Bouman v. Block
| Citation | 940 F.2d 1211 |
| Decision Date | 23 July 1991 |
| Docket Number | 88-6010,88-6458,89-55784 and 88-55130,89-55448,Nos. 88-6009,s. 88-6009 |
| Parties | 60 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 1000, 56 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 40,901, 20 Fed.R.Serv.3d 516 Susan L. BOUMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sherman BLOCK, * Sheriff of Los Angeles County; County of Los Angeles; Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department; Herbert Kaplan, Director of Personnel for Los Angeles County; Los Angeles County Department of Personnel; Los Angeles County Civil Service Commission; Frank A. Work, John C. Bollens, Louise L. Frankel, James E. Kenney, George S. Nojima, in their Capacity as Members of the Los Angeles County Civil Service Commission; Marie Quinney; John P. Knox; Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, Defendants-Appellants. Susan L. BOUMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sherman BLOCK, Sheriff of Los Angeles County; County of Los Angeles; Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department; Herbert Kaplan, Director of Personnel for Los Angeles County; Los Angeles County Department of Personnel; Los Angeles County Civil Service Commission; Frank A. Work, John C. Bollens, Louise L. Frankel, James E. Kenney, George S. Nojima, in their Capacity as Members of the Los Angeles County Civil Service Commission; Marie Quinney; John P. Knox; Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
Alan N. Terakawa, Deputy County Counsel, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendants-appellants-cross appellees.
Dennis M. Harley, Pasadena, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee-cross appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California; Robert M. Takasugi, District Judge, Presiding.
Before D.W. NELSON and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges, and SINGLETON **, District Judge.
Plaintiff-appellee Susan Bouman filed a suit in federal court on April 7, 1980, alleging that defendants-appellants Sherman Block, the Los Angeles County Sheriff who was substituted as the real party in interest for Peter Pitchess, the former Sheriff; the County of Los Angeles; the Sheriff's Department; John Knox, Chief of the Administrative Division of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department; the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs and several other named defendants (herein collectively referred to as "the County") engaged in sex discrimination against her. Bouman filed her claim on behalf of herself and a class of potential female applicants for the position of sergeant. She alleged violations of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, Cal.Gov.Code Sec. 12900 et seq. and Title VII.
The trial court found that the County had discriminated against Bouman and the class members and ordered that the County develop valid sergeant examinations, as well as pay plaintiffs' attorney's fees and costs. Defendants-appellants appeal from that judgment.
To determine whether the County of Los Angeles may be sued in this case, we remand to the district court for findings of fact and conclusions of law on who possesses the authority to make employment policy decisions for the Sheriff's Department. We also remand for a statement of reasons why the class was denied back pay, for an articulation of the reasons justifying the imposition of punitive damages against Knox, for a determination of whether plaintiff is entitled to a multiplier of attorney's fees over the one and one-third multiplier awarded, and for a determination of whether there was good cause for plaintiff's untimely filing for costs. If the court determines the bill of costs was timely, the district court's decision to award costs is affirmed. The district court's findings and holding on all other issues raised in this appeal are affirmed.
Susan L. Bouman was hired by the County of Los Angeles as a Deputy Sheriff in 1971. In 1974 she applied for a promotion to sergeant and took a three-part examination in 1975 to qualify for promotion.
From the examination score an eligibility list was developed and used for two years. At the time the list expired on May 21, 1977, Bouman was at the top of the list and would have received the next appointment. From the list, four females and 127 males were promoted. Bouman was not promoted from this list.
Prior to the list's expiration, plaintiff inquired of her chances of appointment. Bouman testified that her superior, Lieutenant Geiger, "basically told her not to hold her breath." Others in the department also knew that Bouman was not likely to be promoted. One deputy from another station who was behind Bouman on the eligibility list called her because he heard that she was not going to be promoted and was concerned about how this would affect his promotion chances.
Bouman presented evidence at trial based on an internal investigation in the Sheriff's Department that there were vacancies to which she could have been promoted. She alleges that the County hid the fact that there were vacancies and suppressed a January 25, 1978 report by Lt. Maher which discussed those job openings.
Another sergeant examination was administered in 1977, but Bouman did not take it because she believed it would be futile and that the testing procedures discriminated against women. However, Bouman took the 1980 sheriff's examination and after filing the instant action was promoted on July 26, 1981.
On January 3, 1978, 217 days after the 1975 promotion list expired, Bouman mailed a complaint to the California Fair Employment Practices Commission alleging sex discrimination by the Sheriff's Department in its promotion practices. On January 17, 1978, the California agency issued an accusation letter charging the County with discrimination. That letter was withdrawn six months later and defendant was given a right-to-sue letter. Bouman filed a complaint in federal court on Plaintiff sued on behalf of herself and a class of similarly situated persons. That class was certified as:
April 7, 1980, charging violations of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1982 and Cal.Gov.Code Sec. 12900. She named several defendants including the Los Angeles County Sheriff, the County itself, the Sheriff's Department and several other individuals who worked for the County or the Sheriff's Department or were members of the Civil Service Commission.
a) all females who have been, are or will be applicants for promotion to or employees in, sworn, uniformed positions in the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department;
b) all females who would have been or would be in the future applicants for promotion to, or employees in, sworn, uniformed positions in the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department but for defendant's allegedly illegal promotion practices;
c) all females who have been, are, or will be applicants for transfer to any and all sworn, uniformed job classifications maintained by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department;
d) all females who would have been or would be in the future applicants for transfer to any and all sworn, uniformed job classifications maintained by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department.
Bouman brought several claims on behalf of herself and the class. For the class, she alleges that the sergeant examinations discriminated against women. She argued that the design of the 1975 examination was flawed. Bouman submitted statistical evidence showing that the examination had a disparate impact on women. The County admits that women deputies suffered an adverse impact on the written portion of the 1975 examination, but contends that any differences in performance are not statistically significant and are explained by nondiscriminatory factors such as job experience. Bouman also contends that defendants-appellants engaged in intentional discrimination against her and retaliated against her for filing a claim with the EEOC.
Plaintiff contends that job experiences in the Sheriff's Department were not gained in a neutral fashion, citing the discriminatory assignments she endured. Bouman was not permitted to serve in a solo radio car at night in certain areas because her supervisors felt it would be inappropriate. Meanwhile, male deputies were allowed to serve in such areas. The station commander also had a policy of having women deputies rotate on the station complaint desk. At one point, she was told to leave a radio car and work the station front desk. Men were not required to rotate on the front desk. The statute of limitations bars a cause of action based on this evidence, but the evidence may provide relevant background information in determining present discriminatory action. United Air Lines v. Evans, 431 U.S. 553, 558, 97 S.Ct. 1885, 1889, 52 L.Ed.2d 571 (1977).
The district court found that the County engaged in retaliatory discrimination against Bouman for filing her complaint with the EEOC. The court also found that the County used discriminatory examinations which had a disparate impact on women, and engaged in intentional discrimination against Bouman by failing to promote her to sergeant, though sergeant positions were available.
Appellants argue that Bouman's complaint with the EEOC was time-barred because she did not comply with the statutory requirements for filing. Legal questions relating to a Title VII or similar sex discrimination claim are reviewed de novo. United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d 1195, 1201 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 824, 105 S.Ct. 101, 83 L.Ed.2d 46 (1984). A district court's underlying findings of fact are subject to a clearly erroneous standard of review. Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a); Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 1511, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985).
In order to file a claim with the EEOC under Title VII, complainants must first satisfy two jurisdictional prerequisites. They must file the complaint with the EEOC within...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
You v. Longs Drugs Stores Cal., LLC
...under Title VII, a plaintiff must file a complaint with the EEOC within 180 days of the last discriminatory act. See Bouman v. Block, 940 F.2d 1211, 1219 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)). Moreover, a Title VII action must "be filed within ninety days from the issuance of the ......
-
Dodge v. Evergreen School District #114
...is ratification, which occurs when authorized policymakers "approve a subordinate's decision and the basis for it." Bouman v. Block , 940 F.2d 1211, 1231 (9th Cir. 1991). "Ratification ... generally requires more than acquiescence," and "a mere failure to discipline ... does not amount to r......
-
Davis v. City and County of San Francisco
...rate in the relevant community ... [are] sufficient to establish the appropriate [billing] rate for lodestar purposes." Bouman v. Block, 940 F.2d 1211, 1235 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 640, 116 L.Ed.2d 658 (1991). Here, the appellees produced numerous affidavits decla......
-
Tate v. Lau
...qualify as a practice "so permanent and well-settled as to constitute a custom or usage with the force of law." See, Bouman v. Block, 940 F.2d 1211, 1231 (9th Cir.1991), citing St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112, 127, 108 S.Ct. 915, 926, 99 L.Ed.2d 107 (1988) (internal quotation omitted)......
-
Statistical Evidence
...value of plaintiff’s statistical evidence and is a matter for experts to debate and the jury to resolve (citing Bouman v. Block , 940 F.2d 1211, 1225 (9th Cir. 1991). Freyd v. Univ. of Oregon , ___ F.3d ___, 2021 WL 958217 (9th Cir. Mar. 15, 2021). Tenth Circuit Following their termination,......
-
Theories of liability
...charge of discrimination. Veprinsky v. Fluor Daniel, Inc ., 87 F.3d 881 (7th Cir. 1996). Denied plainti൵ a transfer. Bouman v. Block , 940 F.2d 1211 (9th Cir. 1991). • Transferring plainti൵ to a position with less overtime. Chavez v. City of Los Angeles , 111 Fed. Appx. 881, 884 (9th Cir.......
-
Deposing & examining the expert statistician
...courts in rejecting arguments that statistical data must be disaggre-gated unless there is a strong reason to do so. Bouman v. Block , 940 F.2d 1211 (9th Cir. 1991) (rejecting employer’s attempt to disaggregate employment data); Barnes v. GenCorp, Inc. , 896 F.2d 1457, 1466 (6th Cir. 1990);......