Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Flaherty

404 F. Supp. 1022, 11 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 993
CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
DecidedDecember 5, 1975
DocketCiv. A. 75-162
StatusPublished
Cited by25 cases

This text of 404 F. Supp. 1022 (Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Flaherty) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Flaherty, 404 F. Supp. 1022, 11 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 993 (W.D. Pa. 1975).

Opinion

OPINION AND FINDINGS

WEBER, District Judge.

This action has been instituted by a congeries of parties plaintiff, both individuals and organizations, and defendants have moved to dismiss as to many of them. Also the plaintiffs bring the action as a class action as to certain enumerated classes. We find it unnecessary to determine these matters at the present stage because wé believe that we have one proper party plaintiff sufficient to all these purposes, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

The Commonwealth brings this action on behalf of all citizens of the Commonwealth, including the named plaintiffs. We find that the Commonwealth is a proper party plaintiff and has standing to bring this action on behalf of all citizens of the Commonwealth to redress racially discriminatory employment practices. Hawaii v. Standard Oil Co., 405 U.S. 251, 92 S.Ct. 885, 31 L.Ed.2d 184 [1972]; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania et al. v. Glickman, 370 F. Supp. 724 [W.D.Pa.1974].

Defendants are the Mayor of the City of Pittsburgh, the Police Superintendent, the members of the Civil Service Commission, its Secretary and Chief Examiner, all of whom are alleged to be responsible in their official capacities for the recruitment, qualification, selection, appointment and supervision of police officers and the Bureau of Police of the City of Pittsburgh. These individual defendants are charged, in their respective official capacities, as acting under color of law. The City of Pittsburgh as a municipal corporation is also named defendant.

Jurisdiction is claimed under 28'U.S. C. 1331, 1343(3) and (4). We find that the court has jurisdiction over the matter.

The complaint alleged discrimination in the hiring, appointment, promotion, and working conditions of black and female applicants and officers in the Bureau of Police of the City of Pittsburgh.

At this stage of the proceedings we are only concerned with the hiring procedure for applicants for appointment as police officers. The City of Pittsburgh and the defendant officers have administered a written examination and now propose to proceed to the appointment of 44 officers utilizing the usual civil service procedures including the “Rule of 3” as set forth in the Pennsylvania Civil Service Code, 53 P.S. § 23446, which provides for the submission in order of rank on the written examination (including Veterans’ Preference). A preliminary injunction has been sought to enjoin this procedure and seek such other equitable relief solely with respect to the issue of the hiring and appointment practice. An extensive stipulation of facts has been filed and the court has heard additional evidence with respect to this issue.

FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO REPRESENTATION BY RACE AND SEX

1. The proportion of black persons in the population of the City of Pittsburgh in recent years is as follows:

1970 20%
1960 17%
1950 12%

2. The proportion of black persons in the labor force of the City of Pittsburgh in recent years is as follows:

1974 17%
1970 17%
1960 15%

3. The proportion of black persons on the police force of the City of Pittsburgh for recent years for which such information is available is as follows:

June 6, 1975 84 (5.9%) out of a total of 1431
Nov. 7, 1973 99 (6.4%) out of a total of 1549

*1025 Thus of a total decrease of police officers of 133 in the last 18 months 11.3% were black officers, or double the ratio of black officers on the whole force.

4. From February 10, 1969 to the present the police officers hired by the City of Pittsburgh were distributed by race as follows:

Feb. 10, 1969 1 (2.3%) black out of 43
July 28, 1969 2 (4.2%) black out of 48
Sept. 22, 1969 4 (8.7%) black out of 46
Jan. 12, 1970 2 (5.4%) black out of 37
Oct. 26, 1970 0 blacks out of 38

Thus of 212 new police officers added since February 10, 1969, 9, or 4.2% were black. None of these appointees were female.

5. By age the black persons on the police force are more heavily concentrated among the older officers nearer the retirement qualifications. Only 21 of the 84 black officers are age 40 or under, while 529 of 1,347 white officers are age 40 or under.

6. The ratio of blacks to whites has been declining in the past two years and the ratio of blacks will decline in the future more rapidly because a higher proportion of blacks are older and nearer the retirement age.

7. The ratio of women on the police force to men is now 12 (.8%) out of 1,431. This includes those classified • as “matrons”. No woman has been appointed since 1966 and that woman is now 45 years of age and is the lowest woman on the seniority list.

8. The labor force for the City of Pittsburgh in 1974 was 213,000 persons of whom 84,000 or 40% were women. In 1970 the labor force was 204,000 persons of whom 81,000 or 40% were women. In 1960 the labor force was 242,000 persons of whom 81,000 or 34% were women.

9. Of a total of applicants to take the police examination in 1975 of 3,299, 1,176 or 35.6% were women. Of- a total of 1,949 persons passing the test, 751 or 39% were women.

THE DISCRIMINATORY EFFECT OF THE SELECTION PROCESS:

The marked difference between the population ratios, the labor force ratios, and the applicant ratios as divided between white and black applicants, and the make-up of the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police as similarly divided demonstrates a “racially disproportionate impact” of the method of selection. In the past there were many factors that may have caused this impact, such as an unwarranted formal educational requirement, disqualification for records of arrest or minor criminal convictions, or an attitude of blacks that police employment was not readily available to them, as evidenced by testimony that between 1959 and 1971 the number of black applicants for police appointments was significantly less than the proportion of blacks in the labor force.

We find that the Civil Service Commission in 1975 undertook an intensive recruitment campaign to encourage blacks and women to apply for a position as police officer. This was not only a highly commendable effort but it resulted in a ratio of 27.5% minority group (most black) applicants. 1 This exceeds the ratio of blacks in the general population.

For many years the Civil Service Commission has administered a written test as part of the qualification for appointment of its police officers. Prior to 1970 there is no record to indicate if any of these written examinations were validated by any standards respecting job-relatedness.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Wolfe v. City of Pittsburgh
140 F.3d 236 (Third Circuit, 1998)
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Guardians of Greater Pittsburgh, Inc., Individually and on Behalf of Its Members and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated National Association for the Advancement of Colored People--Pittsburgh Branch, Individually and on Behalf of Its Members and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated National Organization for Women--Southwestern Pennsylvania Council of Chapters, Individually and on Behalf of Its Members and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, and Donald Allen, Benjamin Ashe, Jerome Aziz, Richard Hurt, Adam Kinsel, Lynnwood Scott and Richard Stewart, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated J. Terese Doyle, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated Cheryl Edmonds, Rose Mitchum, Linda Robinson, Joanne Rowe, Deborah Smith and Gloria Vanda, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated Harvey Adams, Mack Henderson, Theodore Saulsbury, and Charles Tarrant, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Gladys Smith, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Peter F. Flaherty, Mayor of the City of Pittsburgh and Acting Director of the Department of Public Safety of the City of Pittsburgh Robert J. Coll, Superintendent of the City of Pittsburgh Bureau of Police Stephen A. Glickman, President of the City of Pittsburgh Civil Service Commission Albert Statti and Edward L. English, Members of the City of Pittsburgh Civil Service Commission Melanie J. Smith, Secretary and Chief Examiner of the City of Pittsburgh Civil Service Commission and City of Pittsburgh, All Individually and in Their Official Capacities v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Fraternal Order of Police (Intervenor in d.c.). Michael C. Slater v. City of Pittsburgh, a Municipal Corporation. Charles H. Boehm Paul G. Clark and Richard Usner, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. Sophie Masloff, Mayor of the City of Pittsburgh Melanie J. Smith, Director of Personnel of the City of Pittsburgh the Pittsburgh Civil Service Commission and the City of Pittsburgh, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
983 F.2d 1267 (Third Circuit, 1993)
Pennsylvania v. Flaherty
983 F.2d 1267 (Third Circuit, 1993)
Pennsylvania v. Flaherty
760 F. Supp. 472 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 1991)
Civil Service Commission v. Paieski
559 A.2d 121 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1989)
People of New York v. 11 Cornwell Co.
695 F.2d 34 (Second Circuit, 1982)
People v. 11 Cornwell Company
695 F.2d 34 (Second Circuit, 1982)
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Porter
659 F.2d 306 (Third Circuit, 1981)
Commonwealth v. Porter
659 F.2d 306 (Third Circuit, 1981)
Chmill v. City of Pittsburgh
412 A.2d 860 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1980)
Firefighters Institute v. City of St. Louis
588 F.2d 235 (Eighth Circuit, 1978)
Prince George's County v. Levi
79 F.R.D. 1 (D. Maryland, 1977)
City of Safety Harbor v. Birchfield
529 F.2d 1251 (Fifth Circuit, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
404 F. Supp. 1022, 11 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 993, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-of-pennsylvania-v-flaherty-pawd-1975.