Arnold v. Ballard, C 73-478.
| Citation | 390 F. Supp. 723 |
| Decision Date | 31 January 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. C 73-478.,C 73-478. |
| Parties | Royal Thomas ARNOLD et al., Plaintiffs, v. John S. BALLARD et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio |
Joel L. Selig, Joel G. Contreras and A. C. Wharton, Jr., Lawyers' Committee For Civil Rights Under Law, Washington, D. C., and Edwin L. Parms, Akron, Ohio, for plaintiffs.
William R. Baird, Director of Law, Richard Fennelly, Asst. Director of Law, Akron, Ohio, Thomas H. Barnard, Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, Cleveland, Ohio, for defendants.
William Holland, Akron, Ohio, for intervenor-defendants.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Before presenting formal findings and conclusions, a few generalizations should be made. This type of case, where allegations of discrimination in public employment are made, is troublesome in a number of ways. It forces the United States Government, through its courts, to intervene in local affairs. Such intervention is disruptive no matter how it is conducted. These cases also force the courts to assess and determine the rights of countless individuals who have never had the opportunity to appear and make their arguments on the issues determined. Last, this type of case presents a situation in which the judges may find themselves actively involved in controlling the daily operations of a large metropolis.
Nonetheless, the United States Constitution and the laws of this nation require this intervention when allegations of the type presented here are raised. The obligations of a United States District Judge may not be evaded no matter how uncertain the footing on the ground to be covered. In this particular case the exemplary performance by counsel on both sides has eased the task, and the efforts are appreciated.
1. This action was brought pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and 42 U.S. C. §§ 1981 and 1983 for injunctive and monetary relief from policies that allegedly have the effect of discriminating against blacks employed or who seek employment in the Fire or Police Divisions of the Safety Department of the City of Akron. By Order of the Court on March 25, 1974, the instant proceedings have been limited to issues relating to alleged racial discrimination in the selection of applicants for the Police Division. Jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1343(3), 1343(4), 2201, and 2202.
2. The named plaintiffs (all individual black males) include Ernest Johnson, Jr., an applicant for the Police Division; Morris Anderson, who applied for the Police Division in 1971 and was denied employment because he failed to obtain a passing score on the written entrance examination; Royal Thomas Arnold, a 1971 applicant for the Police Division who was denied employment because he did not take the written examination; and Dwight Tye, who was denied employment by the Police Division in 1971 because he did not meet the minimum height requirements. By order of this Court on September 4, 1973, Johnson, Anderson, Arnold, and Tye, along with the five other named plaintiffs whose grievances do not relate to Police Division entrance requirements, are representatives of the following class:
all black persons who have been, are, or will be during the course of this suit employees of the Police Department; who have been, are, or will be during the course of this suit applicants for employment in the Fire or Police Department; and who apply or would have applied and completed the processing procedures for employment with the Police or Fire Department but for the defendants' racially discriminatory hiring and employment practices and reputation therefor.
3. The named defendants are John S. Ballard, Mayor and Safety Director, City of Akron; Carl Best, Fire Chief, City of Akron; Harry Whiddon, Chief of Police, City of Akron; Jack W. Moye, President, Akron Civil Service Commission; Robert W. Wheeler, Vice President, Akron Civil Service Commission; and Martha L. Nelson, Member, Akron Civil Service Commission, individually and as officers of the City of Akron and officers and/or members of the Akron Civil Service Commission, and their agents, assigns, and successors in office.
4. Insofar as is pertinent to entrance requirements in the Police Division, the complaint alleges: (a) Defendants had not, as of the date the complaint was filed, made "continuing and substantial efforts" to recruit blacks; (b) Blacks are deterred from applying for the Police Department because of the Police Department's reputation in the black community; (c) The written entrance examinations given in 1971 and preceding years excluded a disproportionate number of blacks and were not job-related; (d) Two other requirements—possession of a high school diploma or General Educational Development certification of high school equivalency (GED), and successful completion of a background investigation (which includes a review of credit ratings and arrest records)— have excluded and are likely to exclude a disproportionate number of blacks and are not job-related; (e) Defendants grant preference to former employees and to friends and relatives of present employees of the Police Department; (f) Defendants have not taken appropriate affirmative action to correct effects of discriminatory practices; (g) The percentage of black Akron police officers is disproportionately small in relation to the percentage of blacks in the Akron population.
5. The following are population figures from 1970 United States Census of the City of Akron, Ohio:
AGE TOTAL BLACK WHITE %BLACK %WHITE
0-65+ 275,425 48,232 227,193 17.5% 82.5%
20-65+ 175,492 25,599 149,893 16.6% 85.4%
0-19 99,933 22,633 77,300 22.6% 77.4%
6. Of approximately 493 officers employed by the Akron police as of May 2, 1973, 15, or 3.0%, were black. In addition to these 15 persons, approximately 7 other black officers are known to have been employed by the Akron Police Department to the present.
7. From January 1, 1965, to December 31, 1971, approximately 287 persons were hired by the APD, of whom ten (10), or 3.7%, were black. The yearly breakdown of appointments is as follows:
TOTAL NO. WHITES BLACKS
APPOINTED APPOINTED APPOINTED
1965 1 1 0
1966 25 25 0
1967 41 40 1
1968 53 49 4
1969 61 60 1
1970 52 51 1
1971 54 51 3
___ ___ __
287 277 10
8. There have been no Civil Service examinations for the Akron police since 1971. The city intends to hire approximately 60 police officers in 1974; the city conducted an entrance examination for police candidates on June 13-15, 1974.
9. The racial composition of the Akron police workforce by rank, was as follows as of May 9, 1974:
TOTAL AUTHORIZED NUMBER OF
STRENGTH BLACKS EMPLOYED
Chief 1 0
Deputy Chief 3 0
Captain 8 0
Lieutenant 19 0
Sergeant 65 1
Patrolman 425 13
Policewoman 2 0
Secretary of police 1 0
Civilian employees 25 3
___ __
549 17
10. Individuals eligible for employment in the Akron Police must be between the ages of 21 to 30 years, meet the Division's height, weight and vision requirements, possess a high school diploma or General Educational Development certification of high school equivalency (GED), and have resided within the corporate limits of the City of Akron for one year. The residency requirement was waived for the Akron Police Department from August, 1966 through 1970 pursuant to the provisions of the Akron City Charter, Section 106(5b).
11. An applicant meeting these minimum qualifications is permitted to take a written examination administered by the Akron Civil Service Commission. In order to pass the examination and be ranked on an "eligible list", an applicant must attain a general average of 70% (out of a possible 100%) on the examination. For ranking purposes, 70% of an applicant's final rank is based on his score on the written examination, and the remaining 30% is based on an evaluation of his education and experience.
12. A physical examination is given to all applicants who successfully complete the written examination. After the physical examination and prior to appointment, the applicant is subjected to an investigation of his general background, character, and general fitness. This investigation includes, among other things, the applicant's credit rating, police record, residency and high school record.
13. The names of those applicants found to be qualified are placed on an eligible list in order of their final score, as outlined above. Names from the eligible list are presented in rank order to the Chief of the Akron Police Department when he has made a requisition for new employees.
14. The Police Chief then selects from the eligible list the individuals to fill the vacancies. In doing so, the Chief is vested with discretion granted by the Akron City Charter Section 106.(6) (rule of three). Under that Section and the Rules of the Akron Civil Service Commission, for every vacancy to be filled, the Chief is presented with three names from the eligible list, and may select any one of the three.
15. There is no evidence before the Court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Washington v. Davis
...also District Court cases: Wade v. Mississippi Cooperative Extension Serv., 372 F.Supp. 126, 143 (ND Miss. 1974); Arnold v. Ballard, 390 F.Supp. 723, 736, 737 (N.D. Ohio 1975); United States v. City of Chicago, 385 F.Supp. 543, 553 (N.D. Ill. 1974); Fowler v. Schwarzwalder, 351 F.Supp. 721,......
-
United States v. City of Buffalo, Civ.-1973-414
...by several courts to uphold the high school requirement. See Castro v. Beecher, 459 F.2d 725, 735 (1st Cir. 1972); Arnold v. Ballard, 390 F.Supp. 723 (N.D.Ohio 1975); League of United Latin American Citizens v. Santa Ana, supra at 901; see also Annot., 30 A.L.R.Fed. § 11(e) at 303 (1976). I......
-
Leag. of U. Latin Am. Citizens v. City of Santa Ana
......21 Castro v. Beecher, 459 F.2d 725 (1st Cir. 1972); Arnold v. Ballard, 390 F.Supp. 723 (N.D. Ohio 1975). . The treatment of the high school ......
-
Smith v. Troyan
...(sustaining height requirement against Title VII claim), with Castro v. Beecher, 459 F.2d 725, 734 (1st Cir. 1972), Arnold v. Ballard, 390 F.Supp. 723, 738 (N.D.Ohio 1975), and Mulligan v. Wilson, 110 N.J.Super. 167, 264 A.2d 745 (1970). Still other courts have found it unnecessary to decid......