Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_02-cv-01401/USCOURTS-almd-2_02-cv-01401-2/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

RUTH LYNN DEPUTY, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO.

) 2:02cv1401-T

COLONIAL BANK, et al., ) (WO)

)

Defendants. )

ORDER ON PRETRIAL HEARING

A pretrial hearing was held in this case on July 20, 2005, wherein the

following proceedings were held and actions taken:

1. PARTIES AND TRIAL COUNSEL:

COUNSEL APPEARING AT PRETRIAL HEARING: (same as trial

counsel): For Plaintiff: Ruth L. Deputy

For Defendant: Terry Price

2. JURISDICTION AND VENUE:

The Court has jurisdiction and venue is proper under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

3. PLEADINGS: The following pleadings and amendments

were allowed:

Case 2:02-cv-01401-MHT-VPM Document 74 Filed 08/01/05 Page 1 of 17
2

Complaint and Answer thereto.

4. CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES:

a. The plaintiff:

i. Ruth Deputy Plaintiff was hired at Colonial Bank

Purchasing & Printing Department on March 26, 1996,

as a Customer Service/Secretary, next title

Administrative Assistant, next Office Manager and

currently Senior Administrative Assistant III. I worked

hand in hand with the Director Jim Thorne until he

resigned October 4, 1999.

ii. Approximately October 7, 1999 during a staff meeting

Judy Mills informed the department that everyone is

to report to Roy Mathews. Plaintiff, Ruth Deputy

asked to meet with Judy Mills after the assembly.

Plaintiff asked Judy Mills why she was not offered

the Directors position, her response was “due to the

graphic design degree, if I had posted the position,

you would not be qualified for it. Right now, we are

not filling the position; you and Roy are splitting the

responsibilities.” The plaintiff Ruth Deputy was

given 85% of the Directors responsibilities. 

iii. On April 24, 2001 and April 25, 2001 Roy Mathews did

not call in or report to work. On April 30, 2001

through May 4, 2001 he did not call in or report to

work. This pattern in Roy’s behavior was obvious to

his employees whom he supervised and the

department. Roy often had scheduled meetings with

our vendors, and w hen they arrived I would

apologize for his absence and assist them as

needed. The staff was concerned because I had to

document on payroll when they are one minute late

and they acknowledge that nothing was being done

about Roy. 

Case 2:02-cv-01401-MHT-VPM Document 74 Filed 08/01/05 Page 2 of 17
3

iv. On May 11, 2001 I began processing payroll which

was due on May 14, 2001. Roy Mathews did not

inform me of the time he w anted to use for the

period of April 24, 2001 through May 4, 2001. When

I completed his exempt time sheet, which I had done

in the past for Jim Thorne, I wrote uncompensated

time for the week; he did not show up. He stated that

he would call Judy Mills. He returned and said that

they have decided to use vacation time.

v. May 14, 2001 I faxed in the payroll and went to Human

Resources to talk to Vicki Hubbard the payroll

supervisor, about the situation. She informed me

that Judy Mills had contacted her and told her to pay

Roy vacation for that time period. She requested

that I call Judy Mills and if she told me to use

vacation time then that is what I should do. I

stressed to her that Roy did not show up for work or

call in. I returned to my to contact Judy Mills. She

returned my call and informed me to use 40hrs.

vacation.

vi. I then contacted Judy Mills’s supervisor Sarah

Moore. She was not in the office. I explained to her

secretary that I was being instructed by my

supervisor Judy Mills to pay an employee vacation

time w hen he did not show up or call in to work.

Sarah Moore did not return my call.

vii. On May 15, 2001 Andrea McCain called me at

approximately 10:30 am and asked me if I would come

to her office. Upon arrival she stated “you upset

Sarah Moore and Judy Mills and you don’t know how

much trouble you have caused by contacting Sarah

Moore”. During this meeting she repeatedly said,

“this type of behavior will not be tolerated.” I

explained to Andrea that this is not the first or

second time this has occurred and it is a pattern of

behavior. I received a warning letter that stated in

Case 2:02-cv-01401-MHT-VPM Document 74 Filed 08/01/05 Page 3 of 17
4

closing “Ruth acted inappropriately by discussing

the situation with Human Resources, Judy Mills, and

Sarah Moore. This behavior will not be tolerated in

the future.” I felt threatened by Andrea’s behavior

and management of loosing my job if I reported

anything else. Therefore, when I was faced with the

discrimination because of my race and sex, in

violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as

amended. I elected to seek outside assistance. I

filed a charge of Discrimination with the EEOC on

July 9, 2002. 

viii. October 22, 2001 was Roy Mathews last day of

Employment with the Company. On or before

November 2, 2001 Judy Mills held a staff meeting to

inform the Purchasing Department that Roy Mathews

was no longer with the company. Roy Mathews was

terminated for abandonment. I did not receive an

apology nor did Ancrea McCain retract the warning

letter I received for reporting this situation. 

ix. On March 1, 2002, Plaintiff Ruth Deputy received an

email from Judy Mills stating in summary: she had

interviewed Clifford Harris for Purchasing Director,

but she did not want to make the decision by herself,

she wanted me to have the opportunity to meet with

him. (See Exhibit) This interview took place prior to

the position being posted in house. The plaintiff was

not aware that the position was available.

x. Before Craig Burkhalter’s hire for the Directors

position on June 24, 2002 Judy Mills instructed me to

interview him. His tenure ended w ith the company

after his 90-day evaluation.

xi. During Craig Burkhalters tenure with the Company,

I trained him numerous hours per day as required by

Judy Mill & Craig Burkhalter. I (Plaintiff) continued to

Case 2:02-cv-01401-MHT-VPM Document 74 Filed 08/01/05 Page 4 of 17
5

handle the responsibilities assigned by my

supervisor Judy Mills during and after his tenure.

xii. The Director’s position has not been filled and as of

December 2004, we no longer have a permanent

employee in the Typesetting position and I am

indirectly instructed to complete these tasks as

needed.

xiii. Judy Mills requested that the plaintiff interview

applicants for the position of the Director. Per Judy

Mills, Ruth Deputy was responsible for training the

new Director of Purchasing & Printing, and also train

Judy Mills and her new Assistant of the Operations

department on the functions and the operation of the

Purchasing Department. Judy Mills’s office is located

at One Commerce Street, Montgomery AL 36104 and

the Purchasing department is located at 150 Lee

Street, Montgomery AL 36106.

xiv. Morris Wilson - was the Assistant Production

Manager to Roy Mathews. As of January 2005 he has

been working the Purchasing Department for five

years.

Altering Documents 18 U.S.C. 1001

The job description for (Senior Administrative Assistant) that was sent

to EEOC Title and experience required fields were altered. See Attached Job

Descriptions. These false documents were used to mislead the EEOC’s

investigation.

Throughout the deposition the phrase “you know” was inserted 114

times. Parts of the deposition were sent to court as evidence with the

defendants’ Request for Summary Judgment. Mr. Middlebrook statement

Case 2:02-cv-01401-MHT-VPM Document 74 Filed 08/01/05 Page 5 of 17
6

“you are lying” is also missing from the deposition. I had requested a copy

of the deposition on disc from the Foshee & Turner Court Reporters at the

cost of $875.35. I’m requesting that the defendant reimburse me for the cost

of the altered document.

The Job description for the (Director of Corporate Purchasing &

Printing) Education and Experience was altered. (Docket #38 Exhibit C)

CLOSING STATEMENT

My supervisor Judy Mills was aware of my qualifications to handle the

Purchasing & Printing Department. She knew, when Jim Thorne was out of

the office myself maintained it. She also felt confident that I could handle

85% of the Directors responsibilities. Since Jim Thorne departure October 4,

1999 I’ve been handling the director’s responsibilities. Per Judy Mills (Docket

#38, Exhibit 2, pg. 6, and paragraph 16 &18) I received an increase for

assuming some of the duties formerly performed by Jim Thorne. That

statement is false. (See Exhibit)

I was qualified to handle the responsibilities of the Director, train the

new director and interview candidates for the position. Also, I was required

to train Judy Mills & her Assistant Robert Banks on the functions and

operations of the Purchasing & Printing Department. Yet according to Judy

Mills my supervisor, whom gave me the responsibilities and human resources

Case 2:02-cv-01401-MHT-VPM Document 74 Filed 08/01/05 Page 6 of 17
7

response to my bid, I did not meet the minimum qualifications for the position.

(Docket #38, Exhibit 2, pg. 6, paragraph 30) In summary Judy Mills

determined that the plaintiff did not have the necessary experience to

manage the print shop. (Docket #38, Exhibit 2, pg. 4, paragraph 18) Judy

stated that Plaintiff received this increase for the duties assigned to her. This

statement is false.

 Due to the altered documents and false statements made by

the defendant I’m inclined to believe the Directors salary the defendants

reported was false. I continue to handle the Directors responsibilities without

the Title and Salary or an increase for performing the duties of the Director.

Thus far no Director has been hired. 

b. The defendant(s):

General Background

1. Plaintiff began working for the Bank in 1996 in a

Secretary/Customer Service position in the Purchasing

Department and was promoted to her current Senior

Administrative Assistant position (sometimes referred to as

“Office Manager”) in the Purchasing and Printing Department

sometime thereafter.

2. Defendant Judy Mills is employed by the Bank as its Senior Vice

President for Retail Operations. One of the departments

supervised by Mills is the Purchasing and Printing Department.

Case 2:02-cv-01401-MHT-VPM Document 74 Filed 08/01/05 Page 7 of 17
8

The Purchasing and Printing Department

3. The Bank’s Purchasing and Printing Department is responsible

for printing, ordering, stocking and supplying the various bank

departments and branches with the printed material needed for

bank operations.

4. The Department is divided into three general areas: the Print

Shop, the Warehouse and the Office (administrative).

5. The Print Shop uses raw materials to produce finished products

that are needed by the Bank’s branches. Printing press

operators in the Print Shop actually print the material that is

supplied to internal Bank clients.

6. From January 1998 until October 2001, the Print Shop was

supervised by Production Manager Roy Mathews. The

Production Manager’s duties included “organiz[ing] workflow and

manag[ing] employees of an internal printing facility while

maintaining quality standards” and” analy[sis] of production

requests, plan production schedules . . .” and other tasks

associated with print shop operation.

7. The Warehouse stores materials until those materials are

needed by the Bank. The Warehouse has been supervised by

Warehouse Manager Richard Shepherd since before 1999.

8. As Senior Administrative Assistant, Plaintiff was (and is)

responsible for record keeping, paperwork and other

administrative functions in the Purchasing and Printing

Department. Although Plaintiff supervised a secretary who

assisted with the Department’s administrative functions for a

short period of time, she has typically been the only employee in

the administrative function for the Department and she has never

supervised or managed the print shop or warehouse operations

nor has she ever operated the presses. The Department’s

administrative function is also referred to as the “office” and

Plaintiff’s position has been referred to as the “office manager”

from time to time.

Case 2:02-cv-01401-MHT-VPM Document 74 Filed 08/01/05 Page 8 of 17
9

The Purchasing and Printing Director

9. The Purchasing and Printing Director supervised the Department

and reported to Judy Mills.

10. Until the Autumn of 1999, the Production Manager, Senior

Administrative Assistant and the Warehouse Manager all

reported to Jim Thorne, Printing and Purchasing Department

Director. Thorne’s employment with the Bank ended effective

October 5, 1999. Thorne’s annual salary at the time of his

resignation was $45,362.70 and the Director’s position is

classified as a grade 10 exempt (10E) position in the Bank.

11. The Purchasing and Printing Director’s responsibility is

summarized as follows:

Conduct negotiations with vendors for materials

requiring commitments over extended periods to

maintain an uninterrupted supply of material and

services to bank branches. Establish and maintain

procedures for purchasing and in-plant printing

specifications. Oversee printing operations by

maintaining quality standards and communications

with bank departments. Ensure production

employees are properly cross-trained in job duties

and that all OSHA standards are met.

The 1999 Decision Not to Fill the Director Position is Time Barred and

Should No Longer Be at Issue

12. Rather than replace Thorne, Mills elected to divide the Director’s

duties among three of the remaining employees in the

Department. Mills decided not to replace the Director because

she believed the Department could operate effectively without a

Director because she could provide direct supervision to the

Department at that time.

13. According to Plaintiff, Mills told her that she and Mathews would

each assume part of the Director’s work after Thorne left.

Plaintiff acknowledges that there was one fewer employee in the

Case 2:02-cv-01401-MHT-VPM Document 74 Filed 08/01/05 Page 9 of 17
10

Department after Jim Thorne left the Purchasing Department.

According to Plaintiff, it was a good decision to eliminate the

Director’s position and divide the responsibilities among the

people in the Department.

14. Plaintiff, Mathews and Shepherd each assumed some of the

duties that had been previously performed by Thorne.

Thereafter, Plaintiff, Mathews and Shepherd, who had previously

each reported to Thorne, each reported directly to Mills.

15. At her deposition, Plaintiff testified that she performed 85% of the

Director’s duties and that Mathews performed 15% of the

Director’s duties after Thorne left.

16. Mathews’ job title - Production Manager - did not change after

Thorne resigned.

17. Similarly, Plaintiff’s job title - Senior Administrative Assistant - did

not change after Thorne resigned.

18. Both Mathews and Plaintiff received a pay increase as a result of

assuming some of the duties formerly performed by Thorne.

19. Effective December 27, 1999, Mathews’ pay increased 20%, from

$29,744/year to $35,692.80/year, and his job grade increased

from 6E to 8E (Exempt Level 8).

20. Effective November 29, 1999, Plaintiff’s pay increased 22%, from

$10.50/hour to $12.81/hour, and her job grade was increased

from 8N to 10N (Non-Exempt Level 10).

Mills Elects to Fill the Director’s Position After Mathews’

Employment Ends

21. Mathews’ employment with the Bank ended effective October 22,

2001.

22. Rather than fill the Production Manager position held by Mathews

at the time his employment ended, Mills, who believed her

schedule was such that she no longer had the time to directly

Case 2:02-cv-01401-MHT-VPM Document 74 Filed 08/01/05 Page 10 of 17
11

supervise the Department, elected to fill the Printing and

Purchasing Director position with someone who could both

perform the functions of the Production Manager (who was not

being replaced) and function as the overall manager for the

Department.

23. The new Director would report to Judy Mills. Plaintiff and

Shepherd would report to the Director.

24. Prior experience managing and operating a print shop was

essential to the Director position and Mills sought candidates who

possessed this experience.

25. The qualifications for the Purchasing and Printing Director’s

position were stated as follows:

Education and Experience

[1] Bachelor’s Degree in Business Management or a

technical degree in Graphics Art. Graphic

Communication Manager certification required. [2]

Five to seven years experience in printing

plant management and processing required. [3]

Two to three years of supervisory experience

required. [4] Experience with word processing,

spreadsheet, inventory control, print production and

purchasing software applications required.

Plaintiff Bids for the Director Position

26. On March 11, 2002, Plaintiff forwarded her Job Bid Application

for the Director’s position to Deborah Huxford, a Recruiter in the

Bank’s Human Resources Department.

27. One of Huxford’s responsibilities at that time was to screen the

applications (from external candidates) and job bids (from

internal candidates) to distinguish candidates who possessed

only a limited portion of the objective qualifications for the job at

issue from those who were qualified.

Case 2:02-cv-01401-MHT-VPM Document 74 Filed 08/01/05 Page 11 of 17
12

28. Huxford compared Plaintiff’s qualifications to the qualifications

required by the Director’s position and determined that Plaintiff

possessed few, if any, of the objective qualifications required for

the position.

29. In particular, Huxford noted that Plaintiff did not have the required

educational background, had no printing plant management

experience and did not have two to three years of supervisory

experience. Huxford did not forward Plaintiff’s job bid to Mills for

consideration because Plaintiff lacked all of these qualifications.

30. Huxford sent Plaintiff a memorandum on March 15, 2002

informing Plaintiff: “After reviewing your job bid application I have

determined you do not meet the minimal qualifications for this

position.”

31. Plaintiff has a double Associate of Science degree in Accounting

and Business Administration but she does not have a bachelor’s

degree.

32. Plaintiff had no print shop experience, much less any printing

plant management experience or experience supervising printing

plant employees. Plaintiff has never operated the printing press

and pre-press film area and she has never worked on the sorter.

Plaintiff cannot operate the press or shoot film and has no

experience in either of these areas.

33. Plaintiff did not know who made the assessment that she was not

qualified for the Director’s position but she admits that she did

not satisfy the requirements for the Director’s position that are

set forth in Huxford’s memorandum.

34. Huxford did not know what Plaintiff’s race was at the time she

made the assessment that Plaintiff was not qualified.

35. Neither Andrea McCain nor Judy Mills played any role in

Huxford’s assessment that Plaintiff did not meet the minimum

qualifications for the position.

Case 2:02-cv-01401-MHT-VPM Document 74 Filed 08/01/05 Page 12 of 17
13

Selection of Craig Burkhalter

36. No candidate fully satisfied the minimum qualifications for the

Director’s position.

37. Based on the need for a Director with significant experience in

actual print plant operations because the Production Manager

responsibilities were rolled into the Director’s position, Mills

selected Craig Burkhalter for the Director’s position. Burkhalter

was hired as the Purchasing and Printing Director effective June

24, 2002.

38. Burkhalter had worked in the printing field since 1971 and his

prior printing experience included work as the Printing and

Bindery Manager of Color Craft from February 1999 until May

2002, Print Shop Manager of Crown Printing from September

1998 until February 1999, and owner of Camellia Printing from

December 1988 until June 1998.

39. Plaintiff admits that Burkhalter had more than 5 - 7 years of

printing plant management experience.

40. The Director would not only have to supervise and understand

the operation of the printing plant, but it also might be necessary

for the selected candidate to actually operate the printing press

at times. Burkhalter could operate a press because he did so in

his previous positions.

Plaintiff Would Not Have Been Selected by Mills

41. In or about January 2002 and prior to opening the Director’s

position for bid, Mills considered whether any Department

employee, including Plaintiff, was a suitable candidate for the

Director position. Mills determined that none of the Department’s

employees was a suitable candidate for the position because no

Department employee, including Plaintiff, had the necessary

experience actually managing a print shop.

Case 2:02-cv-01401-MHT-VPM Document 74 Filed 08/01/05 Page 13 of 17
14

The Bank’s Policies Prohibit Discrimination

42. The Bank’s Equal Employment Opportunity policy provides:

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

It is the policy of the Company to provide equal

opportunity in employment to all employees and

applicants for employment. No person shall be

discriminated against in employment because of such

individuals’ race, religion, color, sex, age, national

origin, marital status, disability, veteran or citizenship

status.

This Policy applies to all terms, conditions, and

privileges of employment, including hiring, probation,

training and development, promotion, transfer,

compensation, benefits, educational assistance,

layoff and recall, social and recreational programs,

termination and retirement.

43. Plaintiff received a copy of the Bank’s policies prohibiting

discrimination.

44. Plaintiff acknowledges that it is a violation of Bank policy not to

report a claim of discrimination. However, although she was

aware of the policy, Plaintiff never complained to anybody within

the Bank about allegations of discrimination.

45. Plaintiff acknowledged in her application for employment, as well

as on each performance appraisal that she received, that she

was aware of the Bank’s policies prohibiting discrimination and

that she should speak out to the equal opportunity coordinator

if she thought there were problems.

46. Plaintiff has no complaints about any of the Colonial Bank

policies related to discrimination, harassment, retaliation, EEO,

tardiness, insufficient funds, and doesn’t contend that any of the

policies are discriminatory on their face.

Case 2:02-cv-01401-MHT-VPM Document 74 Filed 08/01/05 Page 14 of 17
15

47. Plaintiff is unaware of anybody ever losing their job because they

complained about discrimination.

Plaintiff’s Claims

48. Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination on July 9, 2002 and

checked the boxes for race and sex discrimination, but she did

not check retaliation. Plaintiff received the September 30, 2002

letter from Donald P. Burris of the EEOC setting forth the

dismissal of her charge and notice of rights, and she understood

that the EEOC concluded their investigation and had not found

that Colonial had done anything wrong.

49. McCain and Mills are the only two people that Plaintiff contends

discriminated against her.

50. Plaintiff complains about the 1999 decision because she

erroneously believes that Mathews was given the salary and title

associated with the Director’s position.

51. Plaintiff complains about the 2002 decision because she (a) was

required to assist Burkhalter and (b) because she had been

performing a percentage of the Director’s responsibilities.

52. There is no other position at Colonial Bank that Plaintiff wants.

The Director of Purchasing was the only job that Plaintiff sought,

and that job was never posted after Craig Burkhaulter left

because it no longer exists. Plaintiff is well aware of the job

bidding procedure at Colonial Bank, and, if she wanted to bid on

other jobs, she should do so, but she has chosen not to do so.

53. Plaintiff never heard Mills say anything about race, including

Plaintiff’s race, that was inappropriate.

54. Plaintiff never heard McCain say anything about race, including

Plaintiff’s race, that was inappropriate.

55. Plaintiff also testified at her deposition that she first felt like she

had been discriminated against in October 2000 when she was

not given the Director’s position.

Case 2:02-cv-01401-MHT-VPM Document 74 Filed 08/01/05 Page 15 of 17
16

56. The first time Plaintiff raised any issue of race or sex

discrimination was when she filed her EEOC charge on or about

July 9, 2002.

57. In sum, Defendant denies that it has discriminated against

Plaintiff on any prohibited basis. Defendant denies that it has

altered any document in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001.

Defendant denies that Plaintiff was assigned most of the duties

of Director and further denies that Plaintiff was qualified for that

job.

5. STIPULATIONS BY AND BETWEEN THE PARTIES:

It is ORDERED that:

(1) The jury selection and trial of this cause,

which is to last one (1) day, are set for

August 8, 2005, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom

2E, Frank M. Johnson, Jr. Courthouse Complex,

One Church Street, Montgomery, Alabama;

(2) The parties are to file their pre-trial

briefs, proposed jury selection questions, and

proposed jury instructions by August 3, 2005;

(3) Each party shall have available at the time of

trial, for use by the court (the judge, the

courtroom deputy clerk, and the law clerk),

Case 2:02-cv-01401-MHT-VPM Document 74 Filed 08/01/05 Page 16 of 17
three copies of the list of his or her

exhibits;

(4) At least three days before trial, counsel are

to contact the courtroom deputy clerk about

the procedures for pre-marking all trial

exhibits;

(5) Each party shall have available a sufficient

number of copies of each photostatically

reproducible exhibit for each of the jurors,

opposing counsel, the courtroom deputy clerk,

the law clerk, and the judge; and

(6) All understandings, agreements, and

stipulations contained in this pretrial order

shall be binding on all parties unless an

objection is noted and filed with the court

within seven (7) days from the date of this

order.

DONE, this the 1st day of August, 2005.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:02-cv-01401-MHT-VPM Document 74 Filed 08/01/05 Page 17 of 17