Case: United States v. Indianapolis

1:07-cv-00897 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana

Filed Date: July 11, 2007

Closed Date: 2010

Clearinghouse coding complete

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 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 Indianap…

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.

There has been no further activity on the docket. The case is now closed.

Summary Authors

Jennifer Hau (11/27/2007)

Zhandos Kuderin (7/16/2014)

Virginia Weeks (11/9/2017)

People


Judge(s)

Baker, Tim A. (Indiana)

Barker, Sarah Evans (Indiana)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Becker, Grace Chung (District of Columbia)

Braniff, Andrew (District of Columbia)

Attorney for Defendant

Chapelle, Joseph C. (Indiana)

Expert/Monitor/Master/Other

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

1:07-cv-00897

1:78-cv-00388

Docket [PACER]

United States v. City of Indianapolis

Feb. 23, 2010

Feb. 23, 2010

Docket

1:78-cv-00388

Docket [PACER]

United States v. City of Indianapolis

May 12, 2010

May 12, 2010

Docket
1

1:07-cv-00897

Complaint

United States v. City of Indianapolis

July 11, 2007

July 11, 2007

Complaint

2007 WL 2007

76-2

1:78-cv-00388

ORDER ON JOINT MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE

United States v. City of Indianapolis

July 31, 2007

July 31, 2007

Order/Opinion
91

1:78-cv-00388

Intervenor Complaint

United States v. City of Indianapolis

Oct. 22, 2007

Oct. 22, 2007

Complaint
30

1:07-cv-00897

Consent Decree in Resolution of Suit

United States v. City of Indianapolis

Feb. 12, 2009

Feb. 12, 2009

Order/Opinion
31

1:07-cv-00897

Addendum to Consent Decree in Resolution of Suit

United States v. City of Indianapolis

Feb. 12, 2009

Feb. 12, 2009

Order/Opinion
37

1:07-cv-00897

Joint Status Report

United States v. City of Indianapolis

Feb. 19, 2010

Feb. 19, 2010

Pleading / Motion / Brief

Docket

Last updated Feb. 16, 2024, 3:02 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

COMPLAINT against CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.(TAA) (Entered: 07/12/2007)

July 11, 2007

July 11, 2007

2

CIVIL COVER SHEET, filed by Plaintiff UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (TAA) (Entered: 07/12/2007)

July 11, 2007

July 11, 2007

4

NOTICE of Appearance by Anthony Scott Chinn on behalf of Defendant CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS. (Chinn, Anthony) (Entered: 07/13/2007)

July 13, 2007

July 13, 2007

5

NOTICE of Appearance by Anne Kramer Ricchiuto on behalf of Defendant CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS. (Ricchiuto, Anne) (Entered: 07/13/2007)

July 13, 2007

July 13, 2007

6

NOTICE of Appearance by Alison Margaret Chestovich on behalf of Defendant CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS. (Chestovich, Alison) (Entered: 07/17/2007)

July 17, 2007

July 17, 2007

7

SCHEDULING ORDER:Status Conference set for 7/31/2007 02:00 PM in room #277 before Magistrate Judge William T. Lawrence. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 7/24/07. (JHO) (Entered: 07/24/2007)

July 24, 2007

July 24, 2007

8

NOTICE of Filing of Motion to Consolidate in related case no. 1:78−cv−0388−RLY−WTL, filed by Defendant CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS (Ricchiuto, Anne) Modified on 7/31/2007 (LSC). (Entered: 07/30/2007)

July 30, 2007

July 30, 2007

9

CLOSED DISMISSED per 7/31/07 Order To Consolidate into 1:78−CV−388−RLY−WTL. Signed by Judge Richard L. Young on 7/31/07. (CLL) (Entered: 07/31/2007)

July 31, 2007

July 31, 2007

Cases associated: Create association to 1:78−cv−00388−RLY−WTL. (CLL) (Entered: 07/31/2007)

July 31, 2007

July 31, 2007

15

JOINT MOTION FOR PROVISIONAL APPROVAL AND ENTRY OF THE CONSENT DECREE IN RESOLUTION OF SUIT, filed by Plaintiff UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit 2−Attachment of Consent Decree with Notice and Release, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(LBK) (Entered: 10/29/2009)

Aug. 22, 2008

Aug. 22, 2008

16

ORDER granting 15 Motion for Provisional Approval and Entry of the Consent Decree in Resolution of Suit. Signed by Judge Richard L. Young on 8/28/2008. (LBK) (Entered: 10/29/2009)

Aug. 28, 2008

Aug. 28, 2008

17

CONSENT DECREE in Resolution of Suit. Signed by Judge Richard L. Young on 8/28/08. (LBK) (Entered: 10/29/2009)

Aug. 28, 2008

Aug. 28, 2008

18

OBJECTION to Dismissal of Consent Decree, Request for Additional Discovery and Evidentiary Hearing by NAACP with Attachments.(LBK) (Entered: 10/29/2009)

Oct. 21, 2008

Oct. 21, 2008

19

NOTICE OF PROPOSED ORDER, filed by Amicus NAACP filed by Nathaniel Lee. (LBK) (Entered: 10/29/2009)

Oct. 21, 2008

Oct. 21, 2008

20

NOTICE of Appearance by Cherry Malichi on behalf of Amicus NAACP. (LBK) (Entered: 10/29/2009)

Oct. 22, 2008

Oct. 22, 2008

21

NAACP'S ADDITIONAL OBJECTION TO CONSENT DECREE, IN RESOLUTIONI OF SUIT. Filed by Cherry Malichi. (LBK) (Entered: 10/29/2009)

Oct. 22, 2008

Oct. 22, 2008

22

Submission of Signature Requirement re 18 Objection to Dismissal of Consent Decree, Request for Additional Discovery and Evidentiary Hearing by NAACP. (Nathaniel Lee) (LBK) (Entered: 10/29/2009)

Oct. 23, 2008

Oct. 23, 2008

23

MOTION for Continuance of 11/21/08 Hearing Regarding Consent Decre in Resolution of Suit, filed by Amicus NAACP. (LBK) (Entered: 10/29/2009)

Nov. 11, 2008

Nov. 11, 2008

24

REPLY in Support of Motion re 23 MOTION for Continuance, filed by Plaintiff UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (LBK) (Entered: 10/29/2009)

Nov. 14, 2008

Nov. 14, 2008

25

RESPONSE in Opposition re 23 MOTION for Continuance, filed by Plaintiff UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (LBK) (Entered: 10/29/2009)

Nov. 14, 2008

Nov. 14, 2008

26

ORDER granting 23 Motion for Continuance, Hearing Regarding the Consent Decree in Resolution of Suit is VACATED AND RESET FOR 2/11/09 9:00 a.m. in Room 349 before Judge Richard L. Young. Signed by Judge Richard L. Young on 11/14/2008. (LBK) (Entered: 10/29/2009)

Nov. 14, 2008

Nov. 14, 2008

28

NAACP'S OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF−INTERVENORS' Verified Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement, Defendant City of Indianapolis' Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement, and Defendants' Motion to Submit Additional Evidence in Support of their Motion to Enforce Settlement. (Malichi, Cherry) (LBK) (Entered: 10/29/2009)

Dec. 23, 2008

Dec. 23, 2008

10

Unopposed MOTION to Withdraw (143 in 1:78−cv−00388−RLY−DML) MOTION to Enforce Settlment Agreement , filed by Plaintiffs SCOTT A HESSONG, BRENT E. HENDRICKS, Intervenor Plaintiffs BENJAMIN D. HUNTER, BRANDON C. LASER, BRENT D. MILLER, DANIEL R. GREEN, THOMAS I. BLACK, ROBERT M. McCLARY. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)Associated Cases: 1:78−cv−00388−RLY−DML, 1:07−cv−00897−DFH−WTL(McQuary, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/10/2009)

Feb. 10, 2009

Feb. 10, 2009

29

NAACP'S MOTION TO INTERVENE. (Malichi, Cherry). (LBK) (Entered: 10/29/2009)

Feb. 11, 2009

Feb. 11, 2009

30

CONSENT DECREE IN RESOLUTION OF SUIT (Dkt. No. 182 in 1:78−cv−388−RLY−WTL. Signed by Judge Richard L. Young on 2/12/2009. (LBK) Modified on 10/30/2009 (LBK). (Entered: 10/29/2009)

Feb. 12, 2009

Feb. 12, 2009

31

ADDENDUM TO CONSENT DECREE IN RESOLUTION TO SUIT (Dkt. No. 183 in 1:78−cv−388−RLY−WTL. Signed by Judge Richard L. Young on 2/12/2009. (LBK) Modified on 10/30/2009 (LBK). (Entered: 10/29/2009)

Feb. 12, 2009

Feb. 12, 2009

11

NOTICE of Substitution of Appearance by Jonathan Lamont Mayes replacing Alison Chestovich on behalf of CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS (Mayes, Jonathan) (Entered: 02/26/2009)

Feb. 26, 2009

Feb. 26, 2009

12

NOTICE of Appearance by David Nathan Reese on behalf of Plaintiff UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Reese, David) (Entered: 08/31/2009)

Aug. 31, 2009

Aug. 31, 2009

13

Joint MOTION to Reopen Case , filed by Defendant CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, Plaintiff UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Braniff, Andrew) (Entered: 10/20/2009)

Oct. 20, 2009

Oct. 20, 2009

14

ORDER granting 13 Joint Motion to Reopen Case. The records associated with this action that were entered in the consolidated action, 78−cv−388−RLY−WTL, after 7/31/07 including the above referenced consent decree (Dkt. No. 182), shall be moved to the record in this action. Signed by Judge David Frank Hamilton on 10/27/2009. (LBK) (Entered: 10/28/2009)

Oct. 27, 2009

Oct. 27, 2009

32

MOTION to Withdraw Attorneys , filed by Defendant CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Order on Motion to Withdraw Attorneys)(Ricchiuto, Anne) (Entered: 11/24/2009)

Nov. 24, 2009

Nov. 24, 2009

33

Reassignment of Case to Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker. Judge William T. Lawrence no longer assigned to the case. Please include the new case number, 1:07−cv−00897−DFH−TAB, on all future filings in this matter. Motions referred to Tim A. Baker.(JD) (Entered: 11/25/2009)

Nov. 25, 2009

Nov. 25, 2009

34

Reassignment of Case to Judge Sarah Evans Barker. Judge David Frank Hamilton no longer assigned to the case. Please include the new case number ( 1:07−cv−897−SEB−TAB), which includes the initials of the newly assigned judge, on all future filings in this matter. (MAC) (Entered: 11/29/2009)

Nov. 29, 2009

Nov. 29, 2009

35

ORDER granting A. Scott Chinn and Anne K. Ricchiuto's 32 Motion to Withdraw as counsel of record for the defts. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker on 2/4/2010. (SWM) (Entered: 02/05/2010)

Feb. 4, 2010

Feb. 4, 2010

36

ORDER for Status Reports. The parties shall file status reports with the Court on or before February 19, 2010, advising of their intentions for the further handling of this cause and their positions as to the action that ought to be taken by the Court at this time. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 2/4/2010.(MAC) (Entered: 02/05/2010)

Feb. 4, 2010

Feb. 4, 2010

38

CLOSED − there is no reason for this cause to remain open and active on the Courts docket and directs the Clerk to close it. Of course, either party may move to reopen this case, should the need arise, subject to the Courts ongoing jurisdiction to enforce the terms of their Consent Decree.. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 2/23/2010.(MAC) Modified on 2/25/2010 (MAC). (Entered: 02/24/2010)

Feb. 23, 2010

Feb. 23, 2010

Case Details

State / Territory: Indiana

Case Type(s):

Equal Employment

Special Collection(s):

Multi-LexSum (in sample)

Key Dates

Filing Date: July 11, 2007

Closing Date: 2010

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

United States, on behalf of white and/or male employees of the police department.

Plaintiff Type(s):

U.S. Dept of Justice plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

U.S. Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Division

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

City of Indianapolis (Indianapolis), City

Defendant Type(s):

Law-enforcement

Case Details

Causes of Action:

Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e

Available Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Monetary Relief

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Damages

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Order Duration: 2009 - 2011

Content of Injunction:

Promotion

Retroactive Seniority

Discrimination Prohibition

Retaliation Prohibition

Develop anti-discrimination policy

Utilize objective hiring/promotion criteria

Follow recruitment, hiring, or promotion protocols

Other requirements regarding hiring, promotion, retention

Reporting

Recordkeeping

Monitoring

Issues

Discrimination-area:

Disparate Impact

Disparate Treatment

Promotion

Discrimination-basis:

Race discrimination

Sex discrimination

Race:

Black

Race, unspecified

White

Affected Sex or Gender:

Female

Male