On May 25, 1994, individual black probation officers and the Black Probation Officers Association in Los Angeles filed this class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the Los Angeles County and its probation department. The plaintiffs, represented by attorneys from the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund and private counsel, alleged that the probation department's hiring and promotion practices were discriminatory against the minority groups, in violation of Title VI, Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.
On December 19, 1994, the District Court (Judge David V. Kenyon) denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the case. On July 25, 1997, the Court granted the motion of the Los Angeles County Chicano Employees Association to intervene as an intervenor plaintiff. On the same day, the Court granted the plaintiffs' class certification motion. The case was later transferred to Judge Christina A. Snyder due to retirement of Judge Kenyon.
On April 10, 2000, the parties filed a joint motion for final approval of the Court, in which they stipulated a settlement agreement. The Court (Judge Snyder) approved the settlement at the June 2, 2000 hearing, finding it fair and adequate. Several members of the plaintiff class filed objections, and Judge Snyder addressed and rejected them in her July 5, 2000 opinion.
The settlement agreement is unfortunately not available. According to the July 5, 2000 opinion, the Court noted that the settlement sought to promote structural relief. It provided the plaintiff class members with a right to get involved in developing non-discriminatory policies and standards for hiring and promotion, coupled with a dispute-resolution process, and such development had to comply with Title VI. The agreement also provided payments to those plaintiffs whose back pay claims were likely to succeed, and allocated class-wide monetary damages.
According to a
news article from Los Angeles Times, "the probation department agreed not to engage in any hiring or promotion practices that have a 'disparate adverse impact' on African Americans, Latinos or other minority groups." The department would implement a new method for job-assignments for certain branches, and it would keep an outside consultant. Additionally, it agreed to spend an extra $600,000 to $1.4 million a year to hire more staff at seven inner-city offices. In terms of monetary relief, the named plaintiffs in the suit would share a $350,000 award from the County. An additional $615,000 was for employees who took certain promotional exams and were rejected, and the County was to pay $900,000 as attorneys' fees.
Emma Bao - 07/18/2013
compress summary
