ILNews

7th Circuit rules for city on discrimination claims brought by black officers, firefighters

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed summary judgment for the City of Indianapolis in two lawsuits brought by dozens of black police officers and firefighters over the examination process used by the city for promotions.

The officers and firefighters brought back-to-back lawsuits targeting promoting decisions made in successive promotion cycles dating back to 2002, but most of the decisions involved testing protocols administered in 2007 and 2008. The second suit involves the years 2010 and 2011. The plaintiffs alleged they were passed over for promotions in favor of candidates who achieved higher composite scores. They claim that the process used to rank candidates for promotion has a disparate impact on black candidates and is intentionally discriminatory.

The examination process consisted of a written test, an oral exercise and an assessment of the candidate’s “personnel profile.” The oral exercise had three parts: an interview, oral assessment in which applicants responded to hypothetical scenarios and a written exercise requiring the applicants to draft reports and correspondence. The firefighter promotion processes also included a practical exercise.

Judge Sarah Evans Barker granted summary judgment to the city on the disparate-treatment claims in the first suit because the plaintiffs didn’t produce any evidence that using the test results to make promotions was a pretext for discrimination. Barker dismissed the second suit as barred by res judicata because the more recent promotion decisions were made from the same eligibility list generated by the testing process at issue in the first lawsuit.

“First, although the district court mistakenly assumed that allegations of intentional discrimination necessarily defeat a disparate-impact claim, here the disparate-impact claims fail in any event because they are stated as legal conclusions, without any factual content to support an inference that the City’s examination procedures caused a disparate impact on black applicants for promotion in the police or fire departments,” Judge Diana Sykes wrote in Kendale L. Adams, et al. v City of Indianapolis, 12-1874. “Second, the disparate-treatment claims lacked any evidentiary support and were properly resolved in the City’s favor on summary judgment. Finally the claims in the second lawsuit are precluded. Although the new complaint concerns a different set of promotion decisions, it attacks the same eligibility list that was at issue in the first case. The plaintiffs’ challenge to that testing process was fully and finally resolved against them in the first suit, so their second suit against the City is barred.”

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. by the time anybody gets to such files they will probably have been totally vacuumed anyways. they're pros at this at universities. anything to protect their incomes. Still, a laudable attempt. Let's go for throat though: how about the idea of unionizing football college football players so they can get a fair shake for their work? then if one of the players is a pain in the neck cut them loose instead of protecting them. if that kills the big programs, great, what do they have to do with learning anyways? nada. just another way for universities to rake in the billions even as they skate from paying taxes with their bogus "nonprofit" status.

  2. Um the affidavit from the lawyer is admissible, competent evidence of reasonableness itself. And anybody who had done law work in small claims court would not have blinked at that modest fee. Where do judges come up with this stuff? Somebody is showing a lack of experience and it wasn't the lawyers

  3. My children were taken away a year ago due to drugs, and u struggled to get things on track, and now that I have been passing drug screens for almost 6 months now and not missing visits they have already filed to take my rights away. I need help.....I can't loose my babies. Plz feel free to call if u can help. Sarah at 765-865-7589

  4. Females now rule over every appellate court in Indiana, and from the federal southern district, as well as at the head of many judicial agencies. Give me a break, ladies! Can we men organize guy-only clubs to tell our sob stories about being too sexy for our shirts and not being picked for appellate court openings? Nope, that would be sexist! Ah modernity, such a ball of confusion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmRsWdK0PRI

  5. LOL thanks Jennifer, thanks to me for reading, but not reading closely enough! I thought about it after posting and realized such is just what was reported. My bad. NOW ... how about reporting who the attorneys were raking in the Purdue alum dollars?

ADVERTISEMENT