Mems v. City of Saint Paul
| Decision Date | 29 May 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. Civ. 97-1589/RHK/JMM.,Civ. 97-1589/RHK/JMM. |
| Parties | Robert MEMS, Nathanial Khaliq, James Logan, Phillip Webb, Thurman Smith, and Byron Brown, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF SAINT PAUL — DEPARTMENT OF FIRE AND SAFETY SERVICES, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
Jeffrey R. Anderson and Karen A. Kugler, Reinhardt and Anderson, Saint Paul, Minnesota, for plaintiffs.
Frank E. Villaume III, Assistant City Attorney, Saint Paul, Minnesota, for defendant.
The Plaintiffs in the instant case are six African-American firefighters who allege that they have suffered discrimination on the basis of their race while employed by the Defendant City of St. Paul ("St.Paul"). Specifically, the discrimination alleged by the Plaintiffs falls into two categories: (1) that the promotional examinations used by St. Paul had a disparate impact on African-American applicants, and (2) that the St. Paul Fire Department maintained a racially hostile work environment.1 This case was previously before this Court on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, which the Court denied by Memorandum Opinion and Order dated January 30, 1998. Currently before the Court is the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant the Defendant's Motion.
Four of the six Plaintiffs — Robert Mems ("Mems"), Nathanial Khaliq ("Khaliq"), Thurman Smith ("Smith"), and Byron Brown ("Brown") — were parties to a lawsuit against the Defendant in 1992, which resulted in a settlement agreement [hereinafter, the "1994 Settlement Agreement"] between the parties on June 17, 1994. (See Jan. 30, 1998 Mem.Op. & Order at 3.) As a part of the 1994 Settlement Agreement, Mems, Khaliq, Smith and Brown agreed to release all claims against St. Paul arising prior to June 17, 1994. (Id.) The Plaintiffs do not dispute the validity of this settlement and release, but state that those Plaintiffs who were involved in the previous case seek damages in the instant action arising only from the Defendant's conduct after June 17, 1994. (Id.) As part of the 1994 Settlement Agreement, Mems, Khaliq, Smith, and Brown agreed:
that they [would] in no way encourage, cooperate with, or provide information for, the prosecution of any additional claims related to alleged incidents of racial harassment involving the Saint Paul Fire Department which may have occurred prior to the date of this Settlement Agreement ("Incidents"). Plaintiffs [further agreed to] instruct their counsel not to use any information which is work-product and which is the property of the plaintiffs or subject to the attorney/client privilege owed to plaintiffs for the purpose of prosecuting claims related to any such alleged Incidents.
(Id.) (citing Villaume Aff.Ex. ¶ 17 (1994 Settlement Agreement).)
St. Paul offered promotional examinations for the position of fire captain in 1988, 1990, 1993, and 1995. (See Kugler Aff.Ex. LL (Friedland report).) Each of these examinations contained a written component, failure of which would prevent an applicant from being considered for promotion, regardless of that applicant's performance on the rest of the examination. (See id.) In all, ten African-American applicants took at least one of the four examinations. (See Villaume Supplemental Aff.Ex. T at 2 (Brull Supplemental Report).)
Of the ten African-American applicants who took at least one of the four examinations, four passed the written component. (See Villaume Supplemental Aff.Ex. T.) Of the 96 white applicants, 68 passed the written component. (See id.) Focusing on the 1995 written examination, 30 of the 64 (46.88%) applicants who took the test passed. (See id.) Only two of the seven (28.57%) African-American applicants passed the 1995 written examination, while 22 of the 44(50%) white applicants passed.3 (See Villaume Aff.Ex. E.) Of the six Plaintiffs in the instant case, only Mems and Brown took the 1995 examination. (See Pls.' Mem. in Opp'n to Def.'s Mot. for Summ.J. at 35 (" ").) Neither passed. (Id.) The Plaintiffs who did not take the 1995 examination allege that they did not do so because they felt that the tests were administered in a discriminatory manner. (See id. at 34-35.) Khaliq attempted to take the 1995 examination, but was not allowed to do so because he had not submitted his application on time, although he argues that white firefighters had been allowed to take such tests in the past after having submitted late applications. (See Kugler Aff.Ex. KK (Khaliq's Answers to Interrogs.).)
The Plaintiffs' expert witness, David L. Friedland ("Friedland"), examined the results of the four examinations and initially concluded that although the results of the written examination gave rise to "an inference that there is a real difference in performance between African Americans and Whites," none of the disparities in any particular examination reached a statistically significant level. (See Kugler Aff.Ex. LL at 8.)4 Friedland later conducted an analysis of the four examinations together in which he combined into one generic "minority" category applicants who were African-American, Hispanic, or Native American. (Kugler Aff.Ex. MM (Apr. 27, 1999 Friedland Aff.).) Using this "combined analysis" of various groups, Friedland was able to come up with a sample size of fifteen applicants and, from that, concluded that the written examinations as well as the overall promotion criteria had a racially disparate impact that negatively affected the chances of promotion for minorities. (See id.)
St. Paul's expert, Harold P. Brull ("Brull") analyzed the same examination results and concluded that the sample size was too small to support any inference of disparate impact. (Villaume Aff.Ex. K (Brull report).) Brull concluded, after analyzing the examination results and Friedland's analyses, that there was "clearly no pervasive pattern or practice of discrimination in regards to the promotional process to the rank of Fire Captain in the St. Paul Fire Department" and that analysis of the results of the four examinations revealed "no pattern of adverse impact by recognized statistical tests." (Villaume Supplemental Aff.Ex. T at 4.)
Five of the six Plaintiffs — Mems, Khaliq, Phillip Webb ("Webb"), Brown, and Smith — worked at Station 20, while the sixth Plaintiff — James Logan ("Logan") — worked at Station 10. Because the Plaintiffs were divided among two different workplaces, the Court will set forth the factual allegations separately.
1. Station 20 — Plaintiffs Mems. Khaliq, Webb, Brown, and Smith
The five Plaintiffs who worked at Station 20 — Mems, Khaliq, Webb, Brown, and Smith — have alleged a litany of events that, when viewed together, they argue, constitute a racially hostile working environment. Only two of the events about which the Station 20 Plaintiffs complain have overt racial connotations. The first such event was the presence of various racially-themed political cartoons in newspapers that were left laying around Station 20 in 1995 or 1996. (See Kugler Aff. Ex. R (copies of cartoons).) The cartoons, each of which appeared in the newspaper, "The Conservative Chronicle," deal with issues of affirmative action, voting rights, and funding of social programs, and endorse conservative viewpoints on each of these issues. (See id.; Khaliq Dep. at 83-84.) A representative example is a cartoon dealing with affirmative action that portrays a person labeled "Minorities" hanging off of a crutch that is labeled "Affirmative Action." (See Kugler Aff.Ex. R.) After Webb complained about the cartoons to his captain, no other racially-themed cartoons were found in Station 20. (See Webb Dep. at 142; Khaliq Dep. at 86; Brown Dep. at 90.)
The other event that may have an overtly racial significance is the alleged defacing of Khaliq's magazines, "Aljumuah," an Islamic magazine, and "American Legacy," which depicted an African-American child on its cover. (See Kugler Aff.Ex. Y (photographs of magazines).) Khaliq had left these two magazines laying out at Station 20 after his shift was over. (See id.; Kugler Supplemental Aff.Ex. 11 (complaint by Khaliq.).) When he returned to work the next day, he discovered that the cover of one of the magazines had been torn off and ripped into small pieces, the other magazine had grease on it, and both had been thrown in the garbage. (See Khaliq Dep. at 70-71.) After Khaliq filed a complaint alleging that he had suffered a "shocking act of racially motivated vandalism," (see Kugler Supplemental Aff.Ex. 11), Carter immediately began an investigation. (See Carter Dep. at 295.) Carter submitted the magazines to the St. Paul Police Department crime laboratory for fingerprint testing and interviewed all of the "A shift" personnel in an attempt to determine what had happened to the magazines and why. (See id. at 295, 300.) One of the "A shift" firefighters told Carter that he had wiped his hands on the cover of a magazine while he was talking on the telephone, but he was not sure if it was one of Khaliq's magazines. (See id. at 298-99.) Carter concluded that Khaliq's "Aljumuah" magazine had been unintentionally smeared with grease, and he was unable to come to any conclusion with regard to how or why the cover of Khaliq's "American Legacy" magazine had been ripped into pieces. (See id. at 299-300.) As a result, no disciplinary action was taken with regard to Khaliq's magazines. (See id. at 302.)
In addition to the above two events that may be characterized as overtly racial in character, the Station 20 Plaintiffs allege a series of events that, while not facially race-based, allegedly occurred because of their race. The specifics of their allegations follow.
(1) Smith alleges that, on August 30, 1994, he was the subject of a false report...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Frazier
...that discriminatory impact based on a class of 21 employees is statistically insufficient); Mems v. City of St. Paul— Dept. of Fire and Safety Services, 73 F.Supp.2d 1031, 1040 (D.Minn.1999) (holding that statistical evidence based on a sample size of 10 was insufficient to prove a claim of......
-
Statistical Evidence
...of their membership in a protected group. Mandala v. NTT Data, Inc. , 975 F.3d 202, 209 (2d Cir. 2020); Mems v. City of Saint Paul , 73 F. Supp.2d 1031, 1039 (D. Minn. 1999). Where a plaintiff does not put forth the statistical evidence necessary to show causation, a disparate impact claim ......
-
Race and national origin discrimination
...caused the adverse employment consequences to employees because of their membership in a protected group. Mems v. City of Saint Paul , 73 F. Supp.2d 1031, 1039 (D. Minn. 1999). Ninth: The Ninth Circuit held that in a reduction of force (“RIF”), “circumstantial evidence other than evidence c......