E-Lit.® Inc. NEWS ARCHIVE

Georgia Supreme Court
John Floyd Challenges Dorsey Appeal
May 23, 2005

ATLANTA (AP) -- Lawyers for convicted sheriff killer Sidney Dorsey are appealing his racketeering convictions to the state Supreme Court, claiming the basis for those charges was unfounded and it wrongly influenced the jury that found him guilty of murder. In oral arguments Monday, defense attorney Don Samuel said the prosecution relied on non-criminal acts as prerequisites for Dorsey's racketeering prosecution. Dorsey was convicted and sentenced to life in prison in 2002 for murder, violations of Georgia's Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, violation of oath of office and eight felony counts of theft by taking. Dorsey, the former sheriff, allegedly arranged the December 2000 assassination of Sheriff-elect Derwin Brown after Brown had ousted him in an election. The defense claimed that the theft charges against Dorsey -- some of which helped form the basis for the racketeering charges against the former sheriff -- were "based on that flawed theory of criminality," Samuel said. Many of the theft charges involved Dorsey asking his deputies to run personal errands, like picking up his children from school or asking deputies to work at his private security company. Though Samuel conceded that Dorsey's behavior may have been unreasonable for a sheriff, "it's not theft of services," he said. However, prosecutor John Floyd said the favors did constitute theft, especially for a sheriff. Claiming Dorsey "viewed his badge as a license to murder," Floyd said the state has an absolute ban on sheriffs receiving any sorts of kickbacks from their positions. Even if there was no ban, Floyd said, Dorsey's behavior while in office was clearly illegal. Floyd painted Dorsey as a man who had sex with subordinates on the clock, made high-ranking deputies take his family to Disney World and fired or demoted anyone who questioned his decisions. Samuel told the justices that if they agreed with Floyd's assertion, then a judge asking a law clerk to pick up lunch or laundry during office hours could be construed as theft. But if they agreed that asking someone to run an errand could not be considered theft, then "it taints the murder conviction as well," Samuel said. But Floyd contended that Dorsey's favors involved the use of gas, police cars and deputies paid for by county taxpayers. Justice Robert Benham was among the justices expressing concern that overly aggressive prosecutors could use this definition of theft to bring charges against state employees who ask a subordinate to do something as simple as pick up stamps. "If 100 gallons amounts to a violation, then one drop of gas amounts to a violation," Benham said. Floyd argued that grand juries and prosecutors have the discretion to ensure that kind of thing doesn't happen, but Justice Leah Ward Sears shot back, "If someone is disfavored, the prosecution makes it happen." After the hearing, Brown's daughter, Brandy Brown-Rhodes, said she was appalled and shocked the High Court is hearing the case. She also said she was disappointed that prosecutors never mentioned that one of the favors Dorsey allegedly requested was that Patrick Cuffy "stake out my parents' home" before the murder. Cuffy was charged as a co-conspirator in the murder, but testified against Dorsey and received immunity in a plea deal. A Georgia Supreme Court spokesman said the court could take between one and five months to decide the appeal, but the deadline for a decision is December.

Southern Company Class Action
Feburary 03, 2004

Seven current and former employees of Southern Company and its subsidiaries have filed a proposed class action lawsuit alleging that Southern Company discriminates against its African-American employees with respect to pay and promotions and subjects those employees to a racially hostile work environment. The evidence in this case, much of which is from Southern Company’s own documents and the testimony of Southern Company’s own witnesses, conclusively supports these allegations and demonstrates that Southern Company in fact discriminates against its African-American employees. More than thirty-five years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a severe, racially hostile work environment persists throughout Southern Company. Southern Company’s African-American workers have for years repeatedly been subjected to racial epithets and harassment, including: According to Georgia Power’s own documents, in 2000, at least thirteen hangman's nooses were displayed in at least eight different Georgia Power facilities. See Exhibit A (noose pictures); Exhibit B (summary of noose incidents). Affidavits from African-American employees provide a clear picture of the intimidation, embarrassment and humiliation those employees have suffered at Southern Company. Affiants’ testimony includes: One African-American employee who found a hangman's noose in his workplace reported to defendants’ own investigators: "I was devastated to the fact that I could not move for a few seconds, then tears came to my eyes thinking of my father who was hung by [the] KKK the year I was born." Rather than admit the obvious and offensive nature of this conduct, Southern Company’s executives contend that they did not know that hangman’s nooses were offensive: A.W. Dahlberg, the long-time Chairman and CEO of Southern Company, provided the shocking testimony that he “had no earthly idea that anybody today would consider that [a hangman’s noose] to be a racial symbol. None whatsoever” and that “[he] didn’t find it offensive.” Dahlberg also testified that he did not find a cartoon depicting a clan of KKK members singing “I’m Dreaming of A White Christmas” offensive (contrary to Juanita Baranco, the African-American Co-Chair of GPC’s Diversity Advisory Council, who testified that whoever created and disseminated the cartoon was a “racist.”). Mr. Ratcliffe, too, claimed that “before this [lawsuit] the management at Georgia Power didn't recognize that a noose was an intimidating artifact in the work place where blacks also worked.” The truth, of course, is that defendants did know that a hangman's noose - perhaps the single most chilling symbol of racial hatred in this country - is offensive to African-Americans, but did nothing to prevent displays of this symbol throughout Southern Company: Jim Davis, an African-American Vice President of Georgia Power, recognized the obvious fact that a noose "is an intimidating thing for a black man" and "something that any black person considers offensive;" in fact, "his heartbeat quickened when he saw a photograph of the noose found in [Georgia Power's facility in] Cornelia." Herman Pennamon, the Team Leader with responsibility for equal employment opportunity ("EEO") for all of the defendants, testified that “nooses are offensive to African Americans”. If, however, Southern Company had any doubt that nooses are offensive to black employees, the federal government made that fact clear to the company in 1998, two years before this lawsuit was filed. In September 1998, Alabama Power Company, a Southern Company subsidiary, entered a Conciliation Agreement with the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs ("OFCCP"), an arm of the Department of Labor. That Conciliation Agreement stated in part: "Violation: Employee interviews and documented evidence revealed that an offensive and hostile environment of racial harassment in the workplace existed at Barry Steam Plant. Specifically, it was revealed that there have been several incidents in which a hangman's noose was found displayed at company facilities; thereby, creating a racially hostile and intimidating work environment at the company." In reality, defendants were not (indeed, could not have been) unaware that nooses are offensive to African-American employees until this lawsuit was filed - they were simply indifferent. Defendants decided to look for such displays only after they were sued (or once they knew this suit was coming). The nooses, of course, were there all along, but their removal did not become a priority until defendants were faced with a class action. Indeed, according to Georgia Power's own investigations, Caucasian supervisors had seen nooses, but joked about them, rather than taking them down, even though they were aware that African-Americans found nooses offensive.

Four working at Ga. Power site link noose protests to firings
Tuesday, February 26, 2002

Four African-American employees of a contractor at a Georgia Power Co. power plant claim they were fired after complaining about hangman's nooses in the workplace, their lawyer said Monday. Georgia Power spokesman John Sell said that's not true. He said the workers were fired by their employer, an Alabama-based insulation company, "for absenteeism and tardiness" after being warned they faced dismissal for attendance problems. The utility acknowledged last month that seven hangman's nooses had been discovered by private contractors working at Plant Wansley in Roopville, 50 miles southwest of downtown Atlanta. The firm said it did not believe any of its workers were involved, and it has offered a $20,000 reward for information about who was responsible. "No individual has yet been connected to the incidents, but at least four contractor employees under suspicion have quit the job,'' Sell said. Attorney Steven Rosenwasser said the four African-American workers were subjected to racial harassment at Plant Wansley last month. In addition to being subjected to the display of nooses, he said, the four were "spit upon by white employees'' and subjected to a racially offensive placard posted in a restroom on the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday last month. Rosenwasser said the four complained about the incidents to Georgia Power management and were fired two days later by their employer "at the direction of Georgia Power Co.'' Sell denied the allegation. Mark Clark, president of General Insulation, employer of the four workers, said Monday the workers' allegations "had nothing whatsoever to do" with their firing. Clark said they were fired for absenteeism after being warned they faced dismissal. "That was the only reason," Clark said. Sell accused Rosenwasser's law firm, Bondurant Mixson & Elmore, and the law firm of trial lawyer Johnnie L. Cochran Jr. of trying to use the current matter to force settlement of another lawsuit brought by the two law firms against Georgia Power and its parent, Southern Co. Hangman's nooses also figured in that lawsuit, filed on behalf of seven African-American employees in July 2000. The suit alleged bias in employment, personnel and human resource policies as well as racially hostile workplace conditions. In August, a federal judge denied a motion by the seven employees to declare their lawsuit a class action on behalf of 2,400 past and present African-American workers. Attorneys for the two law firms have appealed. Rosenwasser denied any attempt to pressure Georgia Power. But he said the latest allegations demonstrate that the company has "done nothing'' to improve racially hostile work conditions. General Insulation, based in Theodore, Ala., is one of numerous ouside companies working at Plant Wansley, where 1,300 employees of outside contractors are building new generators and installing environmental controls at existing units. General Insulation and other contractors have been advised of Georgia Power's "zero tolerance" policy toward racial harassment, Sell said. He also said the Georgia Bureau of Investigation and Heard County Sheriff's Department are investigating the incidents, and the company is taking "firm actions to try and identify'' those responsible for "any racially insensitive behavior" at the power plant.

Judge OKs Coke bias settlement;$192.5 million deal sets new diversity goals
May 30, 2001

After an all-day hearing Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Richard Story said he will approve a $192.5 million agreement to settle the class-action racial discrimination lawsuit against Coca-Cola.Calling the settlement "fair" and "historic," Story told a nearly packed courtroom that "it is time to move forward" after more than two years of contentious litigation. The settlement, arrived at with the help of a court-ordered mediator, provides an estimated average of $38,000 apiece to 2,200 current and former African-American employees. The lawsuit claimed the company discriminated against them in pay, promotions and performance evaluations. The agreement establishes several policies and procedures to improve Coke's diversity efforts. An independent task force will be responsible for monitoring the company's progress and making recommendations that are enforceable by the court. Coke's board of directors will be specifically responsible for ensuring that the company stays on track in terms of the settlement and meeting its diversity goals. The judge conceded that some class members, who may have been discriminated against when seeking promotions, may not get all they could be entitled to. But, Story said, the agreement has a "unique aspect" that "screams fairness." It allows class members to accept part of the settlement while taking their promotion cases to a federal magistrate to try to win more money than the settlement provides. If there is no appeal, Coke will send a notice to each class member detailing the specific individual settlement amounts within 40 days of Story's written order. Payments would follow shortly thereafter.