University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name United States v. City of Farmington EE-NM-0064
Docket / Court 80-037-C ( D.N.M. )
State/Territory New Mexico
Case Type(s) Equal Employment
Special Collection Civil Rights Division Archival Collection
Attorney Organization U.S. Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Division
Case Summary
In 1980, the United States filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico against the City of Farmington, its Mayor, City Councilors, City Manager and Personnel Officer in their official capacities, under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. In its amended complaint, the ... read more >
In 1980, the United States filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico against the City of Farmington, its Mayor, City Councilors, City Manager and Personnel Officer in their official capacities, under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. In its amended complaint, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination based on race, sex and national origin. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants discriminated with respect to hiring, assignment and promotion opportunities within all of City's departments.

The parties then entered into a settlement agreement, which was to be entered as a consent degree by the court. Under the agreement, the defendants did not make any admissions. The defendants were enjoined from engaging in any practice or pattern of unlawful discrimination on the basis of race, sex or national origin, or otherwise discrimination in employment on the above criteria. The particular groups specifically mentioned in the agreement as discriminated against are Indians, Hispanics and females. The defendants were to adopt yearly interim goals for recruiting those groups. They were also to adopt certain recruitment policies, which include, among other things, announcing employment opportunities in the mass media, aimed at Indian minorities. The defendants were to adopt nondiscrimination training, including setting aside $7,000 for employment related education and reimbursement of tuition.

Additionally, the defendants were to provide monetary relief to all individuals harmed in the lawsuit. The maximum aggregate monetary relief was not to exceed $300,000, with $200,000 offered to persons named in the Appendix in a specific amount, and $100,000 reserved for future claims by people believing to be entitled to a monetary award. The maximum award to any person could not exceed $3,000. The defendants were to send notice to all individuals concerned. Any funds remaining after 90 days from the entry of the consent decree would revert to the defendants.

The defendants were also to keep records under the consent decree, related to applications for employment, which were to be provided to the DOJ semi-annually. Any dispute under the consent decree was to be settled informally before brought to courts. The Court was to retain jurisdiction over the settlement agreement. The parties planned to achieve the objectives of the consent decree by December 31, 1985, at which point it could be dissolved by the defendants through a motion to the Court.

On June 26, 1981, the Court (Judge Santiago Campos) issued an order conditionally entering consent decree. The Court conditioned the entry upon fairness hearings, which was to be held on October 2, 1981. The defendants were required to implement prospective relief under the consent decree immediately, but if the consent decree is not finally entered, they were not required to offer prospective relief. The plaintiff was required to send a copy of the consent decree to any person upon written request, as well as publish it in newspapers and public places. The plaintiff was also required to send to the Court the list of persons believed to be entitled to the monetary relief. Any person seeking to challenge the consent decree had to do so within 40 days of the date of the order.

Because this case is old, and no reported decisions resulted, we do not have any record of the fairness hearing, or any other information.

Zhandos Kuderin - 07/08/2014


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
Goals and Timekeeping
Hire
Monitoring
Other requirements regarding hiring, promotion, retention
Post/Distribute Notice of Rights / EE Law
Promotion
Provide antidiscrimination training
Reasonable Accommodation
Recordkeeping
Reporting
Utilize objective hiring/promotion criteria
Utilize objective job description
Defendant-type
Jurisdiction-wide
Discrimination-area
Hiring
Other Conditions of Employment (including assignment, transfer, hours, working conditions, etc)
Pay / Benefits
Promotion
Training
Discrimination-basis
National origin discrimination
Race discrimination
Sex discrimination
General
Disparate Treatment
Pattern or Practice
Record-keeping
National Origin/Ethnicity
Hispanic
Indian
Plaintiff Type
U.S. Dept of Justice plaintiff
Race
American Indian/Alaskan Native
Causes of Action Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e
Defendant(s) City of Farmington
Plaintiff Description United States government
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 1981 - 1985
Case Closing Year 1985
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)
No docket sheet currently in the collection
General Documents
DOCUMENT RESUME
EE-NM-0064-0002.pdf | Detail
Order Conditionally Entering Consent Decree and Setting Fairness Hearing Procedures / Consent Decree 06/26/1981 (D.N.M.)
EE-NM-0064-0001.pdf | Detail
Document Source: Plaintiffs' counsel
Judges Campos, Santiago E. (D.N.M.)
EE-NM-0064-0001
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers Fenton, William B. (District of Columbia)
EE-NM-0064-0001
Defendant's Lawyers None on record
Other Lawyers None on record

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -