U.S. v. City of Chicago
| Citation | 549 F.2d 415 |
| Decision Date | 11 January 1977 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 76-1113,76-1152,76-1205 and 76-1344,s. 76-1113 |
| Parties | 14 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 462, 40 A.L.R.Fed. 421, 13 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 11,380 UNITED STATES of America et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CITY OF CHICAGO et al., Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit) |
Leon Despres, Norman J. Barry, Wayne B. Giampietro, Richard M. Gutman, Richard J. Phelan, Sp. Asst. Corp. Counsel, William R. Quinlan, Chicago, Ill., for defendants-appellants.
Samuel K. Skinner, U. S. Atty., Ilana Diamond Rovner, Asst. U. S. Atty., Earl L. Neal, Chicago, Ill., Donald Pailen, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., Kay Simon Grossman, Michael L. Meyer, Frank Cicero, Jr., Chicago, Ill., for plaintiffs-appellees.
Before FAIRCHILD, Chief Judge, SWYGERT and PELL, Circuit Judges.
This case is a consolidated civil rights action broadly challenging the employment practices of the Chicago Police Department. The district court in its January 5, 1976 memorandum decision found that the method utilized by the Police Department in hiring and promoting police officers resulted in discrimination against blacks, Hispanics, and women in violation of federal civil rights statutes and the Constitution. On February 2, 1976 the court entered a final order which enjoined those employment practices found to be discriminatory, imposed numerical hiring and promotion quotas, and continued its injunction against payment of federal revenue sharing funds to the City of Chicago pending compliance with the court's order. The defendants challenge both the court's findings of discrimination and its choice of remedies.
We will briefly review the proceedings in the district court, which have been thoroughly detailed in previously reported decisions. 1
On September 9, 1970 Renault Robinson, a black Chicago police officer, and the Afro-American Patrolmen's League 2 filed a complaint against the Superintendent of Police, the City of Chicago, and the members of the Police Review Board charging racial discrimination in the assignment, promotion, and discipline of Chicago police officers. 3 The Robinson plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief and damages under the first, fifth, thirteenth, and fourteenth amendments to the Constitution, and under the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1871, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983.
A second action was brought on May 13, 1973 against the City, the Superintendent of Police, and the Chicago Civil Service Commission and its Secretary by Tadeo Robert Camacho and ten blacks and Hispanics who were unsuccessful applicants for positions as Chicago police officers. The Camacho plaintiffs challenged the full range of departmental practices with respect to recruiting, screening, and hiring. They sought relief under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1985, the fourteenth amendment, and Titles VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d and e.
A third suit was filed August 14, 1973 by the United States against the City, the Superintendent of Police, and the Chicago Civil Service Commission alleging a pattern and practice of discrimination within the Chicago Police Department against blacks, Hispanics, and women in the hiring, assignment, promotion, and discipline of police personnel. The Government sought relief under Title VII, under sections 1981 and 1985, and under the anti-discrimination guidelines and regulations of the Department of Justice and the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, 28 C.F.R. §§ 42.201 et seq. and 42.301 et seq. Upon plaintiffs' joint motion, the three cases were consolidated in the district court before Judge Prentice H. Marshall.
An evidentiary hearing on plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction commenced on May 30, 1974. Plaintiffs sought to restrain further hiring by the City from the patrolman's eligibility roster and further promotion to the rank of sergeant from the sergeant's eligibility roster. The patrolman's eligibility roster was based on the results of the 1971 patrolman's examination given by the Chicago Civil Service Commission and a series of physical and medical tests. The sergeant's eligibility roster was based on the results of the 1973 sergeant's examination given by the Commission, departmental efficiency ratings, and seniority. Plaintiffs claimed both examinations, as well as other criteria used by the Police Department in hiring and promotion, improperly discriminated against black and Hispanic candidates. In addition, the Government sought preliminary relief against the disparate treatment of women within the Department. Just prior to the hearing, Louis Arado and other police officers who held positions on the 1973 sergeant's eligibility roster were permitted to intervene as defendants.
The preliminary injunction hearing consumed seventeen trial days. During the hearing, a consent decree was entered which resolved challenges to the Police Department's physical and medical requirements. On November 7, 1974 the district court issued findings of discrimination in hiring and promotion and preliminarily enjoined the defendants from utilizing practices that discriminated against minorities and women. The court also specifically prohibited any further hiring or promotion from eligibility rosters based on the 1971 patrolman's and the 1973 sergeant's examinations. Relying on representations by the City that a new patrolman's examination was being developed, the court declined to impose any preliminary hiring or promotion quotas.
A fourth action alleging employment discrimination in the Chicago Police Department was filed on February 7, 1974 in the district court for the District of Columbia against the Secretary of the Treasury and the Office of Revenue Sharing. 4 In this action plaintiffs Robinson, the Afro-American Patrolmen's League, and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People sought to enjoin further payment of revenue sharing funds earmarked for the City of Chicago under the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972, 31 U.S.C. §§ 1221 et seq. They alleged that a substantial portion of funds paid to the City of Chicago under the Act were being allocated to the Police Department, that the Police Department was engaged in discriminatory employment practices, and that payment of further funds to the City was consequently prohibited by the nondiscrimination provision of the Act, 31 U.S.C. § 1242. This suit was brought because the plaintiffs were dissatisfied with the response of the Secretary and the Office of Revenue Sharing to an administrative complaint filed in September 1973.
On May 29, 1974 the Secretary responded to the administrative complaint and recommended to the Attorney General, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 1242(b), that he bring a civil suit against the City. The Government accepted this recommendation on May 30, 1974 by amending its complaint in the Northern District of Illinois to allege violations of the Fiscal Assistance Act.
The District of Columbia district court then initially denied the requested injunctive relief on June 28, 1974, reasoning that the Secretary had already fulfilled his statutory duty. Following entry of the preliminary injunction against the Chicago defendants in the proceedings in the Northern District of Illinois, however, the District of Columbia court reconsidered plaintiffs' motion for injunctive relief. In reliance on Judge Marshall's findings, the court on December 18, 1974 enjoined further payment of revenue sharing funds to the City until such time as the Secretary and the Office of Revenue Sharing determined that the Police Department was in compliance with the nondiscrimination provision of the Fiscal Assistance Act. Subsequently the City intervened in the District of Columbia proceedings and unsuccessfully sought modification of that court's order. The action was then transferred at the City's request from the District of Columbia to the Northern District of Illinois, where it was consolidated with the other cases pending against the City. In the following months, the district court twice denied motions by the City to modify the order forbidding payment of revenue sharing funds.
While the parties litigated the revenue sharing question, the original actions moved forward. After extensive negotiations, all interested parties consented to an interim hiring agreement that permitted the City to hire six hundred police officers from the 1971 patrolman's and the 1972 police woman's/matron's lists in three groups of two hundred, with one hundred positions in each group to be filled by minority male candidates, thirty-three by women, and the remaining sixty-seven by white males. The court approved the agreement on December 16, 1974. The City then notified the first group of two hundred to report to the police training academy on January 6, 1975. However, on January 2 the City unilaterally suspended the interim hiring agreement and instructed the previously notified applicants not to report for training. On March 10, the opening day of the trial on the merits, the City announced, again unilaterally, a new examination for patrol officers and a program for the appointment of temporary sergeants not be selected from the 1973 sergeant's list. Plaintiffs moved to enjoin the promotion of temporary sergeants, but this motion was denied on June 6. The court, however, did grant in part the motion of the Camacho plaintiffs to compel compliance with the interim hiring agreement. On April 21 it ordered the City to proceed with the suspended hiring of the two hundred applicants previously notified. It declined, however, to enforce the remainder of the agreement because of the City's assurance that results of the new patrolman's examination soon would be forthcoming.
The trial on the merits in the four consolidated cases began on March 10, 1975....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bridgeport Guardians, Inc. v. Delmonte, Civ. No. B-78-175.
...apply to discrimination claims brought under the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act, 31 U.S.C. § 1242.2 United States v. City of Chicago, 549 F.2d 415, 439-40 (7th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 875, 98 S.Ct. 225, 54 L.Ed.2d 155 (1977); United States v. City of Buffalo, 457 F.Supp. 61......
-
Vanguard Justice Soc., Inc. v. Hughes
...by Richard S. Barrett, March 23, 1983 at 2 (Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2). See also note 8, supra. 39 See also United States v. City of Chicago, 549 F.2d 415, 428 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 875, 98 S.Ct. 225, 54 L.Ed.2d 155 (1977); Kirkland v. New York State Dept. of Corrections, 520 F.2d ......
-
Ass'n Against Discrimination v. City of Bridgeport
...the Court views the termination of federal funding as a last resort. 454 F.Supp. at 753, citing generally United States v. City of Chicago, 549 F.2d 415, 449 (7th Cir. 1977). The Court finds that defendants have violated Titles VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Revenue Shar......
-
Segar v. Smith, s. 82-1541
...& Co., 585 F.2d 625, 646 (4th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 981, 99 S.Ct. 1789, 60 L.Ed.2d 241 (1979); United States v. City of Chicago, 549 F.2d 415, 437 (7th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 875, 98 S.Ct. 225, 54 L.Ed.2d 155 (1977); NAACP v. Allen, 493 F.2d 614, 621 (5th Cir.1974). T......
-
Outcome Tests of Racial Disparities in Police Practices
...validation”) requiring em-ployers to conduct separate validation studies for different racial groups. See U.S. v. Cityof Chicago, 549 F.2d 415, 433 (7th Cir.) (requiring differential validation). The SupremeCourt even endorsed it in Albermarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 435 (1975). B......