Dudley v. City of Bessemer
| Decision Date | 29 September 2014 |
| Docket Number | Case No: 2:12-cv-01762-MHH |
| Parties | CHEREE M. DUDLEY, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF BESSEMER, ALABAMA and KENNETH E. GULLEY, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama |
Plaintiff CheRee Minor Dudley formerly was employed as the Chief Court Clerk for the City of Bessemer, Alabama Municipal Courts. Ms. Dudley sued the City of Bessemer because she contends that the City terminated her based on her sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. She also alleges, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, that the City and the Mayor of the City of Bessemer, Kenneth E. Gulley, violated her 14th Amendment right to equal protection. Finally, Ms. Dudley asserts a state law assault claim against Mayor Gulley. (Doc. 15).
The City and the Mayor have asked the Court to enter judgment in their favor on all of Ms. Dudley's claims pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Citing Rule 56(c)(2), the Mayor and the City also ask the Courtto strike portions of the affidavits of Edward E. May, Lakisha Addie Minor, and Ms. Dudley. Ms. Dudley filed those affidavits in opposition to the defendants' summary judgment motion. As explained in greater detail below, the Court grants the defendants' motion for summary judgment with respect to Ms. Dudley's § 1983 and Title VII claims. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Ms. Dudley's state law assault claim and dismisses it without prejudice. Given this disposition, the defendants' motion to strike is moot.
"The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). To demonstrate that there is a genuine dispute as to a material fact that precludes summary judgment, a party opposing a motion for summary judgment must cite "to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A). When considering a summary judgment motion, the Court must view the evidence in the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Hill v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 510 Fed. Appx. 810, 813 (11th Cir. 2013). "The court need consider only the cited materials, but it may consider othermaterials in the record." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3).
Ms. Dudley's claims against the City and Mayor Dudley relate to her termination in 2011, but this story begins with her selection as the Chief Court Clerk for the City of Bessemer. The City hired Ms. Dudley on February 19, 2007. Doc. 33-9 at 4. The City posted the job opening, describing the position of Chief Court Clerk for the City of Bessemer Municipal Courts as follows:
Work involves performing a wide variety of complex supervisory, administrative, and clerical tasks, either personally or through subordinate supervisors, in managing non-judicial functions of a large Municipal or Family Court system.
Doc. 35-13. The "License/Certification Required" section of the position description lists "Ability to be certified as a Magistrate" as a licensure or certification requirement for the position. Id.
Ms. Dudley submitted an application for the position to the Personnel Board of Jefferson County. Doc. 35-16; Doc. 35-6 at 50. The mayor of Bessemer at the time, Ed May, interviewed Ms. Dudley for the position and selected her on January 30, 2007. Doc. 35-2.1 Ms. Dudley knew Mayor May before she began working for the City because she and Mayor May went to church together. In fact, shelisted him as a reference on her employment application. Doc. 35-6 at 48-49; Doc. 35-16.
When Mayor May interviewed Ms. Dudley and several other candidates for the position of Chief Court Clerk, Mayor May "was fully aware" that Ms. Dudley had a criminal history. Doc. 35-1, p. 2. The application for the position contains a section labeled "Criminal History." In that section, the application asks: "Have you ever been convicted of a state or federal felony criminal offense?" Doc. 35-16, p. 4. Ms. Dudley answered "yes." Id.
As it turns out, in March 2004, Ms. Dudley pled guilty to federal charges concerning a wire fraud scheme relating to real estate closings. Ms. Dudley was the closing attorney for the real estate transactions.2 See Doc. 35-3, Ex. 3; Doc. 33-6; Doc. 35-6 at 22-24. Pursuant to her plea agreement, Ms. Dudley served five months in a federal prison camp and five months of probation. Doc. 35-6 at 37-38.
Mayor May attests that he "specifically discussed the issue of [Ms. Dudley's] prior conviction with the City attorney at the time," and he "received clearance from the City Attorney to hire her." Doc. 35-1, pp. 2-3. Mayor May added that Ms. Dudley's "prior criminal conviction did not adversely impact her ability to perform her job as Chief Court Clerk." Doc. 35-1, p. 2. In fact, duringher tenure with the City, Ms. Dudley received several merit pay increases, and she never was disciplined. Doc. 35-8, p. 13.
When she began her job, both Mayor May and Travis Brooks, the acting city clerk and Principal Accountant for the City, supervised Ms. Dudley. Doc. 35-5; Doc. 35-4 at 27, 30-33, 38. Mayor May, Mr. Brooks, and Ms. Dudley all regarded Ms. Dudley as a "department head" during Mayor May's tenure. Doc. 35-1; Doc. 35-5; Doc. 35-4 at 40. Neither Mayor May nor his successor, Mayor Gulley, ever asked Ms. Dudley to become certified as a magistrate during her tenure with the City. Doc. 35-5.
In the November 2010 mayoral election, Ed May lost to Kenneth Gulley. See Doc. 35-3 at 8, 21-23. Shortly after his election, Mayor Gulley introduced the city department heads at a city council meeting, and he introduced Ms. Dudley as the department head of Municipal Court. Doc. 35-4 at 54-55; Doc. 35-5. After he held his first department head meeting, Mayor Dudley concluded that too many people attended the meeting. Consequently, Mayor Gulley changed the department head structure so that only City employees who reported directly to the mayor would attend department head meetings. Doc. 35-3 at 41, 52-54. Mayor Gulley's definition of a department head excluded Ms. Dudley who Mayor Gulley believed was supervised by Mr. Brooks and other male employees. See Doc. 35-3 at 52-54.
Initially, Mr. Brooks, who was the acting city clerk when Mayor Gulley took office, served as the department head for the Municipal Court and attended department head meetings with Mayor Gulley. Id. at 41, 47. Shortly after Mayor Gulley took office, Beverly Wheeler replaced Mr. Brooks. She became the acting city clerk and the department head. See Doc. 35-4 at 30, 52; Doc. 35-3 at 97. Despite their "acting city clerk" titles, both Mr. Brooks and Ms. Wheeler retained their accounting positions for purposes of Personnel Board classification. Doc. 35-3 at 42; Doc. 35-4 at 27, 30-33.
According to the defendants, in February or March 2011, shortly after Mayor Gulley took office, he received complaints from some of the Municipal Court employees both about Ms. Dudley and about working conditions at the court that were unrelated to Ms. Dudley's management, such as cramped working conditions. See Doc. 35-3 at 55-67.3 Mayor Dudley, Ms. Wheeler, and City Attorney Shan Paden met with Ms. Dudley and several of the employees she supervised to discuss these issues. Id. Mayor Gulley testified that he did not conduct similar meetings in other city departments because he did not receive complaints from those employees. Id. No changes were made as a result of the complaints, and Mayor Gulley essentially told the complaining employees tocontinue doing their jobs. He told Ms. Dudley to make sure that she was in control of her department. Id. at 64-67. Ms. Dudley reports that during her meeting with Mayor Gulley, he screamed at her and told her she was not qualified to manage the office. Doc. 35-6 at 169-72. She testified that he looked like he was holding himself back from attacking her. Id.
Coincidentally, in February or March 2011, Mayor Gulley learned of Ms. Dudley's criminal conviction and asked his legal team to investigate it. Doc. 35-3 at 76-77. On April 11, 2011, the City issued a Notice of Contemplated Disciplinary Action to Ms. Dudley for violation of the Personnel Board rules. The notice cited a violation of Rule 12.2(o) based on Ms. Dudley's "inability to perform the essential functions of the job with or without reasonable accommodation," referring specifically to her "inability to be certified as a magistrate due to a prior felony conviction." Doc. 35-3, Ex. 3. The notice also cited a violation of Rule 12.2(p) "which provides that '[a]ny other legitimate and nondiscriminatory reason that constitutes good cause for disciplinary action, is reasonably specific, is consistent with the Act and these Rules, and is not motivated by any non-work-related preferences or animus for or against any person'" may be a basis for discipline. Doc. 35-3, Ex. 3. The notice stated that Ms. Dudley could not be certified as a magistrate because she could not meet the requirements established by the Alabama Code for public officers. See id.Alabama Code § 36-2-1 disqualifies any person who is convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment in a federal penitentiary from holding public office.
The City held a disciplinary hearing on the matter on April 14, 2011, and the City terminated Ms. Dudley later that month. Doc. 33-9 at 3. Ms. Dudley contends that Maurice Mohammed, the next person hired at the Municipal Court, replaced her. See Doc. 35-3 at 40; Doc. 35-4 at 40-41. According to the City, it has eliminated the Chief Court Clerk position; however, Gwen Horn is now the Principal Court Clerk and has assumed most of Ms....
To continue reading
Request your trial