Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-2_75-cv-00666/USCOURTS-alnd-2_75-cv-00666-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1Doc. no. 1113. The present motion is but one of many chapters in the lengthy record of

these controversies. This is not the place to recount that history. Readers interested in doing so can

trace its broad outlines in the following list of published opinions (listed in chronological, not

Bluebook, order): Ensley Branch of the N.A.A.C.P. v. Seibels, 14 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 670,

1977 WL 806 (N.D. Ala. 1977); Ensley Branch of the N.A.A.C.P. v. Seibels, 616 F.2d 812 (5th Cir.

1980) (“Ensley I”); United States v. Jefferson County, 28 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1834, 1981

WL 27018 (N.D. Ala. 1981); United States v. Jefferson County, 720 F.2d 1511 (11th Cir. 1983); In

re: Birmingham Reverse Discrimination Employment Litigation, 37 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA)

1, 1985 WL 1415 (N.D. Ala. 1985); In re: Birmingham Reverse Discrimination Employment

Litigation, 39 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1431, 1985 WL 56690 (N.D. Ala. 1985); In re:

Birmingham Reverse Discrimination Employment Litigation, 833 F.2d 1492 (11th Cir. 1987), aff’d

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) Civil Action No.CV-75-S-666-S

)

JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA, et al., )

Defendants. )

—————————————————————)

JOHN W. MARTIN, et al., )

Plaintiffs, )

)

vs. ) Civil Action No. CV-74-S-17-S

)

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA, et al., )

Defendants. )

—————————————————————)

ENSLEY BRANCH OF THE N.A.A.C.P., et al., )

Plaintiffs, )

vs. ) Civil Action No. CV-74-S-12-S

)

GEORGE SEIBELS, et al., )

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This opinion addresses the motion of the City of Birmingham, Alabama

(“City”), to terminate its 1981 Consent Decree, as amended by the 1995 Modification

Order, and to dismiss the City as a party to all actions.1

 The United States, the Martin

FILED

 2005 Jul-12 PM 01:58

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:75-cv-00666-CLS Document 1227 Filed 07/12/05 Page 1 of 49
sub nom. Martin v. Wilks, 490 U.S. 755 (1989); Bennett v. Arrington, 806 F. Supp. 926 (N.D. Ala.

1992); In re: Birmingham Reverse Discrimination Employment Litigation, 20 F.3d 1525 (11th Cir.

1994); Ensley Branch of the N.A.A.C.P. v. Seibels, 31 F.3d 1548 (11th Cir. 1994) (“Ensley II”);

Birmingham Firefighters Ass’n 117 v. Jefferson County, 280 F.3d 1289 (11th Cir. 2002);

Birmingham Firefighters Ass’n 117 v. Jefferson County, 290 F.3d 1250 (11th Cir. 2002).

The extraordinary longevity of these controversies is due to many variables, including such

things as: an enduring local contempt for, and defiance of, national equal employment opportunity

requirements, especially when such obligations are mandated by federal court orders (attitudes that

mirror, but – in the case of Birmingham – exaggerate historic, regional prejudices against full

equality for women and any persons not descended from white, Anglo-Saxon, Scotch, or Irish

Protestant ancestors); the burning sands of local politics, which have shifted in consonance with the

tides of partisan politics on the national and state levels; transformations in federal statutory and

decisional law; and, changes in the demographics of the City’s workforce. With regard to the last

variable, the City’s workforce shortly after the 1981 consent decree consisted of 69% white and 31%

African American (“black”) employees. Those persons could be further subdivided on the basis of

gender into 79.5% male and 20.5% female employees. The gender composition of the City’s current

workforce has not changed radically since then: i.e., it presently is comprised of 72% male and 28%

female employees. The racial composition of the current workforce, on the other hand, is

dramatically different: i.e., 66% of the employees are black, and 34% are white; virtually a complete

reversal over the course of twenty-two years. See, e.g., doc. no. 1115 (City’s Brief in Support of

Motion to Terminate Decree) at 26-27.

A look at the Police and Fire Departments shows an even more dramatic change. In

the first quarter of 1982, none of the Police Captains or Lieutenants were African

American or female[,] and of the 138 Police Sergeants, 10 were African American

and 6 were female. (At that time, 18.7% of the Police Officers were African

American and 11.9% were female.) In 2004, of Birmingham’s 29 Police Lieutenants,

14 are African American and 4 are female, while 7 of the 11 Police Captains are

African American and 4 are female. The Fire Department, which had no African

American Fire Battalion Chiefs, Captains[,] or Lieutenants in March 1982, currently

has African American officers occupying nearly 50% of each of those positions. 

Id. at 28 (citations omitted). 

2

See doc. nos. 1137, 1139.

2

plaintiffs, and the Bryant intervenors (“Martin/Bryant parties”) do not oppose the

motion,2 but the Wilks Class does, at least in part.

I. WILKS CLASS MOTION

Case 2:75-cv-00666-CLS Document 1227 Filed 07/12/05 Page 2 of 49
3

See doc. no. 1138.

4Paragraph 7 of the 1995 Modification Order provides: “The City shall use its best efforts

to develop and implement lawful non-discriminatory hiring and promotion procedures within the

next four years. Applicants certified to the City will be considered without regard to their race or

sex.”

5The text of paragraph 8 (with footnotes omitted) reads as follows: “It shall be the City’s

responsibility to ensure that each selection procedure required or used by the City shall either: (1)

have no adverse impact on the basis of race or sex as defined by the Uniform Guidelines on

Employee Selection Procedures, 29 C.F.R. § 1607 et seq. (1994), (hereinafter “the Uniform

Guidelines”); or (2) be job related for the job classification(s) in question and consistent with

business necessity, in accordance with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42

U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., the Uniform Guidelines and other applicable Federal law. If a selection

procedure or combination of selection procedures is used by the City to rank candidates, the parties

and the Court will consider the candidates’ relative ranking and the actual effect of that ranking in

determining whether the procedure has adverse impact for that use. In accordance with the Uniform

Guidelines, as part of its consideration of the job relatedness and validity of any selection procedure,

the City shall conduct a reasonable investigation of suitable alternative selection procedures and

explore suitable alternative methods of using the selection procedures which have less adverse

impact. Whenever the City or any party identifies a race and gender-neutral selection procedure that

has less adverse impact than a selection procedure required by the City and that alternative procedure

is also agreed by the parties to this Order to be job related for the classification in question and

consistent with business necessity in accordance with applicable law, such alternative selection

procedure shall be used by the City, absent good cause shown.” 

6Paragraph 15 imposed the following requirements: “For each job classification that the City

or any other party identifies as having one or more selection procedures that have an adverse impact

on the basis of race or sex, unless the Court determines the selection procedure(s) in question meets

the requirements of paragraph 8 of this Order or the City revises its selection procedure to eliminate

adverse impact, the City shall complete a written job analysis according to the timetable set out in

its second semi-annual report. Using the results of the completed job analyses, the City shall revise

its selection procedures consistent with implementing selection devices which are job related and

3

The Wilks Class filed a cross-motion seeking the following modifications of

the City’s 1981 Consent Decree and 1995 Modification Order:3 

1. Those portions of the 1981 Consent Decree with the City of

Birmingham that survived the 1995 modification should be vacated,

with the exception of the general injunction of ¶ 1 of that Decree.

2. The City should continue to adhere to the following portions of

the 1995 City Modification Order: ¶¶ 7,4 8,5 15,6 17,7 18,8 19,9 24,10

Case 2:75-cv-00666-CLS Document 1227 Filed 07/12/05 Page 3 of 49
which reduce or eliminate adverse impact.”

7Paragraph 17 provides that: “The City shall modify its interview procedures to ensure that

a written record is kept of each interview. Beginning twelve months from the date of the entry of

this Order, all standard interview questions and interview report forms shall be approved in writing

by the City’s Director of Personnel or his or her designee prior to their use. Prior to receiving any

certification list, the department seeking to fill a vacancy must submit to the Personnel Department

for review a written detailed description of the position to be filled, the essential applicant

qualifications, the proposed interview questions and a proposed rating form. Upon completion of

the interview process, the department will submit to Personnel the appointment recommendations,

with a completed applicant interview rating form.”

8Paragraph 18 provides that: “The City shall continue to give to certified applicants the

opportunity to be interviewed without regard to their race or sex.”

9Paragraph 19 provides that: “Within twelve (12) months of the date of entry of this Order

the City’s Personnel Department shall provide training in employee selection and applicant

evaluation for each City employee with authority to interview or to recommend appointments or

promotions. This training shall also be provided to newly hired or promoted officials with authority

to interview or appoint applicants. City officials who have not attended such training may not

interview applicants for employment or promotion until they complete the required training.”

10Paragraph 24 provides that: “The City shall continue to make its employees available when

their participation in a job analysis or validation study is requested by the Personnel Board or by a

party.”

11Paragraph 26 provides: “Within six (6) months after the entry of this Order, and at six (6)

month intervals thereafter, the City shall submit a report to the Court and to the parties (including

the Wilks Class which is considered a party in all respects to this modification order) on its efforts

to comply with this Order. Each of the City’s semi-annual reports will describe in detail the efforts

made by the City to meet its obligations under this Order to use lawful selection procedures. The

semi-annual reports shall specifically address the progress made during the preceding six months,

areas of agreement and disagreement among the parties, allegations of non-cooperation, and a

compliance timetable for the accomplishment of tasks within the next six months. Any party may

supplement a report within thirty (30) days after it is filed by the City.”

12Paragraph 31 states: “The City shall make all data concerning the development, adverse

impact, use and job relatedness of each selection procedure used or proposed to be used by the City,

including but not limited to, test scores, job analyses, expert reports and validation studies, promptly

available to counsel for the parties upon written request. This data will be provided to the parties

to this Order in a machine readable form as well as hard copy to the extent that it exists in that form.”

13Paragraph 32 provides: “The City shall retain during the period of this Order all records

concerning its implementation. These records shall be made available to any party for inspection

and copying within thirty (30) days upon written request. The City agrees that it will henceforth

maintain applicant and selection procedure data (including an applicant’s name, identification

4

26,11 31,12 32,13 and 33.14 The other paragraphs of that order should be

Case 2:75-cv-00666-CLS Document 1227 Filed 07/12/05 Page 4 of 49
number, race, sex, job classification applied for, date of certification, City administered procedure

ratings and score(s), whether the applicant was disqualified and the reasons for disqualification, and

whether an applicant was hired or promoted) in machine readable form and provide this data in such

form to the parties to this Order within thirty (30) days of their written request.”

14Paragraph 33 states: “All material related to the development of tests or other selection

procedures, including copies of tests or proposed tests, test keys and test results, shall be marked

‘Confidential Test Material Under Seal’ by the City prior to being forwarded to counsel for the

parties. This confidential test material shall not be disclosed to anyone other than counsel, their

immediate staff, the court and its staff, and expert consultants retained by the parties and their staffs,

without the written permission of the City or an Order of this Court. Such confidential test material

shall not be filed with the Court unless it is filed in a sealed envelope marked ‘Confidential Testing

Material Under Seal.’ Any material that is marked ‘Confidential Testing Material Under Seal’ shall

not be disclosed by the Clerk of the Court to the public without an Order from this Court.”

15Doc. no. 1138, at 1-2.

5

vacated.

3. In order to effectuate the relief required by the remaining portions

of the orders, the Court should direct that the City implement the

methodology used in developing the job-related structured interview

selection procedure for the Police Captain classification in all other

classifications as the need to make appointments arises. Appointments

should be made based on the results of structured interview procedures

that meet professional standards for job-relatedness. The City should

retain the necessary technical personnel to adequately train City

employees in the proper implementation of such procedures.

4. The remaining portions of the Court’s orders should be extended

until December 31, 2005.15 

II. GOVERNING LEGAL STANDARDS

The standards governing the City’s motion to terminate its 1981 Consent

Decree and 1995 Modification Order were summarized in paragraph number 36 of

the modification order, providing, in pertinent part, that when

considering whether the City of Birmingham 1981 Consent Decree and

Case 2:75-cv-00666-CLS Document 1227 Filed 07/12/05 Page 5 of 49
6

this Order should be dissolved, the Court shall take into account whether

and to what extent the purposes of this Order have been achieved and

whether there is any continuing unlawful employment discrimination or

vestiges of prior unlawful discrimination against blacks and/or women

prohibited by Federal law.

That language mirrors the principles elaborated by the Eleventh Circuit’s opinion in

United States v. City of Miami, 2 F.3d 1497 (11th Cir. 1993), where the Court

observed:

A court faced with a motion to terminate, as opposed to merely to

modify, a consent decree must begin by determining the basic purpose

of the decree. We find instructive the Supreme Court’s recent decisions

as to the propriety of the termination of decrees in the school

desegregation cases. In Board of Education of Oklahoma Public

Schools v. Dowell, [498 U.S. 237 (1991)], a case in which the district

court had dissolved a desegregation decree, the Supreme Court, as it did

in Rufo [v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367 (1992)],

rejected as erroneous the application of the Swift “grievous wrong”

standard. [See United States v. Swift & Co., 286 U.S. 106, 119 (1932)

(“Nothing less than a clear showing of grievous wrong evoked by new

and unforeseen conditions should lead us to change what was decreed

after years of litigation with the consent of all concerned.”).] Noting

that a decree may not be changed “‘if the purposes of the litigation as

incorporated in the decree . . . have not been fully achieved,’” the Court

stated:

In the present case, a finding by the District Court that the

Oklahoma City School District was being operated in compliance

with the commands of the Equal Protection Clause of the

Fourteenth Amendment, and that it was unlikely that the school

board would return to its former ways, would be a finding that the

purposes of the desegregation litigation had been fully achieved.

No additional showing of “grievous wrong evoked by new and

unforeseen conditions” is required of the school board. [Dowell,

Case 2:75-cv-00666-CLS Document 1227 Filed 07/12/05 Page 6 of 49
7

298 U.S. at 247.]

The Supreme Court then went on to emphasize the importance of

a school board’s good faith compliance with a decree requiring

desegregation when a court is determining whether the decree should be

terminated. Summarizing, the Court said:

The District Court should address itself to whether the Board had

complied in good faith with the desegregation decree since it was

entered, and whether the vestiges of past discrimination had been

eliminated to the extent practicable. [Dowell, 498 U.S. at

249-50.]

We find that the principles articulated in Rufo and Dowell are

applicable to requests to modify or terminate decrees in employment

discrimination class actions, like the one before us. Generally, the

remedies in employment discrimination consent decrees are intended to

eliminate present and future discrimination in employment and

sometimes to redress the imbalance caused by past discrimination. The

decrees fall squarely within that class of decrees that “‘involve the

supervision of changing conduct or conditions and are thus provisional

and tentative.’” [Ruffo, 502 U.S. at 379 (in turn quoting Swift, 286 U.S.

at 114-15).] These decrees are not intended to maintain employment

quotas; their only purpose is to remedy the effects of past

discrimination. Since the impact of these decrees reaches beyond the

initial beneficiaries of the lawsuit, the decrees may have a significant

impact upon third parties, such as non-favored groups. Accordingly, we

hold that the principles applicable to requests to modify or terminate

consent decrees in the institutional reform arenas of prisons and

schools are also applicable to such requests in employment

discrimination class actions.

City of Miami, 2 F.3d at 1505-06 (emphasis supplied) (footnotes omitted). The

Eleventh Circuit went on to instruct the district court on remand: (i) to determine

whether the “basic purpose” of the City of Miami’s consent decree (i.e., “eliminating

Case 2:75-cv-00666-CLS Document 1227 Filed 07/12/05 Page 7 of 49
8

the effects of past discrimination”) had been achieved; (ii) to “consider whether the

City has ‘complied in good faith’ with the decree”; and (iii) to ascertain “whether the

vestiges of past discrimination ‘have been eliminated to the extent practicable.’” Id.

at 1508 (quoting Dowell, 498 U.S. at 250). The Court opined that “termination of the

consent decree would be appropriate if the district court finds that the decree is

clearly no longer necessary either to prevent discrimination in the future or to remedy

the effects of past discrimination.” Id. & n.41 (citing Patterson v. Newspaper and

Mail Deliverers’ Union of New York and Vicinity, 797 F. Supp. 1174, 1181 (S.D.N.Y.

1992) (“To maintain the temporary affirmative action provisions provided for in the

Settlement Agreement after they have served their stated purpose would not only be

beyond the intent of the parties but would also infringe on the legitimate expectations

of non-minority employees.”)).

In Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467 (1992) — a case which, like Dowell,

addressed a motion to terminate a school desegregation decree — the Supreme Court

held that federal courts have the authority to relinquish control and supervision in

incremental stages when compliance with the remedial decree has been achieved in

some, but not all, areas. Id. at 490-91. The Court observed that returning courtsupervised public institutions “to the control of local authorities at the earliest

practicable date is essential to restore their true accountability in our governmental

Case 2:75-cv-00666-CLS Document 1227 Filed 07/12/05 Page 8 of 49
9

system,” and that “one of the prerequisites to relinquishment of control in whole or

in part is that a [public entity] has demonstrated its commitment to a course of action

that gives full respect to the equal protection guarantees of the Constitution.” Id. at

490. Factors relevant to withdrawal of court supervision include: (i) “whether there

has been full and satisfactory compliance with the decree”; (ii) “whether retention of

judicial control is necessary or practicable to achieve compliance” with any

outstanding orders; and (iii) whether the public institution has demonstrated “its

good-faith commitment to the whole of the court’s decree and to those provisions of

the law and the Constitution that were the predicate for judicial intervention in the

first instance.” Id. at 491. Another court within this Circuit observed that, when

considering the foregoing factors, a district court “should give particular attention to

the governmental entity’s ‘record of compliance.’ A local government is better

positioned ‘to demonstrate its good-faith commitment’ to a constitutional course of

action when its policies exhibit a consistent pattern of lawful conduct directed at

eliminating earlier violations.” United States v. City of Montgomery, 948 F. Supp.

1553, 1563 (M.D. Ala. 1996) (quoting Freeman, 503 U.S. at 491). 

Here, paragraph 5 of the City’s 1995 Modification Order sets forth the three,

basic purposes of this long-running litigation:

The long term objective of the parties through the City Decree and

Case 2:75-cv-00666-CLS Document 1227 Filed 07/12/05 Page 9 of 49
16Doc. no. 598 (Order Modifying City of Birmingham Consent Decree) ¶ 5, at 2.

10

this Order is to ensure [i] that any and all unlawful barriers to

employment, assignment, and promotion that have existed for blacks

and women are removed, [ii] that any present effects of past employment

discrimination are fully remedied, and [iii] that equal employment

opportunities with the City are available to all persons, regardless of

race or sex, as required by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as

amended.16

 

III. DISCUSSION

The City asserts that it has achieved at least substantial compliance with the

terms of the decree, and the parties (with the exception of the Wilks Class’s caveats

discussed in Part IV of this opinion) do not take issue with that assertion. The

following sections describe the uncontested aspects of the City’s compliance.

A. Compliance With theDecree’sProvisionsRelating to Review and Revision

of Hiring and Promotion Selection Procedures

Paragraphs 9 through 16 of the 1995 Modification Order established a

procedure for the parties to review data pertaining to the City’s selection procedures,

and to identify job classifications for which further review was warranted. Beginning

in February of 1996, the City provided information to the parties pursuant to

paragraphs 9 and 10 of the 1995 Modification Order. Based upon that information,

the parties identified twenty-nine job classifications for which they requested more

detailed information about selections made since 1990, including the City’s position

as to whether each selection procedure had adverse impact based upon the race or sex

Case 2:75-cv-00666-CLS Document 1227 Filed 07/12/05 Page 10 of 49
17The title of this classification originally was “Fire Communications Operator.”

18The City began phasing out the Labor Supervisor classification during 1992, with the goal

of eliminating the classification through attrition. The City made no Labor Supervisor appointments

between August of 1992 and January of 2003. In January of 2003, however, due to an administrative

error, the City’s Public Works Department requested and received a certification of eligibles for

Labor Supervisor and made three appointments. The City reports that it presently is working with

the Personnel Board to reclassify those employees.

19Operation of The Birmingham Zoo was transferred to a non-profit organization on July 1,

2000. As a result, the Zookeeper classification has been eliminated.

20The hearing was on the motion filed by the Wilks Class for injunctive relief to prevent the

City from proceeding with promotions in the Police Department. Judge Pointer entered a temporary

11

of applicants. As required by paragraph 11 of the 1995 Modification Order, the City

provided the requested information on September 13, 1996. After reviewing the

additional information, the parties winnowed the number of classifications at issue

to fourteen: i.e., Police Sergeant; Police Captain; Police Officer (entry-level

position); Fire Lieutenant; Fire Battalion Chief; Fire Captain; Fire Apparatus

Operator; Firefighter (entry-level position); Public Safety Dispatcher II (Fire);17

Engineering Aide; Gardener; Heavy Equipment Operator; Labor Supervisor;18 and

Zookeeper.19

 

1. Police Sergeant and Lieutenant promotional classifications

eliminated from contention

During May of 1998, former Chief Judge Sam C. Pointer, Jr., to whom these

controversies then were assigned, conducted an evidentiary hearing on the City’s

selection procedures and appointments for promotional classifications in the Police

Department (i.e., Sergeant, Lieutenant, and Captain).20 Following that hearing, Judge

Case 2:75-cv-00666-CLS Document 1227 Filed 07/12/05 Page 11 of 49
restraining order on May 8, 1998, enjoining the City from“making any permanent promotions within

the Police Department to the position of Sergeant, Lieutenant or Captain.” Doc. no. 14. Judge

Pointer vacated the temporary restraining order on May 20, 1998. Doc. no. 17. 

21The Police Lieutenant classification was not identified by any of the parties pursuant to

paragraph 12 of the 1995 Modification Order as one having adverse impact, but (as discussed in the

immediately preceding footnote) the classification was one of the subjects of the hearing on whether

promotions within the City’s Police Department should be enjoined.

22Doc. no. 17 (Order entered on May 20, 1998).

23See supra notes 18 and 19, explaining the elimination of the “Labor Supervisor” and

12

Pointer held that the selection procedures for the Sergeant and Lieutenant21

promotional classifications did not have adverse impact on the basis of either the race

or sex of the applicant. Judge Pointer also found, however, that the procedures

employed to select applicants for promotion to the position of Police Captain did have

adverse impact on the basis of the applicant’s race, and he ordered the City to 

promptly complete a written job analysis for the position of Police

Captain and begin the process of revising its selection procedures for

this position in a way that is consistent with implementing selection

devices which are job-related and which reduce or eliminate adverse

impact, as provided by paragraph 15 of the 1995 City Modification

Order.22

 

Following entry of this court’s December 18, 2000 order, extending all of the

1981 Consent Decrees and 1995 Modification Orders pertaining to any defendant, the

City updated the selection data for the eleven classifications still in contention: i.e.,

Police Captain; Police Officer; Fire Lieutenant; Fire Battalion Chief; Fire Captain;

Fire Apparatus Operator; Firefighter; Public Safety Dispatcher II (Fire); Engineering

Aide; Gardener; and Heavy Equipment Operator.23 Each is discussed below.

Case 2:75-cv-00666-CLS Document 1227 Filed 07/12/05 Page 12 of 49
“Zookeeper” job classifications from contention.

24See the text preceding and accompanying note 22 supra. 

25Doc. no. 785.

26Doc. no. 822.

13

2. Police Captain classification eliminated from contention

As discussed above, Judge Pointer directed the City to revise the selection

procedure for the Police Captain classification on May 20, 1998, because it resulted

in adverse impact based on an applicant’s race.

24 Even so, the City did not begin to

revise its procedure until July of 2001, following the present court’s entry of an order

establishing deadlines for development and completion of selection procedures.25

The City met all of its court-ordered deadlines, and neither the United States nor

Martin/Bryant parties objected to the revised selection procedure. On December 5,

2001, however, the Wilks Class filed a “Notice of Disagreement Regarding the City’s

Selection Procedure for Police Captain.”26

 

The parties and their experts conferred to discuss the objections of the Wilks

Class. Based on the parties’ discussions, the City supplemented its validity report,

provided additional data, revised the selection procedure, and reconvened the subject

matter experts to refine the rating process. The Wilks Class nevertheless maintained

its objection to the procedure, and the City agreed to develop an “Administrator’s

Manual” to provide guidance for future administrations of the selection procedure.

Case 2:75-cv-00666-CLS Document 1227 Filed 07/12/05 Page 13 of 49
14

The City completed the manual on January 19, 2004, and by letter dated February 3,

2004, the Wilks Class advised the City of its view that the City had complied with

paragraph 8 of the 1995 Modification Order with respect to the Police Captain

classification.

3. Entry-level “Police Officer” classification eliminated from

contention

The City conceded that its selection procedures for the entry-level, Police

Officer job classification — which consists of two components: a physical-abilitiesscreening procedure (“PAS”) and a post-physical-abilities-screening procedure

(“post-PAS”) — adversely impacted female applicants, and revised the procedures.

In July of 2001, the City provided the parties a job analysis and validity report

for the revised procedures of the PAS component. Following review of the validity

report, the United States and Martin/Bryant parties objected. The City could not

unilaterally revise requirements for the PAS component, however, because they are

mandated by the Alabama Police Officer Standards and Training Commission

(“APOSTC”), a state entity which is not a party to any of these actions. Approval of

that entity therefore was necessary before modification of the PAS component could

be effected. APOSTC’s authorization was obtained on March 14, 2002, and the

United States and Martin/Bryant parties withdrew their objections.

Case 2:75-cv-00666-CLS Document 1227 Filed 07/12/05 Page 14 of 49
27Paragraph 11 provides that:

The City will notify the court, in writing, by March 16, 2001, as to whether the

parties agree that its selection procedures for each classification listed in paragraph

9 of this order have no adverse impact on the basis of race and sex. If, in responding,

none of the parties contend that any selection procedure for a job classification has

an adverse impact on the basis of race and/or sex, the City will be deemed to have

met the requirements of paragraph 8 of the City’s 1995 Modification Order with

regard to that job classification. Any party may submit any disagreement as to the

adverse impact of any selection procedure for these eleven job classifications to the

court for resolution, provided such disagreement is presented to the court, in writing,

within thirty (30) days after March 16, 2001.

Doc. no. 708 (Order Extending 1981 Consent Decrees and 1995 Modification Orders) ¶ 11, at 8-9.

(emphasis in original) (footnote omitted).

28Doc. no. 739, at 2.

15

The City also revised the post-PAS component, and provided the parties a job

analysis, test plan, the results of an administration of the procedure, and a validity

report in accordance with the deadlines set by the court. None of the parties objected

to the revised, post-PAS component. 

4. Fire Lieutenant promotional classification eliminated from

contention

On March 16, 2001, the City notified the court in accordance with paragraph

11 of the December 18, 2000 order27 that all parties agreed the selection procedure

for Fire Lieutenant had no adverse impact on the basis of either race or gender.28 

5. Fire Battalion Chief, Fire Captain, Fire Apparatus Operator,

Engineering Aide, Gardener, and Heavy Equipment Operator job

classifications eliminated from contention

On the same date, however, the City also reported that the parties disagreed as

Case 2:75-cv-00666-CLS Document 1227 Filed 07/12/05 Page 15 of 49
29Id. The parties agreed that there was no evidence of adverse impact based on gender for

the Fire Apparatus Operator, Fire Captain, Fire Battalion Chief, Engineering Aide, and Gardener

classifications, and based on race for the Public Safety Dispatcher II (Fire) classification.

30Doc. no. 745, at 1-3.

16

to whether its selection procedures had adverse impact on the basis of race for six job

classifications (i.e., Fire Battalion Chief, Fire Captain, Fire Apparatus Operator,

Engineering Aide, Gardener, and Heavy Equipment Operator), and on the basis of sex

for two classifications (i.e., Public Safety Dispatcher II (Fire) and Heavy Equipment

Operator).29 During the April 26, 2001 status conference, the City conceded that the

selection procedure for Public Safety Dispatcher II (Fire) had adverse impact on the

basis of an applicant’s sex, but requested this court to determine whether the

remaining selection procedures had adverse impact on the basis of either race or sex.30

In summary, the City contended — and the United States and Martin/Bryant

parties agreed — that adverse impact had not been demonstrated in the selection

procedures for the Fire Battalion Chief, Fire Captain, Fire Apparatus Operator,

Engineering Aide, Gardener, and Heavy Equipment Operator job classifications. The

Wilks Class argued, however, (a) that the City was required to demonstrate that its

selection procedures did not have adverse impact based on race or gender, and (b)

that there was evidence of adverse impact for each of the positions. Evidence on

these issues was received at a hearing conducted on May 31 and June 1, 2001. 

Following that hearing, this court concluded that the Wilks Class bore the

Case 2:75-cv-00666-CLS Document 1227 Filed 07/12/05 Page 16 of 49
31See supra note 5.

32As will be discussed in more detail infra, in Part IV(C) of this opinion, the Eleventh Circuit

also made the following comments with respect to the Wilks Class’s argument on the City’s burden

of proof under the language of paragraph 8 of the 1995 Modification Order:

It is important to stress that we are not holding that the Wilks class’s

interpretation of paragraph 8 is incorrect. The district court’s interpretation might

be reversed if the issue were before us on appeal from a final judgment, but it is not.

What we hold, and all that we hold, is that the district court’s interpretation of the key

language does not so blatantly misinterpret the decree as to “modify” it and thereby

create interlocutory appellate jurisdiction under § 1292(a)(1). 

Birmingham Firefighters Association 117, 280 F.3d at 1294 (emphasis supplied).

17

burden of proof on the issue of whether the selection procedures had adverse impact,

and that the Wilks Class had not met that burden with respect to the Fire Battalion

Chief, Fire Captain, Fire Apparatus Operator, Engineering Aide, Gardener, and

Heavy Equipment Operator classifications. Accordingly, the court concluded that the

City had complied with paragraph 8 of the 1995 Modification Order with respect to

those classifications.31

 

The Wilks Class appealed those rulings, but the Eleventh Circuit declined to

exercise jurisdiction, holding that this court’s order did not “modify” the injunction

embodied in the City’s consent decree and modification order. See Birmingham

Firefighters Association 117 v. Jefferson County, 280 F.3d 1289 (11th Cir. 2002).32

6. Entry-level Firefighter classification eliminated from contention

The City conceded that the job-task-screening component of the entry-level

Case 2:75-cv-00666-CLS Document 1227 Filed 07/12/05 Page 17 of 49
33Doc. no. 760, at 1-3. 

34The City did not analyze whether the procedure had adverse impact on the basis of sex,

because there were so few female applicants. Doc. no. 760, at 4.

18

Firefighter selection procedure had adverse impact on female applicants.33 Thus, the

parties disagreed only with regard to the post-job-task-screening component of the

Firefighter selection procedure.34 With respect to that component, the City, the

United States, and the Martin-Bryant parties all agreed that there was no adverse

impact on the basis of race. The Wilks class, on the other hand, contended that there

was adverse impact on the basis of both race and sex. The court considered the postjob-task-screening component of the Firefighter classification at the hearing

conducted on May 31 and June 1, 2001. Following that hearing, the court found that

the Wilks Class had not met its burden of proving adverse impact, and that the City

had complied with paragraph 8 of the 1995 Modification Order with respect to that

classification.

After conceding that the job-task-screening component of the Firefighter

selection procedure had adverse impact againstfemale applicants, the City revised the

procedure. During July of 2001, the City provided the parties with a job analysis and

validity report for the job-task-screening component. Following review of the

validity report, the United States and Martin/Bryant parties objected to the City’s

procedure, and negotiations ensued. As a result, the City agreed to revise the time

Case 2:75-cv-00666-CLS Document 1227 Filed 07/12/05 Page 18 of 49
19

requirements for completion of that component, and to provide a physical

conditioning and training manual to (as well as to conduct an orientation session for)

candidates prior to administration of the selection procedure. Those revisions

satisfied all parties.

7. Public Safety Dispatcher II (Fire) classification eliminated from

contention

The City also revised the selection procedure for the Public Safety Dispatcher

II (Fire) classification, after conceding that it had adverse impact based on gender.

This court established deadlines by order dated July 26, 2001, which the City met

with respect to providing the parties a job analysis and test plan. Because the City

initially had no vacancies in the classification, however, the deadlines for

administration of the revised procedure, delivery of results to the parties, and delivery

of a validity report were extended until such time as a vacancy occurred, and the City

requested a certificate of eligibles from the Jefferson County Personnel Board. 

When a vacancy ultimately occurred, the City administered the revised

selection procedure, disclosed the results, and provided a validity report to the parties

in accordance with the deadlines. Neither the United States nor Martin/Bryant parties

objected, but the Wilks Class expressed “concerns” about documentation of the

procedure. Even so, the Wilks Class did not formally object to the revised selection

Case 2:75-cv-00666-CLS Document 1227 Filed 07/12/05 Page 19 of 49
351981 Consent Decree, ¶¶ 11-13.

36Id. ¶ 31.

37Id. ¶ 33. The City has reorganized some of its departments since 1981. As of July 1, 2002,

the Street and Sanitation Department and the Horticulture and Urban Forestry Department were

combined to form the Public Works Department. Affidavit of Ann Thompson, ¶ 7.

38Affidavit of Ann Thompson, ¶ 4.

20

procedure. 

In response to the stated “concerns” of the Wilks Class, the City agreed to

develop an administrator’s manual, the final version of which was completed on

March 4, 2004. Counsel for the Wilks Class then advised the City that, in their

opinion, the requirements of paragraph 8 of the 1995 Modification Order had been

satisfied.

B. Compliance with Affirmative Action Obligations: Sections III, XIV, and

XV of the 1981 Consent Decree

The 1981 Consent Decree established a number of affirmative action

obligations for the City. Specifically, the City was required to develop written

affirmative action plans for five years,35 appoint an Affirmative Action Officer,36 and

appoint separate affirmative action committees for the Police, Fire, and Public Works

Departments.37 The City complied with each of these requirements.

The City submitted each department’s affirmative action plan to the parties on

September 1, 1981.38 The departments updated these plans each year thereafter, and

continued the practice of maintaining departmental affirmative action plans beyond

Case 2:75-cv-00666-CLS Document 1227 Filed 07/12/05 Page 20 of 49
39Affidavit of Gordon Graham, ¶ 6, Ex. A.

40See Affidavit of Ann Thompson, ¶ 5 & Ex. D.

41Id. ¶ 5.

42See id. Ex. E.

43Affidavit of Gordon Graham, ¶ 2.

44Paragraph 31 of the 1981 Decree provides as follows: 

The City shall appoint an Affirmative Action Officer who shall have the

following responsibilities:

21

the five-year decree requirement. 

Following entry of the 1995 Modification Order, the City instructed the

departments to revise their affirmative action plans to reflect the modifications and

revised goals mandated by the 1995 Order.39 Since then, each department has

annually submitted an affirmative action plan consistent with the revised goals of the

City Decree.40 For example, and consistent with paragraph 12 of the 1981 City

Decree, each department posts copies of its affirmative action plans in its main office,

as well as within City Hall.41 Additionally, pursuant to paragraph 13 of the 1981 City

Decree, each department provides a semi-annual evaluation, reporting on the

department’s progress in achieving the goals of the City Decree.42

From the date of the City’s 1981 Consent Decree until his retirement on June

30, 2004, Gordon Graham, the City’s Personnel Director, also served as the City’s

Affirmative Action Officer.43 In that role, Mr. Graham fulfilled the responsibilities

outlined in paragraph 31 of the 1981 decree.44 Following Mr. Graham’s retirement,

Case 2:75-cv-00666-CLS Document 1227 Filed 07/12/05 Page 21 of 49
(a) Advise black and female employees of the terms of this decree;

(b) Post his or her office hours and location and copies of this Decree in

conspicuous places within each department or operational unit of the City;

(c) Receive and investigate complaintsofrace and sex discrimination and

conciliate such complaints when appropriate, and notwithstanding any other

provisions of law, establish a written procedure which shall govern such

complaints;

(d) Maintain a complete record of all actions taken in pursuit of the duties

outlined above, including all correspondence directed to or from the City of

Birmingham with respect to any complaints or investigations undertaken

pursuant to this Consent Decree and any investigatory files; and 

(e) To review, prior to final selection, a department head’s written

justification for failure to select certified black or female applicants in jobs

in which blacks or females are underrepresented. The Affirmative Action

Officer shall submit his or her written comments together with the appointing

authority’s written justification to the Office of the Mayor, prior to final

selection.

45Affidavit of Ann Thompson, ¶ 6.

46Id.

22

Ann Thompson assumed those duties.

Finally, the City’s Police, Fire, and Public Works Departments have separate

affirmative action committees, as required by paragraph 32 of the 1981 Consent

Decree.45 For several years following entry of the 1981 Consent Decree, these

committees met on a regular basis and reviewed departmental job assignment and

disciplinary policies to ensure that the policies were administered in a

nondiscriminatory manner.46 The affirmative action committees presently meet on

Case 2:75-cv-00666-CLS Document 1227 Filed 07/12/05 Page 22 of 49
47Id.

48Paragraph 14 of the 1981 Consent Decree reads:

The City shall continue to develop and reassess its present affirmative

recruitment program designed to inform blacks and women of job opportunities with

the City for the purpose of securing sufficient qualified applicants to enable the City

to meet the hiring goals set forth herein. The recruitment program shall include

maintaining contacts with area high schools, technical and vocational schools,

colleges, and organizations which have traditionally expressed an interest in

providing minority and female applicants or which indicate such interest in the

future, and informing them of employment opportunities with the City. In addition,

where appropriate, advertising of employment opportunities shall be placed with or

in advertising media primarily directed to black and female audiences for the purpose

of emphasizing to blacks andwomen the availability of employment opportunity with

the City. As part of its recruitment program the City shall utilize black and female

recruiters for the Police and Fire Departments.

Doc. no. 247 (Consent Decree with the City of Birmingham) ¶ 14, at 10-11. 

Paragraphs 23 and 24 of the 1995 Modification Order provide:

23. The City shall continue to develop and reassess its present affirmative

recruitment program for the purposes of meeting the objectives of this Order. The

City shall request that the Personnel Board engage in additional recruitment if the

City believes that additional efforts by the Personnel Board to recruit blacks and

women for a particular job classification or group of job classifications would assist

the City in obtaining additional qualified black and female applicants and

overcoming vestiges of prior discrimination. The City agrees to cooperate with the

Personnel Board’s recruitment efforts.

24. The City shall continue to make its employees available when their

participation in a job analysis or validation study is requested by the Personnel Board

or by a party.

23

an ad hoc basis.47

 

C. Compliance With Recruitment Requirements

Paragraph 14 of the 1981 Consent Decree, and paragraphs 23 and 24 of the

1995 Modification Order, address the City’s recruitment obligations.48 The City does

Case 2:75-cv-00666-CLS Document 1227 Filed 07/12/05 Page 23 of 49
Doc. no. 598 (Order Modifying the City of Birmingham Consent Decree, entered Dec. 19, 1995) ¶¶

23 & 24, at 7.

49Affidavit of Gordon Graham, ¶ 8; Affidavit of Ann Thompson, ¶ 8.

50Affidavit of Ann Thompson, ¶ 8.

51Id.

52Affidavit of Gordon Graham,¶ 9. 

24

not engage in independent, formal recruitment efforts, however. Instead, it relies

upon the Jefferson County Personnel Board to recruit candidates for vacancies

occurring in City job classifications. Nevertheless, the City has cooperated with the

Personnel Board in its recruitment efforts, including making employees available to

the Personnel Board for participation in job analyses and validation studies.49 The

City has participated in “job fairs” and other recruiting events held at local schools,

churches, and community centers, to encourage applicants for the Police and Fire

Departments.50 The City also has reported its recruitment efforts as part of its semiannual reports.51

D. Compliance with Job Posting Requirements

Paragraphs 15 and 16 of the 1981 Consent Decree define the City’s obligations

to post announcements of employment or promotional opportunities. Since entry of

the 1981 Consent Decree, the City has posted all written job announcements received

from the Personnel Board for hiring, promotion, or training opportunities in

“conspicuous places” as required by the consent decree.52 Further, departmental

Case 2:75-cv-00666-CLS Document 1227 Filed 07/12/05 Page 24 of 49
53Id.

54Id.

55Paragraph 17 reads as follows: “The City shall not request that the Personnel Board restrict

any job announcements or certifications on the basis of sex except where, pursuant to a proper

validation study, gender is determined to constitute a bona fide occupational qualification within the

meaning of Section 703(e) of Title VII for the job(s) listed in such announcements or certifications,

and such determination is approved in writing by the United States. If such approval is not granted,

the City reserves the right upon proper motion to petition the Court for approval of the

determination.” Doc. no. 247 (Consent Decree with the City of Birmingham) ¶ 17, at 11-12.

25

affirmative action plans contain job posting requirements. The City provided

information about the postings as part of its semi-annual reports. Currently,

applicants or present City employees also may learn of employment opportunities in

the City via the Personnel Board’s telephone job-line, the Personnel Board’s internet

website, or the City’s website (which provides a link to the Personnel Board’s site).53

Additionally, the Personnel Board provides written job announcements to the City,

and the City posts the announcements in the applicable department’s main office and

the City’s Personnel Department.54

 

E. Compliance with Provisions Relating to Prohibition of Sex, Height, and

Weight Restrictions

Paragraph 17 of the 1981 Consent Decree confined the City’s use of sex

restrictions in job announcements and certifications to those situations in which such

restrictions were determined by the City and approved by the United States to

constitute a bona fide occupational qualification.55 Paragraph 18 of the 1981 Consent

Decree prohibitedminimum height or weight requirements that had an adverse impact

Case 2:75-cv-00666-CLS Document 1227 Filed 07/12/05 Page 25 of 49
56Paragraph 18 provides that: “The City shall not use or follow any minimum height or

weight requirements which have an adverse impact against blacks or women as selection criteria for

any classified service position, nor shall it abide by any such requirements if they are instituted and

administered by the Personnel Board.” Id. ¶ 18, at 12. 

57Id. ¶ 10.

58Affidavit of Ann Thompson, ¶ 9, Ex. D.

59Paragraphs 19a through 23 state:

19a. The City shall not require police officers to serve more than three years

uninterrupted service in rank (or two years uninterrupted service in rank for

candidates who have two years of college credits) in order to be eligible to take the

promotional examination for police sergeant, nor shall it require police sergeants to

serve more than two years uninterrupted service in rank in order to take the

promotional examination for police lieutenant. Employees who have obtained

permanent status as police lieutenant shall not be deemed ineligible for promotion

to the next higher rank based upon any minimum length of service or time in rank.

19b. The City shall not require firefighters to serve more than two years

uninterrupted service in rank in order to be eligible to take the promotional

examination for the position of fire lieutenant. Employees who have obtained

permanent status as fire lieutenant or fire captain shall not be deemed ineligible for

promotion to the next higher rank based upon any minimum length of service or time

in rank.

26

on the basis of the applicant’s race or gender.56

 

Since the entry of the 1981 decree, the City has not requested the Personnel

Board to restrict any job announcements on the basis of such criteria, and it has not

imposed minimum height or weight requirements for any position.57 Departmental

affirmative action plans also contain these same prohibitions.58

F. Compliance With Provisions Relating to Promotional Eligibility and

“Promotional Potential Ratings”

Paragraphs 19a through 23 of the 1981 Consent Decree addressed the City’s

eligibility requirements for promotion to certain jobs,59 and paragraphs 24 and 25

Case 2:75-cv-00666-CLS Document 1227 Filed 07/12/05 Page 26 of 49
19c. For purposes of subparagraphs a and b the term “uninterrupted” service

shall include any time spent as a probationary employee.

20. In order to be eligible to take the promotional examinations for the

positions of public works supervisor or construction supervisor, an employee must

have permanent status as a truck driver, refuse truck driver, labor supervisor, heavy

equipment operator or construction equipment operator. In order to be eligible to

take the promotional examination for the position of sanitation inspector, an

employee must have permanent status as a truck driver or semi-skilled laborer.

21. Any employee who has worked full-time in an unclassified laborer

position for twelve consecutive months shall be eligible to apply to take the

promotional examinations for the following classifications: semi-skilled laborer,

truck driver, refuse truck driver, equipment service worker, automotive mechanic

helper. As used in this paragraph, the term laborer shall include the classification of

building service worker, laborer, and refuse collector.

22. Any employee who has obtained permanent status as a semi-skilled

laborer or truck driver shall be eligible to apply to take the promotional examinations

for the following classifications: truck driver, refuse truck driver, labor supervisor,

heavy equipment operator, equipment service worker, automotive mechanic helper.

23. Any employee who has obtained permanent status as a truck driver,

heavy equipment operator, refuse truck driver, or labor supervisor shall be eligible

to apply to take the promotional examination for the classification of construction

equipment operator.

Doc. no. 247 (Consent Decree with the City of Birmingham) ¶¶ 19a-23, at 12-13.

60Paragraphs 24 and 25 read as follows:

24. The City may continue to use the Personnel Board’s current promotional

potential rating system in departments where it is shown to have no adverse impact.

The City shall discontinue the use of the Personnel Board’s current promotional

potential rating system in the following departments in which departments such

ratings have been demonstrated to have had an adverse impact on blacks: Streets and

Sanitation [now Public Works], Police, Fire, Parks and Recreation.

25. The City further agrees to discontinue the use of the Personnel Board’s

current promotional potential rating system to determine eligibility for promotion in

any other department where, based upon any two successive rating cycles (one cycle

consisting of 6 months), there is evidence of adverse impact against blacks. In

27

addressed the City’s use of promotional potential ratings.60 Each is discussed below.

Case 2:75-cv-00666-CLS Document 1227 Filed 07/12/05 Page 27 of 49
determining adverse impact under this subpart the parties agree to rely upon section

4D of the Uniform Guidelines.

Id. ¶¶ 24 & 25, at 13-14.

28

1. Promotional eligibility requirements —

a. Police and Fire Departments

With respect to eligibility for promotional classifications in the Police

Department, the City was not permitted: 

(i) to require more than three years of uninterrupted service in the rank of Police

Officer (or two years of uninterrupted service in rank for candidates who had

two years of college credits) for eligibility to take the Police Sergeant

promotional examination; 

(ii) to require more than two years of uninterrupted service in the rank of Police

Sergeant for eligibility to take the Police Lieutenant promotional examination;

(iii) to deem ineligible for promotion to the next higher rank employees who have

obtained permanent status as Police Lieutenant based on any minimum length

of service or time in rank.

With respect to eligibility for promotional classifications in the Fire Department, the

City was not permitted: 

(iv) to require more than three years of uninterrupted service in the rank of

Firefighter for eligibility to take the Fire Lieutenant promotional examination;

Case 2:75-cv-00666-CLS Document 1227 Filed 07/12/05 Page 28 of 49
61Affidavit of Gordon Graham, ¶ 11.

62Affidavit of Ann Thompson, ¶ 10, Ex. D.

63See supra note 59.

29

or

(v) to deem ineligible for promotion to the next higher rank employees who had

obtained permanent status as a Fire Lieutenant or Fire Captain based on any

minimum length of service or time in rank.

The Jefferson County Personnel Board, not the City, determines eligibility to

apply for promotions, and it is the City’s opinion that the Personnel Board’s current

requirements are consistent with the terms of the City’s decree.61 Even so, to insure

the City’s compliance, the Police and Fire Departments have included provisions

consistent with these requirements in their affirmative action plans since entry of the

1981 Consent Decree.62

 

b. Public Works Department

Paragraphs 20 through 23 of the 1981 Consent Decree addressed employee

eligibility for promotional examinations for classifications within the Public Works

Department.63 While the Personnel Board establishes eligibility requirements, the

Public Works Department has included provisions consistent with the decree’s

requirements in its annual affirmative action plans since entry of the 1981 Consent

Case 2:75-cv-00666-CLS Document 1227 Filed 07/12/05 Page 29 of 49
64Id., ¶ 11, Ex. D.

65See supra note 60.

66Affidavit of Gordon Graham, ¶ 13.

67Paragraphs 26 and 27 provide as follows:

26. Background investigations shall be conducted in such a manner so as not

unlawfully to discriminate on the basis of race or sex. Applicants for employment

shall not be disqualified automatically on the basis of an arrest or conviction record,

a military discharge that is less than honorable, or a poor credit rating. In considering

the effect of a criminal conviction upon an applicant’s qualifications, the City shall

consider at least the following factors: (1) the nature of the position the applicant is

seeking; (2) the nature of the crime; (3) the period of time elapsed since the

conviction; and (4) the success or failure of rehabilitation efforts.

27. The City shall establish a written policy concerning background

investigations within the Police Department within 90 days after this Decree is

30

Decree.64

 

2. “Promotional potential ratings”

Paragraphs 24 and 25 of the 1981 Consent Decree restricted the use of socalled “promotional potential ratings” to those departments in which such ratings

were shown to have no adverse impact,65 and the ratings were prohibited in the Streets

and Sanitation (now Public Works), Police, Fire, and Parks and Recreation

departments. Since entry of the 1981 Consent Decree, the City has not used

promotional potential ratings.66 

G. Compliance With Provisions Governing the Use of Background

Investigations and Dismissals from Police and Fire Academies

Paragraphs 26 and 27 of the 1981 Consent Decree relate to the City’s use of

background investigations,67 and paragraph 29 established the procedure for

Case 2:75-cv-00666-CLS Document 1227 Filed 07/12/05 Page 30 of 49
entered. As part of that policy, the Police Department shall provide applicants who

have been rejected on the basis of the background investigation written notice of the

specific reason(s) for their rejection. An applicant who has received such notice shall

be allowed ten (10) days to respond orally or in writing and to provide relevant

information concerning the basis for rejection. The City shall ensure that such oral

or written response and relevant information is reviewed by an individual(s) who did

not participate in the applicant’s initial background investigation, and that this review

shall occur before the rejection becomes final. The Department’s background

investigation policy shall be reviewed periodically to ensure that it is administered

in a non-discriminatory manner, and that any components, aspects or elements of the

background investigation process which result in a disproportionate disqualification

of blacks or women are either eliminated or shown to be job related in accordance

with the requirements of the Uniform Guidelines. The policy shall also provide that

any black or female applicant rejected for a job by reason of an adverse background

investigation shall be replaced on the next certification list for such job by an

applicant of the same race or gender.

Doc. no. 247 (Consent Decree with the City of Birmingham) ¶¶ 26 & 27, at 14-15.

68Paragraph 29 provides:

29. The City agrees that prior to the dismissal of a black or female from the

police or fire training academy, it shall notify any such black or female in writing of

the specific reason(s) that person is subject to dismissal from the academy, and he or

she shall be given an opportunity to respond orally or in writing within 10 days to

responsible training academy officials with respect to any matters which concern

their academy performance. Copies of any correspondence, notes, memoranda or

recordings concerning any matters covered by this paragraph shall be retained by the

City and shall be available for inspection by attorneys for the plaintiffs upon request.

Doc. no. 247 (Consent Decree with the City of Birmingham) ¶ 29, at 15.

31

dismissing recruits from the Police and Fire training academies.68

During August of 1981, the Birmingham Police Department revised its policy

on background investigations to conform with paragraphs 26 and 27, and provided

a copy of the revised policy as part of its semi-annual report.

Since entry of the 1981 Consent Decree, the City has used background

Case 2:75-cv-00666-CLS Document 1227 Filed 07/12/05 Page 31 of 49
69Affidavit of Gordon Graham, ¶ 14. 

70Doc. nos. 782 & 783 (Memorandum Opinion and Order entered July 17, 2001). 

71Id. ¶ 15.

72Id.

32

investigations solely to evaluate candidates for entry-level Police Officer and

Firefighter positions.69 During 2002 and 2003, the parties reviewed the City’s current

background investigation procedures for those classifications. Following the City’s

revision of the selection procedure for the Police Officer classification, including the

background investigation, none of the parties challenged the City’s contention that

the selection procedure satisfied paragraph 8 of the 1995 Modification Order. With

respect to the Firefighter classification, the Wilks Class initially objected to the City’s

post-job-task-screening component of the selection procedure, which included a

limited background check. This court found, however, that the procedure complied

with paragraph 8 of the 1995 Modification Order.70

Since entry of the decree, the City has provided the notice required by

paragraph 29 to candidates before dismissing them from the training academies, and

has provided those candidates the opportunity to respond to the proposed dismissal.71

The City has provided documentation of such dismissals to the parties upon request.72

H. Compliance With Provisions Relating to Supervisory Instruction and

Desegregation of Facilities

Paragraph 28 of the 1981 Consent Decree required the City to inform all of its

Case 2:75-cv-00666-CLS Document 1227 Filed 07/12/05 Page 32 of 49
73Id. ¶ 16; Affidavit of Ann Thompson, ¶ 12 & Ex. F.

74Affidavit of Gordon Graham, ¶ 17. Paragraph 30 provides: “The parties recognize that the

City has engaged and is continuing to engage in affirmative efforts to eliminate vestiges of racial

segregation in employees’ facilities. The City hereby agrees to take steps to ensure that such

facilities will be maintained in a racially integrated fashion in the future.” Doc. no. 247 (Consent

Decree with the City of Birmingham) ¶ 30, at 15-16.

75Paragraphs 49 through 53 read as follows:

49. The City shall retain during the period of this Decree necessary records

concerning the implementation of this Decree. These records shall be made available

to the plaintiffs for inspection and copying upon written request.

50. The City’s records shall include the following:

33

supervisory personnel that the City prohibited discrimination against, or harassment

of, any employee or potential employee on the basis of race or sex, and provided that

the City would instruct supervisory personnel in equal employment opportunity and

affirmative action requirements. Further, paragraph 28 provided that supervisory

personnel would be evaluated, in part, on their efforts and results in those areas, as

well as their cooperation with the City’s Affirmative Action Officer.

Upon entry of the 1981 decree, the City instructed all supervisory personnel in

accordance with paragraph 28 and, presently, supervisors address equal employment

opportunity issues with all new employees.73

Since entry of the decree, all City facilities have been fully racially integrated,

in accordance with paragraph 30 of the 1981 Consent Decree.74

I. Compliance With Record Keeping and Reporting Provisions

Paragraphs 49 through 53 of the 1981 ConsentDecree,75 paragraphs 26 through

Case 2:75-cv-00666-CLS Document 1227 Filed 07/12/05 Page 33 of 49
(a) A list of all organizations and schools which are contacted for

recruitment purposes showing the date that any notice of job opportunity was

mailed to them, the position and number of positions to be filled from that

notice, and the date through which applications could be received for the job

which was advertised, including a summary or compilation of all other

recruitment efforts aimed at minorities and women, together with the date of

said efforts and the names and positions of the City’s employees who made

the contact and the nature of the contact.

(b) All written applications and related records for all persons

seeking employment with the City, including applications for transfer or

promotion within or among departments, for a period of at least five (5)

years, and shall include on such applications identification of the applicant

by race and sex. Such records shall also contain a statement of the reasons

why any applicant was found not to be qualified for the position(s) applied

for.

(c) With respect to any applicant who is certified for hire or

promotion and who is not selected for the vacancy for which that applicant

is certified, the City shall record in writing the reason(s) for the applicant’s

not being selected for that vacancy. Also, the City shall record and maintain

any other written records or comments on an applicant for certification in

accordance with paragraph 31(e) above.

(d) All written communications between the City and applicants for

employment, transfer and promotion.

(e) All written communications between the City and employees

concerning discipline and discharge, as well as all written reports concerning

these matters.

51. Within ten days after adoption of the City’s annual affirmative action

plans and reports for each department, the City shall furnish a copy of every plan and

report to the plaintiffs.

52. Within 60 days of the entry of this decree and thereafter semi-annually,

the City shall report to the plaintiffs the following information:

(a) A summary showing the total number of employees by race and

sex in each job classification for each department of the City in both the

classified and unclassified service.

34

Case 2:75-cv-00666-CLS Document 1227 Filed 07/12/05 Page 34 of 49
(b) A list of all probational appointments for permanent full-time

positions, by job classification and department, during the reporting period

indicating the race and sex of the persons hired or promoted.

53. Within 60 days of the entry of this Decree and thereafter on an annual

basis, the City shall report to the plaintiffs the following information:

(a) A list of all persons, by job classification, department, race and

sex, to whom positions have been offered and whether or not the positions

were accepted.

(b) A list of all promotions to permanent full-time positions in the

classified service, by job classification and department, during the reporting

period indicating the race, sex, date of initial hire in the classified service and

date of the promotion.

(c) A breakdown of the applicant flow for employment with the City

which indicates by race and sex the number of applicants for each department

and job classification in the classified and unclassified service, and the

number of applicants hired, rejected, and pending for each job classification

and department. Applicant hires shall be separately identified as to

Comprehensive Employment Training Act (CETA) positions.

(d) A summary report of the recruiting activities conducted by the

City and the results of those activities.

(e) A report of the City’s implementation of the individual relief

provisions of this Decree. This report shall include a statement of the

monetary payments, if any, that have been made to individuals entitled to

such relief. This report shall further identify each individual who has been

offered a job with remedial seniority under this Decree, and whether the job

offer was accepted or rejected. For any individual who was disqualified from

an offer of employment under Part XVI of this decree, a specific statement

of the reasons for disqualification shall be included in this report.

(f) A list of the sworn personnel terminated from either the Police

Department or the Fire Department, identifying each individual by race, sex,

date of hire, date of termination, probational or permanent status, and rank.

In addition, the report shall explain the reason each individual was

terminated.

(g) Within thirty (30) days of establishment or revision, a copy of the

35

Case 2:75-cv-00666-CLS Document 1227 Filed 07/12/05 Page 35 of 49
written policy concerning background investigations required by paragraph

27.

Doc. no. 247 (Consent Decree with the City of Birmingham) ¶¶ 49-53, at 26-29.

76Paragraphs 26 through 33 of the City’s 1995 Modification Order read as follows:

26. Within six (6) months after the entry of this Order, and at six (6) month

intervals thereafter, the City shall submit a report to the Court and to the parties

(including the Wilks Class which is considered a party in all respects to this

modification order) on its efforts to comply with this Order. Each of the City’s semiannual reports will describe in detail the efforts made by the City to meet its

obligations under this Order to use lawful selection procedures. The semi-annual

reports shall specifically address the progress made during the preceding six months,

areas of agreement and disagreement among the parties, allegations of noncooperation, and a compliance timetable for the accomplishment of tasks within the

next six months. Any party may supplement a report within thirty (30) days after it

is filed with the City.

27. The City’s second semi-annual report, due twelve months after the entry

of this Order, shall include a proposed schedule for the City to review and, if

necessary, revise its selection procedures to meet the requirements of paragraph 8

over the following thirty-six (36) months. At least thirty (30) days prior to

submitting that proposed schedule, the City shall provide copies of its proposed

schedule to the parties and attempt to obtain their agreement to a schedule.

28. The City shall submit to the parties a proposal for revised selection

procedures it intends to administer for promotional fire service positions in the Fire

Department and promotional police service positions in the Police Department

eighteen (18) months from the date of entry of this Order, unless none of the parties

object to the selection procedures in their paragraph 12 submissions.

29. The City shall submit to the parties a proposal for revised selection

procedures it intends to administer for firefighter and police officer candidates within

eighteen (18) months from the date of entry of this Order, unless none of the parties

object to the selection procedures in their paragraph 12 submissions.

30. For job classifications other than those in which the only selection

procedure is an interview, in the event that the City identifies a selection procedure

it uses as having adverse impact, or a party alleges in its paragraph 11 submission

that such a procedure has adverse impact, the City shall either produce evidence as

to the job relatedness of its procedures or change its procedures to eliminate adverse

36

33 of the 1995 Modification Order,76 and paragraphs 5 and 6 of the December 18,

Case 2:75-cv-00666-CLS Document 1227 Filed 07/12/05 Page 36 of 49
impact according to the timetable set out in the City’s second semi-annual report.

31. The City shall make all data concerning the development, adverse impact,

use and job relatedness of each selection procedure used or proposed to be used by

the City, including but not limited to, test scores, job analyses, expert reports and

validation studies, promptly available to counsel for the parties upon written request.

This data will be provided to the parties to this Order in a machine readable form as

well as hard copy to the extent that it exists in that form.

32. The City shall retain during the period of this Order all records

concerning its implementation. These records shall be made available to any party

for inspection and copying within thirty (30) days upon written request. The City

agrees that it will henceforth maintain applicant and selection procedure data

(including an applicant’s name, identification number, race, sex, job classification

applied for, date of certification, City administered selection procedure ratings and

score(s), whether the applicant was disqualified and the reasons for disqualification,

and whether an applicant was hired or promoted) in machine readable form and

provide this data in such form to the parties to this Order within thirty (30) days of

their written request.

33. All material related to the development of tests or other selection

procedures, including copies of tests or proposed tests, test keys and test results, shall

be marked “Confidential Test Material Under Seal” by the City prior to being

forwarded to counsel for the parties. This confidential test material shall not be

disclosed to anyone other than counsel, their immediate staff, the court and its staff,

and expert consultants retained by the parties and their staffs, without the written

permission of the City or an Order of this Court. Such confidential test material shall

not be filed with the Court unless it is filed in a sealed envelope marked

“Confidential Testing Material Under Seal.” Any material that is marked

“Confidential Testing Material Under Seal” shall not be disclosed by the Clerk of the

Court to the public without an Order from this Court.

Doc. no. 598 (Order Modifying the City of Birmingham Consent Decree), ¶¶ 26-33, at 7-8.

77Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the December 18, 2000 Order Extending the 1981 Consent Decree

and 1995 Modification Order provide that:

5. Beginning in January 2001, the Jefferson County Personnel Board and the

City of Birmingham shall each submit monthly written reports specifying their

compliance with the requirements of this order. Such reports shall be submitted at

least one week prior to the status conferences scheduled by this court. Unless

37

2000 order extending the decree and Modification Order,77 define the City’s record

Case 2:75-cv-00666-CLS Document 1227 Filed 07/12/05 Page 37 of 49
otherwise scheduled by the court, status conferences will be held at 9:30 a.m. for two

hours in Birmingham during the fourth week of each month. If any party believes

additional time is needed for any status conference, counsel must request additional

time in advance of the conference.

6. Each monthly report shall describe the party’s efforts to develop selection

procedures meeting the requirements of paragraph 8 of the City of Birmingham

modification order and paragraph 12 of the Personnel Board modification order, and,

any other efforts to comply with the modification orders. The reports shall describe

the progress made and the tasks accomplished since the last report, including an

updated project time line, any areas of agreement and disagreement among the

parties, any allegations of non-cooperation, and the efforts made to comply with any

timetable(s) ordered by this court. In the event that either the City of Birmingham or

the Personnel Board should fail to accomplish one or more tasks required to be

accomplished during a particular month according to the compliance timetables

established in paragraphs 8 to 16, and, 18 to 19 of this order, the report shall also

include an explanation of why the party failed to timely complete the task(s) and shall

include a proposed schedule for compliance. Any party may supplement that report.

Doc. no. 708, at 4-5 (emphasis in original).

78Affidavit of Ann Thompson, ¶ 13.

38

keeping and reporting requirements. 

Beginning in 1981, the City provided semi-annual reports to the United States

and Martin/Bryant parties. Following certification of the Wilks Class, the City

provided copies of reports to counsel for that Class. The City also has responded to

specific information requests from the parties.78

 

Beginning in January of 2001, the City provided monthly reports describing its

progress in achieving compliance to the court. The City further provided all

information and reports, and substantially complied with all deadlines specified in

paragraphs 8 through 16 of the December 18, 2000 Order, and subsequent orders

Case 2:75-cv-00666-CLS Document 1227 Filed 07/12/05 Page 38 of 49
79Affidavit of Gordon Graham, ¶ 19.

80Id.

39

governing selection procedure development.

J. Compliance with Individual Relief Provisions

Paragraphs 33 through 47b of the 1981 Consent Decree provide relief for

certain individuals. Each of the individuals identified as a victim of discrimination

was offered the appointment or other relief specified in the decree, and the City

reported its compliance to the parties in semi-annual reports.79 Additionally, the City

paid all of the monetary relief required by paragraphs 34 through 47b of the 1981

Consent Decree.80 

IV. DISCUSSION OF CONTESTED ISSUES

A. Failure to Validate Selection Procedures

The Wilks Class first contends that the City’s motion to terminate should be

denied because it failed to “validate” its selection procedures, ostensibly in

derogation of the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Ensley Branch, NAACP v. Seibels,

31 F.3d 1548 (11th Cir. 1994) (“Ensley II”). Regardless of whether the Ensley II

opinion can be read to impose such a requirement, which is doubtful, paragraph 8 of

the 1995 Modification Order does not require the City to validate a selection

procedure unless the results of test administrations demonstrate adverse impact on the

Case 2:75-cv-00666-CLS Document 1227 Filed 07/12/05 Page 39 of 49
81See supra note 5 for the text of paragraph 8 of the 1995 order modifying the City 1981

Consent Decree.

82Doc. no. 1140 (Wilks Class’ Opposition to the City of Birmingham Motion to Terminate

Consent Decree and to be Dismissed as a Party), at 15.

40

basis of either the race or sex of applicants.81 The Wilks Class did not appeal the

1995 Modification Order; and, as the Eleventh Circuit stated when addressing this

same, untimely argument:

The issue of whether the City should be permitted to use job selection

procedures that have not been job-validated, if those procedures do not

have an adverse impact on race or sex, was raised and fought out by the

parties after our 1994 remand. That issue was decided by the district

court, and its decision about the issue is embodied in the key terms of

the court’s December 1995 Modification Order. The Wilks Class could

have had the decision of that issue reviewed by appealing the

modification order then. It did not. A party cannot undo its failure to

timely appeal an earlier order by the simple expedient of asking the

district court to undo that order years later. The time limits of Rule 4

have more steel in them than that.

Birmingham Fire Fighters Association 117 v. Jefferson County, 290 F.3d 1250, 1254

(11th Cir. 2002).

B. Failure to Develop Job-Related, Standard Oral Interviews

The Wilks Class also argues that the City’s motion to terminate its 1981

Consent Decree and 1995 Modification Order should be denied because “the City is

not in compliance with its decree duty to develop and use job-related standard oral

interviews.”82 The Wilks Class bases this argument on paragraphs 17 and 19 of the

1995 Modification Order, which read as follows:

Case 2:75-cv-00666-CLS Document 1227 Filed 07/12/05 Page 40 of 49
83Id. (bracketed alterations supplied).

41

17. The City shall modify its interview procedures to ensure

that a written record is kept of each interview. Beginning twelve months

from the date of the entry of this Order, all standard interview questions

and interview report forms shall be approved in writing by the City’s

Director of Personnel or his or her designee prior to their use. Prior to

receiving any certification list, the department seeking to fill a vacancy

must submit to the Personnel Department for review a written detailed

description of the position to be filled, the essential applicant

qualifications, the proposed interview questions and a proposed rating

form. Upon completion of the interview process, the department will

submit to Personnel the appointment recommendations, with a

completed applicant interview rating form.

. . . 

19. Within twelve (12) months of the date of entry of this Order

the City’s Personnel Department shall provide training in employee

selection and applicant evaluation for each City employee with authority

to interview or to recommend appointments or promotions. This

training shall also be provided to newly hired or promoted officials with

authority to interview or appoint applicants. City officials who have not

attended such training may not interview applicants for employment or

promotion until they complete the required training.

The Wilks Class contends that these provisions were “clearly intended to require

that[,] for those classifications using interviews as part of the selection process[,] that

[i] standard oral interviews be developed that are job related; that [ii] a standard rating

form be developed; and that [iii] City employees be trained to administer and score

the standard interviews.”83 

Regardless of whether such requirements would be desirable in this, the best

Case 2:75-cv-00666-CLS Document 1227 Filed 07/12/05 Page 41 of 49
84See doc. no. 1150 (Brief in Response to Wilks Class’ Opposition to the City’s Motion to

Terminate Consent Decree and to be Dismissed as a Party), at 9-10 (Table summarizing decree

obligation and evidence supporting finding of compliance).

85Id. at 24.

42

of all possible worlds, the plain language of paragraphs 17 and 19 simply does not

impose such conditions. Moreover, upon review of the evidence submitted by the

City, the court is satisfied that the City has complied with the decree’s requirements.

84

The Wilks Class additionally argues that the City’s motion should be denied

because “the City has failed to document and demonstrate that oral interviews have

any meaningful role in the selection process.”85 Following review of the City’s

evidence, however, the court finds that information collected during oral interviews

is considered by the relevant decisionmakers when making selections.

C. The City’s Selection Procedures

As discussed supra, in Part III(A)(5) of this opinion, the court found, following

an evidentiary hearing conducted on May 31 and June 1, 2001, that no adverse impact

resulted from implementation of the City’s selection procedures for the job

classifications of Fire Battalion Chief, Fire Captain, Fire Apparatus Operator,

Engineering Aide, Gardener, and Heavy Equipment Operator, nor for the post-jobtask-screening component of the Firefighter selection procedure. The additional

selection data contained in the parties’ joint stipulation filed with the court on

December 3, 2004, and the expert analyses of that data, demonstrate the City’s

Case 2:75-cv-00666-CLS Document 1227 Filed 07/12/05 Page 42 of 49
86The Wilks Class once again contends that the text of paragraph 8 of the City’s 1995

Modification Order shifts the burden of production and persuasion, and requires the City to prove

that the selection procedures utilized by it do not cause the exclusion of applicants for jobs or

promotions because of their race or gender. The court held on July 17, 2001, that consistent with

Title VII jurisprudence generally, the Wilks Class, as the challenging party, bears the burden of

production and persuasion. See doc. no. 782 (Memorandum opinion entered on July 17, 2001), at

8-11. The court is not inclined to reconsider that decision, either in light of the Wilks Class’s

arguments, or in light of the Eleventh Circuit’s statement in Birmingham Firefighters Association

117 v. Jefferson County, 280 F.3d at 1294 (11th Cir. 2002), that the Wilks Class’s interpretation of

paragraph 8 is “plausible.” The court remains firmly of the opinion that the Wilks class bears the

burden of production and persuasion. Even if the court were inclined to revisit its decision, however,

placing the burden on the City would not result in a more favorable result for the Wilks Class. As

set forth herein, the Wilks Class has satisfied its burden of showing adverse impact with regard to

the Fire Apparatus Operation position — the only position for which the lawfulness of selection

procedures remains substantially in dispute. 

87See doc. no. 1161. The Wilks Class’s expert found that when certificates were aggregated,

there was no statistically significant adverse impact on the basis of race or gender for the remaining

classifications for which selection data was stipulated. See doc. no. 1172 (expert report of J. Michael

Hardin, Ph. D., on behalf of the Wilks Class), at 9.

43

continued compliance with paragraph 8 with respect to those positions. Thus, the

court now reaffirms its prior findings and conclusions that the City has satisfied the

requirements of paragraph 8 with regard to selection procedures for the Fire Battalion

Chief, Fire Captain, Engineering Aide, Gardener, and Heavy Equipment Operator

job-classifications, as well as the post-job-task-screening component of the entry

level Firefighter selection procedure.86

Even so, the additional selection data provided by the City and stipulated to by

the other parties87 pertaining to the Fire Apparatus Operator classification presents a

dilemma. Each of the parties’ experts found statistically significant adverse impact

against white candidates for selections from Register 2000002XX5026, covering the

Case 2:75-cv-00666-CLS Document 1227 Filed 07/12/05 Page 43 of 49
88See doc. no. 1166 (expert report of Mary Dunn Baker, Ph. D., on behalf of the City of

Birmingham), at 6; doc. no. 1172 (expert report of J. Michael Hardin, Ph. D., on behalf of the Wilks

Class), at 9; doc. no. 1187 (expert report of Leonard A. Cupingood, Ph. D., on behalf of the United

States), at 16; doc. no. 1188 (expert report of Kathleen K. Lundquist, Ph. D., on behalf of the

Martin/Bryant parties), at 10.

89Doc. no. 1202 (report of the court’s Special Master), at 11-12.

90The rating factors are (1) education and training, (2) disciplinary action record, (3) safetypersonnel injury record, (4) safety-vehicular accidentrecord,(5) complaints (citizen), (6) attendance,

(7) fitness check - physical ability, (8) fitness check - physical fitness, and (9) applicant’s initiative

in preparing for promotion. The last factor is described as follows: 

The applicant provides relevant information concerning the preparatory steps that

[have] been done [sic] to enhance the applicant’s ability to perform the duties

required of the promotional position. Providing four (4) or more relevant preparatory

steps will result in an “exceeds job requirements” rating. The provision of 2 to 3

steps will result in a “meets job requirements” rating. Below 2 will result in a “does

not meet job requirements” rating for this rating factor. 

City Ex. 19, admitted during evidentiary hearing conducted on May 31 and June 1, 2001.

44

time period from August 11, 2000 through February 27, 2004 — i.e., the period

roughly corresponding to the period following the court’s 2001 ruling that the

selection procedure complied with the requirements of paragraph 8.88 Likewise, the

court’s Special Master, John G. Veres III, Ph. D., found that aggregating selection

data across certificates from that register yielded statistically significant differences

in selection rates, with white candidates being underselected.89

The selection procedure presently used by the City for the Fire Apparatus

Operator classification was revised in October 1998. Candidates certified by the

Personnel Board submit supplemental applications, which are reviewed by the

Promotional Review Panel, and are evaluated based on nine rating factors.90 The

Case 2:75-cv-00666-CLS Document 1227 Filed 07/12/05 Page 44 of 49
91Doc. no. 782, at 15-16.

92See doc. no. 1189 (supplemental expert report of Mary Dunn Baker, Ph. D.), at 2 (“[W]hen

the FAO analysis considers the selections that were made over the entire time period that the

selection process has been in place [the 1997 register (97PSY5026) as well as the 2000 register], the

data fail to reveal a pattern of significant over-selection of African-American candidates.”).

93See doc. no. 1187 (expert report of Leonard A. Cupingood, Ph. D.), at 2 (“Analysis from

October 1998 forward provides a more complete assessment of any disparities for the entire period

for which the revised selection procedure was used.”).

94See doc. no. 1188 (expert report of Kathleen K. Lundquist, Ph. D.), at 8 n.3 (“Since the

selection process used for the FAO during the 7/30/99 and 5/17/00 certificates was the same as the

process used between 8/11/2000 to the present, analyses were conducted on those certificates.”) &

10 n.7 (“A cumulative person count aggregate analysis was conducted on the City of Birmingham’s

FAO applicant pools and selections across certificates beginning with the 7/30/99 certificate through

2/27/04.”)

45

applications do not contain information about the candidates’ race; rather, each

candidate is assigned a personal identification number. The Panel prepares a

consensus rating form for each candidate, and provides a summary of the ratings to

the Fire Chief. The Fire Chief makes selections based on the ratings, and does not

review the names of the candidates until after selections have been made. If the Fire

Chief has a specific objection to a particular candidate, once his or her identity is

disclosed, the Chief may veto (or void) his own selection.91 The City has never been

required to demonstrate that this selection procedure is job related and consistent with

business necessity.

Because the City revised its Fire Apparatus Operator during 1998, the experts

for the City,92 the United States,93 and the Martin/Bryant parties94 contend that

selection data from all certificates from that point in time forward should be analyzed

Case 2:75-cv-00666-CLS Document 1227 Filed 07/12/05 Page 45 of 49
95Doc. no. 1202, at 2.

46

when assessing adverse impact; and, upon performing such analyses, none found

adverse impact. The Wilks Class’s expert analyzed only the stipulated data, and

found statistically significant adverse impact against white candidates when

aggregating certificates. Dr. John G. Veres, the court’s Special Master, expressed the

following opinion:

[T]he most relevant time period for statistical analyses [for the Fire

Apparatus Operator classification] is 11 August 2000 through 27

February 2004. That period corresponds to data produced under the

Joint Stipulation . . . and seems consistent with the Court’s expressed

desire to examine the City’s selections since the 2001 reports were

produced for the Court’s edification. Moreover the 11 August 2000

through 27 February 2004 time frame represents the most recent sample

of the City’s selection decisions. I believe this most recent sample is the

most representative sample of the City’s selection decisions. I must

therefore conclude that the most relevant of the findings reported below

support a conclusion of adverse impact for the job of Fire Apparatus

Operator, with White candidates being significantly underselected.95

Dr. Veres further stated:

I believe that the recent time period covered by certificates from

Register 2000002XX5026 [i.e., August 11, 2000 through February 27,

2004] is the most representative of the City’s decision making. The

stipulated data set comes closest to representing the City’s selection

decisions since the 2001 proceedings, a time when decision makers had

reason to believe that the Court was no longer closely scrutinizing their

behavior. For this reason, I believe the Register 2000002XX5026-based

certificate-level analysis to be more predictive of the City’s probable

future behavior in the absence of Court supervision than analyses

considering earlier certificates.

Case 2:75-cv-00666-CLS Document 1227 Filed 07/12/05 Page 46 of 49
96Id. at 13-14 (emphasis supplied).

97Doc. no. 598 (Order Modifying the City of Birmingham Consent Decree) ¶ 5, at 2.

47

Moreover, I believe that focusing on the 11 August 2000 through

27 February 2004 time period is in keeping with the Guidelines’

language in Section 4D:

Where the user’s evidence concerning the impact of a selection

procedure indicates adverse impact but is based upon numbers

which are too small to be reliable, evidence concerning the impact

of the procedure over a longer period of time . . . may be

considered in determining adverse impact.

I do not believe that the numbers associated with the aggregate

certificate-level statistical analysis for Fire Apparatus Operator Register

20002XX5026 are “too small to be reliable.” Indeed, those numbers

allowed a statistical analysis to be performed which possessed sufficient

statistical power to uncover a significant difference in selection rates by

race.96

The court accepts the opinion of the Special Master as to the relevant time

period for analysis, and is troubled that the results of analysis show statistically

significant adverse impact on the basis of the race of candidates. Moreover, albeit

never required to do so in the first instance, the City has not yet demonstrated that its

supplemental application, containing nine rating factors, is job related. On that basis,

the court cannot conclude that, with respect to the Fire Apparatus Operator selection

procedure, the City has satisfied the decree’s basic purpose of ensuring that “equal

employment opportunities with the City are available to all persons, regardless of race

or sex, as required by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.”

97

Case 2:75-cv-00666-CLS Document 1227 Filed 07/12/05 Page 47 of 49
48

Accordingly, judicial supervision will be retained for the limited purpose of obtaining

the City’s compliance with paragraph 8 of the 1995 Modification Order for the Fire

Apparatus Operator classification, until such time as the City either shoulders the

burdens of production and persuasion necessary to validate (i.e., demonstrate the jobrelatedness of) its supplemental application, or revises the selection procedure in a

manner that, all parties agree, complies with federal law.

V. CONCLUSION

In view of all of the foregoing, the court concludes that the City has

substantially achieved the basic purposes of paragraph 5 of its 1995 Modification

Order through its compliance with the provisions of the 1981 Consent Decree and the

1995 Modification Order detailed above. The City has shown that it has removed

unlawful employment barriers for blacks and women, that it has remedied past

employment discrimination, and that it has ensured — with the exception of the Fire

Apparatus Operator classification discussed above — that its employment selection

procedures do not result in an unjustifiable, discriminatory impact on the basis of race

or sex. Moreover, with the exception discussed above, the court is satisfied that there

has been satisfactory compliance with the City’s remedial orders, and that the City

has demonstrated its “good-faith commitment to the whole of the court’s decree and

to those provisions of the law and the Constitution that were the predicate for judicial

Case 2:75-cv-00666-CLS Document 1227 Filed 07/12/05 Page 48 of 49
49

intervention in the first instance.” United States v. City of Montgomery, 948 F. Supp.

1553, 1563 (M.D. Ala. 1996). 

Accordingly, the City’s motion to terminate its consent decree and dismiss it

as a party to all actions is due to be granted in part and denied in part. The

modifications to the City’s remedial orders proposed by the Wilks Class in its crossmotion will be denied. Judicial supervision will be retained for the limited purpose

of obtaining the City’s compliance with paragraph 8 of the 1995 Modification Order

for the Fire Apparatus Operator classification. A separate order consistent with this

memorandum opinion will be entered contemporaneously herewith.

DONE this 12th day of July, 2005.

______________________________

United States District Judge

Case 2:75-cv-00666-CLS Document 1227 Filed 07/12/05 Page 49 of 49