On September 21, 1977, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit under Title VII 42 U.S.C. § 1983 et seq. in the United States District Court of the Eastern District of New York against the Nassau County Police Department. Documents dated prior to April 27, 1982 are unavailable. Two companion lawsuits, White v. Nassau County Police Department and United States v. Nassau County, were filed in 1982. The plaintiffs in the former lawsuit alleged that the Nassau County Police Department discriminated against them because they were women.
The White Decree entered during August of 1982 ordered Nassau County to: (1) refrain from engaging in gender discrimination or retaliation; (2) pay class member stipulated sums; and (3) reinstate one of the plaintiffs who had been denied extended maternity leave. The plaintiffs in the latter case alleged that Nassau County discriminated on the basis of race, nationality, and gender with respect to job opportunities, in violation of Title VII, 42. U.S.C. § 2000E, et seq. and the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
The United States decree entered during April of 1982 ordered Nassau County to: (1) ensure that females were considered for employment on an equal basis with white males and (2) provide relief to all policewoman or police cadet applicants who sat for the March 18, 1972 qualifying exam and scored higher than the lowest general average score of any male who was subsequently appointed to police patrolmen or police cadet. Relief included: (1) back pay; (2) appointment to those persons who desired to be considered for appointment and had successfully completed the required training; and (3) retroactive seniority.
On May 22, 1990, the United States Department of Justice intervened as the plaintiff on behalf of white males who took the 1987 police officer examination. Under the rescoring method proposed in the parties' consent decrees, the men received significantly lower scores. The intervenor plaintiff requested relief in the form of sustaining their original scores or assuring them of appointment. An opinion on the case commented that the prospective intervenors should have been aware that this case implicated their interests since 1987, when Nassau County was unable to hire from the 1987 test. Although the petitioners may be prejudiced by the denial of the intervention, the prejudice to them is far outweighed by the prejudice to the existing parties.
Also on May 22, 1990, the court approved a consent order. The case was reopened and reassigned to Judge Joanna Seybert on July 26, 2002. On the same day, a motion to compel the defendants to comply with the terms of both Consent Decrees was brought before the court on behalf of beneficiaries of both decrees. The claims were barred by New York's six year statute of limitations. Since it had been eighteen or more years ago, a presumption of laches existed and the burden was on the plaintiff to prove why the laches defense should not apply. The court ruled that the plaintiff's delay in seeking benefits required by the White Decree was unreasonable and inexcusable. On December 19, 2003, the court found that the claims of the U.S. plaintiffs were ripe for review and that the claims of all of the plaintiffs were barred by the equitable doctrine of laches.
On August 11, 2004, the court allowed the defendant the ability to use the current list of eligible officers for promotion to the rank of sergeant in the Nassau County Police Department to ensure officers for promotion if need be before a new examination is administered. On October 25, 2005, the list for promotion of the rank of sergeant generated by the January 31, 1999 examination was ordered by the court to be expired on the basis that Nassau County had established an eligible list of officers for the promotion to the rank of sergeant based on the results of the April 2005 examination.
On March 30, 2006, the court held that the plaintiffs' arguments were without merit on the grounds of laches.
On February 12, 2008, the court granted an extension on the use of a list of eligible officers which was set to expire before a new test could be approved to generate a new list.
The case was later closed for reasons not apparent.Joshua Arocho - 07/17/2012