Brittany Reynolds was a poster child for success not only at the Birmingham-area water utility where she worked for seven years but also in the water-treatment industry nationally.
Her story of overcoming multiple odds was so inspiring that a trade magazine featured her on its cover last year, and her employer, Central Alabama Water (formerly Birmingham Water Works), frequently lauded her accomplishments on social media. She was championed as a Black female trailblazer in a field men typically occupy.
"I loved my job,” she said. “I was excited about work. I was excited about the challenges of work. I was thriving.”
Reynolds was born in Birmingham to a 15-year-old mother and raised in poverty. As a single mother herself, she said she earned three degrees to advance her career while also working. She found her way from floor mopping to a six-figure salary as a lead operator of the largest water-filter plant in Alabama and bought a nice house for herself and her now-14-year-old son.
But all that crashed down in February.
After a new board of directors and senior management team took the helm at CAW, the result of a state law passed last year that restructured the utility and its board, shifting majority board representation from the city of Birmingham to suburban areas, leaders conducted surprise, organization-wide drug testing under a revised employee handbook they distributed days beforehand. The following month the utility instituted mass layoffs, part of an overall workforce reduction of more than a quarter.
When the dust settled, Reynolds found herself without a job.
She now plans to sue her former employer. And she’s not alone. Class-action lawsuits are in the works, according to attorneys. While human-resources experts say mass layoffs and drug testing are some of the most difficult and sensitive situations employers face, they add there are best practices that mitigate negative impacts on both the organizations and people affected.
Allegations from former employees and their attorneys suggest CAW leaders did not follow those practices. In response to detailed questions from WBHM about the allegations, CAW spokesperson John Matson said the utility has a longstanding policy of not commenting on personnel or legal matters.
Drug screening raises privacy, fairness questions
According to employee accounts, they were notified of mandatory, organization-wide drug testing the morning of Feb. 9, the Monday after the Super Bowl. Staff ushered employees who were on site at the utility’s headquarters into a holding room, said Johnathan Austin, an attorney for about 15 former CAW employees. They told those who weren’t on duty that day to report immediately, Reynolds said, and anyone who refused the test or didn’t report was to be dismissed.
Matson later confirmed the testing and said the utility was conducting baseline drug screening in accordance with a new employee handbook instituted the prior week. CAW has a public health and safety responsibility to ensure its employees are not impaired at work, Matson said, adding that all employees, including the senior executive team, managers and supervisors would be tested.
Reynolds said a seven-day off period began for her on Feb. 9, but she reported for testing as instructed.
She said she waited in the holding room for two and a half hours. After providing a urine sample and while she was still in the bathroom, Reynolds said, she was informed she failed the test.
Austin said his clients told him test results were announced loudly, and those waiting in a hallway to be tested could hear.
“That would be a violation of their protected health information,” he said.
Reynolds said she was escorted down the hallway – another sign she failed the test – and into a room known to be for people who didn’t pass.
“If I would have passed, I would have been given a piece of paper, and I would have went in another direction, but because I failed, I'm being taken into the room that everybody who fails is,” she said. “It almost was like a humiliation ritual.
“I'm telling the lady, ‘Please, I don't want my co-workers to think that I'm on drugs. I don't want to be embarrassed.’ I was just like, ‘Please, it's got to be another way.’”
Allen Gorman, an associate professor of management who teaches human-resources classes at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said employers should never publicly connect individuals to drug-screening results.
"That should all be handled privately, confidentially,” he said. “No one should know that except the employer and the employee."
Reynolds said she complied in signing a paper stating her testing results were “non-negative” and she was being placed on unpaid administrative leave pending confirmatory testing of the sample she provided.
After three weeks, when further testing revealed she hadn’t failed, Reynolds said, she was fired for “hysterical” and other behavior misaligned with CAW’s expectations, according to a letter Reynolds shared that appears to be from CAW management. Reynolds said she had perfect attendance and no disciplinary write-ups throughout her employment, and the accusations all stem from her reaction to the drug-testing results. She said she was upset but did not disrupt operations as the letter claims.
“I'm crying, my hands are shaking,” she said. “I pretty much was just like, 'I'm not on drugs, I have a prescription.' I never cursed. I never made any threats to sue.”
Austin said several of his clients had false positive test results and CAW terminated them immediately, with no additional testing or opportunities to show they were taking doctor-prescribed medications. They received no severance pay, and health insurance ended immediately, he said.
“These are employees that have never tested positive for a drug in all their time that they've been at the water works, not done any drugs, don't do drugs, don't drink or anything, don't smoke cigarettes,” he said. “Normally, in a scenario like this, you would be able to go and get retested.”
CAW declined to comment on how it conducted drug testing or on allegations it fired those with positive initial results without further testing.
Employee handbook revised without notice
Under CAW’s previous employee handbook, revised in 2024, a worker who tested positive was suspended without pay and granted 30 days to produce a negative test from a designated laboratory, at their own expense. If they provided a negative test and returned to work, they were subject to unannounced random testing for the next seven years. A subsequent positive test during that period would result in immediate termination.
The new handbook states that a violation of the drug and alcohol policy subjects the employee to corrective action up to and including termination.
Senior managers implemented the new handbook with the altered drug-testing policy without board approval, distributed it to employees two business days before the drug testing and, according to a statement from CAW’s Employee Association, the utility’s HR department didn’t provide information about changes in the new version of the approximately 90-page document compared to the previous one.
Greta Wages, who worked as a human-resources professional for 30 years and now teaches human-resources classes at the University of Alabama, said employers should explicitly communicate changes to employees, and substantive revisions should involve meetings with employees as well. Sufficient lead time is imperative, too, she said.
For instance, in early May, an employer might say: “‘Hey, we're changing the handbook. It's going to be effective June 1 or July 1.’ But you give them time to understand what the new rules of engagement are for employment.”
A best practice Wages said she followed was making changes to employee handbooks effective Jan. 1, with rare exceptions. That method reduces confusion over what policies were in place when incidents occurred, she said.
The statement from the Employee Association, a group that facilitated communication between management and employees and that the utility no longer recognizes, said the drug testing appeared to be an effort to reduce the workforce.
Gorman said using new policies or pretexts such as drug-testing sweeps to terminate employees is legally risky and bad practice.
"When you have these blanket policies that are immediately punitive to large groups of people – to me that's just a very unfair and unjust way of treating people,” he said.
Mass layoff also draws criticism
CAW conducted the mass layoff of 135 of its 584 employees on March 13. Employment for affected workers ended that day. A press release from the utility said CAW took the action to ensure the utility’s financial stability, and all divisions were affected.
CAW is facing financial challenges, and the layoffs and a decision to leave 76 vacant positions unfilled were part of drastic budget cuts. According to CAW’s press release, the reorganization will save the utility approximately $20.1 million per year in labor expenses.
“This was an extremely difficult decision, but it was absolutely necessary to maintain the organization’s financial viability,” CEO Jeffrey Thompson said. “This reorganization has obviously impacted the lives of these employees and their families. I greatly appreciate the significant efforts that each employee made to serve our customers.”
But that’s not the vibe former employees said they’ve felt. Some laid-off workers said the way they were notified of their job loss was disrespectful.
Bolin Tyson said he and others in the vehicle-maintenance department were running an errand when they learned, through a word-of-mouth phone call, they wouldn’t have jobs when they got back to headquarters. Hours later, he said, the message was confirmed when a staff member showed up with severance papers.
Tangie Sims, whose cousin was laid off, said her cousin was off work that day, and CAW told him through a text message his job was ending.
“That’s crazy,” Sims said before a federal court hearing in April that involved a request to reinstate the former employees. “I’m like, ‘They didn’t think enough of you to bring you in the office and have a discussion with you?’”
Gorman expressed similar sentiments. People put their livelihoods into working for an organization, and they need to be treated with dignity and respect, he said.
“Getting laid off over a text – that's not that,” he continued, emphasizing that employers should avoid one-way communication channels. “My advice would be that it needs to be a conversation with your immediate manager. It needs to be communicated in a way that people can express their feelings about the layoff. They can get questions answered.”
According to reporting by AL.com, some employees were called into a meeting where a statement terminating their employment was read.
While tricky, employers can conduct layoffs in a group setting fairly if the action is communicated by top management, with clear reasons and with opportunities for discussion, Gorman said. The employer also should offer individual follow-up meetings to address questions and concerns, he said.
CAW’s press release about its mass layoff said both leaders and human-resources advisors were meeting with affected employees “to discuss the reorganization process and the terms of their severance.” Wages said best practices for mass layoffs include giving employees as much advance communication as possible, explaining business reasons for the decision and offering severance, extended benefits, counseling and job search help so people can “land softly.”
Many former CAW employees said their health insurance terminated at the end of the month, and the utility offered them eight weeks of severance pay, which isn’t required by law. But questions arose over the severance agreement they were asked to sign as well as about how leaders selected employees to be laid off.
Pink-slip choices
Gorman said employers should tie decisions about who to cut to job performance to avoid legal challenges and to preserve the organization’s ability to operate effectively.
But that’s not what some say CAW leaders did.
According to a temporary-restraining-order request in a federal court case challenging the state’s restructuring of the utility, the layoffs disproportionately targeted the most experienced and senior members of the workforce.
Gorman said employers are on shaky ground if they don’t tie decisions to job performance, especially if affected employees are members of protected classes due to such things as race, national origin or age.
"You're setting yourself up for a legal challenge,” he said.
In addition, those employers risk losing institutional knowledge and disrupting internal collaboration networks, Gorman said.
“There's a lot of things that you could potentially lose that may actually be very useful for the overall functioning of the organization,” he said.
Some of the laid-off workers had the deepest institutional knowledge of water-treatment operations, infrastructure maintenance and regulatory compliance, according to the temporary-restraining-order request, which a judge denied.
Austin said his clients who previously worked at CAW are expressing similar worries because of the types of jobs that CAW eliminated.
“They're saying that there are a number of positions that were vital to the operations of the water works, and because those were eliminated, they're concerned that it could potentially affect the quality of the water and the services that are being provided to the ratepayers,” he said.
Gorman said he’s seen situations in which management identified people to be laid off or fired using ranking systems or euphemisms such as “troublemaker,” “bad attitude” or “not a good culture fit.” A lot of retaliation protections exist for those who rock the boat or ask difficult questions, he said, because those people are often labelled “troublemakers” after they point out unethical or illegal behavior.
Reynolds claims she was targeted for termination after she complained about alleged gender and racial discrimination.
Filings in the federal court case allege CAW retaliated against AKhi King, the Employee Association president, when it fired him in February. King had gathered a list of employee questions, including some about the recent drug testing, for senior managers, as was customary for the person in his role. He said his employer told him he was fired because he “disturbed business” by emailing the list of questions back to employees before a town hall meeting.
“That's a great example of killing the messenger,” Gorman said.
Legal filings and community activists who are promoting unionization at CAW say remaining employees are afraid, and King’s dismissal in particular created an “environment of fear.” Gorman said that kind of fear can influence employee behavior in ways that negatively affect services an organization provides.
Conditional severance
To receive severance pay, employees CAW laid off had to surrender rights to take legal action against their former employer.
Wages said that’s a common clause in severance agreements, and such legal releases were present in documents for every workforce reduction she was part of as an HR professional.
“That's best practice on the employer side,” she said. "And the thing is, it doesn't mean that there's an issue hanging out there. It’s ‘Hey, we're going to give you this money. You agree that we've kind of broken up amicably, if you will.’”
Austin affirmed legal releases are typical in severance agreements but said he still finds them problematic under the circumstances of the CAW mass layoff. He alleges leadership’s recent actions have been illegal, unethical and immoral.
“In this particular case, it is highly suspicious and certainly self-serving, at the very least, to know that you can avoid some liability by getting the employees, or former employees, to sign an agreement that says that we will not sue you,” he said. “To me, that agreement is placing the employees under duress. So I'm not even certain that agreement would really stand up.”
Similarly, Austin said a non-disclosure clause that was part of severance agreements is common but also suspect in the context of CAW’s recent employee relations.
“It's just a standard non-disclosure, non-disparagement,” he said. “Don't talk about anything, don't say what you've received, don't say anything negative about us. If you do, then we will come after you and take all the money that we paid you, and you're going to pay our attorneys’ fees.”
Austin said his clients who were laid off felt so strongly about how their employer treated them that they endured the hardship of foregoing severance income.
“They've chosen to fight and assert their rights,” he said.
Alabama is an “at-will” employment state, which means employers can terminate any employee at any time and for any reason – except illegal reasons such as discrimination, retaliation or whistleblowing – or for no reason.
Still, Austin said there are several claims his legal team can make. Wrongful termination under breach of contract is one, he said, giving the example of drug-testing conducted under the new employee handbook, which he considers illegitimate at the time of the testing.
“To terminate them based on rules that are not in place – that is illegal,” he said.
Allegations of racism
Reynolds and others have alleged racial discrimination in workforce decisions at the utility.
Reynolds said of the 135 people laid off in March, she only knows of five who are white.
“Yes, the company is majority Black, but I still think that it was targeting,” Reynolds said.
Austin said litigation his firm is preparing should shed light on whether that was the case.
“The vast majority of the people who were laid off are African American,” he said. “That is a fact. But I don't know if that is because of the racial composition of the workforce or not.”
Reynolds and Alabama state Rep. Juandalynn Givan also alleged racism played a role in the organization-wide drug screening.
Reynolds said she was told she would be fired if she didn’t show up for the drug screening on Feb. 9, but CAW still employs two of her white co-workers who didn’t report.
Givan addressed CAW’s board of directors at its next meeting after the drug testing and requested data surrounding the screening, including the number of people tested and terminated, broken down by race.
“I have no issues with drug testing,” Givan said after the meeting. “The issue here is whether they are targeting a particular class of people. In this instance, under Title VII, Black people.
“It is my understanding that there have been several individuals that were white who either said to their supervisor that they had been smoking or had an issue, and because they respected them enough, wanted them to keep their jobs, they are working through those issues with them. So what do you do for one, you do for all.”
CAW declined to comment on allegations racial discrimination was involved in its layoffs and drug testing.
Reynolds awaits response to EEOC complaint
Reynolds filed an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint detailing an array of problems she said she experienced during her time at the utility. Along with alleged race and gender discrimination and retaliation, they include claims she was passed over for promotion in favor of a less-qualified candidate and experienced a hostile work environment and sexual harassment.
She said she’s waiting on a response to her EEOC complaint and hopes it will give her the green light she needs to sue CAW in federal court.
CAW chose not to comment to WBHM on allegations in Reynolds’ EEOC complaint.
Since she lost her job, Reynolds said she and her son lost health insurance, she’s having to cash out her retirement funds to pay living expenses and she has decided to sell her house. She said her son begged her to keep the house.
“That's where he's grown up at, and he was just like, 'Mom, it's so many good memories in this house,’” she said. “And I told him that we'll go make good memories somewhere else, but that we were going to have to let this house go.”
She said she’s looking for other employment, but added there are few jobs in the Birmingham area that require the expertise she’s developed and pay a commensurate salary. She said while she loves the city of Birmingham and had planned to retire from CAW, she’s not opposed to moving elsewhere for work now.
“I feel hurt when I see Central Alabama [Water] signs and trucks, and it is just a sensitive area for me,” she said. “I would not mind leaving, just because of the pain that it carries. I have no idea what the future holds. I'm hopeful for a new beginning.”
