Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_04-cv-00749/USCOURTS-almd-2_04-cv-00749-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Sex)

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

MELISSA A. HUNTER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 2:04cv749-T

) (WO)

MARSHALL WILLIAMS, )

JEAN HARTZOG, and )

GEORGE PARHAM, )

)

Defendants. )

JUDGMENT

On the 23rd day of August, 2005, after this cause had

been submitted to a jury, a verdict was returned as follows:

CLAIM I

Question 1: May Melissa Hunter

recover on her sexual harassment claim? 

 Yes X 

No ______

If your answer to Question 1 is "no" you

need not answer the remaining questions

for claim I.

Question 2: If your answer to

Question 1 is “yes,” from which

defendant(s) may Hunter recover: 

Case 2:04-cv-00749-MHT-VPM Document 124 Filed 08/25/05 Page 1 of 11
2

George Parham X 

 Barbour County Sheriff X 

Question 3: If you find that Hunter

may recover on her sexual harassment

claim, how much, if anything, may she

recover in compensatory damages for

emotional distress?

 $ 125,000.00

Question 4: If you find that Hunter

may recover on her sexual harassment

claim, how much, if anything, may she

recover in punitive damages from Parham,

if you find that Parham is liable on this

claim?

 $ 50,000.00

Hunter may not recover punitive damages

from the Barbour County Sheriff. 

CLAIM II

Question 1: As to her disparatetreatment claim, has Hunter established by

a preponderance of the evidence that her

sex was a motivating factor in the

decision to suspend her for three days,

even though other factors may have also

contributed to the employment action?

Case 2:04-cv-00749-MHT-VPM Document 124 Filed 08/25/05 Page 2 of 11
3

Yes X 

No ______

If your answer to Question 1 is "no" you

need not answer the remaining questions

for claim II.

Question 2: If “yes,” have the

defendant(s) established by a

preponderance of the evidence that they

would have made the same employment

decision in the absence of considering

Hunter’s sex? 

Yes 

No X 

If your answer to Question 1 is “yes" and

your answer to Question 2 is "no," you

will have found in favor of Hunter on her

sex discrimination claim. If your answer

to Question 1 is "yes" and your answer to

Question 2 is "yes," you will have found

in favor of the defendant(s) on this

claim, and you need not answer the

remaining questions for claim II. 

Question 3: If you find in favor of

Hunter on her sex discrimination claim,

from which defendant(s) may she recover?

George Parham X 

 Marshall Williams X 

Jean Hartzog X 

Barbour County Sheriff X 

Question 4: If you find that Hunter

may recover on her sex discrimination

Case 2:04-cv-00749-MHT-VPM Document 124 Filed 08/25/05 Page 3 of 11
4

claim, how much, if anything, may she

recover in compensatory damages?

a. Backpay: $ 0 

 b. Emotional distress:$ 25,000.00

Question 5: If you find that Hunter

may recover on her sex discrimination

claim, how much, if anything, may she

recover in punitive damages?

$ 7,500.00

And from which defendant(s) may she

recover such damages?

George Parham X 

 Marshall Williams X 

Jean Hartzog X 

Hunter may not recover punitive damages

from the Barbour County Sheriff. 

 

CLAIM III

Question 1: As to her retaliationtransfer claim, has Hunter established by

a preponderance of the evidence that her

protected conduct was a motivating factor

in the decision not to transfer her from

second shift to first shift, even though

other factors may have also contributed to

the employment action?

Yes X 

No 

Case 2:04-cv-00749-MHT-VPM Document 124 Filed 08/25/05 Page 4 of 11
5

If your answer to Question 1 is "no" you

need not answer the remaining questions

for claim III. 

Question 2: If “yes,” have the

defendant(s) established by a

preponderance of the evidence that they

would have made the same employment

decision in the absence of considering

Hunter’s protected conduct? 

Yes ______

No X 

If your answer to Question 1 is "yes" and

your answer to Question 2 is "no," you

will have found in favor of Hunter on her

retaliation-transfer claim. If your

answer to Question 1 is "yes" and your

answer to Question 2 is "yes," you will

have found in favor of the defendant(s) on

this claim, and you need not answer the

remaining questions for claim III. 

Question 3: If you find in favor of

Hunter on her retaliation-transfer claim,

from which defendant(s) may she recover:

George Parham X 

 Jean Hartzog X 

Barbour County Sheriff X 

Question 4: If you find that Hunter

may recover on her retaliation-transfer

claim, how much, if anything, may she

recover in compensatory damages for

emotional distress?

Case 2:04-cv-00749-MHT-VPM Document 124 Filed 08/25/05 Page 5 of 11
6

 $ 5,000.00

Question 5: If you find that Hunter

may recover on her retaliation-transfer

claim, how much, if anything, may she

recover in punitive damages?

 $ 4,000.00

And from which defendant(s) may she

recover such damages?

George Parham X 

 Jean Hartzog X 

Hunter may not recover punitive damages

from the Barbour County Sheriff. 

CLAIM IV

Question 1: As to her retaliationsuspension claim, has Hunter established

by a preponderance of the evidence that

her protected conduct was a motivating

factor in the decision to suspend her for

three days, even though other factors may

have also contributed to the employment

action? 

Yes X 

No _____

If your answer to Question 1 is "no" you

need not answer the remaining questions

for claim IV. 

Case 2:04-cv-00749-MHT-VPM Document 124 Filed 08/25/05 Page 6 of 11
7

Question 2: If “yes,” have the

defendant(s) established by a

preponderance of the evidence that they

would have made the same employment

decision in the absence of considering

Hunter’s protected conduct? 

Yes ______

No X 

If your answer to Question 1 is "yes" and

your answer to Question 2 is "no," you

will have found in favor of plaintiff

Hunter on her retaliation-suspension

claim. If your answer to Question 1 is

"yes" and your answer to Question 2 is

"yes," you will have found in favor of the

defendant(s) on this claim, and you need

not answer the remaining questions for

claim IV. 

Question 3: If you find that Hunter

may recover on her retaliation-suspension

claim, from which defendant(s) may she

recover:

George Parham X 

 Marshall Williams X 

Jean Hartzog X 

Barbour County Sheriff X 

Question 4: If you find that Hunter

may recover on her retaliation-suspension

claim, how much, if anything, may she

recover in compensatory damages?

a. Backpay: $ 157.20

 b. Emotional distress: $ 25,000.00

Case 2:04-cv-00749-MHT-VPM Document 124 Filed 08/25/05 Page 7 of 11
8

Question 5: If you find that Hunter

may recover on her retaliation-suspension

claim, how much, if anything, may she

recover in punitive damages? 

$ 8,500.00

And from which defendant(s) may she

recover such damages?

George Parham X 

 Marshall Williams X 

Jean Hartzog X 

Hunter may not recover punitive damages

from the Barbour County Sheriff. 

SO SAY WE ALL.

DONE, this the 23rd day of August, 2005.

 /s/ Sandra Northington 

 JURY FOREPERSON

It is therefore the ORDER, JUDGMENT, and DECREE of the

court as follows:

(1) Judgment is entered in favor of plaintiff Melissa

A. Hunter and against defendants Marshall Williams

(individual and official capacities), Jean Hartzog

(individual capacity), and George Parham (individual

capacity).

Case 2:04-cv-00749-MHT-VPM Document 124 Filed 08/25/05 Page 8 of 11
9

(2) As to plaintiff Hunter’s sexual-harassment claim,

plaintiff Hunter shall have and recover from defendants

Williams (official capacity) and Parham (individual

capacity) the sum of $125,000.00 for emotional distress.

(3) As to plaintiff Hunter’s sexual-harassment claim,

plaintiff Hunter shall have and recover from defendant

Parham (individual capacity) the additional sum of

$50,000.00 for punitive damages.

(4) As to plaintiff Hunter’s sex-discrimination claim,

plaintiff Hunter shall have and recover from defendants

Williams (individual and official capacities), Hartzog

(individual capacity) and Parham (individual capacity) the

additional sum of $25,000.00 for emotional distress.

(5) As to plaintiff Hunter’s sex-discrimination claim,

plaintiff Hunter shall have and recover from defendants

Williams (individual capacity), Hartzog (individual

capacity) and Parham (individual capacity) the additional

sum of $7,500.00 for punitive damages.

Case 2:04-cv-00749-MHT-VPM Document 124 Filed 08/25/05 Page 9 of 11
10

(6) As to plaintiff Hunter’s retaliation-transfer

claim, plaintiff Hunter shall have and recover from

defendants Williams (official capacity), Hartzog (individual

capacity), and Parham (individual capacity) the additional

sum of $5,000.00 for emotional distress.

(7) As to plaintiff Hunter’s retaliation-transfer

claim, plaintiff Hunter shall have and recover from

defendants Hartzog (individual capacity) and Parham

(individual capacity) the additional sum of $4,000.00 for

punitive damages.

(8) As to plaintiff Hunter’s retaliation-suspension

claim, plaintiff Hunter shall have and recover from

defendants Williams (individual and official capacities),

Hartzog (individual capacity), and Parham (individual

capacity) the additional sum of $157.20 in back pay.

(9) As to plaintiff Hunter’s retaliation-suspension

claim, plaintiff Hunter shall have and recover from

defendants Williams (individual and official capacities),

Hartzog (individual capacity), and Parham (individual

Case 2:04-cv-00749-MHT-VPM Document 124 Filed 08/25/05 Page 10 of 11
capacity) the additional sum of $25,000.00 for emotional

distress.

 (10) As to plaintiff Hunter’s retaliation-suspension

claim, plaintiff Hunter shall have and recover from

defendants Williams (individual capacity), Hartzog

(individual capacity), and Parham (individual capacity) the

additional sum of $8,500.00 in punitive damages.

It is further ORDERED that plaintiff Hunter is allowed

until September 16, 2005, to file her request for attorneys’

fees and expenses.

It is further ORDERED that costs are taxed against

defendants Williams (individual and official capacities),

Hartzog (individual capacity), and Parham (individual

capacity), for which execution may issue.

DONE, this the 25th day of August, 2005.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00749-MHT-VPM Document 124 Filed 08/25/05 Page 11 of 11