Johnson v. City of Mobile
Decision Date | 30 September 2015 |
Docket Number | 1140433. |
Citation | 195 So. 3d 903 |
Parties | Barbara JOHNSON v. CITY OF MOBILE. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Carroll J. Ogden, Mobile, for appellant.
Ricardo A. Woods, Kasee S. Heisterhagen, and Atoyia A. Scott of Burr & Forman LLP, Mobile, for appellee.
Barbara Johnson appeals the judgment of the Mobile Circuit Court in favor of the City of Mobile(“the City”), the circuit court's denial of Johnson's motions for a continuance and a new trial, and the award of attorney fees to the City.
This case involves Johnson's claim against the City alleging retaliation based on Johnson's several complaints and lawsuits filed against the City under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act,42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.(“Title VII”), and the Americans with Disabilities Act,42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.(“the ADA”).Johnson, an African–American woman over 40 years of age, began working for the City in its Urban Development and Public Services Department in 1996.Her duties included enforcing various ordinances pertaining to parking, abandoned vehicles, swimming pools, and overgrown weeds or grass, as well as handling abatement cases.In 2006, Johnson was transferred to the City's Department of Environmental Services and began working as an “Environmental Patrol Officer II.”As an employee of the City, Johnson was subject to the Mobile County Personnel Board(“the MCPB”) rules and policies.
Johnson has previously filed several complaints and lawsuits against the City pertaining to her employment with the City.In 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, and 2012, Johnson filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission(“the EEOC”) complaints against the City alleging various forms of discrimination.Johnson also unsuccessfully sued the City in 2007, 2008, and 2010.Johnson filed the underlying action on June 4, 2013, alleging that, in violation of Title VII and the ADA, the City retaliated against Johnson because she had filed discrimination charges against the City with the EEOC.
Workplace interactions constitute the factual basis for Johnson's present case.Johnson's deposition testimony indicates that in 2008 or 2009 Johnson had surgery to correct an unspecified problem with her toe.As a result of her toe surgery, Johnson was “taken off of work” for what “could have been a month.”Johnson's time off work to recover from her toe injury was preapproved by the City, and she was paid for her time off.Once Johnson returned to work, she had to wear a boot to protect her toe, and her doctor “wanted [her] on light duty.”Johnson's supervisor, Terrell Washington, informed Johnson that there was no light duty available at that time so Johnson remained at home on paid leave.Once Johnson returned to work, Johnson was ordered by her physician to wear a certain kind of shoe that did not comply with the City's dress code.The City required Johnson to wear black shoes, but her physician-prescribed shoes were white.Washington informed Johnson that her physician-prescribed shoes were not in compliance with the City's dress code but allowed Johnson to wear the white physician-prescribed shoes until her toe had completely healed.Johnson's trial testimony states, in pertinent part:
On May 14, 2010, Washington sent Johnson a “Letter of reprimand” for violating certain of the MCPB's rules and policies.Washington detailed the basis for his reprimand of Johnson as follows:
Johnson subsequently received an unsatisfactory-annual-performance rating from Washington for the period ending June 8, 2010.Thereafter, Johnson employed the MCPB's appellate process for review of her unsatisfactory-performance rating.Ultimately, the MCPB affirmed Johnson's unsatisfactory-performance rating.In its order affirming Johnson's unsatisfactory-performance rating, the MCPB set forth the following reasons given by Washington as to why he gave her an unsatisfactory-performance rating:
Johnson appealed the MCPB's decision to the circuit court, which, on August 13, 2012, ordered the City to change Johnson's unsatisfactory-performance rating to “no lower than ‘satisfactory’ ”“[b]ecause the [MCPB] did not enforce its own rules.”
An “employee-counseling record” concerning Johnson indicates that, on December 22, 2011, which was during the aforementioned appeal process, Johnson's supervisor counseled Johnson about her job performance.The employee-counseling record indicates that Johnson's “monthly total number” had been low and instructed her to “let the supervisor know” if she got behind in her work so that help could be given to her.
On August 14, 2010, Johnson filed a complaint with the EEOC alleging:
On March 28, 2012, the EEOC issued the following “Letter of Determination” concerning the complaint Johnson filed against the City on August 14, 2010:
The EEOC recommended that the parties participate in “informal methods of conciliation.”The EEOC then monitored any attempts at conciliation made by Johnson and the City.
Johnson testified at trial...
To continue reading
Request your trialUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Zucaro v. Anand Patel, Raman Patel, & Gulf Coast Mgmt. Co.
... ... (Doc. 16 (quoting Clement v. Merchants Nat. Bank of Mobile, 493 So. 2d 1350, 1355Page 3 (Ala. 1986))). The Court found itself "unable to make a ... , as follows: Barry Andrews (partner attorney, 21 years experience) - 69.85 hours Richard Johnson (partner attorney, 14 years experience) - 26.7 hours Danielle Mashburn-Myrick (associate attorney, ... to determining the reasonableness of attorneys' fees awarded to successful class counsel, see City of Birmingham v. Horn, 810 So. 2d 667, 680 (Ala. 2001) ("Under Alabama law, there are currently two ... ...