Scott v. City of Anniston, Alabama
| Decision Date | 31 March 1977 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 75-G-0125-E. |
| Citation | 430 F. Supp. 508 |
| Parties | Mack SCOTT et al., Plaintiffs, v. The CITY OF ANNISTON, ALABAMA, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
George C. Longshore, Cooper, Mitch & Crawford, Birmingham, Ala., for plaintiffs.
John R. Phillips, Anniston, Ala., for Anniston Civil Service Board, Cecil Miller and Richard Sawyer.
Richard B. Emerson & Galbraith, Anniston, Ala., for City of Anniston, Norwood Hodges, Charles A. Daugherty, Dr. Robert C. Simmons, Jr., Dr. Gordon A. Rodgers and Eugene Stedham.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This is a civil action for injunctive relief, damages, a declaratory judgment, attorney's fees, and other appropriate relief, brought on behalf of a class under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended in 1972, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., and under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and predicated upon alleged violations by the defendants, The City of Anniston, Alabama, the Mayor and Councilmen of the City of Anniston, Alabama, and the Chairman and Members of the Civil Service Board of the City of Anniston, Alabama (hereinafter sometimes referred to collectively as "the defendants"). The parties have stipulated that the case is appropriate for class action treatment. The class is composed of all past, present and future black employees in the public works department of the City of Anniston who were at work on or after December 2, 1972.
The court has severed issues of back pay from the issue of liability. The class issues presently pending before the court relate to whether defendants have been guilty of racial discrimination with regard to hiring, promotion and tenure of employment. More specifically, the principal issue revolves around the defendants' promotion practices. The court will deal first with the class issues and then address itself to the individual issues involving Mack Scott, Edward A. Spears, and Earnest Hall.
The court, having fully considered the pleadings, all of the testimony, exhibits and other evidence adduced in the course of this case, and having carefully reviewed the briefs, and having heard the argument of counsel, now makes and finds the following facts and makes the following conclusions of law, pursuant to Rule 52(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. This action, seeking injunctive relief and damages, is predicated upon alleged violations by the defendants of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended in 1972, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.
2. The plaintiff, as mentioned above, is a class composed of all past, present and future black employees in the public works department of the City of Anniston, Alabama, who were at work on or after December 2, 1972, who are represented by certain named plaintiffs.
3. The defendants are The City of Anniston, Alabama, the Mayor and Councilmen of the City of Anniston, and the Chairman and Members of the Civil Service Board of the City of Anniston.
4. The public works department is composed of the following subdepartments: engineering, garage, electrical, street, sanitation, and building and grounds. There is a total of 26 jobs in the public works department, with 15 separate pay levels. As of the fourth quarter, 1975, there was a total of 144 employees, of which 83 were white and 61 black.
5. Historically, black employees have held only the lowest paid jobs in the public works department. Historically, blacks were relegated to labor jobs only.
6. The hiring, promotion, salary, and removal of employees in the public works department of the City of Anniston are covered by a Civil Service Act.1 Said Act creates a Civil Service Board of the City of Anniston and provides, among other things, that the Board shall have the power to make rules and regulations governing examinations, eligible registers, appointments, transfers, salaries, demotions, annual and sick leave, and such other matters as may be necessary to accomplish the purposes of the Act; that all employees shall be appointed upon a nonpartisan merit basis; that said Board "shall (1) classify the different type of services to be performed in the service of the city; (2) prescribe qualifications, including those of education, training, and experience, for the appointees and incumbents of each class; (3) with the approval of the appointing authority, fix a maximum and minimum salary for each class; and (4) allocate each job in the service to its proper class." The Act further provides that the salary to be paid to each employee shall be within the pay plan and pay rules and regulations established by the Board and shall be no more than the Board approves; and that examination shall be practical in character and shall relate to those matters which test the ability of the person examined to discharge intelligently the duties of the position for which he applies.
7. Pursuant to the Civil Service Act referred to hereinabove, the Civil Service Board of the City of Anniston has adopted rules and regulations which, in part, provide that examination may be oral or written or both, and may contain performance tests where the Board deems necessary.2
8. The Civil Service Board purchases its written examination, when given, from Public Personnel Association in Chicago, Illinois. The defendants, independently of said Public Personnel Association, have not caused a validation study to be made of said examinations. Said Association, however, testified that pertinent examinations have been validated.
9. The department of public works for the City of Anniston has been analyzed from the standpoint of (1) incumbent white versus black in each of the 15 separate wage levels, (2) a comparison of current (fourth quarter 1975) average monthly income as broken down into year of hire, and (3) a comparison of the average income of black employees versus white employees. Of a total of 26 discrete jobs in the department, only three have ever been held by blacks: laborer, utility laborer, and equipment operator one. These positions are close to the lowest paying jobs in the department. In the order of ranking from the bottom, these three jobs rank three, four, and five.
The "year employed" analysis (plaintiff's exhibit 11-A) reveals a wage disparity between black and white employees which cannot be explained solely on the basis of length of service, that is, that blacks have less seniority than whites. On a decade-by-decade breakdown the following appears:
Year Employed White Black
1944 - 1950 4 1
1950 - 1960 8 6
1960 - 1970 22 34
1970 - 1975 18 16
Therefore, although the black employees have tended to remain at work in approximately the same numbers as whites, they have remained in lower paying jobs, while white employees have moved ahead in earnings.
Of the 26 years listed on plaintiffs exhibit 11-A, there is a basis for comparison for 13 of those years. In 12 of the 13 years whites make more than blacks, and in the remaining year (1955) income is the same. This study also reveals that the longer the employment, the greater the disparity. However, the study also shows that the disparity has decreased from 1950 to the present time:
Average Average
Year Employed White Black Disparity
1944 - 1950 $ 859.00 $ 581.00 $ 278.00
1950 - 1960 1,027.00 643.00 394.00
1960 - 1970 766.00 565.00 201.00
1970 - present 684.00 544.00 130.00
The overall average disparity indicated by the table, with blacks earning a monthly average of $602.00 compared to $789.00 for whites, amounts in income to $186.70 (plaintiff's exhibit 11).
10. The defendants have affirmatively sought to recruit blacks to be employees of and to enhance their job opportunities with the City of Anniston. On numerous occasions, officials of the City have met with black leaders of the black community in the city to encourage them to have blacks apply for jobs other than laborers.
11. Historically, black applicants have done poorly on written examinations. In 1971 ten employees (nine blacks and one white) were promoted to equipment operator one by signing their names only on some papers and going to an oral test. In many instances where applicants, particularly blacks, failed written examinations for promotion to equipment operator one, the defendants gave performance examinations conducted by a black equipment operator not connected with the City, and practically all of the applicants taking these performance examinations passed them. After passing the performance examinations, blacks were given preference over whites in being promoted to and given the position of equipment operator one.
12. The Civil Service Board on numerous occasions has abolished various eligibility registers or lists, either because there were no blacks originally on them or because no blacks remained on them, as a result of their having been certified to the appointing authority.
13. The court finds that the Civil Service Board of the City of Anniston does not and has not discriminated against persons on the basis of their race when such persons have appealed to the Civil Service Board as a result of personnel action taken against them. Indeed, Mr. Ellis Greer, a black, who is also a present member of the Board, and a present member of a labor union, testified that in his opinion the Board does not discriminate against whites or blacks.
14. The court finds that any black who has passed one of the job-related written examinations, regardless of his position in passing it, is in effect certified along with any other white employee — white applicants or anyone else, regardless of their standing.
15. The court will now address itself to findings of fact concerning the individual complaint of plaintiff ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hiatt v. City of Berkeley
...e., there must be proof of discriminatory racial purpose (cf. Blake v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 435 F.Supp. 55; Scott v. City of Anniston (N.D. Ala. 1977) 430 F.Supp. 508). This reasoning also finds support in the recent Bakke case where the Supreme Court held that Title VI of the same C......
-
Hiatt v. City of Berkeley
...e., there must be proof of discriminatory racial purpose (cf. Blake v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 435 F.Supp. 55; Scott v. City of Anniston (N.D.Ala.1977) 430 F.Supp. 508). This reasoning also finds support in the recent Bakke case where the Supreme Court held that Title VI of the same Civ......
-
Blake v. City of Los Angeles
...Griggs impact standard could not constitutionally be applied to agencies of state and local government. Relying on Scott v. City of Anniston (N.D.Ala.1977) 430 F.Supp. 508, the district court reasoned that Congress had no constitutional power to impose on state and local governments anti-di......
-
Vanguard Justice Society, Inc. v. Hughes
...cases. 61But see to the contrary Blake v. City of Los Angeles, 435 F.Supp. 55, 63-64 (C.D.Cal.1977); Scott, et al. v. City of Anniston, Alabama, 430 F.Supp. 508, 514-15 (N.D.Ala.1977). On the other hand, see also the very recent case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Club Valiants, et al. v. ......