In 1980, the United States filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico against the City of Farmington, its Mayor, City Councilors, City Manager and Personnel Officer in their official capacities, under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. In its amended complaint, the ...
read more >
In 1980, the United States filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico against the City of Farmington, its Mayor, City Councilors, City Manager and Personnel Officer in their official capacities, under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. In its amended complaint, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination based on race, sex and national origin. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants discriminated with respect to hiring, assignment and promotion opportunities within all of City's departments.
The parties then entered into a settlement agreement, which was to be entered as a consent degree by the court. Under the agreement, the defendants did not make any admissions. The defendants were enjoined from engaging in any practice or pattern of unlawful discrimination on the basis of race, sex or national origin, or otherwise discrimination in employment on the above criteria. The particular groups specifically mentioned in the agreement as discriminated against are Indians, Hispanics and females. The defendants were to adopt yearly interim goals for recruiting those groups. They were also to adopt certain recruitment policies, which include, among other things, announcing employment opportunities in the mass media, aimed at Indian minorities. The defendants were to adopt nondiscrimination training, including setting aside $7,000 for employment related education and reimbursement of tuition.
Additionally, the defendants were to provide monetary relief to all individuals harmed in the lawsuit. The maximum aggregate monetary relief was not to exceed $300,000, with $200,000 offered to persons named in the Appendix in a specific amount, and $100,000 reserved for future claims by people believing to be entitled to a monetary award. The maximum award to any person could not exceed $3,000. The defendants were to send notice to all individuals concerned. Any funds remaining after 90 days from the entry of the consent decree would revert to the defendants.
The defendants were also to keep records under the consent decree, related to applications for employment, which were to be provided to the DOJ semi-annually. Any dispute under the consent decree was to be settled informally before brought to courts. The Court was to retain jurisdiction over the settlement agreement. The parties planned to achieve the objectives of the consent decree by December 31, 1985, at which point it could be dissolved by the defendants through a motion to the Court.
On June 26, 1981, the Court (Judge Santiago Campos) issued an order conditionally entering consent decree. The Court conditioned the entry upon fairness hearings, which was to be held on October 2, 1981. The defendants were required to implement prospective relief under the consent decree immediately, but if the consent decree is not finally entered, they were not required to offer prospective relief. The plaintiff was required to send a copy of the consent decree to any person upon written request, as well as publish it in newspapers and public places. The plaintiff was also required to send to the Court the list of persons believed to be entitled to the monetary relief. Any person seeking to challenge the consent decree had to do so within 40 days of the date of the order.
Because this case is old, and no reported decisions resulted, we do not have any record of the fairness hearing, or any other information. Zhandos Kuderin - 07/08/2014