Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RACE—N.D. Ala.: White deputy passed over for job in favor of Black coworker who did not apply can’t advance bias claims, (Dec 9, 2025)

By Kathleen Kapusta, J.D.

The deputy argued that the sheriff reassigned his Black coworker the position even though the coworker did not apply for it, did not interview for it, and was not on the list for it.

A white sheriff’s deputy who was not selected for a criminal investigator position for which he had applied failed to show his employer treated a Black coworker more favorably when it selected him for the position even though he did not apply or interview for it. Granting summary judgment against the deputy’s various federal race discrimination claims, a federal district court in Alabama pointed to the coworker’s superior experience and the different routes through which vacancies could be filled. The court also granted summary judgment against his retaliation claims (Adams v. Pettway, No. 2:23-cv-1765-HDM (N.D. Ala. Dec. 5, 2025)).

Criminal investigator openings. At the time he was hired in 2015, the deputy had two years of law enforcement experience. In November 2021, the sheriff hired a Black deputy who had 28 years of law enforcement experience, including as a supervisor in narcotics and vice and as a senior investigative agent with the state department of corrections. Three days before he was supposed to start, a criminal division investigator requested a transfer to another city, which created an opening for an experienced investigator. His transfer was placed on hold to allow the sheriff to find a replacement.

Non-selection. Separately, in January 2022, the criminal division posted a vacancy notice for four criminal investigator positions. The deputy applied and was interviewed for the positions. The sheriff ultimately selected the Black coworker to replace the investigator who had requested the transfer, leading the deputy to file a grievance alleging the coworker was given the position due to nepotism.

Transfer. While the grievance was being processed, the county warrant magistrate’s office filed a complaint against the deputy for refusing to wear a face mask when entering the offices. That same day, the sheriff transferred the deputy to a substation; the transfer did not alter his pay, hours, or duties. The deputy then filed a complaint of race discrimination with the sheriff’s office and the EEOC. He ultimately sued the sheriff and deputy sheriff for race discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII, Section 1981, Section 1983, and the Equal Protection Clause.

Title VII race discrimination claim. In support of his Title VII claim, the deputy argued that summary judgment was not warranted because a Black employee who did not apply for the investigator position was given it over him. While he argued that the sheriff treated his coworker more favorably, the court pointed out that the transfer request by the then criminal investigator created a need for someone with experience and the coworker had 28 years of law enforcement experience including as a sergeant, supervisor, and vice and narcotics investigator while the deputy had only six years of law enforcement experience, no supervisory experience, and no criminal detective experience. Thus, the court found they were not similarly situated and the deputy failed to make out a prima facie case under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework.

Convincing mosaic analysis. Rather than address these deficiencies, the deputy alternatively argued that under the convincing mosaic analysis he presented sufficient evidence to create a reasonable inference of race discrimination. “But the convincing-mosaic test is not an end-run around McDonnell Douglas,” said the court, noting that they are instead “two ways to approach the same question: whether the plaintiff has put forward enough evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that illegal discrimination occurred.”

Finding that the deputy did not do so here, the court noted that he completely failed to address the disparity in qualifications between the coworker and himself and relied only on the fact that the coworker had not applied for the position. Pursuant to the applicable policy, however, there are five different ways in which position vacancies may be filled including, as was the case here, position vacancy notices, and each of the different methods has its own guidelines and rules.

Specifically, the deputy applied for the investigator position pursuant to a position vacancy notice posted by the criminal division. The then criminal investigator was transferred, as requested, to another location on the same day the Black coworker was reassigned to the criminal division. Finding this was a valid exercise of the sheriff’s authority under this hiring method, the court granted summary judgment against this claim.

Other discrimination claims. Because the deputy raised the same discrimination arguments under Section 1981, Section 1983, and the Equal Protection Clause, and each of those claims was subject to the same standards of proof as a Title VII discrimination claim, the court found they also failed for the same reasons as his Title VII discrimination claim.

Title VII retaliation claim. The deputy next claimed the sheriff and deputy sheriff retaliated against him in violation of Title VII for reporting discrimination when they reassigned him to a less desirable location. This reassignment, he argued, occurred “one day after he complained that the African American magistrate was being unprofessional.” But the incident about which he complained, which involved a dispute with the magistrate over the requirement that the deputy wear a face mask while in their offices, was not protected activity as he did not mention race in his complaint. Further, he admitted that the magistrate’s office required all law enforcement officers and citizens visiting the courthouse to wear masks, not just him.

As to the deputy’s claim the sheriff and deputy sheriff retaliated against him after he complained about not being selected for the investigator position due to race, while this was protected activity under Title VII, it was not causally connected to the alleged retaliation as the deputy was transferred to the substation two months before making the complaint. Further, because his prior complaints about the coworker’s selection referred to nepotism, not race discrimination, they did not constitute statutorily protected activity.

And even if he had established a prima facie case of retaliation, the sheriff proffered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the transfer—the magistrate office’s complaint about the deputy—and he failed to present any evidence of pretext. Thus, this claim also failed on summary judgment.

Remaining retaliation claims. Turning to the deputy’s Section 1981 and Section 1983 retaliation claims, in which he raised the same retaliation arguments as in his Title VII claim, the court granted summary judgment against them as well. His retaliation claim under the Equal Protection Clause also failed as a matter of law as no such claim exists.

The case is No. 2:23-cv-1765-HDM.

Judge: Mooty, H., III

Attorneys: Scott Thomas Morro (Morro Law Center) for Kristopher Adams. Latanishia W. Hunter (Ken Perry Law Firm) for Mark Pettway and Nashonda Howard.

Cases: RaceDiscrimination Discrimination Retaliation AlabamaNews