United States v. City of New York
308 F.R.D. 53
E.D.N.Y2015Background
- In 2007 the United States sued NYC alleging FDNY written exams (7029, 2043) had a disparate impact on Black and Hispanic applicants; the Vulcan Society and individual plaintiffs intervened alleging disparate treatment (intentional discrimination) by the City.
- The district court granted summary judgment for disparate impact and (initially) for disparate treatment; the Second Circuit later reversed as to disparate treatment and remanded to determine intent and to modify remedies.
- The parties negotiated an Intent Stipulation to resolve Plaintiff-Intervenors’ disparate treatment (intentional discrimination) claims through prospective, race-conscious injunctive relief (recruitment goals, a Chief Diversity & Inclusion Officer, a Diversity Advocate, medical-screening transparency, locality-based assignments, and youth outreach). The court preliminarily approved the stipulation and held fairness hearings.
- Notice was provided to class members (the class comprises eligible Black claimants), with supplemental notice to 23 members who initially lacked proper notice; 21 written objections were filed but most addressed the separate monetary-relief consent decree or were blank/from non-class members.
- The court applied Rule 23(e) and Title VII/settlement standards (including Kirkland/Grinnell guidance) and concluded the stipulation is lawful, fair, reasonable, adequate, not collusive, and consistent with the public interest, so it granted final approval and ordered entry of the Intent Stipulation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Intent Stipulation resolving intentional-discrimination claims by injunctive, race-conscious remedies should be finally approved under Rule 23(e) | The stipulation reasonably and substantially remedies effects of the City’s long history of discrimination; it supplements existing remedial and compensatory relief and was negotiated at arm’s length | City did not oppose final entry and supported implementation; argued to the court that settlement is appropriate | Approved — court found the agreement procedurally and substantively fair, reasonable, adequate, and not a product of collusion |
| Whether race-conscious affirmative relief (recruitment goals, diversity officers, youth programs) is permissible and substantially related to remedying discrimination | Such remedies are appropriate given established disparate impact liability and historical discrimination; they are targeted and non-quota recruitment goals | City accepted remedies as part of settlement; emphasized these are not hiring quotas and are limited to recruitment/outreach and structural changes | Approved — court found race-conscious measures supported by prima facie showing and tailored to remedial aims; recruitment goal is a target, not a quota |
| Whether notice to class members satisfied Rule 23(e) and whether lack of notice to 23 members invalidates approval | Plaintiffs provided coordinated notice and supplemented notice to those 23 members before the supplemental fairness hearing | City joined in the notice plan and did not oppose final approval | Approved — court found notice met Rule 23(e) requirements after supplemental notice was provided |
| Whether objections (many addressing separate monetary settlement or raising unrelated grievances) warrant denying approval | Objectors argued inadequate monetary relief, vagueness, or continuing discrimination unrelated to the stipulated claims | City and plaintiffs contended objections either targeted the separate monetary decree, came from non-class members, or were unsubstantial | Overruled — court found most objections irrelevant to the Intent Stipulation; only three class members substantively opposed and court concluded objections lacked merit |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. City of New York, 717 F.3d 72 (2d Cir.) (appellate decision reversing grant of summary judgment as to disparate treatment and directing modifications to remedial order)
- Kirkland v. N.Y. State Dep’t of Corr. Servs., 711 F.2d 1117 (2d Cir. 1983) (standard for evaluating Title VII settlements with race-conscious remedies)
- City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corp., 495 F.2d 448 (2d Cir. 1974) (factors for assessing fairness of class settlements)
- McReynolds v. Richards-Cantave, 588 F.3d 790 (2d Cir. 2009) (procedural fairness and arm’s-length negotiation considerations for class settlements)
- Carson v. American Brands, Inc., 450 U.S. 79 (U.S. 1981) (weigh plaintiffs’ likelihood of success against relief in consent decrees)
- Berkman v. City of New York, 705 F.2d 584 (2d Cir. 1983) (affirmative relief may be appropriate where long-continued discrimination exists)
- United States v. North Carolina, 180 F.3d 574 (4th Cir. 1999) (consent-decree approval factors in Title VII pattern-or-practice cases)
- Vulcan Soc’y of N.Y.C. Fire Dep’t, Inc. v. Civil Serv. Comm’n, 360 F. Supp. 1265 (S.D.N.Y. 1973) (historical finding of discriminatory impact in FDNY testing)