11th Circuit Judges Question Basis for Alabama Minimum Wage Suit
Judges asked how a court order against the attorney general without additional legal action in Alabama courts would force employers to pay Birmingham's higher minimum wage.
June 26, 2019 at 02:47 PM
3 minute read
Several federal appeals court judges appeared skeptical Tuesday of a lawsuit by fast-food workers and civil rights groups accusing Alabama lawmakers of racial discrimination for blocking a minimum-wage hike in the city of Birmingham.
The plaintiffs accused the Legislature of targeting a mostly African American city in a way that disproportionately harms black workers. Their argument was ruled plausible last year by a three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed a judge's decision to dismiss their lawsuit. But judges on a 12-judge 11th Circuit panel that reheard the case Tuesday spent little time addressing claims of racism, focusing instead on a narrow procedural issue.
Some judges questioned whether the lawsuit was properly filed against Alabama's attorney general. Failure to sue the correct party would get the case thrown out.
Judges asked how a court order against the attorney general without additional legal action in Alabama courts would force employers to pay Birmingham's higher minimum wage.
Eric Brown, a plaintiffs' attorney, said the attorney general is the right defendant because he had the authority to enforce the state law and had shown a willingness to do so, indicating to employers that they need not pay Birmingham's higher minimum wage.
The lone African American judge on the panel, Charles Wilson, pushed back against his colleagues' concerns that an 11th Circuit ruling wouldn't affect state courts or employers. Wilson was among the judges on the unanimous, three-judge panel that sided with the workers and civil rights groups.
“We only have to do our job,” he said.
At issue was a 2016 Alabama statute requiring every city in the state to have a minimum wage tied to the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour. The workers and civil rights groups sued after the state law effectively nullified a city council vote to increase Birmingham's wage to $10.10 an hour.
State officials countered that the law is race-neutral and similar to laws in nearly two dozen other states.
The three-judge panel said in its ruling last year the “plaintiffs have stated a plausible claim that the Minimum Wage Act had the purpose and effect of depriving Birmingham's black citizens equal economic opportunities on the basis of race.”
State officials asked the appeals court to reconsider with a hearing before a larger panel of judges.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'A 58-Year-Old Engine That Needs an Overhaul': Judge Wants Traffic Law Amended
3 minute readAppeals Court Removes Fulton DA From Georgia Election Case Against Trump, Others
6 minute readFamily of 'Cop City' Activist Killed by Ga. Troopers Files Federal Lawsuit
5 minute readFulton Judge Rejects Attempt by Trump Campaign Lawyer to Invalidate Guilty Plea in Georgia Election Case
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Recent Decisions Regarding the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
- 2The Tech Built by Law Firms in 2024
- 3Distressed M&A: Mass Torts, Bankruptcy and Furthering the Search for Consensus: Another Purdue Decision
- 4For Safer Traffic Stops, Replace Paper Documents With ‘Contactless’ Tech
- 5As Second Trump Administration Approaches, Businesses Brace for Sweeping Changes to Immigration Policy
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250