FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT SEPTEMBER 7, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 11466 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 03 -000 69 -M C -H G D -S J O H N S E A M A N , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s J E F F E R S O N C O U N T Y P E R S O N N E L B O A R D , T H E , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e rn D i s tr i c to f A l ab a ma

_________________________ ( S e p t e m b e r 7, 2005) B efo re B L A C K , C A RN E S an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: J ohn S e a m a n appe a l s the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s or de ruphol di ng the de c i s i on of the2

c o u r t - ap p o i n t e d r e c e i v e rf o rh i s e mp l o y e r , th e J e f f e r s o n Co u n ty , A l ab a ma Pe r s o n n e l Bo a r d , t o t e rmi n a t e h i s e mp l o y me n t . W e a f f i rm. I. I n 1981, the U ni t e d S t a t e s gove rnm e nt , pr i va t e c i vi l r i ght s pl a i nt i f f s , a nd the J e f f e r s on C ounty P e r s onne l B oa r d e nt e r e d i nt o ac ons e ntde c r e e m anda t i ng tha tthe B oard no tdi sc ri m i nat e i n the hi ri ng of m un i ci pal w orkers . T he decre e provi ded th a t aB irm in g h a m - b a s e d f e d e r a l d is tr ic t c o u r t w o u ld o v e r s e e th e B o a r d ’s e f f o r ts to c o m p ly w ith th e c o n s e n t d e c r e e . W e h a v e p r e v io u s ly r e c o u n te d m a n y o f th e f a c ts a nd the f i r s ttw e nty y e a r s of

the pr oc e dur a l hi s t ory of the c a s e i n E ns l e y B r a nc h, N . A . A . C . P . v. S e i be l s , 31 F . 3d 1548 ( 11th C i r . 1994) . A de t a i l e d upda t i ng of the p r o c e d u r a l h is to ry is n o t n e c e s s a ry h e r e . W h a t is im p o r ta n t f

o ro u rp r e s e n t p u rp o s e s is th a t in 2 0 0 2 th e d is tr ic t c o u rt, w hi c h w a s c ha r ge d w i th the r e s pons i bi l i ty of s e e i ng tha tthe di r e c t i ve s i n our E n s le y B r a n c h d e c is io n w e r e c a rr ie d o u t, u n d e r s ta n d ab ly b e c a m e im p a tie n t w ith th e s n a il’s p a c e a t w h ic h th e P e r s o n n e l B o ar d w a s r e v a m p in g its h ir in g p r a c tic e s to m e e t th e r e q u ir e m e n ts o f th e c o n s e n t d e c r e e . T h e c o u r t h e ldth e B o a r d m e m b e r s in c ont e m pta nd appoi nt e d ar e c e i ve rt o run the B oa r d’ s da y - t o- da y ope r a t i ons . O ne of the m a i n r e a s ons f

orthe c ont e m ptc i t a t i on w a s the B oar d’ s f a i l ur e t o obt a i n a nd p u t in to p la c e n o n - d is c r im in a to ry , jo b - r e la te d e m p lo y e e s e le c tio n p r o c e d u r e s .3

T he r e c e i ve r , f

r om the da y he w a s appoi nt e d, f oc us e d on the pr oc e s s f

or c r e a t i ng e m pl oy e e s e l e c t i on pr oc e dur e s , w hi c h w a s the r e s pons i bi l i ty of the P e r s onne l B oa r d’ s r e s e a r c h a nd va l i da t i on di vi s i on. S e a m a n ha d be e n m a na ge rof the r e s e a r c h a nd va l i da t i on di vi s i on f orthe pr e vi ous de c a de . S oon a f t e rthe r e c e i ve rw a s appoi nt e d, he i ns truc t e d S e a m a n tha thi s di vi s i on m us t : de ve l op a m a nua l de s c r i bi ng the pr ope rc r e a t i on of non- di s c r i m i na t ory e m pl oy e e s e l e c t i on pr oc e dur e s ; c onduc tas e l f - a s s e s s m e ntof

the di vi s i on; a nd be gi n f or e c a s t i ng f

or l i k el y v acan ci es so th e d i v i si o n co u l d st ay ah ead o f i t s w o rk . T h e receiver also caut i on ed S ea m an thatal l of the di vi si on ’ s a ss i gn m ent s s ho ul d b e di stri bu t ed e qua l l y a m ong the s t a f

f a nd r e vi e w e d by S e a m a n onc e c om pl e t e d. De s p i t e th e s e warn i n g s , S e a m a n d r a g g e d h i s f e e tf o rth r e e m o n th s . T wo out s i de c ons ul t a nt s hi r e d by the r e c e i ve rc onc l ude d tha tthe r e s e a r c h a nd va l i da t i on di vi s i on ha d notm a de pr ogr e s s i n a dopt i ng non- di s c r i m i na t ory e m pl oy e e s e l e c t i on pr oc e dur e s . T he r e c e i ve r , e xa s pe r a t e d by thi s c ont i nue d de l a y , f i r e d S e a m a n. T he recei v er w ro t e S eam an th atth e cau se fo r h i s t erm i n at i o n w as: 1 ) Y o u f a ile d to p la n , d e v e lo p , a n d im p le m e n t as tr a te g y to p r o d u c e v a lid s e l e c t i on ( e xa m i na t i on) de vi c e s i n at i m e l y m a nne ra nd pr of e s s i ona l l y s ound m anner. In addi t i on , se vera l re gi st er s r em ai ned ass i gn ed bu tno tcom pl et ed o v er tw o years. 2) Y ou di d notdi s tr i but e w ork a s s i gnm e nt s a m ong y ours t a f f r e a s onabl y a nd f a i r l y w hi c h c aus e d m or a l e pr obl e m s w i thi n the R e s e a r c h a nd V a l i da t i on D i vi s i on.4

3) Y ou f a i l e d t o e s t abl i s h a n e f

f e c t i ve m e thod f

ortr a c ki ng a nd e va l ua t i on the w ork pr oduc tof

y ours t a f

f . I n a ddi t i on, y ou f

a i l e d t o f or e c a s tf orc r e a t i on of new re gi st er s [ i . e. , j ob desc ri pt i on s] and t o t ake proact i ve m ea sure s t o m ee t de m a nd w he n i ta c c rue d. 4) Y ou f a i l e d t o t a ke c orr e c t i ve m e a s ur e s w he n i tw a s br oughtt o y our a tte n tio n th a t o n e o f

y o u rs ta f

f m e m b e r s , f

o rm o n th s , h a d f

a ile d to s c o r e a ll appl i ca t i on s e ven tho ug h the re gi st er s had been es t abl i shed. W hen you w er e t ol d t o i nf

orm the R e c e i ve rof

the pr obl e m , y ou r e f

us e d t o do s o. ( R .1 :6 :1 8 .) S e a m a n ap p e a le d th e r e c e iv e r ’s d e c is io n to f ir e h im . N o rm a lly , u n d e rs ta te l a w , am uni c i pa l e m pl oy e e f orJ e f f e r s on C ounty c a n appe a l hi s t e rm i na t i on t o the P e r s onne l B oa r d. T he B oa r d typi c a l l y r e f e r s the m a tt e rt o ahe a r i ng of f i c e r , w ho c onduc t s apubl i c he a r i ng, t a ke s t e s t i m ony , a nd s ubm i t s ar e c om m e nda t i on t o the B oa r d. T he B oa r d the n r e vi e w s the he a r i ng of f i c e r ’ s r e c om m e nda t i on de novo a nd m odi f i e s , a l t e r s , s e t s a s i de , ora f f i rm s i ta s the B oa r d de e m s appr opr i a t e . S e e 1945 A l a . L a w s 248 § 22. T h is w a s n o t th e p r o c e s s th a t ap p lie d to S e a m a n ’s ap p e a l. T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt, i n i t s 200 2 o rderho l di ng the P er sonn el B oard i n con t em pt , m od i fi ed the procedure f o re m p lo y e e s o f

th e B o a r d its e lf

w h o w e r e ap p e a lin g ate rm in a tio n d e c is io n . U nde rthe c our t ’ s or de rthe B oa r d w a s di ve s t e d of i t s j ur i s di c t i on t o he a rappe a l s of i t s ow n em pl oyee s f

rom advers e e m pl oym entac t i on s. M ore part i cul ar l y, the order s pe c i f i e d:5

f orthe dur a t i on of

the R e c e i ve r s hi p . . . ( i ) a ny e m pl oy e e of the J e f f e r s on C o u n ty P e r s o n n e l B o a r d h o ld in g p e rm a n e n t s ta tu s , a n d w h o is s u b je c t to de m ot i on, s us pe ns i on, di s c i pl i ne , ort e rm i na t i on a tthe i ns t a nc e of the R e c e i ve r , s ha l l be e nt i t l e d t o adue pr oc e s s he a r i ng be f or e am a gi s tr a t e j udge of [ the N or the rn D i s tr i c tof A l aba m a ] r a ndom l y dr a w n, w ho s ha l l appl y the sa m e s t andards of re vi ew as w ou l d o therw i se be appl i ed by the P er sonn el B oa r d i n s uc h m a tt e r s , butf orthe e xi s t e nc e of

thi s c our t ’ s or de r . . . . U pon c om pl e t i on of

the he a r i ng, the m a gi s tr a t e j udge s ha l l f i l e hi s w r i tt e n f

i ndi ngs a nd c onc l us i ons of

l a w , t oge the rw i th ar e c om m e nda t i on f ordi s pos i t i on of the appe a l . E i the rpa r ty m a y f i l e obj e c t i ons t o the m a gi s tr a t e j udge ’ s f i ndi ng a nd c onc l us i ons w i thi n t e n ( 10) c a l e nda rday s a f t e rthe y a r e e nt e r e d, a nd [ the di stri ctcourt ] shal l there af t erent ersuch orders as m aybe approp ri at e. ( R .1 .2 2 :3

– 4 .) I n c om pl i a nc e w i th the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s 2002 or de r , S e a m a n appe a l e d the r e c e i ve r ’ s de c i s i on t o t e rm i na t e hi m t o ar a ndom l y s e l e c t e d m a gi s tr a t e j udge of the N or the rn D i s tr i c tof

A l aba m a . T he m a gi s tr a t e j udge he l d athr e e da y he a r i ng on S ea m an ’s ap p ea l an d issu ed a 1 0 5 -p ag e r ep o rt re co m m en d in g th at th e r ec eiv er ’s t e rm i na t i on de c i s i on be r e ve r s e d a nd tha tS e a m a n be r e i ns t a t e d. T he r e c e i ve rt i m e l y obj e c t e d t o the m a gi s tr a t e j udge ’ s r e por ta nd r e c om m e nda t i on. T he di s tr i c tc our t , c ons i de r i ng the s e obj e c t i ons , r e vi e w e d de n o v o a ll o f

th e e v id e n c e in tr o d u c e d a t th e h e a r in g a n d r e je c te d th e m a g is tr a te j udge ’ s r e por ta nd r e c om m e nda t i on. T he c ourti s s ue d i t s ow n e i ghty - f our - pa ge or de ra f f i rm i ng the r e c e i ve r ’ s de c i s i on t o t e rm i na t e S e a m a n. S e a m a n now appe a l s the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s or de ruphol di ng the de c i s i on of the recei v er t o fi re h i m . H e co n t en d s th atth e d i stri ctco u rtm ad e th ree erro rs.6 II. S e a m a n ’s f

ir s t c o n te n tio n is th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t w a s w ith o u t ju r is d ic tio n to re v iew th e m ag istrate ju d g e’s r ec o m m en d atio n to re v er se th e r ec eiv er ’s t e rm i na t i on de c i s i on. H e a r gue s tha t , be c aus e the m a gi s tr a t e j udge w a s r e vi e w i ng the t e rm i na t i on de c i s i on a s the P e r s onne l B oa r d w oul d ha ve , a ny appe a l f r om the m a g is tr a te ’s r e c o m m e n d a tio n m u s t b e to ath r e e - ju d g e p a n e l o f

th e s ta te c ir c u it c our t , w hi c h i s the onl y body author i z e d by A l aba m al a w t o he a rappe a l s f r om the P e r s onne l B oa r d. I n othe rw or ds , S e a m a n a s s e r t s tha tas t a t e tr i a l j udge ha s the excl usi ve j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew the deci si on of a f eder al m agi stra t e j ud ge. T hi s c on t ent i on i s s peci ou s. In the 19 81 consentdecr ee the di stri ctcourt r e s e rve d j ur i s di c t i on t o e ns ur e tha tthe B oa r d w a s c om pl y i ng w i th a l l the p r o v is io n s o f

th e d e c r e e . A s p a r t o f

th is o v e r s ig h t, th e d is tr ic t c o u r t in 2 0 0 2 h e ld the P e r s onne l B oa r d i n c ont e m ptf orf a i l i ng t o m e e ti t s obl i ga t i ons unde rthe c o n s e n t d e c r e e . O n e o f th e r e a s o n s th e c o u r t g a v e f o rh o ld in g th e B o a r d in c ont e m ptw a s the B oa r d’ s f a i l ur e t o f

i r e e m pl oy e e s w ho c ont i nue d w r i t i ng e m pl oy e e s e l e c t i on c r i t e r i atha tdi d nota l l e vi a t e r a c i a l di s c r i m i na t i on. A s pa r tof the r e m e dy f

orthi s pr obl e m , the di s tr i c tc our tdi ve s t e d the B oa r d of i t s j ur i s di c t i on t o h ear app ea l s f

rom t erm i nat ed B oard em pl oyee s and pu ti n p l ac e the procedure s p e c if ie d in th e p a r t o f

th e 2 0 0 2 o r d e rw e h a v e q u o te d .Seaman a sserts, almost as an a side in his init ial brief, that deprivinghim of an 1 opportunity

to appeal his termination to a three- judgestate circuit court pane l violates the Due Proc e ss C la

us e . H eis wro ng . Proc e dural dueproc e ss re quire s th at on ewh os eprop ert y ri ghts have be en deprived by

an entity of the g overnment be af

forde d an opportunity

to be hea rd, notice, and a

n unbiased de cision maker. SeeGra yden v. Rhodes, 345 F .3d 1225, 1232 (11th Cir. 2003). Seama

n was afforded all of that. 7 T he di stri ctcourthad j uri sdi ct i on un der i t s 200 2 o rder , w hi ch w as ent er ed as a r es ul tof the 19 81 consentdecr ee and n everappeal ed, t o p uti n p l ac e aprocedure ap p r o p r ia te to a c h ie v in g th e g o a ls o f th e 1 9 8 1 d e c r e e a n d th e d ir e c tiv e s s e t o u t in o u r E n sley B ra n ch d ec isio n . S ea m an d o es n o t ch allen g e th e d istrict co u rt’s au th o ri ty t o p u ti n t o p l ace an al t ern at i v e p ro ced u re i n w h i ch ap p eal s fro m ad v erse em pl oym entac t i on s w ou l d b e t o the m agi stra t e j ud ge i nst ea d o f the P er sonn el B oa r d. I ns t e a d, he c ha l l e nge s the pr ovi s i on i n the 2002 or de rtha tappe a l s f r om the m agi stra t e j ud ge go t o the di stri ctcourti nst ea d o f t o a three -j ud ge st at e c ou rt panel , the procedure thatA l abam a l aw prov i des i n o ther c as es . If the di stri ctcourt h ad th e au th o ri ty t o o rd er th atap p eal s b e t o th e m ag i strat e j u d g e i n th e fi rst pl ac e— and S ea m an concedes thati tdi d— the courtal so had the autho ri ty t o o rder th a t ap p e a ls f

r o m th e m a g is tr a te ju d g e g o to th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. T h a t is p a r tic u la r ly obvi ous i n l i ghtof

the f a c ttha ta ny appe a l f

r om am a gi s tr a t e j udge a l w a y s i s t o the d is tr ic t c o u r t, n o t to s o m e o th e ra g e n c y , p a n e l, o rc o u r t. 1 III. S e a m a n’ s s e c ond c ont e nt i on i s tha t , e ve n i f the di s tr i c tc our tha d j ur i s di c t i on8

to r e v ie w th e m a g is tr a te ju d g e ’s r e c o m m e n d a tio n , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t c a n o n ly r e vi e w i tunde rthe hi ghl y de f e r e nt i a l s ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e s t a nda r d i ns t e a d of de n o v o w h ic h is th e r e v ie w s ta n d a r d th e c o u r t a c tu a lly ap p lie d . A c c o r d in g to S e a m a n, be c aus e the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s 2002 or de rr e qui r e s tha tthe m a gi s tr a t e j udge

“ appl y the s a m e s t a nda r ds of r e vi e w a s w oul d othe rw i s e [ unde rA l aba m al a w ] be ap p li ed b y th e P er so n n el B o ar d ,” an y f u rth erap p ea l fro m th e m ag istrate ju d g e’s d e c is io n m u s t a ls o a d h e r e to th e s ta n d a r d o f r e v ie w d ic ta te d b y A lab a m ala w . S e a m a n poi nt s outtha ti n the e m pl oy e e t e rm i na t i on c ont e xt , an a dve r s e de c i s i on of the P er sonn el B oard i s app ea l ed t o a three -j ud ge ci rc ui tcourtpanel and revi ew ed by i tfor s ub st ant i al evi dence. S ee 19 45 A l a. L aw s 248 § 2 2. T hi s i s e ss ent i al l y an a r g u m e n t ab o u t th e in te rp r e ta tio n o f th e c o u r t’s 2 0 0 2 o r d e r . T h e d i stri ctco u rtrej ect ed S eam an ’ s i n t erp ret at i o n o f i t s 2 0 0 2 o rd er an d so do w e . W hi l e S e a m a n i s c orr e c ttha tthe 2002 or de rr e qui r e d the m a gi s tr a t e j udge t o appl y the s a m e s t a nda r d of r e vi e w a s the P e r s onne l B oa r d, the or de rha d no c orr e s pondi ng pr ovi s i on tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tw oul d appl y the s a m e s t a nda r d of r e v ie w a s th e th r e e -

ju d g e c ir c u it c o u r t p a n e l. T h e 2 0 0 2 o r d e ro n ly s ta te d th a t “th is courtshal l there af

t erent ersuch orders as m aybe approp ri at e. ” ( R . 1: 22 : 4. ) T hat l a ngua ge , the di s tr i c tc our te xpl a i ne d i n thi s c a s e , di d notl i m i ti t s r e vi e w of the m agi stra t e j ud ge’ s ordert o the subst ant i al evi dence t es t ; i nst ea d, the m att erw as9

gove rne d by the l a w c ont a i ne d i n 28 U . S . C . § 636( b) ( 1) ( B ) , w hi c h pr ovi de s f orthe di s tr i c tc our tt o c onduc tde novo r e vi e w of am a gi s tr a t e j udge ’ s r e c om m e nda t i on. W e a c c or d the di s tr i c tc our ts ubs t a nt i a l de f e r e nc e i n i t s i nt e rpr e t a t i on a nd c ons truc t i on of

i t s ow n or de r s . C om m e r c i a l U ni on I ns . C o. v. S e pc o C orp. , 918 F . 2d 920, 924 ( 11th C i r . 1990) . A s l ong a s the c our t ’ s i nt e rpr e t a t i on of apr i or o r d e ris r e a s o n ab le , w e w ill a f f irm it. S e e id . H e r e the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s i nt e rpr e t a t i on i s r e a s onabl e . T he l a ngua ge of the or de ri t s e l f

doe s notpr e c l ude appl i c a t i on of the us ua l s t a nda r d s pe c i f i e d i n 28 U . S . C . § 636( b) ( 1) ( B ) , the f e de r a l s t a tut e gove rni ng the r e vi e w of m a gi s tr a t e j udge re po rt s and re com m endat i on s. T hatse ct i on st at es that : “ W i thi n t en days af t er be i ng s e rve d w i th ac opy , a ny pa r ty m a y s e rve a nd f i l e w r i tt e n obj e c t i ons t o [ the m agi stra t e j ud ge’ s] prop osed fi nd i ng s and re com m endat i on s a s provi ded b y rul es o f c o u r t. . . . A [ d is tr ic t] ju d g e o f th e c o u r t m a y a c c e p t, r e je c t, o rm o d if

y , in w h o le o rin p a r t, th e f

in d in g s o rr e c o m m e n d a tio n s m a d e b y th e m a g is tr a te ju d g e .” I d . S im ila r ly , th e 2 0 0 2 o r d e rs ta te s , “E ith e rp a r ty m a y f ile o b je c tio n s to th e m a g is tr a te j ud ge’ s f i nd i ng and con cl usi on s w i thi n t en (10) cal endar days af t erthey are ent er ed, and thi s c ou rtshal l there af t erent ersuch orders as m aybe approp ri at e. ” (R . 1: 22 : 4. ) T he m at er i al l y i dent i ca l l angu age s ug gest s am at er i al l y i dent i ca l s ta n d a r d o f

r e v ie w , a n d th e r e is n o th in g in th e 2 0 0 2 o r d e rto s u g g e s t th e c o n tr a ry .10

A cc ordi ng l y, w e def

ert o the di stri ctcourt ’ s i nt erpret at i on of i t s 200 2 o rder and con cl ud e thati tdi d n oterr i n revi ew i ng de no vo the m agi stra t e j ud ge’ s r eport a nd r e c om m e nda t i on. I V. S ea m an’ s f

i nal cont ent i on i s that , i f the di stri ctcourtappl i ed the subst ant i al e v id e n c e te s t a s it s h o u ld h a v e , th e c o u r t c o u ld n o t h a v e r e je c te d th e m a g is tr a te j ud ge’ s r ec om m endat i on thatS ea m an be rei nst at ed. G i ven o ur ho l di ng abov e that th e d istrict co u rt w as co rr ec t t o re v iew d e n o v o th e m ag istrate ju d g e’s r e c o m m e n d a tio n , th is c o n te n tio n is m o o t. T he di stri ctcourt ’ s f

i nd i ng s of f

ac t , w hi ch S ea m an do es no tcont end are c le a r ly e rr o n e o u s , s u p p o r t th e r e c e iv e r ’s d e te rm in a tio n th a t S e a m a n h a d f a ile d to devel op a s tra t egy f

or cr ea t i ng no n-di sc ri m i nat ory e m pl oyee se l ec t i on cr i t er i a, had f a i l e d t o pr ope r l y ut i l i z e d hi s s t a f f , a nd ha d f

a i l e d t o pr e ve nthi s s t a f

f f r om p r o d u c in g s h o d d y w o rkw ith o u t p r o p e rs u p e rv is io n . G iv e n th o s e f in d in g s o f

f a c t, the c our t ’ s de c i s i on t o uphol d the r e c e i ve r ’ s de c i s i on t o f i r e S e a m a n i s due t o be a f f i rm e d. AF F I RME D.