Walker v. The Housing Authority for the City of Montgomery, Alabama

Filing 99

JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF SYNETHIA L. WALKERS CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT HOUSING AUTHORITY it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT, and DECREE of the court, based on the 92 jury verdict, that: (1) Judgment is entered in favor of plaintiff Synethia L. Walker and again st defendant Housing Authority for the City of MontgomeryFOR THE CITY OF MONTGOMERY in favor of Janet DeCreny against The Housing Authority for the City of Montgomery, Alabama; (2) Plaintiff Walker shall have and recover from defendant Montgomery Hou sing Authority the sum of $ 50,000 in compensatory damages for emotional suffering and mental anguish; (3) Plaintiff Walker shall have and recover from defendant Montgomery Housing Authority $ 16,000 in compensatory damages for backpay; fur ther ORDERING that, the parties having agreed in open court at trial, without waiving other objections, that liquidated damages apply to only backpay in this case, plaintiff Walker is allowed until March 26, 2015, to file a motion, with accompanying brief, for liquidated damages; further ORDERED that, should any statutory caps or other limitations apply to damages, defendant Montgomery Housing Authority is allowed until March 26, 2015, to file a motion, with accompanying brief, seeking a modific ation to reflect such; further ORDERED that plaintiff Walker is allowed until March 26, 2015, to file a motion, with accompanying brief, for attorneys fees, as further set out in order; further ORDERED that costs are taxed against def Montgomery Hous ing Authority, for which execution may issue; directing the clerk to enter this document on the civil docket as a final judgment pursuant to Rule 58 FRCP; these cases are not closed. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 3/6/15. (Attachments: # 1 civil appeals checklist)(djy, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION
SYNETHIA L. WALKER,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE HOUSING AUTHORITY FOR
THE CITY OF MONTGOMERY,
ALABAMA,
Defendant.

JANET DeCRENY,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE HOUSING AUTHORITY FOR
THE CITY OF MONTGOMERY,
ALABAMA, and SHANNELL
HARDWICK
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:13cv675-MHT
(WO)

CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:13cv846-MHT
(WO)

JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF SYNETHIA L. WALKER’S CLAIMS
AGAINST DEFENDANT HOUSING AUTHORITY
FOR THE CITY OF MONTGOMERY
On the 5th day of March 2015, after this cause had
been submitted to a jury, a verdict was returned as
follows:

I.
Do you find
evidence:

Liability

from

a

preponderance

of

the

Title VII Color Discrimination
1. That Ms. Walker’s color was a motivating
factor that prompted the Montgomery Housing
Authority to take an adverse employment action
against Ms. Walker?
Answer Yes or No

NO

If your answer is “No,” this ends your
deliberations
on
the
issue
of
color
discrimination, and you should continue to
Question No. 3. If your answer is “Yes,” go to
the next question.
2. That the Montgomery Housing Authority
would have taken an adverse employment action
against Ms. Walker even if the Montgomery
Housing Authority had not taken Ms. Walker’s
color into account?
Answer Yes or No

_____--________

If your answer is “Yes,” this ends your
deliberations
on
the
issue
of
color
discrimination, and you should continue to the
next issue. If your answer is “No,” then
consider this in the damages section.
Title VII Color Harassment
3. That Ms. Walker proved her color
harassment claim against the Montgomery Housing
Authority?
2

Answer Yes or No

______NO_______

If your answer is “No,” this ends your
deliberations on color harassment.
If your
answer is “Yes,” consider this in the damages
section.
Title VII retaliation
4. That Ms. Walker proved her Title VII
retaliation
claim
against
the
Montgomery
Housing Authority?
Answer Yes or No

_____YES________

If your answer is “No,” this ends your
deliberations on the Title VII retaliation
claim. If your answer is “Yes,” consider this
in the damages section.
FLSA Overtime Claim
5. That Ms. Walker proved her FLSA failure
to pay overtime claim against the Montgomery
Housing Authority?
Answer Yes or No

_____NO________

If your answer is “No,” this ends your
deliberations on the FLSA overtime claim.
If
your answer is “Yes,” consider this in the
damages section.
FLSA Retaliation Claim
6. That Ms.
retaliation
claim
Housing Authority?

Walker proved
against
the
3

her FLSA
Montgomery

Answer Yes or No

______YES_______

If your answer is “No,” this ends your
deliberations on the FLSA retaliation claim.
If your answer is “Yes,” consider this in the
damages section.
II.
Do you find
evidence:

from

Damages
a

preponderance

of

the

1. That Ms. Walker should be able to
recover compensatory damages for emotional
suffering and mental anguish under one or more
of her Title VII or FLSA claims?
Answer Yes or No

____YES_________

If your answer is “Yes,”
in what amount?
$ 50,000.00__
2. That Ms. Walker should be able to
recover compensatory damages for backpay under
one or more of her color discrimination, Title
VII retaliation, FLSA claims?
Answer Yes or No

_____YES_____

If your answer is “Yes,”
in what amount?
$ 16,000.00

3. That Ms. Walker should be able
recover her overtime pay under the FLSA?
Answer Yes or No
4

____NO_____

to

If your answer is “Yes,”
in what amount?
$_--____
If you awarded damages under Questions No.
2 or 3 for FLSA violations, then go to Question
No. 4. If not, your deliberations are over for
Ms. Walker. Please sign and date this form.
4. That the Montgomery Housing Authority
knew or showed reckless disregard for whether
the FLSA prohibited its conduct?
Answer Yes or No

____YES_________

SO SAY WE ALL.
_/s/ E Flynn_________
Foreperson’s Signature

DATE: __3/5/15________

It is therefore the ORDER, JUDGMENT, and DECREE of
the court, based on the verdict (doc. no. 92), that:
(1) Judgment
Synethia

L.

is

Walker

entered
and

in

favor

against

of

defendant

plaintiff
Housing

Authority for the City of Montgomery.
(2) Plaintiff Walker shall have and recover from
defendant

Montgomery

$ 50,000

in

Housing

compensatory

suffering and mental anguish.

5

Authority
damages

the

for

sum

of

emotional

(3) Plaintiff Walker shall have and recover from
defendant

Montgomery

Housing

Authority

$ 16,000

in

compensatory damages for backpay.
It

is

further

ORDERED

that,

the

parties

having

agreed in open court at trial, without waiving other
objections,

that

liquidated

damages

apply

to

only

backpay in this case, plaintiff Walker is allowed until
March 26, 2015, to file a motion, with accompanying
brief, for liquidated damages.
It is further ORDERED that, should any statutory
caps or other limitations apply to damages, defendant
Montgomery Housing Authority is allowed until March 26,
2015,

to

file

a

motion,

with

accompanying

brief,

seeking a modification to reflect such.
It

is

further

ORDERED

that

plaintiff

Walker

is

allowed until March 26, 2015, to file a motion, with
accompanying brief, for attorney’s fees.

In her brief,

plaintiff Walker should address the factors articulated
in American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia v. Barnes,
168

F.3d

423

(11th

Cir.

1999);
6

Dillard

v.

City

of

Greensboro, 213 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir. 2000); Norman v.
Hous. Auth. of City of Montgomery, 836 F.2d 1292 (11th
Cir. 1988); Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc.,
488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1974); Hearn v. General Elec.
Co.,

1996

WL

(Thompson,

937034

(M.D.

Gay

Lesbian

J.);

Ala.

Sept.

Bisexual

12,

1996)

Alliance

v.

Sessions, 930 F. Supp. 1492 (M.D. Ala. 1996) (Thompson,
J.).
It is further ORDERED that costs are taxed against
defendant

Montgomery

Housing

Authority,

for

which

execution may issue.
The clerk of the court is DIRECTED to enter this
document

on

the

civil

pursuant

to

Rule

58

of

docket
the

as

a

Federal

final
Rules

judgment
of

Civil

Procedure.
These cases are not closed.
DONE, this the 6th day of March, 2015.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson___
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE