University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name United States v. Indianapolis EE-IN-0124
Docket / Court 1:07-cv-00897-DFH-WTL ( S.D. Ind. )
State/Territory Indiana
Case Type(s) Equal Employment
Attorney Organization U.S. Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Division
Case Summary
On July 11, 2007, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a lawsuit under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., against the City of Indianapolis in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. The DOJ sought injunctive relief, alleging that the defendant ... read more >
On July 11, 2007, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a lawsuit under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., against the City of Indianapolis in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. The DOJ sought injunctive relief, alleging that the defendant violated Title VII by discriminating against employees on the basis of race (white) and sex (male).

The defendant city maintains a police department, the Metropolitan Law Enforcement Agency aka the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department (IMPD), and is responsible for establishing the terms, conditions, and other practices which bear upon the employment and promotion of police officers in the IMPD.

The defendant city maintained competitive promotions processes by which applicants for promotion and appointment to the merit ranks of Sergeant and Lieutenant in the IMPD are screened, ranked, and selected.

The allegations listed in the complaint are separated into two sections. In the first, the DOJ alleged that the defendant discriminated against a number of white males on the basis of race and/or sex by failing or refusing to promote or timely promote such individuals to the merit rank of Sergeant, instead promoting other lower ranking black and/or female candidates to this position. The second section contains allegations of discrimination on the basis of sex (male), which took the form of failing or refusing to promote or timely promote such individuals to the merit rank of Lieutenant, and instead promoting lower ranking female candidates.

On July 31, 2007, the court granted the parties' joint motion to consolidate, and ordered that the case be consolidated with Lawrence Wheeler v. City of Indianapolis (1:05-CV-1220-LJM-JMS) and United States v. City of Indianapolis (1:78-CV-388-RLY-WTL) and the case proceeded under the number 1:78-CV-388-RLY-WTL.

Following the consolidation, an Intervenor Complaint was filed on October 22, 2007. The complaint makes factual allegations regarding the discrimination on the basis of sex and race, and claims that the plaintiff-intervenors have been damaged through the loss of pay, reputation, professional opportunities and experience, collegiality with fellow officers, and consortium with family members, and have suffered stress and emotional distress. The plaintiff-intervenors sought remedial relief, including back pay, front pay, injunctive relief, attorney's fees, and compensatory and punitive damages. A motion to amend the Intervenor's Complaint was filed on October 24, 2007, which included the charge of violation of the First Amendment.

The parties then entered into settlement negotiations and filed a joint motion to enter a consent decree. on August 22, 2008. The Court (Judge David Frank Hamilton) provisionally entered the decree on August 28, 2008. The decree contains two general injunctions: 1) the City was enjoined from engaging in acts or practice of racial or gender discrimination with respect to promotions within the Police Department; 2) prohibition on retaliation. The decree also provided individual relief to various employees of the Police Department, who were denied promotion because of their race or gender. The decree contained several uncontested allegations, whereas female or minority police officers were promoted instead of higher ranked male or white applicants. Those individuals received promotions, retroactive seniority, and varying payments as backpay and frontpay. The City agreed to keep records and submit reports to the United States. The latter had a right to monitor compliance. The decree was to dissolve within two years, or within ninety days of certification of full compliance.

The decree was subject to a fairness hearing. The Court received objections from NAACP, alleging that the proposed consent decree would have a disparate impact on African Americans. On February 12, 2009, the Court entered the consent decree which was slightly modified, such as allowing the City to continue to lawfully pursue diversity within its employees.

On November 29, 2009, the case was reassigned to Judge Sarah Evan Baker. On February 19, 2010, the parties filed a joint status report, stating that they propose no modifications to the decree, and that the city was in compliance with its reporting obligations and continues to improve its selection policies.

On February 23, 2010, the case was administratively closed by the Court, subject to the Court's ongoing jurisdiction to enforce the consent decree.

Jennifer Hau - 11/27/2007
Zhandos Kuderin - 07/16/2014


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Affected Gender
Female
Male
Content of Injunction
Develop anti-discrimination policy
Discrimination Prohibition
Follow recruitment, hiring, or promotion protocols
Monitoring
Other requirements regarding hiring, promotion, retention
Promotion
Recordkeeping
Reporting
Retaliation Prohibition
Retroactive Senority
Utilize objective hiring/promotion criteria
Defendant-type
Law-enforcement
Discrimination-area
Promotion
Discrimination-basis
Race discrimination
Sex discrimination
General
Disparate Impact
Disparate Treatment
Plaintiff Type
U.S. Dept of Justice plaintiff
Race
Black
Race, unspecified
White
Causes of Action Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e
Defendant(s) City of Indianapolis
Plaintiff Description United States, on behalf of white and/or male employees of the police department.
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 2009 - 2011
Case Closing Year n/a
Case Ongoing Yes
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-00897-DFH-WTL (S.D. Ind.) 02/23/2010
EE-IN-0124-9002.pdf | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
1:78-CV-388-RLY-WTL (S.D. Ind.) 05/12/2010
EE-IN-0124-9003.pdf | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Complaint 07/11/2007 (2007 WL 2677863)
EE-IN-0124-0004.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
ORDER ON JOINT MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE 07/31/2007 (S.D. Ind.)
EE-IN-0124-0002.pdf | Detail
Intervenor Complaint 10/22/2007
EE-IN-0124-0003.pdf | Detail
Consent Decree in Resolution of Suit 02/12/2009 (S.D. Ind.)
EE-IN-0124-0005.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Addendum to Consent Decree in Resolution of Suit 02/12/2009 (S.D. Ind.)
EE-IN-0124-0006.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Joint Status Report 02/19/2010
EE-IN-0124-0007.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Baker, Tim A. (S.D. Ind.) [Magistrate]
EE-IN-0124-9002
Barker, Sarah Evans (S.D. Ind.)
EE-IN-0124-9002
Lynch, Debra McVicker (S.D. Ind.) [Magistrate]
EE-IN-0124-9003
Young, Richard L. (S.D. Ind.)
EE-IN-0124-0002 | EE-IN-0124-0005 | EE-IN-0124-0006 | EE-IN-0124-9003
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers Becker, Grace Chung (District of Columbia)
EE-IN-0124-0005 | EE-IN-0124-0006
Braniff, Andrew (District of Columbia)
EE-IN-0124-0004 | EE-IN-0124-0005 | EE-IN-0124-0006 | EE-IN-0124-0007 | EE-IN-0124-9002 | EE-IN-0124-9003
Cox, Reid Alan (District of Columbia)
EE-IN-0124-0004 | EE-IN-0124-9002
Cunningham, John Patrick (District of Columbia)
EE-IN-0124-0004 | EE-IN-0124-9002 | EE-IN-0124-9003
Danis, Jodi B (District of Columbia)
EE-IN-0124-0004 | EE-IN-0124-9002
Gadzichowski, John M. (District of Columbia)
EE-IN-0124-0004 | EE-IN-0124-0005 | EE-IN-0124-0006 | EE-IN-0124-0007 | EE-IN-0124-9002 | EE-IN-0124-9003
Kim, Wan J. (District of Columbia)
EE-IN-0124-0004 | EE-IN-0124-9002
McQuary, Jeffrey S (Indiana)
EE-IN-0124-0003 | EE-IN-0124-9003
Palmer, David J. (District of Columbia)
EE-IN-0124-0004 | EE-IN-0124-9002
Reese, David Nathan (District of Columbia)
EE-IN-0124-0007 | EE-IN-0124-9002
Defendant's Lawyers Chapelle, Joseph C. (Indiana)
EE-IN-0124-0005
Cotterill, Chris W. (Indiana)
EE-IN-0124-0005 | EE-IN-0124-0006
Hayes, Anne B. (Indiana)
EE-IN-0124-0005
Karn, Samantha S. (Indiana)
EE-IN-0124-0007
Mayes, Jonathan Lamont (Indiana)
EE-IN-0124-0005 | EE-IN-0124-0006 | EE-IN-0124-0007 | EE-IN-0124-9002
Will, Alexander Phillip (Indiana)
EE-IN-0124-9003
Other Lawyers Lee, Nathaniel (Indiana)
EE-IN-0124-9002 | EE-IN-0124-9003
Malichi, Cherry (Indiana)
EE-IN-0124-9002 | EE-IN-0124-9003
Selby, Myra Consetta (Indiana)
EE-IN-0124-9003

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -