HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1995 1004 CC REG ITEM 08KRONALD R. BALL
CITY ATTORNEY
D. RICHARD RUDOLF
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY
JANE MOBALDI
DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY
September 11, 1995
CITY OF CARLSBAD
1200 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 -1989
(619) 434 -2891
FAX: (619) 434 -8367
TO: All California City Attorneys
ITEM'S K•-)
r
i
FROM: Ronald R. Ball, City Attorney of the City of Carlsbad
AMICUS SUPPORT FOR PETITION FOR CERTIORARI IN WARREN v. CITY OF
CARLSBAD (9TH CIR,.1995) 58 F.3d 439)
The League of California Cities ( "the League ") has given its
support to the Petition for Certiorari to be filed in the case of
Warren v. city of Carlsbad (9th Cir. 1995). We are appealing a
decision by the Ninth.Circuit which appears to expose all cities
to the risk of a jury trial every time they fail to hire or
promote a member of a protected group. A Supreme Court reversal
could save cities substantial money by enabling them to dispose
of meritless cases at summary judgment, to settle on reasonable
terms, or to avoid litigation altogether. We are asking all
cities to join in an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to
grant certiorari regarding this very important issue.
Issued Raised 111, Warren v. City of Carlsbad
This case arose when a municipal firefighter brought suit in U.S.
District Court alleging that the City of Carlsbad ( "City ")
violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act when it failed to
promote him to captain because he was Hispanic. City management
personnel, however, were not aware that the firefighter was
Hispanic.
In March 1993, Whitmore, Johnson & Bolanos successfully moved on
behalf of the City for summary adjudication on the grounds that
the firefighter failed to establish a prima facie case of
discriminatory failure to promote. Specifically, the firefighter
admitted that he had no actual evidence that the individually -
named City employees knew that he was Hispanic. Moreover, the
District Court found that the firefighter's disabling psychiatric
condition, which included "intense homicidal ideas" toward the
Fire Chief, and the fact that other candidates were more
qualified for the position, precluded a finding of discriminatory
pretext. The District Court also awarded the City sanctions in
the amount of $10,000, finding the claim was frivolous because
there was "no evidence of discrimination other than the
firefighter's personal opinion" that he was denied the promotion
on the basis of his national origin.
J
In late June 1995, the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court
decision, finding that the firefighter had produced "evidence of
facts" demonstrating a discriminatory motive or pretext. This
evidence included (1) statistics reflecting that only two men of
color work in the department and that during the past nineteen
years only one captain had ever been a member of a minority
group; (2) that the firefighter allegedly heard one derogatory
comment regarding Hispanics; and (3) that candidates were
selected for promotion based on subjective criteria from a list
of several "qualified" candidates.
The decision indicates that minimal evidence will enable an
employee to obtain a jury trial in a Title VII civil rights case,
even in the fact of overwhelming defense evidence that precludes
the possibility of discrimination.
As a result, the Ninth Circuit's decision conflicts with recent
Supreme Court authority that discusses the quantum of evidence
that an employee must provide and the burden of persuasion an
employee must meet to prevail on a Title VII claim. In St.
Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. , 113 S.Ct.2742, 125
L.Ed.2d 407 (1993), the Court held that an employee can only
rebut an employer's legitimate business reason defense (i.e.,
show it is pretextual) by showing "both that the reason was
false, and that discrimination was the real reason." (Id. at
2752 (italics in the original).) In Warren, the Ninth Circuit
appeared to ignore the -first requirement that the firefighter
must introduce facts to show that the City's reasons (lack of
leadership skills and threat to the Chief) were false. Instead,
the Ninth Circuit jumped to the second requirements, which it
deemed satisfied by a showing so minimal as to raise questions
about whether summary judgment could ever be granted in a
disparate treatment case.
Significance to Cities
A Supreme Court decision bringing the Ninth Circuit back in line
-with high court precedent would enable cities to dispose of
frivolous employment discrimination cases via summary judgment.
Improving an employer's ability to obtain summary judgment may
also deter lawsuits and increase the chance that those that are
filed will settle.
Filing Schedule
The Supreme Court rules give the City until September 20, 1995,
to file a petition for a writ of certiorari. Amicus briefs in
support of the petition must be filed within 30 days thereafter.
Arlene Prater of Best, Best & Kreiger has agreed to write the
amicus brief. To participate, please complete the enclosed form
and mail or fax it to the City of Carlsbad at the address and /or
facsimile number indicated.
(j (J(J(J74