University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Davis v. City and County of San Francisco EE-CA-0297
Docket / Court 84-CV-1100 ( N.D. Cal. )
State/Territory California
Case Type(s) Equal Employment
Attorney Organization MALDEF
Case Summary
On March 9, 1984, several employees filed a lawsuit against the City and County of San Francisco in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1 ... read more >
On March 9, 1984, several employees filed a lawsuit against the City and County of San Francisco in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972, 31 U.S.C. § 6701 et seq. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, alleged racial and gender discrimination and asked the court for injunctive and declaratory relief. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that the city had used invalid hiring procedures concerning and physical and written examinations that had an adverse impact on women and minorities, as well as that the city's fire department had racially harassed minority firefighters.

On June 23, 1986, the court (Judge Marilyn H. Patel) granted in part the plaintiff's motion to certify sub-classes. The court (Judge Patel) held that there were adequate class representatives for women who passed the written exam and took the agility test; blacks who took the entire exam, whether they passed or not; black women who took the exam, whether they passed or not; and all black candidates who were eligible to take the 1978 and 1984 lieutenant's exam. Additionally, the court (Judge Patel) granted the plaintiffs' motion of partial summary judgment as to the adverse impact cause of action, but denied summary judgment as to the unequal treatment and racially hostile environment claims. Davis v. City and County of San Francisco, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23787 (N.D. Cal. 1986).

On November 12, 1987, both parties signed a consent agreement and filed it on May 20, 1988. On June 10, 1988, the court (Judge Patel) approved the agreement. The agreement stipulated several requirements for the San Francisco Fire Department, including injunctive relief and back pay for the plaintiffs. Requirements consisted of an implementation of cadet and officer programs to incorporate greater minority and female representation, to use its best efforts to attain a workplace reflecting the percentages of racial minorities in the municipality, not to unlawfully discriminate against employees, to consider language ability for certain positions, and to make employees aware of procedures for filing discrimination claims. The agreement was effective for seven years. Davis v. City and County of San Francisco, 696 F. Supp. 1287 (N.D. Cal 1988). On July 6, 1995, the court extended the consent agreement. Davis v. City and County of San Francisco, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21514, 5 (N.D. Cal. 1997).

On April 17, 1989, the court (Judge Patel) granted the defendant's motion to dismiss discrimination claims before March 9, 1981, and held that employees were required to specify the dates of all alleged "continuing" violations. Davis v. City and County of San Francisco, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17032 (N.D. Cal. 1989)

On September 25, 1990, the court (Judge Patel) granted in part the plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees. Davis v. City and County of San Francisco, 748 F. Supp. 1416 (N.D. Cal. 1990).

On March 2, 1993, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded the judgment of the District Court. Furthermore, on June 8, 1994, the court (Judge Patel) denied a motion to intervene by Hispanic and Asian members of the San Francisco Fire Department.

On November 15, 1995, the court (Judge Patel) issued an order consolidating the case with USA v. City and County of San Francisco, 3:84-7089, which began November 13, 1984, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and dismissed the case. It was also consolidated with cases 3:84-cv-7964 and 3:91-cv-667.

Following the production of several semi-annual status reports and monthly billing statements, on June 13, 1997, the defendant filed a joint motion with memorandum for preliminary approval of a stipulated order terminating a consent decree. On July 9, 1997, the court (Judge Patel) terminated the consent decree. Summarily, on August 25, 1997, the court (Judge Edward A. Infante) issued an order adopting the expert's report and recommendations.

On December 1, 1997, the court (Judge Patel) terminated the consent decree and dismissed the case. Accordingly, the court entered the final stipulated order whereby the San Francisco Fire Department was required to implement policies necessary to eradicate effects of past discriminatory employment practices concerning minorities and women. Davis v. City and County of San Francisco, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21514 (N.D. Cal. 1997). The order was set to expire one year from its entry date. On December 30, 1998, the court (Judge Patel) issued a final judgment of dismissal, dismissing the case with prejudice.

Emily Kuznick - 05/01/2008


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Affected Gender
Female
Defendant-type
Fire
Discrimination-area
Harassment / Hostile Work Environment
Hiring
Other Conditions of Employment (including assignment, transfer, hours, working conditions, etc)
Promotion
Testing
Discrimination-basis
Race discrimination
Sex discrimination
General
Pattern or Practice
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Race
Black
Causes of Action Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e
Defendant(s) City of San Francisco
San Francisco County
Plaintiff Description Women and blacks who took and/or passed the written exam and took the agility test; and all black candidates who were eligible to take the 1978 and 1984 lieutenant's exam.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations MALDEF
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status granted Yes
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
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 1988 - 1995
Case Closing Year 1995
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)
3:84-cv-01100 (N.D. Cal.) 11/15/1995
EE-CA-0297-9000.pdf | Detail
3:84-cv-07089 (N.D. Cal.) 06/16/2004
EE-CA-0297-9001.pdf | Detail
General Documents
Order (Regarding plaintiffs' motions for sub-class certification and summary judgment) 06/23/1986 (1986 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 23787) (N.D. Cal.)
EE-CA-0297-0007.pdf | LEXIS | Detail
Opinion (Granting plaintiffs' motions for partial summary judgment and injunctive relief) 02/26/1987 (656 F.Supp. 276) (N.D. Cal.)
EE-CA-0297-0003.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Google Scholar
Order 02/05/1988 (1988 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 17366) (N.D. Cal.)
EE-CA-0297-0008.pdf | LEXIS | Detail
Opinion [Approving Consent Decree] 06/10/1988 (696 F.Supp. 1287) (N.D. Cal.)
EE-CA-0297-0004.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Google Scholar
Opinion 08/25/1988 (699 F.Supp. 762) (N.D. Cal.)
EE-CA-0297-0010.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Google Scholar
Order (granting defendant's motion to dismiss claims for instances of discrimination occurring before March 9, 1981) 04/17/1989 (1989 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 17032) (N.D. Cal.)
EE-CA-0297-0009.pdf | LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: LexisNexis
Opinion (Denial of Defendants' Motion for Sanctions) 09/25/1990 (132 F.R.D. 533) (N.D. Cal.)
EE-CA-0297-0005.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Google Scholar
Opinion granting in part and denying in part the citizens' motion for attorney fees 09/25/1990 (748 F.Supp. 1416) (N.D. Cal.)
EE-CA-0297-0012.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Google Scholar
Opinion 09/25/1990 (747 F.Supp. 1370) (N.D. Cal.)
EE-CA-0297-0013.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Google Scholar
Opinion 11/26/1997 (1997 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 21514) (N.D. Cal.)
EE-CA-0297-0006.pdf | LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: LexisNexis
Judges Patel, Marilyn Hall (N.D. Cal.)
EE-CA-0297-0003 | EE-CA-0297-0004 | EE-CA-0297-0005 | EE-CA-0297-0006 | EE-CA-0297-0007 | EE-CA-0297-0008 | EE-CA-0297-0009 | EE-CA-0297-0010 | EE-CA-0297-0012 | EE-CA-0297-0013 | EE-CA-0297-9001
Monitors/Masters Phillips, Barbara Y. (California)
EE-CA-0297-0005 | EE-CA-0297-0010 | EE-CA-0297-0012 | EE-CA-0297-0013
Plaintiff's Lawyers Baldwin, Katherine A. (District of Columbia)
EE-CA-0297-9001
Blanco, Maria (California)
EE-CA-0297-9000 | EE-CA-0297-9001
Dunlap, Mary (California)
EE-CA-0297-0005 | EE-CA-0297-0010 | EE-CA-0297-0012 | EE-CA-0297-0013
Dunne, John R. (District of Columbia)
EE-CA-0297-9001
Galloway, Russell Wood Jr. (California)
EE-CA-0297-0005 | EE-CA-0297-0010 | EE-CA-0297-0012 | EE-CA-0297-0013 | EE-CA-0297-9001
Harris, Michael (California)
EE-CA-0297-0006 | EE-CA-0297-9001
Hayashi, Dennis W. (California)
EE-CA-0297-0005 | EE-CA-0297-0010 | EE-CA-0297-0012 | EE-CA-0297-0013
Hulett, Denise M. (California)
EE-CA-0297-0005 | EE-CA-0297-0006 | EE-CA-0297-0010 | EE-CA-0297-0012 | EE-CA-0297-0013 | EE-CA-0297-9001
Lee, Jack W. (California)
EE-CA-0297-0006 | EE-CA-0297-9001
Marshall, Shauna Iris (California)
EE-CA-0297-0003 | EE-CA-0297-0005 | EE-CA-0297-0010 | EE-CA-0297-0012 | EE-CA-0297-0013 | EE-CA-0297-9000 | EE-CA-0297-9001
Mayeda, Mari (California)
EE-CA-0297-9001
McNeill, William Clarence III (California)
EE-CA-0297-0003 | EE-CA-0297-0005 | EE-CA-0297-0006 | EE-CA-0297-0010 | EE-CA-0297-0012 | EE-CA-0297-0013 | EE-CA-0297-9000 | EE-CA-0297-9001
Mendez, John A. (California)
EE-CA-0297-9001
Norris, Henri E. (California)
EE-CA-0297-0003 | EE-CA-0297-9000
Paterson, Eva Jefferson (California)
EE-CA-0297-0003 | EE-CA-0297-0005 | EE-CA-0297-0010 | EE-CA-0297-0012 | EE-CA-0297-0013 | EE-CA-0297-9000 | EE-CA-0297-9001
Pearl, Richard M (California)
EE-CA-0297-9000
Schirle, Stephen L. (California)
EE-CA-0297-9001
Ugelow, Richard S (District of Columbia)
EE-CA-0297-0005 | EE-CA-0297-0010 | EE-CA-0297-0012 | EE-CA-0297-0013 | EE-CA-0297-9001
Defendant's Lawyers Agnost, George (California)
EE-CA-0297-0003 | EE-CA-0297-9000
Arthur, Greenberg R. (California)
EE-CA-0297-9001
Cooper, John D. (California)
EE-CA-0297-0006
Giorgi, Lorette (California)
EE-CA-0297-9001
Hays, Christopher (California)
EE-CA-0297-9001
Higaki, Paul Fumio Jr. (California)
EE-CA-0297-9001
Lynch, Judy (California)
EE-CA-0297-0005 | EE-CA-0297-0010 | EE-CA-0297-0012 | EE-CA-0297-0013
Mahoney, Patrick J. (California)
EE-CA-0297-0006 | EE-CA-0297-9001
Moore, Robert T. (District of Columbia)
EE-CA-0297-0005 | EE-CA-0297-0010 | EE-CA-0297-0012 | EE-CA-0297-0013
O'Hara-Varela, Cindy (California)
EE-CA-0297-0005 | EE-CA-0297-0010 | EE-CA-0297-0012 | EE-CA-0297-0013
Renne, Louise H. (California)
EE-CA-0297-0005 | EE-CA-0297-0006 | EE-CA-0297-0010 | EE-CA-0297-0013 | EE-CA-0297-9001
Reno, Duane Westlee (California)
EE-CA-0297-0003 | EE-CA-0297-0005 | EE-CA-0297-0010 | EE-CA-0297-0012 | EE-CA-0297-0013 | EE-CA-0297-9001
Riley, George A. (California)
EE-CA-0297-0005 | EE-CA-0297-0010 | EE-CA-0297-0012 | EE-CA-0297-0013 | EE-CA-0297-9000
Warden, Philip S. (California)
EE-CA-0297-9000
Other Lawyers Swanson, Joann M. (California)
EE-CA-0297-0005 | EE-CA-0297-0010 | EE-CA-0297-0012 | EE-CA-0297-0013

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -