University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name United States of America v. City of New York and New York City Department of Transportation EE-NY-0193
Docket / Court 1:07-cv-02083-WHP ( S.D.N.Y. )
State/Territory New York
Case Type(s) Equal Employment
Attorney Organization U.S. Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Division
Case Summary
On March 12, 2007, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a lawsuit under Title VII in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the City of New York. The DOJ sought injunctive and monetary relief, alleging that the defendant had engaged in a pattern or practice of ... read more >
On March 12, 2007, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a lawsuit under Title VII in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the City of New York. The DOJ sought injunctive and monetary relief, alleging that the defendant had engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination on the basis of sex in its hiring practices.

The complaint alleges that the City of New York, specifically the New York City Department of Transportation ("DOT"), implemented discriminatory recruitment and hiring procedures on the basis of sex by: (1) failing or refusing to hire women for the position of Bridge Painter on the same basis as men; and (2) by failing or refusing to take appropriate action to correct the present effects of their discriminatory policies and practices.

On June 27, 2007, intervenor plaintiffs, a labor union and several females previously not hired by the DOT, were added to the action.

On October 31, 2008, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, which was denied in part and granted in part on July 2, 2009. The motion was denied with respect to the allegations of pattern or practice of discrimination by the United States, but granted with respect to the same allegation by intervenor-plaintiffs. The Court reasoned that individuals cannot bring pattern or practice claims and each individual alleged wrongdoing was time barred.

After more discovery and pre-trial motions, the case went into a bench trial. On May 13, 2010, the Court (Judge William H. Pauley III) issued an opinion and order, finding for the plaintiff United States. The court found that the defendant was engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination, by not having objective hiring criteria, giving preference to less qualified male applicants, and maintaining a hostile work environment. It did not find the City's justifications to be compelling. The Court ordered to implement the United States proposed orders of remedial relief to establish objective hiring procedures at the DOT. Judgment on individual compensation and relief was reserved for later.

On May 28, 2010, the Court issued a judgment approving the compliance injunction by the United States. Under the proposed orders, the defendant had to establish objective hiring criteria and advertise those criteria, as well as have established interviewing procedures. The proposed orders also included general injunctions: 1) prohibition against gender discrimination in recruitment and hiring of bridge painters; 2) prohibition on retaliation. It was also ordered that the City submitted three annual reports describing its compliance, kept all records pertaining to the orders, and that United States had a right to monitor compliance.

On June 25, 2010, the defendants appealed against the May 28 judgment. However, the parties then settled and the appeal was withdrawn. On September 30, 2010, the Court entered stipulation and order of settlement. The agreement did not in any way modify the compliance injunction. The defendant agreed to pay $250,000.00 to four intervenor plaintiffs each ($1,000,000.00 total). The defendant had a right to apply to the court for modification of the compliance injunction.

After a fairness hearing on December 7, 2010, the Court ordered the agreement to be fair and lawful, and adopted the compliance injunction as its final order.

Hyun Jeong Yang - 11/27/2007
Zhandos Kuderin - 07/17/2014


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Affected Gender
Female
Content of Injunction
Comply with advertising/recruiting requirements
Develop anti-discrimination policy
Discrimination Prohibition
Follow recruitment, hiring, or promotion protocols
Hire
Monitoring
Other requirements regarding hiring, promotion, retention
Recordkeeping
Reporting
Retaliation Prohibition
Utilize objective hiring/promotion criteria
Defendant-type
Transportation
Discrimination-area
Harassment / Hostile Work Environment
Hiring
Discrimination-basis
Sex discrimination
General
Disparate Treatment
Pattern or Practice
Plaintiff Type
U.S. Dept of Justice plaintiff
Causes of Action Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000e
Defendant(s) City of New York
Plaintiff Description U.S. Department of Justice on behalf of women discriminated on the basis of sex in hiring process of New York City Department of Transportation
Indexed Lawyer Organizations U.S. Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Division
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted No
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Declaratory Judgment
Damages
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Litigation
Settlement
Form of Settlement Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Order Duration 2010 - 2013
Case Closing Year 2013
Case Ongoing No
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
Case Studies Megacases, Diversity, and the Elusive Goal of Workplace Reform
Written: Mar. 01, 2008
By: Nancy Levit (University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law)
Citation: 49 B.C. L. Rev. 367 (2008)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Second Generation Employment Discrimination: A Structural Approach
By: Susan Sturm (Columbia Law School)
Citation: 101 Colum. L. Rev. 458 (2001)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

Docket(s)
1:07-cv-02083-WHP (S.D.N.Y.) 01/07/2011
EE-NY-0193-9000 PDF | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Complaint 03/17/2007
EE-NY-0193-0001 PDF | Detail
Memorandum and Order [Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment] 07/02/2009 (631 F.Supp.2d 419) (S.D.N.Y.)
EE-NY-0193-0002 PDF | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Opinion and Order [Adopting in Part Plaintiff's Order of Remedial Relief] 05/13/2010 (713 F.Supp.2d 300) (S.D.N.Y.)
EE-NY-0193-0003 PDF | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Compliance Injunction 05/28/2010 (S.D.N.Y.)
EE-NY-0193-0004 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judgment 05/28/2010 (S.D.N.Y.)
EE-NY-0193-0005 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Stipulation and Order of Settlement with Respect to Victim-Specific Relief 09/30/2010 (S.D.N.Y.)
EE-NY-0193-0006 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Final Order Adopting the Compliance Injunction 12/07/2010 (S.D.N.Y.)
EE-NY-0193-0007 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Pauley, William H. III (S.D.N.Y.)
EE-NY-0193-0002 | EE-NY-0193-0003 | EE-NY-0193-0004 | EE-NY-0193-0005 | EE-NY-0193-0006 | EE-NY-0193-0007 | EE-NY-0193-9000
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers Bharara, Preetinder S. (New York)
EE-NY-0193-0006
Penn, Allison D (New York)
EE-NY-0193-0001 | EE-NY-0193-0006 | EE-NY-0193-9000
Vargas, Jeannette Anne (New York)
EE-NY-0193-0001 | EE-NY-0193-0003 | EE-NY-0193-0006 | EE-NY-0193-9000
Wien, Howard (New York)
EE-NY-0193-0003
Yu, Li (New York)
EE-NY-0193-0006 | EE-NY-0193-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Cardozo, Michael A. (New York)
EE-NY-0193-0006
Rosenbaum, Bruce (New York)
EE-NY-0193-0003 | EE-NY-0193-0006 | EE-NY-0193-9000
Seacord, Christopher Aaron (New York)
EE-NY-0193-9000
Other Lawyers None on record

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -