Case Information
*1 Bеfore FAGG, Circuit Judge, HANSEN, Circuit Judge, and PIERSOL, District [*] Judge.
* The HONORABLE LAWRENCE L. PIERSOL, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota, sitting by designation.
PIERSOL, District Judge.
In this action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, six St. Louis, Missouri, police officers appeal the district court's grant of summary [1] judgment in favor of the Police Board of the Metropolitan Police Department of the City of St. Louis and the individual members of the Board--Freeman Bosley, Jr., Anne-Marie Clarke, Charles Mischeaux, James Conway, Robert Haar, and Matthew Padberg (hereinafter collectively called the "Police Board"). The district court rejected a claim that the Pоlice Board violated appellants' equal protection rights by promoting to the position of sergeant in the 1993/94 promotion cycle, from the pool of candidates similarly situated to appellants in fitness and merit, only those candidates with familial and political connections. For the reasons stated below, we affirm.
We review a district court's grant of summary judgment de novo.
Association of Residential Resources in Minnesota, Inc. v. Gomez, 51 F.3d
137, 140 (8th Cir. 1995). A district court should grant summary judgment
only when there are no genuine issues of material fact for trial and the
moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. Here, the
parties agree that the only question before us is whether the district
court correctly analyzed the appellants' equal protection claim under the
applicable rational relationship standard. See Crain v. Board of Police
Comm'rs,
The Police Board decides who will be promoted from the rank of police officer to sergeant. Under the Police Board's promotion policy and procedure, every other year a Promotion Eligibility List is рrepared, with candidates ranked according to weighted scores
1 The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.
from certain written and oral tests. Statistically similar scores are then placed together in "clusters," with the "A-Cluster" containing the highest- scoring candidates, the "B-Cluster" the next highest-scoring group, the "C- Cluster" the next highest-scoring group and so on. All scores within a cluster are treated as equivalent for purposes of promotion. The cluster assignment is valid for two years and may not be changed without exсeptional circumstances that affect a candidate's capacity to perform the duties of a higher rank. These six appellants were among thirty-seven officers in the "C-Cluster" for the 1993/94 promotion cycle.
All members of higher-ranking clusters must be promoted before members of the next cluster may become eligible for promotion. The chief of police may recommend candidates to the Police Board for promotion, but he may not recommend a candidate from a lower cluster until all candidates in a higher cluster are promoted. The promotion policy does not require the chief's recommendation before the Police Board can promote a particular candidate, but that candidate must be within a cluster eligible for promotion.
The Policе Board members, upon appointment by the Missouri Governor, are required to affirm that no appointment or removal of any police officer will be made on "account of political opinions" or "for any other cause or reason than the fitness оr unfitness of such persons, in the best judgment of such commissioners[.]" Mo.Rev.Stat. § 84.040. The Police Board adopted Rule 8.200 of the Police Manual, setting forth its policy that promotion of police officers "shall be made according to fitness and merit, as determined by the Board." Police Manual Rule 7.004(l), known as "Rule L," provides that a police officer shall be subject to disciplinary action for "[s]oliciting or accepting the aid of any person or knowingly permitting any person to influence hiring, promotion or transfer on the member's behalf, except by established procedures relating to request for transfer."
St. Louis Chief of Police Clarence Harmon interpreted "Rule L" to prohibit police officers from contacting individual Police Board members for the purpose of furthering their own chances for рromotion. Chief Harmon testified he would be duty-bound to pursue disciplinary action if he could "show concretely" that an officer had tried to influence a Police Board member on the officer's promotion. He did not take disciplinary action against any officеr, however, because no officers were specifically named to him as having violated "Rule L". Chief Harmon told the Police Board on various occasions that he felt it was inappropriate for Police Board members to make contact with poliсe officers about their pending promotions.
Police Board members disagreed with Chief Harmon's position, and informed him that, in their best judgment, receipt of information about promotion candidates or occasional contacts with promotion candidates wеre helpful in supplementing the information presented to the Board members about the candidates. Police Board members were aware of "Rule L," but did not think the rule applied to them. They felt it was their duty to maintain an open door policy and to listen to any pоlice officer or interested party who wished to approach the Police Board on any matter.
Appellants brought suit to challenge six promotions made from "C- Cluster" in 1994. Effective February 15, 1994, the Police Board, on Chief Harmon's recommendation, promoted John Carnaghi, the son of a retired police officer who is now the Deputy Chief of Airport Security at Lambert International Airport, an appointed position filled by the Mayor of St. Louis. The Mayor sits as an ex officio member of the Police Board. At a meeting on Marсh 16, 1994, Chief Harmon recommended the promotion of Andre Denham, Jimmie Mader, and Terrill Shoemaker. After discussion, the Police Board, on the motion of Anne-Marie Clarke, promoted Anna Griggs, Thomas Moran and Terrill Shoemaker. Moran is the son of a retired senior policе officer. Griggs was known as the girlfriend of
Luther Boykins, an associate of State Senator J.B. "Jet" Banks, whose wife is Clarke's godmother. Clarke met with Anna Griggs and discussed Griggs with Senator Banks. Griggs admitted that she discussed her promotion with Clarke, but denied that she asked Clarke for assistance in getting promoted. On April 20, 1994, the Police Board, upon Chief Harmon's recommendation, promoted Mark Scheetz. Scheetz is also the son of a retired senior police officer. On June 15, 1994, the Police Board, again on the Chief's recommendation, promoted Andre Denham. On September 13, 1994, on the motion of Mischeaux, the Police Board promoted four officers to sergeant.
On September 19, 1994, the Police Board entered into a conciliation agreement with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The Police Board agreed to prоmote to sergeant eight white men who were eligible for promotion in the 1991/92 cycle, but who were passed over through a process called "cluster-dipping," that is, the Police Board promoted African- American officers from a lower cluster when there remained white officers eligible for promotion in a higher cluster. While these eight promotions were retroactive to the 1991/92 promotion cycle, the vacancies did not occur until the 1993/94 cycle.
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires the
govеrnment to treat similarly-situated people alike. City of Cleburne v.
Cleburne Living Ctr., Inc.,
Appellants alleged below that race was a factor in the six challenged
"C-Cluster" promotions, but they now argue on appeal only that the
promotions were unconstitutional because they resulted from familial and
political influence. Evеn if, for the sake of argument, familial and
political influence may be considered impermissible motives, we agree with
the district court that appellants produced no evidence they were required
to abide by "Rule L" while the other six officers who were promotеd from
"C-Cluster" were not. The Police Board's open door policy applied to
appellants, just as it did to the six police officers who were promoted,
and "Rule L" did not prohibit the Police Board members from seeking or
receiving additional information about candidates for promotion.
Appellants produced no evidence that Chief Harmon enforced "Rule L" against
any police officer.
We held in Backlund v. Hessen,
that "nepotism in government hiring requires some measure of justification
before it can pass constitutional muster." In so holding, we rejected the
district court's expansive reading of Kotch v. Board of River Port Pilot
Comm'rs,
applicable to the governmental promotion practices at issue here. But we
decline to remand this mаtter to the district court for further
consideration in light of Backlund, as appellants would have us do. In
Backlund, we treated the district court's resolution of the case as a
dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6). Backlund,
Here, the case is adequately presented on a complete summary judgment record. Having conducted the required de novo review, we conclude the district court appropriately analyzed appellants' equal protection claim under the appliсable rational relationship test and that the district court's conclusion is consistent with our holding in Backlund.
Familial and political influence may have played some role in the promotion process, but such influence was only one factor among a myriad of factors considered by Police Board members. Four of the six officers were promoted on Chief Harmon's recommendation. Police Board members testified they felt it was important to meet with candidates for promotion to learn more about them. That contaсts with Police Board members on behalf of candidates may have been prompted by family members, friends, or the candidates themselves does not permit the automatic assumption that the contacts alone resulted in the decision to promote. The information gleaned from such meetings or contacts supplemented the material already available to Police Board members as a result of
the competitive promotion process. Because all thirty-seven officers eligible for promotion in "C-Cluster" were considered equal, regardless of differences in competitive scores, Police Board members reasonably wanted some personalized information to help them distinguish which of the candidates would make the best sergeants and should be promoted first from the cluster. Such considerations are directly related to determination of the officers' fitness and merit as required by § 84.040, and are fully consistent with the requirement of Rule 8.200 that promotions "shall be made according to fitness and merit, as determined by the Board." We think the district court correctly ruled that the Police Board members' desire for additional information about the candidates was rationally related to the Police Board's legitimate interest in choosing the best candidates for promotion from "C-Cluster." Therefore, appellants' equal protection claim fails.
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.