United States v. City of N.Y.
| Decision Date | 11 March 2015 |
| Docket Number | 07-CV-2067 (NGG) (RLM) |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, -and- THE VULCAN SOCIETY, INC., for itself and on behalf of its members, JAMEL NICHOLSON, and RUSEBELL WILSON, individually and on behalf of a subclass of all other victims similarly situated seeking classwide injunctive relief; ROGER GREGG, MARCUS HAYWOOD, and KEVIN WALKER, individually and on behalf of a subclass of all other non-hire victims similarly situated; and CANDIDO NUÑEZ and KEVIN SIMPKINS, individually and on behalf of a subclass of all other delayed-hire victims similarly situated, Plaintiff-Intervenors, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
This Memorandum and Order addresses the Amended Monetary Relief Consent Decree ("AMRCD" or "Decree") (Dkt. 1468). Plaintiff United States of America (the "United States"), Plaintiff-Intervenors' Nonhire and Delayed-Hire Victim Subclasses1 ("Plaintiff-Intervenors"),and Defendant City of New York (the "City") have jointly moved the court to finally approve and enter the Decree in order to resolve the claims of the United States and Plaintiff-Intervenors (collectively, "Plaintiffs") for backpay and the monetary value of fringe benefits, including prejudgment interest thereon, lost by black and Hispanic applicants for the entry-level firefighter position at the New York City Fire Department ("FDNY") due to employment practices held by this court to create a disparate impact in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq., as amended.2 (Joint Mot. for Final Entry of AMRCD (Dkt. 1467).) The court provisionally approved and entered an earlier version of the Decree—the Monetary Relief Consent Decree ("MRCD") (Dkt. 1435)—on June 30, 2014. (June 30, 2014, Order (Dkt. 1437).) The United States has also filed revised versions of two attachments to the AMRCD—a Second Amended Attachment E, "Notice of Individual Monetary Relief Award" (Dkt. 1525-1), and a Second Amended Attachment F, "Acceptance of Individual Monetary Relief Award & Release of Claims" (Dkt. 1525-2). In sum, the parties jointly ask that the court approve (1) Second Amended Attachments E and F; along with (2) the AMRCD; (3) Attachment A to the AMRCD, the "Amended Proposed Relief Awards List" ("APRAL") (Dkt. 1468-1), which sets forth proposed individual awards to each claimant; and (4) three otherattachments to the AMRCD—namely, Attachments B, C, and D thereto.3 (Joint Mot. to Amend Attachments E & F to AMRCD (Dkt. 1525).)
At a fairness hearing held October 1, 2014 (the "Fairness Hearing"), the court heard oral argument by the parties in support of final entry of the Decree, and by objecting claimants in opposition to the same and/or to their proposed individual awards. (Oct. 10, 2014, Min. Entry.) The court has also received claimants' written objections. The court has considered all of the objections and, while sustaining several individual objections, concludes that none warrant denial of final approval and entry of the Decree. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed below, the court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Joint Motion for Final Entry of Amended Monetary Relief Consent Decree, and GRANTS Plaintiffs' Joint Motion to Amend Attachments E & F to Amended Monetary Relief Consent Decree. Accordingly, the Amended Monetary Relief Consent Decree (Dkt. 1468); Attachments A through D thereto (Dkts. 1468-1 to -4), including the Amended Proposed Relief Awards List; and Second Amended Attachments E and F (Dkts. 1525-1 to -2) are hereby deemed FINALLY APPROVED AND ENTERED.
The factual and procedural background of this case is extensive. The events relevant to the issues currently before the court will be summarized here; a full recount can be found in the court's previous rulings.
In 2007, the United States brought suit against the City, alleging that certain aspects of the City's policies for selecting entry-level firefighters for the FDNY violated Title VII. (Compl. (Dkt. 1).) Specifically, the United States alleged that the City's pass-fail and rank-order use ofWritten Exams 7029 and 2043 had an unlawful disparate impact on black and Hispanic candidates for entry-level firefighter positions. (See id. ¶ 1.) The Vulcan Society, Inc. and several individuals intervened as plaintiffs, alleging similar disparate impact claims and also alleging claims of disparate treatment on behalf of a class of black entry-level firefighter candidates, bringing all claims under federal, state, and local laws. (See Sept. 5, 2007, Mem. & Order (Dkt. 47) (granting motion to intervene).)
Proceedings were bifurcated. In July 2009, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the United States's and Plaintiff-Intervenors' Title VII disparate impact claims, finding the City liable. The court also determined the practical effect of this discrimination, i.e., the total number of entry-level firefighters who would have been appointed or who would have been appointed earlier absent the discrimination, referred to as the "shortfall." (Id. at 16-23.) Specifically, the court concluded that 293 additional black and Hispanic applicants would have been appointed as entry-level firefighters absent the discriminatory examinations, and that 249 black and Hispanic entry-level firefighters who were appointed would have been appointed earlier—approximately 69 years earlier, in aggregate—absent the discrimination. (Id. at 20-22, 27.) Subsequently, in January 2010, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff-Intervenors' various disparate treatment claims, and Plaintiff-Intervenors' disparate impact claims brought pursuant to the New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL") and New York City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL"). On appeal, the Second Circuit vacated the court's summary judgment ruling only with respect to Plaintiff-Intervenors' disparate treatment claims, finding that a trial was needed to determinewhether the City had acted with discriminatory intent. See United States v. City of New York, 717 F.3d 72, 89-91 (2d Cir. 2013).
Proceeding to the remedial phase of the case, the court issued an Initial Remedial Order (Dkt. 390), setting forth a preliminary outline thereof. The Initial Remedial Order explained that Plaintiffs were entitled to two broad categories of relief: (1) prospective injunctive relief to ensure future compliance with Title VII; and (2) individual compensatory, "make whole" relief for the individual victims of the disparate impact of the City's hiring process. Over the City's objection, the court ruled that individual compensatory relief would include retroactive seniority for individual delayed-hire victims. (Id. at 22-31.) Compensatory relief would also include monetary relief and priority hiring relief. The Initial Remedial Order set forth the broad contours of eligibility for individual relief, including the existence of additional eligibility criteria for priority hiring relief as compared to monetary relief. (See id. at 15-22.) The court also held that the number of priority hires would be limited to 293 positions, because that was the shortfall number determined in the disparate impact liability opinion. (Id. at 25-27.)
In May 2012, the City sent notice and claim forms to all black and Hispanic individuals who had taken the two exams; approximately 5,000 individuals submitted claim forms seeking individual relief. (Mem. in Supp. of Joint Mot. for Provisional Entry of MRCD & Scheduling of Fairness Hr'g ("Mem. in Supp. of Provisional Entry") (Dkt. 1434) at 6.) In a series of subsequent opinions culminating in the Final Relief Order (Dkt. 1012), the court set the final parameters for determining which of these individuals were victims of the City's discriminatory practices and therefore eligible for individual relief. In August 2013, the court concluded the last of its eligibility determinations, and ultimately ruled that 1,470 claimants were eligible formonetary relief.4 (See Feb. 22, 2013, Mem. & Order (Dkt. 1059); May 2, 2013, Mem. & Order (Dkt. 1106); May 9, 2013, Mem. & Order (Dkt. 1112); June 3, 2013, Mem. & Order (Dkt. 1135); June 7, 2013, Mem. & Order (Dkt. 1144); Aug. 9, 2013, Mem. & Order (Dkt. 1182); Aug. 9, 2013, Order (Dkt. 1184); Aug. 19, 2013, Order (Dkt. 1190); Sept. 3, 2013, Order (Dkt. 1195); Sept. 11, 2013, Order (Dkt. 1201); Nov. 18, 2013, Order (Dkt. 1236); Dec. 11, 2013, Am. Mem. & Order (Dkt. 1251).)
Prospective Injunctive Relief: The court held a remedial-phase bench trial in August 2011, addressing the need for and scope of permanent injunctive relief. (See Findings of Fact as to Injunctive Relief (Dkt. 741); Oct. 5, 2011, Mem. & Order (Dkt. 743).) The court then ordered prospective injunctive relief in a Remedial Order and Partial Judgment, Permanent Injunction, & Order Appointing Court Monitor ("Remedial Order") (Dkt. 765). After the Second Circuit directed modification of certain provisions of the Remedial Order, see United States v. City of New York, 717 F.3d at 95-99, the court issued a Modified Remedial Order and Partial Judgment, Permanent Injunction, & Order Appointing Court Monitor ("Modified Remedial Order") (Dkt. 1143) on June 6, 2013, which incorporated the Second Circuit's modifications as well as proposed amendments from the appointed Court Monitor and the parties. The parties and the Court Monitor continue to work actively to ensure the City's compliance with the provisions of the Modified Remedial Order. (See, e.g., Court Monitor's Tenth Periodic Report (Dkt. 1533); Court Monitor's EEO Report (Dkt. 1463); Court Monitor's Recruitment Report (Dkt. 1464).)
Individual Compensatory Relief: As noted above, the court's Initial Remedial Order explained that individual victims of the City's disparate...
To continue reading
Request your trial