Kirkland v. New York State Dept. of Correctional Services, s. 828
| Decision Date | 08 June 1983 |
| Docket Number | 909,Nos. 828,D,s. 828 |
| Citation | 711 F.2d 1117 |
| Parties | 32 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 509, 32 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 33,666 Edward L. KIRKLAND, Joseph P. Bates, Sr., Arthur E. Suggs, each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. The NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES; Thomas A. Coughlin, III, individually and in his capacity as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Correctional Services; the New York State Civil Service Commission; Joseph Valenti, individually and in his capacity as President of the New York State Civil Service Commission and Civil Service Commissioner; Josephine Gambino and James McFarland, each individually and in his/her capacity as Civil Service Commissioner, Defendants-Appellees, Frederick E. Althiser, et al., Intervenors-Appellants-Appellees, ockets 82-7830, 82-7874. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
O. Peter Sherwood, New York City (Jack Greenberg, Penda D. Hair, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiffs-appellees.
Barbara B. Butler, Asst. Atty. Gen., State of N.Y., New York City , for defendants-appellees.
Richard R. Rowley, Albany, N.Y. (Rowley, Forrest & O'Donnell, P.C., Ronald G. Dunn, Mark T. Walsh, Jr., Albany, N.Y., of counsel), for Althiser, et al., intervenors-appellants-appellees.
Herbert B. Halberg, New York City (Beck, Halberg & Williamson, Roman Beck, New York City, of counsel), for McClay et al., intervenors-appellees-appellants.
Before FEINBERG, Chief Judge, and LUMBARD and KEARSE, Circuit Judges.
Edward Kirkland and other minority Correction Sergeants in the New York State Department of Correctional Services ("DOCS") brought this class action on January 15, 1982 alleging that Promotional Examination No. 36-808 ("Exam 36-808"), given on October 3, 1981 for the position of Correction Lieutenant by DOCS and the New York Civil Service Commission ("CSC"), and Exam 36-808's resulting eligibility list are racially discriminatory against blacks and hispanics in violation of, inter alia, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (1976 and Supp. IV 1980). 1 On August 20, 1982, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(e), the parties submitted proposals of settlement to Judge Griesa of the Southern District of New York. After due notice, Judge Griesa held hearings on September 29 and October 4 and 14, 1982 during which he heard objections from two groups of non-class members ("intervenors"), i.e., non-minority correctional officers, who, at the September 29, 1982 hearing, had been permitted to intervene on the condition that their intervention would be solely for the purpose of objecting to the proposed settlement. On November 9, 1982, Judge Griesa approved the settlement and filed an opinion on December 1, 1982. 552 F.Supp. 667. In their appeal, intervenors challenge Judge Griesa's grant of conditional intervention as well as his approval of the settlement. On November 16, 1982, on intervenors' motion, we stayed Judge Griesa's order of approval and expedited argument of the appeal. We affirm.
Exam 36-808, a written test consisting of sixty multiple choice items, was administered by CSC on October 3, 1981 to 739 candidates, of whom 169 (22.9%) were minority. Of the 625 candidates who passed the test, 148 (22.0%) were minority. Thus, minority candidates had an overall pass rate of 88% (148 out of 169 minority candidates passed), only slightly below the 92% pass rate of non-minorities (527 out of 570 non-minority candidates passed).
On December 23, 1981, CSC certified an eligibility list ranking the passing candidates according to their final scores, which were calculated by adding seniority and veterans' credits to the candidates' adjusted scores. 2 Although the overall minority representation on the eligibility list (22.0%) was approximately the same as the minority representation in the total candidates pool (22.9%), minority representation within the eligibility list's rank-ordering system was disproportionately low at the list's top and high at the list's bottom. 3 A racial/ethnic breakdown of the candidates' raw scores, which reflect only the number of correct answers given, shows that the awarding of seniority and veterans' credits to qualifying candidates did not play a significant role in causing the uneven distribution of minorities on the eligibility list. 4
Appointments according to rank-order on the eligibility list began in early January, 1982. Of 171 initial appointments, 17 (9.9%) were minority. By July 28, 1982, 222 candidates had been promoted to Correction Lieutenant, of whom only 20 (9.0%) were minority. As of September 29, 1982, 225 appointments had been made, of which 21 (9.3%) went to minority candidates.
On January 15, 1982, immediately after the first appointments from the eligibility list, plaintiffs brought this class action. They alleged that DOCS, CSC, and their high officers had engaged in unlawful discrimination against blacks and hispanics in the development and administration of Exam 36-808 and in the use of the resulting eligibility list to make permanent promotional appointments to the position of Correction Lieutenant. Plaintiffs contended that Exam 36-808 was discriminatory because (1) it resulted in a disproportionately low number of minority appointments and (2) it was not job-related. The complaint sought an injunction against the continued use by defendants of all racially discriminatory practices, damages in the form of back pay for alleged past discrimination, and other relief, including the development of non-discriminatory selection procedures for promotion and the implementation of steps to redress the discriminatory effects of Exam 36-808 and its resulting eligibility list.
In August 1982, following seven months of discovery proceedings and extensive settlement negotiations, the parties entered into a settlement agreement which contains two basic elements "to assure that minorities by reason of their race are not disadvantaged by the employment policies, procedures and practices within ... [DOCS], and that any disadvantage to minorities which may have resulted from the use of Examination No. 36-808 is remedied as provided herein so that equal opportunity will be provided for all." Settlement Agreement art. I(7). First, it provides measures to adjust the current eligibility list to eradicate all disproportionate racial impact. Second, it provides for the development and administration of new selection procedures for promotion to Correction Lieutenant and Correction Captain which will be employed after the current eligibility list for Exam 36-808 has been exhausted. 5
The agreement provides that all candidates who have received appointments from the eligibility list will retain their appointments and that appointments will continue until the list is fully exhausted, i.e., "until every eligible on the 36-808 List has been offered an appointment and has been afforded a reasonable opportunity to either accept or decline." Settlement Agreement art. VI(5)(c). The agreement seeks to eliminate the eligibility list's adverse impact on minorities by modifying its rank-ordering system. All candidates who passed Exam 36-808, including those candidates who have already been appointed, are to be placed into three zones based on their final test scores which, as discussed above, include seniority and veterans' credits. 6 Of the 225 appointments which had been made by September 29, 1982, most were offered to candidates who would place in the highest zone. 7
The agreement contains the following procedures to govern future promotions from the eligibility list. 8 All candidates falling within a single zone are to be deemed to be of equal fitness and will be ranked within their zone by random selection. Appointments will then be offered by rank order to those candidates in the highest unexhausted zone. However, these appointments will first be offered to minority candidates in this zone until minority appointments amount to 21% of all appointments made, a number approximately reflecting the percentage of minorities on the eligibility list. 9 Thereafter, appointments will be made in a ratio of 4 to 1, non-minority to minority, until the eligibility list is exhausted. In any event, no minority applicant in a lower zone will be eligible for appointment until appointments have been offered to all candidates, regardless of race, in the highest unexhausted zone. Finally, candidates will only be offered appointments to facilities or locations at which they have expressed a willingness to serve. If no minority candidate has designated the facility or location at which a vacancy occurs, the appointment will be offered to non-minority candidates notwithstanding the fact that the 21% ratio has not been achieved.
The agreement also requires the parties to work toward the development of new selection procedures for promotion to Correction Lieutenant and Correction Captain which do not have an adverse racial impact and which are job-related. These procedures are to be employed after the current eligibility list is exhausted. The agreement requires defendants to "consider the possibility of alternatives or supplements to written examinations, including use of oral examination or assessment center techniques," Settlement Agreement art. VI(7)(c), but it does not mandate adoption of any specific approach. In short, the agreement suggests various procedures that have been used...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
League of United Latin American Citizens, Council No. 4434 v. Clements
... ... Pedan, Bexar ... County, Texas State District Judges, Appellants ... No. 90-8014 ... Counsel, New York" City, for Houston Lawyers Assoc ... \xC2" ... DeJean, Asst. Atty. Gen., LA Dept. of Justice, Baton Rouge, LA, for amicus Roemer, ... them and compel the acceptance of their services. Wherever provision is made for the services of ... 826, 828 (1991). Professor Grofman specifically ... 1186, 89 L.Ed.2d 302 (1986); see also Kirkland v. New York State Dep't of Correctional Servs., ... ...
-
Wilder v. Bernstein
... ... individually and as Administrator of the New York City Human Resources Administration, et al., ... Law Dept. of the City of New York, Office of the Corp ... Dept. of Law of the State of N.Y., Office of the Atty. Gen., New York City, ... 1 children in need of child care services out of their home, and on behalf of several New ... Special Services Division, 787 F.2d 828, 834 (2d Cir.1986). Nonetheless, a district court ... action rendered moot by closing of correctional facility that was subject of lawsuit) ... at 3079. See Kirkland v. New York State Dep't of Correctional Servs., ... ...
-
Harris v. Pernsley
... ... Commissioner of the Department of Human Services of the City ... of Philadelphia, Royal L. Sims, ... City Defendants or the City), and several state officials ... The district ... Cf. Stotts v. Memphis Fire Dept., 679 F.2d 579, 582 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 ... See, e.g., Kirkland v. New York State Dept. of Correctional Services, ... ...
-
Stewart v. Rubin
... ... there are any questions, call NATA at (202) 828-1960. Your assistance is appreciated ... Page 1087 ... public policy.'" Kirkland v. New York State Dep't of Correctional Services, ... ...
-
Jennifer M. D'angelo, if You Can't Beat Them, Join Them: Inclusive Joinder and the Filtering of Article Iii Status Into the Bankruptcy Courts
...164 In re Adelphia, 285 B.R. at 850. 165 Id. at 853. 166 Id. at 851. 167 Id. at 851; see Kirkland v. N.Y. State Dep't of Corr. Servs., 711 F.2d 1117, 1126 (2d Cir. 1983) (finding unconditional intervention does not give intervening parties equal standing with the original parties). 168 Offi......