Johnson, et al v. Memphis, City of

Filing 588

ORDER Adopting 582 Report and Recommendations; Granting 570 Motion for Permanent Injunction; Denying Miscellaneous Relief. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 11/07/11. (Donald, Bernice)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION

MARILYN JOHNSON, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

No. 00-2608 D/P

CITY OF MEMPHIS,

No. 04-2017 D/P

Defendant.
FLORENCE BILLINGSLEY, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

No. 04-2013 D/P

CITY OF MEMPHIS,
Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Permanent Injunction, filed July 25, 2011.
(D.E. #570.) Plaintiffs seek to convert the Court’s preliminary injunction into a permanent
injunction as well as an order awarding Plaintiffs back pay and retroactive seniority. On July 27,
2011, the Court referred Plaintiffs’ motion to the United States Magistrate Judge for a Report and
Recommendation. Defendant City of Memphis (“City”) filed a Response in Opposition to the
motion on August 8, 2011. (D.E. #572.)
On October 12, 2011, the Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation
advising this Court to grant a permanent injunction but to deny Plaintiffs’ request for an award of

back pay and retroactive seniority. (D.E. #582.) Both sides filed objections to the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation. (D.E. ##584, 585.)
Having considered Plaintiffs’ Motion, the Magistrate Judge’s Report, the objections and
responses filed by both sides, and the guidance of the Sixth Circuit in its November 2, 2011
opinion affirming the preliminary injunction, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Consistent with that report, and for the reasons set
forth therein, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ motion to convert the preliminary injunction into a
permanent injunction should be granted, but the request for lieutenant back pay and retroactive
seniority should be denied. In addition to noting that this Court had already considered and
denied Plaintiffs’ request for such relief, the Magistrate Judge found after a hearing that
Plaintiffs’ “additional evidence” did not support its argument that the City waived the two-year
service requirement. (Rep. and Rec. at 7.) Rather, the testimony of Lieutenants Hines and
Armstead presented “extenuating circumstances surrounding their promotions to lieutenant and
do not evidence a ‘waiver’ by the City of the two-year service requirement.”

(Id.)

Consequently, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the permanent injunction be granted only
under the terms set forth in the Court’s March 4, 2010 order. The Court agrees. Therefore,
Plaintiffs’ motion for a permanent injunction is GRANTED, but Plaintiffs’ motion for lieutenant
back pay and retroactive seniority is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 7th day of November, 2011.

s/ Bernice Bouie Donald
BERNICE BOUIE DONALD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

2