On June 12, 1968 the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama against the State of Alabama under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e. et seq. (Title VII). The DOJ asked the court for injunctive relief, alleging that the defendant had violated Title VII by discriminating against applicants for employment on the basis of race by bypassing higher ranked African-American applicants in favor of lower ranked white applicants.

The complaint alleged that the Alabama Personnel Department discriminated on the basis of race by hiring lower ranked white applicants over higher ranked African-American applicants. A no-bypass rule was instituted by the Alabama Personnel Department. On July 28, 1970, United States brought this action to enforce the federal requirement that state personnel engaged in administration of federally financed grant-in-aid programs be recruited, hired and promoted or demoted on merit basis, without discrimination on the grounds of race or color (317 F.Supp 1079, D.C.Ala. 1970). The District Court (Judge Frank M. Johnson, Jr.) ordered: that the affected African-American applicants be offered the first available position with the rate of pay he would have and seniority rights; that African-American applicants be appointed to positions other than custodial, domestic, laborer or laboratory aide, unless another position is filled; that the defendants not appoint or offer a position to a lower-ranking white applicant over a higher-ranking available African-American applicant.

In May of 2002, in order to determine whether the no-bypass rule was still necessary, the state defendants hired statistical experts to examine the racial composition of the Alabama workforce as well as the racial patterns of recent selections in the workforce.

On February 11, 2003, a white employee of the Alabama Department of Corrections (ADC) who had claimed that he had been denied a promotion because of the no-bypass rule, moved to intervene. He alleged, among other things, that the no-bypass rule was unconstitutional and must be modified or ended.

On February 11, 2003, the United States and the state defendants began discussions on the results of the statistical analysis and proposed to terminate the no-bypass rule, as the problems, aimed at by the no-bypass rule, were remedied. On March 20, 2003, the United States and the state defendants entered a joint motion to terminate the no-bypass rule.

On May 22, 2003, representatives of African-American employees of the State of Alabama moved to intervene to oppose termination or modification of the no-bypass rule and to otherwise enforce it. On January 20, 2004, the Court (Judge Myron Thompson) granted both the white employee of ADC and the African-American employees the right to intervene under the permissive intervention rule. On February 28, 2004, the ADC employee filed a motion to terminate the no-bypass rule.

On April 21, 2004, the white employee of the ADC filed a motion to certify class. On the same day, non-black employees filed a motion to intervene. On March 28, 2005, the Court (Judge Myron Thompson) denied both motions conditionally until after the court determined the scope of discovery and the scope of its inquiry into the joint motion to terminate the no-bypass rule.

On May 9, 2005, the white employee moved for preliminary injunction. On May 20, 2005, the Court (Judge Myron Thompson) issued an order, treating the joint motion to terminate the no-bypass rule as a motion for preliminary injunction, and granted both the motion as well as ADC employee's preliminary injunction motion. The court suspended the no-bypass rule effective no later than June 20, 2005, pending final resolution of the challenges to the rule. The court reasoned that the special change in circumstances warranted the suspension of the rule.

On June 1, 2005 the ADC employee filed a motion for interim award of attorneys' fees. On September 09, 2005 the white employee filed a motion for summary judgment. On the same day, the state defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the joint motion to terminate no-bypass rule.

On June 30, 2006, the Court (Judge Myron Thompson) issued a judgment, permanently terminating the no-bypass rule. The court reasoned that the no-bypass rule was no longer an appropriate tool, and that there was no longer a fit between the practices and the rule. United States v. Director Alabama Personnel Department, 444 F.Supp.2d 1192 (M.D. Ala. 2006).

On September 17, 2007, the Court granted the plaintiff-intervenor's motion for attorney's fees to the extent that plaintiff-intervenor recovered $61,499.70 for fees and expenses. The state defendants filed an appeal against the order granting attorney's fees to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

On July 1, 2008, the plaintiff-intervenor filed a motion for attorney's fees on appeal, which was denied without prejudice on the same day.

On August 19, 2008, the Eleventh Circuit issued a judgment per curiam, affirming the District Court's grant of attorney's fees to the plaintiff-intervenor. United States v. Director Alabama Personnel Department, 281 Fed.Appx. 960 (11th Cir. 2008).

On November 30, 2012, the Court (Judge Myron Thompson) issued an order terminating and dissolving all outstanding injunctions and orders issued in this case, with the last of them terminating on December 31, 2014.

Katie Campos - 11/27/2007
Zhandos Kuderin - 07/10/2014


compress summary