You are on page 1of 15

AlaFile E-Notice

01-CV-2014-901437.00
Judge: DONALD E. BLANKENSHIP
To: HALL JOHN BRYANT
bryant@bryanthall.com

NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING


IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA
HARRINDA SMITH ET AL V. THE BIRMINGHAM CITY SCHOOL BOARD ET AL
01-CV-2014-901437.00
The following matter was FILED on 10/30/2015 3:21:15 PM
C001 SMITH HARRINDA
C002 STREET MARION
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO RULE 56
[Filer: GEAR GAYLE HAYWOOD]
Notice Date:

10/30/2015 3:21:15 PM

ANNE-MARIE ADAMS
CIRCUIT COURT CLERK
JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA
JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA
716 N. RICHARD ARRINGTON BLVD.
BIRMINGHAM, AL 35203
205-325-5355
anne-marie.adams@alacourt.gov

DOCUMENT 133

STATE OF ALABAMA

Revised 3/5/08

Unified Judicial System

01-JEFFERSON

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
10/30/2015 3:21 PM
01-CV-2014-901437.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
CV201490143700
JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA
ANNE-MARIE ADAMS, CLERK

Case No.

District Court

Circuit Court

CIVIL MOTION COVER SHEET

HARRINDA SMITH ET AL V. THE BIRMINGHAM


CITY SCHOOL BOARD ET AL

Name of Filing Party: C001 - SMITH HARRINDA


C002 - STREET MARION

Oral Arguments Requested

Name, Address, and Telephone No. of Attorney or Party. If Not Represented.

GAYLE HAYWOOD GEAR


2229 MORRIS AVENUE
BIRMINGHAM, AL 35203
Attorney Bar No.: GEA002

TYPE OF MOTION
Motions Requiring Fee

Motions Not Requiring Fee

Default Judgment ($50.00)

Add Party

Joinder in Other Party's Dispositive Motion (i.e.


Summary Judgment, Judgment on the Pleadings, or
other Dispositive Motion not pursuant to Rule 12(b))
($50.00)

Amend
Change of Venue/Transfer

Judgment on the Pleadings ($50.00)

Compel
Consolidation
Continue
Deposition

Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative Summary


Judgment($50.00)

Designate a Mediator
Judgment as a Matter of Law (during Trial)

Renewed Dispositive Motion(Summary Judgment,


Judgment on the Pleadings, or other Dispositive
Motion not pursuant to Rule 12(b)) ($50.00)

Disburse Funds
Extension of Time

Summary Judgment pursuant to Rule 56($50.00)


Motion to Intervene ($297.00)

In Limine
Joinder

Other

More Definite Statement


Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)
($50.00)

pursuant to Rule

*Motion fees are enumerated in 12-19-71(a). Fees


pursuant to Local Act are not included. Please contact the
Clerk of the Court regarding applicable local fees.
Local Court Costs $

New Trial
Objection of Exemptions Claimed
Pendente Lite
Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss
Preliminary Injunction
Protective Order
Quash
Release from Stay of Execution

0.00

Sanctions
Sever
Special Practice in Alabama
Stay
Strike
Supplement to Pending Motion
Vacate or Modify
Withdraw
Other
pursuant to Rule
Check here if you have filed or are filing
contemoraneously with this motion an Affidavit of
Substantial Hardship or if you are filing on behalf of an
agency or department of the State, county, or municipal
government. (Pursuant to 6-5-1 Code of Alabama
(1975), governmental entities are exempt from
prepayment of filing fees)

Date:

10/30/2015 3:04:16 PM

(Subject to Filing Fee)


Signature of Attorney or Party:

/s/ GAYLE HAYWOOD GEAR

*This Cover Sheet must be completed and submitted to the Clerk of Court upon the filing of any motion. Each motion should contain a separate Cover Sheet.
**Motions titled 'Motion to Dismiss' that are not pursuant to Rule 12(b) and are in fact Motions for Summary Judgments are subject to filing fee.

DOCUMENT 134
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
10/30/2015 3:21 PM
01-CV-2014-901437.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA
ANNE-MARIE ADAMS, CLERK

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA


HARRINDA SMITH,
MARION STREET,
Plaintiff/Petitioner,

)
)
)
)
vs.
)
)
THE BIRMINGHAM CITY SCHOOL BOARD; )
DR. CRAIG WITHERSPOON,
)
in his individual capacity as
)
Superintendent of the Birmingham City Schools; )
ARTHUR WATTS
)
in his individual capacity as Chief Financial
)
Officer of the Birmingham City Schools;
)
et.al.
)
)
Respondents.
)

CASE NO.: 01-CV- 2014-901437

PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO COUNT II


OF PLAINTIFFS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

COMES NOW, Plaintiffs/Petitioners Harrinda Smith and Marion Street, (hereafter


Plaintiffs) and, pursuant to Alabama Rule of Civil Procedure 56, move this Honorable Court
for an ORDER granting summary judgment and related relief with respect to Count II of the
Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint in this matter for the reasons stated herein, as well as the
Plaintiffs Evidentiary submission and the Deposition Testimony of Superintendent of Schools
Craig Witherspoon, Chief Financial Officer Arthur Watts (CFO), Human Resources Director
Jeffery McDaniels, and former Birmingham Board member Virginia Volker. All deponents listed
have personal knowledge of the enactment and implementation of the 2014 Classified Salary
Schedule. CFO Watts and Superintendent Witherspoon (who have both recently resigned) are

DOCUMENT 134

sued in their individual capacities. All other defendants (current Birmingham Board members,
School Superintendent1, Chief Financial Officer2) and are sued in their official capacities.
I. Introduction
Count II of Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint seeks relief under 42 USC 1983.
Defendants Witherspoon and Watts intentionally denied Plaintiffs their rights to the property
interest Plaintiffs hold in their employment and related salary. Witherspoon and Watts admit in
deposition testimony that, they held a legal duty to adhere to the 2014 Classified Salary Schedule
enacted by the Birmingham Board. They also admitted that they certified to the Birmingham
Board that sufficient funds were budgeted to fully fund all employee salaries. The 2014 Certified
Salary Schedule expressly provided that placement on the Salary Schedule STEP is categorized
by years of experience. Defendants Witherspoon and Watts further admitted that Plaintiffs
were not given credit for years of experience when determining their STEP placement on the
Classified Salary Schedule. Instead, Defendants Witherspoon and Watts placed Plaintiffs on
Salary Schedule STEPS that represented a slight increase in their previous salary specifically for
the purpose of foreclosing Plaintiffs access to the due process mechanisms available through
established Board procedure. At the same time, Defendants Witherspoon and Watts gave full
credit for years of experience to other similarly situated classified personnel.
Defendants fraudulently and in bad faith attempted to conceal their actions by giving no
written notice of what they later refer to as a well known procedure to move existing personnel
to a STEP that affords a slight increase of salary regardless of their years of experience.
Defendants Witherspoon and Watts admitted that this procedure was never memorialized in
writing nor was it published to the Birmingham Board or to the Alabama State Department of
1
2

Kelley Castlin-Gacutan was recently appointed to the Superintendent position.


At this time, Defendant Watts successor has not been named.
2

DOCUMENT 134

Education. It is undisputed that the Birmingham Board had not enacted any policy that allowed a
departure from the officially enacted 2014 Classified Salary Schedule. Both Watts and
Witherspoon try to claim that violating the duly approved Salary Schedule policy is a generally
accepted practice.
Plaintiffs hereby seek an Order declaring that Plaintiffs have been denied equal protection
under the law and due process of the law under the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, Art. I, 1,
6, 13, and 22, and the Constitution of the United States, Amendment XIV. Further, Plaintiffs
seek to be awarded general compensatory damages, to include all back pay, where appropriate,
and to restore any and all benefits, as required; and such other and further relief as necessary to
make Plaintiffs fully whole and that this Court order Defendants to pay all costs incurred,
including reasonable attorneys fees. Additionally, Plaintiffs seek to be awarded such other and
further relief, at law or in equity, to which they might otherwise be reasonably entitled.
II. Undisputed Material Facts
The following incorporates facts from Plaintiffs Brief in Support of Motion for
Summary Judgment as to Count I of the Second Amended Complaint.
1. Defendants Superintendent Witherspoon, Chief Financial Officer Watts and Human
Resource Director Jeffery McDaniels were legally obligated by Birmingham Board policy
and by Alabama State law to implement the duly enacted 2014 Classified Salary Schedule.
(McDaniels Depo. at 87; Witherspoon Depo. at 16-17, 28-29, 117 and Depo. Exh. 5-6;
Watts Depo. at 14-15, 21-22, 36 & 54 and referenced Exhs. 4 & 6; Volker Depo. at 17 and
referenced Exhs. 2-3).
2. The 2014 Classified Salary Schedule specifically provided that STEP placement is
determined (categorized) by years of experience. STEP placement on the previous

DOCUMENT 134

salary schedule (The 2013 Classified Salary Schedule) also stated that STEP placement was
categorized by years of experience. (McDaniels Depo. at 17-21, 26-27, 29, 30-31, 35 &
Depo. Exhibit 2 & 3 at pg. 3).
3. Defendants Witherspoon and CFO Watts possessed no discretion as to STEP placement
because the duly enacted 2014 Classified Salary schedule expressly stated that STEPS are
categorized as years of experience. (Watts Depo. at 21-23, 36, 38-39 and referenced
Exhibit 12 at pgs. 3, 14-15).
4. CFO Watts certified to the Birmingham Board of Education that sufficient funds were in the
2014 Budget to pay classified personnel in accordance with the 2014 Classified Salary
Schedule. (Witherspoon Depo. at 56-57; Watts Depo. at 18, 22-23, 36, 45 & 54 and
referenced Exhibit 7).
5. CFO Watts did not communicate in writing to the Birmingham Board members, to the State
Department of Education, or affected classified personnel that (with the implementation of
the 2014 Classified Salary Schedule) years of experience would not determine STEP
placement for currently employed classified personnel. (Witherspoon Depo. at 119-120;
Watts Depo. at 32, 40, 62-63; Volker Depo. at 28-30, 31-34, 38-39).
6. Instead, STEP assignments for classified personnel (including Plaintiffs Harrinda Smith and
Marion Street) STEPs were arbitrarily lowered to the salary STEP that closely
approximated their previous 2013 salary rather than to the STEP that represented their years
of experience. (McDaniels Depo. at 56-57, 83-84, 95; Witherspoon Depo. 40-44, 115; Watts
Depo. at 19-20).
7. Jeffrey McDaniels, the Director of Human Resources, admitted that some classified
personnel were not placed on the STEP they were due because it would diminish the

DOCUMENT 134

reserve fund that the State Department of Education required during the period the
Birmingham Board was under State supervision. (McDaniels Depo. at 140).
8. Both Superintendent Witherspoon and CFO Watts admitted that at the time the 2014
Classified Salary Schedule was recommended for passage, they did not intend to adhere to
the provision that STEP placement is categorized as years of experience. (Witherspoon
Depo. at 43-45; Watts Depo. at 31).
9. With the implementation of the 2014 Classified Salary Schedule Plaintiff Smiths STEP
placement was lowered from STEP 11 (reflecting actual years of experience) to STEP 1,
which corresponds to no experience. The salary difference between STEP 11 and STEP 1
is $5,477.00. (McDaniels Depo. Exh. 10, BOE stamped pg. 291; see generally Smith
Affidavit).
10. With the implementation of the 2014 Classified Salary Schedule, Plaintiff Streets STEP
placement was lowered from STEP 14 (reflecting actual years of experience) to STEP 2,
which corresponds to two years of experience. The salary difference between STEP 14 and
STEP 2 is $5,643.00. (McDaniels Depo. at 120-121; see generally Affidavit of Street).
11. In contrast, newly hired (or rehired) classified personnel were assigned to the STEP that
corresponded to their respective years of experience. (McDaniels Depo. at 37-43, 44-45,
60-62, and referenced depo. exhibits. 4-9).
12. Also in contrast, STEP placement for classified personnel assigned to the Central Office
retained their former (2013) STEP placement, that is according to their respective years of
experience. (McDaniels Depo. at 98-104 and referenced depo. exhibit 11).
13. Classified personnel were assigned to the STEP that closely corresponded (yet afforded an
increase) to their 2013 salary so that they would not be able to pursue an appeal of their

DOCUMENT 134

STEP placement on the 2014 Classified Salary Schedule. (McDaniels Depo. at 83-85;
Witherspoon Depo. at 115).
14. Plaintiffs Smith and Street promptly registered their concerns about improper placement on
the 2014 Classified Salary Schedule to Superintendent Watts and HR Director McDaniels.
(Watts Depo. at 46; McDaniels Depo. at 123; see generally Affidavits of Smith and Street.)
III. Arguments
In light of the foregoing undisputed facts, it is clear that Defendants conduct has denied
Plaintiffs equal protection and due process of law under the Constitution of Alabama of 1901,
Article I, 1, 6, 13, and 22, and the United States Constitution, Amendment XIV. Plaintiffs
have a property interest in the salary they derive from their positions with the Birmingham Board
under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution as well as the Constitution of
Alabama of 1901, Article I, 1, 6, 13, and 22. Defendants deprivation of Plaintiffs rights
without due process of law as well as Defendants refusal to afford equal protection to Plaintiffs
under the law has caused damage to Plaintiffs professional life and career opportunities,
emotional distress, inconvenience, humiliation, shame, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life,
and pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. (see generally Affidavits of Smith and Street).
A. Summary Judgment Standard
The standard of review on a motion for summary judgment is well settled under Alabama
law. Pursuant to Alabama Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c)(3), summary judgment is proper if the
pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the
affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving
party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Once the movant meets this burden, the
burden then shifts to the non-movant to rebut the movant's prima facie showing by substantial

DOCUMENT 134

evidence. Lee v. City of Gadsden, 592 So.2d 1036, 1038 (Ala. 1992). (S)ubstantial evidence is
evidence of such weight and quality that fair-minded persons in the exercise of impartial
judgment can reasonably infer the existence of the fact sought to be proved. West v. Founders
Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So.2d 870, 871 (Ala. 1989).
B. Defendants Witherspoon and Watts are State Employees Whose Actions Were Taken
Under Color of Law
A prima facie case under 42 U.S.C. 1983 consists of two elements: 1) the action
occurred under color of law and 2) the action is a deprivation of a constitutional right or a federal
statutory right. 42 USCS 1983.
The traditional definition of acting under color of state law requires that the
defendant in a 1983 action have exercised power 'possessed by virtue of state law and
made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law.'

It is firmly established that a defendant in a 1983 suit acts under color of state
law when he abuses the position given to him by the State.
Duran v. Buckner, 157 So. 3d 956, 969 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014).
Both Defendants Witherspoon and Watts are policy makers for the Birmingham City
Schools, a division of the State of Alabama. Witherspoon had been Superintendent of
Birmingham City Schools since March of 2010.3 Watts served as CFO of the Birmingham City
Schools for 13 years.4 As policy makers, both Witherspoon and Watts have statutory duties that
they must fulfill with regard to the placement of employees upon the salary schedule. (see 1, 3,
& 4 supra)5. Both Witherspoon and Watts report directly to the Birmingham Board of Education.
(Witherspoon Depo. at pg. 19-20, 25-26).

3
4

http://www.al.com/news/birmingham/index.ssf/2014/10/craig_witherspoon_out_as_birmi.html

http://www.al.com/news/birmingham/index.ssf/2015/04/birmingham_school_system_cfo_a.html
All references to specific numbered paragraphs refer to Undisputed Material Facts above.

DOCUMENT 134

C. Defendants Witherspoon and Watts have violated Plaintiffs Rights under the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution as well as the Constitution of
Alabama of 1901, Article I, 1, 6, 13, and 22.
1. Defendants Witherspoon and Watts Denied Plaintiffs Due Process
The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States says in part No state
shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law The Constitution of Alabama protects the inalienable rights of the individual
( 1), affords relief from the deprivation of life, liberty, or property, except by due process of
law ( 6), protects the individuals right to due process of law ( 13), and restricts state
actors from impairing the obligations of contracts ( 22).
The undisputed record evidence shows that Defendants Witherspoon and Watts had a
clear legal duty to pay in accordance with the Birmingham Boards 2014 Classified Salary
Schedule. (see 1, 2, & 3 supra). Witherspoon and Watts conceded that despite the enactment of
the Classified Salary Schedule they didnt intend to follow it for all personnel. (see 8 supra).
While some Classified personnel were assigned to a salary schedule STEP based on their
years of experience, other Classified personnel were moved to a STEP that corresponded with
their 2013 salary. Plaintiffs were moved to a STEP that would represent a technical increase of
their salary but less than they were due under the 2014 Classified Salary Schedule. The HR
Director explained that because Plaintiffs received a slight increase in salary they would not have
access to the appeal mechanism available to employees who receive a loss in salary. (see 13
supra). After Plaintiffs became aware that they were being denied credit for years of experience,
they immediately requested assistance to remedy the issue. They were again denied the benefit of

DOCUMENT 134

due process in that neither Defendant Witherspoon nor Defendant Watts remedied the incorrect
placement when requested to do so. (see 14 supra).
Defendants Witherspoon and Watts have abused the power and responsibility with which
they were entrusted by the State of Alabama. Defendants had a legal duty to give Plaintiffs credit
for their years of experience and they have admitted that they cannot produce any written policy
which would allow for the arbitrary assignment of employees to lower salary STEPS. Under
color of law, Defendants Witherspoon and Watts intentionally denied Plaintiffs credit for their
years of experience depriving Plaintiffs of the valuable property interest they each possess in
their employment by virtue of having a decade or more of experience. (see 9, 10 supra).
Though they requested it, Plaintiffs were given no process in which to correct or even dispute the
deprivation of their rights. In fact, Defendants took intentional steps to deny Plaintiffs access to
the established due process mechanism within the Birmingham City School system. (see 7
supra and Affidavits of Smith and Street generally).
This is clearly an unconstitutional taking, done to these Plaintiffs arbitrarily, under color
of law, and without any other avenue of recourse than the above-styled action. The Defendants
actions are in clear violation of the Due Process protections of the Fourteenth Amendment and
the Constitution of Alabama. In that all material facts are undisputed, summary judgment is
proper and due to be granted as to Plaintiffs due process claims.
2. Defendants Denied Plaintiffs Equal Protection Under the Law
The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States says in part No state
shalldeny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Alabama
Courts have recognized successful Equal Protection claims where the Plaintiff alleges that they
have been intentionally treated differently than others who are similarly situated and there is no

DOCUMENT 134

rational basis for the difference in treatment. McCord-Baugh v. Birmingham City Bd. of Educ.,
894 So. 2d 692, 693 (Ala. Civ. App. 2004). In McCord-Baugh, the Plaintiff was performing the
duties of a community-school coordinator but received less pay than others who held the title of
community-school coordinator. Plaintiff brought suit to be paid as a community-school
coordinator. The Alabama Supreme Court found that the Plaintiff could bring a 42 USC 1983
action against the Board of Education because she had been treated differently than other
similarly situated community-school coordinators and there was no rational basis for the Plaintiff
to be salaried differently than similarly situated community-school coordinators.
The Code of Alabama requires policies that guide the conduct and management of
schools be in writing, be vetted by the local employees professional organization, be
communicated to professional assistants, principals, employees and other interested citizens.
They must be provided to all persons affected by the policy and any changes must be
promulgated in a similar manner. Code of Ala. 16-1-30 (b). In this case, Defendants
Witherspoon and Watts admitted they cannot produce a written policy establishing any authority
to arbitrarily reduce the years of experience attributed to Plaintiffs for pay purposes. The most
they can say about a policy is that they think one exists and that some unknown person told them
that they think it exists. Witherspoon and Watts cannot rely upon this so-called procedure
because the Birmingham Board has not enacted such a policy. Defendants Witherspoon and
Watts actions were intentional, done without legal authority, arbitrary and capricious and in
clear violation of the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution. (cf Coosa County
Bd. of Educ. v. Hamilton, 778 So. 2d 831 (Ala. Civ. App. 2000)).
There is no legitimate reason for Defendants Witherspoon and Watts to deny Plaintiffs
Smith and Street equal protection of the law by arbitrarily placing them on a salary schedule

10

DOCUMENT 134

STEP that does not reflect Plaintiffs years of experience. Other similarly situated secretaries are
being given full credit for their years of experience. (see 12 supra). Newly hired secretaries and
secretaries who were rehired by the Board are also being given full credit for their years of
experience. (see 11 supra). Defendant Watts certified that there was enough money in the
budget to cover the salaries as required in the 2014 Certified Salary Schedule. (see 4 supra).
However, Defendants Witherspoon and Watts admit that they had no intention of adhering to the
provision that STEP placement was to be categorized as years of experience. (see 8 supra). In
fact, Defendant Jeffery McDaniels admitted that some, but not all, classified employees were
denied placement on the STEP they were due because it would diminish the reserve fund. (see 7
supra).
Defendants Witherspoon and Watts arbitrarily, fraudulently, and in bad faith targeted the
Plaintiffs for a reduction in salary. With the implementation of the 2014 Classified Salary
Schedule, similarly situated secretarial staff continued to receive credit for their years of
experience. Plaintiffs, having drawn the short straw to preserve the reserve fund, shouldered this
responsibility only because Defendants Witherspoon and Watts intentionally and clandestinely
planned to deny arbitrarily selected employees of their constitutionally protected right to equal
protection of the law. This selection of the Plaintiffs to be denied credit for their years of
experience is arbitrary, capricious, and irrational. Defendants Witherspoon and Watts have
offered no legitimate reason nor can they provide a legitimate reason to deny Plaintiffs their
years of experience while allowing others who are similarly situated to receive the benefit. This
is a clear violation of the Plaintiffs constitutionally protected right to equal protection. In that all
material facts are undisputed, summary judgment is proper and due to be granted as to Plaintiffs
equal protection claims.

11

DOCUMENT 134

IV. Conclusion
Defendants Witherspoon and Watts colluded with HR Director McDaniel to deny
Plaintiffs credit for their years of experience. They did not inform the Plaintiffs it was going to
happen, nor did they inform the Birmingham Board or the Alabama State Department of
Education. Together they formulated and implemented a procedure whereby certain classified
employees would be denied credit for years of experience (and equal protection of the law) while
others similarly situated would receive full credit for their experience. They intentionally gave
the affected employees a small increase in pay specifically for the purpose of denying them
access to the Board-established due process mechanism. They did all this under color of law,
abusing the trust and power of the State of Alabama. For these reasons, Plaintiffs are due an
Order from this Court that Defendants Witherspoon and Watts, as well as the Birmingham
Board, have denied them due process and equal protection under the law, and that Defendants
are liable to Plaintiffs under 42 USC 1983 for general compensatory damages, to include all
back pay, where appropriate, and to restore any and all benefits, as required; and such other and
further relief as necessary to make Plaintiffs fully whole and that this Court Order Defendants to
pay all costs incurred, including reasonable attorneys fees. Additionally, Plaintiffs seek to be
awarded such other and further relief, at law or in equity, to which they might otherwise be
reasonably entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
s/ Gayle H. Gear
Gayle H. Gear, Esq.
s/ J. Bryant Hall
J. Bryant Hall
The Law Offices of Gayle H. Gear
2229 Morris Avenue
Birmingham, AL 35203
12

DOCUMENT 134

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on October 30, 2015, I electronically filed the foregoing with the
Clerk of the Court using the AlaFile system, or by United States Postal Service to the following:
Afrika Parchman
General Counsel,
Birmingham Board of Education
2015 Park Place
Birmingham, AL 35203
Claire Puckett
Carl Johnson
Bishop, Colvin, Johnson, & Kent, LLC
1910 1st Avenue North
Birmingham, AL 35203
s/Gayle H. Gear
Gayle H Gear, Esq.
s/J. Bryant Hall
J. Bryant Hall, Esq.

13