The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAGENDA REPORT 1997 0903 CC REG ITEM 10Emoo. a (67 ITEM-10s E ) SEYFARTH, SHAW, FAIRWEATHER & GERALDSON ATTORNEYS AT LAW 55 EAST MONROE STREET . SUITE 4200 CHICAGO. IL 600035803 13121 346-8000 FAX 131 21 209 -Hi H r, ,(N)NNF.(.'1'1(`l`T AVVINUE -NK. K" A S11 l N f. TO N . 1) ('. 2(K)01"(X)4 12021 463 -2400 FAX (2021 829 -5393 900 THIRD AVENUE NEW YORK. NY 100224728 (21 YI 7159000 FAX (2121 752 -3116 ONE CENTURY PLAZA - SUITE 3300 2029 CENTURY PARR EAST hos ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067 -3063 (310) 277 -7200 FAX (310) 101 -:5119 WRITERS DIRE -r DIAL 191 CALIFORHFAYS'PR'ELMQg?? K, CALIFORNIA (310) 201 -5257 SAN FRANCI.9(,`O. C tJJC0WCi1 Meeting _ (4151 397 -28 3 F.�JC 14151 397$549 ��% .199 1 BY: August 6, 1997 To: California City Attorneys Re: Amicus Support in Green v City of Los Angeles Dear City Attorneys: 400 CAPITOL MALL - SUITE 2350 SACRAMENTO. CA 858144420 1918) 448-0158 FAX 6)161 558.48" 700 LOUISIANA STREET - SUITE 3900 HOUSTON. TX 77002 -2731 (7131 225 -2300 FAX 17131 225 -2340 ONE ATLANTIC CENTER - SUITE 3260 1201 WEST PEACHTREE STREET ATLANTA. GA 30309 -3400 14041 892.6412 FAX (4041 892 -7056 INTERNATIONAL AVENUE LOUISE 500, BOjTE 8 1050 BRUSSELS, BELGIUM TELEPHONE 1321 (21 647.6025 FAX (321 12) 640.70.71 20703 -14 RECEIVE[ AUG 111997 CITY OF MOORPARK The purpose of this correspondence is to request your joinder in an amicus brief which, at the request of the League of California Cities, is being authored by Melanie Poturica at the law firm of Liebert, Cassidy & Frierson.in support of the City of Los Angeles ( "City "). The City has appealed, to the Second District of the California Court of Appeals, a verdict and judicial ruling rendered in a case brought by a current member of the Los Angeles Police Department ( "Department "). The plaintiff in the case applied to the Department's Air Support Division ( "ASD ") on numerous occasions for two positions (pilot and observer) between 1978 and 1993. Following his failure to gain appointment in 1993, Green (an Afrfcan- American) sued the Department alleging race discrimination on disparate treatment and impact theories. The following is a sketch of the issues for which your amicus support is requested: Whether a discrimination plaintiff can "sit" on employment discrimination claims for a number of years, despite his/her awareness of the alleged discrimination, then sue an employer for discrimination for those violations based on a continuing violations theory (plaintiff testified he was aware of the discrimination since the late 70's). * Whether persons who do not meet the minimum qualifications for the position in question (or have not applied for the position when a proxy pool is used) may be included as members of a "relevant labor pool" for purposes of a disparate impact analysis. * Whether a multiplier of an attorneys' fees award was justified in this case. c c 000379 k" SEYFARTH, SHAW, FAIRWEATHER & GERALDSON To: California City Attorneys August 6. 1997 Page 2 Continuing Violations Issue .k The court in trial and post -trial motions failed to throw out Green's pre 1993 claims - -the only claims made in the limitations period. At trial Green testified that he believed the discrimination began in the late 70's. We argued, citing substantial federal case law, that he had an affirmative duty to make a claim within one year of the time that he became aware of the alleged discrimination. The Court initially agreed with our position but then changed its mind after plaintiff's counsel submitted an off point U.S. Supreme Court case dealing with the Fair Housing Act. Moreover, Green should also be estopped from making a continuing violations argument given the fact that the selection process was changed in 1987 -89 and he does not allege that the process was discriminatory in those years. Relevant Proxv Labor Pool Green argued that the relevant proxy pool to use under the disparate impact theory was the number of all LAPD officers who held the rank of the officers eligible to apply to ASD. Our position was that the correct proxy pool were those officers who had the minimum qualifications for the positions (5 years' field experience plus a pilot's license for the pilot position) and had shown an interest in appointment to ASD by submitting an application. Again the judge, wrongly in our opinion, agreed with Green. Attorneys' Fees Multiplier The court gave plaintiff a 2.0 multiplier on attorneys' fees. The judge based his attorneys' fees findings in part on the fact that the defendant is a public employer and thus there was a public interest value attached to the case. He further based the opinion on the fact that the litigation was "difficult ". Our obvious position was that the litigation did not inure to the public's benefit simply because the City is a public employer. Clearly, adding a 2.0 multiplier to attorneys' fees in all discrimination cases involving public sector agencies is a daunting prospect and must be redressed. 000380 S9YFARTH. SHAW, FAIRWEATHER & GERALDSON To: California City Attorneys August 6, 1997 Page 3 The an icus brief will be supportive of the above issues. It is our hope that you will sign and return the enclosed consent form granting Liebert, Cassidy and Frierson permission to include your City as a signatory to the brief. Again, your assistance in this matter is greatly appreciated. Please sign and return the enclosed consent form to Melanie Poturica by September 22, 1997. Sincerely, SEYFARTH, SHAW, FAIRWEATHER & GERALDSON By p)i W. Michael Battle /WMB Enclosure cc: Fred Merkin (w /o encl.) Patricia Kinaga (w /o encl.) 6128905 I 000381