AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Employment & Labor Law for Public Safety Agencies

---

Back to list of subjects Back to Legal Publications Menu

Race Discrimination - In General

  See also: Race and Sex Discrimination

     In April 2012, the EEOC issued “Enforcement Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records in Employment Decisions Under Title VII.”  Citing data suggesting that blanket bans on hiring individuals with criminal records disproportionately impact minorities, the Guidance declared:  “With respect to criminal records, there is Title VII disparate impact liability where the evidence shows that a covered employer’s criminal record screening policy or practice disproportionately screens out a Title VII-protected group and the employer does not demonstrate that the policy or practice is job related for the positions in question and consistent with business necessity.” The Guidance further provided that “[a]n employer’s evidence of a racially balanced workforce will not be enough to disprove disparate impact.”  It specifies that the Guidance applies to federal, state, and local government, as well as to private employers. The state of Texas sued the EEOC and the U.S. Attorney General, challenging the EEOC’s guidance on employers’ use of criminal records in hiring. The trial court enjoined the defendants from enforcing the guidance against Texas until the EEOC complied with the notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). A federal appeals court ruled that the Guidance was a reviewable final agency action that the court had jurisdiction to review. The state of Texas had standing to challenge the legality of the Guidance. On the merits, the appeals court found that the Guidance was a substantive rule subject to the APA's notice-and-comment requirement and that EEOC overstepped its statutory authority in issuing the Guidance. Since the Guidance is a substantive rule, and the text of Title VII and precedent confirmed that EEOC lacked authority to promulgate substantive rules implementing Title VII, the court modified the injunction by striking the clause “until the EEOC has complied with the notice and comment requirements under the APA for promulgating an enforceable substantive rule.” The court also modified the injunction to clarify that EEOC and the Attorney General may not treat the Guidance as binding in any respect. Texas v. EEOC, #18-10638, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 23498, 2019 WL 3559629 (5th Cir.).

     In Lewis v. Union City, Georgia, #15-11362, 877 F.3d 1000 (11th Cir. 2017), previously reported here, a female African-American police detective who had a heart condition was placed on administrative leave after she and her doctor raised concerns about her being required to be subjected to a Taser shock during training exercises. Ultimately, she was terminated.  A federal appeals court reversed summary judgment for the defendants in a lawsuit claiming that the plaintiff was unlawfully discharged from the police department based on disability and/or racial or gender discrimination. A jury could find that the stated reason for terminating her—that she was absent without leave—was a pretext for one or more other motives. The trial court correctly concluded that the detective did not produce sufficient evidence to permit a conclusion that she was actually disabled, within the meaning of the American with Disabilities Act.  But she did produce evidence sufficient to raise a genuine issue of fact on whether she was “regarded as” disabled and that her employer regarded her heart condition as a physical impairment and took adverse action—placing her on leave—because of the impairment. A jury would be justified in concluding that receiving a Taser shock was not an essential function of the detective’s job, in which case it would follow that she was a “qualified individual.” The federal appeals court subsequently granted a rehearing en banc. Without discussing the “regarded as disabled” disability discrimination claim, it vacated the ruling as to the race and gender discrimination claims. The plaintiff was attempting to make a claim for intentional race and/or gender discrimination under the test established by the U.S. Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, #72-490, 411 U.S. 792 (1973).  Under that framework, the plaintiff bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination by proving, among other things, that she was treated differently from another “similarly situated” individual, a “comparator.”  The appeals court ruled with regard to the McDonnell Douglas standard, the proper test for evaluating comparator evidence is neither plain-old “same or similar” nor “nearly identical,” as the court’s past cases had inconsistently indicated. Instead, it held that a plaintiff attempting to make an intentional-discrimination claim under McDonnell Douglas must show that she and her proffered comparators were “similarly situated in all material respects.” Because the plaintiff in this case failed to do that, the full appeals court ordered further proceeding before the three-judge appeals court panel. Lewis v. City of Union City, #15-11362, 918 F.3d 1213 (11th Cir. 2019).

     A police sergeant sued a California city, claiming race discrimination and retaliation under state law. He rejected a $7,000 offer to compromise made by the city under a state statutory provision, Code of Civil Procedure section 9981 and proceeded to trial, where the city emerged victorious. The trial court awarded the city a total of $51,946.96 in costs incurred after it made its compromise served offer, even though the trial court had found that plaintiff’s claims were not frivolous. While an appeal of this result was pending, the California legislature amended the state law’s cost provision statute to specifically state that, despite the compromise settlement offer provision, a prevailing defendant cannot recover attorney fees and costs against a plaintiff asserting non-frivolous race discrimination claims. An intermediate state appeals court ruled that this amendment was an attempt to clarify existing law, rather than to change it. “A statute that merely clarifies, rather than changes, existing law,” the court stated, “ is properly applied to transactions predating its enactment. The amended statute therefore applied in this case, and the trial court’s award of costs to the city was reversed. Scott v. City of San Diego, #D074061, 2019 Cal. App. Lexis 705, 2019 WL 3491428.

     47 mostly African-American former longtime employees of the D.C. Child and Family Services Agency asserted claims that their firings were unlawfully discriminatory on the basis of age and race. At issue on appeal were the race-based claims. A federal appeals court generally upheld the trial court’s grant of summary judgment on the race-based claims, but reversed as to one issue. The court held that nothing in Title VII suggests that the practices an employer uses to effectuate the adverse employment action of layoffs, whether or not termed a reduction in force, are exempt from disparate-impact scrutiny. Therefore, the court reversed a “particular practice” holding and the accompanying denial of class certification, ordering further proceedings. The court upheld the trial court’s decision rejecting a challenge to a college degree requirement the employer added to one job category. Davis v. District of Columbia, #17-7071,  2019 U.S. App. Lexis 17124 (D.C. Cir.).

     A firefighter became a battalion chief, but his relationships with the chief and an assistant chief were strained. One evening, a firefighter with a Hispanic name forgot to stow his gear. Other firefighters displayed the items and posted a paper sign with a Mexican flag and the words “Border Patrol.” The firefighter did not file a complaint but another firefighter reported it. The battalion chief emailed the chief and assistant chief, who concurred that this “crosses the line of firehouse hazing” and asked him to investigate. Four individuals were eventually disciplined, but in the following months, the chief and assistant chief were critical of the battalion chief’s performance on several occasions and said that he might be demoted or reassigned. When he received an offer of employment from another department, they indicated that he would be demoted if he did not take that job. He said he was going to accept the offer, which was contingent upon his passing a physical and psychological exam, and was sent a letter accepting his “resignation.” He replied that  he would not resign until the contingencies were met, at which point he was told that he had been terminated and placed on paid leave until he would resign and start new employment.He sued, claiming that he had been retaliated against for opposing workplace discrimination. A federal appeals court upheld rejecting the claim. No reasonable trier of fact, the court stated, could find that reporting the hazing incident was the “but-for” cause of the plaintiff’s constructive discharge. Mollet v. City of Greenfield, #18-3685,  2019 U.S. App. Lexis 17722, 2019 WL 2455735 (7th Cir.).

      An employee of the Rhode Island Department of Labor claimed that the employer’s promotion practices had a disparate impact on minority employees in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2. She worked as a low level employee in the Department’s call center, and wished to be promoted to a management position. She asserted that the Department declined to promote her because she is black. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant employer. Upholding this result, a federal appeals court found that the plaintiff failed to show a disparate impact on minority employees in the absence of statistical and statistically significant evidence, She failed to show the composition of the pool of employees eligible for the promotion in question. She failed to present enough evidence for a reasonable jury to find that the employer’s stated reason for failing to promote her (disruptive workplace conduct, an altercation with a co-worker, returning back late from work breaks, refusing to collaborate with her coworkers, and posting signs in her cubicle to provoke management) was pretextual. Luceus v. State, #18-1377, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 13775 (1st Cir.).

      An employee sued the U.S. State Department, asserting that one aspect of the Department's promotion process had a disparate impact on Hispanic and Latino candidates who applied for the position he sought, and that the Secretary of Defense in 2008 denied him a promotion because of his Hispanic ethnicity. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Secretary. A federal appeals court affirmed in part and held that plaintiff’s disparate impact claim lacked merit because there were no genuine issues of material fact and the plaintiff failed to establish causation as a matter of law. However, the appeals court held that the trial judge misapplied the second step of the three-part McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, #72-490, 411 U.S. 792, 802-05 (1973) framework as to the disparate treatment claim by accepting the Department’s “vague reason” for the denial of the promotion. The test lays out the steps an employee must go through to make out a case of employment discrimination through circumstantial evidence. Most caselaw has focused on either the first or third step, but this case focused on the second. At the second prong of the McDonnell Douglas framework, an employer must proffer admissible evidence showing a legitimate, nondiscriminatory, clear, and reasonably specific explanation for its actions. In this case, none of the presented evidence shed light on how the selection boards applied the core precepts to defendant’s case. Therefore, the court reversed in part, vacated the denial of the plaintiff’s cross-motion in part, and ordered further proceedings. Figueroa v. Pompeo, #18-5064, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 14010 (D.C. Cir.).

     A Brazilian citizen who identifies himself as Latino, worked as a correctional sergeant for the Wisconsin Department of Corrections (DOC). His use of force on an inmate triggered an internal review process and led to his termination. The individual defendants, the warden, the human resources director, and a corrections unit supervisor played roles in that review process. The fired employee filed national origin and race discrimination claims against the DOC under Title VII, and against the individual defendants and the DOC under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. A federal appeals court overturned the award of summary judgment to the DOC on the Title VII claim and to the warden on the plaintiff’s equal protection claim, but otherwise affirmed summary judgment for the defendants. A reasonable jury could conclude that the plaintiff and another correctional officer (who was white and a U.S. citizen) engaged in comparably serious conduct but that the plaintiff was discharged while the other officer was suspended for just one day. .A reasonable jury could also conclude that the warden’s evolving explanations for the discrepancy supported an inference of pretext. Qualified immunity did not shield the warden from liability. The Eleventh Amendment, however, barred the equal protection claim against the DOC as a state agency. Silva v. State of Wisconsin, Department of Corrections, #18-2561, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 5210 (7th Cir.).

     An African-American employee of a county sheriff’s department who worked in a narcotics squad, along with a number of co-workers, was transferred to positions in the corrections department which the sheriff believed were less likely to result in arrests. The transfers occurred after an internal affairs investigation into the injury of an arrestee was conducted. He had reported that a white fellow deputy had struck the arrestee. The employee decided to quit rather than accept the transfer, and never applied to resume work. He sued for racial discrimination. A federal appeals court upheld summary judgment for the defendant sheriff. It found that the plaintiff failed to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether he was treated less favorably than other similarly situated employees outside the protected group and as to whether he was replaced with someone outside his protected class. On a retaliation claim, the court held that the plaintiff failed to produce evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact showing that his employer took an adverse employment action against him and that a causal connection existed between any protected activity and the adverse employment action. Thomas v. Tregre, #18-30577, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 947, 2019 WL 156852 (5th Cir.).

An employee of a state agency who worked as a rehabilitation counselor claimed that she was denied a promotion to district supervisor because of her African-American race in violation of Title VII. A federal appeals court upheld summary judgment for the employer. While it acknowledged that the plaintiff successfully established a prima facie case of employment discrimination, the employer asserted a justification that was not pretextual. There was no evidence in the record of any discrimination in the promotion decision. The court stated that any difference in qualifications between the two candidates for the job did not create a genuine issue of fact that plaintiff was clearly better qualified for the position. The decision to value the other candidate’s credentials over the plaintiff’s strengths was within the realm of reasonable business judgments. Roberson-King v. Louisiana Workforce Commission, #17-30899, 904 F.3d 377 (5th Cir. 2018).

An African-American man claimed that several mayors of the city, during the time when he was employed by the city in its public works department, engaged in race discrimination by paying two specific white employees of the city at a higher rate than he was paid, violating his right to equal protection of the law. A federal appeals court ruled that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity since the plaintiff failed to show a violation of his constitutional rights. There was no genuine dispute that the plaintiffs job was not “nearly identical” to that of the two white employees. He worked in the water department, while the two white employees worked in the streets department and had different duties. Under those circumstances, different pay rates did not violate his rights. Mitchell v. Mills, #17-40737, 895 F.3d 365 (5th Cir. 2018)

     A jury properly awarded over $1.3 million in compensatory damages and $1.3 million in punitive damages to a black female former employee of a public transit authority on her claim that her supervisors conspired to fire her because of her race. An appeals court found that the evidence was sufficient to justify both damage awards. Additionally, the defendant employer failed to show that it was prejudiced when the trial judge allowed a hostile work environment theory not explicitly pled in the complaint to go to the jury. Dimanche v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, #17-1169, 893 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2018).

    A Hispanic police lieutenant asked a mixed race officer why he did not shave his facial hair in compliance with Department policy. The officer’s doctor’s note was deemed inadequate. He had folliculitis, a painful skin condition that most often occurs in black men who shave. In further discussions, the lieutenant told the officer that “We don’t back n‐‐‐‐rs up.” When he asked the lieutenant to look at a second doctor’s report or to look at his scars caused by shaving, he responded, “it must be the n‐‐‐‐r in you.” A grievance resulted in a 20-day suspension of the lieutenant. The lieutenant was later found not to have engaged in any wrongdoing and was reassigned to Internal Affairs. The officer was passed over for promotion, received two unwarranted notices of infraction, then was bumped from his watch command.  On a retaliation claim, a jury found against the lieutenant and in favor of the employer, awarding the officer one dollar. The court declined to award Robinson attorneys’ fees. A federal appeals court vacated the defendants' judgment on the plaintiff’s claim for racial harassment. Spangler v. Perales, #16-2291, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 18067 (7th Cir.).

     After the City of Detroit filed for bankruptcy, a number of city firefighters were laid off as part of a reduction in force. Eleven minority firefighters who were laid off sued for race discrimination under Title VII. The trial court rejected their claims on summary judgment, finding that only one plaintiff had exhausted his administrative remedies to pursue a claim against the city, but that even on the merits, all of the plaintiffs failed to present direct evidence or to establish a prima facie case under the circumstantial evidence approach, which includes a heightened burden in a reduction in force. A federal appeals court agreed that 10 plaintiffs failed to exhaust administrative remedies, that there was no direct evidence of discriminatory motive, and that the plaintiffs’ statistical evidence was not probative of racial discrimination.  Peeples v. City of Detroit, #17-1222, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 14486, 2018 Fed. App. 102P (6th Cir.).

Three Latino police officers sued their employing city and the police chief for alleged discrimination on the basis of both race and religion. A jury awarded damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs were awarded by the court. A federal appeals court ruled that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the city’s motion for a new trial on one police officer’s retaliation claim where the evidence showed that he was removed from field training officer list and received negative reviews and his first written reprimand five months after filing a discrimination complaint and that workplace policies were inconsistently applied to him.  The officers’ discrimination and retaliation claims were properly brought under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1981 prohibiting race discrimination in the making and enforcement of contracts, since California law supported the idea that public employment was protected by contract rights. Interpreting California law to ban all § 1981 claims by public employees would hinder the federal interest in preventing discrimination. Flores v. City of Westminster, #14-56832, 873 F.3d 739 (9th Cir. 2017).

An African-American employee of the Department of Homeland Security sued his employer, alleging that a decision to give a promotion for which he was qualified to a Caucasian female employee just four weeks after he complained of race and age discrimination was unlawful discrimination. A federal appeals court overturned the trial court's dismissal of his retaliation claim for failure to exhaust remedies, holding that the plaintiff expressly raised the non-promotion retaliation claim in his equal employment opportunity complaint. The record at this early procedural juncture showed that he came forth with sufficient factual allegations and inferences to require, at least, that he be afforded discovery before summary judgment proceedings. Because the record contained a number of plausible factual disputes pertaining to the plaintiff's claims of retaliation that could not be resolved on a motion for summary judgment, the appeals court remanded those claims to the trial court for further proceedings. Coleman v. Duke, #15-5258, 867 F.3d 204 (D.C. Cir. 2017).

     Two Hispanic police officers claimed that they were kept out of the field by the city after they were involved in a fatal shooting of an unarmed autistic African-American man because of their race and the race of their victim. Overturning a jury verdict for the officers on a disparate impact claim, a federal appeals court found that this theory did not support their claim. In deciding whether to return the officers to the field, the city could assess the “political implications” of doing so without violating employment discrimination laws. It could assess the “risk management implications” of returning officers of any race to the streets of Los Angeles who had been involved in a fatal shooting of this type. Diego v. City of Los Angeles, #B268266, 2017 Cal. App. Lexis 797.

     An African-American employee of the Department of Homeland Security adequately exhausted his administrative remedies on claims of race discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment. The attachments to his administrative complaint adequately provided notice of these claims, particularly his enclosure of his performance reviews, one of which was a “zero,” provided enough information for the agency to investigate whether there was a racially discriminatory targeted effort to make him fail. The trial court’s dismissal of claims related to his performance review and a suspension were therefore reversed. Crawford v. Duke, #16-5063, 867 F.3d 103 (D.C. Cir.).

When the mayor of Chicago announced that he would not seek reelection, several police officers volunteered to provide campaign security for what proved to be the successful candidate in the mayoral election. Six of the volunteers were appointed to the new mayor’s transition detail. He told the police superintendent that his permanent detail should reflect the city's diversity and be “bare bones.” The detail was reduced from 21 officers and two commanders to 16 officers and one commander. Five officers working on the transition detail were selected. The final detail contained seven white, five Hispanic, and five black officers. The department reassigned a number of white and Hispanic members of the prior mayor’s protective services as patrol officers. In their prior assignments, they held the rank of patrol officer but received a sergeant’s pay. The reassigned officers claimed patronage hiring in violation of the First Amendment, 42 U.S.C. 1983 violation of the “Shakman” consent decrees against patronage employment, and race discrimination. All of the claims were either dismissed or rejected at trial. A federal appeals court upheld this result and ruled that there was sufficient evidence that city officials did not consider political factors when appointing the detail and that the trial court did not err in excluding evidence of historic race discrimination. Houlihan v. City of Chicago, #16-2949, 2017 U.S. App. Lexis 17427 (7th Cir.).

A sheriff hired the county’s first black police officer in 2013 and he was fired nine months later, filing a Title VII race discrimination lawsuit. Overturning summary judgment for the employer, a federal appeals court commented that viewing the extensive evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, it added up to a strong case of race discrimination. The sheriff “has offered an ever-growing list of rationales for firing” the officer “that fall apart in the face of his evidence.” The sheriff’s termination letter provided three reasons for the firing. Four days later, the Board of Commissioners sent the fired officer another letter that added two more reasons. After the lawsuit was filed, the defense added three more reasons. The fired officer produced evidence that he was treated differently than his similarly situated colleagues who are not black. He also presented substantial evidence that the many rationales offered for firing him were baseless and pretextual, the court summarized. The trial court erroneously disregarded most of the plaintiff’s evidence, improperly discounting his testimony as “self-serving.” McKinney v. Sheriff’s Office of Whitey County, #16-4131, 2017 U.S. App. Lexis 14546 (7th Cir.).

     An African American female employee of an Arkansas state agency claimed disparate treatment on account of race, and retaliation in terminating her in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2 and 2000e-3(a) six weeks after she filed an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge of racial discrimination. On the disparate treatment claim, she argued that she was improperly “disciplined [given a written warning] for something that a Caucasian female employee [who she supervised] did not accomplish.” The appeals court found that this did not allege that the Caucasian employee was not disciplined or received less discipline, thus failing to show disparate racial treatment, so this claim failed. The appeals court concluded, however, that the dismissal of the retaliation claim for having complained of alleged racial discrimination was erroneous where the plaintiff alleged “but-for” causation of her termination.  While the factual allegations may also have been consistent with termination for poor performance, they were not an “obvious alternative explanation” that made her retaliation claim “implausible.” Wilson v. Arkansas DHS, #16-1174, 2017 U.S. App. Lexis 3683 (8th Cir.).

A police department’s use of a hair drug test with a disparate impact on black officer’s was proper, as the test was accurate in the vast majority of cases, even if not 100 percent reliable. Use of the test was consistent with the important business need for a drug-abstaining police. However, a disputed material dispute of fact barred summary judgment for the defendant city. The officers presented sufficient evidence of an alternative test using the hair drug test in addition to a urinalysis regimen for those who tested positive under the hair drug test, but factual issues remained concerning whether the department, by continuing to administer the challenged hair test, necessarily refused to adopt the alternative made available to it. Jones v. City of Boston, #15-2015, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 23354 (1st Cir.)..
Officers heard a loud bang from a vehicle with two African-American men speeding by and initiated a chase, thinking it was a gunshot. A 25 minute pursuit ensued, involving 62 police vehicles at speeds of up to 100 miles per hour. When the chase ended in a school parking lot, an officer exited his car and fired his gun when he thought he saw a car passenger reach for a gun. The car then accelerated towards him, and 13 officers fired 139 shots, killing the car occupants. Media accounts framed the incident as one in which one Hispanic officer and 12 white officers killed unarmed African-Americans. The officers were placed on restricted duty, which their lawsuit termed "demeaning." After a report on the incident was filed, but before a prosecutor completed his review of it, they were returned to "transitional" duties. No criminal charges were filed, and they then resumed full duty. Their lawsuit under Title VII claimed that they were kept on restricted duty for a longer time than African-American officers also involved in the use of deadly force. Snmmary judgment for the city was upheld, finding no racial discrimination. "While we should heed history’s lesson about protecting civil liberties in times of crisis, history alone is not evidence of civil rights violations." O'Donnell v. City of Cleveland, #15-4398, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 17379, 2016 Fed App. 240P, 100 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P45641, 129 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 957 (6th Cir.).
     A federal trial court entered a consent decree in 1982 requiring a Florida city to hire in the fire department “an equal number of blacks and whites until the ratio of black fire fighters to white fire fighters reflects the ratio of black citizens to white citizens in the City of Jacksonville.” The city stopped complying with that requirement in 1992, and the current lawsuit was filed 15-years later in 2007 asking that the city be required to show cause why the court should not hold it in contempt. A federal appeals court upheld the denial of the motion on the basis of laches as well as the dissolving of the consent decree. The 15 year delay by the plaintiffs in filing the lawsuit prejudiced the city's ability to defend itself. Further, as a new lawsuit had "taken up" the issue of fighting current day alleged racial discrimination in the fire department, and the law on the subject had changed, the trial court's actions had not been an abuse of discretion. Coffey v. Braddy, #15-11112, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 15413, 26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 656, 100 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P45620 (11th Cir.).
 The state of Texas filed a lawsuit seeking a judicial declaration that an Enforcement Guidance document from the EEOC concerning the hiring of persons with criminal backgrounds violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 701–06. The EEOC enforcement guidance prohibits a categorical ban on hiring convicted felons if the ban had a disparate impact on racial minorities. An appeals court ruled that the Guidance is an agency determination in its final form and is applicable to all employers nation-wide, rather than an intermediate step in a specific enforcement action that may or may not lead to concrete injury. The state had standing to assert its claim. The trial court therefore erred in dismissing the lawsuit, which was ordered reinstated. State of Texas v. EEOC, #14-10949, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 11735 (5th Cir.).
     An African-American employee of the U.S. Department of Labor claimed that the employer engaged in race discrimination when it fired him from his temporary job as a Veterans Employment Specialist. Upholding summary judgment for the employer, a federal appeals court found evidence to support the department's nondiscriminatory reasons for the termination: that it terminated him because his performance was deficient and his demeanor was argumentative in response to supervisor feedback. No reasonable jury could find that these were not the real reasons, and there was no evidence to support a conclusion that race played a role in the decision. Johnson v. Perez, #15-5034, 823 F.3d 701, 100 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P45559, 129 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 237 (D.C. Cir.).
    Various Massachusetts municipal and state employers, in selecting police officers for promotion to sergeant in 2005 and 2008 adapted a test previously developed by a state agency that was an attempt to eliminate race and other improper considerations from employment decisions. Black and Hispanic applicants who were not promoted claimed that the test resulted in an unjustified "disparate impact" in violation of Title VII. Upholding a trial court judgment for the defendants, a federal appeals court ruled that the test was a valid selection tool and that the plaintiffs failed to show that there was an alternative valid selection tool that could have been utilized which would have resulted in a higher percentage of Black and Hispanic officers being promoted. The use of rank ordering furthered the defendants' interest in eliminating patronage and intentional racism, which was a reasonable enough business need, given that there was no showing that rank order selection itself caused any disparate impact. Lopez v. City of Lawrence, Massachusetts, #14-1952, 823 F.3d 102, 100 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P45561, 129 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 182 (1st Cir.).
      A white male terminated county employee claimed that a Hispanic voting block on the County Commissioners Court eliminated his job because of his race, and in retaliation for age-related protected activities while also violating his right to due process. A federal appeals court ruled that he failed to prove his race discrimination claim. He had earlier complained that the county’s health-insurance policy violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) because it provided dependent health benefit coverage for dependent children of county employees. According to him, older workers were less likely to have children, so the older workers received "fewer County dollars per capita." This complaint was rejected by the county. The appeals court ruled that the 21 months between his complaint about the health insurance and his termination was too substantial a gap to support an inference of causation. Heggemeier v. Caldwell Cnty., TX, #15-50485, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 11531, 100 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P45586, 129 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 389 (5th Cir.).
    A white woman employed by the federal EPA claimed that she suffered reverse race discrimination when she was suspended without pay for seven days. Summary judgment dismissing her discriminatory suspension claim was erroneous because, under a "cat's-paw" theory, a supervisor's recommendation was intended to cause the suspension, and a jury could find that an insubordination charge was motivated by discriminatory animus given the supervisor's bias against white employee's and the employer's "weak" explanation for the action taken. Morris v. McCarthy, #14-5074, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 10714, 129 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 395 (D.C. Cir.).
     An African-American man with diabetes employed by a city as an electrician claimed that he was subject to race discrimination and retaliation against him for pursuing discrimination claims. Upholding summary judgment for the employer, a federal appeals court found that the exhaustion of the plaintiff's medical leave was not an adverse employment action or amount to constructive discharge. Rating his performance as unsuccessful was not based on race, as he failed to show that two white co-workers were similarly situated. He therefore failed to make a prima facie case of race discrimination. Jones v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, #15-2283, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 10419, 129 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 313 (8th Cir.).
     A correctional officer claimed that he was discriminated against as an African-American when he was terminated for allegedly making false statements and improperly allowing an inmate into a courtroom. Upholding summary judgment for the defendant warden, deputy warden, and major, a federal appeals court found that the stated reasons for the termination were legitimate and non-discriminatory. The plaintiff failed to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether they were a pretext for race discrimination. There was evidence that a similarly situated white employee was subject to the same treatment. Henry v. Hobbs, #15-1472, (8th Cir.).
     A courthouse employee who assisted pro se litigators claimed that before she left to take a better job she was discriminated against because of her black race and her disability of chronic fatigue syndrome. Upholding summary judgment for the defendants, the court noted that the county was her employer and that all alleged discriminatory acts had been committed by state employees, and could not impose liability on her employer. Further, the two specific requests she had made on account of disability--seeking time off--had both been granted. Wells v. Winnebago County, #15-1805, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 7647, 129 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) (7th Cir.).
     An ex-police chief claimed that he was fired in retaliation for his desire to promote an African American member of the department. A federal appeals court found that he had failed to demonstrate that such retaliation was the basis for his termination or that the reasons the mayor gave for firing him were pretexts. The mayor cited problems with the chief making sure that all officers satisfied firearms certification requirements, and the exceeding of the allocated budget for purchasing dashboard cameras, legitimate non-discriminatory reasons. Evidence that the mayor and his friends had used derogatory language in referring to African American people was insufficient to serve as racially discriminatory animus. He did not claim that the statements in question were in any way made in connection with his employment. Hutton v. Maynard, #15-1300, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 1774 (8th Cir.).
     A woman filed race discrimination claims against a city on behalf of her late father's estate. She claimed that he faced race discrimination on the job by being disciplined as a black man working as a mechanic for the city for infractions that white employees were not disciplined for and terminated on pretextual grounds when he complained. A federal appeals court ruled that the plaintiff failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, but had managed to do so under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1981 protecting against racial discrimination in the making and enforcing of contracts. Additionally, the trial court erroneously imposed an exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement on the Sec. 1981 when no such requirement existed. Buntin v. City of Boston, #15-1667, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 22771 (1st Cir.).
     A white employee of the county sheriff's office claimed that he was fired in retaliation for testifying in favor of race discrimination complaints by African-American officers. The employer argued that he was actually fired for taking money from a detainee's wallet. A federal appeals court upheld summary judgment for the employer. While alleged evidence of harassment after the testimony "says something" about the context in which the investigation of the alleged theft started, it did not, without further evidence, support the conclusion that the firing was retaliatory, and no reasonable jury could find that the investigation constituted a pretext to fire the plaintiff in retaliation for his testimony. Harden v. Marion Cnty. Sheriff's Dept. #14-1713, 799 F.3d 857 (7th Cir. 2015).
     Former employees of a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) service center in Puerto Rico failed to prove that the employer engaged in national origin discrimination or unlawful retaliation by implementing a rotational staffing plan at the facility and eventually closing it. These changes were job-related and consistent with business necessity and were not adopted to retaliate for any protected activity engaged in by the employees, since over 14 months elapsed between employee complaints about pay and the implementation of the rotational staffing system.. The plaintiffs also failed to show that FEMA had alternatives available that would have both served its legitimate needs and would have had less disparate impact. The facility needed extensive and expensive repairs and the remainder of the system could absorb this facility's workload. Abril-Rivera v. Johnson Docket: 14-1316 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 19908 (1st Cir.).
     Employees of a city sanitation department attempted to assert a class action race discrimination lawsuit under the Equal Protection Clause and 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1981, prohibiting racial discrimination in the making and enforcement of contracts. Upholding the rejection of these claims, a federal appeals court held that, under Equal Protection and Sec. 1981, plaintiffs attempting to show intentional racial discrimination based on statistics alone must not only demonstrate that the statistical disparity is significant in a mathematical sense, but also be of such a level that it makes other plausible non-discriminatory explanations very unlikely. The plaintiffs in this case failed to meet that burden. Further, the fact that each of the plaintiffs had been pomoted at some point undercut their claim for racial discrimination in the promotion of sanitation workers. Burgis v. New York City Dep’t of Sanitation, #14-1640, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 13353 (2nd Cir.).
     A terminated probationary Border Patrol agent claimed that he had been unlawfully fired because of his color and race. A federal appeals court upheld summary judgment for the employer. Even assuming that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case of discrimination, the employer had put forth a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for his termination, his lack of candor about the facts in an incident involving the possible hazing of new recruits by subjecting them to intensive workouts at a checkpoint that resulted in injuries. There was no evidence that this was a pretext, and, as a probationary agent, he was not similarly situated with permanent agents allegedly involved in the same incident, undercutting his claim of disparate treatment. Thomas v. Johnson, #14-41085, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 9185 (5th Cir.).
     A defeated candidate for sheriff who was a county police sergeant and African-American, sought after the election to be appointed either assistant chief or warden of the county jail, but a former chief was appointed to the assistant chief job and the current warden was retained. The plaintiff was instead offered, and accepted, a job in the Property Room sorting approximately 1,000 guns that had accumulated there. The job involved no change in rank or pay, but he expressed dissatisfaction months later and was offered a job in a Family Violence Unit, which he declined. The plaintiff claimed that he had been subected to racial discrimination, that his assignment to the Property Room was degrading, and that he was not asked about his possible interest in other positions that would have constituted promotions. A federal appeals court upheld summary judgment for the defendants. There was no evidence presented of racial hostility towards the plaintiff, and his qualifications were not as impressive as those of the individuals appointed to the positions he wanted. Miller v. St. Joseph County, #14-2989, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 9603 (7th Cir.).
     A police lieutenant was commander of a Violent Offenders Task Force involving the FBI, ATF, and U.S. Attorney's Office. During a task force investigation of a gang, he learned that gang members had plans to kill police officers. He told a local police chief that the U.S. Attorney's Office would brief him about the investigation. ATF officials believed that this disclosure was improper because of the existing wiretap and prohibited the lieutenant from entering ATF office space. Subsequently, in an unrelated investigation, a suspected gang leader identified six city police officers as corrupt. Because he doubted the veracity of these accusations, the lieutenant confronted the informant. The FBI told the police chief that the lieutenant was damaging the investigation, and he was first removed from that investigation and later from the task force. The lieutenant then filed a misconduct complaint, which was later determined to be unfounded, against a sergeant involved in his reassignment, and then allegedly made an anonymous phone call to the police chief's wife telling her that the FBI was "corrupt." He was disciplined for false allegations, placed on administrative leave, and then demoted. The plaintiff failed to show that his demotion or any of the steps that led to it were motivated by racial animus and a substantive due process claim was rejected as none of what he experienced was severe enough to "shock the conscience." Keefe v. City of Minneapolis, #13-3069, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 7714, 127 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 16 (8th Cir.).     A 51-year-old African American man served in a city fire department since 1986 and was one of two district chiefs of Fire Prevention. At one point, his duties were altered. While he did not receive reduced pay or a reduction in rank, he perceived the realignment as discrimination, which he believed was based on his race, color, or age, in addition to being retaliation for having given a statement supporting an EEOC claim against the assistant chief who altered his duties. A federal appeals court upheld a determination that his lawsuit over the 2011 alteration of his duties was not timely filed. However, even if it had been, he had failed to establish a prima facie case of either discrimination or retaliation either for the 2011 duty alteration or for his subsequent non-selection as District Chief of Inspections in 2012. The roles of the position he held and the job he sought were considered equivalent, and they were not different in working conditions, benefits, or compensation. Jenkins v. City of San Antonio Fire Dept., 14-50483, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 6510 (5th Cir.).
     The head prosecutor for a judicial district hired an African-American man as a deputy prosecutor but allegedly later fired him for racially discriminatory reasons. He claimed that the plaintiff failed to follow instructions about the allocation of county funds, that the senior deputy prosecutor and other court personnel had difficulty contacting him during working hours, that he incurred unapproved extraordinary expenses, and that he deviated from approved policies on felony bond reduction orders. Additionally, a judge allegedly contacted the head prosecutor about why the plaintiff failed to appear in court. The plaintiff, however, contended that he was treated harsher than a white prosecutor who was sanctioned for an ethics violation and was convicted of DUI, and that the reason for his termination was never explained to him. A federal appeals court upheld the denial of qualified immunity to the head prosecutor on a racial discrimination claim, finding that there was a disputed issue of material fact as to whether the reasons given for the plaintiff's firing were pretextual. The issue of pretext was one of fact, on which the appeals court lacked jurisdiction to review the sufficiency of the evidence. Austin v. Long, #14-2044, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 2644 (8th Cir.).
     A white male employee of a state highway and transportation department claimed that his firing constituted race and sex discrimination. Rejecting these claims, the federal appeals court found sufficient evidence that the employer fired him for violations of its sexual harassment policy. The plaintiff failed to show that this was a pretext or that the defendants believed or should have known that the sexual harassment allegations were false. Moody v. Vozel, #13-3772, 771 F.3d 1093 (8th Cir. 2014).
     For almost 40 years, the police promotional processes of the City of Memphis, Tennessee have been the subject of numerous lawsuits claiming racial discrimination or gender discrimination, including claims by African-American, other minority, and white officers, as well as the U.S. Department of Justice When the city discovered that answers to a promotional exam had been leaked, it adjusted the process and consented to the invalidity of the year 2000 process. The revised 2002 process was invalidated for violating Title VII's disparate impact prohibition. Back pay and interest were awarded to the plaintiff along with over $1 million in attorneys' fees and expenses. A federal appeals court upheld a governmental immunity dismissal of state law negligence claims concerning the year 2000 process, and reverse the Title VII judgment as to the 2002 process, along with the fees award. The plaintiff failed to show a genuine issue of fact as to the availability of an equally valid but less discriminatory testing alternative that the city could have utilized. Johnson v. City of Memphis, #13-5454, 770 F.3d 464 (6th Cir. 2014).
     An African-American woman employed by a federal agency claimed that the failure to promote her to an available position constituted racial discrimination. Her principal argument was an attempt to show that the person actually promoted was unqualified for the job. The appeals court upheld summary judgment for the defendants since the decision maker had believed that the employee promoted was qualified and had also been unaware that the plaintiff had applied for the position. Accordingly, regardless of who was or wasn't qualified, or better qualified, for the position, the decision maker could not have intended to racially discriminate against someone she did not even know wanted the promotion. Mulrain v. Castro, #12-5345, 760 F.3d 77, 98 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P45125, 123 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 159 (D.C. Cir. 2014).
     The plaintiff, who was an African-American police detective, was suspended, along with two white police detectives, for allegedly falsifying time sheets. The plaintiff claimed that he was subjected to racial discrimination after all three detectives were reinstated. The appeals court found that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, he stated a viable claim, since he alleged that, after he was reinstated, he suffered the equivalent of a demotion, while the white detectives did not. His employer allegedly rewrote and restricted his job description so much that he no longer functioned as a detective, but only as an assistant to the other detectives. Thompson v. City of Waco, TX, #13-50718, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 17089, 124 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 730 (5th Cir.).
     While the plaintiff, a black male detective, properly had his unlawful retaliation claims rejected, summary judgment should not have been granted on his race discrimination claim based on his failure to be transferred to the Connecticut Department of Public Safety's Major Crimes Van. Detectives in that unit dealt with homicides, and in the relevant five year period, all detectives assigned to that unit were white. Abrams v. Dept. of Public Safety, #13-111, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 13582 (2nd. Cir.).
     A forest preserve employee was fired after he was recorded by a security camera having sex with a co-worker in the office of an Aquatic Center where he worked. Almost two and a half years later, he sued under both 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 and 1981, claiming that he was fired rather than being given due process through progressive discipline, fired because of his race in violation of equal protection, and racially discriminated against in making and enforcing contracts. He conceded during proceedings that his Sec. 1983 claims were time barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The trial court dismissed the Sec. 1981 racial discrimination in making and enforcing contracts claim, which had a four year rather than two year statute of limitations, finding that Sec. 1983 provided the exclusive remedy for violations of Sec. 1981 carried out by state actors. A federal appeals court upheld this result. Campbell v. Forest Pres. Dist. of Cook Cnty., #13-3147, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 9169 (7th Cir.).
     An employee of the Department of Homeland Security claimed that he was passed over for a position as a deportation officer because of his Muslim religion, African-American race, and/or his Arabic national origin. A federal appeals court vacated summary judgment for the employer, finding that the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence that he had been subjected to discrimination to present a question of fact for a jury. The evidence indicated that his language skills, long job tenure, and exemplary record made him more qualified than other applicants selected for the position. Further, there was evidence of past hiring and promotions which excluded minorities, including the selection of three white males for the positions, from which discriminatory animus in the selection process could be inferred. Ahmed v. Napolitano, #13-1054, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 9454 (1sr Cir.).
     Ten African-Americans presented evidence sufficient from which to conclude that a Boston Police Department drug testing program, using hair samples, resulted in a disparate impact on the basis of race. The plaintiffs include a former cadet and former officers who were fired after testing positive for cocaine, a current officer who tested positive and underwent rehabilitation as an alternative to termination, and a former applicant whose contingent job offer was revoked after a positive test. Further proceedings will examine whether the test used is reliable or whether it results in too many false positives among African-American test subjects. Also to be examined is whether the drug testing program is job-related and consistent with business necessity. A summary judgment for the defendants on a Title VII race discrimination claim was vacated, and the denial of the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the prima facie case of disparate impact was reversed. Jones v. City of Boston, #12-2280, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 8560 (1st Cir.).
     An African-American male who worked as a public safety officer for a city for 23 years claimed that he was subjected to heightened scrutiny, selectively enforced policies, and harassment and discrimination by various individuals which the employer was complicit in, all on the basis of either his race or his complaints about discrimination. He pointed to a performance evaluation downgrade, denials of a request to attend outside training, and tampering with an "Obama screensaver" on his computer. After he filed two EEOC charges, he was involved in a conflict with other officers at an event at which President Obama was present. After information about the incident appeared in the press, he resigned, but claimed that he was constructively discharged. A federal appeals court found that he failed to show that he had been constructively discharged, defeating his race discrimination claim. It also ruled, however, as to his Title VII retaliation claim, that the requirement that he show a "materially adverse action" for retaliation was substantially different than the "adverse employment action" element in a Title VII race discrimination claim, so the fact that he could not show that he was constructively discharged did not dispose of his retaliation claim, given the presence of evidence of other adverse employment actions. For retaliation, he only needed to show that an action might have dissuaded a reasonable employee from asserting or supporting a discrimination charge. The appeals court rejected a First Amendment retaliation claim, since there was no evidence that he had complained about a purported illegal activity. Laster v. City of Kalamazoo, #13-1640,2014 U.S. App. Lexis 4700, 2014 Fed App. 48P (6th Cir.).
     A longtime Hispanic employee of a county road commission claimed that he had been subjected to a pervasive atmosphere of racial insensitivity and derogatory comments. He applied for a specific promotion and did not receive it. He was later involuntarily transferred to the position he had previously applied for but without the raise he had requested for the job because of its hazardous conditions. He was given low evaluations after being placed in the job and developed health problems because of job conditions. He took an eight-month family and medical leave act leave after suffering a mental breakdown, and when his psychiatrist indicated that he could return to work, he was terminated. A federal appeals court overturned the trial court determination that he had not suffered an adverse employment action. It found that there was sufficient proof of conditions that could support a claim of discrimination. It also specifically held that the mere fact that he had previously applied for the job that he was later involuntarily transferred to did not bar him from trying to establish that the transfer was adverse. Deleon v. Kalamazoo Cnty. Road Comm'n, #12-2377, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 681, 2014 Fed App. 12P (6th Cir.).
     A county employee claimed that he was subjected to discrimination in employment on the basis of a desire to interfere with his intimate relationship with a black woman who he, a white man, was engaged to. His relationship was entitled to protection as part of his constitutional right of association, and the employer had no legitimate interest in interfering. Because that constitutional right was not clearly established, however, the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. An award of $304,775 in back pay against the employer was upheld based on unlawful termination, and the violation of constitutional rights. Punitive damage awards against the individual defendants were overturned. The claim was not based on racial discrimination but rather interference with a protected intimate relationship. Matusick v. Erie County Water Authority, #11-1234, 739 F.3d 51 (2nd Cir. 2014).
     The plaintiff was the only African-American officer among approximately 75 officers, and has been employed for 20 years. In early 2011, he was promoted to sergeant and also placed on the midnight shift after having earlier filed a racial discrimination claim. He filed a second complaint claiming that he was disciplined in retaliation for filing the first complaint. He was subsequently denied a request that he be transferred off the midnight shift. His complaint about his initial placement on the midnight shift was time barred as he filed it with the EEOC over 300 days after it happened. He could proceed, however, with his claims about being denied a transfer from the midnight shift constituting racial discrimination and his treatment while on that shift. He claimed that being assigned to the midnight shift for an indefinite time period diminished his job responsibilities, stripped him of his authority as a sergeant, and rendered him "virtually powerless." The court found no basis, however, for the retaliation claim. Lavalais v. Vill. of Melrose Park, #13-1200, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 21682 (7th Cir.).
    An African-American firefighter had worked for the department since 1977 and had become a District Chief, a member of the department's at will personnel management team in 2000. When a new Fire Commissioner, also an African-American, was selected, he chose his own management team, and the plaintiff was demoted to a floating assignment. The federal appeals court upheld the rejection of his racial discrimination claim. While the plaintiff claimed that his demotion was a pretext for racial discrimination, the new Fire Commissioner had sufficient knowledge of and experience with the plaintiff to support his argument that his level of enthusiasm and demeanor were incompatible with his desired style of management. Bates v. City of Chicago, #12-1500, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 16563 (7th Cir.).
     A city held promotional exams for fire department positions of Captain and Lieutenant. Candidates were promoted in rank order based on a score that combined exam scores and additional points for seniority. After a hearing, a federal trial court concluded that the exam had adversely impacted 12 white Captain candidates and three Lieutenant candidates on the basis of race, and adversely impacted 11 Lieutenant candidates on the basis of their age. The trial court ordered the promotion of 18 candidates, and awarded each impacted Lieutenant candidate $9,000 in compensatory damages and $72,000 in front pay and each impacted Captain candidate $10,000 in compensatory damages and $80,000 in front pay. A federal appeals court upheld this result, finding that the plaintiffs met the standards for injunctive relief, as they demonstrated that substantially delaying their promotions would irreparably harm their careers. Howe v. City of Akron, #11-3752, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 14745 (6th Cir.).
     A port authority appealed from a determination following a jury trial that it engaged in racial discrimination by failing to promote seven Asian-American police officers who were current or former employees. The appeals court held that the trial judge properly allowed into evidence background data from before the beginning of the statute of limitations period. There was sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror could find that the employer discriminated against the seven prevailing plaintiffs (out of eleven plaintiffs) within the limitations period. The trial court acted erroneously, however, in submitting a pattern-or-practice disparate treatment theory of liability to the jury in a non-class action lawsuit. The trial court also erroneously concluded that a doctrine of "continuing violation" applied to the disparate impact theory in a manner which permitted the jury to award compensatory damages and back pay for a time before the onset of the statute of limitations. A new trial was granted on the damages for all prevailing plaintiffs, and reconsideration of equitable relief was also ordered, after the appeals court vacated the back pay awards for four of the plaintiffs and injunctive relief for three of them. Chin v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, #10–1904, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 14088 (2nd Cir.).
     Data that is employer specific was not required as a matter of law to support a factual finding that a test used for promotion to fire lieutenant was job related and supported by business necessity so as to defeat a disparate impact racial discrimination claim by African-American firefighters. The city used tests for promotions that were derived from a common statewide job analysis. M.O.C.H.A. Society, Inc. v. City of Buffalo, #11-2184, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 15715, 115 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 929 (2nd Cir.).
     A Caucasian state police sergeant used the agency's official email system to send "humorous" descriptions of fictitious Barbie Dolls to fellow officers. Each fictitious doll was a caricature of a stereotypical woman living in an identifiable area in and around the state capitol. He was disciplined for this action, suspended for thirty days, and suffered the lowering of his promotion rating. He sued, claiming that he was subjected to race discrimination. Rejecting this claim, a federal appeals court found that the plaintiff failed to show that non-Caucasians had been treated differently for similar conduct. There was absolutely no evidence of any discriminatory attitude towards him for being Caucasian. His argument that, had he been an African American he would not have been suspended for 30 days was pure speculation. Hanners v. Trent, #11-1754, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 5636; 114 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 965 (7th Cir.).
     An African-American police officer was suspended with pay while the department conducted its investigation of allegations that he took a 15-year-old girl to a hotel with knowledge that she was a runaway. Subsequently, he was suspended without pay, and finally terminated. He sued, arguing that he had been punished more severely than white police officers engaged in similar conduct or conduct more serious. The court rejected this claim. It noted that he had pled guilty to endangering the welfare of a child, which automatically required his termination under state law. Accordingly, he could not challenge any adverse employment action taken against him following his guilty plea. The court stated that it was possible that even a suspension with pay might be an adverse employment action in some circumstances. It found that it did not, in this case. Brown v. City of Syracuse, #10-0529, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 5281 (2nd Cir.),
     A Fire and Safety Officer on the night shift at a state facility for delinquent boys failed to show that he was terminated because of his Caucasian race. He did state possibly meritorious claims for violations of his rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), however, as well as for retaliation against him for exercising his rights under the FMLA. He intended to visit his mother when his shift ended because he had been informed that she was not likely to survive the night. When his replacement called in sick, his supervisor allegedly ordered him to remain at work under threat of being fired, even though a co-worker voluntarily stated that they would take over. The appeals court reasoned that not allowing the officer to go be with his dying mother may have violated his rights under the FMLA even though his sister was available to care for her. Under current regulations covering leave requests, an employee need not be the only family member available to care for a sick individual to qualify for leave. Roman v. Michigan Department of Human Services, #10-2174, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 3004; 2012 Fed. App. 0046P (6th Cir.).
     A deputy sheriff terminated during his probationary period challenges the employer's assertion that he was fired for disrespecting departmental policies, claiming that it was because he is African-American. But he failed to show that his discharge was motivated by race. There was no evidence that the sheriff or other supervisory personnel participated in any of the racially charged behavior he alleged, such as giving him racially tinged nicknames or occasional watching of the "Blazing Saddles" movie at work. He also did not show that supervisors were aware of his co-workers' allegedly offensive conduct towards him. The court also noted that the Mel Brooks satirical movie "Blazing Saddles," featuring a black sheriff in the old West, was not really racist. "The movie makes racism ridiculous, not acceptable." Finally, he failed to show that white co-workers who were not terminated for various problems during their probationary periods engaged in misconduct comparable to his, so they were not similarly situated. Harris v. Warrick County Sheriff's Department, #10–3706, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 729 (7th Cir.).
  A federal trial judge has ruled that the New York City Fire Department has discriminated against minority job applicants, and that it was necessary to appoint an outside monitor for a period of at least ten years to oversee the department's recruitment and hiring practices in order to see that more minority applicants get hired. Plaintiffs in the lawsuit argued that the composition of the department had remained approximately 97 percent white for decades in a city whose population is approximately one-quarter African-Americans with many Hispanics. U.S.A. and The Vulcan Society, Inc. v. City of New York, #07-CV-2067, U.S. Dist. Ct. (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 5, 2011).
     While there was evidence of "tension" between an African-American police officer and his co-workers when he returned to work after having been suspended and arrested on charges of sexually abusing his daughter, there was no indication that he suffered racial discrimination, a hostile work environment, or retaliation on account of his race. His claim that he was treated "differently" when he returned did not show intentional discrimination. Livingston v. Borough of Edgewood, #10-4455, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 11240 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
     Nurses who worked in the health care unit of a privately run jail failed to show that their employer violated an Indiana state whistleblower protection law by allegedly constructively discharging them for complaining about safety problems at the jail. The plaintiffs could not point to any violation of the law that they reported, which was a prerequisite to making a claim under the whistleblower statute. A federal appeals court also rejected the nurses' racial discrimination and hostile work environment claims. While the effect of the adoption of a shift rotation policy was to split up a predominately black shift, there was no evidence that the change was motivated by race. Ellis v. CCA of Tenn. LLC, #10-2768, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 11577, 112 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 791 (7th Cir.).
     The cut-off scores used by the City of Chicago on tests for firefighter applicants had a disparate impact on African-American candidates. The city would only hire applicants who scored 89 or higher on the written exam, considering them "highly qualified." Candidates who scored 65 to 88 were deemed qualified, but were unlikely to be hired. In the lawsuit, 132 class members overcame the city's business necessity defense and were awarded damages on the basis of a loss-of-a-chance theory. The U.S. Supreme Court, in the city's appeal, ruled that in disparate-impact litigation the deadline for asserting claims starts again whenever the employer uses a test to make hiring decisions. Lewis v. City of Chicago, #08-974, 130 S. Ct. 2191 (2010). Accordingly, on remand from the Supreme Court, the appeals court found that the charge was timely as to each group of hires other than the first. The court ordered that the trial court's orders be modified to eliminate "any relief based on the hires of May 1996." Lewis v. City of Chicago, o#07-2052, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 9755, (7th)
     Sheriff's employees who sued for discrimination and failed to timely appeal from an improper dismissal of their lawsuit are not entitled to relief. Their sole remedy is a malpractice action against their lawyer. Lee v. Dart, #10-2013, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 5850, 111 FEP Cases (BNA) 1457 (7th Cir.).
     Congress enacted the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, which amended Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by providing that the statute of limitations for filing an EEOC charge alleging pay discrimination resets with each paycheck affected by a discriminatory decision. Groesch v. City of Springfield, #07-2932, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 6276, 111 FEP Cases (BNA) 1441 (7th Cir.).
     Appeals panel rejects a racial bias complaint filed by a firefighter who was next in line for promotion when a new eligibility list was published. The existing list was obsolete, and had been in existence longer than prior lists. Moreover, the individual who made decision to generate new eligibility list was unaware that the plaintiff was next in line to receive promotion on the existing list. Stinnett v. City of Chicago, # 09-3626, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 17, 111 FEP Cases (BNA) 167 (7th Cir.).
      Appellate panel rejects a racial bias claim filed by a minority firefighter who was fired after his arrest for receiving stolen property. Although he was not convicted of that offense, his record of prior arrests and the lack of evidence showing discrimination of any sort, he was unable to prove his termination was pretextual and that racial animus was the motivating factor. Chism v. Curtner, #09-2632, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 18148 (8th Cir.).
     Seventh Circuit reduces a jury verdict of $500,000 to $250,000, awarded to a black paramedic. The plaintiff was placed on probation with no change to his compensation and the nature of his emotional distress did not warrant a half-million dollar award. Thompson v. Mem'l Hosp. of Carbondale, #07-2249, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 22909 (7th Cir.).
    Seventh Circuit reduces a verdict for racial bias against a black EMT. "...we conclude that the $500,000 award is excessive in this case in light of the circumstances, including that [the plaintiff] was placed on probation with no change to his compensation and the nature of [his] emotional distress, which ... does not warrant a half-million dollar award. A remittitur to $250,000 will keep this award within rational bounds and in line with other cases." Thompson v. Mem'l Hosp. of Carbondale, #07-2249, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 22909 (7th Cir.).
     An employee cannot prevail on a hostile environment claim without evidence that he was subjected to harassing comments or conduct because of his association with, or advocacy on behalf of, a protected minority. Moreover, "the law recognizes a cause of action for racial harassment only if the employee can demonstrate repeated, routine acts so severe or pervasive as to create an abusive environment for any reasonable person belonging to plaintiff's racial or ethnic group." Thompson v. City of Monrovia, #B216252, 2010 Cal. App. Lexis 1142, 186 Cal. App. 4th 860, 112 Cal. Rptr. 3d 377.
     Seventh Circuit resurrects a retaliation lawsuit brought by an ex-firefighter who claimed that his separation for sub-marginal performance was because of his pro union activities. Although in Illinois a small fire district is not obligated to bargain with a union, it can do so voluntarily. The plaintiff "had the right to join a union or to organize his fellow firefighters into a collective bargaining unit and to work to convince the District to bargain with a group representative over wages and benefits, even if the District had no obligation to engage in collective bargaining." Kodish v. Oakbrook Terrace Fire Prot. Dist., #08-1976, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 9511, 604 F.3d 490 (7th Cir.).
     In adjudicating discrimination claims, courts must give effect to the laws Congress has enacted, not assess the consequences of each approach and adopt the one that produces the least mischief. "Congress allowed claims to be brought against an employer who uses a practice that causes disparate impact, whatever the employer's motives and whether or not he has employed the same practice in the past. If that effect was unintended, it is a problem for Congress, not one that federal courts can fix." Lewis v. City of Chicago, #08-974, 2010 U.S. Lexis 4165.
     Connecticut Supreme Court rejects a complaint that a city engaged in racial discrimination by not promoting candidates to vacant fire captain positions. "Because the plaintiffs presented no evidence that the practice of underfilling reduced the chances of African-American firefighters as a class to obtain a promotion to captain or increased the chances of non-African-American firefighters as a class for such a promotion, we agree with the defendants that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that they had violated the plaintiffs' equal protection rights." Broadnax v. City of New Haven, #SC 17971, 294 Conn. 280, 2009 Conn. Lexis 529, 107 FEP Cases (BNA) 1763 (Conn. 2009).
     Although the plaintiff had filed a lawsuit alleging race discrimination, there was no evidence that he was retaliated against when others were selected for promotion. There were legitimate reasons for recommending one candidate over others, and to promote the applicant with the highest score. Stephens v. Erickson, #08-1416, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 14117 (7th Cir.).
     In a 2-1 decision, the Sixth Circuit affirms a judgment for a white Cleveland police officer who sued the city and various officials for discriminating and retaliating against him after he shot an adolescent black driver of a stolen vehicle. There was evidence that white officers who shot blacks were treated harshly because of the "high profile" nature of the incident. However, an $800,000 jury award included more than $700,000 for emotional distress - which the panel thought was excessive. Lentz v. City of Cleveland, #07-4385, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 12500, 106 FEP Cases (BNA) 753 (Unpub. 6th Cir.).
     Sixth Circuit rejects a race bias claim brought by a firefighter that had opted out of paramedic training, and then was denied an opportunity to obtain that training later. The city’s refusal was based on fiscal reasons, not bias. Turner v. City of Akron, # 08-3191, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 6828 (Unpub. 6th Cir.).
     Justice Dept. and City of Dayton agree to settle a pattern or practice action alleging discrimination against African-Americans in the hiring of entry-level police officers and firefighters. U. S. v. City of Dayton, #3:08-cv-348, Complaint (S.D. Ohio 2008); DoJ Press Doc. 09-172.
     The plaintiff, an Asian-American, sued after he was not promoted to captain. Because he presented no evidence concerning the candidates’ relative qualifications, he was unable to show that the gap in qualifications was so great as to give rise to an inference of discrimination. Jo v. Dist. of Columbia, #03-1677, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 86724 (D.D.C.).
     Federal court declines to dismiss a suit brought by a black assistant chief of police. The complaint raised factual issues as to whether hiring a white candidate from outside the department was justified. The city council had voted along racial lines in deciding whom to hire. Johnson v. City of Columbus, Miss. #1:2007cv00168, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 81933, 104 FEP Cases (BNA) 1349 (N.D. Miss.); on remand from 279 Fed. Appx. 309, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 11141 (5th Cir.).
     Federal court rejects a suit brought by Hispanic firefighters against their unions under 42 U.S. Code § 1983 or state law. The complaint contained only conclusory allegations, not specific factual allegations, that the unions had conspired with the city to discrimination against them. There can be no claim against the union "for merely failing to remedy the employer's discrimination." Figueroa v. City of Camden, #1:2008cv00059, Pacer Doc. 29, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 77241 & 77260, 104 FEP Cases (BNA) 1312 (D.N.J.).
     Appellate panel rejects a race discrimination and retaliation action. The promotion was initially offered to another African-American and the plaintiff declined to participate in a second round of interviews after the first person turned down the promotion. Hall v. Mich. State Police, #06-2116, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 18978 (6th Cir.).
     Officer settles discrimination, harassment and retaliation claims for $1.65 million. Alternately called "Sharmageddon" and a "sand nigger," the East-Indian officer was wrongfully terminated. The city also agreed to notify the state's Criminal Justice Training Cmsn. that no adverse action was warranted regarding his POST credentials. Sharma v. City of Vancouver, #C06-5688; prior rulings at 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 54027 and 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 48430 (W.D. Wash.).
     In a hostile work environment claim, the plaintiff alleged that after reporting another officer for a violation of police regulations, a tire on her car was slashed and the incident was not investigated. After fellow officers discovered she was the source of smoking violation complaint, they only spoke Spanish around her. The court wrote that even if those incidents were racially motivated, the frequency and severity of the conduct was not sufficient to sustain a hostile work environment claim. Davis v. City of Newark, #06-4806, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 16826 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
     In resolving Title VII discrimination actions against a political entity, it is unnecessary to secure a right to sue letter from the U.S. Attorney, if one has been requested by the aggrieved party, and the EEOC has issued a right to sue letter. Johnson v. City of Houston, # H-07-4516, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 49748 (S.D. Tex.).
     Eighth Circuit upholds the validity of fire dept. promotional exams that resulted in lower scores for black candidates. The city produced more than 26 large boxes of documents in discovery. Stewart v. City of St. Louis, #07-2548, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 15100 (8th Cir.). Prior opinions at 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 38473 and 38421 (E.D. Mo.), 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 6383 and 38157, 220 F.3d 898 (8th Cir. 2000).
     In a race discrimination lawsuit, the D.C. Circuit upholds a reorganization of the D.C. Police canine squads after management noticed that one squad was the source of 11 of the 17 total dog bites for all four squads that year, and that all but one of the officers on that squad were Caucasian and all of the people that had been bitten were African American. "Although race may have played a role in the reorganization, we agree with the District that a reasonable jury could not conclude, as the officers contend, that the justifications for the reorganization proffered by the District were but pretexts for racial discrimination." Ginger v. Dist, of Columbia, #07-7054, 008 U.S. App. Lexis 12335 (D.C. Cir.).
     Federal appeals court rejects the complaints of a black warden. Management had legitimate and non-retaliatory reasons for promoting whites that were more qualified. Watkins v. Texas Dept. of Crim. Justice, #06-20843, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 5401 (Unpub. 5th Cir. 2008).
     Federal court finds sufficient evidence to allow a jury to find that the fire lieutenant promotion exam intentionally was designed to discriminate against African Americans, Men of Color Helping All Society v. City of Buffalo, #98-CV-99C, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 8880; 2007 U.S. Dist Lexis 93075, 93066, 93064 and 83544 (W.D.N.Y.).
     In a discrimination action where three black university police officers claimed that assignment to the East St. Louis campus was a materially adverse employment action, the Seventh Circuit -- citing O'Neal v. City of Chicago, #04-1402, 392 F.3d 909 (7th Cir. 2004) -- rejected their claims. The assignment did not affect their salary, perks, or opportunities for future advancement. Nichols v. So. Ill. Univ., #06-2688, 102 FEP Cases (BNA) 519, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 29865 (7th Cir.), affirming 432 F.Supp.2d 798.
     Appellate court affirms the dismissal of a discrimination suit filed by an air marshal who was suspended from a training class for a firearms safety violation and then terminated. Mariani-Colon v. Dept. of Homeland Security, #06-2468, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 29233 (1st Cir.).
     Fifth Circuit rejects the discrimination and retaliation claims raised by a black, female, former police lieutenant. A white officer twice threw wadded-up paper and repeatedly mocked her. After commenting negatively about the city's treatment of blacks, she made a remark that she would "take care of it" herself. A superior took her gun and placed her on paid administrative leave; she then retired. The appellate panel concluded that she failed to prove that the city created a hostile work environment that resulted in her constructive discharge, and that a reasonable employee in her position would not have felt compelled to resign or retire. McCoy v. City of Shreveport, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 16582, 100 FEP Cases (BNA) 1812 (5th Cir.).
     Federal appeals panel affirms the denial of a motion to dismiss a black jail employee's race discrimination and freedom of association claims. She alleged that she had been disciplined and terminated because she had dated white men and became pregnant by a white man. Lawson v. Curry, #07-10474, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 19145 (Unpub. 11th Cir.).
     In a disparate treatment claim in a Title VII action challenging Highway Patrol promotions, the Ninth Circuit affirmed a holding that the plaintiff's statistical expert's data was of questionable validity. Paige v. St. of Calif., #05-56061, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 12050 (Unpub. 9th Cir.).
    Federal court rejects bias claims brought by African-American firefighters that scored poorly on promotional exams. There was overwhelming evidence that the captain examination was job-related and consistent with business necessity. Stewart v. City of St. Louis, #4:04CV00885, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 38421 and 38473 (E.D. Mo. 2007)
    In a Title VII race bias action, the mere fact that job assignments are discretionary does not equate to a prima facie case of discrimination. West v. Hudson Co. Corr. Center, #06-2523, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 9672 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
     In a "Less pay for equal work" lawsuit, a $38,011,066 race discrimination verdict is overturned by a California appellate court. Although 70 percent of all county security police officers are minority members and 30 percent are Caucasian, the percentages are reversed in the sheriff's dept., where officers are better paid, "That differentiation, by itself, does not establish racial discrimination, and plaintiffs failed to present evidence that the pay disparity is the product of racial discrimination." Frank v. Co. of Los Angeles, #B169427, 2007 Cal. App. Lexis 530 (2d App. Dist.).
     Federal appeals panel rejects the discrimination claims brought by a minority Dept. of Corrections employee that sought promotion to an internal affairs investigator position. Management made a mistake in grading her qualifications, which was not the result of discrimination, and offered her the position with retroactive pay differential. The fact that management declined to offer her more than the standard pay rate for the position sought was not an adverse or discriminatory personnel action. Fair v. Norris, #06-1580, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 7059 (8th Cir.).
     In an action challenging a fire dept. promotional exam, disproportionate rankings, standing alone, do not support an equal protection claim. Bolton v. City of Bridgeport, #3:04cv670, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 93863 (D. Conn.). [N/R]
     Statistical evidence of a racial disparity in state police hiring practices did not establish a prima facie disparate impact case under Title VII. There was no proof that a policy of automatically disqualifying applicants with a criminal record caused the disparity. Foxworth v. Penn. St. Police, #05-5571, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 2230 (Non-Precedential,. 3rd Cir.). [N/R]
     DEA did not discriminate against a rejected minority applicant when it declined to hire him because a background check revealed immaturity and he received a marginal rating on a psychological evaluation. The DEA had legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for not hiring the applicant. Hunt v. Gonzales, #06-10375, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 1962 (Unpub. 11th Cir. 2007). [N/R]
     Federal appeals court rejects a suit filed by black police officers that complained that a sergeant's exam had a disparate impact; they failed to prove that a job performance-based system was less discriminatory than the test that was used. Adams v. City of Chicago, #05-4145, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 28348 (7th Cir. 2006). {N/R}
     Eighth Circuit rejects the discrimination complaints made by a black sergeant who alleged that he was denied promotions, training, and equal pay because of his race. Isolated comments about his hairstyle did not constitute specific, tangible evidence of discrimination. The successful white candidates scored higher than he did. Gammon v. Flowers, #06-1829, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 29087 (8th Cir. 2006); 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 13947, affirmed (E.D. Ark.). {N/R}
     Federal court rejects discrimination claim. The plaintiff was not similarly situated to the person selected as deputy chief of police. The successful candidate had higher education qualifications and the plaintiff had received disciplinary action in the past. Diaz v. City of Inkster, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 83733 and 53456 (E.D. Mich. 2006). {N/R}
     Refusal to allow a minority employee to leave early one day a month was not unlawful discrimination, even if management allowed a single white worker, who had different job responsibilities, to do so. Wills v. PRECC, #5:05CV-15, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 72489 (W.D. Ky. 2006). {N/R}
     Federal court dismisses a race discrimination claim brought by a terminated probationary peace officer. He was absent without leave and failed to complete training. Payton v. City Univ. of N.Y., 03 Civ. 8536, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 70182 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). {N/R}
     DHS did not discriminate against an acting assistant director because of her race and age when management selected a younger, white woman for the position. The agency proffered a non-discriminatory reason for its decision. Barnette v. Chertoff, # 04-5443, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 16948, 98 FEP Cases (BNA) 609 (D.C. Cir. 2006). {N/R}
     Federal court upholds jury award of backpay and damages for emotional injury in a suit filed by a part-time white officer who claimed he was fired for supporting the black police chief. Swanson v. City of Bruce, #3:00CV194, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 16107 (N.D. Miss. 2006). [2006 FP Aug]
     Seventh Circuit upholds a summary judgment for a sheriff's dept. where the plaintiffs were unable to prove that they were treated differently because of their race. Scaife v. Sheahan, #04-2966, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 11580 (7th Cir. 2006).{N/R}
     Binding arbitration of a promotions procedures dispute did not apply to the a fire dept. that had years of intentional and unintentional discrimination against minorities and women, and would interfere with the city's duty to end biased promotional practices. San Fran. Fire Fighters L-798 v. C&C of San Francisco, #S131818, 2006 Cal. Lexis 5932 (Cal. 2006). {N/R}
     DoJ settles a lawsuit against the Virginia Beach Police Dept. The city had used a mathematics test to screen applicants where only 59% of African American applicants and 66% of Hispanic applicants passed, as opposed to 85% of the white applicants. U.S. v. Virginia Beach, #2:06-cv-00189, 44 (2153) G.E.R.R. (BNA) 422 (E.D. Va. 2006). {N/R}
     Cleveland settles a harassment and discrimination suit filed by 32 black firefighters for $650,000; 15 plaintiffs will be promoted immediately. Luke v. City of Cleveland, 1:02-cv-01225, 44 (2150) G.E.R.R. (BNA) 340, Settlement & dismissal order, Doc. #496 (N.D. Ohio 03/14/2006). {N/R}
     Black applicant for the Pennsylvania State Police who was rejected because of an expunged criminal conviction loses his for race discrimination claim. Management's refusal to hire him because of a theft of $4,000 six years earlier was a legitimate reason for rejection. Foxworth v. Pennsylvania State Police, #03-CV-6795, 2005 U.S. Dist. Lexis 33639 (E.D. Pa. 2005). {N/R}
     Black corrections officer who was fired for failing to call in every day while awaiting a medical examination did not prove that the reason for his discharge was pretextual. A jury's finding of racial discrimination was not supported by the evidence, and must be overturned. McFadden v. Texas Dep't of Criminal Justice, #04-50712, 128 Fed. Appx. 347, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 5348(5th Cir. 2005); cert. den., #05-47, 2005 U.S. Lexis 8583 (2005). {N/R}
     Federal appeals court rejects a discrimination complaint filed by a black criminal investigator who was fired for not having a valid security clearance. The clearance failure was based on an untruthful job application. Relying on Ryan v. Reno, 168 F.3d 520 (D.C. Cir. 1999), the panel held that adverse employment action that is based on the denial or revocation of a security clearance is not actionable under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Bennett v. Chertoff, #04-5281, 425 F.3d 999, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 22382 (D.C. Cir. 2005). {N/R}
     Justice Dept. and Delaware State Police settle race discrimination lawsuit. Delaware must provide a total of $1,425,000 to qualified African-American applicants who were rejected for trooper positions between 1992 and 1998 because of a biased written examination. Up to 12 rejected applicants will receive priority job offers with retroactive seniority and pension benefits. U.S. v. Delaware, #01-020 (D.Del. 2005); interim rulings at 2005 U.S. Dist. Lexis 16412, 2004 U.S. Dist. Lexis 4560, and 2003 U.S. Dist. Lexis 8588. {N/R}
     Second Circuit holds that a rejected applicant for state trooper failed to demonstrate that an oral exam was discriminatory; it was carefully graded by a team of two graders, one of whom was African-American and the interview team passed eight out of twelve African-American applicants on the oral exam. Coger v. Conn. Dept. Pub. Sfty., #04-1886, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 15802 (Unpub. 2nd Cir. 2005). {N/R}
     The state secrets privilege was sufficient grounds to dismiss a race discrimination lawsuit brought against the CIA by an African American operations officer. Attempts by a court to safeguard Agency secrets "still entail considerable risk ... placing covert agents and intelligence sources alike at grave personal risk." Sterling v. Tenet, #04-1495, 2005 U.S. Dist. Lexis 15945 (D.D.C. 2005). {N/R}
     In evaluating a race discrimination claim, a performance bonus of 3% can be an "adverse" employment action if the employee should have been given a 5% bonus. Gillis v. Georgia Dept. of Corr., 403 F.3d 883, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 2924, 95 FEP Cases (BNA) 427 (11th Cir. 2005). {N/R}
     Federal court declines to dismiss a suit by a black assistant police chief who was not promoted to chief when the Delaware town appointed a white candidate from outside the department. Milton has 1,657 residents, of which 24.3% are black -- compared to 12.3% for the U.S. Miller v. Town of Milton, #03-876, 2005 U.S. Dist. Lexis 3471 (D.Del. 2005). {N/R}
     Sixth Circuit affirms a holding that a police promotional exam discriminated against black sergeants. Compliance with the EEOC's 4/5th rule was not a defense. Isabel v. City of Memphis, #5912, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 5874, 2005 FED App. 0169P, 95 FEP Cases (BNA) 801 (6th Cir. 2005). [2005 FP Jun]
     Louisiana appeals court affirms verdicts for two black former Baton Rouge police officers. Each was awarded $300,000 for racial harassment and $200,000 for racial discrimination; one also received $50,000 for retaliation. Alcorn v. Baton Rouge, #2002-CA-0952-R, 2004 La. App. Lexis 3202 (2004). {N/R}
     A federal jury has required a private employer to pay $1.37 million for emotional pain and suffering and $200,000 in lost wages and benefits to a former worker who claimed he was harassed and threatened with demotion after he complained that two minority employees were passed over for promotion in favor of a white candidate. EEOC v. Federal Express Corp., #6:02-CV-1112 (M.D.Fla. 2004). {N/R}
     Fifth Circuit joins other circuits in holding that res judicata is a bar to relitigating an unsuccessful Title VII discrimination and retaliation lawsuit. Davis v. Johnson, #03-10753, 383 F.3d 309, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 18232, 94 FEP Cases (BNA) 665 (5th Cir. 2004) citing Boateng v. Inter American Univ., 210 F.3d 563 (1st Cir. 2000), Woods v. Dunlop, 972 F.2d 36 (2d Cir. 1992), Churchill v. Star Enterp., 183 F.3d 184 (3d Cir. 1999), Rivers v. Barberton BoE, 143 F.3d 1029 (6th Cir. 1998), Herrmann v. Cencom, 999 F.2d 2236 (7th Cir. 1993), Owens v. Kaiser, 244 F.3d 708 (9th Cir. 2001), and Jang v. United Tech., 206 F.3d 1147 (11th Cir. 2000). {N/R}
     Federal court holds that the Delaware State Police used too high a cutoff score on a reading ability test, resulting in a high rejection rate for black applicants. DoJ will now seek remedial relief. U.S. v. Delaware State Police, #01-020, 2004 U.S. Dist. Lexis 4560 (D. Del. 2004); DoJ Press Rel. CR-04-179. [2004 FP Jun]  
     California appellate court rejects a suit against the state by a firefighter who lost his job because of a state OSHA regulation banning facial hair, which he allowed to grow to alleviate a skin disorder (PFB). Vernon v. St. of California, #A101244, 116 Cal.App.4th 114, 2004 Cal. App. Lexis 224 (1st Dist. 2004). [2004 FP May]
     A divided Fourth Circuit rejects a lawsuit claiming that a police chief, in investigating claims of racial bias in the agency, wrongfully interviewed only black members of the department. Supreme Court declines review. Williams v. Hansen, #02-1573, 326 F.3d 569; 2003 U.S. App. Lexis 7542; 91 FEP Cases (BNA) 1237 (4th Cir. 2003); cert. den. #03-381, 2003 U.S. Lexis 9210 (2003). [2003 FP Mar]
     Federal appeals court rejects a claim that a white supervisor can sue for race discrimination and retaliation because he reprimanded a black subordinate, and allegedly suffered harassment by black superiors. The harassment was not severe, and he received a promotion. Supreme Court declines review. Twisdale v. Snow, #02-1736, 325 F.3d 950, 2003 U.S. App. Lexis 6871, 91 FEP Cases (BNA) 706; cert. den., 2003 U.S. Lexis 9207 (2003). [2003 FP Mar]
     Federal employees who are victims of race discrimination may not sue under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Taylor v. Small, #02-5261, 2003 U.S. App. Lexis 24948 (D.C. Cir. 2003). {N/R}
     Minorities who challenged the 1998 Chicago Police sergeant promotional process, which included an assessment of leadership, mentoring, decisionmaking and interpersonal traits failed to demonstrate the existence of an equally valid, less discriminatory employment practice. The City was entitled to a summary judgment. Allen v. City of Chicago, #02-3743, 2003 U.S. App. Lexis 24677 (7th Cir. 2003). {N/R}
    Civil Service Board members are not entitled to absolute immunity from suit, in a case where the provisional fire chief challenged his suspension and claimed that the process was tainted by racial discrimination. Fifth Circuit affirms the result, and the Supreme Court has denied review. Turner v. Houma Fire and Police Civ. Serv. Bd., #99-31168, 229 F.3d 478, 2000 U.S. App. Lexis 25950; reh. den. 29744 (5th Cir. 2000); cert. den. #03-367, 2003 U.S. Lexis 8223 (2003), affirming 2002 U.S. Dist. Lexis 12924 (E.D. La. 2002). {N/R}
     Ninth Circuit affirms liability and punitive damages in a discriminatory termination case. The only black officer was fired after he complained of profiling. Bell v. Clackamas Co., #01-35508, 2003 U.S. App. Lexis 17041 (9th Cir. 2003). [2003 FP Nov]
     Federal appeals court overturns a jury award of punitive damages in a race discrimination lawsuit, alleging a failure to promote. The employer had, in good faith, implemented an EEO policy and a diversity-training program. Bryant v. Aiken, #02-2147, 2003 U.S. App. Lexis 13040 (4th Cir. 2003). {N/R}
     Supreme Court declines to review the termination of a NYPD officer who was fired for mailing racist literature. Pappas v. Giuliani, #00-9487, 290 F.3d 143, 2002 U.S. App. Lexis 9157, 18 IER Cases (BNA) 1025 (2d Cir.); cert. den. sub nom Pappas v. Bloomberg, #02-1441, 2003 U.S. Lexis 5051 (2003). [2003 FP Sep]
     Federal appeal court affirms an award of $3.5 million in compensatory and $13.3 million in punitive damages, where seven white employees were transferred from their jobs at the main library to dead-end jobs at branch libraries because of their race. Bogle v. McClure, #2-13213, 2003 U.S. App. Lexis 11332 (11th Cir. 2003). {N/R}
     Update: New Jersey police and fire discrimination cases still active after 30 years. Vulcan Pioneers v. New Jersey, #950-73 (D.N.J.); Bronze Shields v. New Jersey, #2022-72 (D.N.J.). [2003 FP Jun]
     Supervisors who were sued in their individual capacities by a conservation law enforcement officer, for racial discrimination, were entitled to qualified immunity from his §1981 and §1983 claims. Felton v. Polles, #01-60104, 2002 U.S. App. Lexis 25968 (5th Cir. 2002). {N/R}
     Second Circuit affirms damages of $50,000 each for 24 officers who were involuntarily transferred, because of their race, following the Abner Louima torture scandal. Patrolmen's Benevolent Assn. v. City of New York, 00-9538, 310 F.3d 43, 2002 U.S. App. Lexis 21656, 90 FEP Cases (BNA) 1 (2nd Cir. 2002). [2003 FP Jan]
     The Congress had authority to extend Title VII to States under Sec. 5 of 14th Amendment because it was responding to a pattern of race and sex discrimination by state governments. Nanda v. Bd. of Tr. of the Univ. of Illinois, #01-3448, 303 F.3d 817, 89 FEP Cases (BNA) 1616, 2002 U.S. App. Lexis 19105 (7th Cir. 2002). {N/R}
     Ninth Circuit overturns a trial court and upholds the use of an internal pool for statistical purposes in identifying an alleged disparate impact. Paige v. State of California, #01-55312, 2002 U.S. App. Lexis 10279, 02 C.D.O.S. 4730 (9th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
     Eighth Circuit allows an at-will employee can sue a former employer under 42 U.S. Code §1981. Skinner v. Maritz, #00-2569, 253 F.3d 337 (8th Cir. 2001). [N/R]
     If a minority promotional candidate was not clearly more qualified than the persons ultimately promoted, and if there was no evidence of intentional discrimination, the employer was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Millbrook v. IBP, Inc., #01-1189, 280 F.3d 1169 (7th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
     Profiling: Baltimore City Police major abruptly retires after issuing a memo to subordinates that targeted all blacks found near a bus stop for stop-and-question tactics, following a reported rape at that location. [N/R]
     A District Court properly decertified an attempted class action of rejected police applicants, where the plaintiff failed to adequately pursue the litigation. Culver v. City of Milwaukee, #01-1555, 277 F.3d 908, 87 FEP Cases (BNA) 1464, 2002 U.S. App. Lexis 614 (7th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
      FBI agrees to outside mediation, revised promotional procedures and the payment of individual damage claims to settle (for a second time) the claims of black agents. Johnson v. Ashcroft, #93-0206, 39 (1910) G.E.R.R. (BNA) 535 (D.D.C. 4/30/01 - settlement approved); prior decis. at 1996 U.S. Dist. Lexis 5347 (D.D.C. 1996) and at 31 G.E.R.R. (BNA) 142 (D.D.C. 1993). Also see Van Meter v. Thornburgh, #91-0027, 1991 U.S. Dist. Lexis 18936, 57 FEP Cases (BNA) 911 (D.D.C. 1991); Rochon v. Attorney General, #87-3008, 734 F.Supp. 543, 1990 U.S. Dist. Lexis 4381, 52 FEP Cases (BNA) 1157 (D.D.C. 1990); Graham v. Reno, Civ. #92- 1018 (D.D.C.). [2001 FP 90]
     Justice Dept. sues State Police for discriminatory employment examinations. U.S. v. Delaware State Police (D. Del., filed 2001). [2001 FP 73]
     Black sheriff's recruit wins $1,467,122 for wrongful termination, after he complained about racial profiling. Bell v. Clackamas Co., #99-327-JE (D. Ore); verdict rptd. in The New York Times, 2/28/2001, p. A10. [2001 FP 43-4]
     In a discrimination lawsuit, an ex-chief must show that at least a majority of council members voted against his retention for reasons of race. It is not enough to show that an influential council member opposed him for racial reasons. Mason v. Vil. of El Portal, #99-15246, 240 F.3d 1337, 85 FEP Cases (BNA) 40, 2001 U.S. App. Lexis 1905, 17 IER Cases (BNA) 448 (11th Cir.). [2001 FP 44]
     Justice Dept. sues Delaware State Police for rejection of black applicants during a period when the agency relied an entry test no longer in use. U.S. v. Delaware, 39 (1897) G.E.R.R. (BNA) 168 (D.Del. 2001). [2001 FP 27]
     Federal court sustains a jury verdict for an officer who lost his position due to race-based transfers. Judge refuses to issue an injunction for such transfers. P.B.A. v. City of N.Y., 2000 U.S. Dist. Lexis 15179, 84 FEP Cases (BNA) 462 (Unpub. S.D.N.Y.). [2001 FP 10-11]
     Federal appeals court affirms a jury award of $150,000 for racial discrimination to a police officer, even though the state later suspended his certification as a police officer for untruthfulness. The district court had properly applied the after-acquired-evidence doctrine in refusing to vacate the award. Crapp v. City of Miami Beach, #99-13492, 242 F.3d 1017, 2001 U.S. App. Lexis 2443, 85 FEP Cases (BNA) 353 (11th Cir.). {N/R}
     Sixth Circuit upholds a race discrimination case against an Ohio city, finding that the NAACP had standing to challenge recruitment policies and a former residency requirement. Cleveland Branch, NAACP v. City of Parma, #99-3546, 263 F.3d 513, 2001 U.S. App. Lexis 19193, 2001 FED App. 0290P, 86 FEP Cases (BNA) 936 (6th Cir.) {N/R}
     Federal appeals court revitalizes a lawsuit claiming that a city systematically disapproves injury claims of black police officers because of their race. McCormick v. City of Chicago, #99-2365, 2000 U.S. App. Lexis 25686 (7th Cir.). [2000 FP 173]
     A Chicago Police lieutenant's exam was valid, despite an adverse impact on minority police officers. "The standard to be applied is not simply whether minorities do well or not on a test. That is only the beginning." Bryant v. Chicago, #99-1272, 200 F.3d 1092, 2000 U.S. App. Lexis 528 (7th Cir.). {N/R}
     Supreme Court declines to review a ruling against a probationary police officer who claims that he was fired in retaliation for having reported racial slurs made by other officers against black citizens. It did not involve employment discrimination under Title VII. Wimmer v. Suffolk Co. Police, 176 F.3d 125, 1999 U.S. App. Lexis 8544, 79 FEP Cases (BNA) 1463; cert. den. 1999 U.S. Lexis 7088. {N/R}
     11th Circuit concludes that state governments lack 11th Amendment immunity from Title VII disparate impact lawsuits. Crum v. Alabama, #98-6600, 198 F.3d 1305, 1999 U.S. App. Lexis 34492, 81 FEP Cases (BNA) 950 (11th Cir.). [2000 FP 44]
     Federal court declines to annul a Chicago Police policy of not hiring applicants with an arrest record. Plaintiff failed to prove the city has racial disparities in its police hiring. Watkins v. Chicago, 73 F.Supp.2d 944, 1999 U.S. Dist. Lexis 17180 (N.D. Ill.); prior ruling reported at 992 F. Supp. 971, 1998 U.S. Dist. Lexis 963. [2000 FP 19]
     White female police officers could not maintain a discriminatory promotion lawsuit because they filed their claim with the EEOC more than 180 days after the city issued its promotions list. Cox v. City of Memphis, #99-5789, 2000 U.S. App. Lexis 25942; 2000 FED App. 0370P (6th Cir.). {N/R}
     Federal court dismisses a discrimination suit brought by a FBI agent who failed to provide a sworn statement to an EEO Investigator and to cooperate with the investigation that was initiated because of his complaint. An investigator unsuccessfully attempted to obtain the plaintiff's statement 38 times. Powell v. Reno, 1999 U.S. Dist. Lexis 18134 (D.D.C.), affirming 1998 EEOPUB Lexis 3510 (EEOC). {N/R}
     42 U.S. Code Sec. 1981 does not protect at-will employees who are terminated because of their race. The plain language of 1981 requires that a claim be based on a contractual relationship, which does not exist in at-will employment. Mungin v. Macklowe, 2000 U.S. Dist. Lexis 3811, 82 FEP Cases (BNA) 1185 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). {N/R}
     Appellate court rejects untimely discrimination claim, even if the rejected applicant first learned that racial animus influenced the decision after the limitation period had passed. Williams v. City of Belvedere, 72 Cal.App.4th 84, 84 Cal.Rptr.2d 658, 1999 Cal.App. Lexis 477. [1999 FP 107]
     EEOC modifies its Compliance Manual and prohibits retaliation for "filing a charge, testifying, assisting or participating in any manner in an investigation, proceeding or hearing under the applicable statute." FEP Manual (BNA) 405:7581. The amendment also holds individual supervisors liable for any adverse treatment [Manual 405:7590 n.96], relying on Munday v. W.M.N.A., 126 F.3d 239 (4th Cir. 1997).
     Class action denied in a race discrimination suit. There was evidence the plaintiff’s application had been turned down because of his “very poor employment record.” Robinson v. Sheriff of Cook Co., #98-2333, 167 F.3d 1155, 1999 U.S. App. Lexis 1801, 79 FEP Cases 203 (7th Cir. 1999). {N/R}
     Corrections officer, who was subjected to vile speech by other officers ("black-ass fucking nigger") and other harassment, was entitled to sue his employer for discriminatory treatment. "A jury could find {the warden} had failed to take reasonable steps to eliminate the harassment directed toward {the plaintiff}." Hafford v. Seidner, 167 F.3d 1074, 1999 U.S. App. Lexis 2598 (6th Cir.). {N/R}
     Litigants settle race discrimination claims with police testing system used by 36 Twin Cities communities. Fields v. Minn. Police Recruitment Sys., #C1-97-517, 1998 Minn. App. Lexis 125; stlmnt. rptd. at 36 G.E.R.R. (BNA) #1793 (1998). [1999 FP 28]
     Federal jury in D.C. awards $190,000 to three black police officers who alleged they were denied promotions and favorable assignments for several years. Fredrick v. Dist. of Col., #1:96CV02093, 37 (1816) G.E.R.R. (BNA) 662 (D.D.C. 5/6/99). {N/R}
     An African American police officer who allegedly was told “Nigger, you're suspended” by the white police chief has no grounds to sue for race discrimination or racial harassment. The plaintiff failed to address the issue of his suspension in the district court and instead focused on the use of the word “nigger.” Sanders v. Dixmoor, #98-3728, 178 F.3d 869, 79 FEP Cases (BNA) 1729, 1999 U.S. App. Lexis 9043 (7th Cir.). {N/R}
     Probationary officer who was fired for poor evaluations was not dismissed for opposing racism in the police dept., despite the fact some officers allegedly acted in a discriminatory manner toward citizens. Wimmer v. Suffolk Co. Police, 176 F.3d 125, 1999 U.S. App. Lexis 8544, 79 FEP Cases (BNA) 1463. {N/R}
     In 2-1 decision, the 9th Circuit rejected the majority view among the federal circuits that the Federal Arbitration Act applies to all employment contracts, except those who actually work in interstate commerce. The plaintiff had brought a race discrimination Title VII action. Craft v. Campbell Soup, #98-15060, 161 F.3d 1199, 78 FEP Cases (BNA) 713, 1998 U.S. App. Lexis 30580, (9th Cir.). {N/R}
     A supervisor's one-time use of term "Buckwheat" to refer to black employee and making a joke about black men's genitalia are not direct evidence of discrimination, where the comments were made some two years before decision to terminate the employee, and the plaintiff failed to show a causal link between comments and decision. Simmons v. Oce-USA, 174 F.3d 913, 1999 U.S. App. Lexis 6979, 80 FEP Cases (BNA) 1029 (8th Cir.). {N/R}
     Comments by a supervisor describing the plaintiff as an "incompetent nigger" do not show that reasons for the discharge were pretextual, where the statements were not linked to the termination decision. Shorter v. ICG, 1999 U.S. App. Lexis 19279, 80 FEP Cases (BNA) 1031 (10th Cir.). {N/R}
     Single incident where superior called a black police officer a street nigger did not establish a hostile work environment or justify a racial harassment claim under Title VII. Porter v. Little Rock, 941 F.Supp. 804 (E.D.Ark. 1995). {N/R}
     Louisiana State Police agree to adopt new, nondiscriminatory entrance exam; $1 million backpay fund created to compensate improperly disqualified black applicants. U.S. v. Louisiana St. Police, (M.D.La. 1996) [1996 FP 172-3]
     Rejected minority police applicants win a verdict against an employment testing firm and the cities that use it. Plaintiffs recover compensatory and punitive damages. Fields v. Minn. Police Recruitment Sys., Hennepin Co. Dist.Ct. #EM 93-218, 33 (1643) G.E.R.R. (BNA) 1529 (1995). [1996 FP 27]
     7th Circuit holds that under the 1991 Civil Rights Act, punitive damages are recoverable even if compensatory damages are not. Hennessy v. Penril DataCom, 69 F.3d 1344 (7th Cir. 1995). {N/R}
     Black sheriff's deputy recovers damages of $150,000 for discriminatory assignments. Hollingsworth v. Hutson, #1-93-CV-1008-CC, 33 (1616) G.E.R.R. (BNA) 710 (N.D.Ga. 1995). [1995 FP 141]
     Police dept. was an "employer" for purposes of Title VII, where it was a political subdivision of a town that had 25 employees. Young v. Fallsburg Police, 774 F.Supp. 205, 66 FEP Cases (BNA) 908 (S.D.N.Y. 1991). {N/R}
     Firefighter was not entitled to seek punitive damages in his suit for racially motivated discipline. Cities are immune from punitive damage awards. Adams v. City of Chicago, 865 F.Supp. 445 (N.D.Ill. 1994). {N/R}
     Black prison guard would be entitled to relief if he can show he was terminated for refusing to carry our an alleged discriminatory policy, of denying showers to black inmates after work shifts. A public employee may not be disciplined for refusing to engage in an act prohibited by Title VII. Moyo v. Gomez, 40 F.3d 982 (9th Cir. 1994), cert. den. 115 S.Ct. 732 (1995). {N/R}
     County sheriff dept. did not act improperly in failing to interview a black applicant because of suspicions about information contained in his application, even if the suspicions were erroneous. Nelson v. Pulaski Co. Sheriff's Dept., 65 FEP Cases (BNA) 1563 (E.D.Ark. 1994). {N/R}
     Massachusetts state trooper wins $211,587 for differential punishment given him because he is black. Miller v. Comm. of Massachusetts, 32 (1551) G.E.R.R. (BNA) 187 (D.Mass. 1994). [1994 FP 153-4]
     Black corrections officer awarded $97,000 because of intentional promotional discrimination and abusive treatment. Jackson v. Crowder, 1994 U.S. Dist. Lexis 1515; 32 (1550) G.E.R.R. (BNA) 155 (S.D. Fla. 1994). [1994 FP 154]
     Federal court rules it was not discriminatory to terminate a minority employee for taking non-approved leave time to serve a jail sentence. Campbell v. Fed. Exp., 64 FEP Cases (BNA) 521 (W.D. Tenn. 1994). [1994 FP 122-3]
     Miami firefighters" union settles a class action suit for expelling black bargaining unit members in 1988, because they protested allegedly discriminatory promotions negotiated by the union and the city. The firefighters were reinstated in the union, and any missing health benefits were paid. EEOC v. Miami Assn. of F/F, #92-1634-CIV, 32 (1576) G.E.R.R. (BNA) 981 (S.D.Fla. 1994). {N/R}
     County was liable for sheriff's disciplinary suspension of a black deputy for racial reasons. Steverson v. Goldstein, 24 F.3d 666, 1994 U.S. App. Lexis 14707, 65 FEP Cases (BNA) 42 (5th Cir. 1994). {N/R}
     Preemptory challenge of a prospective black juror in a civil rights suit filed by a black police officer was not erroneous. Jackson v. City of Little Rock, 6 FEP Cases (BNA) 1 (8th Cir. 1994). {N/R}
     Federal court upholds Cincinnati Fire Dept. background investigation procedures, including credit and employment histories, questions about unusual sexual conduct and criminal convictions (but not arrests), and polygraph testing. Tye v. City of Cincinnati, 794 F.Supp. 824 (S.D. Ohio 1992). [1993 FP 27-8]
     Houston settles class action promotional discrimination suit that was pending for 18-years. Edwards v. City of Houston, #H922510, 31 (1501) G.E.R.R. (BNA) 192 (S.D.Tex. 1993). [1993 FP 45]
     Federal appeals court approves of promotional exam score “banding” in San Francisco police litigation. Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Cmsn., 979 F.2d 721 (9th Cir. 1992). [1993 FP 124]
     Pretextual termination of town's only black officer, after he complained of discrimination, stated a cause of action for racial discrimination. Young v. Town of Fallsburg, 774 F.Supp. 205 (S.D.N.Y. 1991). [12]
     Federal appeals court faults city for not using video simulations in its promotional exams for police sergeant. Cluster banding approved as the appropriate remedy. Bridgeport Guardians v. City of Bridgeport, 933 F.2d 1140 (2nd Cir. 1991). [1992 FP 91-2]
     City is not liable for racially-motivated demotions since these were in violation of ordinances and policies and not in furtherance of it. Auriemma v. Rice, 58 FEP Cases (BNA) 341 (7th Cir. 1992). [1992 FP 3]
     Federal Appeals Court (Eighth Circuit) concludes the 1991 Civil Rights Act is NOT retroactive. Several District Courts have ruled the contrary. Fray v. Omaha World Herald, 58 FEP Cases (BNA) 768 (8th Cir. 1992). U.S. District Courts in Alabama Indiana, Georgia and Pennsylvania disagree and hold the act is retroactive. See 58 FEP Cases (BNA) at 625, 646, 650 and 712. [1992 FP 107-8]
     Federal court dissolves a 16-year-old racial bias injunction against an Ohio fire dept. Dozier v. Chupka, 763 F.Supp. 1430 (S.D. Ohio 1991). [1992 FP 108]
     Federal court rules that police dept. did not have to pay premium compensation to bilingual officers who were required to use their language skills. Cota v. Tucson Police Dept., 783 F.Supp. 458, 58 FEP Cases (BNA) 1565 (D.Ariz. 1992). [1992 FP 123]
     Federal court rejects pass/fail written promotional exams, but adopts city's plan to band similar test results over using a strict numerical ranking. U.S. v. City of Montgomery, 775 F.Supp. 1450 (M.D. Ala. 1991). [1992 FP 172]
     Light-skinned black can bring a discrimination suit against a darker-skinned supervisor. Walker v. Secretary of the Treasury, 742 F.Supp. 670 (N.D. Ga. 1990).
     Impudent language to a minority who was later terminated for marginal performance did not create a Title VII action. Fahie v. Thornburgh, 746 F.Supp. 310 (S.D.N.Y. 1990).
     Federal court rules that a light skinned black could pursue a race discrimination claim against a darker-skinned black. [Decision would apply to reverse pigment differences]. Walker v. Secretary of the Treasury, 27 G.E.R.R. (BNA) 717 (N.D. Ga. 1989).
     White female officer who is married to black man, claimed her dismissal was racially motivated; $10,000 compensatory damages awarded for her emotional distress. Davis v. S.E.P.T.A., #87-5117 9E.D. Pa. 1989).
     Black, Spanish-speaking officer who classified himself as "Hispanic" was not entitled to be reclassified as "black" to achieve a quota- mandated promotional preference. Blake v. Sanchez, 547 N.Y.S.2d 332 (A.D. 1989).
     Federal court holds that the state worker's compensation act provided an exclusive remedy for emotional distress and physical injury resulting from a black employee's discriminatory termination. Tilford v. Monsanto, 4 IER Cases (BNA) 1865 (N.D. Cal. 1989).
     Federal appeals court reverses lower court decision that allowed lieutenants to compete for battalion chiefs in Chicago Fire Dept. prior service as captains is "job-related" and does not unlawfully discriminate against black and Hispanic firefighters. Cox v. City of Chicago, 48 FEP Cases (BNA) 1674 (7th Cir. 1989). [reversing 700 F.Supp. 921 (N.D. Ill. 1988)].
     Summary judgment for employer was proper in suit for intentional discrimination, where the application was screened without knowledge of the applicant's race. Robinson v. Adams, 847 F.2d 1315 (9th Cir. 1988).
     Fire company could reject black applicant who was receiving 100 % disability benefits, despite fact dept. had no black firefighters and members of the company referred to him as a nigger. Mullen v. Princess Anne Vol. Fire Co., 853 F.2d 1130 (4th Cir. 1988).
     Federal court allows lieutenants to compete for battalion chiefs in Chicago Fire Dept. prior service as captain is not "job-related" and discriminates against black and Hispanic fire-fighters who were underrepresented in past years. Cox v. City of Chicago, 700 F.Supp. 921 (N. D. Ill. 1988).
     Federal appeals court orders promotion of black firefighter; city failed to prove relevancy of lieutenant's exam. Nash v. Consol. City of Jacksonville, 837 F.2d 1534 (11th Cir. 1988).
     Federal appeals court upholds 4 or 5 components of police sergeant exam in Akron, Ohio. Black Law Enf. Ofcrs. Assn. v. City of Akron, 824 F.2d 475, reh. en banc den. (6th Cir. 1987).
     Florida fire dept. settles discrimination suit with dept. of justice; rejected applicant gets $20,000 and retroactive seniority to 1983. U.S. v. City of Bradenton, Fla., U.S. Dist. Ct., (N.D. Fla. 1987). DoJ REF CR-87-266.
     Federal appeals court upholds the rejection of white candidate for promotion in favor of lower scoring black firefighter seeking position. Higgings v City of Vallejo, 44 FEP Cases 676, 823 F.2d 351 (9th Cir. 1987).
     Minority state employee awarded $1.5 million for losing promotion; discrimination and harassment proved. Watson v. Dept. of Rehabilitation, State of California, Super. Ct. of Los Ang. Co., Cal. #C-268034 (May, 1987).
     Federal anti-discrimination law of 1970 protects Arabs and other Caucasians; applies to small (under 15) employees. Saint Francis College v. Al-Khazraji, 55 Law Week 4626 (1987).
     Content validity not a defense on oral exam results. Gilbert v. City of Little Rock, 790 F.2d 1210 (8th Cir. 1986).
     Federal appeals court upholds in-house evaluation and promotion plan; white officers could assess blacks without discrimination. Minority Police Officers Assn. v. City of South Bend, 801 F.2d 964 (7th Cir. 1986).
     Mayor's alleged reference to police chief applicant as a “god-dam nigger” constituted evidence of discriminatory intent. Wilson v. City of Aliceville, 779 F.2d 631 (11th Cir. 1986).
     Federal appeals court upholds college requirement, no recent drug use, and traffic citation restrictions on police hiring. Davis v. City of Dallas, 777 F.2d 205 (5th Cir. 1985).
     Job-related entry exam for firefighters is not illegal because blacks and Hispanics flunk in greater numbers. Clady v. County of Los Angeles, 770 F.2d 1421 (9th Cir. 1985), cert. den., 106 S.Ct. 1516 (1986).
     Consent decree which did not cover lay-offs could not be the basis for injunctive relief. Composite test scores not determinative in view of Stotts decision. U.S. v. City of Cincinnati L-69, F.O.P., 771 F.2d 161 (6th Cir. 1985).
     Federal court rejects NAACP attempt to block Attorney General's efforts to modify racial consent decrees. N.A.A.C.P. v. Meese, 615 F.Supp. 200 (D.D.C. 1985).
     D.C. fire battalion chiefs prove reverse discrimination claims in deputy chief selection process. Dougherty v. Barry, 607 F.Supp. 1271 (D.D.C. 1985).
     Minorities could "leap-frog" over whites; Chicago police and fire promotion discrimination complaints ended. Bigby v. City of Chicago, 766 F.2d 1053 (7th Cir. 1985).
     Stotts case held an insufficient basis to intervene and set aside a consent decree. Deveraux v. Geary, 765 F.2d 268 (1st Cir. 1985); EEOC v. Local 638, 753 F.2d 1172 (2nd Cir. 1985); Vanguards v. City of Cleveland, 753 F.2d 479 (6th Cir. 1985); Diaz v. American Tel. & Tel., 752 F.2d 1356 (9th Cir. 1985); Turner v. Orr, 759 F.2d 817 (11th Cir. 1985) and Hammon v. Barry, 606 F.Supp. 1082 (D.D.C. 1985).
     Indian who lost his police job due to discrimination entitled to compensatory damages and attorney's fees; punitive damages not recoverable against city. Poolaw v. City of Anadarko, 738 F.2d 364 (10th Cir. 1984).
     City cannot fire black employee for just reasons if it has tolerated similar conduct by white employees. Abasiekong v. City of Shelby, 744 F.2d 1055 (4th Cir. 1984).
     Justice Dept. obtains decree requiring Mississippi to recruit and hire additional black conservation officers. U.S. v. Miss. Dept. of Wildlife, U.S. Dist. Ct. (D. Miss. 1985).
     Cleveland fire dept. one-to-one plan upheld by federal appeals court. Vanguards of Cleveland v. City of Cleveland, 36 FEP Cases 1431 (6th Cir. 1985).
     Justice Dept. suit against San Francisco fire dept. charges racially discriminatory policies against blacks, Asians and Hispanics. U.S. v. City and Co. of San Francisco Fire Dept., U.S. Dist. Ct. (N.D. Cal. 1984).
     Justice Dept. sues Louisiana city for racial discrimination and harassment; injunction sought. U.S. v. City of Westwego, Louisiana, U.S. Dist. Ct. (E.D. La. 1984).
     New black police chief in Chicago demotes many white commanders; suit filed for discrimination. Maloney v. Washington, U.S. Dist. Ct. #84 C 689 (N.D. Ill. 1984).
     Supreme Court lets stand a lower ruling allowing suit against LEAA officials for failure to cut off federal aid. Velde v. National Black Police Assn., #83-1254, 35 CrL (BNA) 4029 (1984).
     Justice department accuses state police academy of flunking recruits due to their race and tolerating an atmosphere of ridicule; reinstatement, back pay sought. U.S. v. New York State Police, U.S. Dist. Ct. (N.D.N.Y. 1984).
     Federal appeals court allows dept. to reject applicant based on unfavorable investigative report of laziness, etc. Ward v. Arkansas State Police, 714 F.2d 62 (8th Cir. 1983).
     Supreme court upholds seniority in minority layoff case involving Memphis fire dept. Last hired, first fired. Firefighters L-1784 v. Stotts, 104 S.Ct. 2576 (1984).
     Federal appeals court rejects consent decree and relied on unproven exams. Williams v. Vokovich, 720 F.2d 909 (6th Cir. 1983).
     Civil service test scores could not be "adjusted" with "racial bonus points" to compensate for impact on minority candidates. Bushey v. New York State Civil Serv. Cmsn., 571 F.Supp. 1562 (1983).
     "Fact" that black male applicants are more likely to have an arrest record was not justification for overturning rejection. Cha-Jua v. Dept. of Fire, 439 So.2d 1150 (La. App. 1983).
     White firefighters lacked standing to contest consent decree; intervention not proper at eleventh hour. U.S. v. Jefferson Co., 720 F.2d 1511 (11th Cir. 1983).
     Union lacks standing to challenge discriminatory hiring practices. Minority Police Officers Assn. v. City of South Bend, 721 F.2d 197 (7th Cir. 1983).
     Hispanic applicant not entitled to preferential hiring practices. Minority Police Officers Assn. v. City of South Bend, 721 F.2d 197 (7th Cir. 1983).
     Minority employees group lacks standing to sue for discriminatory recruitment and hiring efforts. Minority Police Officers Assn. v. City of South Bend, 555 F.Supp. 921 (N.D. Ind. 1983).
     Consent decree in Chicago suburb requires promotion of black officers to sergeant, appointment of black civil service commission, and revised promotional testing. U.S. v. Vil. of Oak Park, Ill., U.S. Dist. Ct. (N.D. Ill. 1983).
     Exclusion of minorities from administrative assignments in Bridgeport police department to remedy discriminatory practices. Bridgeport Guardians Inc. v. Delmonte, 553 F.Supp. 601 (D. Conn. 1983).
     Federal court orders sweeping revisions in assignments in fire dept. illegal; could affect promotional test scores. Wilmore v. City of Wilmington, 699 F.2d 667 (3rd Cir. 1983).
     Supreme court issues six separate opinions in case involving backpay claims of laid off police officers; no agreement on discriminatory intent. Guardians Assn. of the N.Y.C. Police Dept. v. Civil Serv. Cmsn. of City of N.Y., 463 U.S. 582 103 S.Ct. 3221 (1983).
     Reliance on a court hiring order on appeal does not excuse failure to promote white candidates. Hayworth v. City of Oakland, 181 Cal.Rptr. 214 (App. 1982).
     Federal appeals court upholds basic English test in police hiring and affirms award of attorney's fees in fire dept. allegations. Rivera v. City of Wichita Falls, 665 F.2d 531 (5th Cir. 1982).
     Federal appeals court upholds entry level tests that measure ability to comprehend reading material; recruitment failures results in injunction, nominal attorney fees. Rivera v. City of Wichita Falls, 665 F.2d 531 (5th Cir. 1982).
     Fact that chief has discretion on disciplinary punishment and that fellow employees used racially derogatory names does not protect black employee from termination for cause. Pope v. City of Hickory, N.C., 541 F.Supp. 872 (W.D. N.C. 1981), affirmed 679 F.2d 20 (4th Cir. 1982).
     Federal appeals court rejects claim that termination was based on racial discrimination; fourth circuit sets test for reviewing such claims. Pope v. City of Hickory, N.C., 679 F.2d 20 (4th Cir. 1982).
     Poor job performance sufficient cause to reject minority applicant. Ward v. Arkansas State Police, 539 F.Supp. 1116 (E.D. Ark. 1982).
     Federal court upholds lieutenant's exam although blacks fared poorly; appeals court affirms disputed settlement on back pay, limiting recovery to $3,720 per claimant. Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Cmsn., 29 FEP Cases 1473, affirming 473 F.Supp. 801 and prior decisions cited therein (9th Cir. 1982).
     City liable for discriminatory hiring even though testing took place prior to application of federal law. Association Against Discrimination v. City of Bridgeport and Bridgeport Firefighters et al., 647 F.2d 256 (2nd Cir., reh. in banc den., 1981).
     Portland, Oregon, pays $35,000 settlement to ex-officer who claimed he was terminated for racial reasons. Dickerson v. City of Portland Police Bureau, City Council Session of July 15, 1981.
     Minority firefighter could not remain as plaintiff in class action alleging discrimination in hiring. League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) v. City of Salinas Fire Dept., 88 F.R.D. 533 (N.D. Cal.).
     Federal court upholds entry examination despite poor showing by black applicants. Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures 29 C.F.R. Sec. 1607; Corley v. City of Jacksonville, 506 F.Supp. 528 (M.D. Fla. 1981).
     Black officer receives $45,000 for wrongful termination twenty years earlier. Johnson v. City of Sacramento, Sup'r Ct. of Sacramento, Super. Ct. of Sacramento Co. (1981).
     Federal appeals court upholds $40,000 damages for mental suffering to firefighter who was passed over for promotion due to discrimination. League of United Latin American Citizens v. City of Salinas Fire Dept., 27 FEP Cases (BNA) 405 (N.D.Cal. 1979), aff'd 654 F.2d 557 (9th Cir. 1981).
     Consent decree entered in Statesville, N.C. ends all-white police and fire departments; back pay awarded former black firefighter. U.S. v. City of Statesville, U.S. Dist. Ct. (D.N.C. 1981).
     Hatred and mistreatment of others does not excuse abuse of minorities; chief's own minority status irrelevant. Lamb v. Vil. of Bagley, 310 N.W.2d 508 (Minn. 1981).
     All parties to an action must agree to all parts of a consent decree. U.S. v. City of Miami, 664 F.2d 435, 27 FEP Cases 913 (5th Cir. 1981).
     Seniority requirements for promotion set aside by federal court; disparate impact on minorities found. Firefighters Inc. for Racial Equality v. Bach, 522 F.Supp. 1120 (D. Colo. 1981).
     Fifth circuit rejects entrance exams for police and fire applicants; holds that academy training was not job validated. Ensley Branch of the N.A.A.C.P. v. Seibles, 616 F.2d 812 (5th Cir. 1980).
     Applicant properly rejected for firefighter employment, but entitled to litigate department's recruitment practices. Walker v. Robbins Hose Co. No. 1, 622 F.2d 692 (3rd Cir. 1980).
     Omaha agrees to hire black officers at forty percent ratio; $2,000 back pay award authorized for rejected black applicants. Brotherhood of Midwest Guardians v. City of Omaha; U.S. v. City of Omaha, U.S. Dist. Ct. (Neb. 1980).
     Terminated black officer not entitled to reinstatement because blacks are arrested more frequently than whites; pre-hearing suspension approved where criminal activity was alleged. Smith v. Carey, 473 F.Supp. 268 (S.D.N.Y.).
     Federal court in Florida finds shoplifting and hard drug use sufficient grounds to disqualify public safety employment; mere use of marijuana would adversely affect police applicant, but not firefighter applicant; use of polygraph O.K. Drayton v. City of St. Petersburg, 477 F.Supp. 846 (M.D. Fla.).
     Court refuses motion of Mexican-American to intervene in suit brought by blacks and women against Pittsburgh police. Cmnwlth. of Penna. v. Flaherty, 482 F.Supp. 305 (W.D. Pa. 1980).
     St. Louis fire captain promotional system invalidated. U.S. Supreme Court refuses to review racial quotas imposed. Firefighters Institute for Racial Equality v. City of St. Louis, 616 F.2d 350 (8th Cir. 1980), cert. Den. U.S. Sup. Ct. #80-29 at 49 LW 3926 sub nom City of St. Louis v. United States.
     Two million dollar consent decree negotiated with Los Angeles police department; hiring goals established. U.S. v. City of Los Angeles, U.S. Dist. Ct. (C.D. Calif. 1980).
     Federal appeals court upholds bonus points for minority promotional candidates. Kirkland v. N.Y. State Dept. of Corr. Serv., 628 F.2d 796 (2d Cir. 1980).
     Suit against union for alleged discriminatory practices fails; no breach of duty of fair representation shown. Golden v. Local 55, Intnl. Assn. of Fire Fighters, 633 F.2d 817 (9th Cir. 1980).
     Workmens" compensation judge awards officer $100,500 for emotional strain due to department's "racist" pressures. Taylor and City of Oakland, Calif. Indus. Accid. Cmsn. (1979).
     Allegations of "disparate treatment" will not prevent termination of black employee for just cause; Treasury Department also threatened loss of revenue sharing funds. Jones v. Civil Serv. Cmsn. of Alton, 399 N.E.2d 256 (Ill.App. 1979).
     Federal court holds that private testing firm not suable under Sections 1981 or 1983 for discriminatory examinations unless given authority for actual hiring of applicants. Stewart v. Hannon, 469 F. Supp. 1142 (N.D. Ill. 1979).
     Supreme Court hears L.A. firefighter discrimination case; emergency hiring considered moot. County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 99 S.Ct. 1379 (1979); prior decision at 566 F.2d 1334 reversed.
     Hiring rate, not scores on written exams, determines discrimination evidence under federal laws. Brown v. New Haven Civil Serv. Board, 474 F.Supp. 1256 (D. Conn. 1979).
     Recent improvements in minority employment statistics precludes injunctive relief, but individual claimants entitled to back pay. NAACP v. City of Corinth, 83 F.R.D. 46 (1979).
     Dismissal "for cause" cannot be pretext for discriminatory action; blacks and whites must be disciplined evenly. Corley v. Jackson Police Dept., 566 F.2d 994 (5th Cir. 1978).
     Attorneys" fees and expenses computed in Grenada case. Neely v. City of Grenada, 77 F.R.D 484 (N.D. Miss. 1978).
     Supreme Court sets standard for attorney's fees when employer prevails. Christianburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 98 S.Ct. 694 (1978).
     Black officer, first on sergeant's list, entitled to promotion in absence of evidence of justified reasons. Springfield Bd. of Police Cmsnrs. v. Mass. Cmsn. Against Discrimination, 375 N.E.2d 710 (Mass. 1978).
     Content validity sufficient to uphold firefighters’ exams; adverse impact irrelevant. Friend v. Leidinger, 446 F.Supp. 361 (E.D. Va. 1977), aff’d, 588 F.2d 61 at 65-65 (4th Cir. 1978).
     Atlanta federal court orders promotions of black firefighters to lieutenant grade with back pay. Hamer v. City of Atlanta, 450 F.Supp. 771 (N.D. Ga. 1978).
     Federal Court orders back pay and revised personnel procedures in Grenada, Mississippi; fire and police principal targets. Neely v. City of Grenada, 438 F.Supp. 390 (N.D. Miss. 1977).
     Supreme Court holds that minority employees who failed to apply for advanced positions can recover pay differentials under Title VII, because submitting an application under discriminatory seniority and promotion policies would have been futile. Teamsters v. U.S., 431 U.S. 324, 97 S.Ct. 1843 (1977). {N/R}
     Federal court upholds detective exam that only whites passed; job relatedness found. Bridgeport Guardians v. Bridgeport Police Dept., 431 F.Supp. 931 (D. Conn. 1977). Attorney General reopens Milwaukee police case; alleges that promotional exams and assignment policies are still discriminatory. U.S. v. City of Milwaukee, #74-C0480 (E.D. Wis.); see prior opin. at 395 F.Supp. 725, 439 F.Supp. 264 and 441 F.Supp. 1371 (1977).
     Attorneys" fees and expenses computed in Philadelphia case. Commonw. v. O'Neill, 16 FEP Cases 797 (E.D. Pa. 1977).
     California rules that ex-felons may be barred from police employment; discriminatory impact not relevant. Hetherington v. Calif. St. Personnel Bd., 147 Cal.Rptr. 300 (App. 1978).
     Criterion validity insufficient if measured to performance in subordinate positions. U.S. v. City of Chicago, 573 F.2d 416 (7th Cir. 1978).
     Norfolk, Virginia signs consent decree on police and firefighting hiring. U.S. Department of Justice v. City of Norfolk, U.S. Dist. Ct. (E.D.Va. 1978).
     Federal appeals court upholds city's garnishment, accident review, performance rating systems; entry level tests may be validated out-of- state. Friend v. Leidinger, 588 F.2d 61 (4th Cir. 1978).
     Attorney fees granted in New Haven discrimination case. Firebird Society v. Members of the Bd. of Fire Cmsnrs., 433 F.Supp. 752 (D.Conn. 1976), aff'd 556 F.2d 642 (2d Cir. 1977).
     New Jersey Supreme Court rejects quota hiring as appropriate remedy for past discriminatory hiring practices. Lige v. Town of Montclair, 367 A.2d 833 (N.J. 1976).
     Supreme Court sheds new light on employment tests; discriminatory impact is not unconstitutional, if exam is related to success in the training academy. Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 12 FEP Cases (BNA) 1415 (June, 1976).
     Revenue Sharing Loss. U.S. v. City of Chicago, 411 F.Supp. 218 (1976).
     Promotional procedures still subject of challenge in racial discrimination suits. McCullers v. City of Raleigh, 11 FEP Cases 1037 (E.D. Va. 1975); Hiatt v. City of Berkeley, 10 FEP Cases 251; Firefighters L-134 v. City of Atlanta, 11 FEP Cases 1129, Sup'r Ct., Fulton Co., Ga. (Dec. 2, 1976); Detroit Fire Fighters Assn. v. City of Detroit, U.S. Dist. Ct. (E.D. Mich. 1976).
     California federal court finds that recruiting efforts outside city limits discriminates against Mexican-Americans. League of United Latin American Citizens v. City of Santa Ana, 410 F.Supp. 873 (C.D. Cal. 1976).
     Retroactive seniority authorized by supreme court in Title VII discrimination cases. Franks v. Bowman Transportation Co., Inc. 96 S.Ct. 1251, reversing 495 F.2d 398 (March, 1976).
     White firefighters denied thirteenth hour bid to intervene in New Haven discrimination case; Second Circuit affirms. Firebird Society of New Haven, Inc. v. New Haven Bd. of Fire Cmsnrs., 66 F.R.D. 457 (D.Conn. 1875), aff'd 515 F.2d 504 (2d Cir. 1975); Oburn v. Shapp, 393 F.Supp. 561, 576 (E.D. Pa. 1975).
     Supreme Court "clarifies" test validation and back pay considerations in equal employment suits. Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 95 S.Ct. 2362 (1975).
     Last hired, first fired, prevails in Detroit hiring cases: Black firefighters lose their jobs in cutback. Driscoll v. Jefferson, #75-70813, 11 FEP Cases (BNA) 308 (E.D.Mich. 1975); Schaefer v. Tannian, 394 F.Supp. 1136 (E.D.Mich. 1975).
     Standing to intervene discussed. Haber v. Klassen, 10 FEP Cases 1446 (N.D. Ohio, 1975).
     Federal court in Milwaukee denies "technical" defenses, holds title VII is not "vague" in constitutional sense. Suit by city against Attorney General for "selective enforcement" fails. U.S. v. City of Milwaukee, 395 F.Supp. 725 (E.D. Wis. 1975); City of Milwaukee v. Saxbe, 403 F.Supp. 416 (E.D. Wis. 1975).
     Back Pay discussed: Green v. Missouri Pac. R.R. Co., 11 FEP Cases 658 (8th Cir. 1975).
     Ninth Circuit sidesteps racial hiring appeal in San Francisco; implementation of lower court order mooted appeal. Western Addition Commun. Org. v. Alioto, 10 FEP Cases 527 (March 17, 1975).
     The EEOC found that use of the Wonderlic and Bennett tests resulted in 58% of whites passing the tests, as compared with only 6% of the blacks. Griggs v. Duke Power, 401 U.S. 424, 91 S.Ct. 849, 1971 U.S. Lexis 134, 3 FEP Cases (BNA) 175. {N/R}
     See also: Disciplinary Punishment; Physical Fitness Tests & Standards; Race-Affirmative Action & Quotas; Race and Sex Discrimination and EEOC regulations at www.eeoc.gov/regs/

Back to list of subjects Back to Legal Publications Menu