United States v. City of New York
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 9671
| 2d Cir. | 2013Background
- The United States sued the City of New York under Title VII alleging racial discrimination in FDNY entry-level firefighter hiring.
- Intervenors Vulcan Society and others asserted a pattern-or-practice discriminatory treatment and class certification was granted.
- District Court found discriminatory impact from Exams 7029 and 2043 and issued relief, including banning Exam 6019 and appointing a monitor.
- Court granted summary judgment against the City on the disparate treatment claim; Mayor Bloomberg and Fire Commissioner Scoppetta were dismissed on immunity grounds; federal claims against Scoppetta later treated as reinstated.
- On appeal, the Second Circuit vacated the summary-judgment ruling on disparate treatment, affirmed some immunity rulings, modified the injunction scope, and remanded for a bench trial with reassignment to a different judge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment on the Intervenors' disparate treatment claim | Intervenors | City | No; summary judgment improper; trial on merits required |
| Whether the Mayor and Fire Commissioner were properly dismissed on immunity grounds | Intervenors | City | Mayor Bloomberg: federal/state immunity upheld; Scoppetta: state immunity upheld, federal claims reinstated |
| Scope and modification of the injunction based on disparate impact and/or treatment | Intervenors | City | Injunction affirmed in modified form; some provisions narrowed due to vacatur of disparate-treatment ruling |
| Whether a reassignment to a different judge is required on remand | Intervenors | City | Partial reassignment of the liability-phase bench trial to another judge; not a full case reassignment |
Key Cases Cited
- International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324 (Supreme Court 1977) (pattern-or-practice burden to show employer’s ‘standard operating procedure’)
- Tex. Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (Supreme Court 1981) (burden-shifting framework for McDonnell Douglas)
- Guardians Ass’n of N.Y.C. Police Dep’t, Inc. v. Civil Serv. Comm’n, 630 F.2d 79 (2d Cir. 1980) (standard for job-relatedness of a test in disparate impact analysis)
- Robinson v. Metro-North Commuter R.R. Co., 267 F.3d 147 (2d Cir. 2001) (Teamsters framework distinguished from McDonnell Douglas)
- Reynolds v. Barrett, 685 F.3d 193 (2d Cir. 2012) (Teamsters burden of proof and pattern-or-practice methodology clarified)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court 2009) (purposeful discrimination requires more than mere awareness of consequences)