Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_08-cv-00155/USCOURTS-alsd-1_08-cv-00155-28/pdf.json

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

---

1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

EARATON ADAMS, ) 

MYRON BARNES, ) 

FREDERICK CARTER, ) 

SIDNEY HEDGEMAN and ) 

CARLOS JOHNSON, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiffs, ) 

 ) 

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 08-00155-KD-N 

 ) 

AUSTAL U.S.A., L.L.C., ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

ORDER 

This action came before the Court for jury selection on August 30, 2011, and trial by jury 

beginning September 26, 2011 and ending October 5, 2011, with United States District Judge 

Kristi K. DuBose presiding. 

On September 26, 2011, the jury was duly sworn and trial commenced. From September 

26, 2011 through September 29, 2011, Plaintiffs Earaton Adams, Myron Barnes, Frederick 

Carter, Sidney Hedgeman and Carlos Johnson presented their case-in-chief. 

Defendant Austal, U.S.A., L.L.C. (“Austal”) moved for judgment as a matter of law at 

the close of the Plaintiffs’ evidence on all claims. On the afternoon of September 29, 2011, the 

Court addressed Austal’s motion: that portion of the motion relating to the hostile work 

environment claims was denied, and the motion, as to the remaining claims, was taken under 

submission. 

Plaintiffs rested in the morning on September 30, 2011. Subsequently, Austal began 

Case 1:08-cv-00155-KD-N Document 515 Filed 10/18/11 Page 1 of 4
2 

presentation of its case-in-chief. 

Austal concluded its case-in-chief and rested on October 3, 2011. Austal moved for 

judgment as a matter of law at the close of all of the evidence and the Court heard oral argument 

on same on the afternoon of October 3, 2011, and ruled on the record. 

On the morning of October 4, 2011, the Court held a charge conference with counsel. 

Thereafter, the parties gave their closing arguments. The Court then charged the jury on the 

applicable law and the jury commenced their deliberations. At the end of the day on October 4, 

2011, the jury recessed for the day. 

On October 5, 2011, the jury having heard the evidence, the arguments of counsel, the 

charge of the Court and having considered the same upon their oaths, deliberated and returned 

the following verdicts (a copy of which is attached hereto): 

Plaintiff Earaton Adams

I. Hostile Work Environment

Do you find for Earaton Adams or Austal USA on Adams’ claim of hostile work 

environment? 

No verdict 

II. Failure to Promote

Do you find for Earaton Adams or Austal USA on Adams’ claim of failure to 

promote? 

Austal, USA 

III. Damages

 

None 

Case 1:08-cv-00155-KD-N Document 515 Filed 10/18/11 Page 2 of 4
3 

Plaintiff Myron Barnes

I. Hostile Work Environment

Do you find for Myron Barnes or Austal USA on Barnes’ claim of hostile work 

environment? 

No verdict 

II. Failure to Promote

Do you find for Myron Barnes or Austal USA on Barnes’ claim of failure to 

promote? 

Austal, USA 

III. Retaliation

Do you find for Myron Barnes or Austal USA on Barnes’ claim of retaliation? 

Austal, USA 

IV. Damages

 

None 

Plaintiff Frederick Carter

I. Hostile Work Environment

Do you find for Frederick Carter or Austal USA on Carter’s claim of hostile work 

environment? 

Austal, USA 

II. Failure to Promote

Do you find for Frederick Carter or Austal USA on Carter’s claim of failure to 

promote (Tom Bishop Warehouse Coordinator position in 2006)? 

Austal, USA 

Do you find for Frederick Carter or Austal USA on Carter’s claim of failure to 

promote (Jerrod Bradford Warehouse Coordinator position in 2007)? 

Case 1:08-cv-00155-KD-N Document 515 Filed 10/18/11 Page 3 of 4
4 

Austal, USA 

III. Damages

 

None 

Plaintiff Sidney Hedgeman

I. Hostile Work Environment

Do you find for Sidney Hedgeman or Austal USA on Hedgeman’s claim of 

hostile work environment? 

Austal, USA 

II. Damages

 

 None 

Plaintiff Carlos Johnson

I. Hostile Work Environment

Do you find for Carlos Johnson or Austal USA on Johnson’s claim of hostile 

work environment? 

No verdict 

II. Failure to Promote

Do you find for Carlos Johnson or Austal USA on Johnson’s claim of failure to 

promote? 

Austal, USA 

III. Damages

 

 None 

 DONE and ORDERED this the 14th day of October 2011. 

 /s/ Kristi K. DuBose 

 KRISTI K. DuBOSE 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:08-cv-00155-KD-N Document 515 Filed 10/18/11 Page 4 of 4