The city of Chicago has agreed to pay $3.1 million to 47 immigrants denied jobs as police officers. The immigrants claimed that a rule that required applicants to have lived in the United States for the past ten years was discriminatory and denied them a fair opportunity to seek employment with the department. The city also requires that all employees currently live within the city. The ten-year residency rule was changed in 2011 to five years, so the settlement only addresses allegations of past discrimination. Under the settlement, eight of the rejected applicants will also be offered jobs. U.S. v. City of Chicago, #1:16-cv-01969, U.S. Dist. Ct. (N.D. Ill. February 16, 2016).
     An applicant for a job with the Administrative Office (AO) of the U.S. Courts argued that the AO's refusal to consider her application because she did not live in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area violated her constitutional right to travel. The geographic limitation on the consideration of applicants did not violate her right to travel under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of U.S. Const. art. IV, § 2, cl. 1, as the Clause did not apply to actions taken by branches of the federal government; and did not implicate her right to travel protected by the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause, as it did not penalize the exercise of her right to travel interstate, but gave her an incentive to do so. Pollack v. Duff, #13-5263, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 11622 (D.C. Cir.).
     A unanimous decision of an intermediate Ohio appeals court struck down a Cincinnati city ordinance barring all city employees from living outside the state of Ohio. It found the city ordinance in conflict with a state law barring the imposition of residency requirements by political subdivisions with the exception of requiring certain employees to live no further away than adjacent counties to ensure adequate response times to emergencies or disasters. With that sole exception, employees of a governmental entity in Ohio have the right to live anywhere they want. Because the city ordinance was in conflict with the state statute, it was deemed void. Cincinnati v. State, #C-110680, 2012 Ohio 3162, 2012 Ohio App. Lexis 2810.
     A federal appeals court has upheld the invalidation of a requirement that applicants for jobs with the fire department be local residents, agreeing with a finding that it has a disparate impact on African-American applicants. Statistical analysis indicated that the department should employ approximately sixty-five African-American firefighters, but under the residency rule currently employed only two. The department services five municipalities with heavy Hispanic populations. The residency requirement was not supported by a business necessity justification in that it was not linked to the minimum qualifications for firefighter jobs. The NAACP v. N. Hudson Regional Fire & Rescue, #10-3965, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 24562.
     Federal court finds that a pre-employment residency requirement had an unlawful disparate impact on minority hiring; injunction issued. NAACP v. N. Hudson Reg. Fire & Rescue, #07-1683, 2010 U.S. Dist. Lexis 98671, 110 FEP Cases (BNA) 644 (D.N.J.).
     New York's highest court holds that a failure to establish residency was a violation of a valid residency requirement, which results in forfeiture of employment, and is not misconduct that would entitle an employee to a pre-removal hearing. Felix v. New York City, #153, 2004 N.Y. Lexis 3717 (2004). {N/R}
     New York's highest court invalidates a residency requirement for a police officer examination that was established in the official exam notice. A civil service authority must hold a hearing before adopting a residency requirement. Trager v. Kampe, #2 No. 1, 2003 N.Y. Lexis 182 (N.Y. 2003). {N/R}
     Durational residency requirement an unconstitutional abridgement of the right to travel; continuing residency ordinance upheld. Grace v. City of Detroit, 760 F.Supp. 646 (E.D.Mich. 1991).
     Federal appeals court strikes down durational residency law because it disparately impacted on minorities. Newark Branch, N.A.A.C.P. v. Town of Harrison, 940 F.2d 792 (3rd Cir. 1991). [1992 FP 141]
     Federal court strikes down Chicago personnel regulation requiring police and fire applicants to be residents at the time of application. Perez v. Personnel Bd. of Chicago, 690 F.Supp. 670 (N.D. Ill. 1988).
     Detroit suburbs drop residency requirements; special recruitment, back pay and retroactive seniority mandated. U.S. v. City of Dearborn, U.S. Dist. Ct. (E.D. Mich. 1/29/88); U.S. v. City of Madison Heights, U.S. Dist. Ct. (E.D. Mich. 6/10/87). DOJ Ref. Nos. CR88-027 and CR88-042.
     Chicago suburbs drop durational residency requirement; decree provides that firefighters must reside within two miles. U.S. v. Vil. of River Grove, Ill., U.S. Dist. Ct. (N.D. Ill. 1986); U.S. v. City of Berwyn, U.S. Dist. Ct. (N.D. Ill. 1986).
     Michigan court rejects durational residence requirement. Musto v. Redford Township, 357 N.W.2d 791 (Mich. App. 1984).
     Durational residency requirement struck down by New York court; applicant's age also determined. Kuczka v. Clark, 441 N.Y.S.2d 854 (Misc. 1981).
     Durational residency requirement struck down in California. Cooperrider v. San Francisco Civil Serv. Cmsn., 158 Cal.Rptr. 801 (Cal.App. 1979).
     Hawaii's one-year durational residency requirement thrown out. Nehring v. Ariyoshi, 443 F.Supp. 228 (D. Haw. 1977).
     Ohio municipalities may not impose a residency requirement retroactively. Fraternal Order of Police v. Hunter, 49 Ohio App.2d 185 (1975).