HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - October 4, 1995 (84)4` OF CITY OF LODI COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
c@rF �P
AGENDA TITLE: Request that City Join Amicus Brief in Warren v. City of
Carlsbad (9th Cir., 1995; 58 F.3d 439)
MEETING DATE: October 04, 1995
PREPARED BY: Deputy City Attorney
RECOMMENDATION: That the city join the amicus brief for Warren y. City of
rCa lsbad (9th Cir., 1995; 58 F.3d 439)
BACKGROUND: For purposes of information, amicus curiae briefs are filed in
various actions which involve matters of wide ranging
concern to provide information and additional argument to
the court.
This case arose when a municipal firefighter brought suit in U. S. District Court alleging that .the
city had violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act when it failed to promote him to the position of
captain because he was Hispanic.
The city prevailed on summary judgment because the plaintiff had failed to establish a prima facie
case of discriminatory failure to promote. In fact the plaintiff admitted that he had no evidence that
the supervisors responsible for awarding the promotion knew he was Hispanic. Also, the court
found that the plaintiffs disabling psychiatric condition, which included "intense homicidal ideas"
toward the fire chief, and the fact that other more qualified candidates had applied eliminated any
finding of discriminatory pretext. The trial court also awarded sanctions to the city in the amount of
$10,000.00 because the case was found to be frivolous.
In late June 1995, the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court decision, finding the plaintiff had
produced "evidence of facts" demonstrating a discriminatory motive or pretext. This evidence
included (1) statistics showing that only two non-white men work in the department and that during
the last 19 years only one captain had been a member of a minority group, (2) that the plaintiff had
allegedly heard one derogatory comment regarding Hispanics, (3) that the candidates were selected
for promotion based on subjective criteria from a list of several "qualified" candidates.
APPROVED:
1AKA. PETERSON
City Manager
Cc -1
S 7:\CA\CITY\COUNCOM\AMICUS2.DOC
This decision indicates that minimal evidence of discrimination will be sufficient to send cases to
trial even in the face of overwhelming defense evidence that precludes the possibility of
discrimination. This position is contrary to recent Supreme Court authority that directly addresses
the issue of the quantum of evidence needed by a plaintiff to meet his or her burden of proof and to
carry the burden of persuasion in a Title VII case.
A Supreme Court decision bringing the Ninth Circuit back in line with Supreme Court precedent on
this issue will enable cities to dispose of these frivolous employment discrimination cases by way of
summary judgment. This will help keep defense costs down and prevent the filing of further
frivolous suits.
FUNDING: Not applicable.
Respectfully submitted,
orke
Deputy City Attorney
S S:\CA\CITY\COUNCOM\AMICUS2.DOC
� -16
4` of CITY OF LODI COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
cq4 �p
AGENDA TITLE: Clarification of the Council Communication regarding the
request that City Join Amicus Brief in Warren v. City of
ar (9th Cir., 1995; 58 F.3d 439)
MEETING DATE: October 04, 1995
PREPARED BY: Deputy City Attorney
RECOMMENDATION: That the city join the amicus brief for Warren v. Cid
Carlsbad (9th Cir., 1995; 58 F.3d 439)
BACKGROUND: The City of Carlsbad, through the League of California
Cities Legal Advocacy Committee, has requested that the
City support it in its efforts to convince the United States
Supreme Court to overturn the Ninth Circuit's decision in Warren v. City of Carlsbad.
The Ninth Circuit's decision in this matter opens the door to frivolous litigation. Basically, cities
could be forced to go all the way to trial to resolve employment discrimination cases even when the
plaintiff has presented very little evidence that discrimination may have taken place.
The City of Carlsbad is seeking to overturn this decision and thereby restore a City's ability to get
out of these meritless cases by way of summary judgment prior to expending large sums of money
at trial.
FUNDING: Not applicable.
Respectfully submitted,
%,'_ ,".I— - --
Jo bberke
Deputy City Attorney ty Attorney
APPROVED:
THOMAS A. PETERSON
City Manager
Cc -1
S J:\CA\CITY\COUNCOM\AMICUS2A;DOC