Two former police officials are justified in their contention that their positions were abolished in 2007 as part of a strategy to replace the two older employees with younger, less experienced and much less well-paid officers, a Chancery Court jury has decided.

Shortly before 4 p.m. Thursday, jurors returned from deliberations and awarded T.E. “Skip” Vaughn – who was the Chattanooga Police Department’s longest serving officer at the time he lost his job – a total of $202,293.

Charles Cooke, who is a few years younger, received $333,546 in back pay and punitive damages.

Lee Davis, one of two attorneys who represented the plaintiffs, was jubilant, saying the jury verdict was vindication for the two former officers and a complete repudiation of both the actions taken and the defense strategy utilized by the Chattanooga Police Department.

“They are deeply indebted to this jury for its hard work,” he said, noting that deliberations lasted about four hours.

Assistant City Attorney Phil Noblette, speaking for the three-member team of attorneys that defended the actions of the city, said he had no comment on the verdict.

“We’ll have to present this to our clients and see what they instruct us to do,” he responded when asked whether the city will appeal.

Late Thursday morning, before sending jurors out to begin their deliberations, Chancellor Frank Brown explained that they could decide that both the plaintiffs proved their cases, that neither of them proved their cases, or that one did and one did not.

“Although there are two plaintiffs in this case . . . you will decide each plaintiff’s case separately,” the judge said.

During closing arguments, city attorney Mike McMahan flatly denied allegations that the two men are victims of age discrimination. Rather, he said, the decision to remove Mr. Cooke and Mr. Vaughn was made for a combination of budgetary and administrative reasons.

One major factor, he said, was the fact that neither one of the two deputy chiefs supported then-new Police Chief Freeman Cooper and the changes he was trying to implement.

“Chief Vaughn was a lot better than Chief Cooke,” Mr. McMahan told the jury. “He was kind of military . . . his attitude was ‘I’ll do what you tell me to do as long as you order me to do it’ . . . Chief Cooke wasn’t having any of it . . . Even Mayor Littlefield knew that Cooke wasn’t doing his job. He said he went to a lot of police functions and noticed that Cooke was not there.”

While jurors may feel that Chief Cooper made the wrong decision, or that he was not fair to the two longtime employees, those are not the issues in this case, Mr. McMahan stressed in his closing. “This case is about age discrimination.”

Plaintiff’s attorney Lee Davis, responding to Mr. McMahan’s comments, came out swinging.

“The city has done a hatchet job on Charles Cooke,” he told jurors. “Why? He didn’t go along . . . He didn’t accept the changes . . . He filed a grievance.”

Mr. Davis said Mr. Cooke was initially told that “his job was safe,” although he was being assigned to different responsibilities. It was that reassignment, to finance, that enabled his client to “see what they were doing to him . . . he filed a grievance,” the attorney noted.

Then, in March and again in May 2007, Mr. Cooke was told that his deputy chief position was being abolished and told he had to “apply” for a lesser position as captain, Mr. Davis continued.

“And they want to know why he was stand-offish?” he asked sarcastically, in an oblique reference to testimony from a series of other officers that Mr. Cooke was “angry . . . bitter” and very difficult to work with or work for.

Mr. Vaughn’s case is different, Mr. Davis said, although he “also was hauled into the chief’s office and told (his position was being abolished).”

The attorney told jurors that Mr. Vaughn, a 36-year veteran of the police department who everybody agrees was doing his job, deserved a lot better treatment than he received. At the time he was terminated, Mr. Vaughn was overseeing the training of “the only class – maybe ever, at least for a very long time – with a 100 percent graduation rate,” Mr. Davis emphasized.

“Who are they to tell him to take a civilian job?” the attorney demanded. “He’s spent 36 years in uniform!”

Don’t believe the city’s contention that the decision to terminate the jobs of his clients was not based on their ages, Mr. Davis continued.

“Age permeates everything,” he told jurors. “Of course it was age. Why else would they have terminated (Mr. Vaughn)? He was doing his job brilliantly.”