Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RACE—N.D. Ala.: Officer’s resignation defeats bias claims over response to inmate’s death, (May 6, 2026)

By George Basharis, J.D.

A corrections sergeant who resigned during disciplinary proceedings failed to show that race discrimination or retaliation motivated the Alabama Department of Corrections’ actions after an inmate died following delayed medical treatment.

A federal court granted summary judgment to the Alabama Department of Corrections, concluding that disciplinary proceedings against a Black correctional sergeant were driven by documented misconduct rather than racial bias. In reaching that decision, the court noted that a white supervisor involved in the same incident ultimately faced the same consequences after investigators later learned of his role in the inmate’s treatment. The court determined that the evidence could not support claims of racial discrimination, retaliation, or constitutional violations brought by the former correctional sergeant. It found that the timing difference between disciplinary actions against the sergeant and a white officer resulted from the sergeant’s own failure to disclose the other officer’s involvement during the investigation into the inmate’s death (Tunstall v. Alabama Department of Corrections, No. 2:24-cv-01504-RDP (N.D. Ala. Apr. 28, 2026)).

In October 2021, an inmate died after being stabbed during an altercation inside the prison. Security footage showed the inmate lying in distress for extended periods without meaningful medical intervention while correctional staff debated how to handle the situation.

Surveillance videos. The Alabama Department of Corrections’ Law Enforcement Services Division reviewed two separate surveillance videos. The first video, taken outside the prison healthcare unit, showed the inmate arriving in a wheelchair pushed by another inmate while the sergeant followed behind. The inmate later slumped from the wheelchair onto the floor near the healthcare unit entrance. Despite visible signs of distress and labored breathing, correctional officers made no effort to help him or secure medical treatment. The inmate remained on the floor at the healthcare unit doorway for more than two minutes without assistance before being wheeled away.

A second surveillance video showed the inmate later being taken to the prison barbershop. The sergeant closed the barbershop door, leaving the inmate inside alone after other inmates exited. Over the next several minutes, surveillance footage allegedly captured the inmate writhing on the floor while officers and inmates watched through the windows without intervening.

Homicide. The inmate eventually stopped moving after lying on the barbershop floor for more than 19 minutes without meaningful assistance and remained there for more than 33 minutes before another officer entered the room and attempted to rouse him. An autopsy later revealed that the inmate died from a stab wound to the chest that injured his pulmonary trunk and left lung. Toxicology testing also detected amphetamines or methamphetamines in his system, and the death was classified as a homicide.

Directive. During an investigation, the sergeant, who is Black, told investigators that the inmate had been combative and refused to enter the healthcare unit. He admitted directing that the inmate be placed in the barbershop despite an earlier directive prohibiting inmates involved in incidents from being placed there.

The court noted that prison supervisors had circulated an August 2021 directive warning that inmates involved in incidents were not to be placed in the barbershop and that violations would result in corrective action. The sergeant acknowledged receiving the directive. Investigators concluded there was probable cause to believe both the sergeant and a white supervising officer failed to discharge their duties by denying the inmate medical care while he displayed obvious signs of distress.

Mandatory leave. The sergeant was placed on mandatory leave two days after the incident and later faced a pre-dismissal conference. Prison officials concluded that he failed to ensure the inmate received medical treatment and had provided false information during the investigation.

At the conference, the sergeant acknowledged that prison policy required inmates appearing intoxicated to be taken to the healthcare unit and admitted that he never attempted to summon medical staff after the inmate refused to enter the unit. He nevertheless maintained that he had done nothing wrong and asserted that using the barbershop in such situations was common practice.

Resignation. The sergeant resigned before disciplinary proceedings were concluded. In his resignation letter, he thanked the department for “providing [him] with a rewarding learning experience” and described working for the department as “a pleasure.” During later deposition testimony, however, the sergeant stated that he resigned because he was on mandatory leave without overtime opportunities, could not accept outside employment while remaining on the department’s rolls, and needed income to support his household.

White officer later dismissed. The court emphasized that investigators initially did not know the extent of the white supervising officer’s involvement because the sergeant failed to disclose during his first interview that the officer allegedly instructed him to place the inmate in the barbershop. The department learned more about the officer’s role only after conducting follow-up interviews with other correctional officers in February 2022, including one officer who recalled the supervising officer directing that the inmate be placed in the barbershop because he did not want to go into the healthcare unit.

Another officer reported repeatedly urging both the sergeant and the supervising officer to obtain medical attention for the inmate after witnessing the inmate’s altercation and deteriorating condition. The white supervising officer was eventually placed on mandatory leave in April 2022 and later terminated after his own pre-dismissal conference. The court stated that he admitted directing that the inmate be placed in the barbershop and acknowledged that, in hindsight, he should have investigated the incident more thoroughly and ensured that the inmate received medical attention.

Discrimination claim rejected. Addressing the Title VII discrimination claim, the court concluded that the sergeant could not establish either a traditional burden-shifting case or a “convincing mosaic” of discrimination. The court stated that the only evidence identified by the sergeant was the timing difference between his discipline and the later discipline imposed on the white supervising officer. However, the court found that the timing disparity resulted directly from the sergeant’s own failure to disclose the officer’s involvement during the initial investigation.

The court stated that once investigators learned of the supervising officer’s role, the department initiated disciplinary proceedings against him as well. The court further found that the two officers were treated the same “in every material respect.” Both were placed on mandatory leave, appeared before the same warden for pre-dismissal proceedings, were found to have neglected their duties, and were not recommended for reemployment. The only distinction, according to the court, was that the sergeant resigned before a formal dismissal decision was issued. The court also found no suspicious statements, no evidence of systematically better treatment of white employees, and no similarly situated comparator who received more favorable treatment.

Retaliation and constitutional claims. In addition, the court rejected the retaliation claim. According to the court, the sergeant’s formal EEOC charge was filed only after he resigned, meaning any allegedly retaliatory employment action necessarily predated the protected activity. The court further determined that informal conversations with another prison captain about allegedly uneven discipline did not establish retaliation because there was no evidence that the decisionmakers handling the disciplinary proceedings were aware of those complaints.

Further, the court found that the sergeant failed to establish constructive discharge. The court noted that employee resignations are presumed voluntary and remain voluntary even where the alternative is potential termination for cause. The court pointed to the sergeant’s own testimony that he resigned for financial reasons, along with his resignation letter praising the department, as evidence inconsistent with intolerable discriminatory working conditions. Finally, the court concluded that the constitutional claims under Section 1983 failed because the Alabama Department of Corrections, as a state agency, is not considered a “person” subject to suit under the statute and is separately protected by sovereign immunity principles.

The case is No. 2:24-cv-01504-RDP.

Judge: Proctor, R.D.

Attorneys: Minnie L. Tunstall (Law Offices of Minnie L. Tunstall) for J. Corbin Douglas Tunstall. Tara Smelley Hetzel, Alabama Office of the Attorney General, for Alabama Department of Corrections.

Cases: Discrimination RaceDiscrimination CoverageLiability Discharge PublicEmployees Retaliation AlabamaNews