Wiggins v. City of Montgomery
| Docket Number | 2:17-CV-425-KFP |
| Decision Date | 03 March 2022 |
| Parties | MARY WIGGINS, Plaintiff, v. THE CITY OF MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama |
This case is before the Court for findings of fact and conclusions of law following a bench trial. After a review of the evidence and briefing, the Court finds as follows:
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed this action in July 2017, alleging claims of unlawful discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.; the Age Discrimination and Employment Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq.; and the Americans with Disability Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq. Doc. 1. Defendant moved for summary judgment on each of these claims and the Court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant on Plaintiff's ADEA discrimination claim but denied summary judgment on her ADA discrimination claims and her Title VII, ADA, and ADEA retaliation claims. Doc. 53. After each party waived the right to a jury trial (Doc. 138), the Court held a bench trial and allowed the parties to submit post-trial briefs with proposed factual findings and conclusions of law based on the evidence presented at trial.[1]
II. FACTUAL FINDINGS
Based on the parties' stipulations and the evidence presented at trial, the Court makes the factual findings set forth below.
In 1970, Mary Wiggins began working as a typist for the City of Montgomery, which now has approximately 2, 600 employees. Doc. 129 at 4; Trial Tr. vol. 3, 28. By 1995, she was working as an Account Clerk II in the License and Revenue Division of the City's Finance Department. Doc. 129 at 4. In 2000, she fell down a flight of stairs while leaving work and injured her knee, requiring a knee replacement and leaving her dependent on a walker for stability when walking. Id.
On April 8, 2015, still working as an account clerk, Wiggins received her annual performance evaluation, on which it was noted that she met all expectations and warranted a merit increase. Trial Tr. vol. 1, 169-72. The next day on April 9, the City posted two job openings for revenue examiner positions. Id. at 33-34; Doc. 142-19. A revenue examiner is a step up from an account clerk, which is considered the training ground for revenue examiners. Trial Tr. vol. 1, 75; Trial Tr. vol. 2, 39. According to the job posting, a revenue examiner is responsible for “inspecting business premises in an assigned geographical location for violations and verifications, ” and the work is performed “primarily in the field involving travel to and visits to local business locations, which may require working in inclement weather, visiting construction sites, climbing stairs, walking over rough terrain, minimal lifting of boxed documents and/or laptop and printer, etc.” Doc. 129 at 4.
Wiggins submitted her application for the positions on April 15, 2015.[2] Doc. 142-20 at 1. By then, she had been an account clerk for twenty years. On her application, she noted that she had recently been asked to do a ride-along with a current revenue examiner “on a regular day out in the field” to “get the feel and experience of field work” and that it was “very helpful” and a “good experience.” Id. at 3, 5. She further wrote: “Others younger than myself (age and time employed with the City have been able to get better salaries and opportunities) have been upgraded to Revenue Examiners while I remain at the same pay and look forward to nothing better as for salary and retirement.” Id. at 3. She explained that she “use[s] a walker when walking long distances and for knee support.” Id. She also mentioned that the finance director had advised that the division “could use one or two inside revenue examiners” and that she “could benefit in working a[n] inside position.” Id. She stated that she was “still on the front line, watching others go around [her].” Id. She also stated that she cannot walk on rough terrain, as the job description required, and that she felt like no one cared about her and her situation. Id. at 3, 5-6.
At trial, the City equivocated when questioned about whether key personnel perceived Wiggins's statements on her application as a complaint of discrimination. For example, when asked if she understood that Wiggins was making a complaint of discrimination, Cami Hacker, senior personnel analysist at the City-County Personnel Board, [3] first avoided the question, responding that “there was language used that indicated that she might be unhappy about what was happening in her position.” Trial Tr. vol. 1, 45. When asked again if she understood the language to be a complaint of discrimination, Hacker testified, Id. This differed from Hacker's deposition testimony three years earlier, where she was asked if she understood Wiggins to be raising concerns of discrimination and responded, “That's the way I saw it, yes.” Id. at 46.
In fact, after reading Wiggins's application, Hacker brought it to the attention of her supervisor, Carmen Douglas, the personnel director of the Personnel Board. In response, Douglas emailed Hacker with language to include in a letter to Wiggins describing the nondiscrimination policies of the Personnel Board and the City and explaining how to file a formal complaint.[4] Trial Tr. vol. 1, 46-50, 115. Despite having drafted a letter outlining nondiscrimination policies, Douglas, like Hacker, would not admit on the stand that she viewed Wiggins's statements as a complaint of discrimination. When asked why she included information about nondiscrimination policies in a letter to Wiggins, Douglas was vague: “Because when we conduct the training for the City, the County, and the airport, we discuss this as part of our nondiscrimination policy.” Id. at 114. When asked again if she included it because she knew Wiggins was making complaints of discrimination, Douglas stood firm and replied, “No.” Id. at 115.
Wiggins was not the only applicant for the two open revenue examiner positions. Three of her co-employees, Patrick Vines, Deondra Freeman, and J.C. Jones, also applied. Id. at 37-38; Doc. 142-21; 142-22; and Doc. 142-68. After Cami Hacker reviewed the applicants to determine if they met the minimum job qualifications, she prepared a list on April 23 certifying Wiggins, Vines, and Freeman as qualified applicants. Jones was not on the list. Trial Tr. vol. 1, 29-30, 36, 38-42.
Although the Personnel Board certifies qualified applicants and the City has no input into the certification list, the City does have authority to ask that someone be removed from the list, “predominantly for things like falsification of an application.” Trial Tr. vol. 1, 44. On April 23, Margaret Broekhoven, another Personnel Board employee, emailed the certified list of applicants with their applications to Barry Crabb, finance director, and Charles Wilson, revenue division supervisor. Id. at 52, Doc. 142-28. Cami Hacker was copied on the email. Trial Tr. vol. 1, 52; Doc. 142-28. Within half an hour of Broekhoven's email attaching the applications, Hacker forwarded the email to Douglas with the following note: “Just a reminder that Barry may call you about wanting to remove Ms. Wiggins.” Trial Tr. vol. 1, 54-56; Doc. 142-28. At trial, Hacker could not recall why she sent the email reminder, and Douglas said she could not recall what the email meant or if she ever discussed it with Hacker. Trial Tr. vol. 1, 54-55, 117-18. Crabb agreed that he had “expressed something to the personnel board about [his] desire to remove Ms. Wiggins from the list of people to be considered for the job, ” but there was no evidence of why he wanted her removed or that he followed through with the request. Id. at 187. A few days later, however, Crabb requested that the position be reopened for additional applications. Id. at 188.
After the position was reopened, Cheryl Urquhart, who had been an account clerk in the City's treasury division for three years, applied. Id. at 61; Trial Tr. vol. 3, 118. Hacker then issued a second certified list on May 12 that included Urquhart, the three employees previously certified (Wiggins, Vines, and Freeman), and Jones, who applied the first time but was not on the initial certification list.[5] Trial Tr. vol. 1, 62-63.
Three days after the second certified list was prepared, Faye Comer was promoted to license and revenue supervisor. Trial Tr. vol. 2, 4-5. Comer had worked for the City since 1993 and before her promotion was a revenue auditor in the finance department. Id. at 3-4. As the new revenue supervisor, Comer was responsible for interviewing and hiring for the revenue examiner positions. Doc. 129 at 5. She reported to Charles Wilson, revenue division supervisor, who in turn reported to Barry Crabb, finance director.[6] Trial Tr. vol. 2, 27-28.
Comer held interviews on May 28, but beforehand she reviewed each employee's application, including Wiggins's complaints about previous discrimination. Doc. 129 at 5; Trial Tr. vol. 2, 24-25, 29. As with Hacker and Douglas, it was difficult to get a direct answer from Comer on whether she believed Wiggins was complaining of discrimination. When asked if she saw Wiggins's application as a complaint that she was treated differently than younger people, Comer replied: “I saw that she definitely wanted that to be expressed.” Trial Tr. vol. 2, 27. She was later asked “Did you understand that Ms. Wiggins was complaining about being bypassed for this promotion?” Comer...
To continue reading
Request your trial