Former chief testifies in Chattanooga police pay disparity lawsuit

Bobby Dodd answers questions during a news conference in 2013.
Bobby Dodd answers questions during a news conference in 2013.

Former Chattanooga police Chief Bobby Dodd believed the pay document he emailed to the police department in 2010 was a plan that would provide regular raises to personnel as they gained experience, he testified in Hamilton County Chancery Court on Monday.

The one-page document has been at the center of a lawsuit filed by 29 police officers against the city of Chattanooga. The officers claim the document promised raises that officers never received, while the city argues the document was only ever intended as a one-time pay adjustment.

Dodd said Monday he initially believed the document did set up a plan for future raises, and it was not until he asked the city to give such a raise to a sergeant that he was told the 2010 document was only a one-time adjustment.

The officers filed the lawsuit in 2012, alleging a breach of contract because they never received the raises they say were listed in the 2010 document. The suit also alleges pay inequities and age discrimination. The jury trial in the lawsuit began last week and continued Monday.

Dodd, who as police chief was a defendant in the case, testified as a "hostile witness" for the plaintiffs. He said the 2010 document was meant to address differences in pay among the department's ranking supervisors.

"[This document] was done to try to establish a ground zero for the pay, because pay was scattered all over," he said. "There was no rhythm or reason on the pay scales. You could have one lieutenant making $45,000 and another making $65,000."

He also said he was never aware of any age discrimination complaints related to the pay scale until after he left the department and the lawsuit was filed. The officers who are suing allege that a particular career development program was discriminatory because it was only open to officers, who are typically younger than ranking personnel.

"At the time, people were upset because a master patrol officer took a sergeant's exam and bypassed a sergeant who was already at a particular pay scale," he said. "It was over pay; it had nothing to do with age."

Besides Dodd's testimony, much of the proceedings Monday dealt with how much money the plaintiffs are claiming as damages in the case. Bruce Hutchinson, a local economist, calculated a specific amount of damages for each plaintiff, which ranged from $11,000 to $58,000 per person, totaling just over $700,000.

Hutchinson submitted an initial set of calculations, then realized he had made mistakes in the calculations for 16 of 25 officers, so he fixed the mistakes and provided an amended report.

The city argued that Hutchinson was an unreliable expert because of the numerous mistakes he made when calculating damages. The errors only slightly changed the total dollar amount of damages and were corrected before the trial began.

The trial continues Tuesday in Chancery Court at 9 a.m.

Contact staff writer Shelly Bradbury at 423-757-6525 or sbradbury@timesfreepress.com with tips or story ideas.

Upcoming Events