University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name United States v. Jefferson County EE-AL-0097
Docket / Court 2:75-cv-00666-CLS ( N.D. Ala. )
Additional Docket(s) C74-M12-S  [ 74-12 ]
CA 74-H17-S  [ 74-17 ]
State/Territory Alabama
Case Type(s) Equal Employment
Special Collection Civil Rights Division Archival Collection
Attorney Organization U.S. Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Division
Case Summary
On May 27, 1975, the United States Department of Justice ("D.O.J.") filed a lawsuit under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e, et seq., and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama against the Jefferson County Personnel Board, and the municipal and other ... read more >
On May 27, 1975, the United States Department of Justice ("D.O.J.") filed a lawsuit under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e, et seq., and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama against the Jefferson County Personnel Board, and the municipal and other governmental jurisdictions within Jefferson County. The DOJ asked the court for injunctive and monetary relief alleging a pattern or practice of discriminatory employment practices against blacks and women.

The decree that Jefferson City entered into was similar to the Personnel Board decree. The city decree stipulated: (1) annual "goals" for hiring and promoting blacks and women and a "long term goal" of parity between the proportion of blacks and women in any City job classification and the proportion of blacks and women in the civilian labor force, specifically the city must hire and promote blacks and women according to either racial and gender quotas set forth in the decree, or at the rate of black and female representation in the applicant pool, whichever was higher; (2) The City also agreed to request the Board selectively to certify qualified blacks and females whenever necessary to provide the City with a certification list that contains sufficient numbers of blacks and females to meet the decree's goals.

In August 1981 the court held a fairness hearing to consider the objections of all interested parties. Several interested non-parties soon appeared to challenge the decrees, claiming that the decrees would adversely affect their employment opportunities. Chief among the objectors was the Birmingham Firefighters' Association ("B.F.A."), a labor association representing a majority of City firefighters, most of whom were white males. The B.F.A. contended that the proposed consent decrees would have a substantial adverse impact upon them.

The court reasoned that the decrees did not preclude the hiring or promotion of whites or males and that the city's hiring goals were expressly made subject to the caveat that the city decree was not to be interpreted as requiring the hiring or promotion of a person who is not qualified or of a person who is demonstrably less qualified according to a job-related selection procedure. Subsequently, the court denied their motions as untimely, and approved, and entered, both consent decrees. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld the dismissal of the intervener's cases.

The District Court's approval of the consent decrees, and the Eleventh Circuit Appeals Court's refusal to allow the B.F.A. to intervene, brought forth a collection of cases that has come to be known as the "Birmingham Reverse Discrimination Employment Litigation." In these cases, a number of male, non-black City employees collaterally attacked the decrees and the "affirmative action" programs adopted under them. The United States, despite its status as a signatory of the consent decrees, also brought suit against the City, lodging allegations similar to those of the individual plaintiffs. The court dismissed for lack of evidence all claims against the Personnel Board leaving only the claims against the city standing. At trial, the plaintiffs claimed that some blacks were promoted over more-qualified non-blacks despite the fact that the City decree specifically did not require the City to promote a less qualified person, in preference to a person who is demonstrably better qualified based upon the results of a job related selection procedure. The district court found for the City, holding that the City had shown that its employment actions were required by the decrees.

On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit reversed the decision finding that this limitation was unfair to the male, non-black plaintiffs, because they had not participated in the negotiation or signing of the consent decrees. The Appeals Court directed the District Court to re-examine the legality of the decrees under the heightened scrutiny applicable to voluntary government affirmative actions plans. The Appeals Court decisions also allowed the Wilks class (non-black, male city employees) to intervene in challenging the legality of the decrees. This decision was upheld by the United States Supreme Court in Martin v. Wilks, 490 U.S. 755 (1989).

The District Court on remand once again found for the city, finding significant evidence of past discrimination to support its affirmative action program and that the affirmative action provisions were narrowly tailored because the City had first tried alternative measures. The United States could not collaterally challenge the decrees but was able to seek modifications to them. After holding a hearing on these issues, the district court ordered several modifications to the decrees acknowledging that the decrees have impaired some employment or promotional opportunities of whites and males. Furthermore, the court stated that forty-five percent of the City's full-time employees were black and twenty-three percent were female as of September 1990 fulfilling to some extent the original long term goal of the decrees. The modifications to the Jefferson City decree were as follows: (1) The City must stop using annual goals for any particular job classification once the long-term goal for that classification is met; (2) The City must stop using annual goals for any promotional position once the long-term goal is met for the position from which the promotional candidates are normally chosen, except that the City should continue to promote blacks and women to high-level police and fire positions in proportion to those groups' representation in the position from which promotions are normally made until the long-term goal is reached with respect to the high-level positions; (3) The City must stop using annual goals for any particular job classification once the Board develops lawful screening procedures for that job; (4) The City should group similar jobs together for the purpose of determining whether a particular goal has been met; (5) The district court will, in 1996, reconsider the appropriateness of continuing the City decree.

The District Court made only one modification to the Personnel Board decree, the modification requires that, until the Board develops a lawful test for a particular position, it must, at the City's request and subject to the availability of qualified applicants, certify black and female candidates for that position in proportion to their representation among applicants -- even after the City has met its long-term goal for that position.

On January 4, 1974, the Ensley Branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, together with certain named individuals, for themselves and on behalf of others similarly situated, filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, against the City of Birmingham, the members of the Personnel Board of Jefferson County, and the Personnel Director of that Board, alleging that the defendants engaged in discriminatory hiring practices against blacks. A suit raising the same constitutional and statutory allegations was filed on January 7, 1974, by John W. Martin and other named plaintiffs [the "Martin class"] against the City of Birmingham, Jefferson County, and the Personnel Board of Jefferson County. Two years later, on February 20, 1976, Lucy Walker filed suit challenging the employment practices of the Jefferson County nursing home. All four cases were consolidated for trial. On December 20-22, 1976, trial was held on the merits of the limited issue of whether the two tests used by the Personnel Board to screen and rank applicants for positions as police officers and firefighters [were] discriminatory and a violation of the constitutional or statutory rights of blacks. All other issues under the complaints were reserved until a later date.

In 1994 the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals (Circuit Judge Edward Earl Carnes) rendered a decision that required the District Court to modify the original decree so that the City would be ordered to implement valid job selection procedures forthwith. On December 19, 1995, the decrees were modified again pursuant to instructions given by the court. The City's consent decree was modified to require the City to remove all race and gender conscious selection procedures from its employment policies. After the remand in Ensley v. Branch, the parties clarified their differences, narrowing to fourteen the number of positions that some or all parties contended were being filled by selection procedures that had an adverse impact. The City decree was modified yet again in December 18, 2000 to direct the City to provide data as to the impact of its selection procedures upon hiring for those jobs. At the same time, the decree was extended until June 2002. On June 19th, 2002 the consent decrees were once again extended.

On July 8th, 2002 Judge C. Lynwood Smith, Jr. appointed Ronald R. Sims as receiver of the Jefferson County Personnel Board whose duties are chiefly to ensure that the Personnel Board complies fully in a timely and cost efficient manner to the 1981 and 1995 modified consent decrees. The City's initial motion to terminate its consent decree was filed on July 6, 2004. On December 2, 2004 the parties entered into a joint stipulation regarding selection procedures for the city in seven distinct job classifications. On December 9, 2004 the consent decrees were extended pending a motion to dismiss. On July 12, 2005 the District Court concluded that with the sole exception of one job classification had "substantially achieved the basic purposes of paragraph 5 of its 1995 Modification Order," and had shown that its employment selection procedures do not result in an unjustifiable, discriminatory impact on the basis of race or sex. Therefore, the City's motion to terminate was granted with respect to all job classifications except one, and judicial supervision of the City was retained. The District Court subsequently directed the City: (1) to revise its selection procedure for the Fire Apparatus Operator classification; (2) await a certification of eligible applicants from the Personnel Board of Jefferson County ("Personnel Board"); 3) administer the revised selection procedure; and (4) deliver the results of the administration of the revised procedure and a validation study to the parties and Special Master for their consideration and objections, if any. The City of Birmingham complied and delivered the results of its administration of a revised selection procedure and a validity study to the parties on September 20, 2006. On August 20, 2007 Judge C Lynwood Smith, Jr. denied the City's motion to terminate the remaining portion of the consent decree and to be dismissed as a party.

In December of 2007, defendants filed a motion for final relief from the 1981 Consent Decree, subsequently followed by a series of negotiations surrounding the inclusion of various plaintiff subclasses. In May, 2008, private plaintiffs moved for permanent injunction barring implementation of the Race-based Provisions of Act No. 2008-408 of the Regular Session of the Alabama Legislature, and were joined by the Board. In June, 2008, the city of Birmingham filed a motion to dismiss the city as a party of the case and to terminate the City of Birmingham Consent Decree. In the following months, responses were filed to both of these motions, as well as a series of status conferences and evidentiary hearings. On September 12, 2008, the Court (Judge C. Lynwood Smith Jr.) issued an opinion, granting the Board and private plaintiff's motion for injunctive and declaratory relief from the Alabama Act No. 2008-408. The Act was declared void ab initio, as violating the Supremacy Clause.

On November 20, 2008, the Court ordered that the 1981 Consent Decree with the Personnel Board of Jefferson County be immediately and unconditionally terminated, however the City of Birmingham Consent Decree still remains in effect.

The Personnel Board of Jefferson County decree had various stipulations that had to be met, specifically: (1) subject to the availability of qualified applicants, that the Board annually certify blacks and women either according to racial and gender quotas set forth in the decree or in proportion to their representation in the applicant pool, whichever was higher. The decree's minimum certification rates ranged from ten to fifty percent, depending on the position involved and whether the goal applied to blacks or women. This stipulation would continue until the proportion of blacks and women employed by the City in any given job classification approximated the respective percentages [of blacks and women] in the civilian labor force of Jefferson County; (2) the Personnel Board must periodically review its hiring and promotion procedures to ensure that the procedures either had no adverse impact or were sufficiently job-related to pass muster under Title VII; (3) as long as the Board's procedures -- whether job related or not -- had a disparate impact on blacks or women, the Board must make a good faith effort to determine whether there are any alternative testing procedures which would reduce any adverse impact; (4) the decree prohibited the Board's prior practice of restricting job announcements on the basis of gender; (5) the decree mandated continued aggressive recruitment of blacks and women.

The District Court (Judge Sam C. Pointer Jr.) found that the police officer and firefighter tests violated Title VII. The court noted that both tests had a significant adverse impact on black applicants, a phenomenon defined as a passing rate "less than four-fifths . . . of the rate for [whites]." The judge ruled that the tests could be used only if, despite their adverse impact, they were sufficiently "job related" to predict effectively test takers' future job performance. The Judge Pointer concluded that the tests failed to meet this standard and found no statistically significant correlation between the applicants' scores on the firefighter test and their later job performance. A similar conclusion was made in regards to the police officer exam. The District Court ordered race-conscious relief "pending adoption of some selection procedure which either has no adverse effect upon black applicants or is sufficiently job-related. The original plaintiffs' claims against the City never reached trial, and the following two cases deal directly with the Personnel Board of Jefferson County.

The Board appealed the District Court's decision that the police and firefighter exams violated Title VII to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. In doing so, the Board did not contest the district court's finding that the two tests had an adverse impact, but contended that the tests were in fact job-related. The United States and the Martin class of black plaintiffs jointly cross-appealed the district court's holding that use of the tests did not begin to violate Title VII until the dates on which the negative results of the test validation studies were reported to the Board. The District Court had reasoned that, until the final results were reported, the Board was justified in using the tests in anticipation of favorable results from the validation studies. The Court of Appeals remanded the case back to the District Court for additional fact finding.

While the first appeal was pending, the District Court conducted a second trial. That trial involved challenges to other Board practices, including: written tests for eighteen more positions; various rules affecting promotional opportunities; the imposition of height, weight, and educational requirements for certain jobs; and the restriction of some job announcements and certifications to persons of a particular sex. While the first proceeding was on remand and the second was at trial, the parties entered settlement talks that eventually suspended both proceedings. The plaintiffs, in all the cases, entered into extensive negotiations with the Board and the City which culminated in two proposed consent decrees, one with the Board and one with the City. The parties submitted proposed consent decrees that settled all claims against the City and the Board, including allegations of gender discrimination raised by the United States. Although these decrees provided retrospective monetary relief such as back pay for some individuals, their keystone was an extensive regime of affirmative action for blacks and women.

On May 14, 2009, the Court awarded attorney's fees in the amount of $2,500,000.00 to the two private classes of plaintiffs against the Personnel Board.

On March 1, 2011, the City filed its fourth motion to terminate its consent decree, and following a hearing at which no party objected, federal supervision of the City of Birmingham ceased on January 27, 2012, and the City was dismissed as a party. The Court found full and satisfactory compliance with the City's consent decree.

On March 16, 2012, the Court approved a Consent Decree for attorneys fees in which the City agreed to pay the two private classes of plaintiff $350,000.

During all the years of litigation involving the City and the Personnel Board, the defendant Jefferson County avoided the same scrutiny. Their original consent decree did not come until a year later than the consent decrees involving the City and the Personnel Board. The Court (Judge Sam C. Pointer Jr.) entered on December 29, 1982, and was signed by the Jefferson County, United States and one of the private class of plaintiffs. In 2006, the private plaintiffs started gathering evidence on the compliance of the County with the consent decree. On October 3, 2007, they filed a motion to hold the County in contempt and to modify the consent order.

The County's consent ordered differed from the ones with the City and the Board. Its major purpose was to ensure that blacks and women are considered on equal basis with whites and males for employment. The County was enjoined from engaging in practice or pattern of racial and gender discrimination. The County was required to hire the percentage of blacks and females as linked to the number of qualified applicants, as determined under the nondiscriminatory procedures of both the Board's decree and the County's decree. Unlike the other two decrees, it has not been modified since.

The County admitted it disobeyed the decree in various ways, including among others, failure to follow the recruitment procedures, failure to instruct personnel of the need to follow the decree, and failure to file reports. The matter, however, spent a long on discovery and on the matters involving the City. In the interim, the Court (Judge C Lynwood Smith Jr.) granted several hiring orders to allow the County to fill vacancies. It also issued several temporary orders holding the County in contempt until final resolution of the matter, with instructions on recruitment and hiring to the County. On August 20, 2013, the Court issued an opinion, holding the County in contempt. It rejected the reasons for noncompliance and ordered the parties to confer on the identity of the Receiver and the modifications to the original 1982 decree.

On October 16, 2013, the Court entered a modified consent decree. The decree included general prohibition of discrimination on the basis of race, color or sex, and retaliation. The decree provided that the County had to implement following procedures: accelerated recruitment of black and female applicants, corresponding to the percentage of qualified blacks and women given by the Board's lists; recruitment into certain departments; affirmative recruitment procedures aimed at blacks and women; and other various procedures aimed at preventing racial and gender discrimination. Any failure to meet the objectives required a showing of good effort. The County also agreed to pay $298,000 in settlement of individual claims. It also included the recordkeeping and reporting requirement to be followed by the County. On October 25, 2013, the Court appointed a Receiver to ensure the County's full compliance with the modified consent decree.

The case is still ongoing, as the court retains jurisdiction over the modified decree with the County.

Joshua Arocho - 06/25/2012
Zhandos Kuderin - 07/16/2014

compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Affected Gender
Constitutional Clause
Equal Protection
Supremacy Clause
Content of Injunction
Comply with advertising/recruiting requirements
Develop anti-discrimination policy
Discrimination Prohibition
Follow recruitment, hiring, or promotion protocols
Goals and Timekeeping
Implement complaint/dispute resolution process
Other requirements regarding hiring, promotion, retention
Post/Distribute Notice of Rights / EE Law
Provide antidiscrimination training
Retaliation Prohibition
Utilize objective hiring/promotion criteria
Race discrimination
Sex discrimination
Disparate Impact
Disparate Treatment
Records Disclosure
Plaintiff Type
U.S. Dept of Justice plaintiff
Race, unspecified
Causes of Action 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e
Defendant(s) Birmingham
Jefferson County
Plaintiff Description United States on behalf African-Americans and women applicants for municipal and governmental positions within Jefferson County, and non-black plaintiffs alleging reverse discrimination.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations U.S. Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Division
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status granted Yes
Filed Pro Se No
Prevailing Party Mixed
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Declaratory Judgment
Attorneys fees
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Litigation
Form of Settlement Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Private Settlement Agreement
Order Duration 1981 - n/a
Filing Year 1975
Case Ongoing Yes
Case Listing EE-AL-0109 : In re. Birmingham Reverse Discrimination Employment Litigation (Martin v. Wilks) (N.D. Ala.)
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
  The Oyez Project, Martin v. Wilks, 490 U.S. 755 (1989).
Date: Jun. 12, 1989
By: Oyez Project (IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

2:75-cv-00666-CLS (N.D. Ala.)
EE-AL-0097-9000.pdf | Detail
Date: 06/02/2014
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
EE-AL-0097-0061.pdf | Detail
Date: 01/04/1974
Source: District Court
Preliminary Statement [Complaint - Class Action]
EE-AL-0097-0060.pdf | Detail
Date: 01/07/1974
Source: District Court
EE-AL-0097-0053.pdf | Detail
Date: 05/27/1975
Source: District Court
Opinion (Tests being in Violation of Title VII, further instructions) (1977 WL 806) (N.D. Ala.)
EE-AL-0097-0034.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 01/10/1977
Opinion (616 F.2d 812)
EE-AL-0097-0033.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 05/08/1980
Source: Public.Resource.Org
Opinion (Denying Petition for writ of certiorari to 5th Circuit USCA) (449 U.S. 1061)
EE-AL-0097-0043.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 12/15/1980
Source: Westlaw
Consent Decree with the Jefferson County Personnel Board (N.D. Ala.)
EE-AL-0097-0055.pdf | Detail
Date: 06/08/1981
Source: District Court
Consent Decree with the City of Birmingham (N.D. Ala.)
EE-AL-0097-0058.pdf | Detail
Date: 06/08/1981
Source: District Court
Opinion (1981 WL 27018) (N.D. Ala.)
EE-AL-0097-0035.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 08/18/1981
Consent Decree with Defendant Cities of Bessemer, Fairfield, Fultondale, Gardendale, Homewood, Hueytown, Midfield, Mountain Brook, Pleasant Grove, Tarrant, and Vestavia Hills (N.D. Ala.)
EE-AL-0097-0057.pdf | Detail
Date: 12/03/1982
Source: District Court
Consent Decree with Jefferson County (N.D. Ala.)
EE-AL-0097-0056.pdf | Detail
Date: 12/29/1982
Source: District Court
Settlement Agreement [ECF# 1832]
EE-AL-0097-0041.pdf | Detail
Date: 12/29/1982
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Opinion (720 F.2d 1511)
EE-AL-0097-0022.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 12/12/1983
Source: Google Scholar
Opinion (724 F.2d 978)
EE-AL-0097-0045.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 01/20/1984
Source: Westlaw
Opinion (Reversing and Remanding Walker v. Jefferson County Home case to District Court) (726 F.2d 1554)
EE-AL-0097-0021.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 03/16/1984
Source: Google Scholar
Opinion (1985 WL 1415) (N.D. Ala.)
EE-AL-0097-0036.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 02/19/1985
Opinion (1985 WL 56690) (M.D. Ala.)
EE-AL-0097-0037.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 12/20/1985
Opinion (833 F.2d 1492)
EE-AL-0097-0030.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 12/15/1987
Opinion (841 F.2d 399)
EE-AL-0097-0038.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 01/25/1988
Source: Westlaw
Opinion (487 U.S. 1204)
EE-AL-0097-0046.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 06/20/1988
Source: Westlaw
Opinion (490 U.S. 755)
EE-AL-0097-0047.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 06/12/1989
Source: Westlaw
Opinion (492 U.S. 932)
EE-AL-0097-0050.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 08/11/1989
Source: Westlaw
Opinion (806 F.Supp. 926) (N.D. Ala.)
EE-AL-0097-0028.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 08/14/1992
Source: Google Scholar
Opinion (20 F.3d 1525)
EE-AL-0097-0027.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 05/04/1994
Opinion (20 F.3d 1489)
EE-AL-0097-0029.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 05/04/1994
Opinion (31 F.3d 1548)
EE-AL-0097-0032.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 08/25/1994
Opinion (60 F.3d 720)
EE-AL-0097-0026.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 12/14/1994
Opinion (60 F.3d 717)
EE-AL-0097-0031.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 12/14/1994
Opinion (514 U.S. 1065)
EE-AL-0097-0051.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 05/17/1995
Source: Westlaw
Opinion (514 U.S. 1065)
EE-AL-0097-0052.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 05/17/1995
Source: Westlaw
Order Modifying the City of Birmingham Consent Decree (N.D. Ala.)
EE-AL-0097-0059.pdf | Detail
Date: 12/20/1995
Source: District Court
Order (N.D. Ala.)
EE-AL-0097-0054.pdf | Detail
Date: 04/24/1996
Source: District Court
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order [ECF# 8]
EE-AL-0097-0001.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/13/1998
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order (Vacating Temp. Restraining Order, Revising Selection Procedures) [ECF# 17] (N.D. Ala.)
EE-AL-0097-0002.pdf | Detail
Date: 05/20/1998
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order (Guidelines for Special Master/Court Appointed Expert's Review of Evidence) [ECF# 648] (N.D. Ala.)
EE-AL-0097-0003.pdf | Detail
Date: 10/07/1998
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order (Closing Consolidated Cases) [ECF# 653] (N.D. Ala.)
EE-AL-0097-0004.pdf | Detail
Date: 01/14/1999
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Extending 1981 Consent Decrees and 1995 Modification Orders [ECF# 708] (N.D. Ala.)
EE-AL-0097-0013.pdf | Detail
Date: 12/18/2000
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Modifying Certain Portions of This Court's Dec 18, 2000 Order Extending 1981 Consent Decrees & 1995 Modification Orders, etc. [ECF# 758] (N.D. Ala.)
EE-AL-0097-0014.pdf | Detail
Date: 05/24/2001
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Opinion (280 F.3d 1289)
EE-AL-0097-0025.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 01/07/2002
Opinion (290 F.3d 1250)
EE-AL-0097-0024.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 05/06/2002
Order (Personnel Board of Jefferson Cty in Contempt of Court) [ECF# 935] (N.D. Ala.)
EE-AL-0097-0005.pdf | Detail
Date: 07/08/2002
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Opinion (54 Fed.Appx. 693)
EE-AL-0097-0023.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 11/21/2002
Source: Google Scholar
Joint Stipulations Regarding City Selections in Seven Job Classifications
EE-AL-0097-0007.pdf | Detail
Date: 12/02/2004
Order Extending City of Birmingham's 1981 Consent Decree and 1995 Modification Order [ECF# 1162] (N.D. Ala.)
EE-AL-0097-0010.pdf | Detail
Date: 12/09/2004
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part City's Motion to Terminate Consent Decree [ECF# 1228] (N.D. Ala.)
EE-AL-0097-0006.pdf | Detail
Date: 07/12/2005
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Joinder by Citizens Supervisory Commission in Judge Alan King’s Motion to Reconsider
EE-AL-0097-0012.pdf | Detail
Date: 05/22/2007
Order (Denying 5/22/2007 Motion to Dismiss and 5/22/2007 Motion for Reconsideration) [ECF# 1382] (N.D. Ala.)
EE-AL-0097-0009.pdf | Detail
Date: 05/24/2007
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Memorandum Opinion and Order (Denying City of Birmingham's 2/2/2007 Motion to Dismiss) [ECF# 1399] (N.D. Ala.)
EE-AL-0097-0011.pdf | Detail
Date: 08/20/2007
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order to Show Cause (Why Jefferson County Should Not Be Held in Civil Contempt) [ECF# 1458] (N.D. Ala.)
EE-AL-0097-0015.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/25/2008
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order (Granting Wilks Class' Motion Seeking Declaratory and Injunctive Relief of AL Act No. 2008-408) [ECF# 1541] (N.D. Ala.)
EE-AL-0097-0016.pdf | Detail
Date: 09/12/2008
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Memorandum Opinion [ECF# 1542] (N.D. Ala.)
EE-AL-0097-0042.pdf | Detail
Date: 09/12/2008
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order on Joint Motion for Termination of Consent Decree with the Personnel Board of Jefferson Cty, Approval of Agreement, and Termination of Receivership [ECF# 1573] (N.D. Ala.)
EE-AL-0097-0017.pdf | Detail
Date: 11/20/2008
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judgment on Motion For Attorneys' Fees and Costs [ECF# 1642] (N.D. Ala.)
EE-AL-0097-0018.pdf | Detail
Date: 05/14/2009
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judgment on Motion for Attorney's Fees and Cost [ECF# 1642] (N.D. Ala.)
EE-AL-0097-0040.pdf | Detail
Date: 05/14/2009
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Notice of Settlement and Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement and Entry of Judgment [ECF# 1732]
EE-AL-0097-0020.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/16/2012
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [ECF# 1735] (N.D. Ala.)
EE-AL-0097-0019.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/16/2012
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Memorandum Opinion and Order (2013 WL 4482970) (N.D. Ala.)
EE-AL-0097-0039.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 08/20/2013
Source: Westlaw
Judges Anderson, Robert Lanier III (Fifth Circuit, Eleventh Circuit)
EE-AL-0097-0026 | EE-AL-0097-0030
Black, Susan Harrell (M.D. Fla., Eleventh Circuit)
Blackmun, Harry Andrew (Eighth Circuit, SCOTUS)
Brennan, William Joseph Jr. (SCOTUS)
Carnes, Edward Earl (Eleventh Circuit)
EE-AL-0097-0023 | EE-AL-0097-0024 | EE-AL-0097-0025
Hatchett, Joseph Woodrow (Fifth Circuit, Eleventh Circuit)
EE-AL-0097-0026 | EE-AL-0097-0031
Kravitch, Phyllis A. (Fifth Circuit, Eleventh Circuit)
Marshall, Thurgood (Second Circuit, SCOTUS)
Pointer, Sam Clyde Jr. (N.D. Ala.)
EE-AL-0097-0002 | EE-AL-0097-0003 | EE-AL-0097-0004 | EE-AL-0097-0021 | EE-AL-0097-0022 | EE-AL-0097-0027 | EE-AL-0097-0028 | EE-AL-0097-0031 | EE-AL-0097-0032 | EE-AL-0097-0034 | EE-AL-0097-0035 | EE-AL-0097-0036 | EE-AL-0097-0037 | EE-AL-0097-0041 | EE-AL-0097-0054 | EE-AL-0097-0056 | EE-AL-0097-0057 | EE-AL-0097-0059
Smith, Charles Lynwood Jr. (N.D. Ala.)
EE-AL-0097-0005 | EE-AL-0097-0006 | EE-AL-0097-0009 | EE-AL-0097-0010 | EE-AL-0097-0011 | EE-AL-0097-0013 | EE-AL-0097-0014 | EE-AL-0097-0015 | EE-AL-0097-0016 | EE-AL-0097-0017 | EE-AL-0097-0018 | EE-AL-0097-0019 | EE-AL-0097-0019 | EE-AL-0097-0024 | EE-AL-0097-0025 | EE-AL-0097-0039 | EE-AL-0097-0040 | EE-AL-0097-0042 | EE-AL-0097-9000
Stevens, John Paul (Seventh Circuit, SCOTUS)
Tjoflat, Gerald Bard (Fifth Circuit, Eleventh Circuit, M.D. Fla.)
EE-AL-0097-0022 | EE-AL-0097-0023 | EE-AL-0097-0026 | EE-AL-0097-0030 | EE-AL-0097-0031 | EE-AL-0097-0038 | EE-AL-0097-0045 | EE-AL-0097-0046
Plaintiff's Lawyers Adams, Oscar W. III (Alabama)
EE-AL-0097-0055 | EE-AL-0097-0058 | EE-AL-0097-9000
Adelstein, Jay (District of Columbia)
EE-AL-0097-0007 | EE-AL-0097-9000
Angus, James S (District of Columbia)
Antonoia, Karin (New York)
Barr, Thomas D (New York)
Brelvi, Farah S (New York)
EE-AL-0097-9000 | EE-AL-0097-9000
Brown, Gary L (Alabama)
EE-AL-0097-0001 | EE-AL-0097-0007 | EE-AL-0097-9000 | EE-AL-0097-9000
Clemon, U. W. (Alabama)
Cooper, James Michael (Alabama)
EE-AL-0097-0001 | EE-AL-0097-0007 | EE-AL-0097-0012 | EE-AL-0097-9000
Crowly, Shawn G (New York)
Cunningham, John Patrick (District of Columbia)
Dixler, Scott P. (New York)
Fallon, James M. (District of Columbia)
Famutimi, Emily O. (New York)
Fitzpatrick , Raymond P. Jr. (Alabama)
EE-AL-0097-0001 | EE-AL-0097-0002 | EE-AL-0097-0003 | EE-AL-0097-0007 | EE-AL-0097-0012 | EE-AL-0097-0031 | EE-AL-0097-0037 | EE-AL-0097-9000 | EE-AL-0097-9000
Fritzler, Rachel M (New York)
Greenberg, Kristy (New York)
EE-AL-0097-0012 | EE-AL-0097-9000 | EE-AL-0097-9000
Kaplan, Mathew (New York)
Levi, Edward H. (District of Columbia)
Lewis, Elizabeth A. (New York)
Lynaugh, Margaret E. (New York)
Marriott, David R. (New York)
Martin, Alice H. (Alabama)
EE-AL-0097-0012 | EE-AL-0097-9000
Moore, Robert T. (District of Columbia)
Pottinger, J. Stanley (District of Columbia)
Powell, Charles A. IV (Alabama)
Privett, Caryl P (Alabama)
EE-AL-0097-0056 | EE-AL-0097-0058 | EE-AL-0097-9000
Proll, Leslie M. (District of Columbia)
Rafferty, Thomas G. (New York)
Reeves, Susan W (Alabama)
EE-AL-0097-0055 | EE-AL-0097-0056 | EE-AL-0097-0058 | EE-AL-0097-0060 | EE-AL-0097-9000
Ritter, Richard J. (District of Columbia)
EE-AL-0097-0055 | EE-AL-0097-0056 | EE-AL-0097-0057 | EE-AL-0097-0058
Rosenberg, Lauren (New York)
Selig, Joel (District of Columbia)
Seymour, Richard Talbot (New York)
EE-AL-0097-9000 | EE-AL-0097-9000
Sherrer, Wayman (Alabama)
Sperber, Joseph J. IV (District of Columbia)
Spitz, Stephen L (District of Columbia)
EE-AL-0097-0055 | EE-AL-0097-0056 | EE-AL-0097-0058 | EE-AL-0097-9000
Tatel, David S. (District of Columbia)
Thawley, Barbara E (District of Columbia)
EE-AL-0097-0002 | EE-AL-0097-0003 | EE-AL-0097-0007 | EE-AL-0097-9000
Vance, Joyce White (Alabama)
Vrabel, Mary Beth (New York)
EE-AL-0097-0007 | EE-AL-0097-0012 | EE-AL-0097-9000 | EE-AL-0097-9000
Wasserman, Carl D (District of Columbia)
Wilson, Rowan D (New York)
EE-AL-0097-0007 | EE-AL-0097-0012 | EE-AL-0097-0020 | EE-AL-0097-9000 | EE-AL-0097-9000
Zach, Olivia J (New York)
EE-AL-0097-9000 | EE-AL-0097-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Agricola, Algert Swanson Jr. (Alabama)
Ahnert, Janell M. (Alabama)
EE-AL-0097-0057 | EE-AL-0097-9000
Alexander, James P (Alabama)
EE-AL-0097-0031 | EE-AL-0097-9000
Baker, James K. (Alabama)
EE-AL-0097-0037 | EE-AL-0097-0058 | EE-AL-0097-9000
Battle, Laveeda Morgan (Alabama)
EE-AL-0097-0002 | EE-AL-0097-0003 | EE-AL-0097-0012 | EE-AL-0097-0031 | EE-AL-0097-9000
Bradford, William K (Alabama)
Braswell, Walter E. (Alabama)
Brooks, Charles I. (Alabama)
Brooks, Hycall III (Alabama)
Choy, Michael K K (Alabama)
Coyne, Leslie Allen (Alabama)
Dettling, Aaron L. (Alabama)
EE-AL-0097-0007 | EE-AL-0097-0012 | EE-AL-0097-9000
Drake, Russell Jackson (Alabama)
EE-AL-0097-0012 | EE-AL-0097-9000
Dyess, Jeffrey D (Alabama)
Esdale, James R (Alabama)
EE-AL-0097-0012 | EE-AL-0097-9000
Gale, Fournier J. III (Alabama)
Graffeo, Michael G (Alabama)
Grainger, Brent G (Alabama)
EE-AL-0097-0012 | EE-AL-0097-9000
Green, Anna Christine (Alabama)
Hosp, Edward Andrew (Alabama)
Jackson, Michael Leon (Alabama)
EE-AL-0097-0012 | EE-AL-0097-9000
Jackson, B. Keith (Alabama)
Joffe, Robert (New York)
EE-AL-0097-0002 | EE-AL-0097-0003 | EE-AL-0097-0031
Johnson, Tiffany N. (Alabama)
Johnston, Brice Martin (Alabama)
Jordan, Albert L. (Alabama)
EE-AL-0097-0037 | EE-AL-0097-9000
Kendrick, Michael G. (Alabama)
Kent, Ronald H Jr. (Alabama)
EE-AL-0097-0012 | EE-AL-0097-9000
King, Alan (Alabama)
Lawson, Theodore A III (Alabama)
EE-AL-0097-0012 | EE-AL-0097-9000
Lee, Brandy Murphy (Alabama)
Lentine, John A (Alabama)
EE-AL-0097-0012 | EE-AL-0097-9000
Lucas, Michael L. (Alabama)
Lunsford, Kallie C. (Alabama)
Mays, Stephanie Houston (Alabama)
McElheny, Terry (Alabama)
Morse, Wayne Jr. (Alabama)
Murphy, Grace Robinson (Alabama)
Murrill, James Edward Jr. (Alabama)
Obradovic, V Michelle (Alabama)
Penn, Myron C (Alabama)
Perkins, Byron Renard (Alabama)
Rigsby, Nefertari Sudetta (Alabama)
Riley, Robert R. Jr. (Alabama)
Rouco, Richard P (Alabama)
Saxon, John D (Alabama)
EE-AL-0097-0012 | EE-AL-0097-9000
Shirley, Elizabeth Bosquet (Alabama)
Simon, Kenneth O (Alabama)
EE-AL-0097-0012 | EE-AL-0097-9000
Smith, Scott B (Alabama)
EE-AL-0097-0012 | EE-AL-0097-9000
Somerville, William G III (Alabama)
EE-AL-0097-0012 | EE-AL-0097-9000
Stewart, Marvin L Jr (Alabama)
Stewart, Thomas L (Alabama)
Strickland, Edwin A. (Alabama)
EE-AL-0097-0012 | EE-AL-0097-9000
Vanterpool, Jonice M. (Alabama)
Waggoner, Mark T (Alabama)
Wagner, Charles S. (Alabama)
EE-AL-0097-0007 | EE-AL-0097-0012 | EE-AL-0097-9000 | EE-AL-0097-9000
Waldrep, Charlie D. (Alabama)
EE-AL-0097-0007 | EE-AL-0097-0012 | EE-AL-0097-9000
Walker, Susan Jane (Alabama)
Walston, David (Alabama)
EE-AL-0097-0012 | EE-AL-0097-9000
Walthall, Howard P. Jr. (Alabama)
Wood, J. Fred Jr. (Alabama)
Woolley, Tammy C. (Alabama)
EE-AL-0097-0007 | EE-AL-0097-0012 | EE-AL-0097-9000
Yuengert, Anne R (Alabama)
EE-AL-0097-0002 | EE-AL-0097-0003 | EE-AL-0097-0007 | EE-AL-0097-0012 | EE-AL-0097-9000
Other Lawyers Boyd, David R. (Alabama)
Dowd, August S. (Alabama)
Veres, John G (Alabama)
EE-AL-0097-0007 | EE-AL-0097-0012 | EE-AL-0097-9000 | EE-AL-0097-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -