University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name United States of America v. Village of Woodmere, Ohio EE-OH-0089
Docket / Court 07-CV-1541 ( N.D. Ohio )
State/Territory Ohio
Case Type(s) Equal Employment
Attorney Organization U.S. Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Division
Case Summary
On May 25, 2007 the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a lawsuit against the Village of Woodmere, Ohio in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio to enforce Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e, et seq. The D.O.J. asked the court for injunctive and compensatory ... read more >
On May 25, 2007 the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a lawsuit against the Village of Woodmere, Ohio in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio to enforce Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e, et seq. The D.O.J. asked the court for injunctive and compensatory relief, alleging the defendant had violated Title VII by discriminating against two employees in the defendant's police department on the basis of their race, white.

The court granted motions of two separate plaintiffs, both white police officers, to intervene in the case. Both interveners alleged: (1) termination against the plaintiffs was disproportionate and racially discriminatory; (2) gross and discriminatory conduct by the Village of Woodmere police chief; (3) defendants, acting in their official capacities, furthered the village's plan of racial preference by terminating the plaintiff and terminating another white officer while being aware that black officers are not disciplined for actions significantly more serious that those of the plaintiff and by another white officer.

The DOJ complaint alleges that the Village of Woodmere, Ohio violated Title VII by: (1) failing or refusing to confirm the one officer from probationary to regular status as a police officer approximately one year after she began employment as a probationary officer; (2) failure to provide said officer with any pre-disciplinary/termination hearing; (3) terminating both officers' employment; (4) failing or refusing to take appropriate action to remedy the effects of it's discrimination against either of the officers.

The DOJ sought to remedy the effects of the discrimination by requiring the defendant to: (1) provide sufficient remedial relief to make the officers whole again as the result of losses suffered by the allegations in the complaint; (2) take other appropriate non-discriminatory measures to overcome the effect of the discrimination; (3) award compensatory damages to both officers to compensate for injuries resulting from defendant's discrimination.

The parties reached a settlement agreement and filed a joint motion for entry of consent decree on August 11, 2008. The decree was entered by the Court (Judge Donald C. Nugent) on August 13, 2008. Under the agreement, the parties sought to ensure that the defendant did not discriminate against employees on the basis of race. For that purpose, the defendant agreed to maintain clear and well-publicized policies, provide adequate nondiscrimination training, appoint an equal opportunities officer (EEO) to administer its policies and procedures. The decree contained two general injunctions: 1) prohibition of discrimination on the basis of race; 2) prohibition of retaliation. The defendant agreed to the amend its policies to implement the following: 1) description of complaints procedures, written or verbal; 2) identification of persons responsible for handling race discrimination complaints; 3) prompt and objective investigation of complaints, with results no later than 30 days after filing of a complaint; 4) maintaining confidentiality of complainants to the maximum extent possible. One individual in the case received $125,000.00. The other individual was also to receive a monetary award, but the amount is unknown. One of the individuals was reinstated with retroactive seniority. Both of their records were expunged from negative references and both of them were to receive neutral references in the future. The defendant agreed to keep records pertinent to the implementation of the decree. The United States reserved a right to monitor compliance. The Court retained jurisdiction over the decree for its duration.

James Floyd - 11/01/2007
Zhandos Kuderin - 07/17/2014


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Content of Injunction
Develop anti-discrimination policy
Discrimination Prohibition
Expungement of Employment Record
Implement complaint/dispute resolution process
Monitoring
Neutral/Positive Reference
Position Restored
Provide antidiscrimination training
Recordkeeping
Reinstatement
Reporting
Retaliation Prohibition
Retroactive Senority
Defendant-type
Law-enforcement
Discrimination-area
Discharge / Constructive Discharge / Layoff
Discipline
Other Conditions of Employment (including assignment, transfer, hours, working conditions, etc)
Promotion
Seniority
Discrimination-basis
Race discrimination
General
Disparate Treatment
Plaintiff Type
U.S. Dept of Justice plaintiff
Race
White
Causes of Action Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e
Defendant(s) Village of Woodmere, Ohio
Plaintiff Description United States of America on behalf of two white police officers
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 Damages
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Settlement
Form of Settlement Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Order Duration 2008 - 2011
Case Closing Year 2011
Case Ongoing Unknown
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-01541-DCN (N.D. Ohio) 08/14/2008
EE-OH-0089-9000 PDF | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Complaint 05/25/2007
EE-OH-0089-0001 PDF | Detail
Defendent Village of Woodmere's Answer to Complaint 06/26/2007
EE-OH-0089-0002 PDF | Detail
Complaint of Intervener-Plaintiff 07/05/2007
EE-OH-0089-0005 PDF | Detail
Complaint of Intervener-Plaintiff 07/05/2007
EE-OH-0089-0006 PDF | Detail
Answer of Defendents to Complaint of Timothy J. Ellis 09/10/2007
EE-OH-0089-0003 PDF | Detail
Answer of Defendents to Complaint of Amy Mengay 09/10/2007
EE-OH-0089-0004 PDF | Detail
Consent Decree [Resolving Case] 08/13/2008 (N.D. Ohio)
EE-OH-0089-0007 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges McHargh, Kenneth S (N.D. Ohio) [Magistrate]
EE-OH-0089-0002
Nugent, Donald C. (N.D. Ohio)
EE-OH-0089-0001 | EE-OH-0089-0002 | EE-OH-0089-0003 | EE-OH-0089-0004 | EE-OH-0089-0005 | EE-OH-0089-0006 | EE-OH-0089-0007 | EE-OH-0089-9000
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers Bouvier, Jaime M. (Ohio)
EE-OH-0089-9000
Chandra, Subodh (Ohio)
EE-OH-0089-9000
Danis, Jodi B (District of Columbia)
EE-OH-0089-9000
Fenton, William B. (District of Columbia)
EE-OH-0089-0001 | EE-OH-0089-0002 | EE-OH-0089-9000
Galbreath, Robert Lee (District of Columbia)
EE-OH-0089-9000
Hammond, Kristofor J (District of Columbia)
EE-OH-0089-0002 | EE-OH-0089-9000
Hranitzky, Rachel R. (District of Columbia)
EE-OH-0089-9000
Johnson, Marcia W (Ohio)
EE-OH-0089-0001 | EE-OH-0089-0002 | EE-OH-0089-9000
Palmer, David J. (District of Columbia)
EE-OH-0089-0001
White, Gregory A. (Ohio)
EE-OH-0089-0001
Defendant's Lawyers Latchney, John D (Ohio)
EE-OH-0089-0002 | EE-OH-0089-0003 | EE-OH-0089-0004 | EE-OH-0089-9000
Other Lawyers Friedman, Avery S. (Ohio)
EE-OH-0089-0005 | EE-OH-0089-0006 | EE-OH-0089-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -