Case 2:01-cv-01536-WMA Document 1 Filed 06/18/01 Page 1 of 30

Nancy M. Mayer-Whittington Clerk

. United States District Court for the District of Columbia
United States Courthouse 333 Constitution Ave., N. W.
Washington, DC 20001
June 13, 2001

2!AL......
c :
rr.1•·i ll: Qirb2) 354-3000

United States District Court Clerk's Office for the Northern District of Alabama 140 Hugo L. Black US Courthouse 1729 Fifth Avenue North Birmingham, Alabama 35203
Re: 1:00-cv-02886 HAMPTON v. SEC, DEPT OF VA
Dear Clerk:
On 03/15/01, this Court signed an order transferring the above-entitled case to your Court. Enclosed is a copy of that order together with our case file and a certified copy of the docket entries. (We do not normally transfer our case file for at least 20 days after the date of the transfer order.)
Please promptly acknowledge receipt of our file on the duplicate copy of this letter. Please indicate your case number somewhere on the receipt.
Yours truly,
NANCY MAYER-WHITTINGTON Clerk
By: Tawana Davis Deputy Clerk
cc: Everald Fitzgerald Thompson Scott Sutherland Harris
Enclosure(s)

Case 2:01-cv-01536-WMA Document 1 Filed 06/18/01 Page 2 of 30

U.S. District Court USDC District of Columbia (Washington)

TRANSF TYPE H
CLO0SE! D..n:;! 18 P~l ll: 03

CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 00-CV-2886

HAMPTON, et al v. SEC, DEPT OF VA Assigned to: Judge Henry H. Kennedy Demand: $10,000,000 Lead Docket: None Dkt# in other court: None

Filed: 12/01/00
Nature of Suit: 442 Jurisdiction: US Defendant

Cause: 42:2003 Job Discrimination Case type: 1. civil 2. null

GEORGIA GRAY HAMPTON plaintiff
DORIS BLUE plaintiff

Everald Fitzgerald Thompson

FTS 237-8870 Suite 404 [COR LD NTC ret]

United States District Court for the District of Columbia

4201 Connecticut Avenue, NW

A TRUE COPY

Washington, DC 20008

NANCY MAYER-WHi :--;"'!f1!GTO~J, C!erk

AREA CODE (202)

By ·---c 0(tuio

. .. .

Deputy C~erk

Everald Fitzgerald Thompson

(See above)

[COR LD NTC ret]

PATRICIA BELTON plaintiff

Everald Fitzgerald Thompson (See above) [COR LD NTC ret]

BYRON CLARK plaintiff

Everald Fitzgerald Thompson (See above) [COR LD NTC ret]

LAURIE DUNCAN plaintiff

Everald Fitzgerald Thompson (See above)
[COR LD NTC ret]

KATHLEEN DUNCAN plaintiff

Everald Fitzgerald Thompson (See above)
[COR LD NTC ret]

SANDRA GARDNER plaintiff

Everald Fitzgerald Thompson (See above)
[COR LD NTC ret]

Docket as of June 13, 2001 3:00pm

Page 1

Case 2:01-cv-01536-WMA Document 1
Proceedings Include All Even 1:00cv2886 HAMPTON, et al v. ·uBC, DEPT OF VA

Filed 06/18/01 PaTRgAeN3SFof 30
TYPE H CLOSED

MICHAEL JOHNSON plaintiff

Everald Fitzgerald Thompson (See above) [COR LD NTC ret]

MALINDA MORROW-KITCHINGS plaintiff

Everald Fitzgerald Thompson (See above) [COR LD NTC ret]

GRACE MIMS plaintiff

Everald Fitzgerald Thompson (See above) [COR LD NTC ret]

DEBRA J. PRUITT plaintiff

Everald Fitzgerald Thompson (See above) [COR LD NTC ret]

GERTRUDE M. SANDERS plaintiff

Everald Fitzgerald Thompson (See above) [COR LD NTC ret]

KATHRYN J. SHIRLEY plaintiff

Everald Fitzgerald Thompson (See above) [COR LD NTC ret]

DEVIN WHITE plaintiff

Everald Fitzgerald Thompson (See above) [COR LD NTC ret]

MARY S. WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
plaintiff

Everald Fitzgerald Thompson (See above) [COR LD NTC ret)

v.

SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS/VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER
federal defendant

Scott Sutherland Harris FTS 307-0338 202-305-0955 FAX lOth Floor [COR LD NTC gvt) U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Judiciary Center Building 555 Fourth Street, NW

Docket as of June 13, 2001 3:00 pm

Page 2

Case 2:01-cv-01536-WMA Document 1 Filed 06/18/01
Proceedings Include All Even 1:00cv2886 HAMPTON, et al v.-~EC, DEPT OF VA
Washington, DC 20001 AREA CODE (202)

Page 4 of 30
TRANSF TYPE H
CLOSED

Docket as of June 13, 2001 3:00pm

Page 3

Case 2:01-cv-01536-WMA Document 1
Proceedings Include All Ever. 1:00cv2886 HAMPTON, et al v. uEC, DEPT OF VA

Filed 06/18/01 PaTgRAeN5SFof 30
TYPE H CLOSED

12/1/00 1

COMPLAINT filed by plaintiffs GEORGIA GRAY HAMPTON, DORIS BLUE, PATRICIA BELTON, BYRON CLARK, LAURIE DUNCAN, KATHLEEN DUNCAN, SANDRA GARDNER, MICHAEL JOHNSON, MALINDA MORROW-KITCHINGS, GRACE MIMS, DEBRA J. PRUITT, GERTRUDE M. SANDERS, KATHRYN J. SHIRLEY, DEVIN WHITE, and MARY S. WILLIAMS (bm) [Entry date 12/05/00]

12/1/00

SUMMONS (3) issued to federal party federal defendant SEC, DEPT OF VA , and non-parties: U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General. (bm) [Entry date 12/05/00]

1/12/01 2

RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of summons and complaint executed on 1/12/01 upon federal defendant SEC, DEPT OF VA (tb) [Entry date 01/22/01]

1/12/01 3

RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of summons and complaint executed upon U.S. Attorney General on 1/12/01 (tb) [Entry date 01/22/01]

1/12/01 4

RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of summons and complaint executed upon U.S. Attorney on 1/12/01 (tb) [Entry date 01/22/01]

2/22/01 5

ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for federal defendant SEC, DEPT OF VA by Scott Sutherland Harris (den) [Entry date 02/23/01]

3/9/01 6

MOTION (UNOPPOSED) filed by federal defendant SEC, DEPT OF VA to transfer case to the USDC for the Northern District of Alabama, and to extend time to thirty days to answer complaint [1-1] (hsj) [Entry date 03/13/01] [Edit date 03/13/01]

3/15/01 7

IMG ORDER by Judge Henry H. Kennedy : granting motion to transfer case to the USDC for the Northern District of Alabama [6-1] by SEC, DEPT OF VA transferring case to the Northern District of Alabama (N) (den)

6/13/01

ORIGINAL FILE and certified copy of docket entries and Order transmitted to Clerk of USDC for Northern District of Alabama pursuant to order dated 3/15/01 (td)

Docket as of June 13, 2001 3:00pm

Page 4

Case 2:01-cv-01536-WMA Document 1 Filed 06/18/01 Page 6 of 30

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

GEORGIA GRAY HAMPTON, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
VETERANS' AFFAIRS, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 00-2886 (HHK)
pr::_.ED
:f.11.~ 15 2001

Upon consideration of Defendant's motion to transfer, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant's motion is GRANTED.
It is further ORDERED that this case is TRANSFERRED to the Northern District of Alabama.
It is further ORDERED that Defendant shall have until 30 days after entry of this order within which to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint in this case.
~-
CT JUDGE

for the District of Columbia
A Tr:UCCOPY
NANCY MAYER·'Nt·iiT':'ll,;.:.:;:or~. Cler\
sv --t. Q_et_~uw? ~·"--Du.::u·;y Cl3rk

Case 2:01-cv-01536-WMA Document 1 Filed 06/18/01 Page 7 of 30

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

FILED

GEORGIA GRAY HAMPTON, et al., Plaintiffs,

Civil Action No.

MAR 9 2001
NANcYMU.ASY. EDRISWTRHIICTTTJcNoG{;c:l· CLERK
00-2886 (HHK)

v.
- ._,
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS' AFFAIRS,

Defendant.

-; 0
UNOPPOSED MOTION TO TRANSFER AND FOR AN ENLARGEMENT OF TI~
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404 and Rules 6(b) (1) and 12(b) (3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant hereby moves to transfer this case to the Northern District of Alabama and for an enlargement of time of thirty days after a ruling on the motion to transfer within which to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint.
Plaintiffs in this case are fifteen employees of the Veterans Affairs Medical Center (~VAMC") in Birmingham, Alabama. They instituted this action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging that various actions of the VAMC constitute illegal racial discrimination.
The reason that this case should be transferred to Alabama is that, under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f) (3), venue is improper in the District of Columbia and proper only in the Northern District of Alabama. The Northern District of Alabama is where ~the unlawful employment practice is alleged to have been coffimitted,

Case 2:01-cv-01536-WMA Document 1 Filed 06/18/01 Page 8 of 30

... the employment records relevant to such practice are

maintained and administered,

[and] the aggrieved person[s]

would have worked but for the alleged unlawful employment

practice." See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f) (3).

Defendant requests an enlargement of time in which to answer

or otherwise respond to the complaint so that counsel for

Defendant at the Office of the United States Attorney for the

Northern District of Alabama will have adequate time to prepare a response once this case is transferred. In addition, in the unlikely event that the Court declines to transfer the case,

undersigned counsel for Defendant will require additional time in which to file an answer or other response to the complaint.
Undersigned counsel for Defendant spoke with Mr. Everald Thompson, counsel for Plaintiffs, who indicated that they have no opposition to this motion. A proposed order is also filed herewith.

Respectfully submitted,

~a.~~
WILMA A. LEWIS, DC Bar No. 358637 United States Attorney

~G~,·~~
Assistant United States Attorney
SCO_~H-AR-R~ISg, ~DC Bar No. 449037
Assistant United States Attorney 555 Fourth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 307-0338

Case 2:01-cv-01536-WMA Document 1 Filed 06/18/01 Page 9 of 30
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this gth day of March, 2001, I caused a copy of the foregoing to served upon the following via first class mail, postage prepaid:
Everald F. Thompson 4201 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 404 Washington, D.C. 20008
Scott: S. Harris

Case 2:01-cv-01536-WMA Document 1 Filed 06/18/01 Page 10 of 30

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ORIGINAL

GEORGIA GRAY HAMPTON, DORIS BLUE, )

PATRICIA BELTON, BYRON CLARK,

)

LAURIE DUNCAN, KATHLEEN DUNCAN, )

SANDRA GARDNER, MICHAEL JOHNSON, )

MALINDA MORROW-KITCHINGS,

)

GRACE MIMS, DEBRA J. PRUITT,

)

GERTRUDE M. SANDERS,

)

KATHRYN J. SHIRLEY,DEVINWHITE, )

MARYS. WILLIAMS, individually, and on )

behalf of all others similarly situated,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

SECRETARY,

)

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS/ )

VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER )

BIRMINGHAM, AL

)

)

)

Defendant.

)

)

FILED
FEB 22 2001
CLERK. u.s. DISTRICT COURT
DistRICT OF COLUMBIA l:!v~cw.
Civil Action No. 00-2886 (HHK)

PRAECIPE

The Clerk of the Court will please enter the appearance of Assistant United States

Attorney ScottS. Harris as counsel for defendant in the above-captioned case.

Respectfully submitted,
sco~~
Assistant United States Attorney 555 4th St., N.W. Room 10-441 Washington, D.C. 20001 202-307-0338

5

Case 2:01-cv-01536-WMA Document 1 Filed 06/18/01 Page 11 of 30
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that the foregoing Praecipe was served upon plaintiffs by depositing a copy of it in the U.S. Mail, first class postage prepaid, addressed to: Everald F. Thompson, Esq. 4201 Connecticut Ave., N.W. Suite 404 Washington, D.C. 20008
on thi.s _l..l,f-_..7Jday ofFebruary 2001.
SCO S. HARRIS, DC Bar #449037 Assistant United States Attorney 555 4th St., N.W. Room 10-441 Washington, D.C. 20001 202-307-0338

AO ~1 0/93) Summons in a Civil Action

==:.='1,, ...

Case 2:01-cv-01536-WMA Document 1 Filed 06/18/01 Page 12 of 30
~niteb ~tates ~istrict <houri

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ msTRicroF District of Coh 1mhia

Yo~y{c{ ~~~cJ

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL CASE

TO: (Name and address of defendant)
U.S. Attorney 555 4th St. NW
Washington oc 2000f

r.Acr: ..... ···---

cvo2ss6

CASE NUMBER 1:00

JUDGE: HenrY H · KennedY

DECK TYPE: EEOC

FILED ._.:d·

DATE STAMP: 12/01/2000

~AN 12 2001

NANCYMAYER \WITTINGTON, CLERK
U.S. DISmtCT COURT

YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to serve upon PLAINTIFF'SATTORNEY(nameandaddress)

CvQ-<,qtc{ '1- ---rko!V!IS~

' tS2l-A0 .l.-j·-Ckaw4too/~'~c,{<d

Av~ 4,
J

c.J

W ~ l((rlv) D c J..-ooo <(

an answer to the complaint which is herewith served upon you, within

~.d

days after service of

this summons upon you, exclusive of the day of service. If you fail to do so, judgment by default will be taken against you for

the relief demanded in the complaint. You must also file your answer with the Clerk of this Court within a reasonable period of

time after service.

, .mnsto :a ·s·n
iJ.VM 'M
DATE

AO 440 (RevC. ~a0/s93e) S2um:0m1on-scinva-C0iv1il 5Ac3tio6n-WMA Document 1 Filed 06/18/01 Page 13 of 30
RETURN OF SERVICE
Service of the Summons and Complaint was made by me 1
NAME OF SERVER (PRINT)
Check one box below to indicate appropriate method of service

0 Served personally upon the defendant. Place where served: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

0 Left copies thereof at the defendant's dwelling house or usual place of abode with a person of suitable age and

discretion then residing therein. Name of person with whom the

summons

and

complaint

were

left:_....~.Pl~..::.J.:•._....7=-.Jol):;..:i,::;.::e:_.. __v-=-r=;bb.:::.._..N_"•_._:~.__~

_

0 Returned unexecuted: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

0 Other (specify): _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

TRAVEL

I STATEMENT OF SERVICE FEES SERVICES DECLARATION OF SERVER

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing information contained in the Return of Service and Statement of Service Fees is true and correct.

Executed on

Sigli'ature of Server

7

23t) /( :h M

Address of Server

/V-E -~r.s/5
t.JDC ~d~

._:::f; ,""-·. /
-' ......
¢:0::
9

~y serve a summons see Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of CMI Procedure.

Case 2:01-cv-01536-WMA Document 1 Filed 06/18/01 Page 14 of 30
~(Rev. ~ )) Summons in a Civil Action
~nit£!t ~tates JElistrict Olourt - - - - - - - - - - - - nisTRJcroF District of Columbia
~&~ytD! ~~e:~cJ
SUMMONS IN A CIVIL CASE

TO: (Name and address of defendant)
U. S. ATIO?i~lEY GF.:NERAL D.O.J.
n.::o PEI'\~·lE(·;·': ,·.': :;P'.lio.VE. NW
WASH:j>!GT~·: :, .:..::. 2C5JO

CASE NUMBER l:OOCV02886
JUDGE: Henry H. Kennedy
DECK TYPE: EEOC
DATE STAMP: 12/01/~000 FILED
'J~N 1 2 2001
~MAVER W[!TIMGTON,Cl.ERK """"'U.S. o\Sm\Cl COURT

YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to serve upon PLAINTIFF'S ATIORNEY (name and address)
cVQ~q{c/ 1-- ~tvt~S~ ~2sw -~0\·-~ kCa<w-~ < toV~-) fJ~·1)dAc_-v"1~.'.-~oo(oY0(

an answer to the complaint which is herewith served upon you, within

0E>

days after service of

this summons upon you, exclusive of the day of service. If you fail to do so, judgment by default will be taken against you for

the relief demanded in the complaint. You must also file your answer with the Clerk ofthis Court within a reasonable period of

time after service.

~ANCYMAYER-WHrrnNGTON
CLERK
fJ2G~

AO Case 440JRev. 10§3) S2um:0m1on-scinva-C0iv1il 5Ac3tio6· -WMA Document 1 Filed 06/18/01

RETURN OF SERVICE

Service of the Summons and Complaint was made by me 1

DATE

NAME OF SERVER (PRINT)

TITLE

Page 15 of 30

0 Served personally upon the defendant. Place where served: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

0 Returned unexecuted: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

0 Other (specify): _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

TRAVEL

I STATEMENT OF SERVICE FEES SERVICES DECLARATION OF SERVER

'TOTAL

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing information contained in the Return of Service and Statement of Service Fees is true and correct.

/Jr)./tJ/ Executed on

I

Date/

/

Sign&re of SeNer

:;::::>

r cJ3lJ ;{:.Z: ~ /f{Cr#J ~c

Address of SaNer

r ~ .,
I- • i
flY serve a summons see RUle 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

___ ~-~ev. 10/93) Summons in a Civil Action

Case . . . . . . .,~,4-

..

2:01-cv-01536-WMA

Document 1

Filed 06/18/01 Page 16 of 30

~niteo ~tates ~istrict illourt

------------DisTRicroF District of Columbia

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL CASE

CASE NUMBER l:OOCV02886 JUDGE: Henry H. Kennedy DECK TYPE: EEOC

DATE STAMP: 12/01/2000

TO: (Name and address of defendant)

FILED

D-e f q '< \- l71~ tSJ, lle Je1\ovrAS Bf61011i«~
f ~ IO v~l\ /J1ot1 1-r/PMVU21 ~t.V. w{)f s: iv: r1~ htw'; b c ;;;...olf2-0

'JAN 12 2001
NANCYUAVER WlUTTINGTON, CLERK
U.S. OIS'ffUCT COURT

YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to serve upon PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY (name and address)
6 ve ~q { rl 1 · -lf'botVJf5o~ P c Lf ?-- o I [D rffi-e c;f,:u) 1-v~ V1 v._y /11·l-U . S~· k \.fOLf
iAJtA s h..AY\S tcrYV1 c ]) J-ooo ~

an answer to the complaint which is herewith served upon you, within

Go

days after service of

this summons upon you, exclusive of the day of service. If you fail to do so, judgment by default will be taken against you for

the relief demanded in the complaint. You must also fire your answer with the Clerk of this Court within a reasonable period of

time after service.

~0 44!'..-'f'evC. 1aOis93e) S2um:0mo1n-scinva-C0iv1il 5Ac3tio6-WMA Document 1 Filed 06/18/01

RETURN OF SERVICE

Service of the Summons and Complaint was made by me 1

DATE

NAME OF SERVER (PRINT)

TITLE

Page 17 of 30

0 Served personally upon the defendant. Place where served: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Left copies thereof at the defendant's dwelling house or usual place of abode with a person of suitable age and

./l( . . . . _ . discretion then residing therein. :/?!/5 e,;/ Lc Name of person with whom the summons and complaint were left:

.L-~

~
\J

0 Returned unexecuted: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

0 Other (specify): _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

TRAVEL

I STATEMENT OF SERVICE FEES SERVICES DECLARATION OF SERVER

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing

0 fo/ ~ t i l information contained in the Return of Service and Statement of Service Fees is true a d correct.

ExeaJted on Dale

'"ots.-

J~o R~£ Aft JLL& 1f:?~~ c:_

Address of Server

..;::roOt)~

fi'Y serve a summons see Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Case 2:01-cv-01536-WMA Document 1 Filed 06/18/01 Page 18 of 30

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

FILED
DEC 0 1 ZOOO

GEORGIA GRAY HAMPTON, DORIS BLUE

PATRICIA BELTON, BYRON CLARK 1 LAURIE DUNCAN, KATHLEEN DUNCAN,

SANDRA GARDNER, MICHAEL JOHNSON I

MALINDA MORROif-KITCBINGS, GRACE MIMS, DEBRA J. PRUITT, GERTRUDE M SANDERS, CASE NUMBER

l:OOCV02886

KATHRYN J. SHIRLEY, DEVIN WHITE, MARY S. WJ:LLIAMS, indivdually, and

JUDGE: HenrY H. Kennedy

on behalf of all others similarly situated,

DECK TYPE: EEOC

DATE STAMP: 12/01/2000

Plaintiffs,

v.

SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS/ VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA

Defendants .

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
NATURE OF THE CASE
1. This is a class action brought by 15 individual plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated individuals against the Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs ("Department of Veterans Affairs"), as legal representative for the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Birmingham, Alabama. ("VAMC"). Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief and monetary damages to redress the Department of Veteran Affairs deprivation of the rights of

Case 2:01-cv-01536-WMA Document 1 Filed 06/18/01 Page 19 of 30
plaintiffs and the Class members under Title Vll of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e, (hereafter "Title VII"), and 42 U.S.C. § I98I and 198IA. 2. The plaintiffs are African-American employees who have suffered racially discriminatory employment policies and practices at the hands of their employer, VAMC. The plaintiffs are qualified persons who have been denied the opportunity for promotion, who have been subjected to a hostile work environment, and/or have been retaliated against because of the VAMC'S policy and practice of racial discrimination. 3. The plaintiffs have been systematically excluded from the promotions process by, among other things, preferential treatment of less qualified Caucasians; by not being provided with job announcements; by not being provided with necessary training; and by being subjected to a hostile work environment. 4. The VAMC has consistently ignored the plaintiffs' complaints about these unlawful work conditions. The Department of Veterans Affairs is aware of numerous complaints and claims of racial discrimination in promotion, subjection of African-Americans to a hostile work environment, that have emanated from its medical center in Birmingham, Alabama. 5. The discrimination experienced by the plaintiffs and the Class is a statistically significant pattern of discrimination unexplainable by chance.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
6. This court has subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 2000e-3 ,28 U.S.C. § 1331, 1343 and 1367, and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. 7. Venue lies in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
THE PARTIES
8. Byron Clark resides in the Birmingham, Alabam~ area. Mr. Clark is an employee of defendant VAMC located in Birmingham, Alabama. 9. Plaintiff Patricia Belton resides in Birmingham, Alabama. Ms. Belton is an employee of defendant VAMC located in Birmingham, Alabama. 10. Plaintiff Doris Blue resides in Birmingham, Alabama. Ms. Blue is an employee of defendant Department of VAMC located in Birmingham, Alabama. 11. PlaintiffLaurie Duncan resides in Birmingham, Alabama. Ms. Duncan is an employee of defendant Department of VAMC located in Birmingham, Alabama.
2

Case 2:01-cv-01536-WMA Document 1 Filed 06/18/01 Page 20 of 30
12. Plaintiff Kathleen Duncan resides in Birmingham, Alabama. Ms. Duncan is an employee of defendant VAMC located in Birmingham, Alabama. 13. Plaintiff Sandra Gardner resides in Birmingham, Alabama. Ms. Gardner is an employee of defendant VAMC located in Birmingham, Alabama.
14. Plaintiff Georgia Gray Hampton resides in Birmingham, Alabama. She is an employee of defendant VAMC located in Birmingham, Alabama.
15. Plaintiff Michael Johnson resides in Birmingham, Alabama. Mr. Johnson is an Employee of VAMC located in Birmingham, Alabama.
16 Plaintiff Malinda Morrow-Kitchings resides in Birmingham, Alabama.Ms. Kitchings is an employee of defendant
VAMC located in Birmingham, Alabama. 17. Plaintiff Grace Mims resides in Birmingham, Alabama. Ms. Mims is an employee of the VAMC located in Birmingham, Alabama.
18. Plaintiff Debra J. Pruitt resides in Birmingham, Alabama. Ms. Pruitt is an employee of defendant VAMC located in Birmingham, Alabama.
19. Plaintiff Gertrude M. Sanders resides in Birmingham, Alabama. Ms. Sanders is an employee Of VAMC, located in Birmingham, Alabama. 20. Plaintiff Kathryn J. shirley resides in Birmingham, Alabama. Ms. Shirley is an employee of defendant VAMC located in Birmingham, Alabama. 21. PlaintiffDevin White resides in Birmingham, Alabama Mr. White is an employee ofdefendant VAMC located in Birmingham, Alabama. 22. PlaintiffMary S. Williams resides in Hueytown, Alabama. Ms. Williams is an employee of defendant VAMC located in Birmingham, Alabama. 23. Defendant VAMC is an agency of the United States Government located at 810 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C., 20420. It operates the VAMC in Birmingham, Alabama.
3

Case 2:01-cv-01536-WMA Document 1 Filed 06/18/01 Page 21 of 30
CLASS ALLEGATIONS 24. Paragraphs 1 through 24, supra, are incorporated herein by refere!lce. 25. Plaintiffs sue on their own behalf and on behalf of a class of persons pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), (b)(2) and (b)(3). 26. The named plaintiffs bring this case on behalfof all past and current African-American workers employed by the
VAMC in Birmingham, Alabama who have been or will be denied promotion, subjected to a hostile work
environment, subjected to different terms and conditions ofemployment, and retaliated against because of the employer's pattern and practice of discriminating against African-Americans on the basis of their race ("the Class").
27. Plaintiffs seek injunctive and compensatory relief on behalf of the Class. 28. There are at least 850 Class members, residing in Birmingham, Alabama, and contiguous areas. 29. The Class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. 30. Questions of fact and law common to the Class include, among other things:
a. whether the VAMC located in Birmingham, Alabama has a pattern and practice of illegal discrimination based on race;
b. whether VAMC has intentionally engaged in this discrimination; c. whether VAMC has engaged in this discrimination with malice and/or reckless indifference to the federal of plaintiffs and the Class; d. whether plaintiffs and the Class have been discriminated against by being denied promotion on the basis of their race; e. whether plaintiffs and the Class have been discriminated against by being subjected to a hostile work environment on the basis of their race; f whether plaintiffs and the Class have been discriminated against by
4

Case 2:01-cv-01536-WMA Document 1 Filed 06/18/01 Page 22 of 30
being subjected to different terms and conditions of employment on the basis oftheir race;
g. whether plaintiffs and the Class have been discriminated against by being subjected to retaliation on the basis oftheir having opposed
VAMC's discriminatory practices/and or initiated discrimination claims
With the EEOC: h. whether plaintiffs and the Class have suffered damages caused by
VAMC's conduct; and i. whether injunctive relief is appropriate as a remedy for VAMCs past
and future discrimination. 31. Plaintiffs' claims are typical of the claims of the Class. 32. Plaintiffs and their counsel will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class. 33. VAMC has acted/refused to act and is acting/refusing to act on grounds generally applicable to the Class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the Class as a whole. 34. The common questions of fact and law predominate over questions affecting only individual members. 35. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. 36. There are no unusual difficulties likely to be encountered in the management of this litigation as a class action. 37. Notice to the Class may be accomplished inexpensively, efficiently and in a manner best designed to protect the due process rights of all Class members by means of written notices
5

Case 2:01-cv-01536-WMA Document 1 Filed 06/18/01 Page 23 of 30
supplied through VAMC' s system of communication with its employees. FACTUAL AllEGATIONS
A. Defendant VAMC 38. Approximately 700 people who work for VAMC are African-American, which amounts to 49% percent of its total work force. VAMC has perpetrated a company-wide pattern and practice of illegal discrimination against its African-American workers because of their race. Furthermore, VAMC has engaged in this discrimination intentionally and with malice and/or reckless indifference to the federal rights of its workers. 39. African-Americans who work for VAMC find it much more difficult to receive promotions than their similarly situated Caucasian coworkers. It is expected among most African-Americans at VAMC that the position (and corresponding pay and benefits) they have when they begin their career at VAMC is likely to be the same at which they leave. Company-wide, African-Americans are kept at lower-level jobs longer than other similarly situated workers, in spite of the fact that these African-American employees are qualified and apply for advancement. This phenomenon is so significant that it cannot be explained merely by chance. The experiences of the plaintiffs, shown below, are typical. African-Americans watch as worker after worker is promoted ahead of them. This disparate treatment is caused by VAMC's pattern and practice of discrimination based on race. 40. African-Americans at VAMC also fmd it much more difficult to receive the training necessary to compete for promotions than their similarly situated Caucasian coworkers. The experiences of the plaintiffs are typical. For example, African Americans experience difficulty in procuring approved leave to pursue educational interests, while their white counterparts appear not to have similar difficulties. This disparate treatment is caused by VAMC's pattern and practice of
6

Case 2:01-cv-01536-WMA Document 1 Filed 06/18/01 Page 24 of 30
discrimination based on race. at VAMC. The experiences of the plaintiffs are typical. African-Americans are forced to listen to racial slurs and are the subjects of crude and embarassing remarks, they are subjected to the
severest of disciplinary sanctions, including suspensions and 'docked pay' for trivial infractions, they are denied annual and sick leave arbitrarily, they are issued written reprimands unwarrantedly, they are permanently transferred from their tours of duty based on dubious allegations, and they are made to suffer other indignities and other acts of intimidation by their co-workers, which more often than not, go unpunished. Importantly, these actions are instigated not only by coworkers, but by VAMC supervisors. Because the supervisors tacitly or openly approve of such treatment, there is little that can be done by an individual African-American to escape such harassment. This disparate treatment is caused by VAMC' s pattemand practice of discrimination based on race.
41. Reports to VAMC of disparate treatment as regards promotion, training, and hostile work environment were purportedly investigated with virtually the same results: the supervisors were almost always found to have done nothing Some Mrican-Americans who raise concerns about discrimination are retaliated against by the company. Those remedial measures that are pursued are ineffective. In spite of official statements that VAMC supports racial diversity, the message clearly communicated to workers is that racial discrimination against African-Americans is standard operating procedure, and will not generally result in adverse employment action. 42. Senior management at VAMC are well aware that there is a company-wide pattern and practice of racial discrimination in promotion, pay and other areas. Mr. Y.C. Parris, Director of VAMC, has been contacted on numerous occasions by officials ofthe local union to intervene on behalfofthe aggrieved blacks. However, Mr. Y.C. Parris ignores such complaints and lends his support to unwarranted and adverse actions taken by his managers against African-American employees. 43. VAMC' s pattern and practice of illegal employment discrimination has persisted for decades,
7

Case 2:01-cv-01536-WMA Document 1 Filed 06/18/01 Page 25 of 30
and continues to the present date, both as regards the plaintiffs and the Class. 44. VAMC's pattern and practice of racial discrimination has injured_ plaintiffs and the Class in various ways. VAMC's failure to promote plaintiffs, subjecting them to a hostile work environment, subjecting them to different terms and conditions of employment, and retaliation have at the very least cost the plaintiffs the significant additional salary and benefits to which they are entitled. But plaintiffs injury is not limited to things appearing on a pay stub. The racial discrimination practiced by VAMC has devalued the plaintiffs by telling them they are not worth as much as Caucasians. This has caused plaintiffs an immense amount of harm, including physical and emotional pain and suffering.
45. All Class representatives are of African-American race. 46. Patricia Belton: During 1997 Ms. Belton was wrongfully charged with abuse ofa patient. Although VAMC conceded that the charges could not be substantiated, plaintiff was nevertheless transferred to a less desirable unit. In contrast, a white employee was convicted of abuse of a patient and was permitted to retain her position in her duty area. Ms. Belton has exhausted her administrative remedy under Title Vll of the Civil Rights Act. 47. Doris Blue: Ms. is the current president of the local union (American Federation of Government Employees) which represents the employees of VAMC. Ms. Blue has filed numerous employment discrimination against VAMC in her individual capacity alleging harassment and retaliation, and in particular that she was being treated differently than white employees in terms of being disciplined for taking annual leave and in terms of
8

Case 2:01-cv-01536-WMA Document 1 Filed 06/18/01 Page 26 of 30
attendance. Ms. Blue has also represented numerous employees at various levels throughout the EEOC and grievance process within the union, as well as counseled many other employees who contemplated filing discrimination actions against VAMC. Ms. Blue has exhausted administrative remedies under Title Vll of the Civil Rights Act.
48. Byron Clark: Mr. Clark began working with the VAMC in July 1994. He has a degree in Mechanical Engineer. Mr. Clark has had little or no opportunity for advancement in his department and has been denied the necessary training that would enhance his chances of earning a higher salary. Mr. Clark has been subjected to constant harassment and degrading comments about his work.. Less qualified white employees in his department have been better assignments as well as training. His work environment has been racially hostile and has continued to this date. 49. Laurie Duncan: Ms. Duncan works in the Department of Audiology and Speech Pathology of the VAMC She experienced a pattern of harassment beginning in September 1998 when a white employee beginning in September 1998 when a white male employee used his cane to hoist her skirt above her head. Although the matter was reported to management, nothing was done to ensure that she was not harassed. The male stalked her, chased her, and made derogatory comments to her. Ms. Duncan experienced fear in the workplace and was ignored when she complained to her immediate supervisor. She alleges retaliation by her supervisor. She also alleges that she is being paid a lower salary than similarly situated whites. Ms. Duncan has exhausted her administrative remedies under Title Vll of the Civil Rights Act. 50. Kathleen Duncan: Kathleen is the sister of Laurie Duncan. She too was harassed by two white males who stalked and chased her leading to her reporting an assault to the police. Ms. Kathleen Duncan was transferred to a different unit, thereby placing all the burdens of the workplace harassment on the victim. The harasser remained assigned to the supervisor of the Visual Impairment Service Team, who was also accussed of harassment. Kathleen was retaliated against with a suspension and failed to earn any salary increases. Kathleen has exhausted her
C)

Case 2:01-cv-01536-WMA Document 1 Filed 06/18/01 Page 27 of 30
administrative remedies under Title Vll of the Civil Rights Act. 51. Sandra Gardner: Ms. Gardner has endured many years of discrimination while working at the VAMC. Her current race discrimination complaint includes allegations of discriminatory assignments, selective disciplinary actions, and retaliation for having pursued her EEO complaint. Ms. Gardner alleges that similarly situated Caucasians are not subjected to similar treatment. 52. Georgia Gray Hampton: Ms. Hampton alleges a pattern and practice of race based harassment, including being disciplined without justification for taking sick leave; being transferred to a unit with more physically onerous duties after seeking accommodation for light duty work because of on the job injury. White employees were not similarly treated. In fact, one white employee who complained about "too much work" was moved to a less demanding unit. Because Ms. Hampton
,·
filed an EEO complaint she was retaliated against by VAMC which instituted rigorous standards if she wanted annual or sick leave and arbitrarily denied some of her requested leave. 53. Michael Johnson: During December 1997 Mr. Johnson applied for the position of Clinical Pharmacist. In January 1998 Mr. Johnson was notified that he had not been selected. In fact, a white female was selected for the job, who lacked his experience and qualifications. Mr. Johnson has a doctorate in Pharmacy, but his assignments have not been commensurate with his education. He had not even received the I to 5 step increase in salary to which he was entitled after completion ofhis doctorate degree. Mr. Johnson alleges that he has experienced harassment by his department dating back to 1995 when he filed EEO complaints. Mr. Johnson has inferred that denying him the promotional opportunity was in retaliation for the prior EEO complaints he had filed. 54. Malinda Morrow-Kitchings: Ms. Kitchen had sought promotion as a
Pharmacy Technician, however, she was denied the promotion in favor of a
10

Case 2:01-cv-01536-WMA Document 1 Filed 06/18/01 Page 28 of 30
White male_ Ms. Kitchings alleges that race - African-Americanplayed significant role in the decision as she was better qualified to perform the job_ 55_ Grace Mims: Mr. Mims was employed by the VAMC as a clerk at the GS-1 leveL She is a back to work former welfare recipient_ Ms. Mims went back to school and earned a B.S. degree in Business Administration_ While at the VAMC she was told that she was not allowed to apply for jobs that constituted a promotional advancement because she was a GS-1 clerk_ Ms. Mims alleges that similarly situated whites were not relegated indefinitely to a GS-1 position_ 56_ Debra J. Pruitt: Ms. Pruitt, a Registered Nurse, alleges harassment on account of her race because of the increased workload that she is required to perform. Ms. Pruitt alleges that VAMC is retaliating against her for having previously filed an EEOC complaint_ 57.Gertrude M_ Sanders: Ms. Sanders alleges discrimination based on race. During December 1997, she had made a request for a change in her tour of duty, as well as a request for overtime. However, these requests were denied while requests from other Caucasians were granted. 58. Kathryn J_ Shirley: In July 1998, Ms. Shirley filed a formal EEO charge alleging discrimination in the manner in which she was disciplined for alleged tardiness and use of sick leave_ Ms. Shirley notes that members of the Caucasian race were not subject to these harassment She has exhausted her administrative remedies under Title VII of the EEOC laws. 59. Devin White: Mr. White has applied for a promotion, but was denied. A person of the Caucasian race filled the position in April2000. Mr. White has exhausted his administrative remedies under Title Vll ofthe Civil Rights Act 60.Mary S_ Williams: Ms. Williams alleges discrimination on account of her race as she was hired at a rate of GS-4/1 as opposed to GS-511, the rate and grade at which she should have been hired_ Whites who are similarly situated are not subjected to such reduction in pay. Ms. Williams has exhausted her administrative remedies under Title Vll of the Civil Rights Act
ll

Case 2:01-cv-01536-WMA Document 1 Filed 06/18/01 Page 29 of 30
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: RACIAL DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW 61. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 61, supra.
62. VAMC has intentionally discriminated against plaintiffs and members of the Class in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 et seq., and 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e, et seq., by subjecting them to different treatment on the basis of their race. VAMC has engaged in this discrimination intentionally, and/or with malice and/or reckless indifference to the rights of its aggrieved employees. 63. VAMC conduct has directly and proximately caused plaintiffs and the Class to suffer damages including but not limited to lost past and future earnings, lost benefits, emotional and physical distress, and pain and suffering, in amounts to be proven at trial, and estimated to be in the range of roughly $10,000,000 64. An award of attorney's fees is appropriate in this case pursuant to applicable law.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 65. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 64, supra. 66. Plaintiffs and the Class are entitled to an injunction restraining VAMC from illegally
discriminating against plaintiffs and the Class, and providing plaintiffs and the Class the benefits which they would have received but for VAMC's illegal discrimination. 67. An award of attorney's fees is appropriate in this case pursuant to applicable law.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, plaintiffs, on their own behalfend on behalf of the Class, pray for relief as follows:
12

Case 2:01-cv-01536-WMA Document 1 Filed 06/18/01 Page 30 of 30

A. For a declaration certifying the Class;

B. For judgment against defendant VAMC for damages, including but not limited to back and

front pay, compensatory damages, emotional distress damages, pain and suffering damages;

C. For injunctive relief restraining Boeing from illegally discriminating against plaintiffs and the

Class, and providing plaintiffs and the Class the benefits which they would have received but for

VAMC's illegal discrimination;

D. For an award of attorneys' fees;

E. For all reasonable costs and litigation expenses;

F. For prejudgment interest; and

- r"'\ \'at G. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

t-t .

.t3 \j -:1 {,f /{ ::1 ~ cPuu2~~

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 1st day of December 2000.

4201 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 404 Washington, D.C. 20008 (202)237-8870

Jimmy A. Bell, Bar No. :MD 14639 9610 Marlboro Pike Upper Marlboro, MD 20772 (30 1)599-7620

I.
''

 
 Case 2:01-cv-01536-WMA Document 3 Filed 07/27/01 Page 1 of 5

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

err .- Flf_E0dJ
01 JUl27 PH U.S. o:~_Lii~. T COURT N.D_ vi· All· O.AMA

)

GEORGIA GRAY HAMPTON, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF

)

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

)

)

Defendant.

)

________________________________))

Civil Action No. 01-AR-1536-S

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS. OR. IN THE ALTERNATIVE. FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Comes now the Defendant Secretary ofthe Department ofVeterans Affairs, by and through Herbert H. Henry III, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, and pursuant to Rules 12 (b)(l) and (6), Fed.R.Civ.P., and moves this Honorable Court to dismiss this class action. Alternatively, the Defendant moves for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56, Fed.R.Civ.P. As grounds in support hereof, the Defendant states as follows: 1. This is a putative class action brought by fifteen African-American employees employed by the Veterans Affairs Medical Center ("VAMC") located in Birmingham, Alabama, alleging that they and the so-called similarly situated individuals that they represent "have been denied the opportunity for promotion, who [sic] have been subjected to a hostile work environment, and/or have been retaliated against because of the VAMC's policy and practice of racial discrimination."

Case 2:01-cv-01536-WMA Document 3 Filed 07/27/01 Page 2 of 5
(Complaint at,, 1, 2). 2. This complaint was initially filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia on December 1, 2000. 3. On March 15,2001, the Honorable Henry H. Kennedy entered an order transferring this
case to the Northern District ofAlabama. In that order, Judge Kennedy also ordered that Defendant would have 30 days after the entry of that order within which to answer or to otherwise respond to the complaint. Upon receipt of the case, this Honorable Court entered an order amending Judge Kennedy's order by extending the time in which Defendant may answer or otherwise respond until July 29, 2001.
4. Under regulations promulgated by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") applicable to federal sector cases, the agent or representative ofa class must first seek precomplaint counseling within forty-five days of the matter alleged to be discriminatory. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.204(b), incorporating 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105. At the first counseling session, a complainant is provided with notice of his or her right to pursue a class complaint of discrimination. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.1 05(b). "If the aggrieved person informs the Counselor that he or she wishes to file a class complaint, the Counselor shall explain the class complaint procedure and the responsibilities of a class agent." Id.
5. None of the named Plaintiffs filed any formal administrative class complaint of discrimination with respect to any matter. While it appears that most of the individually named Plaintiffs filed individual complaints of discrimination at various points in time, none ofthem filed a formal administrative complaint on behalf of the class.
6. Exhaustion ofan individual administrative claim is not sufficient to exhaust a class action 2

Case 2:01-cv-01536-WMA Document 3 Filed 07/27/01 Page 3 of 5
claim. 7. The Complaint should be dismissed for lack ofsubject matter jurisdiction, with prejudice
as to the class claims. Rule 12(b)(1), Fed.R.Civ.P. 8. Alternatively, Plaintiffs fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted at to the
class claims. Rule 12(b)(6), Fed.R.Civ.P. 9. Alternatively, as to the crucial issue of exhaustion of class claims, there is no genuine
issue of material fact, and the Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Rule 56, Fed.R.Civ.P.
10. Because the Plaintiffs plead claims incorporating both unexhausted class claims and miscellaneous individual claims, Defendant moves the Court to dismiss the entire Complaint, with prejudice as to the class claims and to give leave to any Plaintiffs who may have timely exhausted their individual claims and timely filed suit to file an amended complaint asserting such claims.
11. Declarations and a memorandum of law in support of this motion are being filed simultaneously herewith.
WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully prays that the action be dismissed with prejudice as to the class claims and with prejudice as to the individual claims that have not been properly exhausted. Defendant further prays that the Court give leave to the Plaintiffs who exhausted their individual claims to file an amended complaint asserting such claims as may be timely.
3

Case 2:01-cv-01536-WMA Document 3 Filed 07/27/01 Page 4 of 5

OF COUNSEL:
JOHN E. HAUGE Assistant Regional Counsel Department ofVeterans Affairs Alabama Area Office 345 Peny Hill Road Montgomery, Alabama 36109 (334) 223-7026, Ext. 1 Fax (334) 223-7038

Respectfully submitted,
HERBERT H. HENRY III United States Attorney
C}vr1A1At~, ~
JENNY L. SMITH Assistant United States Attorney
200 Vance Federal Building 1800 Fifth Avenue North Birmingham, Alabama 35203-2189 (205) 244-2105 Fax (205) 244-2181 Attorney No. 5787

4

Case 2:01-cv-01536-WMA Document 3 Filed 07/27/01 Page 5 of 5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy ofthe foregoing has been served upon the following by mailing
.fi,. a copy thereofby first class United States mail, postage prepaid, on this the0l7 day of July, 2001:
Everald Fitzgerald Thompson, Esquire 4201 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20008 Jimmy A. Bell, Esquire 961 0 Marlboro Pike Upper Marlboro, Maryland 20772
Assistant United States Attorney
5

 
 Case 2:01-cv-01536-WMA Document 14 Filed 10/30/01 Page 1 of 14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION

GEORGIA GRAY HAMPTON, et al.,

Plaintiffs, v.
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Defendant.

aW CV 01-AR-1536-S itllit\f.D OC1 3n1.00\

MEM~RANDQM OPINION

Presently before the court is a motion to dismiss or, in the

alternative, motion for summary judgment filed by defendant, the

Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs ("the

Department"). For the reasons set forth below, the summary

judgment motion of the Department is due to be partially granted.

I. UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS

Fifteen individual plaintiffs filed a putative class action

against the Department on December 1, 2000, in the United States

District Court for the District of Columbia. Plaintiffs asserted

claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 ("§ 1981"), 42 U.S.C. § 1981a ("§

198la"), and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as

amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e ("Title VII"). Plaintiffs alleged

that their employer, the Veterans Affairs Medical Center

("VAMC"), engaged in and followed racially discriminatory

employment practices and policies. Specifically, plaintiffs

claimed that the VAMC, with regard to African-American employees,

failed to promote them, failed to inform them of job openings,

Case 2:01-cv-01536-WMA Document 14 Filed 10/30/01 Page 2 of 14
failed to adequately train them, retaliated against them, and subjected them to a hostile work environment. Plaintiffs (collectively "the employees"), all of them being AfricanAmerican employees working at the VAMC in Birmingham, Alabama, purported to bring a class action on behalf of themselves as well as on behalf of all past ar..d current African-American VAMC employees who have been or will be denied promotion, subjected to a hostile work environment, subjected to different terms and conditions of employment, and retaliated against because of the employer's pattern and practice of discriminating against African-Americans on the basis of their race.
Upon the unopposed motion of the Department, the District of Columbia court transferred the case to Northern District of Alabama. The Department has not answered the complaint, instead filing the now pending motion to dismiss and alternative motion for summary judgment. No response to the Department's motion has been filed by the employees.
Because the employees have failed to respond to the Department's motion, the Department's assertion that none of the named plaintiffs filed any formal administrative class complaints of discrimination is undisputed. However, fourteen of the fifteen named employees did file individual administrative complaints of discrimination, alleging various forms and means of discrimination. No records exist to reflect that the fifteenth
2

Case 2:01-cv-01536-WMA Document 14 Filed 10/30/01 Page 3 of 14
employee, Grace Mims ("Mims"), ever filed a formal administrative
complaint of discrimination, either as an individual or as a
class agent. The individual administrative complaints filed by
fourteen of the employees have reached various stages of the
administrative process, and some of those complaints have been
administratively exhausted.
When a formal administrative complaint is filed, the
complainant receives a standard document entitled, "Notice of
Rights and Responsibilities." This document is to be signed by
the complainant and the agency counselor addressing the
discrimination claims. The notice informs complainants about the
availability of and procedures for class action complaints.
Specifically, the notice provides:
If you believe that other individuals, similarly situated to you, have suffered from the same kind of discrimination, you may have the right to file a class action complaint. A class action complaint must allege that you have been individually harmed by a VA personnel management policy or practice which has similarly harmed numerous other class members. You must also allege that there are questions of fact that are common to,· and typical of, the claims of the class, and that you or your representative will fairly and adequately protect the interest of the class. EEOC also requires that a qualified attorney represent a class agent.
The following named tE:m employees either failed to file a
civil action within 90 days of receiving the final agency
decision on their complaint, filed an individual administrative
3

Case 2:01-cv-01536-WMA Document 14 Filed 10/30/01 Page 4 of 14
complaint following the commencement of this lawsuit, or failed to allow the agency 180 days within which to render a final decision before commencing this civil action: Patricia Belton ("Belton"), Byron Clark ("Clark"), Kathleen Duncan, Michael Johnson ("Johnson"), Malinda Merrow-Kitchings ("MerrowKitchings"), Debra J. Pruitt ("Pruitt"), Gertrude M. Sanders ("Sanders"), Kathryn J. Shirley ("Shirley"), and MaryS. Williams ("Williams"). However, after allowing the agency 180 days to render a final agency decision on some of their individual administrative complaints and before a final decision was reached, Georgia Gray Hampton ("Hampton"), Doris Blue ("Blue"), Sandra Gardner ("Gardner"), and Devin White ("White") commenced this lawsuit on December 1, 2000. Hampton and Laurie Duncan commenced this civil action within 90 days of the final agency decision on other individual administrative complaints.
:I. ANALYSIS Congress expanded the coverage of Title VII to include employees of federal executive agencies in 1972, when it enacted 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16. Enforcement of this section of Title VII involves several specific and detailed administrative and judicial enforcement mechanisms. In short, the administrative enforcement procedures require an aggrieved party to initiate the complaint by contacting the employing agency's EEO counselor within 45 days of the discriminatory conduct. 29 C.F.R. §
4

Case 2:01-cv-01536-WMA Document 14 Filed 10/30/01 Page 5 of 14
1614.105. If the complaint cannot be resolved informally, a written complaint must be filed within 15 days of receiving notice of the counselor's failure to resolve the matter. Id.; 29 C.F.R. § 1614.204. At this point, the procedures for individual and class complaints begin to diverge.
With an individual complaint, the counselor submits the written formal charge to the relevant governmental agency or department. Id. Once a complaint is accepted, the agency begins the investigative stage of the administrative process. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.108. The individual complainant can then choose between submitting to a hearing before the EEOC administrative judge, who submits recommendations to the agency, or seeking a final decision by the agency without a hearing. Upon receiving notice of final action by a department or agency, or after 180 days from the filing of the initial administrative complaint and until final action is taken, an employee may file a civil action in federal district court. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.407. Once final action is taken by the agency, however, the 90 day filing period begins to run. Id.
In a class complaint, the formal written charge must designate someone as a class agent, and the agency must then designate an agency representative. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.204. The department must refer the complaint to the EEOC within 40 days of receiving it so that the EEOC can issue a recommendation as to
5

Case 2:01-cv-01536-WMA Document 14 Filed 10/30/01 Page 6 of 14
whether the complaint should proceed as a class action. Id. The class must meet the requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation. Id. Once the department receives the EEOC's recommendations, it has 30 days to accept or dismiss the class complaint. Id. If the agency rejects class action treatment of the complaint, then the case is treated as an individual complaint. Id. If the class is accepted, then the case proceeds with investigation, hearings, and final action. Id.
Regardless of the differences between the administrative procedures for individual and class action complaints, one principle holds true for all Title VII complaints of discrimination by an employing, federal governmental agency or department: the administrative processes with the agency or department that has allegedly engaged in discrimination must be exhausted. See Brown v. General Services Administration, 428 U.S. 820, 832 (1976); Grier v. Secretary of the Army, 799 F.2d 721, 724 (11th Cir. 1986). These administrative procedures are preconditions to the right to sue in civil court, and failure to exhaust them will be fatal to a Title VII discrimination claim asserted by an employee of an executive branch agency or department. Brown, 428 U.S. at 832-35.
A. Title VII Class Action Since April 18, 1977, the effective date of Civil Service
6

Case 2:01-cv-01536-WMA Document 14 Filed 10/30/01 Page 7 of 14
Commission regulations regarding class action administrative complaints, an individual plaintiff can no longer rely on the exhaustion of the individual administrative remedies to support a filing of a class claim. Lewis v. Smith, 731 F.2d 1535, 1540 (11th Cir. 1984). Rather, "a federal employee plaintiff seeking to litigate class claims of Title VII discrimination in federal court is required to have exhausted administrative remedies relating to class complaints." Wade v. Secretary of the Army, 796 F.2d 1369, 1373 (11th Cir. 1986). Although some of the employees in the instant action have exhausted the individual administrative processes, none of the employees have filed a formal class action complaint of discrimination. Because the employees failed to exhaust the class action administrative process, summary judgment for the Department regarding a purported class action is due to be granted.
Not only have the employees failed to exhaust the class action administrative procedures, they have completely failed to properly commence a class action administrative proceeding. Although this failure alone is sufficient to indicate to the court that these employees are not adequate class representatives, there is more. The employees failed to respond to the dispositive motion now at issue. The employees failed to file the action in the proper venue. Though this case was transferred by order dated March 15, 2001, and though the
7

Case 2:01-cv-01536-WMA Document 14 Filed 10/30/01 Page 8 of 14
employees are required as class representatives to have a qualified attorney, no such attorney had been admitted to practice in this court as of June 20, 2001 (three months following the order transferring the case), when the court ordered and directed the Clerk to notify counsel for the employees of the requirements for admission pro hac vice. Rather than promptly moving this court for admission pro hac vice so that the employees would be in compliance with the EEOC regulation requiring qualified counsel for class agents, counsel for the employees waited an additional eight weeks and until the Department filed the motion now pending before seeking admission to this court. If there was previously any doubt as to whether the class action aspect of the complaint should be dismissed by summary judgment, such doubt was removed solely by the inadequacy of the employees' performance as "would be" class representatives.
B. Individual Title VII Actions It bears repeating that a prerequisite to a plaintiff's filing a civil action under Title VII against a federal governmental department is the exhaustion of all administrative processes. See Brown, 428 U.S. at 832. Because Mims never filed an administrative complaint and thus did not exhaust the administrative procedures, her Title VII action must fail. Consequently, the Department is entitled to summary judgment on
8

Case 2:01-cv-01536-WMA Document 14 Filed 10/30/01 Page 9 of 14
all claims asserted by Mims. Although some of the employees have received final agency
decisions and thus have exhausted their administrative remedies, some of them lost their right to file a civil action when they failed to commence a civil suit within 90 days of the final agency decision. The final departmental decision on Belton's administrative complaint was rendered on October 28, 1998. The 90 day limitations period expired long before this civil action was filed on December 1, 2000. Similarly, the 90 day limitations period had expired for Johnson, Sanders, Shirley, MorrowKitchings, and Pruitt when they filed this civil action on December 1, 2000. The final agency decisions for Johnson and Sanders were rendered respectively on July 22, 1999, and July 17, 2000. The date of the final departmental decision regarding Shirley's complaint was September 1, 2000, and the 90 day filing period ended on November 30, 2000--just one day prior to the commencement of this litigation. Morrow-Kitchings filed two administrative complaints, but because the final agency decisions were rendered on February 16, 2000, and May 31, 2000, more than 90 days had passed by December 1, 2000. Pruitt also filed two administrative complaints; the Department made its final decisions on those complaints on October 9, 1998, and March 22, 2000. Consequently, the 90 day period during which Pruitt could have filed a civil suit expired before December 1, 2000.
9

Case 2:01-cv-01536-WMA Document 14 Filed 10/30/01 Page 10 of 14
Although no final departmental decision was rendered on Clark's administrative complaint, the complaint was settled in September 1999. Because this civil suit was filed more than a year later, Clark's claims must fail. Kathleen Duncan likewise cannot proceed as an individual plaintiff in this civil suit. Final decisions were rendered in September 1999, and October 1999, on two of Kathleen Duncan's administrative complaints; she thereafter failed to file this civil action within 90 days. She filed a third administrative complaint in July 2000, but she did not allow the agency 180 days to reach a decision before this civil action was commenced. Kathleen Duncan filed a fourth administrative complaint after commencing this civil action, and thus that complaint is irrelevant to the instant litigation. Williams filed an administ1~ative complaint on November 8, 2000, and this suit was filed on December 1, 2000. Therefore, she cannot proceed as a plaintiff in this suit because she failed to allow the Department 180 days to render a decision. To summarize, because this lawsuit was not filed timely in relationship to the administrative complaints of Belton, Clark, Kathleen Duncan, Johnson, Morrow-Kitchings, Pruitt, Sanders, Shirley, and Williams, there is no genuine issue of material fact and the Department is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Therefore, summary judgment for the Department is due to be granted regarding the individual Title VII complaints of the ten
10

Case 2:01-cv-01536-WMA Document 14 Filed 10/30/01 Page 11 of 14
aforementioned employees and Mims, who never filed any administrative complaint.
The failure of the suit as it pertains to the aforementioned ten employees does not spell doom for all of the employees. Hampton, Blue, Laurie Duncan, Gardner, and White are entitled to proceed as individual plaintiffs because they appear to have exhausted their administrative procedures and because they timely commenced this suit. The Department rendered a final decision on Hampton's administrative complaint on November 20, 2000. Consequently, this civil action was commenced within the proscribed 90 day period. Hampton also filed an administrative complaint on December 24, 1998. By December 1, 2000, when this suit was commenced, no final decision had been reached, and the 180 day "waiting period" following the filing of the administrative complaint had expired. Thus, this lawsuit was timely filed as it pertains to Hampton. Blue filed five administrative complaints. Three of these complaints were filed on January 13, 1998, April 5, 1999, and March 31, 2000. Therefore, this suit was filed after the expiration of the 180 day "waiting period" attached to those three charges, and Blue can proceed with her Title VII claim. Laurie Duncan filed three administrative complaints, and the final decisions on two of those complaints were rendered on October 11, 2000, and November 8, 2000. This suit was therefore timely commenced before the 90
11

Case 2:01-cv-01536-WMA Document 14 Filed 10/30/01 Page 12 of 14
day limitations period ended. Gardner filed an administrative complaint on February 2, 2000. Because this suit was filed after allowing the Department 180 days during which to make a decision on the matter, this civil suit was timely filed, and Gardner's Title VII claims will survive the motion by the Department for summary judgment. Similarly, the Title VII claims asserted by White must go forward because, in filing suit on December 1, 2000, she allowed 180 days to elapse after filing her administrative complaint on April 19, 2000. Because the Department has failed to produce evidence establishing its entitlement to summary judgment on the individual Title VII claims of Hampton, Blue, Laurie Duncan, Gardner, and White, summary judgment for the Department cannot be fully granted.
C. Section 1981 and Section 1981a Claims As is apparent from the employees' failure to file a formal class action administrative complaint before filing suit in federal district court and as is now apparent from the assertion of § 1981 claims, counsel for the employees must not have taken the opportunity to find or review the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Brown v. General Services Administration, 425 U.S. 820 (1976). Had counsel read this decision, they would know the following: "[Section] 717 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended [42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16], provides the exclusive judicial remedy for claims of
12

Case 2:01-cv-01536-WMA Document 14 Filed 10/30/01 Page 13 of 14
discrimination in federal employment." Brown, 425 U.S. at 835. If this rule had been known and had not been ignored, a § 1981 claim would not have been pled. This court will give plaintiffs' counsel the benefit of the doubt and attribute their invocation of § 1981 to ignorance and will not interpret it as a violation of Rule 11.
Section 1981a provides for the recovery of damages in Title VII actions against a party who engaged in unlawful intentional discrimination when the plaintiff cannot recover under § 1981. However, because the Title VII action cannot proceed as a class action and cannot be pursued by individual employees, except Hampton, Blue, Laurie Duncan, Gardner, and White, no recovery is now due under § 1981a. Consequently, as this § 1981a claim pertains to the purported class and to Mims, Belton, Clark, Kathleen Duncan, Johnson, Morrow-Kitchings, Pruitt, Sanders, Shirley, and Williams, summary judgment for the Department will be granted.
III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, this court concludes that summary judgment for the Department on the class action claims, on all § 1981 claims, and on the individual Title VII claims asserted by Mims, Belton, Clark, Kathleen Duncan, Johnson, Morrow-Kitchings, Pruitt, Sanders, Shirley, and Williams is proper. Summary judgment for the Department will not yet be granted on the
13

Case 2:01-cv-01536-WMA Document 14 Filed 10/30/01 Page 14 of 14

individual Title VII and § 1981a claims of Hampton, Blue, Laurie

Duncan, Gardner, and White. The alternative motion of the

Department to dismiss the action is moot. A separate and

appropriate order will be entered.

DONE this

~~

/'1_. day

of

October

2001.

/~~ WILLIAM M. ACKER, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14

 
 Case 2:01-cv-01536-WMA Document 21 Filed 11/23/01 Page 1 of 8

UNITID STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN BISTRI,CT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVlSION

GEORGIA GRAY HAMPTON, ET AL., )

Plaintiffs

)

)

)

v.

)

)

SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF

)

VETERANS' AFFAIRS,

)

)

Defendant.

)

)

UNITED &TATES DISTRICi COUftf
NGitlf.IIIIISTRitr Of AlA8AM'A Case No. :CV-0It1'~\ --S ~.ygrfJ· '"-
'~~

AMENDED COMPLAINT
UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION- VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS
1. Plaintiffs, by and through their undersigned counsel, Jimmy A. Bell, Esq., respectfully present this amended complaint against Defendant to enforce their rights under the Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.§§ 2000e, et seq. and 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a).
JURISDICTION
2. Jurisdiction of this Coutt is based upon the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq. and 42 U.S.C. § 198l(a).
3. Venue lies in Alabama as the discriminatory acts complained of occurred within said jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. section 1391, et seq.

FACTUAL BASIS OF THE COMPLAINT

4. Plaintiffs Georgia HamJiton, Laurie Duncan, Sandra Gardner, Mary S. Williams, Doris J. Blue, Kathleen Duncan, Devin White are is an African American citizen of the United States whb reside in Birmingham, Alabama.
5. Plaintiffs Georgia Hampton, Laurie Duncan, Sandra Gardner, MaryS. Williams, Doris J. Blue, Kathleen Duncan, Devin White, are members of a protected class (African-American).

Case 2:01-cv-01536-WMA Document 21 Filed 11/23/01 Page 2 of 8
6. Plaintiffs Georgia Hampton, Laurie Duncan, Sandra Gardner, Mary S. Williams, Doris J. Blue, Kathleen Duncan, are members of a protected class (Female).
7. Plaintiffs are employees of the VA Hospital in Birmingham, Alabama.
8. Plaintiffs engaged in protected conduct by filing a discrimination complaints against employees of the Defendant for violations of their rights under the Title
VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq. and 42 U.S.C. §
1981(a).
9. Defendant's employee supervisors knew of plaintiffs' protected conduct (filing a EEO complaints against other VA Hospital employees).
10. Plaintiffs suffered numerous adverse employment actions after engaging in protected conduct.
11. There is a causal link between the protected conduct that the plaintiffs engaged in and the defendant's adverse action against plaintiffs.
12. Plaintiffs have been suqjected to repeated discrimination and malicious acts as a direct and proximate result of their having filed discrimination complaints against other VA employees.
13. Plaintiffs have been subjected to repeated retaliation and malicious acts as a result of filing a discrimination complaint against their immediate supervisors.
14. Plaintiffs were treated differently than similarly situated individuals white and or male employees outside of the plaintiffs' protected class.
15. There is a causal link between the disparate treatment of those who had not engaged in protected activity, or who had engaged in similar activity to the plaintiffs albeit non-protected, but who were not similarly treated by the defendant.
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS
Claim I. Georgia Hampton
16. Plaintiff alleges and realleges paragraphs 1 through 15, with the same force and effect as if set forth separately and at length herein.
17. Plaintiff Georgia Hampton was discriminated against based race (black) and on reprisal (prior EEO activity) when:
18. On or about June 17, 1999, Defendant's supervisory employee directed one of
2

Case 2:01-cv-01536-WMA Document 21 Filed 11/23/01 Page 3 of 8
plaintiffs co-workers to monitor plaintiffs telephone use.
19. On July 14, 1999, Defendant issued plaintiff a letter of proposed reprimand and a letter or reprimand on August 27, 1999.
20. On February 10 2000, Defendant issued plaintiff a letter ofproposed reprimand.
21. On April14, 2000, Defendant supervisory employee denied plaintiff time to prepare for discovery in connection with the processing of a prior discrimination complaint.
22. On April14, 2000, Defendant supervisory employee charged plaintiff with AWOL for not reporting to work station.
23. Defendant disciplined her without justification for taking sick leave.
24. Defendant transferred her to a unit with more physically onerous duties after seeking accommodation for light duty work because of the on the job injury while white employees were not similarly treated. In fact, one white employee who complained about "too much work" was moved to a less demanding unit.
25. Defendant instituted rigorous standards if she wanted annual or sick leave and arbitrarily denied leave.
26. On June 4, 2000, Defendant employee police officer, Kurt Bynum issued the plaintiff a ticket at the direction of management.
27. On June 13, 2000 Defendant issue plaintiff a proposed suspension for 5 calendar days. On August 17, 2000, Defendant infonned plaintiff that she would be suspended for 5 days. The suspension action was effected from August 27 through August 31, 2000.
28. On October 3, 2000, a co-worker was uncooperative in discharging a patient for whom plaintiff had responsibility and Plaintiff recorded the incident on the "patient report tape" which was taken mysteriously.
Claim II. l.,aurie Duncan
29. Plaintiff alleges and realleges paragraphs 1 through 15, with the same force and effect as if set forth separately and at length herein.
30. Plaintiff Laurie Duncan was discriminated against based on her race (black), color (black) and sex (female) when;
31. In September 1998, a white male employee used his cane to hoist her skirt above
3

Case 2:01-cv-01536-WMA Document 21 Filed 11/23/01 Page 4 of 8
her head. Although she reported it to management, nothing was to ensure that she was not harassed. The white male stalked her, chased her, and made derogatory comments to Plaintiff. Plaintiff experienced fear in the workplace and was ignored when se complained to her immediate supervisor.
32. Plaintiff also alleges that she was being paid less then similarly situated whites.
33. Plaintiff Laurie Duncan was discriminated against based on her race (black), color (black) and sex (female) when;
34. On May 5,1999 her co-worker Dennis Futch (whom plaintiff had filed a previous sexual harassment EEO complaint against) entered her work area despite instructions not to do so by management.
Claim III Sandra Gardner
35. Plaintiff alleges and realleges paragraphs 1 through 15, with the same force and effect as if set forth separately and at length herein.
36. Plaintiff Gardner's official filing date ofher amended EEO complaint was March 21,2001.
37. Plaintiff Sandra Gardner was discriminated against based on her sex (female) and reprisal for Prior EEO activity when:
38. The defendant failed to pay her overtime and Sunday premium pay as earned (10/00);
39. The defendant refused to provide a straight evening tour with set off days as had been done with a male (white) LPN that works the same tour as plaintiff and performs the same job (1131/01);
40. The defendant required her to work the remainder of her scheduled tour of duty after approved union training (10/16-17/00);
41. The defendant repeatedly changed plaintiffs days off with they fell on a holiday and manipulates the schedule to show the same days off(1/15/01};
42. Defendant supervisor unfairly questioned the amount of work produced on (112/01);
43. Defendant employee health Nurse called plaintiffs personal physician for a second time to verify her work status (3/13/01 or 3/14/01);
44. Defendant refused to pay plaintiff her sick ]eave even though other employees donated sick leave;
4

Case 2:01-cv-01536-WMA Document 21 Filed 11/23/01 Page 5 of 8
45. Defendant charged plaintiff for union time she had not taken which reduced the amount of time chargeable to authorized absence available to plaintiff.
Claim IV Mary S. Williams
46. Plaintiff alleges and realleges paragraphs 1 through 15, with the same force and effect as if set forth separately and at length herein.
47. Plaintiff Williams official filing date of her EEO complaint was November 8, 2001.
48. Plaintiff MaryS. Williams was discriminated against because ofher sex (female), age (54) and race (black) when:
49. On September 14,2000, she learned a white male co-worker, who was younger then her, was appointed as a Health Tech at the GS-5 level on or about December 1999 while she was hired a GS-4 in the same position. Claim V Doris J. Blue
50. Plaintiff alleges and realleges paragraphs 1 through 15, with the same force and effect as if set forth separately and at length herein.
51. Plaintiff Doris J. Blue was discriminated against because of her sex (female), race (black) and national origin (black) when:
52. On November 13, 14, 16, and 26, 1997,and on December 3, 1997, when the Chief, Nursing Service, denied her requests for a change in her tour of duty and her requests for overtime.
53. On November 13, 14, 16, and 26, 1997,and on December 3, 1997, when the Chief, Nursing Service, requested her to report to him and take annual leave whenever she had to go off station to conduct union business.
54. On December 2, 1997, when she requested a shift change and was subjected to harassment.
55. Plaintiff Doris J. Blue was discriminated against because of her sex (female), race (black) and reprisal (prior EEO activity) when:
56. On December 23, 24, 28, 1998, and January 5, 1999, when her requests for leave were denied.
57. On December 23, 1998, when she was charged with eight hours of leave without pay (LWOP).
5

Case 2:01-cv-01536-WMA Document 21 Filed 11/23/01 Page 6 of 8
58. On December 24, 1998, when she charged with four hours ofLWOP. 59. Plaintiff Doris J. Blue was discriminated against because of reprisal (prior EEO
activity) when: 60. On November 28, 2001, Plaintiff was charged with eight hours of AWOL. 61. Plaintiffs Blue official filing date of this EEO complaint was February 21, 2001.
Claim VI Kathleen Duncan 62. Plaintiff alleges and realleges paragraphs 1 through 15, with the same force and
effect as if set forth separately and at length herein. 63. Plaintiff Kathleen Duncan was discriminated against because ofrace (black) and
color (black) when: 64. On May 30, 2000, she was issued a notice of suspension for 14 days. 65. Plaintiff Kathleen Duncan was discriminated against because of reprisal (prior
EEO activity) when: 66. On January 8, 2001, during the course of her performance evaluation, Plaintiffs
supervisor stated that plaintiffwas "so dumb that she could not read or write." 67. On January 8, 2001, Plaintiffs supervisor implied that she had removed
paperwork from his office without permission. 68. On March 2, 2001, Plaintiffs supervisor informed plaintiff that she could no
longer order supplies; reused to give plaintiff and explanation. 69. In April2001, plaintiff was ordered to be fingerprinted and was issued a proposed
removal. 70. Defendant terminated plaintiff because of she had not been fingerprinted for a
second time. 71. Plaintiffs official filing date of this EEO amended complaint was March 5, 2001.
Claim VII Devin White 72. Plaintiff alleges and realleges paragraphs 1 through 15, with the same force and
effect as if set forth separately and at length herein. 73. Plaintiff Devin White was discriminated against because ofrace (black).
6

Case 2:01-cv-01536-WMA Document 21 Filed 11/23/01 Page 7 of 8
74. Plaintiff Devin White applied for a promotion, but was denied. 75. A person of Caucasian race filled the position in April2000.
RELIEF 76. Plaintiff seeks the following relief: 77. Compensatory damages for pain and suffering, humiliation and discrimination is
$300,000 dollars for each individual plaintiff, per each violation or discriminatory act by the defendant. 78. Pre and Post-judgment interest. 79. The cost of litigation, including reasonable attorney's fees and expert witness fees. 80. Such other reliefthat the court deems just. 81. Plaintiffs Demand a Jury Trial.
Montgomery, AL 36102-1973 (334)265-3333 (p) (334)265-3411 (f)
7

Case 2:01-cv-01536-WMA Document 21 Filed 11/23/01 Page 8 of 8
liA-mp~,?:;-t~- ~ ~J
4201 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 404 Washington, DC 20008 (202)237-8870 (p) (202)966-5270 (f)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

t:f2 ( I hereby certify that on this the

day ofNovember, 2001, a copy of the foregoing

was duly served upon the following:

Honorable Alice H. Martin Honorable Jenny L. Smith OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 200 Vance Federal Building 1800 Fifth Avenue North Birmingham, Alabama 35203-2189

Honorable John E. Hauge Department of Veterans Affairs 345 Perry Hill Road Montgomery, Alabama 36109
by depositing the same in the United States Mail.

8

 
 Case 2:01-cv-01536-WMA Document 59 Filed 01/03/03 Page 1 of 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ~? ,.

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALAB~N'J

SOUTHERN DIVISION GEORGIA GRAY HAMPTON, et al., }

UIIS·D;::;

P/f

J.·
•

II

'·,.; '"J'i .D_ D.r:- "~/ "· ('t)/ It:·

}

Plaintiffs,

}

}

v.

}

CV 01-AR-1536-S

}

SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF

}

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

}

}

Defendant.

}

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before the court is a motion for summary judgment filed by defendant, Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs (uthe Department"). Plaintiffs, Georgia Gray Hampton, Doris Blue, Laurie Duncan, Sandra Gardner, Devin White, Mary S. Williams, and Kathleen Duncan, collectively (uthe Employees"), are the remaining claimants in what was a putative class action originally filed by fifteen black individuals of both genders against the Department on December 1, 2000, in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Plaintiffs, who are employees of the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Birmingham, Alabama, make claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (uTitle VII") and 42 U.S.C. § 1981a. The action was transferred to this court on March 15, 2001, upon the unopposed motion of the Department. The file was

Case 2:01-cv-01536-WMA Document 59 Filed 01/03/03 Page 2 of 8
received by this court from the transferor court on June 13, 2001. Rather than to answer, the Department filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. The Employees did not respond. Because of their failure to respond, the Department asserted that it was undisputed that none of the named plaintiffs filed any formal individual and/or class administrative complaints of discrimination, and urged the court to dismiss the action. The court, nevertheless, looked at each individual Title VII claim to determine whether the plaintiff had exhausted his or her administrative remedies. The court thereupon dismissed the class aspect, all § 1981 claims, and ten of the plaintiffs' Title VII claims, finding that no genuine issue of any material fact existed as to such claims. The court determined that five of the Employees had successfully exhausted their administrative remedies as to some of their claims. As to those claims the court denied summary judgment at that juncture. The claims of two individuals were initially dismissed, but were reinstated on December 19, 2002, after they exhausted their administrative remedies. The individual claims of the remaining seven employees are now being challenged by the Department's new motion for summary judgment.
A scheduling order was entered on February 22, 2002. Discovery deadlines for responses to interrogatories, requests for admissions, and requests for production required responses
2

Case 2:01-cv-01536-WMA Document 59 Filed 01/03/03 Page 3 of 8
within forty-five days. The Department served its combined discovery upon the Employees on April 17, 2002. The Employees were therefore required to respond by June 4, 2002, forty-five days thereafter, plus three days for mailing. The Employees failed to respond by June 4, 2002. On June 7, 2002, the Department filed what it termed a "Notice of Default of Plaintiffs' Discovery Obligations and Waiver of Objections to Combined Discovery." In its "Notice of Default" the Department pointed out that because the Employees had not responded by the discovery deadline of June 4, 2002, all requests for admissions were deemed admitted by operation of law. Attached to its "Notice of Default" were two letters concerning discovery, one written by counsel for the Employees on May 15, 2002, requesting more time, and a letter by counsel for the Department dated May 20, 2002, refusing the said request. The Employees did not respond to the Department's "Notice of Default" until July 16, 2002. Attached to the Employees' response was a letter dated June 10, 2002, to counsel for the Department attempting to work out alleged discovery problems. In that letter counsel for the Employees requested that they be given until the week of July 15, 2002, to submit responses to production requests, and until the week of July 29, 2002, for plaintiffs to submit to depositions. Attached to the Department's reply was a letter from the Department that was faxed to counsel for the Employees on June
3

Case 2:01-cv-01536-WMA Document 59 Filed 01/03/03 Page 4 of 8
10, 2002, asserting that the Employees had already made binding admissions and had waived all objections to discovery requests. On July 29, 2002, counsel for the Employees purported to respond belatedly to the Department's discovery requests, at which time the Department took the depositions of the Employees on a very limited basis.
On August 20, 2002, the court entered an order advising the parties that it would ignore what the court found to be confusing papers filed by the parties, but would rule on future motions if and they sought specific relief. The only motions filed after the court's said order are the Department's present motion for summary judgment and the Employees' motion to supplement the record, granted on December 19, 2002.
As noted, depositions of the Employees were taken by the Department on July 29, 2002. Rather than to interrogate plaintiffs on the merits of their claims, the Department simply presented each plaintiff with a copy of the Department's discovery requests, informed each plaintiff of her failure to respond timely, and obtained an acknowledgment of that failure. No motion to withdraw or to amend the deemed admissions has ever been filed by any of the Employees. Instead, counsel for the Employees have responded to the Department's motion for summary judgment by the expedient of submitting purported amended discovery responses along with deposition testimony and
4

Case 2:01-cv-01536-WMA Document 59 Filed 01/03/03 Page 5 of 8
affidavits, some of them unsworn. The Department relies exclusively on the Employees' default
admissions as its basis for summary judgment. The Department urges a dismissal of all claims because there are no genuine issues of fact in light of plaintiffs' admissions pursuant to Rule 36(b), F.R.Civ.P.
On December 19, 2002, the court noticed that a letter dated October 26, 2002, and received by the court from Mr. Thompson, one of counsel for the Employees, had not been filed with the Clerk and was not served on counsel for the Department. The court thereupon directed the Clerk to file the letter, and to serve it on counsel for the Department. The letter was the Employees' attempt to respond to this court's order of October 21, 2002, respecting the strange circumstances surrounding the fabrication of an order purportedly signed by Honorable Lynwood Smith of this court and dated September 30, 2002, and stamped "FILED." Mr. Thompson's letter, inter alia, constitutes an admission by the Employees that at least one of them committed a fraud on the court, forged a court document, and is guilty of a felony. The letter does not reveal which plaintiff was so aggressively stupid. It appears that counsel for the Employees actually drafted the purported motion and order dated September 30, 2002 The signatures of both of counsel on the purported motion and on the certificate of service are undeniably
5

Case 2:01-cv-01536-WMA Document 59 Filed 01/03/03 Page 6 of 8
authentic. There can be no satisfactory explanation for an executed certificate of service on a motion that was never actually mailed to opposing counsel and that received the stamp "FILED11 by some unknown hand.
The Employees seem to argue that summary judgment should be denied because it would be unfair to deem all of the Department's requests for admissions admitted. The Employees say that, after all, they finally got around to responding to the Department's discovery requests after an unsuccessful attempt to work out discovery problems.
The court shares the Department's frustration with the Employees' and their counsels' performance. The court cannot rule on a non-existent motion from the Employees to withdraw or to amend their admissions. If the Employees' failure to file timely responses to the Department's requests for admissions could be excused (something the court doubts), there certainly is no excuse for the Employees not having filed a motion to withdraw or to amend their admissions. The court cannot act as counsel to the Employees, particularly when at least one of them forged the signature of a judge of this court on an order that purported to extend discovery.
Rule 36(b) provides, inter alia: Any matter admitted under this rule is conclusively established unless the court on motion per.mits withdrawal or amendment of the admission.
6

Case 2:01-cv-01536-WMA Document 59 Filed 01/03/03 Page 7 of 8
(emphasis supplied) . Without a motion seeking a withdrawal of or an amendment to the Employees' admissions, the court has no vehicle by which it could avoid the conclusive establishment of the admitted facts, even if the court were willing to do so. When dispositive facts have been conclusively established, Rule 56 controls the outcome.
Even if the Employees were not bound by their admissions under Rule 36(b), they would face several substantial problems under a Rule 56 examination. Fortunately, under the procedural circumstances it is not necessary for the court to conduct an inquiry beyond the application of Rule 36(b). An example of the Employees' problems beyond the Rule 36(b) admissions is plaintiff White's lack of any response whatsoever to the Department's motion for summary judgment, even no reference by her to the other Employees' untimely evidentiary materials. If the reason White has confessed the Department's Rule 56 motion is that she was the forger, she does not admit it.
The court can understand why the Department does not spend any time arguing its motion for summary judgment with reference to the Employees' belatedly filed evidentiary materials that, if considered, would contradict the Employees' Rule 36(b) admissions. The court agrees with the Department that the Employees' admissions foreclose such an inquiry.
The Department's motion for summary judgment will be granted
7

Case 2:01-cv-01536-WMA Document 59 Filed 01/03/03 Page 8 of 8

on the basis of Rule 36(b) and the attempt to obtain an extension

of discovery by fraud on the court.

2~Y DONE this

of January, 2003.

~~ WILLIAM M. ACKER, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8

 
 Case: 2:01-cv-1536 As of: 06/14/2010 10:06 PM CDT 1 of 14
U.S. District Court Northern District of Alabama (Southern) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:01−cv−01536−WMA

APPEAL

Hampton, et al v. Secretary, Dept of Assigned to: Judge William M Acker, Jr Demand: $10,000,000

Case in other court:

USCA, 05−12458

03−11578−B

USDC Dist of Columbi, CV−00−02886(HHK)

Cause: 42:2003 Job Discrimination

Plaintiff

Date Filed: 06/18/2001 Date Terminated: 04/30/2004 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

Georgia Gray Hampton

represented by Amardo Wesley Pitters A WESLEY PITTERS PC 1145 South Perry Street Montgomery, AL 36104 1−334−265−3333 Fax: 334−265−3411 Email: awpitters@pitterslawfirm.com TERMINATED: 10/18/2002 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Everald F Thompson 4201 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 404 Washington, DC 20008 202−237−8870 Email: etesq@aol.com TERMINATED: 02/07/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jimmy A Bell LAW OFFICE OF JIMMY A BELL, PC 9610 Marlboro Pike Upper Marlboro, MD 20772 1−301−599−7620 Fax: 1−301−599−7623 fax TERMINATED: 02/07/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Doris Blue

represented by Amardo Wesley Pitters (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/18/2002 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Everald F Thompson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/07/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jimmy A Bell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/07/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Patricia Belton TERMINATED: 10/31/2001

represented by Everald F Thompson (See above for address)

Case: 2:01-cv-1536 As of: 06/14/2010 10:06 PM CDT 2 of 14

TERMINATED: 10/31/2001 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jimmy A Bell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/31/2001 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Byron Clark TERMINATED: 10/31/2001

represented by Everald F Thompson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/31/2001 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jimmy A Bell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/31/2001 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Laurie Duncan

represented by Laurie Duncan 5613 Avenue I Birmingham, AL 35208 (205) 929−4466 PRO SE

Everald F Thompson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/07/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jimmy A Bell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/07/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Kathleen Duncan

represented by Kathleen Duncan 5613 Avenue I Birmingham, AL 35208 (205) 928−4466 PRO SE

Amardo Wesley Pitters (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/18/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Everald F Thompson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/31/2001 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jimmy A Bell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/31/2001 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Sandra Gardner

represented by Sandra Gardner 1620 Maple Avenue, SW

Case: 2:01-cv-1536 As of: 06/14/2010 10:06 PM CDT 3 of 14

Birmingham, AL 35211 (205) 929−0768 PRO SE

Amardo Wesley Pitters (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/18/2002 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Everald F Thompson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/07/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jimmy A Bell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/07/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Michael Johnson TERMINATED: 10/31/2001

represented by Everald F Thompson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/31/2001 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jimmy A Bell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/31/2001 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tammy C Woolley WOOLLEY LAW FIRM 2013 First Avenue North, Suite 450 Birmingham, AL 35203 205−453−0060 Fax: 205−453−0042 Email: tcwoolley@aol.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Malinda Morrow−Kitchings TERMINATED: 10/31/2001

represented by Everald F Thompson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/31/2001 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jimmy A Bell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/31/2001 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Grace Mims TERMINATED: 10/31/2001

represented by Everald F Thompson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/31/2001 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jimmy A Bell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/31/2001 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

Case: 2:01-cv-1536 As of: 06/14/2010 10:06 PM CDT 4 of 14

Debra J Pruitt TERMINATED: 10/31/2001

represented by Everald F Thompson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/31/2001 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jimmy A Bell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/31/2001 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Gertrude M Sanders TERMINATED: 10/31/2001

represented by Everald F Thompson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/31/2001 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jimmy A Bell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/31/2001 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Kathryn J Shirley TERMINATED: 10/31/2001

represented by Everald F Thompson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/31/2001 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jimmy A Bell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/31/2001 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Devin White TERMINATED: 02/26/2003

represented by Amardo Wesley Pitters (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/18/2002 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Everald F Thompson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/07/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jimmy A Bell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/07/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Mary S Williams individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated

represented by Everald F Thompson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/31/2001 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jimmy A Bell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/31/2001 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant

Case: 2:01-cv-1536 As of: 06/14/2010 10:06 PM CDT 5 of 14

Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs/Veterans Affairs Medical Center

represented by Alice H Martin, US Attorney US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 1801 4th Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203−2101 244−2001 Email: usa−aln−ecf−usa@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Edward Q Ragland US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 1801 4th Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203−2101 244−2001 Email: ed.ragland@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Herbert H Henry , III 602 Dexter Avenue Birmingham, AL 35213 205−276−8876 Email: hhenrylaw@aol.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jack B Hood US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 1801 4th Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203−2101 205−244−2001 Email: jack.hood@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jenny L Smith US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 1801 4th Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203−2101 205−244−2105 Email: jenny.smith@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E Hauge US DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 345 Perry Hill Road Montgomery, AL 36109−3798 1−334−213−3300 Fax: 1−334−213−3309 fax ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lane H Woodke US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 1801 4th Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203−2101 244−2001 Email: lane.woodke@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Scott Sutherland Harris US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE − CIVIL DIVISION Judiciary Center Building 555 Fourth Street, NW Washington, DC 20530 1−202−307−0338 Fax: 1−202−305−0955 fax ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:01-cv-1536 As of: 06/14/2010 10:06 PM CDT 6 of 14

Date Filed 06/18/2001 06/18/2001 06/18/2001 06/20/2001
07/27/2001 07/27/2001
07/27/2001 07/27/2001 07/30/2001
08/13/2001 08/13/2001 08/13/2001 08/13/2001 08/13/2001 08/14/2001
08/14/2001
08/14/2001
10/30/2001 10/30/2001

# Docket Text
1 ORIGINAL file, certified copy of transfer order and docket sheet USDC District of Columbia filed (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/19/2001)
1 NOTICE of appearance for plaintiff by Everald Fitzgerald Thompson within transfer (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/20/2001)
1 NOTICE of appearance for defendant Secretary, Dept of by Scott Sutherland Harris within transfer (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/20/2001)
2 ORDER ; Cs Mgmt ddl 4:30 7/29/01 for dft to answer or otherwise respond, and directing clerk to notify pla's counsel of requirements for admission pro hac vice, filed ( by Judge William M. Acker Jr ) cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/20/2001)
3 MOTION by defendant Secretary, Dept of to dismiss , or, in the alternative for summary judgment filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/30/2001)
4 BRIEF by defendant Secretary, Dept of in support of dft's motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment, filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/30/2001)
5 DECLARATION by defendant Secretary, Dept of, of Cathy Lawton, filed (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/30/2001)
6 DECLARATION by defendant Secretary, Dept of, of Dale M. Leftridge, filed (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/30/2001)
7 ORDER (Submission) that the motion for summary judgment [3−2] is submitted 8/17/01 ; Responsive Brfs Due by 8/10/01, Reply Brfs Due by 8/17/01 , filed ( Judge William M. Acker Jr ) motion docket 4:30pm 8/17/01 cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/30/2001)
8 MOTION by plaintiff to extend time 45 days the filing of response to dft's motion to dismiss/for summary judgment filed cs (MAA) (Entered: 08/13/2001)
9 MOTION by plaintiff for attorney Jimmy A. Bell to appear pro hac vice filed (MAA) (Entered: 08/14/2001)
PRO HAC VICE admission fee paid on 8/13/01 receipt # 200 167644 (MAA) (Entered: 08/14/2001)
10 MOTION by plaintiffs for attorney Everald F. Thompson to appear pro hac vice filed (MAA) (Entered: 08/14/2001)
PRO HAC VICE admission fee paid on 8/13/01 receipt # 200 167643 for Everald F. Thompson. (MAA) (Entered: 08/14/2001)
11 8 − ORDER denying motion to extend time 45 days the filing of response to dft's motion to dismiss/for summary judgment [8−1] ( by Judge William M. Acker Jr ) entered cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 08/14/2001)
12 9 − ORDER granting motion for attorney Jimmy A. Bell to appear pro hac vice [9−1] ( by Judge William M. Acker Jr ) entered cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 08/14/2001)
13 10 − ORDER granting motion for attorney Everald F. Thompson to appear pro hac vice [10−1] ( by Judge William M. Acker Jr ) entered cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 08/14/2001)
14 MEMORANDUM opinion filed ( by Judge William M. Acker Jr ) cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 10/30/2001)
15 ORDER adopting memorandum opinion [14−1] denying in part and mooting in part dft's motion to dismiss [3−1] as set out in this order, granting motion for summary judgment [3−2] as set out in this order ; Status and scheduling conference to be held on 2:00 11/8/01 filed ( by Judge William M. Acker Jr ) cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 10/30/2001)

Case: 2:01-cv-1536 As of: 06/14/2010 10:06 PM CDT 7 of 14

10/31/2001
11/06/2001 11/08/2001
11/09/2001 11/16/2001 11/16/2001 11/23/2001 11/26/2001 12/07/2001 12/07/2001 12/07/2001 12/10/2001 12/19/2001
01/17/2002 01/17/2002 01/17/2002 01/31/2002 02/12/2002 02/21/2002

DOCKET modification (utility event) to dismiss party Grace Mims, party Patricia Belton, party Byron Clark, party Kathleen Duncan, party Michael Johnson, party Malinda Morrow−Kitchings, party Debra J Pruitt, party Gertrude M Sanders, party Kathryn J Shirley, party Mary S Williams pursuant to doc #15 (Former Employee) (Entered: 11/09/2001)
16 MOTION by defendant Secretary, Dept of to sever or drop the remaining 5 pla's filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 11/07/2001)
17 ORDER denying motion to sever or drop the remaining 5 pla's [16−1]; pla's shall amend their complaint by 4:30pm 11/16/01; motions to reinstate shall be filed by 4:30pm 4/16/01; reminding parties of their obligations under Rules 26 and 16, filed ( by Judge William M. Acker Jr ) cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 11/08/2001)
18 NOTICE of appearance for plas Georgia Gray Hampton, Doris Blue, Kathleen Duncan, Sandra Gardner, and Devin White by A Wesley Pitters filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 11/09/2001)
19 Unopposed emergency MOTION by plaintiff to extend time to file their amended complaint and any motions to reinstate until until 11/23/01 filed cs (Former Employee) Modified on 11/16/2001 (Entered: 11/16/2001)
20 19 − ORDER granting motion to extend time to file their amended complaint and any motions to reinstate until until 11/23/01 [19−1] ( by Judge William M. Acker Jr ) entered cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 11/16/2001)
21 AMENDED complaint filed by plas [1−1]; jury demand filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 11/26/2001)
22 MOTION by plaintiff Kathleen Duncan, plaintiff Mary S Williams for order to reinstate filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 11/26/2001)
23 ANSWER to amended complaint by defendant Secretary, Dept of w/appear by atty(s) Alice H Martin filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 12/07/2001)
24 MOTION by defendant Secretary, Dept of for more definite statement filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 12/07/2001)
25 RESPONSE by defendant Secretary, Dept of to motion for order to reinstate [22−1] filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 12/07/2001)
26 ORDER re motion for more definite statement [24−1] hearing set for 9:00 12/4/01 filed ( by Judge William M. Acker Jr ) cm (MAA) (Entered: 12/10/2001)
27 ORDER granting motion for order to reinstate [22−1], granting motion for more definite statement [24−1]; pla's shall amend the complaint w/i 14 days as set out in this order, filed by Judge William M. Acker Jr ) cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 12/19/2001)
28 MOTION by plaintiff for leave to file (late) second amended complaint filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 01/17/2002)
29 28 − ORDER granting motion for leave to file (late) second amended complaint [28−1] ( by Judge William M. Acker Jr ) entered cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 01/17/2002)
30 Second AMENDED complaint filed by plaintiff [21−1], [1−1]; jury demand filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 01/17/2002)
31 ANSWER by defendant Secretary, Dept of to 2nd amended complaint filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/01/2002)
32 ORDER that unless parties fully comply with obligations under Rules 26 and 16 by ; Cs Mgmt ddl 2/22/02 santions will be imposed, filed ( by Judge William M. Acker Jr ) cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/12/2002)
33 Report of Parties (form 35) of compliance with FRCP 26 filed (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/21/2002)

Case: 2:01-cv-1536 As of: 06/14/2010 10:06 PM CDT 8 of 14

02/22/2002 03/27/2002 03/27/2002 03/28/2002 04/17/2002 04/17/2002 06/07/2002 07/16/2002 07/17/2002 08/20/2002
08/27/2002 09/11/2002 10/18/2002
10/18/2002
10/21/2002
10/21/2002

34 ORDER Scheduling that ;discovery cutoff 9/30/02 ; all potentially dispositive motions to be filed by 11/7/02, by Judge William M. Acker Jr entered cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/22/2002)
35 MOTION by pla Michael Johnson for order to reinstate claims of Michael Johnson , and to transfer claims to CV 99−N−2068−S Michael Johnson v Togo D West Jr filed cs w/attachments (Former Employee) Modified on 03/27/2002 (Entered: 03/27/2002)
36 NOTICE of appearance for pla Michael Johnson by Tammy C Woolley filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 03/27/2002)
37 35 − ORDER granted and ordered accordingly motion for order to reinstate claims of Michael Johnson [35−1], granting motion to transfer claims to CV 99−N−2068−S Michael Johnson v Togo D West Jr [35−2] ( by Judge William M. Acker Jr ) entered cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 03/28/2002)
38 NOTICE of appearance for dft Secretary, Dept of by US Attorney Alice H Martin, Edward Q Ragland filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 04/17/2002)
39 NOTICE of appearance for defendant Secretary, Dept of by Jack B Hood filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 04/17/2002)
40 NOTICE of Default of Pla's Discovery Obligations and Waiver of Objections to Combined Discovery filed by dft Secretary, Dept of cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/10/2002)
41 RESPONSE by plas in opposition to dfts notice [40−1] filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/16/2002)
42 RESPONSE by dft Secretary, Dept of to plas response [41−1] to notice of default filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/18/2002)
43 ORDER−when any party files a paper bearing the title "motion" and requesting specific relief based on facts alleged therein, the court will rule on the motion; the court will ignore the confusing papers filed by dft on 6/7/02, by plas on 7/16/02, and by dft on 7/17/02 filed ( by Judge William M. Acker Jr ) cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 08/20/2002)
44 NOTICE of appearance for dft Secretary, Dept of by Lane H Woodke filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 08/28/2002)
45 MOTION by pla Georgia Gray Hampton, pla Doris Blue, pla Laurie Duncan, pla Kathleen Duncan, pla Sandra Gardner, pla Devin White, pla Mary S Williams to withdraw attorney A Wesley Pitters filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 09/11/2002)
COURTROOM NOTES: Case called on motion docket before Hon. Wm. M. Acker, Jr.; preliminary remarks of the court; no appearance by plff; court will grant atty Pitters motion to withdraw; defense states they will file motion with the court on Monday − court will review same when filed; (V. Flowers, crt rptr) (Former Employee) (Entered: 10/18/2002)
46 45 − ORDER granting motion to withdraw atty A Wesley Pitters [45−1] atty A Wesley Pitters for Devin White, atty A Wesley Pitters for Sandra Gardner, atty A Wesley Pitters for Kathleen Duncan, atty A Wesley Pitters for Doris Blue, atty A Wesley Pitters for Georgia Gray Hampton ( by Judge William M. Acker Jr ) entered cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 10/18/2002)
47 ORDER−the parties shall show cause in writing why the purported order by Judge Smith of 9/30/02 should not be ignored and why an investigation should not be conducted into who signed Judge Smith's name and stamped "FILED" on the purported order of 9/30/02; show cause deadline created for 4:30 10/28/02 filed ( by Judge William M. Acker Jr ) cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 10/21/2002)
48 MOTION by dft Secretary, Dept of for summary judgment filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 10/21/2002)

Case: 2:01-cv-1536 As of: 06/14/2010 10:06 PM CDT 9 of 14

10/21/2002 10/21/2002 10/22/2002
10/28/2002 11/05/2002 11/07/2002 11/14/2002
11/15/2002 12/19/2002 12/19/2002
01/03/2003 01/03/2003
01/16/2003 01/16/2003
01/16/2003
01/16/2003 01/16/2003
01/17/2003 01/17/2003 01/17/2003 01/22/2003

49 BRIEF by dft Secretary, Dept of in support of motion for summary judgment filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 10/21/2002)
50 SUBMISSION of discovery by dft Secretary, Dept of in support of motion for summary judgment filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 10/21/2002)
51 ORDER (Submission) that the motion for summary judgment [48−1] is submitted 11/12/02; Responsive Brfs Due by 11/5/02, Reply Brfs Due by 11/12/02 , filed ( Judge William M. Acker Jr ) cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 10/22/2002)
52 DECLARATION by dft Secretary, Dept of on Jenny L Smith filed(Former Employee) Modified on 10/29/2002 (Entered: 10/29/2002)
53 OPPOSITION by plas to motion for summary judgment [48−1] filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 11/05/2002)
54 BRIEF by dfts to plas opposition to dfts motion for summary judgment filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 11/08/2002)
55 RESPONSE by dft Secretary, Dept of to plas motion for leave to court to file supplement to plas opposition to dfts motion for summary judgment filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 11/15/2002)
56 MOTION by plas for leave to file supplement to plas opposition to dfts motion for summary judgment filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 11/15/2002)
57 RESPONSE by plas to order to show cause [47−1] (letter dated 10/26/02 by Everald F Thompson) filed (Former Employee) (Entered: 12/19/2002)
58 56 − ORDER granting motion for leave to file supplement to plas opposition to dfts motion for summary judgment [56−1] ( by Judge William M. Acker Jr ) entered cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 12/19/2002)
59 MEMORANDUM opinion filed ( by Judge William M. Acker Jr ) cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 01/03/2003)
60 ORDER adopting memorandum [59−1], granting motion for summary judgment [48−1] dismissing case w/prej ; costs are taxed against plas filed ( by Judge William M. Acker Jr ) cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 01/03/2003)
61 MOTION by pla Devin White for order to w/ draw as a pla in this cause filed cs (CTS) (Entered: 01/17/2003)
62 MOTION by plas Georgia Gray Hampton, Doris Blue, Laurie Duncan, Kathleen Duncan, Sandra Gardner, plaintiff Devin White &Mary S Williams for order to act as "Pro Se" filed cs (CTS) (Entered: 01/17/2003)
63 MOTION by plas Georgia Gray Hampton, Laurie Duncan, Kathleen Duncan, Sandra &Mary S Williams to vacate jdgmt dts 1/3/03 filed cs (CTS) (Entered: 01/17/2003)
64 MOTION to withdraw attorney as set out filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 01/17/2003)
65 MOTION by pla Georgia Gray Hampton, pla Laurie Duncan, pla Kathleen Duncan, pla Sandra Johnson Gardner, pla Mary S Williams for order to withdraw admissions deemed by the dfts as admitted by the plas filed (consisting of 3 bound volumes) (Former Employee) Modified on 01/17/2003 (Entered: 01/17/2003)
66 MOTION by Everald Thompson and Jimmy Bell to withdraw attorney Everald F Thompson, Jimmy Bell filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 01/17/2003)
67 MOTION by plas counsel to extend time for the filing of plas Rule 59 motions filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 01/17/2003)
68 MOTION by plas counsel to extend time for the filing of plas Rule 59 motions filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 01/17/2003)
69 ORDER, hearing on pending motions set for 9:30 2/7/03 before Honorable W.M. Acker filed ( by Judge Inge P. Johnson ) cm (KAM) (Entered: 01/22/2003)

Case: 2:01-cv-1536 As of: 06/14/2010 10:06 PM CDT 10 of 14

01/22/2003 01/22/2003 01/31/2003 01/31/2003 01/31/2003 01/31/2003 01/31/2003 01/31/2003 01/31/2003 02/07/2003
02/07/2003
02/19/2003 02/26/2003 02/26/2003 02/26/2003 02/26/2003 02/26/2003 02/26/2003
02/26/2003

70 AFFIDAVIT of Laurie Lynne Duncan filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 01/23/2003)
71 AFFIDAVIT of Kathleen Duncan filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 01/23/2003)
72 RESPONSE by dft Secretary, Dept of motion for order to withdraw admissions deemed by the dfts as admitted by the plas [65−1] filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 01/31/2003)
74 RESPONSE by dft Secretary, Dept of motion to withdraw attorney Everald F Thompson, Jimmy Bell [66−1] filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 01/31/2003)
75 RESPONSE by dft Secretary, Dept of motion to vacate jdgmt dts 1/3/03 [63−1] filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 01/31/2003)
76 RESPONSE by dft Secretary, Dept of motion for order to act as "Pro Se" [62−1] filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 01/31/2003)
77 RESPONSE by dft Secretary, Dept of motion for order to w/ draw as a pla in this cause [61−1] filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 01/31/2003)
78 RESPONSE by dft Secretary, Dept of motion to extend time for the filing of plas Rule 59 motions [68−1] filed (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/03/2003)
73 REMARK docketing error − there is no pleading number 73 (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/03/2003)
COURTROOM NOTES: Case called before Hon. Wm. M. Acker, Jr. on motion of attys Bell and Thompson to withdraw as counsel for plffs; Atty Thompson present for hearing as well as plffs Kathleen and Laurie Duncan, Doris Blue, Mary Williams, Sandra Gardner, Georgia Hampton and Devin White; comments of court, counsel and plffs Gardner, Blue and White; Court will grant attys' motion to withdraw and give plffs 20 days to obtain new counsel, or file pleadings pro se; written order of the court will be forthcoming (V. Flowers, crt rptr) (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/07/2003)
79 ORDER granting motion to withdraw attorney Everald F Thompson, Jimmy Bell [66−1]; plas granted 20 days to file additional materials in support of their pending motions as set out Cs Mgmt ddl 4:30 2/27/03 filed ( by Judge William M. Acker Jr ) cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/07/2003)
80 RESPONSE (letters) by pla Laurie Duncan, pla Kathleen Duncan filed (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/20/2003)
81 MOTION by pla Mary S Williams for order to withdraw admissions deemed admitted filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/26/2003)
82 MOTION by pla Sandra Gardner for order to withdraw admissions deemed admitted filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/26/2003)
83 OPPOSITION by pla Mary S Williams to dfts response to plas Rule 59 motion to vacate the judgment dated 1/3/03 filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/26/2003)
84 OPPOSITION by pla Sandra Gardner to dfts response to plas Rule 59 motion to vacate the judgment dated 1/3/03 filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/26/2003)
85 OPPOSITION by pla Sandra Gardner to dfts response to motion to withdraw admissions deemed by the dfts as admitted by the pla filed cs (consisting of 2 bound volumes) (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/26/2003)
86 OBJECTIONS by pla Sandra Gardner to dfts evidentiary materials in support of summary judgment; memorandum in support of summary judgment; and notice of default [50−1], [49−1] filed cs (consisting of 2 bound volumes) (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/26/2003)
87 OPPOSITION by pla Mary S Williams to dfts response to motion to withdraw admissions deemed by the dfts as admitted by the plas filed cs (Former Employee)

Case: 2:01-cv-1536 As of: 06/14/2010 10:06 PM CDT 11 of 14

02/26/2003 02/26/2003 02/26/2003 02/26/2003 02/26/2003
02/26/2003 02/28/2003
02/28/2003 02/28/2003 02/28/2003 02/28/2003 02/28/2003 03/03/2003 03/03/2003 03/26/2003
03/26/2003

(Entered: 02/26/2003)
88 OPPOSITION by pla Mary S Williams to dfts response to motion to withdraw admissions deemed by the dfts as admitted by the pla filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/26/2003)
89 OPPOSITION by pla Georgia Gray Hampton to dfts response to motion to withdraw admissions deemed by the dfts as admitted by the pla filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/26/2003)
90 OPPOSITION by pla Georgia Gray Hampton to dfts response to plas Rule 59 motion to vacate the judgment dated 1/3/03 filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/26/2003)
91 MOTION by pla Georgia Gray Hampton for order to withdraw admissions deemed admitted and supplemental Rule 59 motion filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/26/2003)
92 ORDER granting motion for Devin White to w/draw as a pla in this cause [61−1], as it pertains to White, the courts order of 1/3/03 dismissing the action w/prej is VACATED; action is DISMISSED W/O PREJ filed ( by Judge William M. Acker Jr ) cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/26/2003)
DOCKET modification (utility event) terminating party Devin White (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/26/2003)
93 ORDER denying motion for order to withdraw admissions deemed admitted and supplemental Rule 59 motion [91−1], denying motion for order to withdraw admissions deemed admitted [82−1], denying motion for order to withdraw admissions deemed admitted [81−1], denying motion for order to withdraw admissions deemed by the dfts as admitted by the plas [65−1], denying motion to vacate jdgmt dts 1/3/03 [63−1] filed ( by Judge William M. Acker Jr ) cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/28/2003)
94 62 − ORDER finding the motion for order to act as "Pro Se" [62−1] moot ( by Judge William M. Acker Jr ) entered cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/28/2003)
95 68 − ORDER finding the motion to extend time for the filing of plas Rule 59 motions [68−1] moot ( by Judge William M. Acker Jr ) entered cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/28/2003)
96 67 − ORDER finding the motion to extend time for the filing of plas Rule 59 motions [67−1] moot ( by Judge William M. Acker Jr ) entered cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/28/2003)
97 64 − ORDER finding the motion to withdraw attorney [64−1] moot ( by Judge William M. Acker Jr ) entered cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/28/2003)
98 ORDER denying response [80−1] by pro se plas Laurie Lynn Duncan and Kathleen Duncan; they are without merit as set out filed ( by Judge William M. Acker Jr ) cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/28/2003)
99 MOTION by pla Sandra Gardner for more definite statement for the orders dated 2/28/03 filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 03/03/2003)
100 99 − ORDER striking motion for more definite statement for the orders dated 2/28/03 [99−1] ( by Judge William M. Acker Jr ) entered cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 03/03/2003)
101 NOTICE of appeal by pla Georgia Gray Hampton, pla Laurie Duncan, pla Kathleen Duncan, pla Sandra Gardner, pla Mary S Williams from District Court decision; notice of appeal, order appealed from and court copy of docket entries letter mailed cm (Former Employee) Modified on 12/04/2003 (Entered: 03/26/2003)
APPEAL fee received in amount of $ 105 (Former Employee) (Entered: 03/26/2003)

Case: 2:01-cv-1536 As of: 06/14/2010 10:06 PM CDT 12 of 14

03/26/2003
04/02/2003 04/02/2003 04/10/2003 04/10/2003 04/11/2003 04/11/2003 04/14/2003 04/14/2003 05/21/2003 05/28/2003 06/30/2003 07/01/2003 08/14/2003
12/03/2003 12/04/2003 12/04/2003
04/22/2004

102 NOTICE of appeal (Amendment) by pla Georgia Gray Hampton, pla Laurie Duncan, pla Kathleen Duncan, pla Sandra Gardner, pla Mary S Williams from District Court decision; notice of appeal, order appealed from and court copy of docket entries letter mailed cm (Former Employee) Modified on 12/04/2003 (Entered: 03/26/2003)
103 Appeal Information Sheet (yellow copy) filed [102−1], [101−1] (Former Employee) (Entered: 04/02/2003)
NOTIFICATION by Circuit Court of Appellate docket number, 03−11578−B (Former Employee) (Entered: 04/02/2003)
106 MOTION by pla Kathleen Duncan for appointment of counsel filed (Former Employee) (Entered: 04/14/2003)
107 MOTION by pla Laurie Duncan for appointment of counsel filed (Former Employee) (Entered: 04/14/2003)
104 Appeal Information Sheet (xerox copy) filed [102−1], [101−1] by Laurie Duncan (Former Employee) Modified on 05/06/2003 (Entered: 04/14/2003)
105 Appeal Information Sheet (xerox copy) filed [102−1], [101−1] by Kathleen Duncan (Former Employee) Modified on 05/06/2003 (Entered: 04/14/2003)
108 107 − ORDER denying motion for appointment of counsel [107−1] ( by Judge William M. Acker Jr ) entered cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 04/14/2003)
109 106 − ORDER denying motion for appointment of counsel [106−1] ( by Judge William M. Acker Jr ) entered cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 04/14/2003)
110 TRANSCRIPT of motions hearing had before Judge William M. Acker Jr on 2/7/03, filed − Court Reporter Virginia Flowers (Former Employee) (Entered: 05/21/2003)
Original Court Files consisting of One (1) Box containing Three (3) Volumes of Pleadings &Three (3) Expandable Folders of docs too large for files sent to USCA upon request (SRJ) (Entered: 05/28/2003)
REMARK original court files consisting of one box containing 3 volumes of pleadings and 3 expandable folders of documents too large for files returned from USCA (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/30/2003)
111 Copy of Appellate Court order: appellant's motion for appointment of counsel on appeal is DENIED; before Anderson filed (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/01/2003)
112 CERTIFIED copy of Appellate Court order: dismissing the appeal [102−1] [101−1] as to Laurie Duncan for want of prosecution because appellant has failed to file an appellant's brief and record excerpts w/i the time fixed by the rules; by Roxanne Green for the court by direction (Former Employee) Modified on 12/03/2003 (Entered: 08/15/2003)
DOCKET modification (utility event) Case reopened pursuant to order entered on 8/14/03 doc #112 case closed in error, only Laurie Duncan was dismissed on appeal (Former Employee) (Entered: 12/03/2003)
113 CERTIFICATE of Readiness issued, cm (SRJ) (Entered: 12/04/2003)
113 CERTIFIED RECORD ON APPEAL consisting of One (1) Box containing Three (3) Volumes of Pleadings, One (1) Volume of Transcript &Three (3) Expandable Folders of Docs [#53 #65 #77 #85 #86 #87 #88 #89 &#90] which are too large for Vols with certified copy of docket entries and transmittal mailed to US Court of cm (SRJ) Modified on 12/04/2003 (Entered: 12/04/2003)
114 CERTIFIED copy of Appellate Court order affirming the decision of the District Court [102−1] [101−1]; before Black, Barkett and Marcus, issued as mandate 4/21/04 filed with unpublished opinion attached (Former Employee) (Entered: 04/26/2004)

Case: 2:01-cv-1536 As of: 06/14/2010 10:06 PM CDT 13 of 14

04/22/2004 04/29/2004
04/29/2004 04/29/2004 04/30/2004 06/23/2004 04/11/2005 04/11/2005 04/11/2005 04/20/2005 04/21/2005
04/21/2005
04/25/2005 04/26/2005 04/26/2005 04/27/2005 04/29/2005 05/02/2005 05/02/2005

REMARK original court file consisting of 3 volumes and original exhibits consisting of 3 expandable folders returned from USCA (Former Employee) (Entered: 04/26/2004)
115 ORDER of Appellate Court order: the Clerks Office has been directed to recall the mandate; the clerk of the district court is requested to return the opinion and judgment previously issued as mandate filed (Former Employee) (Entered: 04/29/2004)
REMARK certified copies of opinion and mandate mailed to USCA with transmittal letter and docket sheet (Former Employee) (Entered: 04/29/2004)
DOCKET modification (utility event) vacating appeal order [114−1] pursuant to order from USCA recalling mandate entered 4/29/04 (Former Employee) (Entered: 04/30/2004)
DOCKET modification (utility event) reinstating appeal [101−1] terminating case pursuant to memorandum opinion and order entered on 1/3/03 [reopened in error] (Former Employee) (Entered: 04/30/2004)
116 CERTIFIED copy of Appellate Court order affirming the decision of the District Court [101−1]; before Black, Barkett and Marcus; issued as mandate 6/18/04 filed (with opinion attached) (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/23/2004)
117 MOTION for New Trial or Alternately for Post−Judgment Relief, filed by plaintiff Sandra Johnson Gardner (pro se). [See Judgment in CR 04−C−452−S, Doris J. Blue) (JLM) (Entered: 04/12/2005)
118 Brief by plaintiff Sandra Johnson Gardner (pro se) in support of motion for new trial or alternatively post−judgment relief 117 (JLM, ) (Entered: 04/12/2005)
119 Submissions of plaintiff Sandra Johnson Gardner (pro se) Submitted to Facilitate Plaintiff's Motion for a New Trial 117 , with exhibits attached: # 2 − # 3 − # 4 − # 5 − # 6 (JLM) (Entered: 04/12/2005)
120 ORDER denying motion for a new trial or alternatively for post−judgment relie, Motions terminated: 117 MOTION for New Trial filed by Sandra Gardner,.. Signed by Judge William M Acker Jr on 4/19/05. (MAA, ) (Entered: 04/20/2005)
121 MOTION for New Trial (Memorandum in Support of) or Alternatively Post−Judgment Relief 117 120 , filed by plaintiff Laurie Lynn Duncan (pro se), with exhibits attached. (See Judgment in CR 04−C−452−S, Doris J. Blue) (JLM) (Entered: 04/21/2005)
122 MOTION for New Trial (Memorandum in Support of) or Alternatively Post−Judgment Relief 117 120 , filed by plaintiff Kathleen Duncan (pro se), with exhibits attached. (See Judgment in CR 04−C−452−S, Doris J. Blue) (JLM) (Entered: 04/21/2005)
125 OBJECTION to Order denying plas motion for a new trial or alternatively for post judgment relief 120 filed by Sandra Gardner. (KGE, ) (Entered: 04/26/2005)
123 ORDER denying 122 Motion for New Trial filed by pla Kathleen Duncan. Signed by Judge William M Acker Jr on 4/26/05. (KGE, ) (Entered: 04/26/2005)
124 ORDER denying 121 Motion for New Trial filed by pla Laurie Duncan. Signed by Judge William M Acker Jr on 4/26/05. (KGE, ) (Entered: 04/26/2005)
ORDER striking Sandra Gardner's objection 125 to order denying plaintiff's motion for a new trial.. Signed by Judge William M Acker Jr on 04/27/05. (SKB, ) (Entered: 04/27/2005)
126 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 120 Order regarding motion for new trial filed by Sandra Gardner. (KGE, ) (Entered: 05/02/2005)
127 MOTION to Appoint Counsel, MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Sandra Gardner. (KGE, ) (Entered: 05/02/2005)
128 ORDER denying 127 Motion to Appoint Counsel, denying 127 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis . Signed by Judge William M Acker Jr on 5/2/05.

Case: 2:01-cv-1536 As of: 06/14/2010 10:06 PM CDT 14 of 14

05/06/2005 05/06/2005 05/16/2005 05/18/2005 06/03/2005 06/29/2005
08/08/2005
08/08/2005
08/12/2005 09/27/2005

(KGE, ) (Entered: 05/02/2005)
129 MOTION for Recusal by Sandra Gardner. (KGE, ) (Entered: 05/11/2005)
130 USCA Case Number 05−12458 for 126 Notice of Appeal filed by Sandra Gardner,. (KGE, ) (Entered: 05/11/2005)
ORDER denying 129 Motion for Recusal. . Signed by Judge William M Acker Jr on 05/16/05. (SKB, ) (Entered: 05/16/2005)
131 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Sandra Gardner re 126 Notice of Appeal transcript ordered (KGE, ) (Entered: 05/19/2005)
132 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST Form from Court Reporter Penny Enoch filed (KGE, ) (Entered: 06/03/2005)
133 Certified and Transmitted Record on Appeal to US Court of Appeals consisting of 4 Volumes of Pleadings, 3 Expandable Folders (containing doc #53, 65, 77, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90), and 1 Volume of Transcript per request of USCA (KGE, ) (Entered: 06/29/2005)
134 ORDER of USCA as to 126 Notice of Appeal filed by Sandra Gardner; appellants motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is DENIED because the appeal is frivolous; before Black (KGE, ) (Entered: 08/08/2005)
Appeal Remark re 126 Notice of Appeal: original court file returned from USCA consisting of 4 volumes of pleadings, 3 expandable folders and 1 transcript (KGE, ) (Entered: 08/08/2005)
135 USCA Appeal Fees received $ 255 receipt number 200 218064 re 126 Notice of Appeal filed by Sandra Gardner, (KGE, ) (Entered: 08/16/2005)
136 ORDER of USCA as to 126 Notice of Appeal filed by Sandra Gardner, on its own motion, the Court DISMISSES this appeal AS FRIVOLOUS; appellants Motion to Separate her Pre−Adjudicated Claims is DENIED AS MOOT; before Carnes, Barkett and Marcus (KGE, ) (Entered: 09/28/2005)