.com

Home Table of Contents Frequently Asked Questions Contact Us In the News--Again! 2003 Librarians File Second Suit against Atlanta-Fulton American Libraries online edition, December 12, 2003 Two of the eight librarians who won a $17-million reverse-discrimination lawsuit in January 2002 against the Atlanta-Fulton Public Library System have filed another federal suit against the system, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported December 3. Maureen Kelly and Mary Starck say the library board retaliated against them for being “outspoken leaders” in the first lawsuit, which charged three trustees and Director Mary Kaye Hooker with demoting Caucasian librarians from senior-management posts to make way for people of color to be promoted to those jobs. The new suit says Kelly was demoted at the end of 2002 as a manager in the central branch, while Starck was passed over for a senior librarian position even though she was the most qualified applicant. Fulton County lawyer O. V. Brantley countered that officials had promptly investigated the librarians’ complaints and taken action. The board had found merit in Starck’s complaint and offered her the job, which she accepted; an investigation into Kelly’s situation revealed “no finding of retaliation or discrimination,” Brantley said. The library system is appealing the first suit’s $17-million judgment to the U.S. Supreme Court. Librarians Sue Fulton County Again; Charge EEO Violations Pattern of Retribution North Fulton.com, December 12, 2003 Two of the eight white county librarians who won a $17 million court judgment in 2002 for discrimination by the Atlanta-Fulton Library System have sued again on much the same grounds as before, but in a new round of incidents. Librarians Maureen Kelly and Mary Starck say they have been the victims of continued discrimination because they are white and because they were plaintiffs in the verdict handed down earlier this year. They allege library administrators used "trickery and deceit” in their actions to demote Kelly and withhold a promotion to Starck. Kelly was transferred from the Central Library to the Georgia Hill branch, which Kelly called a "dead branch.” According to the brief filed Nov. 26 in U.S. District Court, Kelly was told she was transferred Dec. 31, 2002, for her own safety after she had complained about mistreatment by a library patron. "This was clearly a demotion. This is part of a pattern by the library system and individuals who make decisions based on race and retribution,” said Chris Anulewicz, attorney for Kelly and Starck. "This is just a continuation of what went on before.” The library system had never transferred an employee before to protect one’s safety, the lawsuit alleges. A black employee who had made similar complaints was not transferred. Starck had applied for a promotion in January for the post of senior librarian. Despite having been deemed the most qualified person for the job by an interviewing panel, the lawsuit alleges Library Director Mary Kay Hooker and Deputy Director Carolyn Garnes "re-evaluated” Starck and decided the candidate, a black woman who originally was ranked third, should be promoted instead. Both Kelly and Starck filed complaints to the Fulton County Office of Equal Employment Opportunity (OEEO). Starck’s complaint was found to have merit, and Starck was given the job. The OEEO ruled Kelly’s move was a transfer and not a demotion and therefore was not discrimination. Fulton County Attorney O.V. Brantley said this lawsuit did not have merit. "The library board had taken very appropriate action to resolve the complaints. They heard their cases and took prompt remedial action [in the Starck case],” Brantley said. The Kelly complaint required no action because no finding of discrimination or retaliation was found. "It was a transfer, not a demotion, that is what the OEEO found,” Brantley said. Anulewicz said whether the board acted to rectify the wrongs or not, the culture of discrimination and retaliation remains. "They got caught with their hand in the cookie jar. They shouldn’t be allowed to say mea culpa and make discriminatory and retaliatory decisions,” Anulewicz said. The original lawsuit filed by the eight librarians in 2002 resulted in a $17 million verdict. The county offered to settle for $12 million after its last federal appeal was turned down. The plaintiffs rejected the offer, and now the county has appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. "2 Librarians Sue Fulton System for Bias Second Time" By Bill Rankin, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, December 3, 2003 "The Atlanta-Fulton Public Library System is being sued again for race discrimination by two of the eight librarians who won a $17 million judgment against the system. The two librarians, Maureen Kelly and Mary Starck, allege they were the victims of 'trickery and deceit' by the library board and retaliated against because of their other federal lawsuit. Both librarians, who are white, were 'outspoken leaders' in the previous litigation, their new lawsuit says. A lawyer for Fulton County countered Tuesday that the library board acted appropriately when responding to complaints lodged by the two women earlier this year. The new federal lawsuit says Kelly was demoted Dec. 31, 2002, from her position as a manager in the system's central branch to a new position in the Georgia Hill branch. Kelly was replaced by an African-American male who previously held the Georgia Hill position, the suit says. In January, Starck applied for a job as a senior librarian and was the most qualified applicant, according to the suit, which alleges she did not initially get the position because of discrimination and retaliation. Library system officials 'knew that these employment decisions were clearly illegal and even though they had been admonished, by the imposition of a $17 million judgment [including punitive damages], from making such illegal employment decisions in the future,' the lawsuit says. O.V. Brantley, the Fulton County attorney, defended the board's actions. 'The library board took prompt remedial action when their complaints were brought to attention,' Brantley said. After Starck complained about not getting the senior librarian job, the board investigated it and determined her complaint had merit, Brantley said. Starck then was offered the job and accepted it. As for Kelly, 'she was not demoted, she was transferred,' Brantley said. Her complaint also was investigated and 'there has been no finding of retaliation or discrimination,' Brantley said. Eight white librarians filed the initial lawsuit in 2000 and alleged that they were demoted to dead-end jobs because of their race. The library system is appealing the $17 million judgment in that case to the U.S. Supreme Court. "Atlanta-Fulton PL Director Praised; Board Chair Says Lawsuit Verdict Does Not Affect Positive Evaluation" By Norman Oder, Library Journal, November 15, 2003, page 18 "Despite a call from a taxpayers association for the director and a board member of the Atlanta-Fulton Public Library System to step down (see Late Bulletins, LJ 10/15/03, p. 13), the library board has yet to address the question. Director Mary Kaye Hooker and board member William [Mc]Clure were two of four named defendants in the reverse discrimination case won by seven white librarians. ‘The board, on its own timetable, will speak in its own voice,’ said Annette Steed, chair of the library board. ‘Hopefully, it will be soon.’ Vice chair Steve Dorvee said that any decision should wait until the resolution of an equal employment opportunity (EEO) audit of library hiring practices. The audit was spurred by two grievances filed by plaintiffs in the lawsuit (see News, LJ 9/15/03, p. 20). ‘It's something the board has to consider, in line with a whole lot of other issues,’ Dorvee said. ‘There may be great differences between what a jury may find and what has happened [in general at the library].’ The plaintiffs were recently offered $12 million by Fulton County to settle the case—which, including interest and attorneys' fees, has hit $18 million. They refused the offer, and the county plans to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. One theory behind the appeal may be that the amount of the verdict was excessive, given that most of it was for punitive rather than compensatory damages. Positive evaluation Steed said that Hooker earlier this year received a positive job evaluation, based on her "overall job performance." She said the lawsuit ‘had no bearing’ on the evaluation ‘because it doesn't have direct bearing on her day-to-day performance.’ Asked if the lawsuit affected how the staff and public perceive Hooker, Steed said, ‘We work very closely with our director. If we take into consideration disparate points of view coming from different directions, we wouldn't be fair to her.’ A web site, www.afplwatch.com, is produced by some dissident staffers; it provides extensive, anonymous critiques of library management and policies, including the ineffectiveness of the library catalog and the lack of best sellers on the shelves. Steed said she's seen the site a few times: ‘Since I don't know who is authoring it, I haven't spent time wondering about all these assertions.’ Dorvee said, ‘Aside from the taxpayers association letter, we have received numerous anonymous complaints, which has been very frustrating, but that's one reason I suggested that we have this EEO audit.’ Steed said the library is working on a new strategic plan to cover the next 25 years. It should be ready for public presentation by the end of the year and will cover, among other things, the need for new library sites in growing areas of the county. ‘We've been through some really hard times, but we've persevered,’ said Steed, who, like Dorvee, joined the board after the events that led to the lawsuit. ‘We are not in disarray.’” "Group Calls for Ouster of Atlanta Public Library Officials" American Libraries, November 2003, page 16, 18 "Upset that residents will have to foot the bill for a multimillion-dollar legal settlement of a racial discrimination lawsuit involving the Atlanta-Fulton Public Library System [American Libraries, August, p. 29-30], the Fulton County Taxpayers Association has threatened to sue county commissioners if Library Director Mary Kaye Hooker and board member William McClure, who formerly served as chairman, are not removed from their positions. 'There is no room in Fulton County for racial discrimination,' Attorney David Hungeling wrote in a letter to the board, according to the October 9 Atlanta Jounral-Constitution. 'Moreover, Ms. Hooker and Mr. McClure's actions have caused unnecessary expense, embarrassment, and liability to the county.' John Sherman, who heads the advocacy group, said although the money has been awarded, 'the injustice continues. We feel this is so egregious a case, there should be the dismissal of both of them.' Eight librarians who won a $17-million discrimination lawsuit in January 2002 against the library rejected a mid-September settlement offer of $12 million from Fulton County commissioners." "Atlanta PL Settlement Offered; New Suit Threatened" Library Journal, October 15, 2003, page 13 "Fulton County has offered $12 million to settle the reverse discrimination lawsuit—which, including interest and attorneys’ fees, has hit $18 million—won by seven white librarians at the Atlanta-Fulton Public Library System, with the proviso that the five plaintiffs still employed resign. Plaintiffs’ attorney Chris Anulewicz said the offer was unacceptable. The county’s appeal, rejected twice in appellate court (see News, LJ 9/15/03, p. 20), may still go before the U.S. Supreme Court. Also, the Fulton County Taxpayers Association may sue the county Board of Commissioners to force the outster of library director Mary Kaye Hooker and library board member William McClure. Both were found liable—as were two former board members—in the case. Deputy county attorney June Green told LJ the county has no power to fire Hooker and that the authority to remove a board member is unclear." "Atlanta-Fulton Library System Under Fire for Good Reasons" Editorial by Hatcher Hurd, Johns Creek Herald, October 15, 2003 "Once again the Atlanta-Fulton Library System is under fire, and as in almost every case, the wounds are all self-inflicted. The longer Fulton County delays overhauling the AFPLS, the greater an embarrassment it will become, and the lower the morale of its staff will sink. That is saying quite a lot because the AFPLS has been an embarrassment for years, and staff morale is already quite low. As we all know, the county will cough up $17 million in a discrimination lawsuit against eight white, female librarians. Seldom has a more blatant and vicious act of bigotry been perpetrated in the workplace than when these women were transferred from the positions they had worked years to attain to dead-end jobs. The reason? Simply because as then-chairman of the library board William McClure put it, he was tired of seeing so many 'old, white faces' at the Central Library. Deceptively, a small cabal on the library board got their transfers approved by the majority of the board. The women sued, and rather than settle out of court, the Fulton Board of Commissioners compounded the issue by fighting it through every appeal. Of course, once the huge verdict came down, there was little choice but to appeal. Unfortunately, Fulton County has gotten into the habit of shelling out for reverse discrimination lawsuits, and rather than admit any bigotry, the Atlanta-dominated Board of Commissioners pays thousands to defend these lost causes, then millions when they lose. This library judgment may be the $17 million straw that breaks the Fulton camel’s back. Meanwhile, who is being held accountable for this fiasco? Library Director Mary Kaye Hooker and McClure were both named parties in that lawsuit, and neither has taken any responsibility for it. Both should have resigned long ago. Had the personnel shenanigans stopped with the 'Atlanta Eight,' perhaps it might have all been forgotten. The Board of Commissioners has a rather short memory, and none have the gumption to raise a stink about this. But that was not the case. Two of the librarians in the case have filed Equal Employment Opportunity grievances which may or may not get the county’s pants sued off again. One of the quiet actions taken by the micro-managing library board was to take all administrative duties from Hooker and give them to Deputy Library Director Carolyn Garnes, a McClure protégé. The library director does not hire or fire the deputy director, and quickly it became a feud over who really runs the library. It was Garnes who almost got the library in a deep hole again, when she circumvented the country’s hiring procedures to promote another woman over Mary Starck, the white librarian who was already mistreated once. This time, the EEOC stepped in, and Ms. Starck’s case was redressed, and she was given the job she deserved. A second former plaintiff’s case is still pending, but given the library’s penchant for punishing employees illegally, the advice here is to settle the matter before it gets to court. Fortunately, after her little faux pas was discovered, Ms. Garnes decided it was time to retire. But the pattern of abuse remains. How are employees supposed to feel comfortable in their jobs when promotions are still handed out to the toadies of those wielding the power? It is amazing there are any dedicated people left to make the effort to serve the public with the library system’s stretched resources. Yet they are there, and they endure. I have seldom if ever been disappointed at the level of personal service extended in a Fulton library. Yet from those employees I have come to know, there is a great deal of discontent. There is a great deal of mistrust in the library board and at the highest levels of administration, and quite well-founded it is, too. Fulton residents and library employees deserve a library system that is devoid of the petty politics and overt racism that has existed for more than a decade. Every study and blue ribbon committee that has studied the make-up of this board has agreed that it is too big and unwieldy, micro-manages day-to-day operations in ways in which it is wholly unqualified to do so, and does not fairly represent all of the people in Fulton County because it is too Atlanta-centric. The board membership should be reduced. But before that is even addressed, order must be brought to the operations of the library system and confidence restored. That should begin with the replacement of the director, on whose watch the worst problems have occurred, and Mr. McClure, who was not only at ground zero of a $17 million problem but pushed the button to set it off as well. Only then can the wounds that have long divided this county geographically, racially and politically, begin to heal." "Taxpayer Group Says Library Execs Must Go" By Hatcher Hurd, NorthFulton.com, October 15, 2003 "A taxpayer group, angry over a $17 million discrimination judgment against the county’s library system, has notified the Fulton Board of Commissioners it will file a lawsuit to force the dismissal of the library director and a board member. In a letter dated Sept. 11, the Fulton County Taxpayer Association, boasting some 28,000 members, notified the commissioners the organization planned to sue the county to force the firing of Library Director Mary Kaye Hooker and trustee William McClure. The group blames them for actions resulting in the awarding of a $17 million verdict to seven white female library employees in a discrimination lawsuit. Fulton Taxpayer Association attorney David J. Hungeling said the group is giving the county a deadline of Oct. 11 to take what is says is appropriate action to hold those responsible for the 'fiasco' accountable. Hooker declined to comment for this article, and McClure was unavailable. He has declined or ignored repeated requests for comment on the library lawsuit in the past. This is the latest action in a litany of personnel problems involving library personnel. The most flagrant one involves seven white librarians who sued Hooker, McClure and then-trustee Mary Ward and won a $17 million verdict. The women turned down a settlement offer of $12 million. The county has a few more weeks to try a final appeal before the U.S. Supreme Court or pay up, but there is little likelihood the Supreme Court would even hear the case. Two of the plaintiffs in the case have since filed grievances with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission over two new incidents. Mary Starck had applied for a position with the library system and was ranked the top candidate. However, then Deputy Director Carolyn Garnes instituted an 11th-hour "re-interview” process. The third-ranked candidate was then awarded the job. Garnes and the third-ranked candidate are black and Starck is white. Library trustee Steve Dorvee of Roswell said this was a case where the 'system worked.' Hooker notified the county attorney there may have been some irregularities in the Starck decision, who in turn notified the Board of Trustees. The EEOC directed Starck be given the position. Garnes retired soon after the incident. 'It was the library board which then asked the EEOC to look into the case,' Dorvee said. There has been no resolution yet of Kelly’s EEOC grievance, it is still under evaluation according to the county attorney’s office. Dorvee does say there is a climate of discontent among library personnel that was exacerbated by the Starck and Kelly grievances. 'When I learned we had two of the plaintiffs in the original lawsuit before us again in EEOC grievances, I was incredulous. Then I was furious. Nobody could be that stupid, I thought,' Dorvee said. That is why he called for the Board of Trustees to have an EEOC audit. He convinced the Board of Trustees it needed to know just where the library system stood. The law firm of Ellerbee Thompson Sapp and Wilson is conducting the audit. The company’s first task is to assess the library system’s policies, procedures and practices to see if they are indeed in EEOC compliance, said June Green, deputy Fulton County attorney. Second, the firm will try to 'gauge the climate' of the personnel. 'Some have said there is a general sense of discontent among library personnel,' Green said. Meanwhile, Fulton County Taxpayers Association Chairman John Sherman said his organization first contacted the Board of Commissioners six months ago calling for the dismissal of Hooker and McClure. When he heard nothing back, Sherman said he got mad. 'There is no room in Fulton County for racial discrimination by a county employee or appointee,' Sherman said. 'Not only that, these two individuals' [Hooker and McClure’s] actions have caused unnecessary expense, embarrassment, and liability to the county. I am shocked the county would permit these people to continue in their offices. It is a disgraceful situation that demands their resignation.' The director serves at the pleasure of the Board of Trustees, and Dorvee said any evaluation of Hooker’s performance would come after the EEOC audit. As for McClure, Dorvee said he is surprised he hasn’t already stepped down. 'I'm at a loss to explain it, given the history of what happened. But he does work hard on this library board. But I don’t know why he stays, he has so much going on right now,' Dorvee said. McClure was elected to and serves on the [East Point] City Council. "Taxpayer Group Urges Dismissal of Library Officials" By Ben Smith, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, October 9, 2003, page JN-2 "An advocacy group for Fulton taxpayers, angry they could be forced to pay a $17 million reverse discrimination judgment against the county's library board, is threatening to file a lawsuit to force the dismissal of the library's director and a board member. The Fulton County Taxpayers Association, which represents 28,000 taxpayers, is demanding the county fire chief librarian Mary Kaye Hooker and dismiss William McClure from the library board. The group plans to file a lawsuit this month if the county doesn't take action. 'There is no room in Fulton County for racial discrimination,' wrote David Hungeling, a lawyer for the taxpayers group in a letter to the board. 'Moreover, Ms. Hooker and Mr. McClure's actions have caused unnecessary expense, embarrassment, and liability to the county.' Hooker and McClure could not be reached for comment. They have declined or not responded to previous requests for interviews. Last month, the County Commission voted to pay a $12 million settlement to eight librarians whose successful lawsuit against Fulton library officials was upheld by a federal appeals court. The plaintiffs, who'd already won a $17 million judgment through the courts, rejected the offer. The librarians filed their lawsuit in 2000 after seven of them, who are white, said they were demoted and moved to outlying branches and one African-American employee was punished for speaking up against the transfers. At the time of the allegations, Hooker said the transfers resulted from a systemwide reorganization. But public comments made by board members damaged the defendants' case, especially a recorded public remark by McClure, that 'there are too many old white women' in management positions at the downtown library. McClure, who was board chairman then and is still a member, said the board needed 'to get rid of them.' John Sherman, who heads the taxpayers association, said the plaintiffs 'have been awarded the money, but the injustice still continues. We feel this is so egregious a case, there should be the dismissal of both of them.' Noting the success of past reverse discrimination lawsuits, Sherman added 'here it is again cropping its head up.' In 1995, a white woman who served as a clerk to the County Commission was paid $290,000 in a reverse discrimination case. In 1996, a jury awarded a white firefighter $1.8 million. On Sept. 19, the same day the commissioners voted to extend the $12 million settlement offer to the librarians, the board approved paying $80,000 to two code enforcement workers, one black and the other white, in a reverse discrimination lawsuit. County officials declined comment on the taxpayer association's threat to sue, but County Attorney O.V. Brantley dismissed a question of whether the county is prone to being successfully sued by its employees for reverse discrimination. 'Fulton County is a large place. It has a lot of employees and it will have lawsuits from time to time,' said Brantley. 'Does it have more than any other county its size and diversity? I would say not. Absolutely not.'" $12M Settlement Offered, Refused in Atlanta PL Case Library Journal web site, September 22, 2003 Fulton County has offered $12 million to settle the reverse discrimination case--which, including interest and attorneys' fees, has hit $18 million--won by seven white librarians at the Atlanta-Fulton Public Library System, with the provision that the five plaintiffs still employed resign. Plaintiffs' attorney Chris Anulewicz said the offer was unacceptable both in its financial and workplace terms. The county, rejected twice in appeals court, may still appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, though Anulewicz said he thought it was unlikely the court would accept the appeal. Also, the Fulton County Taxpayers Association may sue the county Board of Commissioners to force the ouster of library Director Mary Kaye Hooker and library board member William McClure. Both were found liable--as were two former board members--in the case. Deputy County Attorney June Green said the county has no power to fire Hooker and that the authority to remove a board member is unclear. Also, Deputy Director Carolyn Garnes, who has had some disagreements with Hooker regarding personnel policies, has retired after more than 30 years of service. "Librarians Nix $12 Million Bid" By Ben Smith, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, September 19, 2003 "Eight librarians who won a discrimination lawsuit against the Atlanta-Fulton Public Library System have rejected a $12 million settlement offer from Fulton County. 'We won't be taking it,' said Chris Anulewicz, a lawyer representing the eight women, seven of whom are white. In an effort to put an end to the 3-year-old discrimination lawsuit, Fulton County officials had extended an offer this week to the plaintiffs. In June the county lost an appeal of the $17 million judgment against the library system in federal court. Fulton County's last option is to ask for a review of the case by the U.S. Supreme Court, and Anulewicz said it was unlikely the justices would consider the issue. 'I just don't think this is something they [the Supreme Court justices] are going to want to look at,' Anulewicz said. O.V. Brantley, representing Fulton County, said, 'We're still in negotiations.' She refused further comment. The plaintiffs filed the federal lawsuit in 2000 after the seven white women were demoted and moved to outlying branches and the African-American plaintiff was punished for speaking up against it. Fulton's library system director, Mary Kaye Hooker, had said the transfers resulted from system-wide reorganization. Damaging the county's case were public statements by library board members, including former chairman William McClure, that 'there are too many old white women' in management positions at the downtown library. McClure, who is still a member of the board, said the board needed 'to get rid of them.' In January 2002, a jury in federal district court awarded $25 million to the librarians, but the judgment later was reduced to $17 million. In the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision upholding the judgment against the library system, Judge Susan H. Black said library officials intentionally discriminated 'on the basis of race and used trickery and deceit to cover it up.' The county's $12 million settlement offer -- the first one offered to the plaintiffs -- included a requirement that the remaining librarians retire or resign by the end of the year. One of the librarians retired after the lawsuit was filed, and another resigned." "Bias Found Again at Atlanta PL: Two Plaintiffs Don’t Get Internal Jobs; Will County Settle Lawsuit?" Library Journal, September 15, 2003, page 20 [posted to LJ web site on August 19, 2003] "Even after it lost a nearly $17 million discrimination suit filed by seven white librarians--a case that appears likely to be settled --the Atlanta-Fulton Public Library System has found to have discriminated against two of the plaintiffs who sought jobs within the system. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the Fulton County Office of Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) found that Mary Starck was ranked in first place by a review panel when she sought a job, but it was given to a lower-scoring applicant who is black. Maureen Kelly was transferred against her will in December from the main library to an inner-city branch, whose manager, a black man, changed jobs with her. Annette Steed, chair of the library board, said the board agreed to follow an EEO recommendation and assign Starck to the job she had sought. However, because the case involving Kelly, was less clear-cut, the board voted to hire an outside investigator to assess Kelly's case. Steed said that, when the board made the earlier personnel decisions, they acted with incomplete information and did not intent discrimination. According to the report, library Director Mary Kaye Hooker claimed that she didn't know that the branch where Kelly was sent was a 'dead branch' until she was told after the transfer by Deputy Director Carolyn Garnes. In turn, Garnes suggested that 'Ms. Hooker is in on this' regarding the Starck transfer. Meanwhile, several veteran employees have sent anonymous letters to local officials asking the board to investigate 'horrendous staff abuse' by Hooker. Others are calling for Hooker to be fired. The Journal-Constitution editorialized that the state legislature vote to reconfigure the board, cutting it from 17 people to seven." "Shelve Library Board's Racial Ploys" Staff Editorial, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, August 13, 2003 "Sometimes, it's difficult to put a price on how much bad government costs taxpayers. Other times, it's painfully clear: $17 million. That's what the malfeasance, incompetence and racial politics of the Atlanta-Fulton Public Library System have cost the residents of Atlanta and Fulton County. A federal court judgment in 2002 awarded $17 million to seven white librarians after concluding they were victims of discrimination by the library, members of the board and Mary Kaye Hooker, who still runs the system. Taxpayers might have found consolation in the assumption that neither Hooker nor anyone else in the Atlanta-Fulton Public Library System would practice discrimination again after such a costly lesson. No chance. The Fulton County Office of Equal Employment Opportunity, which operates under the county manager, just announced that library officials continued to engage in racial discrimination even after the federal court judgment. An assistant county attorney told the Atlanta-Fulton County Public Library Board of Trustees last week that the library system retaliated against two women who were plaintiffs in the discrimination lawsuit. Ranked first by a review panel for a position, one of the women was passed over in favor of a lower-scoring black applicant. The board followed the lawyer's advice and voted belatedly to offer the white woman the job. The board is still looking at the second case. The library's joint city-county board is notorious for micromanaging the system and running off competent staff. Its own consultants recommended cutting the board from 17 people to seven, but the members clung to their seats like junkies to their stash. Special legislative action created the board; the board must be reconfigured the same way. It's time that the House and Senate members of the Atlanta-Fulton delegation suppress the board so that it finally stops playing racial politics at taxpayer expense." "Bias Seen in Library System in Atlanta" By Ty Tagami, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, August 10, 2003 "An internal investigation into personnel decisions of the Atlanta-Fulton library system has determined library officials continued to engage in racial discrimination after a federal court judgment against the system. The library system, which lost a $17 million judgment in federal court in 2002 after it transferred seven white librarians from their jobs on the basis of their race, has continued to discriminate against two of them, according to investigative findings by the Fulton County Office of Equal Employment Opportunity, which operates under the county manager. Mary Starck and Maureen Kelly, both plaintiffs in the lawsuit, still work within the library system. Starck, who works in the computer section of the central library in downtown Atlanta, applied for a job in circulation and was ranked in first place by a review panel, but in May the job was given to a lower-scoring applicant who is black, the report says. Involuntary Transfer Kelly, a manager in the computer section, was transferred against her will in December from the downtown library to an inner-city branch the system director described as 'dead.' Kelly replaced the head librarian there, a black man who replaced her downtown, the report says. The investigation's findings suggest infighting at the library. Both library Director Mary Kaye Hooker and Deputy Director Carolyn Garnes are quoted in the investigative reports as saying they felt 'set up.' The county EEO conducted the investigation after Starck and Kelly filed complaints. At an emergency meeting of the Atlanta-Fulton County Public Library Board of Trustees on Thursday to deal with the findings, June Green, an assistant county attorney, said the EEO determined the library system retaliated against the pair. Annette Steed, the library board chairwoman, said Saturday the board voted to follow an EEO recommendation and give Starck the job she had sought. The board also voted Thursday to hire an outside investigator to look at Kelly's case. Steed said that case was less clear cut. Talk of Conspiracy Steed said she had read both EEO reports and had no quarrels with their conclusions. When the library board made the earlier personnel decisions, Steed said they had incomplete information and did not realize their actions were discriminatory. 'We would never vote on something that was not completely above-board,' she said. Hooker declined, through an assistant, to be interviewed about the situation. Garnes was on medical leave and could not be reached. County Attorney O.V. Brantley said Friday the county was concerned about the potential for another lawsuit. The library's best course would be to remedy its mistakes by giving the two women the jobs they wanted, Brantley said. 'If there is future litigation, it would serve us well in court to keep down our liability.' Garnes, who is black, told an EEO investigator in the Starck case that she sensed a conspiracy. 'I'm trying to be professional, but Ms. Hooker is in on this,' the report quotes Garnes as saying. Hooker, who is white, told an EEO investigator that the branch near Turner Field where Kelly was sent -- Georgia Hill -- was a 'dead branch' that saw few patrons. She said she didn't know that until Garnes told her after the transfer. 'It was going to look like me and the board retaliated against Ms. Kelly,' she told the investigator. Starck and Kelly each said in interviews Friday that the library seemed to have learned nothing from the loss of the lawsuit. Both have talked to lawyers and say they wouldn't be satisfied merely with the reversal of the personnel decisions. 'Taxpayers really need to be concerned over a continuing pattern like this,' Starck said. 'If you have cancer, you better have surgery and tests to make sure you don't get it again.' Said Kelly, 'What would satisfy me? If they would just uphold their own policies -- Fulton County's own policies. You know, the law.' "2 White Librarians Say Bias Continues" By Milo Ippolito and Ty Tagami. Atlanta Journal-Constitution, August 8, 2003 "Two Fulton County librarians who were among the winners of a $17 million racial discrimination lawsuit against the library system claim it is still treating them unfairly. 'It happened, again,' librarian Maureen Kelly, who was transferred from the downtown library, said Thursday. The Atlanta-Fulton County Library Board discussed the latest round of allegations submitted to the county Equal Employment Opportunity office in a closed-door meeting Thursday. Both librarians were plaintiffs in the 2002 trial, in which a jury found they were discriminated against for being white. 'Both claim retaliation,' said deputy county attorney June Green. Kelly filed a complaint with the county Equal Employment Opportunity office claiming she was transferred from the Central Library downtown to a branch after winning the lawsuit. Librarian Mary Starck, an assistant manager at the downtown library, filed a complaint saying she was passed up for a promotion after the conclusion of the lawsuit. 'I feel definitely that I was not treated fairly,' Starck said. The board voted to seek an outside investigator to look into the Kelly case and to accept the recommendations of the county Equal Employment Opportunity office in the Starck case. Green would not say what the equal opportunity office recommended or discuss details of either case. 'These are two employees who made charges to the Fulton County Equal Employment Opportunity,' said Green. 'The EEO office conducted an investigation and sent a recommendation back to the board.' A federal jury awarded seven white librarians $25 million in January 2002 after finding that the librarians were ousted from jobs at Atlanta's downtown branch for being white. A judge later reduced the award to $17 million. The librarians had been transferred to less desirable jobs in smaller branches and complained that the library system was trying to reduce the number of white employees downtown. The original legal complaint quotes library officials as saying that the downtown library had too many white managers and that needed to change. Fulton County appealed the case as far as it could -- short of the U.S. Supreme Court -- and lost." "County Loses Another Round on Lawsuit" By Hatcher Hurd, Johns Creek [North Fulton County] Herald, August 6, 2003 "Fulton County is a step closer to paying a $16 million judgement in a discrimination case brought by seven white librarians when the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to revisit the case. The county had appealed 2002 a verdict to a three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court and lost, so the county's next remedy was to ask the full 12-judge court hear the case, but they declined. The only appeal now is to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. With the most recent budget passed by the county, it now has cash reserves of about $50 million. The $16 million judgement would pull the county to just about the 8.3 percent in reserves it needs to maintain to have steady cash flow throughout the year and to maintain a good bond rating with Wall Street. The appeals have been a bone of contention on the Board of Commissioners. The three north Fulton Republicans have lobbied the board to settle with the plaintiffs, the majority on the board have continued to fight it. 'I was not opposed to appealing the amount of the award, which I think was beyond any reasonable amount. But I don't think we need to waste any more taxpayer dollars now. The issue will be to find the money in the budget to pay for it,' [Commissioner Bob] Fulton said. He opposed a one-time millage increase - it would be about 1 mill - because once a temporary tax is levied, it has a tendency to never go away. 'It's an expensive penalty for the library to incur. Fulton County has a terrible record in the court in discrimination cases. This is just an example of how you have to pay,' he said. County Attorney O.V. Brantley said she would make a recommendation to the commissioners at their Aug. 6 board meeting, then it will be their decision whether to pursue an appeal to the Supreme Court. Kelly Beard, one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs, said she did not think the Supreme Court would hear the case. 'It is really just pro forma. They have 90 days to file, but the court has a reputation for turning down frivolous appeals rather quickly,' Beard said. 'It is just racking up $1,000 a day in interest, but they only have about 120 days at most before all appeals are exhausted.' Asked if any action should be taken against the staff or library board members who were named in the lawsuit, Fulton said it should be looked at. 'There needs to be a review of the actions of those people responsible,' said Fulton, who is one of two commissioners who sit on the library board. 'The morale of the library staff has taken a beating over this. We need to take all the steps necessary to ensure the people of Fulton County have the best library system in the state.'" "Court Won’t Hear Appeal of Atlanta Discrimination Case" Library Journal web site (www.libraryjournal.reviewsnews.com), "Breaking News," August 5, 2003 "Fulton County, GA has lost another, and most likely final, fight in its discrimination case involving seven white librarians in the Atlanta-Fulton County Public Library System. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld a $16.6 million award in June, refused the county's request for a rehearing involving the entire panel of 12 active judges. The only alternatives remaining for the county are the unlikely event of an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court or another attempt at a settlement with the librarians. A plaintiff told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that the county recently offered a settlement, but the offer was too low. In the meantime, the county is accruing a daily $1000 fine until the award is paid." "Library Director's Pink Slip Overdue" Paul Shardlow, Letter to the Editor, Atlanta-Journal Constitution, August 2, 2003, page A9 "Yet another layer of judicial review has confirmed that the leader of the Atlanta Fulton Public Library did knowingly and intentionally discriminate against white employees in the library system ('Library Loses Bias Suit Ruling," [AJC] Metro Section, July 26). My question: Why is the library director still employed by the county? Isn't her discriminatory (and costly) leadership an embarrassment? Why hasn't the county sacked the director?" "Weigh In On Ideas for Public Libraries" By Milo Ippolito, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, July 31, 2003, page J-1 “…This week, the public library began a user survey at all 33 branches. The survey asks users to give their opinions on library collections, branches, customer service, technology and room for improvement. The library intends to survey 5,000 users by Sunday.…At the same time, a poll of non-users will be conducted by phone in an effort to find ways to increase the use of libraries.Focus groups for seniors and young adults will be conducted to discuss programming ideas for those segments of the population. Marketing consultant Idleman & Associates was hired for $35,000 to conduct the studies, compile a report and meet with the library board. The research will be used to develop a five-year strategic plan for the library system….” "Library Loses Bias Suit Ruling" By Ty Tagami, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, July 26, 2003 Fulton County has lost another round in a fight to avoid paying about $17 million to seven white librarians who won a discrimination lawsuit against the county's library system. A three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the 2002 judgment against the county last month, but Fulton officials asked for a re-hearing before the circuit's entire panel of 12 active judges. The judges issued an order Friday saying there would be no re-hearing. Not one of the dozen judges expressed an interest in reconsidering the case. The decision means the county has no alternative but an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court or a last-ditch attempt at settlement. 'Maybe this will bring them to their senses, but I think they knew all along that there would be no re-hearing,' said Kelly Beard, an attorney for the women who sued their employer, the Atlanta-Fulton Public Library System. Beard said the county is wasting at least $1,000 a day in interest that accrues on the award. A federal jury granted the award after it found a clear case of discrimination last year. Beard predicted nothing in the case would motivate the U.S. Supreme Court to consider an appeal of the case. 'What is there to hear -- the fact that racial discrimination is not legal? That's not news.' Several county commissioners had similar assessments. 'We should have settled the case a long time ago,' said Mike Kenn, the chairman of the commission. Kenn said he could not get a majority on the commission to agree to settlement talks. Robb Pitts, who joined the commission in January, was not on board when the county lost the lawsuit. He said Friday that he also believes there should have been a settlement. 'We should have been talking about settling it some time ago, based on the way juries are acting,' said Pitts, who said the $17 million would be a 'huge hit' to the budget. He said he wasn't surprised by the ruling Friday, and he said he doubts the county can do anything but pay. The county now has 90 days to file paperwork asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case. 'The U.S. Supreme Court's not going to get involved in something like this, on a local level, not in my judgment anyway,' Pitts said. 'And why would they settle?' If the award is not overturned, taxpayers would have to foot the bill, because the county's insurance company is refusing to pay. It would be a big hit to the overall budget. The county has more than $50 million in cash reserves, but a $17 million payment probably would drain that below safe minimums, said Robert Fulton, a commissioner from north Fulton. The minimum reserve amount is meant to protect the county's credit rating, Fulton said. It's unclear what the county will do next. County attorney O.V. Brantley had not heard about the appeals court's ruling Friday. She said she would brief commissioners after reading it. Janet Bogle, one of the plaintiffs, said the county tried to negotiate a settlement last week, but the offer was too low. She said she and the other librarians still might be open to an offer. 'We are willing to entertain settlement, but it's got to be more -- they just really low-balled us,' she said." "Library Judgment One More Brick on Taxpayer" Editorial by Hatcher Hurd, Alpharetta Revue, June 20, 2003 "For a brief time, Fulton taxpayers could enjoy the $15 million tax cut the 0.5 mills rollback in the county`s General Fund represents. But only briefly. Then came the news two days later that the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court`s $17 million judgment against three members of the Atlanta-Fulton County Public Library System and its director, Mary Hooker for racial discrimination. According to testimony, several of the board members thought there were 'too many white faces' at the Central branch library and wanted to banish them to dead-end jobs in the other branches. Hooker, knowing her two predecessors had stood up to the board`s mercurial micro-management and were dismissed, took the path of least resistance despite warnings from the county attorney and the [county's] director of personnel. The county, which is paying the high-priced Atlanta lawyer firm of King and Spaulding to defend the library, will have to pay the piper when all the appeals have run out - and they just about have. Some have criticized the Board of Commissioners for appealing the verdict, saying we are throwing good money, and a lot of it, after bad. The federal [appeals] court was as unequivocal as the lower court had been. In the written unanimous opinion of the three judges of the 11th Circuit who heard the county`s appeal, it stated, 'Appellants' [the defendants] wrongdoing was more than mere accident. There was evidence that, in the face of repeated warnings, appellants intentionally discriminated against the librarians on the basis of race and used trickery and deceit to cover it up under the guise of a "reorganization."' So where is this $17 million going to come from to pay this judgment? Why right out of the taxpayers' pockets, and nowhere else. The county does self-insure itself, but most of the money will come out of the General Fund`s surplus. Let`s see. We spent about $43 million of our surplus to balance this year`s budget. That leaves about $55 million in reserves. That is near the minimum the county needs to have on hand to operate without borrowing short-term until all the taxes are collected in the fall. But we are going to need that $15 million rollback of the millage rate. The county manager has been charged with pulling a $15 million rabbit out of his hat and bringing back some suggested cuts. The final decision will be with the board, however, and since its members are not likely to agree on many cuts in programs and services already allocated, that surplus will likely take another hit. Fulton County can, and probably will, appeal to have all 11 judges on the 11th Circuit hear the county`s appeal. That is the last stop unless the appeal goes to the U.S. Supreme Court. Neither is likely to change the verdict. If we take the $17 million verdict this year, that means our surplus will shrink to about $22 million or so. Assuming we used every dime of what was left, there would still be a budget shortfall in the neighborhood of $20 million. Unless the majority of the board is willing to drastically cut back on some services, Fulton taxpayers will see a tax increase in 2004. Somewhere, sometime, the Board of Commissioners needs to come to grips with the hard economic realities facing the county. The years of floating huge budget spending increases on robust growth in the county digest are over for the foreseeable future. Long-deferred capital projects will be all the harder to complete now. Meanwhile, where is the accountability in the Atlanta-Fulton County Public Library System? Granted, there is a mostly new board of trustees handling things now, but the corrupt system that allowed the county to get into such a situation remains. Only William McClure remains on the board of the Gang of Three who perpetrated this mess. As long as he remains on the library board, that body will have a credibility problem. His racist policies are not only costly, they are an embarrassment. The library board is still too top heavy. It needs to be a more manageable number, and selected in such a way that Atlanta - which is part of the county library system because it ran its own library system into the ground - cannot dominate the decision-making. Finally, the library director should answer to the county manager and not the library board. Had this been the case, we would not have a $17 million judgment hanging over our heads. While we are at it, we should get the appropriate local legislation approved that would bring the library charter under control of the people of Fulton County, and not with the General Assembly where it is now. As it now stands, Atlanta legislators can block any change they don`t like, despite the county`s wishes or best interests." "Fulton Commission Must Wake Up, Smell Shortfall" Excerpt from an editorial, Atlanta Journal-Constituion, June 20, 2003 "The Fulton County Commission is staring financial disaster in the face, but it has remained remarkably complacent, continuing to allocate funds that aren't there to build things that aren't needed. Here's the latest: This month, the County Commission rolled back the property tax rate so that increases in property values would not result in higher tax bills. Although officials knew that probably would be necessary, the extra $16.8 million in revenue was nonetheless included in the budget and duly meted out to various programs. Now there is a hole where that money was. Moreover, the county will almost certainly wind up having to pay out a $17 million damage verdict in a reverse discrimination suit in which white women librarians were transferred and demoted because of their race. A federal appeals court recently upheld the verdict. The county is considering further appeals, but should give them up. The case is open and shut. That's a total of nearly $34 million that was not set aside, even though county officials could easily have predicted the shortfall. And this is just what has happened this year. A booming economy has masked runaway spending in Fulton for several years. That spending must be curbed or the commission will turn what was a nearly $100 million surplus last year into a $100 million deficit by 2005. But the certain knowledge of financial ruin hasn't stopped the commissioners from approving a new performing arts center in southwest Fulton ($6 million), a new senior citizens center in Fairburn ($2.9 million) and a new library in east Atlanta ($2.9 million). Yes, these projects are popular with residents and help get commissioners elected. But when facing a huge gap between income and expenses, the rule is cut back anything that isn't absolutely necessary...." "Atlanta-Fulton Bias Case Verdict Upheld" Library Journal's LJ Digital web site, June 18, 2003; reprinted in Library Journal, July 2003 "A three-judge federal appeals court has upheld the verdict finding three board members and the director of the Atlanta-Fulton Public Library System liable for discrimination against seven white librarians. The panel also upheld the $16.8 million in compensatory and punitive damages, which were reduced by the trial court judge from $23.4 million. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the Fulton County attorney will recommend that county commissioners request a rehearing before a full panel of 11 appeals court judges." "Appeals Court Upholds Bias Judgment in Atlanta" American Libraries Online, June 16, 2003 "The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld June 6 a $17-million judgment against three trustees on the Atlanta–Fulton County Public Library board, as well as Director Mary Kaye Hooker, for engaging in reverse discrimination against seven Caucasian librarians in 2000. The unanimous ruling maintained that the defendants demoted the women from senior-management posts to make way for people of color to be promoted to those jobs. Of the four defendants, only Hooker and trustee William McClure continue their service at the library. [AFPLWATCH Webmaster's comment: This statement is inaccurate, as Dorothy Blake, another defendant in the case, also currently serves on the Board of Trustees.] The other two defendants are former board members Benjamin Jenkins and Mary Jamerson Ward. Writing for the three-judge panel, Judge Susan H. Black said officials acted 'on the basis of race and used trickery and deceit to cover it up under the guise of a "reorganization”'—[a claim made by the defendants] which plaintiff attorney Mike Bowers had argued was untrue since every document referring to a reorganization was dated six weeks after the demotions took place. Judge Black also made reference to Ward’s public remark about the library’s 'white-dominated administration' and 'too many white faces' in senior management. The [Fulton County] board [of commissioners] is scheduled to discuss June 18 whether to appeal the case. Fulton County attorney O. V. Brantley has said that the county would pay the fine if necessary, according to the June 10 Atlanta Journal-Constitution." "Discrimination Losing Ground" By Jim Wooten, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, June 15, 2003 Discrimination had a tough week -- presaging perhaps the outcome of an imminent Supreme Court ruling on racial preferences in college admissions. The 9-0 U.S. Supreme Court decision, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, surely one of the two leading candidates to replace 78-year-old Chief Justice William Rehnquist if he retires as rumored, came in a Nevada case involving a female forklift operator. The woman was fired, which she contends was done because of gender; her former employer argued it was for disciplinary reasons. In the decision, the court lowered the standard for an employee claiming discrimination to get to trial. If the same logic applies to students applying for admission to colleges, the high court would declare the University of Michigan system of racial preferences to be illegal. In the admissions systems most colleges have in place, it is virtually impossible for a victim of discrimination to prove it -- primarily because colleges believe that the higher moral calling of 'diversity' gives them some legal grounds for discriminating to achieve an eye-pleasing mix of skin colors on campus. If justices believe that discrimination is such a scourge that the field should be tilted from employers to employees who think they may be victims, it surely cannot allow colleges to erect admissions systems where the known consequence is discrimination. Some applicants will be preferred because of race and others will be victimized for the same reason. Given the consistency in the Supreme Court's drift on the issue of discrimination, it would be surprising to see it uphold the two Michigan programs being challenged, one involving undergraduate and one involving law school admissions. The University of Michigan law school case, frankly, is tainted no matter how the court rules. The chief judge of the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, who provided a crucial vote in a 5-4 ruling upholding Michigan's preferences, improperly manipulated the system, an internal review found. Chief Judge Boyce F. Martin Jr., who was put on the court in 1979 by President Carter, named himself to a three-judge panel to hear the case, even though rules required random selection of judges. And he, furthermore, delayed for five months a request for a full court review, thereby ensuring the exclusion of two conservative judges who were retiring. The judge has not been disciplined, as of course he should be. While it is far less significant than last week's Nevada decision, an 11th Circuit Court of Appeals decision here in Atlanta sent another powerful message on the perils of discrimination. Some heads ought to roll after this one. The case involved race discrimination in the Atlanta-Fulton Public Library System, which will now cost taxpayers $17 million. A jury awarded seven white librarians $500,000 each for emotional harm, and $2 million each in punitive damages. The penalties for discriminating were leveled against William McClure, then chairman of the library board; former board members Benjamin Jenkins and Mary Jamerson Ward; and Mary Kay Hooker, who still runs the system. The veteran librarians were transferred from the downtown central office after Ward declared the 'white-dominated administration' at central to be a problem and told a fellow board member that there were 'too many white faces' at the location. A jury determined deliberate discrimination by board members and by Hooker. The judgment was upheld. 'There was evidence that, in the face of repeated warnings, [library officials] discriminated against the librarians on the basis of race and used trickery and deceit to cover it up under the guise of a "reorganization,"' the appeals court ruled. For those who would discriminate, it was a bad week. And I will be surprised if there is not another bad week to come when the U.S. Supreme Court hands down its college admissions ruling. "No Reason to Fight Library Verdict" Editorial, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, June 12, 2003 Fulton County should quit wasting money trying to fight a verdict that its library system engaged in racial discrimination against white employees. Instead, county officials should try to negotiate the amount of punitive damages and other costs down from the $17 million approved by a federal appeals court panel last week. The library administration and its board, as dysfunctional an outfit as has ever been constituted, did wrong, got caught and now must pay the penalty. The female plaintiffs, seven white and one African-American, filed suit after all the white women were demoted and moved to outlying branches and the black woman was punished for speaking out against it. The library board and Director Mary Kaye Hooker argued that the moves were part of a general reorganization of the system that had nothing to do with race. Unfortunately for them, there was no official record of a reorganization until after the moves were made. The suit also points out that the actions came after several comments that could only be viewed as racial from board Chairman William McClure, who is still on the board. 'There are too many old, white women' in management positions at the downtown library, McClure was reported as saying. The board needed 'to get rid of them.' There's more, of course, but that comment, along with other evidence, will cost Fulton and Atlanta taxpayers millions of dollars. Hooker carried out the transfers even though she knew there would be legal problems. Both she and McClure are personally named and made liable in the case, although Fulton County will have to pay the damages. It's hard to imagine why individuals charged with caring for something so precious, while at the same time mundane, as a library system would politicize and make racially divisive the process of administering it. Fulton County should not spend another penny defending them. "White Library Workers Win Racial Discrimination Case" CNSNews.com, June 11, 2003 "Seven white employees of the Atlanta-Fulton County Public Library System are victims of race discrimination, and the Georgia county must pay $16.8 million in damages, a federal appeals court has ruled. A three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court's ruling that three members of the library board and the system director knew it was illegal to consider race in personnel decisions but nevertheless transferred the women to lesser jobs. The appellate court's decision, written by Judge Susan Black, said library officials intentionally discriminated 'on the basis of race and used trickery and deceit to cover it up under the guise of a "reorganization."' Black noted that a library board member complained publicly about a 'white-dominated administration' and 'too many white faces.' Fulton County Attorney O. V. Brantley said she would recommend that the county commissioners request a hearing before the full appellate court, which could reverse the panel's decision." "County: 'Too Many White Faces' Court Rules Library Demoted Staffers over Color of Skin" WorldNetDaily.com ("the fastest-growing news service on the Internet"), June 11, 2003 "After publicly complaining about a 'white dominated administration,' a board member with the public library system for Atlanta and Fulton County in Georgia demoted seven white librarians 'because of the color of their skin,' and then tried to call it a 'reorganization.' That's the conclusion reached by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, reports the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, which upheld a lower court's ruling against the library. The three-judge panel made the unanimous decision that library officials intentionally discriminated 'on the basis of race and used trickery and deceit to cover it up.' Library officials failed to produce evidence of a systematic reorganization for the plaintiffs' attorney, except documents dated six weeks after the librarians were transferred. The move amounts to a $17 million mistake, according to the paper. The opinion, written by Judge Susan H. Black, revealed that library board member Mary Jamerson Ward complained publicly about 'too many white faces.' Ward is no longer on the board. The appellate decision, according to the Journal-Constitution, holds three members of the Atlanta-Fulton Public Library System board and the system's director financially liable. Fulton County attorney O.V. Brantley said the county would cover their cost, if it comes to that. Brantley plans to recommend the Fulton County commissioners request a rehearing before the full panel of the 11th Circuit. The county also could appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court." Library Discrimination Upheld North Fulton.com, June 11, 2003 Saying members of the Atlanta-Fulton County Library Board of Trustees "used trickery and deceit” to cover up race-based discrimination against seven white librarians, the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a $17 million judgment against the county. The court agreed with the lower court’s verdict that three members of the 2000 library board, then-Chairman William McClure, Mary Jameson Ward and Benjamin Jenkins, and Atlanta-Fulton County Public Library System Director Mary Hooker discriminated against the seven plaintiffs. The board deliberately sought to transfer seven librarians of long standing in the system from the Central Library to meaningless, dead-end jobs at other branches because of their race. Ultimately, Fulton County will have to pay the judgment. It comes at a particularly inopportune time, because the county is already drawing on its cash reserves to balance its budget. County Manager Tom Andrews said the county has been aware of the potential judgement, and will use a combination of its self-insurance fund and cash reserves to pay whatever the final verdict awards. "The Board of Commissioners will have to decide how it wants to procede,” Andrews said. County Attorney O.V. Brantley said she would recommend to the commissioners at its June 18 meeting that the county file a motion to have all 11 judges in the 11th Circuit Court hear the case. The county has until June 27 to make such a motion. Such a motion is seldom granted, but the county could then appeal the verdict to the U.S. Supreme Court. In writing the appellate court’s decision, Judge Susan H. Black said library officials knew it was wrong to discriminate based on race, but did it anyway despite warnings from the Fulton County Attorney’s Office and the Personnel Department of possible legal repercussions. Hooker and the library board members said the transfers were made to strengthen the branch libraries and were part of a reorganization plan. However, no such reorganization plan was ever produced at the trial. The plaintiffs said they were taken out of responsible supervisory positions and given menial work with no supervisory duties. The appellate court took note of testimony that defendant Ward had complained about a "white-dominated administration” at the Central branch and had told fellow board member Nancy Puckett there were too many "white faces” working at Central. Hooker, who is still the library director, was not available for comment. Of the three board members held liable in the case, only McClure remains on the Board of Trustees. He is also an East Point city councilman. McClure did not respond to a call to East Point City Hall. Andrews said if and when the county has to pay a judgment, it won’t affect the 0.5 millage rollback. That rollback will reduce county revenue by $15 million, about $2 million less than the judgment against the county that was upheld. "Library Bias Suit Decision Upheld" By Ty Tagami, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, June 10, 2003 "A federal appeals court has confirmed that officials with the library system for Atlanta and Fulton County made a $17 million mistake by discriminating against seven white librarians. An opinion filed Friday in the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court's ruling against the library. The opinion, based on a unanimous decision by a three-judge panel, said officials knew it was illegal to consider race in personnel decisions, yet they transferred the women to lesser jobs anyway because of the color of their skin. The judges' opinion holds three members of the Atlanta-Fulton Public Library System board and the system's director financially liable, but the county will cover their costs if it comes to that, said O.V. Brantley, the Fulton County attorney. Fulton County commissioners likely will decide what to do next at their June 18 meeting. Brantley said she will recommend they request a rehearing before a panel that includes all 11 active judges in the 11th Circuit. Such hearings, while rarely granted, can undo an appellate court's decision. The county also could appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The appellate court's decision, written by Judge Susan H. Black, said library officials intentionally discriminated 'on the basis of race and used trickery and deceit to cover it up under the guise of a "reorganization."' The opinion noted how library board member Mary Jamerson Ward complained publicly about a 'white dominated administration' and about 'too many white faces.' She has since left the board. The plaintiffs' lawyer, former Georgia Attorney General Mike Bowers, said his case was made easier because library officials could produce no evidence of a systematic reorganization except documents dated six weeks after the librarians were shuffled. The library system director named in the suit was Mary Kaye Hooker, who still runs the system and was unavailable for comment Monday. A deputy director, Carolyn Garnes, declined to comment. Of the other library board members held liable in the opinion, Benjamin Jenkins has left the board, but William McClure remains on it. He did not return a message left with East Point City Hall, where he is a councilman." "Fulton Loses $16.6M Verdict—Again 11th Circuit Says Fulton Library Officials Used ‘Trickery and Deceit’" By R. Robin McDonald, Fulton County Daily Report, June 10, 2003, p. 1+ "A federal appellate panel in Atlanta affirmed a $16.6 million verdict against officials of the Atlanta-Fulton County Public Library, saying they intentionally discriminated against seven librarians because they were white and then ‘used trickery and deceit to cover it up.’ Balch & Bingham partner Kelly Jean Beard, who represented the librarians, said Monday that the ruling clearly reflects the appellate panel’s ‘frustration with Fulton County for their belligerent bigotry against white workers….They talked about how Fulton County has been slapped time and time again for its treatment of white employees and yet they continue to disregard federal law. They are just incompetent and completely belligerent.’ The opinion was written by Circuit Judge Susan H. Black. The three-judge panel—which also included Circuit Judge Joel F. Dubina and U.S. District Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp of the Southern District of Florida, sitting by designation—issued its opinion late Friday, Bogle v. McClure, No. 02-13213 (11th U.S. Cir., June 6, 2003). The library board was represented on appeal by King & Spalding partner Griffin H. Bell, a former U.S. attorney general. When the case reached the 11th Circuit, Bell squared off in court against former Georgia Attorney General Michael J. Bowers, now a partner at Balch & Bingham. The librarians originally were represented by Meadows, Ichter & Bowers, which was acquired recently by Birmingham-based B&B. Bell and K&S partner Hoyt Lane Dennard Jr. had argued on appeal that Fulton County library officials were protected from civil litigation by qualified immunity because they could not have been expected to know that transfers of seven white librarians from management positions in the central library in downtown Atlanta to menial jobs in outlying branches was a violation of federal employment laws. Overhaul Called a ‘Sham’ The two attorneys also had argued that the transfers were art of a race-neutral, systemwide reorganization. However, Black’s opinion dubbed the reorganization ‘a sham designed to cover up the race-based transfers.’ Neither Bell nor Lane [Dennard] returned calls for comment. The panel also tossed out Fulton County’s objections to a verdict that initially included $1 million in compensatory damages and $2 million in punitive damages for each of eight librarians. U.S. District Court Judge Beverly B. Martin, who tried the case in January 2002, later reduced the verdict to $16.6 million and eliminated as a plaintiff one librarian who was transferred to a branch but remained a supervisor. The other librarians have decided to share the judgment with her, Beard said. The judgment has been accruing interest at the rate of approximately $1,000 a day, she said. The appellate opinion called the discrimination ‘more than an accident.’ ‘There was enough evidence that, in the face of repeated warnings, [county library officials] intentionally discriminated against the librarians on the basis of race and used trickery and deceit to cover it up under the guise of a “reorganization,”’ the opinion stated. That discrimination took place, the opinion continued, ‘with the full knowledge of recent cases of employment discrimination brought by Caucasian employees against other Fulton County officials which resulted in jury verdicts for the plaintiffs or [in] settlements. ‘A reasonable jury could have concluded form the evidence that appellants knew that transferring the librarians on the basis of race was illegal, were warned not to make the transfers, and knew that other Fulton County officials had been caught and punished for making employment decisions on the basis of race, yet appellants intentionally discriminated against the librarians and concocted the “reorganization” plan to hide their discriminatory motives.’ County Attorney ‘Disappointed’ Fulton County Attorney Overtis Hicks ‘O.V.’ Brantley, whose office defended the library board members and executive director Mary Kay[e] Hooker in U.S. District Court, said Monday that she was ‘very disappointed’ with the ruling and anticipates that she will recommend to the Fulton County Commission that the county seek an en banc reconsideration of the case. ‘I think it’s an important case,’ Brantley said. ‘I think it has important ramifications for all employers, particularly as it relates to the amount of damages that are awarded....It’s fairly unprecedented for plaintiffs with no actual damages to receive this type of award.’ County attorneys argued that even though the white librarians were transferred from managerial positions to jobs shelving books and cleaning refrigerators, no discrimination took place because their salaries remained the same. But the opinion noted that previous appellate rulings have established that a plaintiff may be compensated for intangible, psychological injuries as well as financial or physical harm. Trickery Claim Opposed Brantley also described the opinion’s allegations of trickery and deceit as ‘somewhat preachy’ and suggested that she would have preferred ‘seeing more legal analysis than what appeared to me to be an emotional view of the case.’ Michael B. Terry, a partner at Bondurant, Mixson and Elmore who assisted attorneys at Balch & Bingham in Atlanta with the librarians’ appeal, said Monday that an en banc hearing by the 11th Circuit is unlikely and would be ‘a waste of the taxpayers’ money.’ Bondurant partner Joshua E. Thorpe assisted with the appeal. B&B associate Christopher S. Anulewicz also assisted with the case. ‘I’m not going to predict what courts will or might do,’ Bowers said after learning that Brantley might ask for an en banc hearing. ‘All I can tell you is that this is a significant step along the way in upholding the verdict…The legal analysis, to my way of thinking, is as strong as possible.’ Bowers co-counsel Beard said that until the day the trial began in January 2002, the librarians had been willing to settle the case in return for being restored to their former jobs at the downtown library. ‘These women were willing to walk away without a dime in their pockets,’ she said. ‘All they wanted was to get their jobs back and not be discriminated against.’ Even after the jury handed down what was originally a $25 million verdict, Beard said that she and Bowers had offered to mediate the judgment before Martin, who had agreed to act as mediator after trying the case. County attorneys refused, she said. Evidence presented during the trial included a document compiled by library officials called ‘Branch & Unit Management by Race,’ which contained the race and gender of the library system’s managers. That document was compiled after black board members complained that there were too many white females working in management at the downtown library. The library is governed by a 17-member board of trustees. Those found liable by the jury included board chairman William McClure; Benjamin Jenkins, chairman of the board’s personnel committee; board member and personnel committee member Mary Jamerson Ward; and director Hooker. Ward had complained of a ‘white-dominated administration’ at the downtown library and had told a fellow board member it ‘was not welcoming to black folks to see so man white faces,’ the appellate opinion stated. Among those transferred was Maureen Kelly, a librarian with a master’s degree. She was transferred from the central library, where she managed 17 people, to an Alpharetta branch where she was told to shelve books and clean computer screens, Beard said. Another librarian, Mary Starck, remained in the downtown library but was stripped of all supervisory duties, Beard said. Instead, she was placed under the supervision of a male librarian who had been sanctioned by the library system for repeated sexual harassment of female employees, Beard said. Beard said that racial debate with which the librarians’ transfers in 2000 is ‘very sad.’ ‘With this verdict, I think we all have really heavy hearts that we can’t get beyond this, that Fulton County is unable to accept the state of the law,’ she said.” "Metro Library Hails New Titles' Arrival" By Milo Ippolito, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, May 10, 2003 "It took six months, but the Atlanta-Fulton Public Library finally has some new books on its 'new releases' shelves. The library system began unpacking 1,100 new best sellers in late April. It was the first time since October that the Central Library in downtown Atlanta added any books to its Library Express collection. The collection is designed to stay competitive with major bookstores. The restocked shelves should help quiet the complaints of library cardholders eager for something new to read since last fall. All of the new books will circulate among the 33 branches in the library system. Library director Mary Kaye Hooker said the library has had problems getting new books each winter. But she said the library can do a better job of keeping up with area bookstores year round by planning ahead. 'We've brought in a whole new management team, and that's what's making the difference,' said Hooker, who was hired in 1999. Hot titles like King of Torts by John Grisham, The Second Time Around by Mary Higgins Clark and Jarhead by Anthony Swofford are now available. A bookstore-style, best sellers display awaits library cardholders on the main library's first floor. 'We try to model this area on a Barnes & Noble mega-bookstore,' Library Express manager James Taylor said Friday. New selections grab readers Paige Mesaros, who stopped in the downtown library during her lunch break, was pleased with the new selections, checking out a copy of Quentins by Maeve Binchy. 'I noticed a couple that I want to check out next time,' said Mesaros, who lives in Roswell and works downtown. Mesaros, a regular library user and avid reader, said she had not been aware of the delay in getting the latest titles. Taylor said the new Grisham has been the hottest title. He bought 150 copies, and they're all checked out, the manager said. The 1,100 new books in the Library Express collection cost about $28,000, Taylor said. County budgeting procedures make it difficult for the library to stock new books over the winter, Hooker said. Fulton County restricts purchases from mid-October until mid-January so the finance department can close out its ledger for the year before launching into a new budget. Luis Herrera, president-elect of the Public Library Association and director of the Pasadena, Calif., library system, said being unable to make purchases during November and December would be tough on any library system. 'If you start to reconcile your books two months before you close your budget, that definitely has an impact,' Herrera said. Gwinnett and Cobb counties' library system officials say they have found ways to work around budget cycle issues. Cobb buys books with state funds when the county closes out its budget for the year, said Patty Latch, program coordinator for Cobb County libraries. The state awards each county $4.07 per resident to buy library materials. 'We do not have any single empty season,' Latch said. 'We do ordering during all 12 months.' Books that suddenly become hot also can be purchased between regular monthly orders, Latch said." 'New titles every day' in Gwinnett Gwinnett has a standing order with its book distributor to buy any new titles by certain in-demand authors, said Mabel Anne Kincheloe, library materials management director. Based on the circulation of previous titles by a popular author, the Gwinnett Public Library requests a set number of copies of whatever that author puts out next, Kincheloe said. The distributor ships the books in time to be put on the shelves the same day the bookstores get them, then bills the county, she said. 'We buy new titles every day,' Kincheloe said. Fulton may not always be as current, but it has nearby counties beat in the volume of its collection. The Atlanta-Fulton system has three books per county resident. Gwinnett, Cobb and DeKalb all have less than 1.5 books per resident." "Bill Would Recast Atlanta Library Board" Library Journal, April 15, 2003, page 13 "Ongoing tensions between the suburban and urban constituencies of the troubled Atlanta-Fulton Public Library (AFPL) have again moved to the state legislature, where new Senate majority leader Tom Price (R-Roswell) has sponsored a bill that would reduce the board from 17 to nine members. In doing so, reports the Atlanta [Journal-]Constitution, S.B 231 also would recast the appointment system, giving less clout to the city of Atlanta and renaming the system for Fulton County. Constituents from the county's rapidly growing northern suburbs have complained that the board has moved too slowly in expanding library service. The newspaper later editorialized that the board was 'a mess' but criticized the bill's 'narrow factionalism,' instead recommending a smaller board, term limits, and prohibition on elected officials from board service." "Library's Successes Clearly Catalogued" Letter to the Editor by Library Director Mary Kaye Hooker, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, March 26, 2003, page A-18 "I disagree with the recent editorial that said the Atlanta-Fulton Public Library System had been allowed to 'deteriorate' ('Streamline library board, but don't exclude Atlanta,' March 17). We spent $4 million to renovate our main library, and purchased 1,000 computers that provide access to $3.5 million worth of databases and the Internet. Several new libraries are under development. Our state-of-the-art Teen Technology Center gives teenagers access to computers and the Internet, technology classes taught by their peers and private rooms to work on joint homework projects. When our adult learning center started offering free computer training and resume writing classes three years ago, it was an instant hit. We expanded the program to our 33 branch locations, and estimate that nearly 4,500 people will attend classes this year. With more than 400,000 Fulton County residents having a library card, an independent survey showed that our users gave us a 98 percent approval rating." [LibraryLand Website Reports One of AFPL's Chronic Problems] www.librarian.net [weblog by librarian Jessamyn West], March 20, 2003 [Quoting from AFPLWATCH.com] "As of mid-March, the library owned only 10 of the current 31 bestsellers on the New York Times Bestsellers List.... A patron at the end of the waiting list for the #1 title on the NYT Bestseller List would have to wait 7 1/2 years before he/she could read it." "Streamline Library Board, but Don't Exclude Atlanta" Editorial, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, March 17, 2003, page A10 "Two Atlanta-Fulton County boards -- staffed by hired bureaucrats but overseen by private citizens -- desperately need reform. It's no surprise that Sen. Tom Price (R-Alpharetta) has introduced bills dealing with both the Atlanta-Fulton County Library Board and the A tlanta-Fulton County Recreation Authority. But his bill to change the library board needs revisions. It is driven by a narrow factionalism. There's no doubt the 17-member Atlanta-Fulton County Library Board is a mess. It has allowed the library system to deteriorate. And the board itself is riven by racial and political divides; last year, the system lost a reverse-discrimination suit that could cost the city and county nearly $17 million. Price's bill would further politicize the board and library system. He proposes to allow Fulton County to take over the library system, giving each of the seven Fulton County commissioners authority to appoint a member of the library board. The board members would serve without terms at the pleasure of the commissioner who appointed them. Two things are wrong with this proposal. First, it would give the city of Atlanta too little say. City residents pay a large part of the taxes used to support the library system and should have some say in how it is run. While the mayor would be an ex-officio member of the library board, along with the chair of the County Commission, the executive director would report to the Fulton County manager. Second, having each commissioner appoint a board member would do nothing more than transfer the ineffective and divisive politics of the commission onto the library board. Price should withdraw his bill and introduce one that would cut the size of the board but also allow representation from the city, set up terms for board members, prohibit any elected officials from serving on the board and set high ethical standards for all members. Atlanta and Fulton deserve a first-class library system. That is far from what they have now...." "Senate Bills Target Library...Board" Atlanta Journal-Constitution, March 13, 2003, page JN1 "...People in north Fulton complain that they pay more in taxes and check out more books than residents in Atlanta or south Fulton, yet they have fewer libraries -- four of the county's 30 branches. Senate Bill 231, introduced March 4, would alter and rename the Atlanta-Fulton Public Library System's board. The board was created in 1982 when the Legislature merged Atlanta's library system with Fulton County's. Atlanta brought the buildings into the deal, and Fulton brought the money. The system is funded by county taxpayers. Price's bill would rename it the Fulton County Library System and would reduce the board's size from 17 to nine members. It also would reduce the number of Atlanta residents on the board, giving the Atlanta mayor only one pick and the Fulton County commissioners eight. Currently, the selection system guarantees at least six Atlanta residents or city appointees on the board. Given the current makeup of the County Commission -- only three commissioners live in Atlanta -- Price's proposal likely would result in fewer Atlanta residents on the board....." [Webmaster's Note: S.B. 231 would also prohibit elected officials from serving on the library board, require the resignation of any board member who misses three meetings, and would place the power to hire, evaluate, and fire the library director in the hands of the county manager.] "Appeals Court Hears Arguments in Atlanta Library Case" Library Journal web site, "Breaking News," February 7, 2003 "Lawyers on opposing sides of the reverse discrimination lawsuit against the Atlanta-Fulton Public Library System argued the appeal January 30 before a three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, former U.S. Attorney Griffin Bell, arguing on behalf of the library, called for the verdict to be thrown out, terming the punitive damages award ' really outrageous.' The seven white librarians, who alleged their transfers were race-based and amounted to de facto demotions, originally won a $23.4 million jury verdict. U.S. District Judge Beverly Martin later reduced the award to $16.8 million--$3.5 million in compensatory damages and $13.3 million in punitive damages. While the judges' comments don't point to a decision, one judge was apparently unreceptive to the library's argument that its board members found liable should have been immune from suits because they had not been put on notice that their alleged conduct was illegal. 'Everybody knows you can't transfer someone because of their race,' said Judge Joel Dubina. However, he also expressed concern that Martin, the trial judge, had not given proper instructions to jurors. A decision is not expected for several weeks, perhaps months. Meanwhile, structural damage at the main library has closed shelves on five of six floors; repairs will take almost three months." "Atlanta-Fulton Bias Case Under Appeal" American Libraries web site, "News Briefs," February 3, 2003 "The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments January 30 on the merits of a $16.8-million verdict awarded in January 2002 to seven white female Atlanta–Fulton County Public Library workers who claimed they suffered from reverse discrimination. Fulton County filed an appeal in October. U.S. Attorney Griffin Bell argued the multimillion-dollar verdict was 'outrageous' and should be thrown out, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported January 31. He added that the workers were moved from their jobs in the downtown library according to a reorganization plan. However, Atlanta attorney Mike Bowers told the three-judge panel that the verdict should be upheld because the library committed 'rampant racial discrimination' against white employees. He countered that the reorganization was a 'clear sham' and based on a document typed eight days after the transfers were made. A decision by the appeals court is not expected for at least several weeks." "Shaky Shelves Cripple Downtown Library" by Milo Ippolito, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, January 31, 2003, p. D3 "Half a million books have been declared off-limits at the downtown Atlanta library. Almost the entire collection rests on shelves behind yellow tape. Not even librarians are allowed near the stacks. No, the books haven't been censored. It's the shelves that have been declared unsafe. The library closed off the shelves Jan. 15 because six shelves had toppled two weeks earlier, said Susan Earl, central library administrator. The library is still open, but it could be months before the shelves can be stabilized and the library is fully reopened to librarians and the public. Bookshelves are closed on five of the library's six floors. The weight of the books apparently shifted after the shelves were lifted and moved during renovations, Earl said. The shelves came crashing down while the library was open Dec. 30. No one was in that section and no one was hurt. 'We were really fortunate,' Earl said. The 30-year-old shelves are being braced instead of replaced because it will cost less, Earl said. The cost of bracing all the shelves has been estimated at $185,000. 'It's for the safety of our customers and our staff, so I think it's worth it,' Earl said. It will take almost three months to reopen all of the bookshelves, a floor at a time, Earl said. The main collection should reopen in late February after braces are installed to shore up the shelves. The popular books collection on the ground floor and the rare books room are still open. Librarians are filling requests for other books by having them sent from branch libraries or libraries in other counties. Computers, the learning center, the teen tech center, the telephone reference desk, government documents, music and audio books are all still available. 'The majority of people understand,' Earl said, adding that some people who are facing a deadline for their research have gotten upset. No universities are dependent on the public library, but students from Georgia State, Morehouse, Clark Atlanta, Spelman and Georgia Perimeter College do use it, Earl said. 'It does impact a little bit because January and February is the time people complete their research projects,' Earl said. Shondra Stewart, 20, a student at DeVry, is doing her research for a paper electronically at the library. 'Everything is Internet-based,' Stewart said. Not being allowed to use the books frustrated Stewart until librarians showed her the library's electronic resources, she said. 'I wasn't upset anymore,' she said. "Bell, Bowers Battle It Out as Library Fights Bias Case" by Bill Rankin, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, January 31, 2003, p. D3 "A multimillion-dollar jury verdict against the Atlanta-Fulton Public Library System should be upheld because the system committed 'rampant racial discrimination' against white employees, the state's former attorney general argued Thursday [January 30]. 'The evidence here was overwhelming,' Atlanta attorney Mike Bowers, once the state's top lawyer, told a three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. But former U.S. Attorney Griffin Bell, who once sat as a judge on the federal appeals court in Atlanta, argued that the verdict should be thrown out, adding that the punitive damages award 'is really outrageous.' Bowers represents seven white women who won a $23.4 million jury verdict a year ago against the library, its director and several board members. U.S. District Judge Beverly Martin in Atlanta later reduced the award to $16.8 million--$3.5 million in compensatory damages and $13.3 million in punitive damages. The librarians were transferred from the desirable central branch downtown to menial jobs in smaller branches as part of a concerted effort to reduce the number of white employees working downtown, Bowers said. Some of the librarians, who held masters degrees in library science, were asked to clean off computer screens or clean out refrigerators. Bell's partner, H. Lane Dennard Jr., began the arguments by urging the court to toss out the case on the grounds of qualified immunity. This is a legal doctrine that shields government officials from lawsuits if they had not been put on prior notice that their alleged conduct--in this case, transferring employees because of their race--was illegal. But Judge Joel Dubina quickly cut off that line of defense. 'Everybody knows you can't transfer someone because of their race,' he said. 'That's a no-brainer, isn't it?...I don't think much of your qualified immunity argument.' The two other judges on the panel, Susan Black and Kennth Ryskamp, did not voice disagreement with Dubina's comments. Dubina said his primary concern is that the trial judge may have failed to give proper instructions to jurors before they began their deliberations. He said Martin did not instruct jurors to consider a defense that could have allowed jurors to side with the library if there was evidence of some motive other than racial discrimination behind the transfers. If the court finds such a jury instruction should have been given, Dubina said, 'we have to send this case back for a new trial.' Bell said one motive was that there was a reorganization plan to move librarians out of the central library. He noted that six of the seven jobs lost by the white plaintiffs at the downtown branch were eliminated. But Bowers countered that the library's arguments about the reorganization were 'a clear sham.' The only evidence supporting that claim came from a document typed up eight days after the transfers were made, he noted. 'This was rampant racial discrimination.' It could be several weeks, even months before the appeals court issues its decision." "Bell and Bowers Face Off in 11th Circuit: Bell: Verdict Against County was 'Outrageous'; Bowers Calls Library's 'Reorganization' a Sham" by R. Robin McDonald, Fulton County Daily Report, January 31, 2003, p. 1,5,7 "Former U.S. Attorney General Griffin B. Bell made a rare courtroom appearance Thursday [January 30] to defend Fulton County library officials against a $16.6 million race discrimination verdict. Facing him across the courtroom was former Georgia Attorney General Michael J. Bowers. The 84-year-old Bell, however, took the podium before a federal appellate panel only after a judge had unceremoniously stripped Bell's King & Spalding partner, Hoyt Lane Dennard Jr., of his main argument. Bell called the $16.6 million judgment 'outrageous' and argued that county library officials deserved another day in court. Bell and Dennard were seeking a new trial for the executive director and three board members of the Atlanta-Fulton County [Public] Library system and relief from the $16.6 million judgment against them. Last year, Bowers and partner Kelly Jean Beard of Atlanta's Meadows, Ichter & Bowers won a jury verdict on behalf of eight white county librarians who had claimed they were transferred from supervisory posts downtown to meaningless, menial jobs in branch libraries simply because they were white. Bogle v. McClure, No. 1:00-cv-2071 (N.D. Ga. May 10, 2002). The federal jury that heard the case, after asking for a chalkboard and a calculator to use in deliberations, had awarded Bowers' eight clients nearly $25 million. U.S. District Judge Beverly B. Martin later affirmed the jury's findings but reduced the award to $16.6 million and held that one of the eight librarians, unlike her colleagues, had suffered no damages. After Martin signed the judgment last May, Fulton County Attorney Overtis Hicks 'O.V.' Brantley asked Bell to handle the county's appeal. U.S. Circuit Court Judges Joel F. Dubina and Susan H. Black, and U.S. District Senior Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp of the Southern District of Florida, were on the the panel. Dennard stood first to argue on behalf of county library officials. 'This case involved personnel decisions,' he told the panel. Both African-American and white library staff were transferred from the central library downtown to outlying branches 'to serve the needs of those locations,' Dennard insisted. Dubina soon interrupted. 'From the jury trial, based on my reading of the case, certainly there was some evidence of discrimination,' the judge observed. Dennard then asked the panel to find that county library officials had qualified immunity from prosecution because they were public officials. The officials, he argued, had no way of knowing that the transfers of white staffers from supervisory to subordinate roles, without a pay cut, were against the law--one of the standards for obtaining that immunity. But Dubina interrupted a second time. 'Everybody knows it's against the law to transfer people on the basis of race, counselor....That's a no-brainer.' When Dennard insisted that library officials were still shielded from litigation, Dubina broke in a third time. 'It seems to me that much of our old law in this circuit is no good any more,' the judge said. 'Now the standard is: Is the law sufficient to warn someone?' Dubina was referring to Hope v. Pelzer No. 01-309 (U.S. Sup. Ct. June 27, 2002). In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court last June overturned an 11th Circuit Court decision that granted Alabama prison guards qualified immunity from liability. A prison inmate had sued the guards after they tied him to a hitching post for hours without food, water or bathroom breaks. The 11th Circuit ruled that federal law on jailer conduct was not explicit enough to notify the guards that their actions were unconstitutional. But Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the majority decision, said that Alabama jailers would have had plenty of notice that what they were doing was unconstitutional and, thus, could not claim immunity. When Dennard pressed his qualified immunity argument, Dubina stopped him with a blunt assessment. 'I don't think much about your qualified immunity argument,' he said. Dubina then raised the only issue he said interested him. He suggested that the district judge may have erred by not instructing jurors that libary officials could have had mixed motives, including nonracial ones, for transferring the white librarians. Had the jury found mixed motives for the transfer, they would have had to rule in favor of the defendants. Dubina said that, were he convinced the failure to give that charge was error, he would vote to remand the case for a new trial. Instead of following Dubina's line of thinking, however, Dennard attempted to raise yet another qualified immunity argument. Dubina again interrupted, suggesting once more that the King & Spalding partner address the question of mixed motives. Then he asked Dennard, 'What were the other motives besides race discrimination?' for the transfers. Dennard responded that the library system needed to transfer the librarians as part of a systemwide reorganization. Judge Black then asked whether county attorneys argued at trial that the librarians would have been transferred anyway, no matter what racist motives might be at work. 'Was that argument made before the jury?' she asked. No, Dennard said. 'Was the mixed motive allegation discussed throughout the trial?' Black asked. Dennard said he knew of no other point during the trial where mixed motives were discussed. Then it was Bowers' turn. After introducing himself, Bowers announced he was setting aside his prepared argument to address the panel's questions on mixed motives. The county's attorneys had waived the issue of mixed motives for the transfers, he said. They argued that there was no discrimination, claiming that the librarians were transferred as a part of a systemwide reorganization. But, 'the evidence was overwhelming that there had been no reorganization,' Bowers argued. He said the library's executive director testified that, eight days after the transfers were made, the library still had no reorganization plan. 'There was no reorganization,' he told the panel. 'It was a sham. The evidence didn't support any reorganization.' Bowers also said the county had waived any argument regarding qualified immunity at the time of trial. 'Let's assume they haven't waived it,' Dubina said. 'Hope v. Pelzer said all they had to have is fair notice,' Bowers responded. Moreover, he argued, even though the transferred librarians suffered no loss in pay, one of their supervisors 'said everyone got demoted.... They went from managerial jobs to cleaning computer screens, cleaning out refrigerators, housekeeping....These are middle-aged ladies with masters degrees. How are they going to explain that [to other potential employers]? It was rampant racial discrimination.' County attorneys, Bowers said, 'never argued it as a mixed-motive case....They just argued, "We didn't discriminate, period."' Dubina asked why a memo from Assistant County Attorney June D. Green to the library's executive director--a memo that proved damaging to the county at trial--would not fall under the attorney-client privilege. In that memo, Green warned library officials that transfers must not be demotions or violate county personnel regulations and that they should be reviewed by the county's personnel director before they were implemented. The library board, according to court records, ignored that advice. 'It's not attorney-client privilege because, under Georgia law, it's an open record,' said Bowers. At the time the memo was written, it involved neither pending nor potential litigation, he said. 'No lawsuit had been threatened. No lawyer had been hired.' Then it was Bell's turn to address the court. Bell--a former 5th U.S. Circuit judge--explained to the three-judge panel that Dennard 'had some trouble' answering questions posed by Dubina. That was because, Bell explained, 'We were not in the trial.' Bell told the panel that 'We are at least entitled to a new trial. The [trial] judge was asked to give a mixed motive charge. That wasn't much to ask a judge to do.' Nor, Bell argued, was there evidence that the white librarian-plaintiffs were replaced by blacks. Instead, he said, their posts simply were eliminated. 'It gets down to whether it was a reorganization,' he said. 'It was a library that was predominantly white in a black city with a black school system and black school children....They needed some people in the outlying branches.' He argued that 'You can have a reorganization that is a mixed motive [situation]....This is a mixed-motive case. Punitive damages are outrageous. They didn't lose any pay. They didn't lose any rank.... They just didn't find much to do when they got where they were going.'" Click here to read headlines and/or the text of news stories about the library system that were published in 2002. Home Table of Contents Frequently Asked Questions Contact Us