University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Latino Officers Ass'n of New York v. City of New York EE-NY-0208
Docket / Court 1:99-cv-09568 ( S.D.N.Y. )
State/Territory New York
Case Type(s) Equal Employment
Special Collection IWPR/Wage Project Consent Decree Study
Private Employment Class Actions
Case Summary
On September 9, 1999, Latino and African-American police officers filed a putative class action against the City of New York and the New York Police Department ("NYPD") in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs alleged violations of Title VII of the Civil ... read more >
On September 9, 1999, Latino and African-American police officers filed a putative class action against the City of New York and the New York Police Department ("NYPD") in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs alleged violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, and state and local laws. Specifically, the plaintiffs contended that NYPD’s work environment was hostile to Latinos and African-Americans, that NYPD's application of its disciplinary rules and processes embodied a pattern or practice of disparate treatment, and that they were retaliated against when they complained about discrimination. Represented by private counsel and an attorney from the Stanford Law School Center for Internet & Society, the plaintiffs sought an injunction requiring the NYPD to abolish discrimination, ensure equal treatment, cease retaliation, and change the disciplinary procedure. The plaintiffs filed two amended complaints, one on October 7, 1999 and the other on December 3, 1999.

On December 15, 2000, the plaintiffs moved to certify a class consisting of “all Latino and African–American individuals who have been, are, or will be employed by the NYPD as uniformed officers, including civilians who perform the same employment functions as uniformed officers, who have been or will be subjected to discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin in the form of a hostile work environment, disparate disciplinary treatment, and retaliation for the exercise of their rights.” On August 6, 2002, Judge Lewis A. Kaplan granted the plaintiffs’ motion in part. Judge Kaplan severed the liability stage from the individual remedial stage and certified the liability stage of the claims. Officers Ass'n v. City of New York, 209 F.R.D. 79 (S.D.N.Y. 2002).

On December 5, 2001, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment dismissing the claims in this action of plaintiffs Charles Castro, Fernando Sanchez and Reuben Malave for damages and equitable relief based on their terminations from the New York City Police Department. On April 1, 2003, Judge Kaplan granted in part and denied in part this motion. The motion is granted to the extent that: (1) Castro's wrongful termination claim is dismissed; (2) Malave is precluded from relitigating the issues whether he patronized as prostitute and that he was unfit for duty by reason of intoxication; and (3) Sanchez is precluded from relitigating the issue whether his termination was in retaliation for his exercise of his First Amendment rights.

On June 18, 2003, Judge Kaplan granted in part and denied in part the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing aspects of the complaint as to plaintiff Clifford Muniz. The motion is granted to the extent that Muniz’s disparate treatment claim with respect to the removal of the flyers at the 26th Precinct is dismissed. The motion is denied in all other aspects. On the same day, Judge Kaplan granted in part and denied in part the motion of summary judgment as to all claims against Anthony Miranda, the Latino Officers Association, and others. The motion is granted to the extent that the claims of (1) Miranda based on events prior to 11/24/97 and (2) Alvarez based on events prior to 11/12/97 are dismissed. The motion is denied in all other aspects.

On July 14, 2003, Judge Kaplan denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, defendant’s motion for summary judgment on liability on the plaintiffs’ class action pattern or practice claims of discrimination in the disciplinary system, retaliation and hostile work environment, and defendant’s motion for attorney fees.

In November 2003, after completion of discovery and filing of a pre-trial order, the parties engaged in settlement negotiations, which resulted in a stipulation resolving all issues raised by the plaintiffs in their complaint filed on December 18, 2003.

On March 18, 2004, the parties made a joint application for an order preliminarily approving the settlement of the class action. On September 15, 2004, Judge Kaplan approved this settlement agreement and the award of attorneys’ fees and costs as fair, reasonable, and adequate. The court also certified an amended class defined as “all Latino and African–American individuals who have been, are, or will be employed by the NYPD as members of the force, who have been or will be subjected to discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin in the form of a hostile work environment, disparate disciplinary treatment, and retaliation for the exercise of their rights.” Officers Ass'n v. City of New York, 2004 WL 2066605 (S.D.N.Y. 2004).

Pursuant to the settlement agreement, NYPD agreed to changes to the disciplinary and equal employment practices and procedures, including record-keeping and database requirements. NYPD would pay the plaintiffs $20 million and pay class counsel $4.8 million for attorneys’ fees and costs. The court retained jurisdiction of this matter to ensure compliance with the stipulation for 27 months from its implementation. Accordingly, the case was dismissed with prejudice. Officers Ass'n v. City of New York, 2004 WL 2066605 (S.D.N.Y. 2004).

On June 21, 2007, the court ordered that the clerk close the case, because all the claims brought by all parties in this case had been resolved and the case was settled on a class action basis. On July 6, the court entered a stipulation of settlement, dismissing the case with prejudice. Within a few short months, though, Judge Kaplan denied a motion by the plaintiffs to find the defendants in contempt and to compel compliance with the settlement. The plaintiff appealed the decision to the Second Circuit, which affirmed the district court’s decision on March 30, 2009.

On September 2014, one of the class members sought to reopen his case because he remained unhappy with the relief he obtained. Since he did not serve copies of his papers on any of the parties, his application was denied without prejudice.

There has been no docket activity since. We presume the case is closed.

Kunyi Zhang - 08/30/2010
Sichun Liu - 05/25/2019
Sichun Liu - 12/07/2019


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Affected Gender
Female
Male
Constitutional Clause
Equal Protection
Free Exercise Clause
Unreasonable search and seizure
Content of Injunction
Develop anti-discrimination policy
Recordkeeping
Defendant-type
Law-enforcement
Discrimination-area
Discipline
Harassment / Hostile Work Environment
Discrimination-basis
National origin discrimination
Race discrimination
General
Disparate Treatment
Retaliation
National Origin/Ethnicity
Hispanic
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Race
Black
Causes of Action 42 U.S.C. § 1981
42 U.S.C. § 1983
Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e
Defendant(s) City of New York
New York Police Department
Plaintiff Description All Latino and African–American individuals who have been, are, or will be employed by the NYPD as uniformed officers, including civilians who perform the same employment functions as uniformed officers, who have been or will be subjected to discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin in the form of a hostile work environment, disparate disciplinary treatment, and retaliation for the exercise of their rights.
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status granted Yes
Filed Pro Se No
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer No
Nature of Relief Damages
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Settlement
Form of Settlement Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Order Duration 2004 - 2006
Filed 1999
Case Closing Year 2009
Case Ongoing No
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
  See this case at CourtListener.com (May provide additional documents and, for active cases, real-time alerts)
Docket(s)
1:99−cv−09568 (S.D.N.Y.)
EE-NY-0208-9000.pdf | Detail
Date: 09/03/2014
General Documents
Opinion (Denying Motion to Consolidate) (2000 WL 1030623 / 2000 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 11936) (S.D.N.Y.)
EE-NY-0208-0004.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 07/26/2000
Source: Westlaw
Order (For Additional Briefing) (2002 WL 511548 / 2002 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 5664) (S.D.N.Y.)
EE-NY-0208-0005.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 04/04/2002
Source: Westlaw
Opinion (Certifying Class) (209 F.R.D. 79) (S.D.N.Y.)
EE-NY-0208-0003.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 08/06/2002
Source: Google Scholar
Opinion (Denying in Part Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment) (253 F.Supp.2d 771) (S.D.N.Y.)
EE-NY-0208-0001.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 03/31/2003
Source: Google Scholar
Opinion (Motion to Compel) (2003 WL 1883418 / 2003 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 5760) (S.D.N.Y.)
EE-NY-0208-0006.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 04/09/2003
Source: Westlaw
Opinion (2003 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 6506) (S.D.N.Y.)
EE-NY-0208-0016.pdf | LEXIS | Detail
Date: 04/18/2003
Source: LexisNexis
Opinion (Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment) (2003 WL 21437057 / 2003 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 10669) (S.D.N.Y.)
EE-NY-0208-0008.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 06/16/2003
Source: Westlaw
Opinion (Denying Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment) (2003 WL 21396689 / 2003 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 10057) (S.D.N.Y.)
EE-NY-0208-0007.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 06/17/2003
Source: Westlaw
Opinion (Denying Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment) (2003 WL 21638165 / 2003 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 11792) (S.D.N.Y.)
EE-NY-0208-0009.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 07/14/2003
Source: Westlaw
Opinion (Denying Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment) (2003 WL 21650007 / 2003 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 11794) (S.D.N.Y.)
EE-NY-0208-0010.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 07/14/2003
Source: Westlaw
Order Establishing Settlement Procedures (2004 WL 574493) (S.D.N.Y.)
EE-NY-0208-0011.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 03/22/2004
Source: Westlaw
Judgment and Order Approving Class Action Settlement, Certifying Amended Class and Approving Attorneys Fees (2004 WL 2066605) (S.D.N.Y.)
EE-NY-0208-0012.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 09/15/2004
Opinion (Re: Defendants' motion in limine to exclude expert testimony) (2006 WL 238989) (S.D.N.Y.)
EE-NY-0208-0013.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 01/31/2006
Source: Westlaw
Opinion (2006 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 3879) (S.D.N.Y.)
EE-NY-0208-0015.pdf | LEXIS | Detail
Date: 01/31/2006
Source: LexisNexis
Opinion (2007 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 44740) (S.D.N.Y.)
EE-NY-0208-0014.pdf | LEXIS | Detail
Date: 06/20/2007
Source: LexisNexis
Opinion (519 F.Supp.2d 438) (S.D.N.Y.)
EE-NY-0208-0002.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 10/26/2007
Source: Google Scholar
show all people docs
Judges Fox, Kevin N. (S.D.N.Y.) show/hide docs
EE-NY-0208-9000
Kaplan, Lewis A. (S.D.N.Y.) show/hide docs
EE-NY-0208-0001 | EE-NY-0208-0002 | EE-NY-0208-0003 | EE-NY-0208-0004 | EE-NY-0208-0005 | EE-NY-0208-0006 | EE-NY-0208-0007 | EE-NY-0208-0008 | EE-NY-0208-0009 | EE-NY-0208-0010 | EE-NY-0208-0012 | EE-NY-0208-0013 | EE-NY-0208-0014 | EE-NY-0208-0015 | EE-NY-0208-0016 | EE-NY-0208-9000
Monitors/Masters Feinberg, Kenneth (New York) show/hide docs
EE-NY-0208-9000
Woodin, Peter (New York) show/hide docs
EE-NY-0208-9000
Plaintiff's Lawyers Anderson, Catherine Elizabeth (New York) show/hide docs
EE-NY-0208-0013 | EE-NY-0208-0015 | EE-NY-0208-9000
Epstein, Joshua H. (New York) show/hide docs
EE-NY-0208-0013 | EE-NY-0208-0014 | EE-NY-0208-0015 | EE-NY-0208-9000
Goodman, William Harry (New York) show/hide docs
EE-NY-0208-0014 | EE-NY-0208-0016 | EE-NY-0208-9000
Lax, Barry Richard (New York) show/hide docs
EE-NY-0208-0014 | EE-NY-0208-0015 | EE-NY-0208-9000
Levy, Richard Alan (New York) show/hide docs
EE-NY-0208-0002 | EE-NY-0208-0003 | EE-NY-0208-0014 | EE-NY-0208-0016 | EE-NY-0208-9000
McPherson, Laurie J (New York) show/hide docs
EE-NY-0208-0014 | EE-NY-0208-9000
Mintz, Steven Glen (New York) show/hide docs
EE-NY-0208-0014 | EE-NY-0208-9000
Olshansky, Barbara J. (New York) show/hide docs
EE-NY-0208-0014 | EE-NY-0208-0016 | EE-NY-0208-9000
Paolicelli, Diane M. (New York) show/hide docs
EE-NY-0208-0003 | EE-NY-0208-0014 | EE-NY-0208-0016 | EE-NY-0208-9000
Raible, Philip S. (New York) show/hide docs
EE-NY-0208-0013 | EE-NY-0208-0014 | EE-NY-0208-0015 | EE-NY-0208-9000
Riopelle, Roland Gustaf (New York) show/hide docs
EE-NY-0208-0014 | EE-NY-0208-9000
Solotaroff, Jason Louis (New York) show/hide docs
EE-NY-0208-0015 | EE-NY-0208-9000
Spergel, Robert H. (New York) show/hide docs
EE-NY-0208-0002 | EE-NY-0208-0014 | EE-NY-0208-0016 | EE-NY-0208-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Lemonedes, James M. (New York) show/hide docs
EE-NY-0208-0002 | EE-NY-0208-0014 | EE-NY-0208-0015 | EE-NY-0208-9000
O'Neill, Julie E. (New York) show/hide docs
EE-NY-0208-0003 | EE-NY-0208-0014 | EE-NY-0208-0016 | EE-NY-0208-9000
Other Lawyers Thomas, James K (Georgia) show/hide docs
EE-NY-0208-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -