Alexander v. Fulton County Georgia, No. 97-8189

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtMARCUS
Citation2000 WL 331384,207 F.3d 1303
Docket NumberNo. 97-8189
Decision Date30 March 2000
Parties(11th Cir. 2000) A.M. ALEXANDER, Charles Alexander, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. FULTON COUNTY, GEORGIA; Jacquelyn H. Barrett, Individually and in her Official Capacity as Sheriff of Fulton County, Georgia, Defendants-Appellants.

Page 1303

207 F.3d 1303 (11th Cir. 2000)
A.M. ALEXANDER, Charles Alexander, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
FULTON COUNTY, GEORGIA; Jacquelyn H. Barrett, Individually and in her Official
Capacity as Sheriff of Fulton County, Georgia, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 97-8189.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
March 30, 2000.

Page 1304

Copyrighted Material Omitted

Page 1305

Copyrighted Material Omitted

Page 1306

Copyrighted Material Omitted

Page 1307

Copyrighted Material Omitted

Page 1308

Copyrighted Material Omitted

Page 1309

Copyrighted Material Omitted

Page 1310

Copyrighted Material Omitted

Page 1311

Copyrighted Material Omitted

Page 1312

Copyrighted Material Omitted

Page 1313

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

Before ANDERSON, Chief Judge, MARCUS, Circuit Judge, and HANCOCK*, Senior District Judge.

MARCUS, Circuit Judge:

This case involves various claims of race discrimination brought by eighteen current and former Fulton County Sheriff's Department employees individually and on behalf of all similarly situated white employees of the Sheriff's Department against Fulton County, Georgia and Sheriff Jacquelyn H. Barrett, in her official and individual capacities (collectively, "Defendants"). Plaintiffs sued Fulton County and Sheriff Barrett alleging that Fulton County maintained a "policy or custom" of racial discrimination in employment decisions, that Fulton County and the Sheriff's Department engaged in a "pattern or practice" of employment discrimination, and specifically that Fulton County and Sheriff Barrett intentionally discriminated on the basis of race with respect to discipline, promotions, transfers, reclassifications, promotional examinations, restorations of rank, and appointments to unclassified positions. Defendants now appeal from a jury verdict entered for most of the Plaintiffs finding that Fulton County maintained a policy or custom of discrimination against white employees and that Sheriff Barrett intentionally discriminated against white employees. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I.

In September 1993, Plaintiffs1 filed their complaint as a class action alleging a "pattern or practice" of employment discrimination against white personnel of the Fulton County Sheriff's Department in the

Page 1314

terms and conditions of employment in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981,2 42 U.S.C. § 1983,3 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.4 In April 1994, the district court, finding the requisite numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation, certified under Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure the following class:5

All present and future sworn white employees of the Fulton County Sheriff's Department and all past sworn white employees who allege discriminatory acts by Defendants within the applicable statute of limitations.

On June 12, 1996, after an extended trial, the jury awarded damages to fifteen of the eighteen Plaintiffs and the district court entered judgment.6 On July 8, 1996, Plaintiffs moved to amend the judgment, requesting injunctive relief and back pay, and, on July 10, 1996, the district court vacated the judgment. Thereafter, the district court entered a modified judgment for damages, backpay, individual equitable relief, and class-based injunctive relief.

The jury verdict and final judgment included the following for each Plaintiff:

1. Major A.M. Alexander-The jury found that the Defendants had discriminated against Alexander with respect to

Page 1315

assignments or transfers and that he had been disciplined in whole or in part because of his race. The jury awarded Alexander $125,000 in compensatory damages against both Fulton County and Sheriff Barrett and $25,000 in punitive damages against Sheriff Barrett for discriminatory assignments or transfers. The jury also awarded Alexander $2,800 in back pay, an additional $125,000 in compensatory damages against Fulton County and Sheriff Barrett, and $25,000 in punitive damages against Sheriff Barrett for his suspension. The district court also ordered that the record of disciplinary action against Alexander be expunged from his Sheriff's Department file.

2. Sergeant Charles "Tony" Alexander-The jury awarded Charles Alexander $15,000 in compensatory damages because of Sheriff Barrett's failure to restore Alexander's rank after his voluntary demotion from sergeant to deputy. The district court ordered the Defendants to recalculate Alexander's retirement benefits and other employee benefits to reflect any changes that would have occurred had his rank been restored.

3. Sergeant Joseph Bantin-The jury found in favor of Bantin on his claims that Sheriff Barrett did not consider him for appointment to the unclassified7 positions of captain or major on account of his race, and that he was not permitted to compete in the promotional process for the rank of classified lieutenant, also because of race. Finally, the jury returned a verdict for the Defendants on Bantin's claim that he had not been considered for reclassification because of his race. The jury awarded Bantin $10,000 in compensatory and $5,000 in punitive damages based on its finding of discrimination against Bantin in the promotional process.

4. Sergeant Billy Bolt-The jury found that Bolt was wrongfully not appointed to the classified position of lieutenant in June 1993 because of his race and awarded him $20,000 in compensatory damages and $5,000 in punitive damages. The district court also entered an award of $1,000.98 in back pay and ordered the Defendants to reclassify Bolt as a lieutenant providing him with the pay grade, employee benefits, and seniority he would have achieved had he been appointed to the rank of classified lieutenant on June 1, 1993.

5. Sergeant Denise Brooks-The jury found that Brooks was not selected for appointment to the unclassified positions of captain or major due to her race. The jury concluded that Brooks should have been appointed as an unclassified captain in June 1993 and awarded her $10,000 in compensatory damages and $10,000 in punitive damages. The jury also found that she was discriminated against with respect to assignments or transfers and awarded her an additional $25,000 in compensatory damages and $5,000 in punitive damages. The district court also ordered the Defendants to provide Brooks with the pay grade, employee benefits, and seniority she would have achieved had she been appointed to captain on June 1, 1993.

6. Lieutenant Robert Fox-The jury found that Fox was not appointed to the position of unclassified captain in March 1993 and was transferred to a position in the Jail against his will in 1994 because of race. The jury awarded Fox $20,000 in compensatory damages and $10,000 in punitive damages on his failure to promote

Page 1316

claim. It awarded him an additional $50,000 in compensatory damages and $10,000 in punitive damages on his discriminatory assignment or transfer claim. The district court ordered the Defendants to recalculate Fox's retirement and other benefits as if he had been appointed to an unclassified captain position on March 1, 1993.

7. Captain Gary Gettis-The jury found that Gettis was not appointed to the unclassified positions of captain or major due to his race. The jury concluded that in the absence of discrimination, Gettis would have been appointed to an unclassified captain position in June 1993, and awarded him $10,000 in compensatory damages and $10,000 in punitive damages. The district court also awarded Gettis $2,290.59 in back pay, the amount he would have received had he been appointed to an unclassified captain position in June 1993, and ordered the Defendants to recalculate Gettis' retirement and other employee benefits as if he had been appointed to an unclassified captain position on June 1, 1993.

8. Corporal Sara Henderson-The jury found that Henderson was not considered for appointment to the unclassified positions of captain or major on account of her race. However, the jury found against Henderson on her claim that she was denied promotions to the positions of classified corporal and sergeant in 1993 because of race. The jury did not award her any damages.

9. Sergeant Kathy Jones-The jury found that Jones was denied transfers outside the Jail because of race and awarded her $10,000 in compensatory damages and $5,000 in punitive damages. The district court declined to award injunctive relief to Jones.

10. Lieutenant Carolyn Masson-The jury found that Masson was not considered or selected for appointment to the unclassified positions of captain or major due to her race and that she was also discriminated against with regard to assignments or transfers because of her race. As for not selecting her to an unclassified position, the jury concluded that Masson should have been appointed to an unclassified captain position in June 1993 and awarded her $10,000 in compensatory damages and $10,000 in punitive damages. As for its findings concerning the assignments or transfers, the jury awarded Masson an additional $50,000 in compensatory damages and $10,000 in punitive damages. The district court also awarded Masson $5,412.99 in back pay to compensate her for wages she would have received had she been appointed to the position of unclassified captain in June 1993. The court also ordered the Defendants to provide Masson with the pay grade, employee benefits, and seniority she would have earned had she been appointed to the position of captain on June 1, 1993.

11. Corporal Donnie McBee-Although the jury found for McBee on his claim that he was not considered for appointment to the unclassified positions of captain or major because of his race, it found his failure to be selected for these positions was not on account of his race. The jury also...

To continue reading

Request your trial
634 practice notes
  • Richardson v. Tricom Pictures & Productions, Inc., No. 02-60117-CV.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Southern District of Florida
    • August 24, 2004
    ...the face of a perceived risk that its actions will violate federal law." Id. at 536, 119 S.Ct. 2118; see Alexander v. Fulton County, Ga., 207 F.3d 1303, 1337 (11th Although egregious or outrageous conduct may be indicative of an intent to violate federal law, such conduct is not necessary t......
  • Grech v. Clayton County, Ga., No. 01-13151.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • July 7, 2003
    ...we accepted official capacity suits against Georgia sheriffs as suits against their respective counties. See Alexander v. Fulton County, 207 F.3d 1303, 1322 n. 14 (11th Cir.2000) (stating "[p]laintiffs' suit against Sheriff Barrett in her official capacity is the functional equivalent of su......
  • Anderson v. Dunbar Armored, Inc., Civil Action File No. 1:08-CV-3639-BBM.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Northern District of Georgia
    • August 18, 2009
    ...which can reasonably be expected to grow out of the charge of discrimination.' " Id. at 1280 (quoting Alexander v. Fulton County, Ga., 207 F.3d 1303, 1332 (11th Cir.2000)). Thus, a plaintiff may not allege new acts of discrimination in a civil action. Id. at 1279-80. "Courts are nonetheless......
  • SMILEY v. Ala. Dep't of Transp., CASE NO. 2:10-cv-236-MEF
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Middle District of Alabama
    • March 30, 2011
    ...brought unless the alleged discrimination has been made the subject of a timely filed EEOC charge. See, e.g., Alexander v. Fulton County, 207 F.3d 1303, 1332 (11th Cir. 2000); Robinson, 242 F. Supp. 2d at 1079. "Not all acts complained of, however, need have been included in the EEOC charge......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
630 cases
  • Richardson v. Tricom Pictures & Productions, Inc., No. 02-60117-CV.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Southern District of Florida
    • August 24, 2004
    ...the face of a perceived risk that its actions will violate federal law." Id. at 536, 119 S.Ct. 2118; see Alexander v. Fulton County, Ga., 207 F.3d 1303, 1337 (11th Although egregious or outrageous conduct may be indicative of an intent to violate federal law, such conduct is not necessary t......
  • Grech v. Clayton County, Ga., No. 01-13151.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • July 7, 2003
    ...we accepted official capacity suits against Georgia sheriffs as suits against their respective counties. See Alexander v. Fulton County, 207 F.3d 1303, 1322 n. 14 (11th Cir.2000) (stating "[p]laintiffs' suit against Sheriff Barrett in her official capacity is the functional equivalent of su......
  • Anderson v. Dunbar Armored, Inc., Civil Action File No. 1:08-CV-3639-BBM.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Northern District of Georgia
    • August 18, 2009
    ...which can reasonably be expected to grow out of the charge of discrimination.' " Id. at 1280 (quoting Alexander v. Fulton County, Ga., 207 F.3d 1303, 1332 (11th Cir.2000)). Thus, a plaintiff may not allege new acts of discrimination in a civil action. Id. at 1279-80. "Courts are nonetheless......
  • SMILEY v. Ala. Dep't of Transp., CASE NO. 2:10-cv-236-MEF
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Middle District of Alabama
    • March 30, 2011
    ...brought unless the alleged discrimination has been made the subject of a timely filed EEOC charge. See, e.g., Alexander v. Fulton County, 207 F.3d 1303, 1332 (11th Cir. 2000); Robinson, 242 F. Supp. 2d at 1079. "Not all acts complained of, however, need have been included in the EEOC charge......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 books & journal articles
  • Sex Discrimination Claims Under Title Vii of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
    • United States
    • Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law Nbr. XXII-2, January 2021
    • January 1, 2021
    ...driving is an easily acquired skill, but teaching in a school requires special qualif‌ications); see also Alexander v. Fulton Cnty., 207 F.3d 1303, 1327–28 (11th Cir. 2000) (stating that underrepresentation of whites in sworn law enforcement positions relative to the general population was ......
  • Statistical Evidence
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Employment Evidence
    • April 1, 2022
    ...§5:60 your client, for example factory line workers, and have your expert analyze that group. See Alexander v. Fulton County, Georgia , 207 F.3d 1303 (11th Cir. 2000), rehearing, en banc, denied, 218 F.3d 749 (11th Cir. Ga. 2000). As the Supreme Court emphasized in Johnson v. Transportation......
  • Employer Responses
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Employment Evidence
    • April 1, 2022
    ...On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed some of the claims, and reversed and remanded on others . Alexander v. Fulton County , Ga. 207 F.3d 1303 (11th Cir. 2000), reh. denied , 218 F.3d 749 (11th Cir. 2000). EMPLOYER RESPONSES 11-13 — Employer Responses §11:110 Common Fact Pattern Plaintif......
  • Race and national origin discrimination
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Federal Employment Jury Instructions - Volume I
    • April 30, 2014
    ...Title VII for any acts and statements of its employees made within scope of their duties as employees. Alexander v. Fulton County, GA , 207 F.3d 1303, 1334 (11th Cir. 2000). §3:400 Statistics Plaintiff under Title VII may prove discriminatory animus by offering statistical evidence showing ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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