procedures. The United States had brought the lawsuit in 1972, charging the City of Montgomery with race discrimination against African-Americans in all city departments. In 1979, the court held that the written examination for promotion to police sergeant had an impermissible "disparate impact" on black officers in violation of Title VII.4 The court enjoined the defendants from future use of the test, or any other test or procedure with disparate racial impact, unless and until the test or procedure has been validated in accordance with federal law; the court, however, denied Williams any individual relief. A year later, the court dismissed Williams as a named party.5
Four years later, in 1983, Pierce-Hanna intervened in the instant lawsuit to pursue further the claims brought by Jordan. On January 3, 1985, the court certified this phase of the lawsuit as a class action with Pierce-Hanna as a representative of a class of "all past, present, and future female police officers of the Montgomery Police Department, with regard to all employment practices except hiring."6 Pierce-Hanna rested her complaint of gender discrimination on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 1981a, 2000e through 2000e-17, and the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution, as enforced through 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983.
In a memorandum opinion and order issued on November 17, 1986, the court held that the Police Department's promotion procedures had an impermissible "adverse impact" on women and that the department had systematically and intentionally discriminated against female officers in promotions, in violation of Title VII and the equal protection clause.7 The court found that "discriminating against women because they are women was and remains the `standard operating procedure' within the City of Montgomery Police Department."8 The court allowed the parties an opportunity to attempt to resolve the issue of what individual remedial relief should be awarded to Pierce-Hanna and the members of the class she represented.9 The court also ordered the department to develop new promotion procedures.10
The court also found that the Mayor of Montgomery had "concocted a department-wide scheme to discredit and embarrass ... Pierce[-Hanna] for having initiated the charges."11 As later capsulized by the court, the evidence relied upon in reaching this finding was as follows:
Because "there [was] a strong probability of further retaliation" and because an injunction banning retaliation was not already outstanding, the court issued an order prohibiting the Mayor and all police officials from retaliating against persons in the department and, in particular, from retaliating against Pierce-Hanna.13
In May 1987, because the parties were unable to agree on new procedures, the court fashioned and ordered implemented an interim promotion plan for the Police Department.14 The relief applied to the instant case and to the companion case of United States v. City of Montgomery.15 The interim plan required, among other things, that promotions were to have no adverse impact on either African-American or female candidates, measured in accordance with the "four-fifths rule" of the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, 29 C.F.R. § 1607.4(D).16 In addition, under the plan, the mayor had to make his promotion selection from among the five highest-ranked candidates, and if the mayor chose to select a lower-ranked candidate over a higher-ranked candidate, even if all the candidates involved were black or women, he had to state in writing his reasons for rejecting the higher-ranked candidate. Pierce-Hanna, on behalf of herself and other female officers, was then given a period of time to challenge the rejection as sexually discriminatory or retaliatory. If an objection was made, the mayor could not select the lower-ranked candidate unless and until the court ruled in the mayor's favor on the challenge.17 The interim plan was intended to last only twelve months.18
In March 1988, Pierce-Hanna and the defendants were able to reach agreement as to all individual claims. The agreement was embodied in a consent decree.19
In the meantime, in January 1988, the court appointed counsel for all African-American officers in the Police Department and invited the officers to come forth with one or more named representatives to intervene in the companion case of United States v. City of Montgomery and to represent and pursue the interests of the officers as a class.20 In addition, in response to a request from the defendants, the court invited all white male police officers to participate in both the instant case and the companion case of United States v. City of Montgomery, and the court appointed counsel to represent them.21 In March 1988, Sidney Williams, Edward McCurdy, Frank L. Brown, and William Dunn were allowed to intervene in United States v. City of Montgomery to pursue claims of race discrimination on behalf of African-Americans, and that same month Gordon M. Ledbetter and John M. Shumway were allowed to intervene on behalf of white males in both the instant case and United States v. City of Montgomery.22 Finally, in 1988, the court certified two classes: the "Williams intervenors" in United States v. City of Montgomery to represent all present and future black police officers in the Police Department, with the class represented by plaintiff-intervenors Williams, McCurdy, Brown, and Dunn; and the "Ledbetter intervenors" in the instant case and United States v. City of Montgomery to represent all present and future white male police officers in the Police Department, with the class represented by defendant-inte...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wyatt by and through Rawlins v. Rogers
...articulated in Freeman, decrees redressing race and sex discrimination in city police department); Jordan v. Wilson, 951 F.Supp. 1571 (M.D.Ala.1996) (Thompson, J.) (longstanding sex discrimination lawsuit against city police department terminated based on considerations articulated in Freem......
-
R.C. ex rel. Ala. Disabilities Advocacy v. Walley
....`at the earliest practicable date is essential to restore their true accountability to our governmental system.'" Jordan v. Wilson, 951 F.Supp. 1571, 1580 (M.D.Ala.1996) (quoting Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467, 490, 112 S.Ct. 1430, 118 L.Ed.2d 108 (1992)); see also Reynolds v. McInnes, 338......
-
Williams v. Montgomery County Sheriff's Dept.
...itself, warrant the continued assumption of court control over a governmental entity for past misconduct." Jordan v. Wilson, 951 F.Supp. 1571, 1582-83 (M.D.Ala.1996) (Thompson, J.). III. Accordingly, the court finds that the defendants have complied with all requirements imposed by the outs......