Cox v. City of Jackson
| Decision Date | 18 June 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 3:94-CV-623WS.,3:94-CV-623WS. |
| Parties | James M. COX, et al. Plaintiffs v. CITY OF JACKSON, A Municipal Corporation Defendant |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Mississippi |
Edward P. Lobrano, Jr., Lobrano, Butler & Kirk, Ridgeland, MS, for plaintiffs.
Paul M. Neville, Neville & Wilson, Romaine L. Richards, Romaine L. Richards, Special Assistant, Office of the Attorney General, Mississippi State Dept. of Health, Jackson, MS, for defendant.
Tried before this court sitting without a jury, this lawsuit reflects the massive unrest in the City of Jackson, Mississippi, Police Department (hereinafter "JPD") generated by the sharp, palpable tension between its rank-and-file officers and its police chief, Jimmy Wilson. Aggrieved over a potpourri of concerns, plaintiff James M. Cox and 167 of JPD's "tenured,"1 uniformed officers brought this lawsuit urging this court to address matters of promotion, training, transfers, job assignments, automobile assignments, clothing allowances and equipment allocation. Resultantly, say plaintiffs, they have been deprived of certain rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the Constitution of the United States, namely the right to due process,2 as well as the right to equal protection of the law, freedom of speech, and freedom of assembly.3 Seeking declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983,4 plaintiffs' complaint asks for compensatory damages in the amount of $3,000,000.00 and punitive damages in the amount of $7,000,000.00. In paragraph XIV of the plaintiffs' amended complaint, they seek relief jointly and severally pursuant to Rule 20(a)5 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
This court has jurisdiction over this matter predicated on Title 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question) and Title 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3).6 Since the plaintiffs also assert state law claims, most allegedly arising under Mississippi Code Annotated, § 21-31-1, et seq.,7 Mississippi's laws pertaining to Civil Service, this court exercises supplemental jurisdiction over those claims under Title 28 U.S.C. § 1367.8
This court, having heard the testimony of witnesses and the arguments of counsel, now is prepared to enter its findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with Rule 52(a) 9
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Plaintiffs complain that certain actions taken by former Chief of Police Jimmy Wilson (hereinafter "Chief Wilson" or "Wilson") between 1992 and 1994 regarding promotions and transfers violated the provisions of those federal Consent Decrees applicable to the hiring and promotion process of the Jackson Police Department. On March 25, 1974, the City of Jackson and several of its departments, in response to various lawsuits charging racial discrimination, entered into separate affirmative action Consent Decrees, one covering the entire City of Jackson and its employees, and others concerning specific departments such as the Jackson Police Department.10 The primary purpose of these Consent Decrees was to remedy the effects of past discrimination and increase the distribution of African-American employees for the City of Jackson and its departments.
The Consent Decree entered in United States of America v. City of Jackson, J74-66(N), required the City of Jackson to adopt and seek to achieve a goal for hiring African-Americans for one-half of all vacancies in all job classifications, subject to the availability of qualified applicants, until such time as the proportion of blacks to whites in each such classification equaled the proportion of blacks to whites in the working age population of the City of Jackson.
The Consent Decree in Corley v. Jackson Police Department, 73J-4(C), which incorporates by reference the United States of America v. City of Jackson Consent Decree, requires the Jackson Police Department to establish separate promotion eligibility lists for white and black employees. Promotions to supervisory positions and to the ranks above Patrolman must be made alternately from each eligibility list in a one-to-one ratio until the proportion of African-Americans in supervisory positions and in the ranks above Patrolman substantially equal the proportion of blacks to whites in the working age population of the City of Jackson.
Additionally, pursuant to the Consent Decree in United States of America v. City of Jackson, vacancies in all positions with the Jackson Police Department shall be filled by members of the affected class in order of seniority. The Consent Decree in Corley v. Jackson Police Department was entered on behalf of a class which includes all current black employees of the Jackson Police Department. The City of Jackson and its various departments are bound to act in accordance with the provisions of the Consent Decree or Decrees applicable to the respective departments.
In order to assure compliance with the applicable Consent Decrees, the Jackson Police Department is required to file all reports, tests, validation studies, plans, standards and any other criteria for promotion with the United States Department of Justice (hereinafter Department of Justice) for purposes of review and approval.
Plaintiffs also contend that Chief Wilson's actions violated state law and the Civil Service Rules of the City of Jackson. Mississippi Code Annotated § 21-31-1, et seq., sets forth Civil Service requirements for transfer and promotion for municipalities throughout Mississippi, to include fire and police departments. Mississippi Code Annotated § 21-31-9 provides in pertinent part that
Furthermore, Mississippi Code Annotated § 21-31-13 provides in pertinent part that
Rule VII "Civil Service Rules for the City of Jackson Mississippi" provides that "no appointing authority shall appoint, engage, or employ any person in the Classified Service, except in accordance with the established rules of this Commission."
Section 9 of Rule VI requires the establishment of "eligible lists." Vacancies are to be filled by selecting the employee to be considered for the position from a list of eligibles having the highest standing on the appropriate eligible list. Section 7 of Rule VI provides that eligible lists of candidates who have been duly qualified in order of merit and fitness shall be established by the Civil Service Commission. Paragraph 1.3 of Section 8, Rule VI, notes that promotions shall be based on qualifications, examinations, records, character, conduct and seniority.
Section 1.2 of Rule V provides that "[i]n order to become an applicant, the interested person must meet the minimum qualifications prescribed for the announced/authorized position."
According to the plaintiffs, all these requirements were ignored by Chief Wilson with regard to promotions and transfers within the Jackson Police Department between 1992 and 1994.
Because the City of Jackson Police Department could not promote persons to the ranks of Sergeant, Lieutenant and Captain without Department of Justice approval as required by the aforesaid Consent Decree, Chief Wilson implemented the position of "Commander." General Order No. 100-5 of the Jackson, Mississippi, Police Department issued by the authority of Chief Wilson on July 1, 1992, provides in pertinent part for the creation of the position of "Commander" and specifies that this position would be filled by any employee of the rank of Sergeant and above. According to this General Order, the person selected would have command and control of a specific Division or Precinct. General Order No. 100-5 also states that the person selected for this position would be subordinate only to the Chief of Police, the Assistant Chief or the Deputy Chief; would have additional duties and responsibilities; and would receive additional compensation in the amount of $150.00 per month.
This position, particularly the manner in which Chief Wilson made appointments to this position, is a major dispute in the instant lawsuit. The plaintiffs contend that during a period time between 1992 and 1994, Chief Wilson appointed police officers with no tenure, experience or proper qualifications to the position of Commander without following proper procedures for announcing these positions without conducting competitive interviews; without permitting qualified police officers to apply for these positions; and without following the provisions of the applicable Consent Decrees. Plaintiffs also complain that desirable transfers within the Jackson Police Department were made in an arbitrary manner by Chief Wilson with no apparent regard for the Jackson Police Department's transfer policy. At least two of the plaintiffs, both Sergeants on the police force, filed Grievance Reports regarding the appointment of persons to the position of Commander to no avail. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
North Cent. Texas College v. Ledbetter, Case No. 4:04-CV-133.
...or implied contract, or a contract implied from policies and practices of a particular institution. Id.; see also Cox v. City of Jackson, 343 F.Supp.2d 546, 571 (S.D.Miss.2004). The operation of these principles is illustrated best by the two Supreme Court cases which established them. The ......
-
Duke v. Dallas County
... ... violation of constitutional rights whose “moving ... force” is the policy or custom. See Piotrowski v ... City of Houston, 237 F.3d 567, 578 (5th Cir.) (citing ... Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New ... York, 436 U.S. 658, 694 ... where the policy-maker departs from the formal rules.” ... Cox v. City of Jackson, 343 F.Supp.2d 546, 567 ... (S.D.Miss. 2004) (citing Gonzalez v. Ysleta Independent ... School District, 996 F.2d 745, 754 (5th Cir ... ...
-
Simmons v. City of Jackson
...Id. The final policymaker for the Jackson Police Department's arrest procedures is the Chief of Police. See Cox v. City of Jackson, 343 F. Supp. 2d 546, 565 (S.D. Miss. 2004).1 The plaintiff has no evidence or legal authority to the contrary. The Chief of Police did not order the arrest of ......