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