Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
BARBARA MURDOCK, )
)
Plaintiff )
)
v. ) Civil Action Number:
)
BIRMINGHAM JEFFERSON )
COUNTY TRANSIT AUTHORITY ) Jury Trial Requested
and, the BIRMINGHAM JEFFERSON )
COUNTY TRANSIT AUTHORITY )
BOARD OF DIRECTORS, in their )
individual and official capacities, )
)
Defendants. )
COMPLAINT
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
deprivation of rights, including discrimination based upon gender and denial of due
process of law, all of which are secured by the Equal Protection Clause and the Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The
Plaintiff, Barbara Murdock, has been discriminated against on the basis of her gender,
female, and denied “due process of law” in that she was discharged from her position
by a inexperienced and substantially less qualified male employee who had never
Since 1979, it has been clearly established that individuals have a constitutional
right to be free from sex discrimination in public employment, and that adverse
actions taken on the basis of an individual’s gender are violative of the Fourteenth
Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. See, Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228, 235-36
(1979); Cross v. Alabama Dep’t of Mental Health and Mental Retardation, 49 F.3d
1490, 1507 (11th Cir. 1995); J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B., 511 U.S. 127, 131 (1994).
Furthermore, with regards to due process, the Fourteenth Amendment provides that
a State shall not “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process
of law.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. Thus, where the state creates a property interest
Here, Ms. Murdock was a “tenured employee” and as such was entitled to oral
evidence, and an opportunity to present her side of the story before she was
written notice of the charges against her; never received an explanation of the Board’s
2
Case 2:18-cv-00808-KOB Document 1 Filed 05/25/18 Page 3 of 13
evidence against her, and did not have the opportunity to, with the assistance of
counsel, present her side of the story through witnesses, evidence, and argument. The
and done to inflict extreme harm to Ms. Murdock. Thus, this lawsuit seeks
attorneys’ fees as a remedy for Defendants’ denying Ms. Murdock equal protection
PARTIES
I. Plaintiff
II. Defendants
Authority (BJCTA). Thus, Defendant BJCTA is governmental entity under the laws
of the State of Alabama and subject to suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the XIV
3
Case 2:18-cv-00808-KOB Document 1 Filed 05/25/18 Page 4 of 13
Directors for the BJCTA. Thus, Mr. Cunningham is subject to suit in his official and
individual capacities pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the XIV Amendment to the
BJCTA. Thus, Ms. Davis is subject to suit in her official and individual capacities
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the XIV Amendment to the Constitution of the
Directors for the BJCTA. Thus, Mr. Harwell is subject to suit in his official and
individual capacities pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the XIV Amendment to the
the BJCTA. Thus, Mr. Jones is subject to suit in his official and individual capacities
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the XIV Amendment to the Constitution of the
Directors for the BJCTA. Thus, Ms. Lassiter is subject to suit in her official and
individual capacities pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the XIV Amendment to the
4
Case 2:18-cv-00808-KOB Document 1 Filed 05/25/18 Page 5 of 13
BJCTA. Thus, Mr. Powe is subject to suit in his official and individual capacities
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the XIV Amendment to the Constitution of the
for the BJCTA. Thus, Mr. Sellers is subject to suit in his official and individual
capacities pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the XIV Amendment to the Constitution
for the BJCTA. Thus, Mr. Smith is subject to suit in his official and individual
capacities pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the XIV Amendment to the Constitution
for the BJCTA. Thus, Mr. Weinberg is subject to suit in his official and individual
capacities pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the XIV Amendment to the Constitution
5
Case 2:18-cv-00808-KOB Document 1 Filed 05/25/18 Page 6 of 13
1343(a)(3) and (4) as these claims arose under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of
the United States. This court also has jurisdiction pursuant to the Declaratory
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
corporation under the provisions of the Code of Alabama Act No. 993, enacted at the
1971 Regular Session of the Legislature of Alabama. The BJCTA was created to
members representing the agencies within Jefferson County that provide the largest
6
Case 2:18-cv-00808-KOB Document 1 Filed 05/25/18 Page 7 of 13
16. The BJCTA also receives funds from the following sources: Ad
Valorem revenue from the City of Birmingham and other participating municipalities;
49 U.S.C. § 5307 Urbanized Area Formula Program Funds from the federal
government; 49 U.S.C. § 5309/5339 Bus and Bus Facilities Funds from the federal
government; Congestion Mitigation Air Quality funds from the federal government;
and Local Funding from municipalities contributed as matching funds to trigger the
17. Ms. Murdock began her employment with the Defendants in or around
February 2014 as Chief of Staff to Anne August, who at that time was the Executive
18. During the first year and a-half that she served as Chief of Staff, Ms.
Maintenance.
retired. After Ms. August’s retirement, Ms. Murdock was named Interim Executive
20. In this role Ms. Murdock performed her duties and responsibilities in an
September 2017, she was permanently appointed to the post of Executive Director of
7
Case 2:18-cv-00808-KOB Document 1 Filed 05/25/18 Page 8 of 13
the BJCTA. This was after she had received an exemplary performance review for
with the addition of five new board members to the nine-member board. Upon
information and belief, with the addition of these new board members, a plan was
employee that she had mentored and promoted through the ranks to the position of
Operations Manager.
meeting without being given an agenda, which was not standard procedure. Upon
arriving to said meeting, Ms. Murdock observed the board immediately adjourn to
an executive session at the exclusion of her, which was also outside of standard
procedure.
23. At the conclusion of the session, Ms. Murdock was informed that she
had been suspended without pay pending an investigation of her office. Ms. Murdock
was not given advance oral or written notice of any charge(s) against her, received
no explanation of any evidence justifying her suspension, and did not receive an
opportunity to present her side of the story before she was suspended without pay.
The suspension, as will be shown later in this document, was a de facto termination.
8
Case 2:18-cv-00808-KOB Document 1 Filed 05/25/18 Page 9 of 13
24. By letter dated April 10, 2018, Ms. Murdock requested a list of the
charge(s) against her and an opportunity to respond to them. Ms. Murdock’s request
was denied; and, instead she was informed by the Defendants that she was not entitled
to a hearing.
25. On May 23, 2018, Ms. Murdock was officially terminated by the
Mr. Ruffin’s qualifications do not meet the specific needs of the position and he
for mentoring and promoting Mr. Ruffin up the ranks to the supervisory position he
occupied before he was awarded her job. Mr. Ruffin is now the Executive Director
27. Ms. Murdock was never given an opportunity to defend herself against
was terminated without receiving due process of law and her constitutional rights
were violated. Upon information and belief, Ms. Murdock had a property interest in
her job that warranted her receiving a pre-termination and/or post termination hearing
9
Case 2:18-cv-00808-KOB Document 1 Filed 05/25/18 Page 10 of 13
28. The Board was empowered to hire, fire, demote, promote, transfer, or
discipline Ms. Murdock. Therefore, its members are also liable for violating her
rights, privileges, and/or immunities secured by the United States Constitution and
federal law.
31. For purposes of this Count, Defendants were acting under color of State
32. Plaintiff has suffered damages as described herein above as the result of
Defendants’ violation of her Equal Protection and Due Process Rights guaranteed to
her by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (and/or the rights
(a) entry of an order declaring that she was denied equal protection
and due process of law under the United States Constitution,
Amendment XIV;
10
Case 2:18-cv-00808-KOB Document 1 Filed 05/25/18 Page 11 of 13
1. Grant the Plaintiff a declaratory judgment holding that the actions of the
Defendants described herein above violated and continue to violate the rights of the
Plaintiff as secured by the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment;
agents, successors, employees, attorneys and those acting in concert with these
Defendants and on these Defendants’ behalf from continuing to violate the Equal
Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment;
Plaintiff whole by awarding Plaintiff back pay (plus interest), reinstatement or front-
5. The Plaintiff further prays for such other relief and benefits as the cause
of justice may require, including, but not limited to, an award of costs, attorneys' fees
and expenses.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Roderick T. Cooks
Lee Winston
Roderick T. Cooks
Attorneys for the Plaintiff
OF COUNSEL:
WINSTON COOKS, LLC
505 20th Street North
Suite#815
Birmingham, AL 35203
Tel: (205) 502-0970
Fax: (205) 278-5876
rcooks@winstoncooks.com
lwinston@winstoncooks.com
12
Case 2:18-cv-00808-KOB Document 1 Filed 05/25/18 Page 13 of 13
DEFENDANTS’ ADDRESS:
The Birmingham Jefferson County Transit Authority
1701 Morris Avenue
Birmingham AL 35203
13