On July 26, 2005, a group of current and former Boston Police Department (BPD) officers, an applicant to the BPD, and the Massachusetts Association of Minority Law Enforcement Officers filed this lawsuit in the Suffolk County Massachusetts Superior Court. The plaintiffs sued the City of Boston and the Boston Police Department under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1981, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.), and state law. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants engaged in discriminatory drug testing practices. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that the hair test used to screen police officers and applicants for drug use disproportionately affected people of color, and that they were wrongly terminated, denied employment, or required to enter drug treatment programs as a result of errors in the test.

The plaintiffs argued that hair tests were notorious for yielding false positives on hair samples from people of color specifically and were acknowledged by the Society of Forensic Toxicologists as being unreliable. In fact, the complaint stated, many of the candidates who were let go from BPD had alternative hair tests come up as “negative”. These flawed exams, the plaintiffs argued, were thus too imprecise, arbitrary and biased to be the basis for hiring and firing decisions. The plaintiffs requested a permanent injunction against the use of the hair test, to be reinstated with proper seniority, full back pay for the fired officers including sick leave and interest, attorneys’ fees, punitive and compensatory damages.

On September 9, 2005, the case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts at the request of the defendants who stated the majority of the plaintiffs' claims rested in federal law. On October 7, 2005, the defendants filed two motions to dismiss. On November 4, 2005, Judge George A. O'Toole, Jr. denied their motions.

Judge O'Toole granted the plaintiffs permission to amend their complaint to add two additional plaintiffs. Between 2006 and 2011, the parties engaged in numerous discovery disputes.

Subsequently, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment and the plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment. On September 28, 2012, Judge O'Toole granted summary judgment to the defendants on all counts. Judge O’Toole ruled that the plaintiffs did not meet their burden of proof to show the hair test policy causes a disparate impact on the basis of race. The District Court focused on the fact that 97-99% of African Americans passed the test, while 99-100% of White officers passed. 2012 WL 4530594. The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

On May 7, 2014, the First Circuit ruled that there was enough evidence to show disparate impact on the basis of race under Title VII. The statistics from the use of the hair tests from 1999-2006 were analyzed by both courts. In response to the district court's conclusion that the hair test resulted in no disparate impact, the First Circuit highlighted the disparity in those who tested positive. Over the eight years evaluated in this case, 1.3% of black officers tested positive and .28% of white officers tested positive, so for this period a black officer was five times more likely to test positive than a white officer. The Circuit Court held that the statistics presented did constitute a disparate impact on the basis of race and remanded the case back to the District of Massachusetts. 752 F.3d 38.

On July 21, 2014, the case was reassigned from Judge O'Toole to Judge Douglas P. Woodlock.

On December 10, 2014, the defendants again requested summary judgment the District of Massachusetts. On August 6, 2015, Judge Woodlock again granted summary judgment for the defendants. He found that where a policy created a disparate impact under Title VII, the burden shifted to the employer to prove there is “Job Relatedness and Business Necessity” for the policy. Judge Woodlock found that the BPD met this burden. 118 F. Supp. 3d 425.

On September 1, 2015, the plaintiffs again appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The First Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling that drug testing was necessary and related to the BPD. However, for the third prong of the test, the First Circuit vacated and remanded to the district court on to decide whether a reasonable fact finder could determine that an alternative drug testing method existed, that the alternative method would have a less disparate impact, and that the BPD refused to implement this policy.

On remand, the parties reopened discovery. Judge Woodlock conducted a six-day bench trial that began on March 5, 2018 and concluded on April 28, 2018. As of April 13, 2020, Judge Woodlock has not yet ruled on the case. There has been no docket activity since November 6, 2019.

Kelly Ehrenreich - 10/02/2016
Hope Brinn - 04/13/2020


compress summary