On February 22, 1988 plaintiffs brought a complaint against their employer New York / New Jersey Port Authority in United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging Title VII violations on account of their race, African-American. The complaint was a class action on behalf ...
read more >
On February 22, 1988 plaintiffs brought a complaint against their employer New York / New Jersey Port Authority in United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging Title VII violations on account of their race, African-American. The complaint was a class action on behalf of the named plaintiffs and those similarly situated that the 1986-1987 promotional examinations had a disparate impact on black officers.
On January 29, 1991, Judge Kevin Duffy of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the case and granted summary judgment for the defendants claiming that the plaintiffs failed to show, prima facie, a disparate impact despite certifying the plaintiff class. The case was than closed on February 11, 1991. However, the case was remanded by the United States Court of Appeals back to the District Court and reopened on December 17, 1991.
Eventually, on September 28, 1992 Judge Duffy of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York signed a consent decree and granted judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. The consent decree required the Port Authority to pay $250,000 to the NAACP Defense Fund as well as certain sums to the named plaintiffs for representing the class. The consent decree also promoted five black members from 1986 and two from 1990 based on seniority and gave $8,000 in damages to members of the certified class from the 1990 test.
The case was appealed and argued before Judge Michael B. Mukasey of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and the consent decree was upheld. The case in the court of appeals combined both the Waisome I case and another similar case involving plaintiffs who took the 1990 promotional test. It dismissed, affirmed and reversed the two decision in parts, but the consent decree remained unaffected.
David Miller - 01/03/2011
compress summary