Shuford v. Alabama State Bd. of Educ.
| Decision Date | 23 May 1997 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 89-T-196-N. |
| Citation | 968 F.Supp. 1486 |
| Parties | Humphrey L. SHUFORD, Plaintiff, Connie Johnson, Karen A. Newton, Myra P. Davis, and Sheryl B. Threatt, individually and on behalf of a class and subclass of persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Intervenors, Kenneth A. Brackins, Plaintiff-Intervenor, v. ALABAMA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama |
Joe R. Whatley, Jr., Cooper, Mitch, Crawford, Kuydendall & Whatley, Birmingham, AL, for Connie Johnson.
Rebecca H. Hunt, Haskell, Slaughter, Young, Johnston & Gallion, Birmingham, AL, for Karen Newton.
Thomas T. Gallion, III, Haskell, Slaughter, Young, Johnston & Gallion, Montgomery, AL, Beverly Baker, Richard Walston, Rebecca Hunt, Michael K.K. Choy, Haskell, Slaughter, Young, Johnston & Gallion, Birmingham, AL, for Myra P. Davis.
J. Mason Davis, Sirote & Permutt, Birmingham, AL, J. Allen Schreiber, Gerald Alan Templeton, Catherine L. Hogewood, Tessa Thrasher, Lloyd, Schreiber & Gray, P.C., Birmingham, AL, Renee Culverhouse, Office of General Counsel, State of Alabama, Dept. of Postsecondary Education, Montgomery, AL, for Alabama State Bd. of Education.
This action was originally filed as a class action by plaintiff Humphrey Shuford ["Shuford"], a black male, who alleged racially discriminatory employment practices in Alabama's postsecondary educational system. Pursuant to the parties' stipulation, the court has previously certified a class of black plaintiffs.1
Two females later filed motions to intervene, claiming discrimination in the same system against females as a class: Connie Johnson ["Johnson"] on 20 April 1991, and Karen Newton ["Newton"] on 21 September 1993.2 The court granted Johnson's motion on 12 June 1991 and granted Newton's motion on 19 October 1993. Thereafter, on 22 October 1993, this court entered an order certifying a class of "all female professional educators who have been or who may in the future be victims of sex-based discrimination with respect to hiring, assignment, salary, promotion, demotion, dismissal and other terms and conditions of employment in Alabama's postsecondary system".3 Johnson and Newton were named as class representatives.
On 3 February 1994, two other females, Myra P. Davis ["Davis"] and Sheryl B. Threatt ["Threatt"], filed a motion to intervene for the purpose of asserting individual claims and class claims on behalf of a subclass of black females, and on 2 March 1994, the court granted their motion.
This cause is before the court on the individual claims of three members of the female class,-Newton, Davis, and Threatt-for relief.4 The female litigants base their claims on the following: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e through 2000-17; the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as enforced through 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983; and § 901(a) of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended, 20 U.S.C.A. § 1681(a). The court exercises its jurisdiction over the subject matter of the individual claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(a)(4) and pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3).
Newton claims that, in spite of her qualifications, she was denied the positions of administrative head, provost or interim provost at either Northwest Shoals Community College or Bevill State Community College ["Bevill"]. She further contends that she was demoted and excluded from her administrative duties after she expressed an interest in being appointed to provost, interim provost or administrative head of campuses at those colleges following the administrative mergers of one Northwest Alabama Community College ["Northwest Alabama"] campus with Bevill and of the merger of a second Northwest Alabama campus with Shoals Community College ["Shoals"].
Davis contended that she was denied a position of Director of Admissions at Lawson State Community College ["Lawson"] in Bessemer, and Threatt contended that she was denied a position of Director of Financial Aid at Lawson.
The plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief and attorney's fees and expenses. For the reasons which follow, and based upon the evidence presented, the court concludes that judgment should be entered in part for the plaintiffs and in part for the defendants.
On 23 June 1994, pursuant to the consent of counsel and of the individual parties — Newton, Davis, and Threatt — the court referred the individual claims which they filed to the undersigned Magistrate Judge "for all further proceedings and the entry of judgment in accordance with 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(c) and Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure". A non-jury trial of the individual claims was conducted during thirteen days in August and September, 1994.
The first Shuford consent decree resolved the class claims of the black plaintiffs and plaintiff Humphrey Shuford's individual claim (See Doc. # 107). In the 15 March 1994 order which approved the decree (Doc. # 197), the court made several findings of fact regarding defendants' conduct with respect to the class, and the Magistrate Judge takes judicial notice of those findings. They include the following:
1. Defendants have resisted the implementation of both court-ordered and court-approved relief; defendants have failed to implement uniform, objective criteria in their employment practices (Doc. # 107, p. 28).
2. The evidence establishes a prima facie case of [race] discrimination against individual class members (pp. 29, 33).
3. The defendants have consciously failed to establish cognizable and reviewable employment standards (p. 35).
4. Vacancies at many institutions are not advertised, are left open for extended periods of time, and are filled on a purely subjective basis without reliance on any objective minimum qualifications (pp. 3-4).
On 11 August 1995, the court entered an order approving a second Partial Consent Decree pertaining to the class claims of intervenors Johnson, Newton, Davis, and Threatt and the individual claims of Johnson (Doc. # 454). The court made the following findings in the order, of which the Magistrate Judge takes judicial notice:
1. "[G]ender stereotypes of long standing are perpetuated in hiring and promotion practices," which "is manifested by the disproportionately few women who hold key decision-making posts in the System's institutions" (p. 46).
2. There has been discrimination against women in the postsecondary system over time (p. 47).
3. "For every salary schedule [in use at postsecondary institutions], a greater percentage of men than women is less qualified", and "it is likely that the discrepancy shows that men are being favored in the relevant economic sphere" (p. 59).
4. "Together, the historical, anecdotal, and statistical evidence more than shows substantial evidence of past discrimination against women in the relevant economic sphere." (p. 63).
The Alabama State Board of Education ["ASBE"] is a political subdivision of the State of Alabama which consists of eight (8) elected members. ASBE exercises, through the State Superintendent of Education and his professional staff, general control and supervision over the public schools of Alabama, except institutions of higher learning which by law are under the general supervision and control of a board of trustees. § 16-3-11, Code of Alabama (1987). ASBE, which meets and has its offices in Montgomery, is entrusted by law with the responsibility of general supervision and control of the public junior colleges, technical schools and community colleges in Alabama (the Postsecondary System).
Dr. Fred Gainous ["Gainous"] is the chancellor-or chief executive officer-of the postsecondary education department of the state department of education and, subject to the approval of the ASBE, directs all matters involving the junior colleges, community colleges and technical schools pursuant to the policies of the ASBE. By lawful delegation, Gainous has the authority to take any action on behalf of the ASBE with respect to postsecondary education. The president of each postsecondary institution is responsible to Gainous for the day-to-day operation of each school.
At all times pertinent to this court's findings and discussion, Larry McCoy ["McCoy"] was president of Northwest Shoals, and Harold Wade ["Wade"] was president of Bevill. McCoy and Wade were authorized by state law, subject to qualification prescribed by the ASBE and subject to Gainous' supervision, to appoint the administrators, faculty members and staffs of their respective institutions.
All of the community colleges mentioned in this lawsuit are units of the state system of postsecondary education and are governed by and are subject to the supervision and control of the ASBE and Gainous.
Fred Gainous, who acts as an agent of the Alabama State of Board of Education, is solely responsible for implementing the Board's policies in the state's postsecondary system and for monitoring the institutions' adherence to those policies.6 The Board itself adopts salary schedules and creates all policies that govern the two-year institutions.7 It also allocates expenditures by the institutions and appoints the presidents of the institutions.8
At the time of trial, Larry McCoy ["McCoy"] was president of Northwest Shoals Community College ["Northwest Shoals"], a medium-sized community college with approximately 4,000 students and approximately 75-85 full-time faculty members.9 McCoy was also president of the Alabama College System Presidents'...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morris v. Wallace Community College-Selma
...1453, 1457 & n. 9 (11th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1085, 107 S.Ct. 1287, 94 L.Ed.2d 144 (1987); Shuford v. Alabama State Board of Education, 968 F.Supp. 1486, 1515 (M.D.Ala.1997). 23. Edwards v. Wallace Community College, 49 F.3d 1517, 1524 (11th Cir.1995); LaFleur v. Wallace State C......
-
Litman v. George Mason University, Civ.A. 97-1755-A.
...832 (10th Cir. 1993); Mabry v. State Bd. of Comm. Coll. & Occ. Educ., 813 F.2d 311, 317 (10th Cir.1987); Shuford v. Alabama State Bd. of Educ., 968 F.Supp. 1486, 1503-04 (M.D.Ala.1997); Sharif by Salahuddin v. New York State Educ. Dept., 709 F.Supp. 345, 360-61 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (relying in p......
-
Drakeford v. Alabama Co-Op. Extension System, Civ.A.3:03CV1201WHA.
...section 703 of Title VII [42 U.S.C. § 2000E-2], the elements of the two causes of action are the same." Shuford v. Alabama State Bd. Of Educ., 968 F.Supp. 1486, 1504 (M. D.Ala.1997) (quoting Hardin v. Stynchcomb, 691 F.2d 1364, 1369 n. 16 (11th cir.1982)). 15. "Although the defendant is ent......
-
Goins v. Hitchcock I.S.D.
...Police Civil Serv., 229 F.3d 478, 483 (5th Cir.2000); Welch v. Laney, 57 F.3d 1004, 1007 (11th Cir.1995); Shuford v. Alabama State Bd. of Educ., 968 F.Supp. 1486, 1515 (M.D.Ala.1997). The Supreme Court discussed this proposition in Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166, 105 S.Ct. 3099, 3105......
-
Deposing & examining the human resources expert
...accepted with the scientific community as judged by commonly acknowledged criteria”). • Shuford v. Alabama State Bd. of Educ ., 968 F.Supp. 1486 (M.D. Ala 1997) (court permitted testimony of a political science professor about perpetuation of sex stereotypes in hiring and promotions in a di......