U.S. v. Brennan

650 F.3d 65

112 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 193

94 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 44,173

271 Ed. Law Rep. 557

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee–Cross–Appellant,Janet Caldero, Celia I. Calderon, Martha Chellemi, Salih Chioke, Andrew Clement, Kristen D'Alessio, Laura Daniele, Charmaine Didonato, Dawn L. Ellis, Marcia P. Jarrett, Mary Kachadourian, Kathleen Luebkert, Adele A. McGreal, Margaret McMahon, Marianne Manousakis, Sandra D. Morton, Maureen Quinn, Harry Santana, Carl D. Smith, Kim Tatum, Frank Valdez, and Irene Wolkiewicz, Intervenors–Appellees–Cross–Appellants,Pedro Arroyo, Jose Casado, Celestino Fernandez, Kevin LaFaye, Steven Lopez, Anibal Maldonado, James Martinez, Wilbert McGraw, Silvia Ortega De Green, and Nicholas Pantelides, Intervenors–Appellees,

v.John BRENNAN, James G. Ahearn, Scott Spring, and Dennis Mortensen, Intervenors–Appellants–Cross–Appellees,New York City Department of Education; City of New York; Martha K. Hirst, Commissioner, New York City Department of City Administrative Services; New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services, Defendants–Appellees.John Brennan, James Ahearn, Scott Spring, Dennis Mortensen, John Mitchell, and Eric Schauer, Plaintiffs–Appellants,

v.Attorney General of the United States; Assistant Attorney General of the United States for Civil Rights; U.S. Department of Justice; New York City Department of Education; City of New York; New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services; Martha K. Hirst, Commissioner, New York City Department of City Administrative Services, Defendants–Appellees,Janet Caldero, Celia I. Calderon, Martha Chellemi, Salih Chioke, Andrew Clement, Kristen D'Alessio, Laura Daniele, Charmaine Didonato, Dawn L. Ellis, Marcia P. Jarrett, Mary Kachadourian, Kathleen Luebkert, Adele A. McGreal, Margaret McMahon, Marianne Manousakis, Sandra D. Morton, Maureen Quinn, Harry Santana, Carl D. Smith, Kim Tatum, Frank Valdez, and Irene Wolkiewicz, Intervenors–Appellees,Pedro Arroyo, Jose Casado, Celestino Fernandez, Kevin LaFaye, Steven Lopez, Anibal Maldonado, James Martinez, Wilbert McGraw, Silvia Ortega De Green, and Nicholas Pantelides, Intervenors–Appellees.Ruben Miranda, Plaintiff–Appellant,v.New York City Department of Education, Defendant–Appellee.

Docket Nos. 08–5171–cv (L)

08–5172–cv (XAP)

08–5173–cv (XAP) *

08–5375–cv (XAP)

08–5149–cv (CON)

08–4639–cv (CON).

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Argued: Feb. 1, 2010.Decided: May 5, 2011.

Michael E. Rosman (Christopher J. Hajec, on the brief), Center for Individual Rights, Washington, DC, for John Brennan, James Ahearn, Scott Spring, Dennis Mortensen, John Mitchell, Eric Schauer, and Ruben Miranda.Gregory B. Friel, (Dennis J. Dimsey and April J. Anderson, on the brief) for Loretta King, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for the United States, the Attorney General, the Assistant Attorney General, and the Department of Justice.Ariela M. Migdal, (Emily J. Martin, Araceli Martinez-Olguin, and Lenora M. Lapidus, on the brief), American Civil Liberties Union Foundation Women's Right's Project, New York, NY; Melissa R. Chernofsky, Attorney-at-Law, Brooklyn, NY, on the brief, for Janet Caldero et al.Matthew Colangelo, (John Payton, Debo P. Adegbile, and Joy Milligan, on the brief), NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund, Inc., New York, NY; Joshua Civin, NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund, Washington, DC, for Pedro Arroyo et al.Rachael N. Pine, Gillian L. Thomas, Legal Momentum, New York, NY, for Amicus Curiae Legal Momentum.

The New York City Department of Education, the City of New York, Martha K. Hirst, and the New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services, did not appear at oral argument and did not submit a brief.Before: CALABRESI, RAGGI, and CUDAHY,¹ Circuit Judges.Judge RAGGI, concurs in the judgment of the Court and files a separate opinion.CALABRESI, Circuit Judge:

+-----------------+
¦Table of Contents¦
+-----------------¦
¦                 ¦
+-----------------+

Introduction                                                            70
Factual and Procedural Background                                       72

     I.   The Parties                                                   72
     II.  General Factual Background                                    73

          A.   Custodians and Custodian Engineers                       73
          B.   The Importance of Seniority                              73

               1.  Transfers                                            74
               2.  Temporary Care Assignments                           75
               3.  Layoffs                                              76

          C.   The Hiring Process                                       76
          D.   Provisional Employees                                    77

     III. The Government's Investigation and Lawsuit                    77
     IV.  The Settlement                                                78

          A.   Settlement Terms                                         78
          B.   Court Approval                                           79

     V.   The Settlement Is Implemented                                 80
     VI.  The Second Circuit Vacates and Remands                        80
     VII. Proceedings on Remand                                         81

               The Brennan Plaintiffs Intervene and File a Related
          A.   Complaint                                                81
          B.   The Government Changes Its Position; Offeree             82
               Interventions Result

     VIII. The District Court's Opinions                                83

          A.   The September 11, 2006 Opinion                           83
          B.   The April 20, 2007 Opinion                               86
          C.   The May 28, 2008 Opinion                                 87

     IX.  The Miranda Lawsuit                                           89
     X.   The Stay Applications                                         89

Discussion                                                              89

     I.   Title VII Background                                          89
     II.  Procedural Posture and Standard of Review                     91
     III. Prima Facie Case and Defenses                                 92
     IV.  Affirmative Action                                            96

          A.   Legal Background                                         96
          B.   Application of Johnson and Weber to the Settlement       97
               Agreement

               1.  Ricci                                                97
               2.  Is the Implementation of the Settlement Agreement an 99
                   Affirmative Action Plan

                   a.  What Is an Affirmative Action Plan?              99

                   b.  The Employer Action in This Case                 104

     V.   Strong Basis in Evidence                                      109

          A.   What Is a Strong Basis in Evidence?                      110

               1.  Strong Basis in Evidence of Liability                110
               2.  Strong Basis in Evidence of Necessity                113

          B.   The Government's “Actual Violation” Standard             114

                   Ricci Does Not Require a Showing of Actual Liability
               1.  or Actual Victims                                    115
                   The Consent–Decree, Settlement–Approval, and § 706
               2.  (g) Cases Do Not Apply in the § 703(a) Context       116
               3.  The Brennan Plaintiffs Have Another Remedy for Any   120
                   Breach of Contract by the City Defendants

     VI.  Application of the Strong–Basis–in–Evidence Standard          124

          A.   Prima Facie Case                                         125

               1.  Testing Discrimination                               125
               2.  Recruiting Discrimination                            125

          B.   Job–Related and Less Discriminatory Alternative          127
          C.   Necessity and Make–Whole Relief                          128

     VII.  Equal Protection                                             134
     VIII. Class Certification                                          136
     IX.   Remedies                                                     137
     X.    Conclusion                                                   140

Introduction

In 1996, the United States (the “Government”) sued the New York City Board of Education and related parties (the “City Defendants”) claiming a violation of Title VII's prohibition of disparate impact selection measures. The suit alleged that the City had, in hiring Custodians and Custodian Engineers (“CEs”) for its schools, (1) used, on three separate occasions, civil service examinations which discriminated against blacks and Hispanics, and (2) used recruiting practices which discriminated against blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and women. The parties entered into a settlement agreement in 1999 and asked the district court to enter it as a consent decree. The magistrate judge (Levy, M.J.)—who had jurisdiction by consent—approved the entire agreement, despite objections that primarily came from incumbent employees who were denied leave to intervene in the suit. The incumbent employees were unaffected by many of the agreement's provisions, but they objected to four paragraphs that provided permanent appointments and retroactive competitive seniority to 63 black, Hispanic, Asian, or female individuals, the “Offerees.” ² The City Defendants implemented the disputed parts of the settlement while the incumbent employees' appeal from their exclusion was pending. In 2001, this Court vacated and remanded, holding that the district court should have permitted the...