This lawsuit was filed on January 15, 1994, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, by a black California Highway Patrol (CHP) lieutenant. He brought this class action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 on behalf of all current and future non-white CHP officers. Represented by public interest attorneys and private counsel, he alleged that the promotion process of the CHP had a discriminatory impact on non-white officers in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. He further claimed that the CHP engaged in disparate treatment and retaliation.

On July 13, 1994, the District Court (Judge Consuelo B. Marshall) certified the plaintiff class. After a lengthy discovery period and a great number of submissions, the District Court found that the CHP's promotional process resulted in a disparate impact on the plaintiff class and, accordingly, granted partial summary judgment for the plaintiffs in March, 1995. On November 3, 1995, the District Court entered a preliminary injunction for the plaintiff. The CHP appealed.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the class certification, but reversed the summary judgment ruling, vacated the preliminary injunction, and remanded for further factual findings. Paige v. State of California, 102 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir.1996). The Court also issued a table opinion in which addressed the jurisdiction issues. Paige v. State of California, No. 95-56669, 105 F.3d 666 (9th Cir. Dec. 20, 1996).

On remand, the District Court ordered additional discovery, and again granted partial summary judgment in the plaintiffs favor, on Aug. 13, 1998. After the state moved for reconsideration, the Court issued another opinion affirming its own prior ruling. On Jan. 19, 2001, the Court issued a preliminary injunction for the plaintiffs. Paige v. State of California, 2001 WL 128439 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 19, 2001). The CHP appealed. On May 31, 2002, the 9th Circuit reversed the summary judgment ruling, vacated the preliminary injunction, and again remanded the case, finding that material issues of fact meant that the employees' disparate impact claim should be resolved at trial, not before. The opinion was by Judge Stephen Reinhardt. Paige v. California, 291 F.3d 1141 (9th Cir. 2002), cert. denied 537 U.S. 1189 (2003).

The case proceeded to trial. At trial, a jury found in favor of the State on a claim of disparate treatment and the District Court (Judge Marshall) entered judgment in favor of the CHP on that claim on July 29, 2005. The Court further ruled in favor of the plaintiff on his retaliation claim but awarded no damages to the plaintiff. The Court ruled in favor of the defendants on the claim of disparate impact on November 7, 2004. The employees appealed. On May 16, 2007, the Circuit Court affirmed in an opinion by Judge Reinhardt, rejecting the plaintiffs' evidentiary arguments. Paige v. California, 233 F. App'x 646, 647 (9th Cir. 2007). This ended the case.

Emma Bao - 07/11/2013


compress summary