Collier et al v. State of Alabama Department of Transportation et al

Filing 68

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER DENYING 59 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by State of Alabama Department of Transportation.. Signed by Magistrate Judge John E Ott on 12/18/2018. (KAM)

FILED
2018 Dec-18 AM 10:08
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
WILLIE COLLIER and COLLIER
WELDING, LLC,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 2:16-cv-01177-JEO

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiffs Willie Collier and Collier Welding, LLC filed a complaint in this
court1 against the Alabama Department of Transportation (“ALDOT”) alleging
violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VI”). 2 (Doc. 1).3
The court has before it the June 22, 2018 motion for summary judgment filed by
ALDOT. (Doc. 59). The motion has been fully briefed (docs. 60, 66, 67), and is
1

The parties have consented to the exercise of dispositive jurisdiction by a magistrate judge
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (Doc. 34).
2

The complaint also stated claims against ADLOT for race discrimination in violation of § 1983
and the Fourteenth Amendment. (Doc. 1). The court dismissed these claims on August 8, 2017.
(Docs. 39, 40). Additionally, the claims in the complaint against Bell Construction and
Associates were dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). (Docs.
53, 54).
3

All evidentiary citations refer to the document and page number provided by CM/ECF, the
court’s electronic document filing system, except for citations to depositions, which refer to the
page number provided on the deposition transcript, and affidavits, which refer to the paragraph
number in the affidavit.

now ripe for decision. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is due to be
denied.
I.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
Plaintiff Willie Collier is an African American and the owner of Collier

Welding, LLC. (Doc. 1 ¶ 5; Doc. 61-1 (“Collier Dep.”) at 35). Defendant ALDOT
is a state agency responsible for the administration of federally funded highway
construction contracts in accordance with state and federal law. Eligibility for
federal funds requires ALDOT to implement a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise
program (“DBE”) to promote the hiring of minority businesses in the construction
industry. Collier Welding, LLC was certified as a DBE by ALDOT. (See Doc. 661 at 2).
On March 27, 2015, ALDOT opened bidding for a project for a bridge
replacement and approaches on 31st Street North over Interstate 59/20 and on 12th
Avenue North over Interstate 59/20 in Birmingham, Alabama.

(Doc. 61-2

(“McBrien Aff.”) ¶ 5; Doc. 66-1 at 4-5). Construction for the bridge project was
set to begin on August 3, 2015. (Doc. 61-4 (“Powe Aff.”) ¶ 6). The project was
awarded to Bell Construction and Associates on May 13, 2015. (Doc. 6-1 at 4-5).
In August or September 2015, Collier met with Casey Mims from Bell
Construction. (Collier Dep. at 83, 104, 109-10). Collier told Mims he wanted to
submit a quote to perform welding work on the project. (Id. at 109-110). During
2

this meeting, Collier gave Mims his welding certificate, DBE certification, LLC
formation papers, and his state and county business licenses. (Id. at 82, 84).
Mims told Collier he had to verify Collier’s eligibility to work on an ALDOT
project as a welder. (Id. at 83, 103).
ALDOT verified that Collier was qualified to participate in ALDOT’s DBE
program, but stated that Collier was not certified to work as a welder on any
ALDOT projects. (Doc. 61-8 (“Pickett Aff.”) ¶ 7; Collier Dep. at 65-66). No one
at Bell Construction requested that Collier be tested to gain ALDOT certification.
Collier was not hired by Bell Construction to work on the project, resulting in the
instant complaint.
II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c), summary judgment is proper

“if the pleading depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file
together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). The party seeking summary
judgment bears the initial burden of informing the court of the basis for its motion
and identifying the portions of the pleadings or filings which it believes
demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Id at 323. Once the
movant has met its initial burden, the non-moving party must go beyond the
3

pleading and by his own affidavits, or by the depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file, designate specific facts showing that there
is a genuine issue suitable for trial. See id. at 324; see also Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 56(e).
Substantive law identifies which facts are material and which are irrelevant.
See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). All reasonable
doubts about the facts and all justifiable inferences must be resolved in favor of the
non-movant. See Fitzpatrick v. City of Atlanta, 2 F.3d 1112, 1115 (11th Cir.
1993). A dispute is genuine “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could
return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. If the
evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment
may be granted. See id. at 249.
III.

DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs contend that ALDOT discriminated against them in violation of

the Title VI on the basis of race when “it informed Bell Construction that [Collier]
was ineligible to work as a welder on [ALDOT] projects because he lacked the
proper welding certification.” (Doc. 66 at 1). Section 601 of Title VI provides that
no person shall, “on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from
participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under
any program or activity” covered by Title VI. 42 U.S.C. § 2000d; Alexander v.
Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 279 (2001).

A plaintiff may only bring claims for
4

intentional discrimination under Title VI. Sandoval, 532 U.S. at 293.

Title VI

“requires that a person prove that he was denied participation, based on his race, in
a federally funded program for which he was otherwise qualified.” Humphrey v.
United Parcel Serv., 200 F. App’x 950, 952 (11th Cir. 2006) (citing 42 U.S.C. §
2000d).4
To establish a prima facie case under Title VI, Collier must show (1)
ALDOT received federal funds, (2) Collier was discriminated against, and (3)
Collier’s race, color, or national origin was the motive behind ALDOT’s alleged
discriminatory conduct. See Walton v. Secretary Veterans Admin, 187 F. Supp. 3d
137, 1331 (N.D. Ala. 2016). It is undisputed that ALDOT receives federal funds.
The last two elements are in dispute, however.
Collier argues that ALDOT discriminated against him when it told Bell
Construction that he was not qualified to work on the bridge project as a welder.
As a result, Collier contends he was not given the opportunity to bid on the project.
Collier testified that he was certified as a welder and had, in fact, worked on an
ALDOT project in the past with the American Welding Society (“AWS”)
certification he held. He did this work, however, before his business was certified
as a DBE.

4

Unpublished opinions of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals are not considered binding
precedent; however, they may be cited as persuasive authority. 11th Cir. R. 36-2.
5

ALDOT maintains that Collier was not certified in a field of work by
ALDOT, as required before working on an ALDOT project. 5 (See Powe Aff. ¶ 4;
Pickett Aff. ¶¶ 2, 5). According to ALDOT, for a welder, like Collier, to become
certified to work on an ALDOT project, the welder must be referred and hired by
the contractor awarded the project. (Pickett Aff. ¶ 3). The contractor who hires
the DBE must then contact ALDOT’s Materials and Test Bureau in Montgomery,
Alabama, to schedule a time and date for the referred welder to take the AWS
welding test to gain certification. (Id.). The welder must have a construction
project number to assign the costs of the test to the project. (Id.). If the welder
passes the test, the welder is certified to work on ALDOT projects for one year.
(Id. ¶ 5). The certification can be renewed each year for three years without taking
the test again. (Id. ¶ 4).
It is undisputed Collier never took the AWS test through ADLOT. 6 That
being said, Collier testified that in 2011, he worked as a welder on an ALDOT
bridge replacement project in Birmingport, Alabama, under Riley Bridge
5

ALDOT also argues that Collier was not qualified because he did not submit a bid to work on
the project. (Doc. 60 at 10, 14-16). But this argument is putting the cart before the horse.
Collier testified he was not given the opportunity to submit a bid because ALDOT informed Bell
Construction that Collier was not certified to work on ALDOT projects. This statement
prevented Collier from having the opportunity to bid on the project.
6

Collier testified he took and passed the AWS test at American Testing Laboratory, Inc. in
Bessemer, Alabama. (Doc. 66-1 at 13). The qualification certificate is part of the record (doc.
66-1 at 13) and seems to meet all the requirements of the test required by ALDOT. (Compare id.
with Picket Aff. ¶ 4). ALDOT, however, does not accept testing from any facility other than its
Materials and Test Bureau in Montgomery.
6

Company 7 without going through ADLOT’s certification process. (Collier Dep. at
77, 80, 92- 95). Collier Welding was not a DBE during that project. Instead,
Collier maintains it was only after he presented himself as a DBE that he was
required to be separately certified through ALDOT’s testing to work on state
project. (Id. at 121-26).
ALDOT replies to Collier’s testimony by arguing that Collier did not
provide any evidence, 8 other than his testimony, to support his claim that he
worked on the Birmingport bridge project. (Doc. 67 at 7-8).

Additionally,

ALDOT states it does not have any record that Collier worked as a welder on the
Birmingport bridge replacement project as a Riley Bridge employee or as a DBE
subcontractor, or any other project in the Birmingham area. (Doc. 67 at 8; Doc.
67-1 ¶ 5). The mere absence of such evidence, however, does not make Collier’s
testimony somehow incredible for the purposes of summary judgment.

See

Feliciano v. City of Miami Beach, 707 F.3d 1244, 1252 (11th Cir. 2013) (when
considering a motion for summary judgment, “courts must construe the facts and
draw all inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and when
conflicts arise between the facts evidenced by the parties, [they must] credit the
7

In the discovery process, Collier provided the ALDOT project file number for the Birmingport
bridge project.
8

For example, ALDOT states Collier did not provide pay stubs, invoices or work orders to
validate his claim that he worked on the project. (Doc. 67 at 7-8).
7

nonmoving party’s version.”); Davis v. Williams, 451 F.3d 759, 763 (11th Cir.
2006). Instead, it results in a dispute of material fact that must be resolved by a
jury. 9 Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255 (credibility determinations and the weighing of
evidence “are jury functions, not those of a judge”).
IV.

CONCLUSION
Because a dispute of material fact exists as to whether Collier was

discriminated against on the basis of his race in violation of Title VI, Defendant’s
motion for summary judgment is DENIED.
DATED this 18th day of December, 2018.

_________________________________
JOHN E. OTT
Chief United States Magistrate Judge

9

The court does not need to address ALDOT’s arguments regarding its Title VI complaint
procedures, (doc. 60 at 12-13), because Collier does not argue ADLOT was required to remedy
discrimination on the part of Bell Construction. Similarity the court does not address ALDOT’s
disparate impact analysis, (id. at 14-16), as Collier does not argue the DBE policy itself violates
Title VI.
8