University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name EEOC v. City of Sheffield Fire Department EE-AL-0023
Docket / Court Cv-99-B-1691-NW ( N.D. Ala. )
State/Territory Alabama
Case Type(s) Equal Employment
Attorney Organization EEOC
Case Summary
On June 30, 1999, the EEOC filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act against the City of Sheffield, the Civil Service Board of the City of Sheffield, and the Civil Service Board members in their official and ... read more >
On June 30, 1999, the EEOC filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act against the City of Sheffield, the Civil Service Board of the City of Sheffield, and the Civil Service Board members in their official and individual capacities. The EEOC's complaint alleged that defendants discriminated against three firefighters over the age of 40 when they promoted a younger employee with less seniority to the position of assistant fire chief.

On March 20, 2000, this case was consolidated with a related complaint filed by a firefighter against the same defendants, Love v. City of Sheffield, 99-CV-2995. On September 19, 2000, the defendants moved to dismiss the EEOC's complaint on the basis of governmental immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. On February 6, 2001, the District Court (Judge Sharon L. Blackburn) denied the motion to dismiss, holding that the Civil Service Board, while created by state legislation, was not an arm or agent of the state and therefore not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.

On August 31, 2001, defendants moved for summary judgment in two separate motions, claiming that they were not the plaintiffs' employers, that the claims were time-barred, that the plaintiffs were not qualified for the position, and that plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies before filing suit. In an opinion dated September 30, 2002, the District Court denied both motions.

For reasons that the docket does not make clear, nothing much happened for the next two years. The parties finally settled in 2005, and on April 5, 2005, the District Court entered a consent decree. The agreement awarded monetary damages to the plaintiffs in the amount of $15,000, inclusive of all attorney's fees and costs. Defendants stipulated that they would not utilize age as a factor in promotion decisions, except as permitted by law. Further, two of the plaintiffs, one retroactively and posthumously, were promoted to captain.

Tifani Sadek - 10/09/2013


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Content of Injunction
Discrimination Prohibition
Promotion
Defendant-type
Fire
Discrimination-area
Promotion
Discrimination-basis
Age discrimination
EEOC-centric
Direct Suit on Merits
Private Suit Related / Consolidated with EEOC Suit
General
Disparate Treatment
Plaintiff Type
EEOC Plaintiff
Race
Race, unspecified
Causes of Action Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e
Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et seq.
Defendant(s) City of Sheffield
Plaintiff Description Sheffield Fire Department firemen over the age of 40 in the who were passed up by younger firemen for the position of assistant fire chief
Indexed Lawyer Organizations EEOC
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted Moot
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer No
Nature of Relief Damages
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Settlement
Form of Settlement Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Order Duration 2005 - n/a
Case Closing Year 2005
Case Ongoing No
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
Case Studies Megacases, Diversity, and the Elusive Goal of Workplace Reform
Written: Mar. 01, 2008
By: Nancy Levit (University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law)
Citation: 49 B.C. L. Rev. 367 (2008)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Second Generation Employment Discrimination: A Structural Approach
By: Susan Sturm (Columbia Law School)
Citation: 101 Colum. L. Rev. 458 (2001)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

Docket(s)
3:99−cv−02995 (N.D. Ala.) 12/03/2004
EE-AL-0023-9001 PDF | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
3:99-cv-01691-RDP-RRA (N.D. Ala.) 04/05/2005
EE-AL-0023-9000 PDF | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Memorandum Opinion and Order [Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint] 02/06/2001 (N.D. Ala.)
EE-AL-0023-0001 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Amended Memorandum Opinion [Motion for Summary Judgment] 09/30/2002 (N.D. Ala.)
EE-AL-0023-0002 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Consent Decree 04/05/2005 (N.D. Ala.)
EE-AL-0023-0003 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Blackburn, Sharon Lovelace (N.D. Ala.)
EE-AL-0023-0001 | EE-AL-0023-0002 | EE-AL-0023-9001
Proctor, R. David (N.D. Ala.)
EE-AL-0023-0003 | EE-AL-0023-9000
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers Archer, Naomi Hilton (Alabama)
EE-AL-0023-0003 | EE-AL-0023-9000
Byrd, Mildred (Alabama)
EE-AL-0023-0003 | EE-AL-0023-9000
Guerrier, Charles (Alabama)
EE-AL-0023-0003 | EE-AL-0023-9000
Hubertz, Elizabeth J. (Illinois)
EE-AL-0023-9000
Rose, Jerome C. (Alabama)
EE-AL-0023-9000
Saxon, John D (Alabama)
EE-AL-0023-9001
Stewart, C. Gregory (District of Columbia)
EE-AL-0023-9000
Woolley, Tammy C. (Alabama)
EE-AL-0023-9001
Defendant's Lawyers Ashe, Braxton W. (Alabama)
EE-AL-0023-0003 | EE-AL-0023-9000
Frankowski, Symantha C. (Alabama)
EE-AL-0023-9000
Ledlow, Vincent R. (Alabama)
EE-AL-0023-9000
McAlister, Vincent (Alabama)
EE-AL-0023-0003 | EE-AL-0023-9000 | EE-AL-0023-9001
Other Lawyers None on record

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -