Broadnax v. City of New Haven

• Decision Date: 15 December 2009
• Docket Number: No. 17972.,No. 18146.,No. 17971.,17971.,17972.,18146.
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: Sheryl BROADNAX et al. v. CITY OF NEW HAVEN et al.

984 A.2d 658

294 Conn. 280

Sheryl BROADNAX et al. v. CITY OF NEW HAVEN et al.

No. 17971.

No. 17972.

No. 18146.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued March 26, 2009.

Decided December 15, 2009.

Kenneth J. Bartschi, with whom were Wesley W. Horton and Audrey C. Kramer, assistant corporation counsel, for the appellants (named defendant et al.).

W. Martyn Philpot, Jr., with whom, on the brief, was Marc L. Glenn, for the appellees (plaintiff John R. Brantley et al.).

ROGERS, C.J., and KATZ, PALMER, ZARELLA and McLACHLAN, Js.

ROGERS, C.J.

The defendants, the city of New Haven (city), the city's department of fire service (fire department), and the city's board of fire commissioners,¹ appeal² from the judgment of the trial court, rendered after a jury trial, in favor of the plaintiffs, John R. Brantley and Christopher Texeira,³ two African-American firefighters employed by the fire department. The jury found that, by promoting other firefighters through a practice called "underfilling,"⁴ the defendants had discriminated against the plaintiffs on the basis of race in violation of their right to equal protection under the fourteenth amendment to the United States constitution.⁵ The dispositive issue in these appeals is whether the trial court improperly denied the defendants' motion to set aside the jury's verdicts because the plaintiffs had failed to present sufficient evidence in support of their equal protection claims.⁶ We conclude that the jury reasonably could not have found in favor of the plaintiffs on the basis of the evidence before it and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.

This court previously examined the defendants' practice of underfilling in Broadnax v. New Haven, 270 Conn. 133, 160, 179, 851 A.2d 1113 (2004) (Broadnax I), and concluded that the practice of underfilling violates the city's charter, its municipal ordinances and its civil service rules and regulations and affirmed the judgment of the trial court enjoining the city from engaging in the practice prospectively. In Broadnax I, this court also reversed the judgment of the trial court striking the plaintiffs' equal protection claims, thereby allowing the trial that is the subject of these appeals to proceed. Id., at 173-75, 851 A.2d 1113. See footnote 24 of this opinion.

The following undisputed facts and procedural history are relevant to the present appeals. "The city and its fire department have been involved in litigation dating back to 1975, when the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, Zampano, J., ordered the fire department to increase its hiring of minority fire-fighters on a prescribed timeline with a targeted hiring goal [consent decree]. Thereafter, in 1989, the New Haven Firebird Society (Firebird Society), an organization of minority firefighters, brought an action challenging a practice in the fire department known as `stockpiling.'"⁷ See New Haven Firebird Society v. Board of Fire Commissioners, 32 Conn.App. 585, 587-88, 630 A.2d 131, cert. denied, 228 Conn. 902, 634 A.2d 295 (1993).... Stockpiling was held to violate the city's charter and civil service rules and regulations because the practice resulted in some promotions actually taking effect after the applicable civil service eligibility list had expired. Id., at 592-93, 630 A.2d 131. As a result of the litigation by the Firebird Society, the practice of stockpiling was abandoned prospectively, and promotions that had taken effect after the expiration of the eligibility list were judicially invalidated retroactively. Id., at 589, 630 A.2d 131. This reshuffling of positions, as well as the retirement of other higher ranking firefighters, caused several vacancies in the fire department's command structure, particularly among the ranks of lieutenant and captain. Further, in the years following the trial court's decision in the action brought by the Firebird Society, the fire department ceased to administer civil service examinations, which prevented it from filling those vacancies through promotions.

"Promotions within the fire department are governed by the city's civil service rules and regulations, which require individuals to pass an examination before becoming eligible to be promoted to a particular position.⁸ After the examination results are calculated, the names of passing candidates,⁹ along with their corresponding examination scores, are placed on an eligibility list. Names on the list are arranged in `rank order,'" meaning that the individual with the highest examination score is listed first, followed by names arranged in descending examination score order.

"When a vacancy opens for a particular position, individuals are promoted from the eligibility list in rank order, on the basis of their examination score.¹⁰ For example, if two positions for the rank of lieutenant are vacant, the two individuals who scored the highest on the most recent lieutenants examination, i.e., the two names atop the eligibility list, will be promoted to lieutenant. In this regard, promotions within the fire department are predictable; so long as there is a current eligibility list for a particular position, firefighters know who is next in line to be promoted.

"Pursuant to the civil service rules and regulations, eligibility lists expire two years from the date on which they are certified, i.e., the date on which the examination results are officially released. Accordingly, if an eligibility list for a particular position has expired, and the fire department has yet to administer another examination for that position, then the fire department will be unable to promote to that position; until, of course, an examination is administered and a new eligibility list is certified.

"In addition, promotions in the fire department are funded through the city's annual budget. The city's board of aldermen creates the budget, which when passed and signed by the city's mayor, has the force of a city ordinance. When the board of aldermen produces the budget, it does so on a line-by-line basis. Thus, when the budget was enacted for fiscal year 1996-1997, it did not authorize a `bottom line' for the fire department's funding; rather, the budget specified the number of firefighter personnel authorized to receive pay at each rank and the funds allotted for those positions.

"As previously alluded to, while the fire department was awaiting the finality of the Firebird Society litigation, the fire department refrained from promoting individuals to certain positions, and failed to administer civil service examinations. As a result, the most recent eligibility lists for lieutenant and captain had expired in March, 1988, and December, 1989, respectively. Thus, by the mid-1990s, although the fire department needed to promote firefighters to certain supervisory positions, such as lieutenant and captain, it could not do so until new promotional examinations were administered.

"Martin J. O'Connor was the chief of the fire department from January, 1996, to January, 1998. In order to fill the fire department's need for additional lieutenants, captains and battalion chiefs, O'Connor requested that civil service examinations be administered for those positions. In September, 1995, a lieutenants examination was administered, and [eligibility list No. 96-02] ... was certified in January, 1996, expiring in January, 1998. A captains examination, however, was not administered until April, 1998. Thus, in early 1996, even though the fire department needed to fill vacancies for the positions of lieutenant and captain, it could only promote individuals to lieutenant because a captains examination had not yet been administered.

"According to O'Connor, the fire department's command structure was seriously lacking in supervisory positions. It was O'Connor's position that the fire department could not wait for the administration of additional civil service examinations; rather, O'Connor set out to fill vacant positions immediately.¹¹ Accordingly, between 1996 and 1997, the fire department promoted to lieutenant, in standard rank order, forty individuals who had passed the September, 1995 lieutenants examination. This brought the total number of lieutenants beyond that which the city budget allowed. In order to pay the excess lieutenants, the fire department used funds allocated for vacant captain and battalion chief positions. Thus, although the fire department exceeded the appropriations in the budget allocated for lieutenants, the department was within the budget for the appropriations devoted to captains and battalion chiefs; and it was within its total budgeted salary expense. The practice of using funds allocated for a vacant higher rank to pay individuals employed at a lower rank is known as `underfilling.'¹²

"After serving the requisite time in grade; see footnote [8] of this opinion; the newly promoted lieutenants, including those promoted through underfilling, became eligible to sit for a captains examination, which was administered in April, 1998. Some of the underfilled lieutenants were subsequently promoted to captain on the basis of their success on the captains examination." (Citations omitted.) Broadnax v. New Haven, supra, 270 Conn. at 139-43, 851 A.2d 1113.

The following additional facts were adduced at trial and are not in dispute. On March 13, 1996, the defendants promoted to lieutenant, in the usual rank order, twenty-two firefighters, including the plaintiffs, from eligibility list No. 96-02.¹³ Id., at 150-51, 851 A.2d 1113. The defendants thereafter promoted, again in rank order, eleven firefighters on July 3, 1996,¹⁴ and seven firefighters on October 16, 1996.¹⁵ Id., at 151, 851 A.2d 1113. For purposes of this litigation, the first twenty of those lieutenants who were promoted in March, 1996, including the plaintiffs, are considered to have been promoted without the benefit of underfilling.¹⁶ The last twenty are considered to have been...