IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION

Transcription

1 Case 2:85-cv MHT-CSC Document 9043 Filed 06/26/14 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION JOHNNY REYNOLDS, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. ) CV-85-T-665-N ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF ) TRANSPORTATION, et al., ) Judge Thompson ) Defendants. ) INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR EXPEDITED ACTION BY DISTRICT COURT TO RESOLVE ALL REMAINING ISSUES IN THIS LITIGATION The Adams Intervenors, a certified class of nonblack employees of the Alabama Department of Transportation, seek appropriate and expedited relief from the District Court to bring this litigation to closure. In support of this motion, intervenors state: 1. This action was filed in 1985 and has been pending for some twentynine years. Certified classes of black applicants for employment, black employees of ALDOT and nonblack employees of ALDOT are before the court. 2. Consent Decree I, entered in April 1994, expired on December 31, No injunctive relief has been in place since On February 22, 2008, intervenors advised this court that the following matters are unresolved: 1

2 Case 2:85-cv MHT-CSC Document 9043 Filed 06/26/14 Page 2 of 7 1. Resolution of individual contempt claims of members of the plaintiff class. 2. Resolution of individual contempt claims of members of the intervenor class. 3. Resolution of the Group 1 and 2 plaintiff claims that were tried and submitted to the district court some twelve years ago. 4. Resolution of hiring class claims or entry of the anticipated order to decertify the hiring class. 5. Disposition of the $14 million in contempt fine funds held by the district court. Doc. no. 8277; see also, doc. no Those matters remain unresolved some six years later. In no particular order, the following matters remain unresolved. 3. Hiring class decertification -- In November 2008 the court determined that the original plaintiff hiring class would be decertified. Doc. no An order approving procedures for the decertification notice process to 29,000 people was entered on July 30, 2012 (doc. no. 8882). The Special Master filed a recommendation to use $81,000 from the fine fund on September 14, 2012 to pay for the notice. Plaintiffs objected to the recommendation on October 1, 2012 (doc. no. 8914). The matter remains pending before the district court and has not moved forward in almost two years. The decertification process should be completed without further delay. 4. Motion for recovery of costs under Defendants brought this issue before District Judge Watkins early in Doc. nos. 8791, 8798, 8805,

3 Case 2:85-cv MHT-CSC Document 9043 Filed 06/26/14 Page 3 of 7 Judge Watkins held a hearing on March 22, No further rulings have been entered. 5. Plaintiff Individual Contempt claims -- For some seven years, plaintiffs have been litigating claims by individual plaintiff class members seeking compensation for defendants' stipulated contempt of Consent Decree I. Plaintiffs have litigated such claims in a format of individual lawsuits. To our knowledge, some thirty plaintiff class members' claims have been addressed with no relief provided to any of the class members. Intervenors believe there is sufficient information before the parties to assess the value of the plaintiffs' contempt claims. 6. Suggestions of death of intervenor class members -- On April 12, 2013, intervenors filed objections to an order entered by the Special Master on March 25, 2013 finding it appropriate that defendants file suggestions of death regarding absent class members. Doc Intervenors' objections are important because they address the issue of whether the rules governing class actions continue to apply to this case. Defendants have taken the position that the case is a collection of "individual contempt claims" and each class member is to be treated as a separate party. Intervenors disagree and maintain that the contempt relief should be provided to the class as provided in United States v. City of Miami, 195 F.3d 1292 (11th Cir. 1999). The objections have been pending since April 12, Intervenor Article 19 contempt claims -- The recommendation of the 3

4 Case 2:85-cv MHT-CSC Document 9043 Filed 06/26/14 Page 4 of 7 Special Master to dismiss all intervenor claims for relief for contempt of Article 19 (grievances) was filed in June Doc. no Intervenors' objections to the recommendation have been under submission since a conference call in August See, doc. no Intervenor Article 15 contempt claims -- The district court denied reconsideration of the grant of partial summary judgment on intervenors' claims for relief for contempt of Article 15 (reclassification) on July 30, Doc. no Subsequently, intervenors and defendants agreed on a list of some 222 intervenor class members that were not reclassified by the decree deadline of April 20, 1996, that were designated for reclassification in 1994, and that were not above their reclassification position by Intervenors selected 10 people from that list, at random, and calculated lost pay for the period commencing on May 27, 2001 (date of the first settlement) until they topped out in The lost pay for the 10 class members selected at random, without interest, was: $ $4, $5, $5, $5, $4, $5, $5, $7, $0.00 Intervenors tendered a detailed damage analysis to defendants on February 12,

5 Case 2:85-cv MHT-CSC Document 9043 Filed 06/26/14 Page 5 of 7 Defendants rejected the analysis and have declined to discuss the matter further. 9. Group 1 and 2 claims -- there has been no resolution of such matters since the 6 month trial in Defendants' summary judgment motion regarding some of these matters is before the Special Master. Doc. nos. 8881, 8891, Disposition of Contempt Fines -- Various motions have been filed over the years seeking disposition of over $14 million in fines paid under the 2000 contempt order. See, doc. nos. 8751, 8752, 8830, 8831, After a conference call on August 8, 2012, the court directed the defendants to provide a more definitive plan for use of the funds. The court also directed the parties to discuss a resolution of the matter. That discussion never took place. On July 19, 2013, defendants renewed their motion, doc. no. 8773, but no further proceedings occurred. Intervenors believe the time has come for the court to schedule a hearing and to resolve the disposition of the contempt fines. 11. In Birmingham Firefighters v. City of Birmingham, 603 F.3d 1248 (11 th Cir. 2010), the Eleventh Circuit recognized the Dickensian nature of that litigation and quoted the following from Bleak House about a lawsuit that never ends: [The case] drags on. This... suit has, in course of time, become so complicated that no man alive knows what it means... Innumerable children have been born into the cause, innumerable young people have married into it; innumerable old people have died out of it. Scores of persons have deliriously found themselves made parties... without knowing how or why... [I]t still drags its dreary length before the court... 5

6 Case 2:85-cv MHT-CSC Document 9043 Filed 06/26/14 Page 6 of F.3d at 1250, n. 1, quoting, Charles Dickens, Bleak House, 4-5 (Pollard & Moss 1884). This litigation makes the Birmingham case look simple. It has dragged on for years with only sporadic progress since the decree terminated in Intervenors believe that substantial progress can be made to bring this case to a conclusion by completing the decertification of the hiring class and constructing a resolution of the disposition of the fine fund with apportionment between all parties to resolve the individual contempt claims and other appropriate matters. Wherefore, intervenors respectfully urge the court to enter such further orders as are necessary to bring the foregoing matters to resolution. Respectfully, /s/ Raymond P. Fitzpatrick, Jr. Raymond P. Fitzpatrick, Jr. Attorney for the Intervenors 1200 Corporate Drive, Ste. 105 Birmingham, Alabama (205) rpf@rfitzpatricklaw.com 6

7 Case 2:85-cv MHT-CSC Document 9043 Filed 06/26/14 Page 7 of 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 26th day of June 2014, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following: Russell W. Adams, Esq. Wiggins, Childs, Quinn & Pantazis, P.C. The Kress Building th Street North Birmingham, Alabama Alice Ann Byrne, Esq. L. Daniel Morris, Esq. Tara Knee, Esq. State Personnel Department 3 rd Floor-Folsom Administrative Bld. 64 North Union Street Montgomery, Alabama Ellen Leonard, Esq. Office of the Attorney General Montgomery, AL Jim R. Ippolito, Jr., Esq, Alabama Department of Transportation Legal Bureau 1409 Coliseum Boulevard Montgomery, AL Governor s Legal Counsel Office of the Governor State Capital Ste. N Dexter Avenue Montgomery, AL Christopher W. Weller, Esq. Barbara Wells, Esq. Capell & Howard, PC P. O. Box 2069 Montgomery, AL /s/ Raymond P. Fitzpatrick, Jr. Of Counsel 7