Case 2:18-cv-00808-KOB Document 1 Filed 05/25/18 Page 1 of 13 FILED

2018 May-25 PM 04:38

U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION

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

This is an action to secure protection of employment rights, and to redress

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

as the Executive Director of the Birmingham Jefferson County Transportation

Authority without receiving a pre-termination hearing. Moreover, she was replaced

 Case 2:18-cv-00808-KOB Document 1 Filed 05/25/18 Page 2 of 13

by a inexperienced and substantially less qualified male employee who had never

served in an executive role.

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

in continued employment, it may not constitutionally authorize the deprivation of

such an interest without “appropriate procedural safeguards.” Cleveland Bd. of Educ.

v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985).

Here, Ms. Murdock was a “tenured employee” and as such was entitled to oral

or written notice of the charges against her, an explanation of the employer’s

evidence, and an opportunity to present her side of the story before she was

suspended and/or discharged. It is indisputable that, Ms. Murdock never received

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

Defendants’ denial of these basis constitutional safeguards was intentional, unlawful

and done to inflict extreme harm to Ms. Murdock. Thus, this lawsuit seeks

declaratory relief, injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages and

attorneys’ fees as a remedy for Defendants’ denying Ms. Murdock equal protection

under the law and due process.

PARTIES

I. Plaintiff

1. Plaintiff BARBARA MURDOCK is an African-American female

resident of Jefferson County, Alabama.

II. Defendants

2. Defendant BIRMINGHAM JEFFERSON COUNTY TRANSIT

AUTHORITY is a governmental body created when the State of Alabama Legislature

passed enabling legislation permitting the formation of publicly operated transit

authorities in Alabama, thereby creating The Birmingham-Jefferson County Transit

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

Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

3
 Case 2:18-cv-00808-KOB Document 1 Filed 05/25/18 Page 4 of 13

3. Defendant DARRYL CUNNINGHAM is the Chairman of the Board of

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

Constitution of the United States of America.

4. Defendant RUBY DAVIS is a member of the Board of Directors for 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

United States of America.

5. Defendant DONALD D. HARWELL is Secretary of the Board of

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

Constitution of the United States of America.

6. Defendant LADON JONES is a member of the Board of Directors for

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

United States of America.

7. Defendant JOHNNYE LASSITER is Vice Chair of the Board of

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

Constitution of the United States of America.

8. Defendant KEVIN POWE is a member of the Board of Directors for the

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

United States of America.

9. Defendant PATRICK SELLERS is a member of the Board of Directors

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

of the United States of America.

10. Defendant THEODORE SMITH is a member of the Board of Directors

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

of the United States of America.

11. Defendant MARTIN WEINBERT is a member of the Board of Directors

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

of the United States of America.

5
 Case 2:18-cv-00808-KOB Document 1 Filed 05/25/18 Page 6 of 13

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

12. Federal jurisdiction in this case is based upon 28 U.S.C. §§1331,

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

Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201.

13. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) in the Northern District

of Alabama-Southern Division, because all of the Defendants reside or exist in

Jefferson County, Alabama, and/or a substantial part of the events or omissions

giving rise to this lawsuit occurred in Jefferson County, Alabama.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

14. The BJCTA was incorporated on March 28, 1972 as a non-profit

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

provide public transportation services to various metropolitan areas of Jefferson

County, Alabama, principally the City of Birmingham.

15. The BJCTA has a Board of Directors comprised of nine appointed

members representing the agencies within Jefferson County that provide the largest

amount of funding to it.

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

inflow of federal funds.

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

Director of the Birmingham Jefferson County Transit Authority.

18. During the first year and a-half that she served as Chief of Staff, Ms.

Murdock also served as the Director of Operations and Interim Director of

Maintenance.

19. In or around September or October 2016, Executive Director August

retired. After Ms. August’s retirement, Ms. Murdock was named Interim Executive

Director of the BJCTA.

20. In this role Ms. Murdock performed her duties and responsibilities in an

exemplary manner as reflected by her performance evaluations. Therefore, in

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

her service as Interim head of the authority.

21. In October 2017, the BJCTA Board of Directors changed composition

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

conceived to award Ms. Murdock’s position to a younger less qualified male

employee that she had mentored and promoted through the ranks to the position of

Operations Manager.

22. On April 3, 2018, Ms. Murdock was summoned to a special board

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

Defendants without a “due process” hearing.

26. Ms. Murdock was replaced by Christopher Ruffin, a male employee.

Mr. Ruffin’s qualifications do not meet the specific needs of the position and he

possesses no executive experience. Moreover, Ms. Murdock had been responsible

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

for the BJCTA.

27. Ms. Murdock was never given an opportunity to defend herself against

any allegations of wrongdoing by the BJCTA or it Board of Directors. Ms. Murdock

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

and/or review. Further, the suspension was a de facto termination.

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

constitutionally guaranteed rights.

COUNT I-42 U.S.C. § 1983 & CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS

29. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding

paragraphs, as if fully set forth herein.

30. Defendants have wrongfully and unlawfully deprived Plaintiff of 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

law at all times relevant hereto.

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

or privileges otherwise guaranteed to her by federal law), the deprivation of which is

actionable pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983:

Wherefore, Plaintiff demands the following relief:

(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

(b) preliminary and/or permanent injunctive relief, including but not

limited to, back pay and front pay or reinstatement in lieu thereof;

(c) Compensatory damages;

(d) Punitive damages [against the individual Defendants]; and

(d) Attorney’s Fees.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully prays that this Court assumes

jurisdiction of this action and after trial:

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;

2. Grant the Plaintiff a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants, their

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;

3. Issue an injunction ordering these Defendants: (1) not to engage in

gender discrimination; (2) ordering Defendants to establish written policies and

procedures against such discriminatory conduct; (3) and to establish a grievance

procedure for reporting such conduct;

11
 Case 2:18-cv-00808-KOB Document 1 Filed 05/25/18 Page 12 of 13

4. Grant the Plaintiff an order requiring the Defendants to make the

Plaintiff whole by awarding Plaintiff back pay (plus interest), reinstatement or front-

pay in lieu thereof, and by awarding Plaintiff compensatory, punitive, liquidated,

and/or nominal damages.

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.

PLAINTIFF HEREBY DEMANDS

A JURY FOR ALL ISSUES TRIABLE BY JURY

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

The Board of Directors

The Birmingham Jefferson County Transit Authority
1701 Morris Avenue
Birmingham AL 35203

13