Using harsh language about 'who is in charge,' an appellate court panel has refused to reconsider a $1.1 million jury award to three former employees of Alabama State University in a sexual and a racial harassment and retaliation case.

In 2012, three former Alabama state employees were awarded a total of $1.1 million in a case in which they had charged two supervisors with racial and sexual harassment, a hostile work environment and various forms of retaliation, according to Tuesday's ruling by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta in Jacqueline Weatherly, Cynthia Williams and Lydia Burkhalter v. Alabama State University.

Among the accusations was that LaVonette Bartley, the university's associate executive director in the Office of the Special Assistant to the President, had used racial epithets against the plaintiffs and that John Knight, who held various high-level administrative positions at the university during the seven-year period, had made comments including “he liked his coffee sweet like (her) and the color of (her) complexion” to Ms. Burkhalter.

The jury awarded Ms. Williams $393,000, Ms. Weatherly $309,000 and Ms. Burkhalter $377,000.

Montgomery-based Alabama State University argued on appeal that the U.S. District Court in Montgomery abused its discretion in denying its motion to sever the women's claims; that it erred in ruling that the university had not filed a motion for judgment in a timely manner; and that it had erred in awarding Ms. Williams and Ms. Burkhalter front pay.

%%BREAK%%

The appellate court ruled against the university on all three counts. On the issue of the front pay award, for instance, it said Ms. Williams was entitled to the one year of front pay and Ms. Burkhalter to two years of front pay awarded under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

“We are left to speculate who is in charge” at the university, said the ruling. “Regardless, however, we are unnerved by the apparent acquiescence to, if not outright condoning, of the abusive work environment created by its high-level employees. Such conduct simply has no place in a work environment, especially at a publicly funded university.

“Additionally, we are troubled by (the university's) attorneys' inability to adhere to court procedures and deadlines. Timeliness is imperative in the practice of law, and attorneys should not expect sympathy from this court due to their own carelessness,” said the ruling in denying the university's appeal.