Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_00-cv-00109/USCOURTS-almd-2_00-cv-00109-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Job Discrimination (Race)

---

1. In an opinion and judgment entered on March 23,

2006, the court entered summary judgment on most of

Rogers’s other claims. Rogers v. Haley, 421 F.Supp.2d

1361 (M.D. Ala. 2006) (Thompson, J.).

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

ROBERT L. ROGERS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO.

) 2:00cv109-MHT

MICHAEL HALEY, etc., ) (WO)

et al., )

)

Defendants. )

CORRECTED OPINION

In this lawsuit, plaintiff Robert L. Rogers, a white

male employee of the Alabama Department of Corrections

(ADOC), claims that, in the year 2000, he was denied a

promotion because of his gender;1

 he seeks prospectiveinjunctive relief under the Fourteenth Amendment to the

United States Constitution, as enforced through 42 U.S.C.

Case 2:00-cv-00109-MHT-VPM Document 145 Filed 06/28/06 Page 1 of 10
2. Prior to trial, the court understood Rogers to

contend that he had been denied this promotion because of

his gender and race. At the beginning of the trial,

however, Rogers clarified that he was not claiming race

discrimination in this promotion.

2

§ 1983.2

 Under the equal protection clause of the

Fourteenth Amendment, "No State shall ... deny to any

person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of

the laws." U.S. Const. amend. XIV § 1. "The central

purpose of the Equal Protection Clause ... is the

prevention of official conduct discriminating on the

basis of race." Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 239

(1976). The Constitution protects Rogers's right to be

free from purposeful, gender-based discrimination on the

part of an employer. See Burns v. Gadsden State

Community College, 908 F.2d 1512, 1517-18 (11th Cir.

1990) (per curiam). 

Rogers names several ADOC supervisors and other

employees as defendants in their official capacities. He

properly invokes the jurisdiction of the court pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 (federal question) and 1343 (civil

Case 2:00-cv-00109-MHT-VPM Document 145 Filed 06/28/06 Page 2 of 10
3

rights). Based on the evidence presented at a bench

trial on June 27, 2006, the court finds in favor of

defendants and against Rogers.

Under Alabama law, employment registers are used to

determine the eligibility of applicants for appointment

and promotion to all state merit-system positions. A

register results from a ranking of the scores job

applicants receive on an examination. Before a state

agency, such as ADOC, can make an appointment to fill a

job vacancy, it must request a "Certification of

Candidates." The agency must select a candidate from the

list of certified eligibles.

Rogers has been employed for more than 25 years as a

correctional officer at Elmore Correctional Facility in

Elmore County, Alabama; at the time of the filing of this

lawsuit, he held the rank of correctional officer II, or

sergeant. Rogers claims that he did not receive a

promotion in 2000 because of his gender. 

Case 2:00-cv-00109-MHT-VPM Document 145 Filed 06/28/06 Page 3 of 10
4

Ronald L. Weaver, a retired ADOC warden, testified

that, in early 2000, there was an opening for lieutenant

with the rank of correctional officer supervisor I at the

Loxley Community Base Facility, a “work release”

facility. The promotional register for the 2000

promotion, a "Certification of Candidates" for Loxley

Work Camp, dated February 25, 2000, reflects that the

candidates were ranked in the following order of their

scores: 

Cheryl Jackson White 94.34

Robert Pivonka White 93.98

Robert Rogers White 90.50

Mark Pelzer Native American 89.94

Wayne Gray Black 86.01

Weaver recommended Jackson but says that he would

have recommended Rogers for the position but for an

outstanding court order and an ADOC regulation, which he

says he understood to restrict the appointment of males

over females on the same certification, regardless as to

Case 2:00-cv-00109-MHT-VPM Document 145 Filed 06/28/06 Page 4 of 10
3. It is unclear whether Weaver says he thought he

could not select a higher ranked woman over a lower

ranked man or whether he says he thought he could not

select a woman over a man on the same certification

regardless as to their rank or qualifications. The

court’s findings and conclusion would be the same no

matter how Weaver’s alleged belief is articulated.

5

their qualifications.3

 For several reasons, the court

does not credit Weaver’s testimony as to what he says he

would have done.

First, Weaver admitted at trial that he did not think

women should serve as correctional officers in male

prisons and that this belief, in fact, was one of the

reasons he preferred Rogers over Jackson. The court is

convinced that this reason was not only one of the

reasons, it was the one and only reason Weaver wanted to

select Rogers over Jackson. Jackson was overwhelmingly

more qualified than Rogers. She had a higher score and

ranked higher on the certificate; because she lived in

and had more community ties with the area where the

Loxley facility is located, she could use those ties to

work with local businesses to secure jobs for inmates;

Case 2:00-cv-00109-MHT-VPM Document 145 Filed 06/28/06 Page 5 of 10
4. The court order provided that:

 "Defendants shall not appoint or offer

a position to a lower-ranking white

applicant on a certificate in preference

to a higher-ranking available Negro

applicant, unless the defendants have

first contacted and interviewed the

higher-ranking Negro applicant and have

(continued...)

6

she had extensive experience in a work release facility,

while Rogers did not; and Jackson had only three

disciplinaries while Rogers had 21.

Second, the court does not find Weaver’s testimony

that he understood an outstanding court order and an ADOC

regulation to require the promotion of women over men to

be credible. At the time of the events giving rise to

this litigation, ADOC and all other state agencies were

subject to a 1970 injunction in United States v. Frazer,

317 F.Supp. 1079, 1091 (M.D. Ala. 1970) (Johnson, J.),

which prohibited Alabama state officials from bypassing

a higher-ranked African-American applicant in favor of a

lower-ranked white applicant on a certificate of

eligibles.4

 The no-bypass rule was imposed in response to

Case 2:00-cv-00109-MHT-VPM Document 145 Filed 06/28/06 Page 6 of 10
4. (...continued)

determined that the Negro applicant

cannot perform the functions of the

position, is otherwise unfit for it, or

is unavailable. In every instance where

a determination is made that the Negro

applicant is unfit or unavailable,

documentary evidence shall be maintained

by the defendants that will sustain that

finding." 

Frazer, 317 F.Supp. at 1091.

5. On May 20, 2005, the Frazer no-bypass rule was

suspended. United States v. Flowers, 372 F.Supp.2d 1319

(M.D. Ala. 2005) (Thompson, J.). As a result, state

officials, including the defendants in this case, are no

longer obligated to enforce the rule.

7

evidence that, up until 1970, the State of Alabama had

unabashedly refused to hire and promote African-Americans

to almost any and all non-menial positions in state

government because of their race.5

 The no-bypass rule, on

its face, does not even discuss gender, and it is not

credible that Weaver could have understood it to cover

gender.

ADOC had an affirmative action plan and sexual

harassment policy that were implemented through

Administrative Regulation (AR) 206. Section I(B)(1) of

Case 2:00-cv-00109-MHT-VPM Document 145 Filed 06/28/06 Page 7 of 10
6. Other provisions related to § I(B)(1) read as

follows:

“To identify employment categories in

which minority groups or women are

under-represented in which to devote

special attention or remedial efforts.

***

“To improve the employment of minority

and females in all job groups in which

they are under-represented, practices

will be reviewed on a continuing basis.

***

“Review records to monitor mobility

within the organization. This will

include promotions, transfers, and

termination rates for minority and

female employees, as compared to other

employees.”

AR 206, §§ I(B)(3), VIII(C)(1).

8

AR 206 stated until February 22, 2000, that one of the

plan's objectives was "To insure that a targeted

recruitment program is coordinated, implemented, and

designed to reach and attract qualified blacks and women

applicants."6

 On its face, this provision and other

related provisions from the state regulation do not

Case 2:00-cv-00109-MHT-VPM Document 145 Filed 06/28/06 Page 8 of 10
7. To the extent that the evidence could,

(continued...)

9

require that women be preferred over men in promotions.

It is not credible that Weaver could have understood AR

206 to require such.

In conclusion, Weaver wanted to recommend Rogers

simply because Weaver did not think women should be

correctional officers in male prisons. Weaver’s reason

is illegal, see Edwards v. Department of Corrections, 615

F.Supp. 804 (M.D. Ala. 1985) (Thompson, J.); he

essentially wanted to, but could not, discriminate in

favor of Rogers and against Jackson because of their

gender. Defendants have established by clear and

convincing evidence that Jackson was more qualified than

Rogers; the reasons offered by defendants are not

pretextual for gender. Roger’s gender did not play any

role at all in his failure to be promoted in 2000; to the

contrary, Roger’s gender alone made him Weaver’s

preferred candidate, and fortunately Weaver did not break

the law by promoting Rogers over Jackson.7

Case 2:00-cv-00109-MHT-VPM Document 145 Filed 06/28/06 Page 9 of 10
7. (...continued)

nonetheless, be viewed as establishing that Rogers’s

gender was a motivating factor in the denial of the 2000

promotion, defendants have shown by clear and convincing

evidence, for the reasons given above, that, even in the

absence of Rogers’s gender as a motivating factor,

Jackson would have been selected over Rogers.

An appropriate judgment will be entered. 

Done, this the 28th day of June, 2006.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:00-cv-00109-MHT-VPM Document 145 Filed 06/28/06 Page 10 of 10