Guardians Ass'n of New York City Police Department, Inc v. Civil Service Commission of New York

431 F. Supp. 526, 18 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 63, 23 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 1223, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16856, 13 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 11,611
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedMarch 17, 1977
Docket76 Civ. 1982
StatusPublished
Cited by28 cases

This text of 431 F. Supp. 526 (Guardians Ass'n of New York City Police Department, Inc v. Civil Service Commission of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Guardians Ass'n of New York City Police Department, Inc v. Civil Service Commission of New York, 431 F. Supp. 526, 18 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 63, 23 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 1223, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16856, 13 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 11,611 (S.D.N.Y. 1977).

Opinion

ROBERT L. CARTER, District Judge.

Statement of the Case

This action challenges the legality of the hiring and firing practices of the *530 New York City Police Department (“NYCPD”). Jurisdiction is based on Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(3), (4) and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983 and 2000e-5(f)(3). 1 Plaintiffs allege that defendants’ practices violate the Fourteenth Amendment, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. 2 Plaintiffs have moved for a preliminary injunction restraining the NYCPD from firing or recalling any police officers until seniority lists are reordered to accord plaintiffs the seniority they would have had but for defendants’ discriminatory practices. Plaintiffs also seek certification of a class consisting of black and Hispanic officers who were subject to layoff in June, 1975. For the reasons set forth below, plaintiffs’ motions are granted. 3

Procedural Background

This action was commenced May 3, 1976, by an order to show cause seeking a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction. The application for a temporary restraining order was denied. A hearing on the application for a preliminary injunction was held on May 12, 1976. At the hearing, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds of statute of limitations, laches, and lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Their motion was denied, and the hearing commenced. It continued intermittently until July 29, 1976.

Having heard that the NYCPD intended to recall previously laid off police officers, plaintiffs in the early part of July renewed their application for a temporary restraining order barring such recall pending determination of the rights of the discharged black and Hispanic police officers in this litigation. The court denied this application on the basis of an affidavit of Michael J. Codd, Police Commissioner, which recited that all recalled officers were to be notified that their rights to employment were subject to any determination that might be made in this pending litigation.

Factual Background

Plaintiffs are black and Hispanic police officers on layoff since June, 1975. They allege that the NYCPD’s use of its pre-1973 entry level examinations and its former requirement that all police officers be 67 inches or taller discriminated against them, and that but for this discrimination they *531 would have accrued sufficient seniority to withstand being fired. Defendants are the NYCPD, the New York City Department of Personnel, whose staff prepare and administer the examinations, and the Civil Service Commission, which prescribes rules for administering the civil service laws.

Because of the fiscal crisis affecting the entire city, the NYCPD was required to cut its budget by three percent. As a result, 2,864 police officers were discharged in June, 1975, pursuant to the last-hired, first-fired seniority system existing in the NYCPD. Plaintiffs complain that these terminations, 21.5 percent of which were minorities, 4 perpetuate defendants’ past discriminatory practices, and violate the strictures of the Fourteenth Amendment, Title VII and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983.

Class Action Certification

For class action treatment to be appropriate, all the requirements of subdivision (a), and one of the alternative requirements of subdivision (b), of Rule 23, Fed.R.Civ.P. must be satisfied. 5 There is little doubt that plaintiffs have met the first three requirements of Rule 23(a).

1. The Numerosity Requirement

The proposed class consists of all black and Hispanic New York City policemen currently on layoff who would not have been furloughed but for defendants’ allegedly discriminatory employment practices. Plaintiffs make the uncontroverted allegation that the class numbers between 200 and 600 blacks and Hispanics. Given these figures, the numerosity requirement is clearly met. Korn v. Franchard Corp., 456 F.2d 1206, 1209 (2d Cir. 1972); Ste. Marie v. Eastern R. R. Ass’n, 72 F.R.D. 443 (S.D.N.Y.1976) (Carter, J.).

2. Common Questions of Law or Fact

Race discrimination cases, by their very nature, involve behavior that affects a group of people. Rodriguez v. East Texas Motor Freight Co., 505 F.2d 40, 50 (5th Cir. 1974); Oatis v. Crown Zellerbach Corp., 398 F.2d 496, 499 (5th Cir. 1968). Plaintiffs here claim that defendants’ practice of discharging police officers based on their seniority violates Title VII and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 by perpetuating discrimination effected by the use of racially biased entry level examinations and a discriminatory height requirement. It is clear that these claims:

“not only can, but most appropriately should be decided as a class action since ‘the evil sought to be ended is discrimination on the basis of a class characteristic, *532 i. e., race, sex, religion, or national origin.’

Hecht v. Cooperative for Am. Relief Everywhere, Inc., 351 F.Supp. 305, 312 (S.D.N.Y. 1972) (Lasker, J.) (citations omitted).

3. Representative Parties’ Claims Typical of the Claims of the Class

The claims of the representative parties are typical of most of the class. The individual plaintiffs claim to be on layoff either as a result of defendants’ discriminatory use of entry level examinations or as a result of defendants’ discriminatory height requirement.

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

Related

Decesare v. Lincoln Benefit Life, Pb-99/2048 (2005)
Superior Court of Rhode Island, 2005
Pennsylvania v. Flaherty
760 F. Supp. 472 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 1991)
Bruce v. Christian
113 F.R.D. 554 (S.D. New York, 1986)
Dean v. Coughlin
107 F.R.D. 331 (S.D. New York, 1985)
Allen v. Colgate-Palmolive Co.
539 F. Supp. 57 (S.D. New York, 1981)
German v. Killeen
495 F. Supp. 822 (E.D. Michigan, 1980)
Ensley Branch of the N. A. A. C. P. v. Seibels
616 F.2d 812 (Fifth Circuit, 1980)
Gay v. Waiters' & Dairy Lunchmen's Union, Local No. 30
489 F. Supp. 282 (N.D. California, 1980)
Gay v. WAITERS'AND DAIRY LUNCHMEN'S UNION, LOCAL NO. 30
489 F. Supp. 282 (N.D. California, 1980)
Vanguard Justice Society, Inc. v. Hughes
471 F. Supp. 670 (D. Maryland, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
431 F. Supp. 526, 18 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 63, 23 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 1223, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16856, 13 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 11,611, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guardians-assn-of-new-york-city-police-department-inc-v-civil-service-nysd-1977.