On February 14, 2012, a group of minority Boston City police officers filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the City of Boston. The plaintiffs filed suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging that police promotional exams used in 2008 to promote sergeants to lieutenants had a disparate impact on black and latino officers. The plaintiffs contended that the multiple-choice examinations used were unfairly biased against minority candidates and failed to measure certain other job-related skills (for example, interpersonal skills) that are necessary for the position of lieutenant.
The case was originally assigned to Judge Joseph L. Tauro of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Various extensions of time and stays were granted. On December 26, 2013, Judge Tauro took senior status and was replaced on the case by Judge William G. Young.
In January 2014, Judge Young set a trial date for December 2014.
The bench trial began on December 15, 2014, and concluded on January 7, 2015. In May 2015, both parties submitted post-trial briefs with proposed findings of fact. On November 16, 2015, Judge Young issued his decision, ruling that the 2008 promotional exam did unfairly disadvantage minority candidates and was insufficiently job-related to survive scrutiny under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
On February 1, 2016, before beginning a jury trial for damages, both parties agreed to enter mediation with goal of settling upon appropriate remedies and damages. The assigned meditator, Judge Robert B. Collings, filed a report on June 9, 2016, stating that the parties did not settle. Settlement negotiations were complicated by the First Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in May 2016 in the related case of Lopez v. City of Lawrence, which held that the 2008 police promotional exams did not violate Title VII.
As a result, the plaintiffs and defendant jointly sought interlocutory review. Judge Young granted this motion, and certified the question to the First Circuit on July 9, 2016. The First Circuit denied the joint motion for interlocutory review without prejudice pending the District Court's application of Lopez to the facts of this case.
Following briefing by both parties on Lopez's application to this case, Judge Young affirmed his prior determination in favor of the plaintiffs on July 26, 2017. Noting the factual differences between this case and Lopez, Judge Young found that the City had failed to show that the test was job-related to the position of lieutenant and consistent with "business necessity."
On August 11, 2017, Judge Young granted the plaintiffs' renewed motion for interlocutory review, and the issue returned to the First Circuit. However, after more than a year of the case pending review, the plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case to the district court on April 11, 2019. Six days later, on April 17, 2019, the First Circuit denied permission to appeal.
The district court reopened the case on May 7, 2019. On May 22, the plaintiffs renewed their motion for class certification. They also filed a motion in limine to preclude evidence and testimony from defendant's 2014 promotional exam. After a motion hearing on June 13, 2019, Judge Young denied class certification but expressed no opinion on whether or not others may join as plaintiffs. On July 1, 2019, he also denied the motion in limine.
Several plaintiffs moved to intervene, but the court denied these motions on September 24, 2019. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that same day, alleging one Title VII disparate impact claim and one state-law disparate impact claim. They again sought class certification. As of May 22, 2020, the defendants have filed an answer but discovery has been limited while the parties conduct the damages proceedings from the previous action.
The damages trial began on October 28, 2019. The remaining issued were whether there was a binding presumption that entitled the plaintiffs to back pay and, if so, whether Boston had successfully rebutted that presumption by introducing evidence of scores from the new exam given in 2014. The court issued an order on the outcome of the trial on May 13, 2020, finding that there was a binding presumption, but that the defendants had successfully rebutted it. 2020 WL 2475644.
As of May 22, 2020, this case is ongoing.
Ian Sander - 10/09/2016
Eva Richardson - 12/23/2018
Alex Moody - 05/22/2020
compress summary
