U.S. v. Brennan
Decision Date | 05 May 2011 |
Docket Number | Docket Nos. 08–5171–cv (L),08–5172–cv (XAP),08–4639–cv (CON).,08–5375–cv (XAP),08–5149–cv (CON),08–5173–cv (XAP) * |
Citation | 271 Ed. Law Rep. 557,650 F.3d 65,94 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 44173,112 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 193 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee–Cross–Appellant,Janet Caldero, Celia I. Calderon, Martha Chellemi, Salih Chioke, Andrew Clement, Kristen D'Alessio, Laura Daniele, Charmaine Didonato, Dawn L. Ellis, Marcia P. Jarrett, Mary Kachadourian, Kathleen Luebkert, Adele A. McGreal, Margaret McMahon, Marianne Manousakis, Sandra D. Morton, Maureen Quinn, Harry Santana, Carl D. Smith, Kim Tatum, Frank Valdez, and Irene Wolkiewicz, Intervenors–Appellees–Cross–Appellants,Pedro Arroyo, Jose Casado, Celestino Fernandez, Kevin LaFaye, Steven Lopez, Anibal Maldonado, James Martinez, Wilbert McGraw, Silvia Ortega De Green, and Nicholas Pantelides, Intervenors–Appellees,v.John BRENNAN, James G. Ahearn, Scott Spring, and Dennis Mortensen, Intervenors–Appellants–Cross–Appellees,New York City Department of Education; City of New York; Martha K. Hirst, Commissioner, New York City Department of City Administrative Services; New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services, Defendants–Appellees.John Brennan, James Ahearn, Scott Spring, Dennis Mortensen, John Mitchell, and Eric Schauer, Plaintiffs–Appellants,v.Attorney General of the United States; Assistant Attorney General of the United States for Civil Rights; U.S. Department of Justice; New York City Department of Education; City of New York; New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services; Martha K. Hirst, Commissioner, New York City Department of City Administrative Services, Defendants–Appellees,Janet Caldero, Celia I. Calderon, Martha Chellemi, Salih Chioke, Andrew Clement, Kristen D'Alessio, Laura Daniele, Charmaine Didonato, Dawn L. Ellis, Marcia P. Jarrett, Mary Kachadourian, Kathleen Luebkert, Adele A. McGreal, Margaret McMahon, Marianne Manousakis, Sandra D. Morton, Maureen Quinn, Harry Santana, Carl D. Smith, Kim Tatum, Frank Valdez, and Irene Wolkiewicz, Intervenors–Appellees,Pedro Arroyo, Jose Casado, Celestino Fernandez, Kevin LaFaye, Steven Lopez, Anibal Maldonado, James Martinez, Wilbert McGraw, Silvia Ortega De Green, and Nicholas Pantelides, Intervenors–Appellees.Ruben Miranda, Plaintiff–Appellant,v.New York City Department of Education, Defendant–Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Michael E. Rosman (Christopher J. Hajec, on the brief), Center for Individual Rights, Washington, DC, for John Brennan, James Ahearn, Scott Spring, Dennis Mortensen, John Mitchell, Eric Schauer, and Ruben Miranda.Gregory B. Friel, (Dennis J. Dimsey and April J. Anderson, on the brief) for Loretta King, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for the United States, the Attorney General, the Assistant Attorney General, and the Department of Justice.Ariela M. Migdal, (Emily J. Martin, Araceli Martinez-Olguin, and Lenora M. Lapidus, on the brief), American Civil Liberties Union Foundation Women's Right's Project, New York, NY; Melissa R. Chernofsky, Attorney-at-Law, Brooklyn, NY, on the brief, for Janet Caldero et al.Matthew Colangelo, (John Payton, Debo P. Adegbile, and Joy Milligan, on the brief), NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund, Inc., New York, NY; Joshua Civin, NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund, Washington, DC, for Pedro Arroyo et al.Rachael N. Pine, Gillian L. Thomas, Legal Momentum, New York, NY, for Amicus Curiae Legal Momentum.
The New York City Department of Education, the City of New York, Martha K. Hirst, and the New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services, did not appear at oral argument and did not submit a brief.Before: CALABRESI, RAGGI, and CUDAHY,1 Circuit Judges.Judge RAGGI, concurs in the judgment of the Court and files a separate opinion.CALABRESI, Circuit Judge:
Introduction
In 1996, the United States (the “Government”) sued the New York City Board of Education and related parties (the “City Defendants”) claiming a violation of Title VII's prohibition of disparate impact selection measures. The suit alleged that the City had, in hiring Custodians and Custodian Engineers (“CEs”) for its schools, (1) used, on three separate occasions, civil service examinations which discriminated against blacks and Hispanics, and (2) used recruiting practices which discriminated against blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and women. The parties entered into a settlement agreement in 1999 and asked the district court to enter it as a consent decree. The magistrate judge (Levy, M.J.)—who had jurisdiction by consent—approved the entire agreement, despite objections that primarily came from incumbent employees who were denied leave to intervene in the suit. The incumbent employees were unaffected by many of the agreement's provisions, but they objected to four paragraphs that provided permanent appointments and retroactive competitive seniority to 63 black, Hispanic, Asian, or female individuals, the “Offerees.” 2 The City Defendants implemented the disputed parts of the settlement while the incumbent employees' appeal from their exclusion was pending. In 2001, this Court vacated and remanded, holding that the district court should have permitted the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Reed v. United Teachers Los Angeles
... ... ( United States v. Brennan (2nd Cir.2011) 650 F.3d 65, 118( Brennan ).) Thus, based on Kirkland , Wilder and Brennan, it is fair to say that the Second Circuit also ... ( Id. at p. 696.) Two reasons dissuade us from reading Dennison as permitting a trial court to abrogate a nonsettling party's contractual or statutory rights based upon a mere finding that ... ...
-
Matusick v. Erie Cnty. Water Auth.
... ... Before: SACK, RAGGI, and LOHIER, Circuit Judges. SACK, Circuit Judge: BACKGROUND “When an appeal comes to us after a jury verdict, we view the facts of the case in the light most favorable to the prevailing party.” Kosmynka v. Polaris Indus., Inc., 462 ... See, e.g., McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973); United States v. Brennan, 650 F.3d 65, 93 (2d Cir.2011). “Once th[is] prima facie case has been shown, the burden then must shift to the employer to articulate some ... ...
-
The Bronx Household of Faith v. Bd. of Educ. of The City of N.Y.
... ... Bd. of Educ. City of New York, [650 F.3d 36] No. 01 Civ. 8598 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 1, 2007) (Preska, J. ). The case is now before us for the fourth time. DISCUSSION P.S. 15 is a limited public forum. See Bronx Household III, 492 F.3d at 9798 (Calabresi, J., concurring); id ... ...
-
Williams v. Mount Sinai Med. Ctr.
... ... Kaleida Health Sys., 422 Fed.Appx. 58, 60 (2d Cir.2011); United States v. Brennan, 650 F.3d 65, 93 (2d Cir.2011). 14 The burden of establishing a prima facie case is not onerous, and has been frequently described as minimal ... ...
-
The ERISA Litigation Newsletter (December 2013)
...the goals of the lawsuit and benefits sought). [9] See, e.g., Ricci v. DeStefano, 129 S. Ct. 2658 (2009); United States v. Brennan, 650 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. [10] See, e.g., Employment Discrimination Law ch. 32.IX.C (Barbara Lindemann & Paul Grossman eds., BNA 4th ed. 2007). [11] See Title V......
-
Proceed With Caution: Voluntary Diversity Efforts Must Be Undertaken With Care To Limit Litigation Risk For Employers
...and Johnson, at least two courts of appeal have rejected that view. See Shea v. Kerry, 796 F.3d 42 (D.C. Cir. 2015); U.S. v. Brennan, 650 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 2011). Though approaching the issue slightly differently, both courts reasoned that Ricci's reach is limited to factual circumstances li......
-
Proceed With Caution: Voluntary Diversity Efforts Must Be Undertaken With Care To Limit Litigation Risk For Employers
...and Johnson, at least two courts of appeal have rejected that view. See Shea v. Kerry, 796 F.3d 42 (D.C. Cir. 2015); U.S. v. Brennan, 650 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 2011). Though approaching the issue slightly differently, both courts reasoned that Ricci's reach is limited to factual circumstances li......
-
Diversity Initiatives and the Backlash of Reverse Discrimination Claims.
...the interaction between Ricci and the Johnson-Weber framework reached the same conclusion" and citing to United States v. Brennan, 650 F.3d 65, 102-04 (2d Cir. (29) In re Birmingham, 20 F.3d at 1541. (30) Shea I, 961 F. Supp. 2d at 28. (31) Taxman, 91 F.3d at 1564 (noting that "valid affirm......
-
Proceed with Caution: Voluntary Diversity Efforts Must Be Undertaken with Care to Limit Litigation Risk for Employers.
...and Johnson, at least two courts of appeal have rejected that view. See Shea v. Kerry, 796 F.3d 42 (D.C. Cir. 2015); U.S. v. Brennan, 650 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 2011). Though approaching the issue slightly differently, both courts reasoned that Ricci's reach is limited to factual circumstances li......