University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Smith v. Jackson EE-MS-0058
Docket / Court 01-CV-00367 ( S.D. Miss. )
State/Territory Mississippi
Case Type(s) Equal Employment
Special Collection Private Employment Class Actions
Case Summary
On May 14, 2001, several police officers 40 years of age or older filed a lawsuit against the City of Jackson, Mississippi and the Jackson Police Department under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 29 U ... read more >
On May 14, 2001, several police officers 40 years of age or older filed a lawsuit against the City of Jackson, Mississippi and the Jackson Police Department under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, alleged age discrimination and asked the court for injunctive and declaratory relief, as well as compensatory damages. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that a pay plan adopted by the city violated the ADEA and caused disparate treatment and disparate impact. The pay plan granted raises to all police officers and police dispatchers in the city's attempt to bring the starting salaries of police officers up to regional averages, but those who had less than five years of tenure received proportionately greater raises when compared to the former pay than those with more seniority.

According to the PACER docket, on June 7, 2002, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. On September 6, 2002, the court (Judge William H. Barbour) granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case with prejudice. The court found that the officers had failed to demonstrate that the city had conducted unlawful age discrimination, that the city had a legitimate reason for the pay plan, and that the ADEA did not enable claims of disparate impact. Smith v. City of Jackson, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27284 (S.D. Miss. 2002).

The plaintiffs appealed the case. On November 16, 2003, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment regarding disparate impact and vacated the judgment of the District Court regarding disparate treatment, and remanded the case back to the District Court. Smith v. City of Jackson, 351 F.3d. 183 (5th Cir. 2003). Following oral argument, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. Smith v. City of Jackson, 544 U.S. 228 (2005).

According to the PACER docket, on March 30, 2007, a settlement conference was held but no agreement was reached. On October 10, 2007, the court (Judge Barbour) dismissed the case with prejudice due to resolution of the parties' underlying differences and the parties were ordered to bear their own costs and attorney fees.

Emily Kuznick - 04/14/2008

compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Affected Gender
Pay / Benefits
Age discrimination
Disparate Treatment
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
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 Jackson
Plaintiff Description Police officers and dispatchers with more than 5 years of tenure
Class action status granted Unknown
Filed Pro Se No
Prevailing Party Mixed
Public Int. Lawyer No
Nature of Relief None
Source of Relief Settlement
Form of Settlement Voluntary Dismissal
Filing Year 2001
Case Closing Year 2007
Case Ongoing No
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
  The Oyez Project, Smith v City of Jackson, Miss., 544 U.S. 228 (2005).
Date: Mar. 30, 2005
By: Oyez Project (IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

3:01-cv-00367-WHB-LRA (S.D. Miss.)
EE-MS-0058-9000.pdf | Detail
Date: 10/10/2007
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Motion for Summary Judgment Granted (2002 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 27284) (S.D. Miss.)
EE-MS-0058-0003.pdf | LEXIS | Detail
Date: 09/06/2002
Source: LexisNexis
Opinion (Court of Appeals) (351 F.3d 183)
EE-MS-0058-0002.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 11/13/2003
Source: Google Scholar
Opinion (Supreme Court) (544 U.S. 228)
EE-MS-0058-0004.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 03/30/2005
Source: Westlaw
Amended Answer to Complaint and Affirmative Defenses (2006 WL 1479308)
EE-MS-0058-0001.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 04/04/2006
Judges Anderson, Linda Randle (S.D. Miss.)
Barbour, William Henry Jr. (S.D. Miss.)
EE-MS-0058-0003 | EE-MS-0058-9000
Breyer, Stephen Gerald (SCOTUS, First Circuit)
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader (SCOTUS, D.C. Circuit)
Higginbotham, Patrick Errol (N.D. Tex., Fifth Circuit)
Kennedy, Anthony McLeod (SCOTUS, Ninth Circuit)
King, Carolyn Dineen (Fifth Circuit)
O'Connor, Sandra Day (SCOTUS)
Scalia, Antonin (SCOTUS, D.C. Circuit)
Souter, David Hackett (SCOTUS, First Circuit)
Stevens, John Paul (Seventh Circuit, SCOTUS)
Stewart, Carl E. (Fifth Circuit)
Thomas, Clarence (SCOTUS, D.C. Circuit)
Plaintiff's Lawyers Brand, Samuel M. Jr. (Mississippi)
EE-MS-0058-0003 | EE-MS-0058-9000
Goldstein, Thomas C. (District of Columbia)
Horn, Dennis L. (Mississippi)
EE-MS-0058-0002 | EE-MS-0058-0003 | EE-MS-0058-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Begley, Samuel L. (Mississippi)
EE-MS-0058-0002 | EE-MS-0058-0003 | EE-MS-0058-9000
Crutcher, R. Pepper Jr. (Mississippi)
EE-MS-0058-0001 | EE-MS-0058-9000
Martin, Heather White (Mississippi)
Nager, Glen David (District of Columbia)
Stimley-Priester, E. Charlene (Mississippi)
Teeuwissen, Pieter (Mississippi)
Williams, J. Anthony (Mississippi)
EE-MS-0058-0003 | EE-MS-0058-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -