University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Latin American Law Enforcement Associationn v. City of Los Angeles EE-CA-0295
Docket / Court 92-CV-01898-MMM ( C.D. Cal. )
State/Territory California
Case Type(s) Equal Employment
Special Collection Private Employment Class Actions
Case Summary
On March 27, 1992, minority officers of the Los Angeles Police Department filed two complaints against their employer, along with a proposed consent decree, in the United States District Court, Central District of California. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, asked the court for ... read more >
On March 27, 1992, minority officers of the Los Angeles Police Department filed two complaints against their employer, along with a proposed consent decree, in the United States District Court, Central District of California. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, asked the court for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. § 1981, and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. Specifically, plaintiffs claimed that minority LAPD officers discriminatorily were denied promotions, assignments to mobility-enhancing positions, and pay grade advancements.

The underlying employment discrimination class action lawsuit was initiated on September 12, 1988, when the Latin American Law Enforcement Association filed an administrative complaint alleging employment discrimination against minority LAPD officers. A settlement in the form of a proposed consent decree was reached in late 1991, and was approved by the City Council on November 5, 1991. The proposed decree included an affirmative action plan providing goals and special programs designed to address the underrepresentation of African American, Hispanic, and Asian American sworn officers in promotions and other forms of advancement within the LAPD.

On August 25, 1992, the court (A. Wallace Tashima) approved the consent decree. The consent decree obligated the City to engage in vigorous good faith efforts to promote minority officers in proportion with their representation in the police department. The court, however, amended the terms of the decree in response to criticism from three white officers, changing it from a fixed term of 12 to 15 years to a maximum term of 15 years subject to the right of the City to move at any time to be relieved of its obligations upon a showing that the objectives of the decree had been satisfied. The time to appeal the final order expired on September 26, 1992. On October 16, 1992, the white officers filed their motion to intervene as of right. The district court denied the motion as untimely. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals (Judges Robert Beezer, Alex Kozinski, and Dorothy Wright Nelson) affirmed. Latin American Law Enforcement Association v. City of Los Angeles, 29 F.3d 633 (2d Cir. 1994).

On July 25, 2002, Plaintiffs filed an application for an order to show cause why the City should not be held in contempt of the consent decree . The Court issued an order to show cause on August 12, 2002. On August 11, 2003, the District Court (Judge Margaret M. Morrow) found that the City had violated several of its obligations under the Consent Decree and ordered limited discovery to determine an appropriate remedy.

On July 14, 2009, the District Court extended the termination date for the Consent Decree from August 26, 2009, until December 31, 2009.

On December 31, 2009, the District Court again extended the consent decree until February 1, 2010. The parties later stipulated to again extend the consent decree until March 22, 2010.

On March 22, 2010, the District Court denied Plaintiffs' motion to again extend the consent decree, confirming the termination date of March 22, 2010.

Haley Waller - 08/17/2010


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Content of Injunction
Comply with advertising/recruiting requirements
Follow recruitment, hiring, or promotion protocols
Hire
Monitoring
Other requirements regarding hiring, promotion, retention
Promotion
Defendant-type
Law-enforcement
Discrimination-area
Hiring
Other Conditions of Employment (including assignment, transfer, hours, working conditions, etc)
Pay / Benefits
Promotion
Testing
Training
Discrimination-basis
National origin discrimination
General
Disparate Treatment
National Origin/Ethnicity
Hispanic
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Causes of Action Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e
State law
State Anti-Discrimination Law
42 U.S.C. § 1981
Defendant(s) City of Los Angeles
Plaintiff Description Latin American and African American employees of the City of Los Angeles Police Department
Indexed Lawyer Organizations None on record
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status granted Yes
Prevailing Party Mixed
Public Int. Lawyer No
Nature of Relief Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Settlement
Form of Settlement Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Order Duration 1992 - 2010
Case Closing Year 1992
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)
2:92−cv−01898 (C.D. Cal.) 03/22/2010
EE-CA-0295-9000 PDF | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
MEMORANDUM 07/21/1994 (29 F.3d 633)
EE-CA-0295-0001 PDF | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Public.Resource.Org
The Latin American Law Enforcement Association announces that Court-appointed Monitor orders City of Los Angeles to comply with LaLey consent decree 02/20/2002
EE-CA-0295-0003 PDF | Detail
ORDER GRANTING RE INTERVENING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE CONSENT DECREE 08/11/2003 (C.D. Cal.)
EE-CA-0295-0002 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
ORDER EXTENDING TERMINATION DATE FOR CONSENT DECREE 07/14/2009 (C.D. Cal.)
EE-CA-0295-0004 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
ORDER EXTENDING TERMINATION DATE FOR CONSENT DECREE AS TO PLAINTIFF LATIN AMERICAN LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSOCIATION, PLAINTIFF AFRICAN AMERICAN CLASS AND DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES TO FEBRUARY 1, 2010 12/31/2009 (C.D. Cal.)
EE-CA-0295-0005 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
FINAL ORDER RE PLAINTIFF LATIN AMERICAN LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSOCIATION’S MOTION FOR FURTHER EXTENSION OF THE CONSENT DECREE 03/22/2010 (C.D. Cal.)
EE-CA-0295-0006 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Beezer, Robert R. (Ninth Circuit)
EE-CA-0295-0001 | EE-CA-0295-9000
Kozinski, Alex (Ninth Circuit)
EE-CA-0295-0001 | EE-CA-0295-9000
Morrow, Margaret M. (C.D. Cal.)
EE-CA-0295-0002 | EE-CA-0295-0004 | EE-CA-0295-0005 | EE-CA-0295-0006 | EE-CA-0295-9000
Nelson, Dorothy Wright (Ninth Circuit)
EE-CA-0295-0001 | EE-CA-0295-9000
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers None on record
Defendant's Lawyers None on record
Other Lawyers None on record

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -