Walls v. Mississippi State Dept. of Public Welfare, GC 73-5-WK

• Decision Date: 18 May 1982
• Docket Number: 75-108-WK.,No. GC 73-5-WK,GC 73-5-WK
• Citation: 542 F. Supp. 281
• Parties: Dorothy WALLS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MISSISSIPPI STATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE, et al., Defendants. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. MISSISSIPPI STATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Mississippi

542 F. Supp. 281

Dorothy WALLS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MISSISSIPPI STATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE, et al., Defendants.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. MISSISSIPPI STATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE, et al., Defendants.

Nos. GC 73-5-WK, 75-108-WK.

United States District Court, N. D. Mississippi, Greenville Division.

May 18, 1982.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Johnnie E. Walls, Jr., Greenville, Miss., Eugene Martin-Leff, New York City, for plaintiffs.

John Hailman, Asst. U. S. Atty., Oxford, Miss., Thomas E. Childs, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, Miss., for defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

KEADY, Chief Judge.

In these consolidated complex employment discrimination actions, private plaintiffs and the United States challenge procedures of Mississippi public welfare officials for the selection of three classes of employees as racially discriminatory in violation of federal regulatory, statutory, and constitutional law. The issues of liability and relief were bifurcated on December 6, 1976, and, commencing July 5, 1978, District Judge Orma R. Smith conducted a ten-day nonjury trial on the liability phase, during which extensive testimony and voluminous documentary exhibits were received in evidence. The actions were transferred to Chief Judge William C. Keady on October 23, 1981, and are finally ripe for decision.¹ Accordingly, the court hereby submits its findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Rule 52(a), F.R.Civ.P.

FINDINGS OF FACT

GC 73-5

Private plaintiffs' action was first instituted on January 15, 1973. After the filing of the second amended complaint on August 29, 1975, and entry of numerous court orders, the action now stands as follows.

Five plaintiffs, Dorothy Walls, Deborah Gambrell, Marlene Johnson, Julia Collier, and Emily Butler O'Bryant, all members of the black race, have been certified under Rule 23, F.R.Civ.P., to represent a class composed of "all black persons who did, or will in the future, apply for employment in the position of Clerk (any grade), Eligibility Worker, or Social Worker (any grade) in the Mississippi State Department of Public Welfare or county departments of public welfare and who have been, or in the future may be, denied such employment or otherwise discriminated against in hiring or terms and conditions of such employment on account of race or color."²

Defendants include the Mississippi State Department of Public Welfare (hereinafter Department or MSDPW), its Commissioner and state board members, the Mississippi Classification Commission (formerly the Merit System Council; both agencies are hereinafter the state merit system agency), and the Leflore County Welfare Department and its director. The latter two defendants are certified to represent defendant classes of "all county departments of public welfare in the State of Mississippi and the County Directors of all such Departments." In addition, as required by order of the court dated August 11, 1975, plaintiffs sue as parties necessary for just adjudication the United States, United States Department of Health and Human Services (formerly Department of Health, Education and Welfare) and its Secretary, United States Department of Agriculture and its Secretary, and the United States Civil Service Commission (formerly Office of State Merit Systems) and its Chairman.³ No relief, however, is sought against the federal defendants. All individual defendants are sued in official capacities only.

Private plaintiffs generally challenge three aspects of the Department's employment selection procedure: (1) use of minimum educational qualifications for positions of Clerk/Typist (high school degree or equivalent), Eligibility Worker (60 hours college credit), and Social Worker (college degree); (2) requirement of scoring at least 50% on allegedly unvalidated and invalid written examinations as a prerequisite to being considered for positions of Clerk/Typist,⁴ Eligibility Worker, and Social Worker; and (3) the manner in which individuals meeting the above two requirements are selected for employment from "certificates of eligibles." According to the complaint, these employment procedures discriminate against blacks in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.), and the thirteenth and fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution.

Plaintiff Dorothy Walls, spouse of counsel for private plaintiffs Johnnie Walls, meets the minimum educational qualification for positions of Eligibility Worker and Social Worker and took and passed both written tests in August 1971. Although interviewed and considered for employment several times, Walls was not offered a Department position until after this action was filed. Walls filed EEOC charges of discrimination on August 9, 1972, and October 12, 1972, and received right-to-sue letters on February 5, 1973, and June 18, 1973.

Plaintiff Deborah Gambrell possesses the minimum educational requirements for Eligibility Worker and Social Worker and took and passed the Eligibility Worker examination on October 16, 1971. Although interviewed and considered for employment more than 10 times, Gambrell was not offered a position until after this action was filed. Gambrell filed an EEOC charge of discrimination on October 12, 1972, and received right-to-sue letters on February 5, 1973, and June 18, 1973.

Plaintiff Marlene Johnson meets the minimum educational requirements for Eligibility Worker and Social Worker and took and passed a written examination in October 1968, but did not score sufficiently high on that examination to be considered for employment.

Plaintiff Julia Collier possesses a high school degree and took and passed the Clerk/Typist examination on February 27, 1973. Although interviewed and considered for employment, Collier was never hired by the Department.

Plaintiff Emily Butler O'Bryant meets the minimum educational requirements for Eligibility Worker and Social Worker and took and failed both examinations in October 1971. Consequently, O'Bryant was never considered for employment.

State defendants assert a cross-claim against the Secretaries of the Departments of HHS and Agriculture and the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission, alleging that federal defendants required and/or encouraged use of the challenged employment procedures and further assured the state that the contested selection devices meet all federal regulatory, statutory, and constitutional requirements. The state officials seek injunctive relief against the federal Department heads requiring them to furnish valid examinations or technical, financial, and advisory assistance to enable the state to establish valid minimum job requirements. Furthermore, the state defendants seek to require cross-defendants to withdraw any federally-imposed selection devices found to be unlawful.⁵

GC 75-108

The action brought by the United States was filed on August 28, 1975, against the Mississippi State Department of Public Welfare, its Commissioner and board members, and the Mississippi State Classification Commission and its director, and generally presents the same three challenges asserted by private plaintiffs. A counterclaim filed against the United States was dismissed by the court on July 26, 1976. As defensive matter, however, defendants contend that the government is estopped from asserting its claims.

After the filing of the United States action, defendants, in November 1975, suspended utilization of written tests pending the outcome of these lawsuits.

Background

The Mississippi State Department of Public Welfare is the state agency created to administer within Mississippi the federal grant-in-aid programs established in the late 1930's by the Social Security Acts and amendments thereto. See Miss.Code Ann. § 43-1-1 et seq. (1972). The various social service programs administered by the Department include aid to dependent children, food assistance, and adoptions. The Department is responsible for, inter alia, providing protective custody for abused children, day care services for children of welfare clients, background investigations relative to adoptions, elderly feeding programs, counseling for unwed mothers, and family planning. At the time of trial, the Department had a budget of approximately $360 million and employed approximately 3,600 persons, about 80% of whom were employed in the contested positions of Clerk/Typist, Eligibility Worker, and Social Worker. The food assistance program alone provides aid to approximately 350,000 persons. Of the Department's total number of clients, about 70% are black.

The Department is governed by a state board of public welfare consisting of five members appointed by the governor with advice and consent of the Senate. § 43-1-3. The state board appoints a Commissioner of Public Welfare who serves at the board's pleasure and is responsible for the general administration of the Department. Dr. Robert L. Robinson served as Commissioner from April 24, 1972, until May 25, 1973, when Max M. Cole assumed the duties of the office. On June 17, 1976, Cole became deputy commissioner for operations and was succeeded in the Commissioner's post by Fred W. St. Clair, who held the position at the time of trial.⁶

The Department has five regional offices throughout the state, located in Grenada, Brandon, Hattiesburg, Brookhaven, and Pontotoc. Most of the Department's employees, however, are employed in its 84 county offices.⁷

Approximately 75% of the Department's funding is received from federal sources. Receipt of these funds is contingent upon federal approval of state plans for management and distribution of the funds in compliance with federal regulations. Accordingly, each year the Department submits to the federal grantor agency (at all times pertinent hereto, HEW and the Department of Agriculture) for its approval a plan outlining its proposed use of federal monies. One of the...