Carter v. Gallagher
Decision Date | 07 January 1972 |
Docket Number | No. 71-1181.,71-1181. |
Citation | 452 F.2d 315 |
Parties | Gerald CARTER et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, and Minneapolis Commission on Human Relations, Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellee, v. Hugh GALLAGHER et al., Defendants-Appellants. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Arvid M. Falk, Asst. City Atty., Keith M. Stidd, City Atty., Minneapolis, Minn., for defendants-appellants.
Luther A. Granquist, Marino, Becker & Granquist, Bernard Becker, Legal Aid Society, Inc., Minneapolis, Minn., for plaintiffs-appellees Gerald Carter et al.; Kirk A. Gustafson, Minneapolis, Minn., Legal Aid Society of Minneapolis, on the brief.
Charles Quaintance, Jr., Hyman Edelman, Minneapolis, Minn., for plaintiff-appellee Minneapolis Commission On Human Relations.
O. C. Adamson, II, Minneapolis, Minn., amici curiae Fire Fighters Association of Minneapolis, Local 82, Associated Fire Fighters of Minnesota, and International Assn. of Fire Fighters.
Before MATTHES, Chief Judge, VAN OOSTERHOUT, Circuit Judge and EISELE, District Judge.
On Rehearing En Banc January 7, 1972.
VAN OOSTERHOUT, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal by defendants from decree enjoining them from holding examinations and setting standards for the purpose of determining qualifications of applicants for positions on the Minneapolis Fire Department until various racially discriminatory practices are corrected as directed in the trial court's decree and providing for absolute minority preference in employment of twenty minority persons.
This action for injunctive and declaratory relief was brought by five Blacks on behalf of themselves and all persons similarly situated. The classes represented by plaintiffs are:
(a) All those Black, Indian and other minority persons presently applying for employment with the Minneapolis Fire Department.
(b) All those Black, Indian and other minority persons in the City of Minneapolis who are not applicants for employment with the Minneapolis Fire Department either because their applications were not approved or because they believed that equal employment opportunity is denied to Black, Indian and other minority applicants for such employment.
For convenience the plaintiffs and the classes they represent will usually be referred to as minority persons.
The defendants, who are sued in their official capacity and individually, are Gallagher, Glover and Canfield, the members of the Civil Service Commission of the City of Minneapolis; Proctor, the Personnel Director of the Commission; and Fire Chief Hall.
The court permitted the case to proceed as a class action. No challenge is made to class representation.
The Minneapolis Commission on Human Relations has intervened on behalf of plaintiffs. Fire Fighters Association of Minneapolis, Associated Fire Fighters of Minnesota and International Association of Fire Fighters have jointly filed amici curiae brief in support of defendants' position.
Included in the petition is another class represented by plaintiffs Harris and Hill consisting of:
(c) All those persons who would qualify as veterans pursuant to Minnesota Statute 197.45 in seeking to claim a veterans' preference pursuant to said section but for the state and local durational residency requirements imposed therein.
The class "c" plaintiffs make the contention that the five-year durational residency requirement incorporated in the definition of veterans in the Veterans Preference Act, Minnesota Statute 197.45, unconstitutionally imposes a penalty on the right to travel interstate. A three-judge court was designated to try such issue and hence the issue is not adjudicated in the present action. Judge Larson, who tried this case, entered a temporary restraining order prohibiting defendants from denying veterans preference under § 197.45 to any applicant for employment by reason of failure to meet residence requirements incorporated in the statute. Appeal from the granting of the temporary restraining order has been taken. However, no attack on the order is made in the briefs, and hence we give such issue no consideration at this time.1
Plaintiffs assert that the recruitment, examination and hiring practices of defendants with respect to the fire department deny Blacks, Indians and other members of minority groups the right to due process of law and equal protection of the law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment and the right not to be discriminated against in employment by reason of race as guaranteed by 42 U.S.C.A. § 1981.
This case was tried to the court. Much of the evidence was stipulated. An evidentiary hearing was held, a number of witnesses were produced and examined. The evidence to the extent necessary will be discussed in the course of the opinion.
Judge Larson made 146 findings of fact, which generally upheld plaintiffs' contentions, and appropriate conclusions of law. Based thereon, he entered a decree, not reported, on March 9, 1971, which reads as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bakke v. Regents of University of California
...of Memphis Inc. (6th Cir. 1974) 497 F.2d 871, 874, 877; NAACP v. Allen (5th Cir. 1974) 493 P.2d 614, 617, 622; Carter v. Gallagher (8th Cir. 1971) 452 F.2d 315, 318, 331; United States v. Ironworkers Local 86 (9th Cir. 1971) 443 F.2d 544, 548, 554.) The University asserts that these decisio......
-
Davis v. Los Angeles County
...equitable relief, see Rios v. Enterprise Ass'n Steamfitters Local 638, 501 F.2d 622, 628 (2d Cir. 1974); Carter v. Gallagher, 452 F.2d 315, 329 (8th Cir. 1971) (en banc), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 950, 92 S.Ct. 2045, 32 L.Ed.2d 338 (1972), and cases involving one statute have been cited in sup......
-
Oburn v. Shapp
...Pennsylvania v. O'Neill, 473 F.2d 1029 (3d Cir. 1973) (en banc); Castro v. Beecher, 459 F.2d 725 (1st Cir. 1972); Carter v. Gallagher, 452 F.2d 315 (8th Cir. 1971) (en banc), Cert. denied, 406 U.S. 950, 92 S.Ct. 2045, 32 L.Ed.2d 338 (1972); Contractors Ass'n v. Secretary of Labor, 442 F.2d ......
-
Local 28 of Sheet Metal Workers International Association 28 v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
...v. Crisler, 491 F.2d 1053, 1056 (CA5) (en banc), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 895, 95 S.Ct. 173, 42 L.Ed.2d 139 (1974); Carter v. Gallagher, 452 F.2d 315, 331 (CA8 1971), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 950, 92 S.Ct. 2045, 32 L.Ed.2d 338 (1972); Spiegelman, Court-Ordered Hiring Quotas after Stotts: A Narr......
-
Table of cases
...2d 606 (N.D. Tex. 2002), §2:3.F.7 Carter v. Countrywide Credit Industries , 362 F.3d 294 (5th Cir. 2004), §9:1.C.3 Carter v. Gallagher , 452 F.2d 315 (8th Cir. 1971), §24:6.D Carter v. Luminant Power Services Co. , 3:10-CV-1486-L, 2012 WL 1810185 (N.D. Tex. May 18, 2012), aff’d by 714 F.3d ......
-
Table of cases
...2d 606 (N.D. Tex. 2002), §2:3.F.7 Carter v. Countrywide Credit Industries , 362 F.3d 294 (5th Cir. 2004), §9:1.C.3 Carter v. Gallagher , 452 F.2d 315 (8th Cir. 1971), §24:6.D Carter v. Luminant Power Services Co. , 3:10-CV-1486-L, 2012 WL 1810185 (N.D. Tex. May 18, 2012), aff’d by 714 F.3d ......
-
Where There's Smoke, There's Fire?: the Cloud of Suspicion Surrounding Former Offenders and the Eeoc's New Enforcement Guidance on Criminal Records Under Title Vii
...his employment application did not violate Title VII). 69. See Green v. Mo. Pac. R.R., 523 F.2d 1290 (8th Cir. 1975); Carter v. Gallagher, 452 F.2d 315, 326 (8th Cir. 1971) (finding that a conviction record may not be an absolute bar to employment as a firefighter under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 an......
-
THROUGH A GLASS, DARKLY: SYSTEMIC RACISM, AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, AND DISPROPORTIONATE MINORITY CONTACT.
...1968). (265.) Weiner v. Cuyahoga Cmty. Coll. Dist., 238 N.E.2d 839, 844 (Ohio Ct. C.P. Cuyahoga Cnty. 1968). (266.) Carter v. Gallagher, 452 F.2d 315,331 (8th Cir. 1971) (en (267.) U.S. COMM'N ON C.R., STATEMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE ACTION 2 (1977). (268.) 438 U.S. 265 (1978). (269.) Bakke, 438 U......