IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
NORFOLK DIVISION

. , ,
.:~,= ~ ',:, ,;..~..... ~.-~.'

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

CITY OF CHESAPEAKE, VIRGINIA, )

)

Defendant.

)

)

)

:_!: ,_.' i ~
. ; :~, ...... ,....., ,-,. -~ "\"
": J··;0?-\r\__ ·L.-~\:; ·L·;"'~J;'_
Civil Action No.

COMPLAINT Plaintiff, United States of America, alleges: 1. This action is brought on behalf of the United States to enforce the provisions of Title Vll ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., as amended ("Title Vll"). 2. This court has jurisdiction of this action under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-6(b), 28 U.S.c. § 1343(a)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1345. 3. Defendant, City of Chesapeake, Virginia, is a municipal government and/or political subdivision created pursuant to the laws ofthe Commonwealth of Virginia. 4. Defendant City of Chesapeake is a person within the meaning of 42 U.S.C; § 2000e(a) and an employer within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b). 5. Defendant City of Chesapeake employs police officers who, among other things, are responsible for protecting individuals and property in the City of Chesapeake and apprehending persons violating any laws within the City of Chesapeake.

------------- ----- - - - - - - - - - - .. - - - -------~--------

6. Defendant City of Chesapeake is responsible for the recruitment and hiring of entry-level police officers.
7. Defendant City of Chesapeake is responsible for establishing the terms, conditions, and other practices which bear upon the employment of all of the City's police officers, including entry level police officers.
8. Upon information and belief, since at least March 2001, defendant City of Chesapeake has administered and used a written examination, the National Police Officer Selection Test ("POST"), in the screening and selection of applicants for hire into the position of entry-level police officer in the City of Chesapeake Police Department.
9. Upon information and belief, the versions of the POST used by defendant City of Chesapeake have included three.or four components, including a test intended to measure certain mathematics skills ("the mathematics test").
10. Upon information and belief, between March 2001 and January 2006, defendant City of Chesapeake has allowed an applicant to continue in the City's screening and selection process for the entry-level police officer position only ifthe applicant passed (i.e., obtained a score of at least 70% on) each ofthe POST's component tests, including the mathematics test.
11. Upon information and belief, between March 2001, and December 2004, approximately 45.41 % of the African-American applicants to whom Chesapeake administered the POST failed the mathematics test.
12. Upon information and belief, between March 2001, and December 2004, approximately 35.90% of the Hispanic applicants to whom the defendant City of Chesapeake administered the POST failed the mathematics test.
2

13. Upon information and belief, between March 2001, and December 2004, approximately 11.09% of the white applicants to whom the defendant City of Chesapeake administered the POST failed the mathematics test.
14. Defendant City of Chesapeake's use of the mathematics test in the manner described in paragraphs 8 through 13, above, has an adverse impact on African-American and Hispanic applicants for the position of entry-level police officer in the Chesapeake Police Department, and is not job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity.
15. Defendant City of Chesapeake's use ofthe mathematics test in the manner described in paragraphs 8 through 13, above, constitutes a pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment by African-Americans and Hispanics oftheir right to equal employment opportunities without discrimination based on race and national origin. The pattern or practice is of such a nature that it denied African-Americans and Hispanics the full exercise of the rights secured by Title VlI ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.
16. In accordance with Section 707 of Title VlI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-6, the United States, through the Department of Justice, has investigated the employment practices of defendant City of Chesapeake, has notified defendant of the investigation and the policies and practices described in paragraphs 8 through 13, above, and has unsuccessfully attempted to resolve this matter through negotiation.
17. All conditions precedent to filing suit have been performed or have occurred. Wherefore, plaintiff United States prays that the Court order defendant City of Chesapeake, its officers, agents, employees, successors and all persons in active concert or
3

participation with them to: a. refrain from using a written examination for the entry-level police officer position with the defendant City of Chesapeake of a type or in a manner that disproportionately excludes African-Americans and Hispanics from employment, but have not been shown to be job-related and consistent with business necessity as required by federal law; b. provide remedial relief sufficient to make whole all persons who have suffered individual loss as a result of the discrimination alleged in this Complaint; and c. adopt other appropriate nondiscriminatory measures to overcome the effects of their discriminatory practices. Plaintiff United States prays for such additional relief as justice may require, together
with its costs and disbursements in this action.
4

WANJ.K.lM
By: MER (VA Bar No. 27802)
Chief KAREN D. WOODARD Deputy Chief SONYAA.RAO Trial Attorney U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Employment Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Patrick Henry Building, Room 4912 Washington, D.C. 20530 Telephone: (202) 514-6269 Facsimile: (202) 514-1005
CHUCK ROSENBERG United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia
By: .k-b4t2/d ) c'::5fdrl~~-
SUSAN L. WATT (VA Bar No. 17733) Supervisory Assistant United States Attorney 8000 WorId Trade Center 101 West Main Street Norfolk, Virginia 23510-1671 Telephone: (757) 441-6331 Facsimile: (757) 441-6739
5

 
 WLf 1 1 I 17 I INTHEUNITED STATESDISTRICT C O U R ~

FOR TKE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRG NORFOLK DIVISION

JUHllp31

I
CLERK,U.S. D~STRICTCOURT NORFOLK, VA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

1

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

1

)

CITY OF CHESAPEAKE, VIRGINIA, )

1

Defendant.

1

1

Civil Action No. 2:06-cv-415 (E.D. Va.)

CONSENT DECREE
This action was brought by the United States of America ("United States") against the
-
City of ehesapeake;-Virginia f3eity")-to-enforce-theprovisionsole-VIT of-the-Givil-Eights
Act of 1964 ("Title WI"), 42 U.S.C. 5 2000e et seq., as amended. This Court has jurisdiction of this action under 42 U.S.C. 5 2000e-6,28 U.S.C. 5 1343(a)(3) and 28 U.S.C. 5 1345.
In its Complaint, the United States alleges that the City has engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination on the basis of race and national origin, in violation of Section 703(a) of-T-le-V-~~42-U~S.6.-~-2000e-2(a~~--The-United-States-does-not-dispute-that,up-o- n-anappropriate showing, an employer could use ajob related basic mathematics skills test in a manner that is consistentwith Title VII. However, the United States alleges that the City's use of the mathematics component of the National Police Officer Selection Test ("POST") as a passlfail screening device in the selection process for the position of entry-levelpolice officer with the

City has had a disparate impact against Afican-American and Hispanic applicants and has not been shown to be job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity, as required by federal law. The United States' Complaint does not include any allegations of intentional discrimination under Title VII and is not based upon any individual charges or complaints of discrimination.
The City: (1) denies that it has violated Title V11; (2) denies that its use of the POST mathematics test discriminated against African-American or Hispanic applicants; (3) asserts that the City's police officers use basic mathematics skills as part of their job; an&(4) asserts that its use of the POST mathematics test is job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity. Nevertheless, the United States and the City, desiring that this action be settled by an appropriate Consent Decree ("'Decree"), and without the burden and expense of protracted litigation, agree to the jurisdiction of this Court over the parties and the subject matter e of this action. -The-Uniiled-States-and-theGity-furtheragree-to the-entry-ofthis-Decree-as-final It and binding between themselves as to the issues raised in the United States' Complaint in this a case. Subject to the Court's approval of this Decree, the parties waive hearings and findings of fact and conclusions of law on all issues, except as to the following, which the parties admit and which the Court finds:
(a> In-Jme-2004,-the-United-States-began a-formal-investigation-to-determine-whether the City's employment practices in its Police Department complied with Title VII.

I

(b) Since at least March 1,2001, the selection process used by the City in the screening and selection of applicants for hire into the position of entry-level police

officer in the City's Police Department has included the administration of a

professionally developed written examination, the POST.

(c) Between March 1,2001 and January 1,2006, the City administered three (3) components of the POST, described by the test's creator, Stanard & Associates,

Inc., as a reading comprehension test, a grammar test, and a mathematics test.

(d) At least between March 1,2001 and January 1,2006, regardless of how well applicants scored on the reading comprehension and grammar components of the

POST, the City required that applicants score at least seventy percent (70%) on

the mathematics component of the POST in order to be considered for hire as

entry-level police officers.

D%

(e) -Between-March-1,2001 and January-1,-2006,-theCity-administered-the POST mathematics component to approximately eight hundred sixty-five (865) white

applicants and two hundred eighty-five (285) AfXcan-American applicants.

While the parties' respective experts have used different methods of measuring

the disparity between the pass rates of AfjricanAmericans and whites on the

-mathemati~s-somponent-otfhe-POST,-there-isno-dispute-that,-belsveenMa1c,h

2001 and January 1,2006, African-American applicants passed the mathematics

component at a lower rate than white applicants and that the disparity in pass rates

was statisticallysignificant. The United States asserts that the disparitybetween

the rate at which African-American applicantspassed the mathematics component

and the rate at which white applicants passed the mathematics component is

equivalent to 10.29units of standard deviation ("SD"). The City asserts that the

disparity is equivalent to 7.00 SD.

(9 Between March 1,2001 and January 1,2006, the City administered the POST
mathematics component to sixty-one (61) Hispanic applicants. There is no

dispute that between March 1,2001 and January 1,2006, Hispanic applicants

passed the mathematics component of the POST at a lower rate than white

applicants and that the disparity in pass rates was statistically significant. The

United States asserts that the disparity between the rate at which Hispanic

applicants passed the mathematics component and the rate at which white

applicants passed the mathematics component is equivalent to 5.17 SD. The City

asserts that the disparity is equivalent to 4.50 SD.

;t,

(g) The-lowerpass rates of -Arfricmi-herican-and-Hispanicapplicants on-the POST .-

mathematics component ultimately resulted in an estimated shortfall of hires of

African-American and Hispanic applicants. The shortfall is an estimate of the

additional number of African-American and Hispanic applicants that would have

been hired had African-American and Elispanic applicants passed at the same rate

as-white-applicants. The-Wnited-States~expe~-estimated-that-the~hort-fall-h

African-American hires was five (5), and the shortfall in Hispanic hires was three

(3). The City's expert estimated that the shortfall in African-American hires was

between four (4) and five (5), and the shortfall in Hispanic hires was two (2).

(h) The City has adopted a new method of scoring the POST in a manner that is acceptable to both parties, as provided in Paragraph 13 of this Decree, below.

In resolution of this action, and with the consent of the parties, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED,

ADJUDGED AND DECREED as follows:

I. DEFINITIONS AND PARTIES

1. The parties to this Consent Decree are the United States, through the United States

Department of Justice, and the City of Chesapeake, Virginia ("City").

2 . "Backpajr' refers to a monetary award that represents the value of some or all of the

wages that a claimant would have received from the City if the claimant had been hired by the

City for an entry-level police officer position at or about the claimant's presumptive hire date (as

defined by Paragraph 7 of this Decree, below).

3. "Claimant" refers to any African-American or Hispanic applicant who: (1) took the EOST

between March-1,2001 and-January -1,2006-as-part-of-the-selection-process-tfhoer entry-le~el

police officer position with the City; (2) between March 1,2001 and January 1,2006, received a

score of less than seventy percent (70%) on the mathematics component of the POST, and

received a score of at least seventy percent (70%) on the reading comprehension component and

I

at least seventy percent (70%) on the grammar component of the same administration of the

POST; -and-(3j-timely-submitsa-claim-form-indicating-that-theclaimant-iinsterested-in-being

considered for individual relief under this Decree.

4. "Date of entry" of the Decree refers to the date on which the Court orders entry of

the Decree at or following the Fairness Hearing on the Consent Decree described in Section IV of

this Decree, below.

5. "Days".refers to calendar days unless business days are clearly specified in the context of a specific provision of this Decree. 6. "Individual relief" refers to monetary relief in the form of a backpay award and/or an offer of priority hire, with retroactive seniority (as defined by Paragraph 8 of this Decree, below), that a claimant may be offered pursuant to the terms of this Decree. 7. "Presumptive hire date" for any claimant refers to the earliest date of hire of any applicant to whom the City administered the POST on or after the date on which the claimant failed the POST. 8. "Retroactive seniority" refers to the right of a claimant who is hired by the City as a priority hire pursuant to the terms of this Decree and successfullycompletes the police training academy to receive seniority credit for the time period between the claimant's presumptive hire date and the date on which the claimant actually begins employment with the City as a prio~ty Ere. Such seniority shail-beused-on1yfor:future pay-status,future accrual-of-vacation-andksick leave, pension benefits (to the extent that back contributionsby the City to the Virginia .. Retirement System ("VRSa') are allowed by state law and policy and regulation), layoffs/reductions in work force, and eligibility for retirement, continuation of health benefits on retirement and payment for unused sick leave. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Paragraph; nothinginthi~-Decree-shall-be-conshued-to-obligate-the-~i~-to-provide-pension-or other retirement benefits to a claimant who receives retroactive seniorityunder this Decree, except to the extent that such non-VRS benefits would be provided by the City had the claimant actually begun employment in the City's police department on the claimant's retroactive seniority date. However, the City shall take all reasonable administrative actions allowed by state law,
6

policy and regulation (including contributions for pensions) to ensure that each claimant who

receives retroactive seniorityunder this Decree will receive from the VRS the pension and other

retirement benefits the claimant would have received had the claimant begun employment on the

claimant's retroactive seniority date.

9. "Title VII" refers to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.C. $ 2000e, et seq.,

as amended.

11. PURPOSES OF THIS DECREE

10. Under this Decree, the City agrees that it will:

(a) comply with Title VII in its hiring of police officers; and

(b) provide, as appropriate under the terms of this Decree, monetary relief andlor

i

priority hiring relief with retroactive seniority to qualified claimants who were

denied employment with the City due to the employment practices challenged by ,

-tlie-United-Statesinthis-case.

III. GENERAL IN~~~NCTIVRELIEF

11. The City, its employees, supervisors, and agents, jointly and severally, are enjoined from

engaging in any act or practice in its entry-level police officer selection procedures that

unlawfully discriminates on the basis of race or national origin, in violation of Title VII, against

- any Afican-Americms-or-Hispanics;- --

- - - - . -.- .- - .. -

-

--

12.. Since approximatelyJanuary 2006, the City began using the POST in a fully

I

compensatory manner, i.e.,averaging the scores on the reading comprehension, grammar and

mathematics components of the POST, with a cut-off score as low as sixty-six percent (66%) as

1

part of the City's entry-level police officer selectionprocess.

13. As the parties have agreed, and as the C o d approves bydentryof this Decree, if the City wishes to continue to use the POST as part of its screening or selection+processto %re entry-level
policeofficers, the City shall continue to use the -POSTin a filly compensatorymanner (kit, shall average an applicant's scores on the various components of the POST (G,reading
comprehension, grammar and mathematics)), and-theCityshall use only,an overall~cut-offscore

14. %le this Consent Decree remains-ineffect, +the'City,-itsemployees, supervisor< and

agents,-jointly&d severally, shall not hse in'thecselection of entjr-levd police officers; afiy test' "

of mathematics skills that resultsb a dispiirate'impact.Bnd is notjob related ibr.t~e'entry-level

pol?ce ~fficei;~ositioandkonsistentwith bushess .ne:essi@: "Tothat end, if the City wishes to

use, in the-selectionof ektry-level police-officers,'su;iy.test o'f niatJiemati'cs~sElls~~or~abilities~"other

than the POST scored in the mannk described in-Paragraph'l:3!of this Decree; above;-theCity

<*,

shallrobtain-pn~ragreebient-bj&eWnited-~ taf&s;or.absent ‘su~~~agreem~~iiora~~roval-o f-the .;.

15. The City shall desi@it&anindividual who'shall be responsiblefor.edorcirig4he -

provisions of this Decree. This individual's responsibilifiesShsili include, but not be limited to,

the following:

* 3

* -

($---- enswing-that-the-(2ityLfully-implementas-n
d~complies~with-all-paragraphs-of-this

Decree; apd 


(b) receiving complaints of discridation on +thebasis of race or national origin in the screening, selection!and hiring of police officers in the City's Police

Department.

.-

8

I

this Decree), along with a cover letter in the form set forth in Appendix C to this

Decree; and

(b) to all sworn employees in the ChesapeakePolice Department, via hand delivery at the place of employment of each such individual, or as an attachment to each such

individual's regularly distributed paycheck information, along with a cover letter

in the form set forth in Appendix D to this Decree.

1

At or before the time notices are provided pursuant to subparagraph (a) of this Paragraph, the

City shall provide to the United States a list stating the'last known address of each individual to

whom such notice is being sent. At or before the time notices are provided pursuant to

subparagraph(b) of this Paragraph, the City shall provide to the United States a list of the

-

indviduals to whom notice is being provided pursuant to subparagraph (b).

19. The City shall publish notice, in a form substantiallythe same as that set forth in

Appendix-E-to-this-Decree, in-the-W-ednesday;-Friday-and-Sunday-editioonsf-the-Vir~nian-Pilot;--

The published notice shall appear with a headline in bold typeface, surroundedby a dark border,.

shall be no smaller than six (6) inches by ten (10) inches in size, and shall be placed in the local

1

news section or other prominent location agreed to by the parties. All such newspaper notices

shall be published during one (1) week concluding no later than six (6) weeks prior to the date set

for-the-Fairness-Hearing-on-the-Gonsent-ere -- - - - - --- -- - -

- .- .. - ..

20. No later than ten (10) days prior to the Fairness Hearing on the Consent Decree, the

United States and the City shall file a response to all objections timely filed with the Court that

also have been timely received by the United States and the City.

V. ENTRY OF THE CONSENT DECREE 21. If the Court determines that the terms of this Decree are fair, reasonable, equitable and otherwise consistent with federal law, the Court shall enter the Decree at or following the Fairness Hearing on the Consent Decree. VI. INDIVIDUAL RELIEF
A. The Settlement Fund 22. Within fifteen (15) days fiom the date of entry of this Decree, the City shall propose to the United States a federally insured fmancial institution in which an account shall be opened and into which the SettlementFund shall be deposited pursuant to Paragraph 23 of this Decree, below. 23. Within thuQ (30) days from the date of entry of this Decree, the City shall deposit into an = account in a federally insured frnancial institution agreed upon by the parties the sum of Sixty- &,; Five Thousand Dollars-($655000.00)(the-'Settlement-Fund':), to satisfjr-any-and all claims by the .& United States for backpay. 24. The SettlementFund, including any interest that accrues thereon, shall be distributed by the City to claimants entitled to backpay under this Decree, as provided in Section VI, subsection I, of this Decree, below. Any portions of the Settlement Fund remaining in the account after the payment-of-all-claims-and-redist~butiols-der-ts-Dec~ee-shall-r.e~e1S-back-to-the-Ci~. 
 25. The City shall pay all federal, state and local taxes and other contributions that normally are paid by employers and that are due on any backpay award paid to a claimant, including, but not limited to, the appropriate employer's contributions to Medicare and the Social Security fund.

No such taxes or contributions shall be deducted fiom the SettlementFund, the interest that

accrues on the Settlement Fund, or any claimant's backpay award.

26. The City shall, to the extent required by law, withhold from each claimant's backpay

award all appropriate federal and state income taxes and any other required employee

I

withholdings or deductions. Such amounts shall be deducted by the City from each claimant's

backpay award and shall be paid by the City fiom the Settlement Fund account.

27. The determination that a claimant is eligible for individual monetary relief, and the

&mount ofindividual m o n e t e relief for whichJaclaimant 'is eligible, shall be within the sole

discretion of+theUnited States. However, no claimant shall be awarded backpay in an amount

greater than five thousand dollars ($5,000.00).

B. Prelirninarv Eligibility for IndividualRelief

I

28. Individuals preliminarily eligible for relief under this Decree shall include each African

Ameiican anddH1spanic-

(a) took the POST as part of the City's selection process for entry-level police ,

officers between March 1,2001 and January 1,2006; and

(b) received a score of less than seventy percent (70%) on the mathematics component of the POST, and received a score of at least seventy percent (70%) on

the-reading-comprehensioi~-component-and-seven~-percent-(-'/--o0n%-t)h
e-grammar

component of the same administration of the POST.

Each such individual is listed in Appendix B to this Decree. Such individuals need not seek

priority hiring relief or accept an offer of employment with the City in order to receive an award

relief must meet the criteria described in subparagraphs (a) and (b) of this Paragraph, above, and

have reeeived scores on the POST components (at the time that the individual took the POST

between March 1,2001 and January 1,2006, and failed the mathematics component of the

POST, but passed the reading comprehension and grammar components of the POST) that

resulted in an overall average score of at least sixty-six percent (66%).

29. Within t w (30) days from the date of entry of this Decree, the City shall send a copy of

the Notice of Entry of Consent-Decreeand Interest in Relief form, set forth in Appendix F to this

Decree, via certifieaU.S. mail to the last known address of eacki individual preliminarily eligible

for relief, as described in Paragraph 28 of this Decree, above.

C. Claimants to Submit Interest in Relief Form

30. In order to be considered for relief under this Decree, a claimant must submit a completed

and signed Interest in Relief form to the United States. A claimant shall be deemed to have

4~

submitted-a-completed-and-signed-Interest in-Relief-form -if-that-fom-is>(-13-post-mmked-within Ai

sixty (60) days fiom the date of entry of this Decree by the Court; and (2) submitted in

accordance with the instructions accompanying the Interest in Relief form and the provisions of

this Decree.

31. Any claimant who fails to submit a completed and signed Interest in Relief form to the

- -Wnited-States-witl~in-si~-ty-(6O)-days-from-the-dateen-wof-o f-this-Decree-by-the-Court,-absenta-

showing of good cause, shall be deemed to have waived any right to be considered for individual

relief under this Decree. The determination that a claimant has shown good cause shall be within

the sole discretion of the United States, subject to review by the Court.

D. United States to Make Initial Determination 
 of Claimants' Eligibilitv for Individual Relief 


32. Within one hundred twenty (120) days from the date of entry of this Decree by the Court,

the United States shall provide to the City a list that identifies all individuals preliminarily

I
1

eligible for relief who have submitted an Interest in Relief form to the United States. The list

I
i

required by this Paragraph shall indicate the type(s) of relief, if any, for which the United States

has determined each such claimant is eligible, and each such claimant's presumptive hire date, as

33. The City may, during the sixty (60) days followingthe date on which the United States

provides to the-Citythe list required by Paragraph 32 of this Decree, above, require any claimant

1

that the United States deems eligible for priority hire relief to appear for and cooperate in any .j

selection procedure (except the claimant shall not be required to take the POST) designed to ,

-- - -

--

-

on of entry-level police &,

officer in the City's Police Department, using the lawful, objective selection procedures in use by

the City at the time the claimant is processed for the priority hire position with the City. The City

shall make reasonable efforts to accommodate claimants in scheduling such selection procedures.

I

34. No later than one hundred eighty (180) days from the date of entry of this Decree, the

---- - --

- - -- -

p--pP--Pp--..---

--

City shall provide to the United States, in writing, all objections it has to the entitlement of any

I

claimant to priority hiring relief as determined by the United States. Any such objection shall

state all groui~dsfor the City's contentionthat the claimant is not eligible for priority hiring relief

and shall identify all witnesses with knowledge of facts supportingthe City's contention. On the

date on-whichit provides to the United States any such objections, the City also shall provide to

the UnitedaStates copies of all documents relating to or supporting the City's objections. In

addition, the City-shallmake available for interview (to be conducted in Chesapeake, Virginia)

all officials, agents and employees of the City with knowledge of facts supporting the City's

objections within seven (7) days after the United States so"requests. The parties shall thereafter

make good faith efforts to resolve any objections and to reach agreement regarding the identities

of the claimants.entitled to priority hiring .relief: .Any dispute which the parties cannot resolv,e

involving pfiority hirifig relief shall be resolved by theLCourtdhavinjugrisdiction over this case.

F.

35.,, Within two hundred ten (210):days-from4he date of.entry of this Decree by the Court, the

United Statesshall file with the-Court a Relief Awards Liststating,'for each individual listed in

Appendix B to this Decree, whetherthe claimant timely returned an Interest i n Relief form, the

Ite*

claimant's~racelnational-originr-the-type~s~-of-relief-soughte-lbsyitmhea
nt, the type(s) of-relief---

for which the Uriitetl States deems the claimant-eligible.andthe claimant's presumptive hire date.

In-addition,for each claimant the United Slates deems eligible forbackpay, ,theRelief Awards

List shallstate the amount of the Settlement Fund (not to exceed five>thousanddollars

($5,000.00) per individual) that the United States has determined should be awarded to the '

-claimant~The-United-States-shall-simultaneously-see-a-copy-of-the-Relief-AwLairsdt-so
n

City.

.' . 


36. For purposes of the Relief Awards List, the United States shall determine each claimant's

share of the total amount of backpay (not to exceed five'thousand dollars ($5,000.00) per

individual) in a manner that is reasonable and equitable in relation to .the claimant population and

Individual Relief and Objection form, set forth in Appendix G to this Decree, as well as a letter, set forth in Appendix H to this Decree, notifying the individual of the United States' relief determinationsregarding the individual's eligibility for relief under the Decree, the reasons for
any determination that the individual is ineligible for any form of relief, the proposed amount of backpay to be awarded to the individual, and whether the City has objected to a determination by
the United States that the individual is entitled to priority hiring relief. 40. Claimants who object to the United States' proposed relief determinations may file
objections that comply with the following: " -
(a) Objections shall state the objector's name, address and telephone number; set forth a description of the objector's basis for disputing the United States' relief determination; include copies of any documentation supporting the objections;
state the name and address of the objector's counsel, if any; and state whether the7?*
- objector-wishes-the-opportuni~-to-bheeard-in-court-at-the-Fairness -Hearingon
Individual Relief;
(b) Objections shall be submittedby filing the original with the Court at the following address: Clerk of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia alter-Em-Ho$fman-Unitedstates-Courthouse--600 Granby Street 
 Norfolk, Virginia 23510 

(c) Objectors also must mail a copy of any objection to the United States Department of Justice and the City at the following addresses:

Chesapeake Police Settlement Team U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Employment Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. - PHB Room 4040 Washington, D.C. 20530; and

Darlene P. Bradbeny, Esq. 
 Breeden, Salb, Beasley & DuVall, P.L.C. 
 555 East Main Street, Suite 1210 
 Norfolk, VA 235 10-2234 


Objections must'be filed no later than thirty (30) days prior to the date set for the

Fairness Heafing on Individual Relief. The post~markdate on the objection shall

be theadate of submission.

41. No later than five (5) days prior to the date set for the Fairness Hearing on Individual 


Relief, the United States and the City shall file with the Court, and serve on the objecting paw, a 


reply to each timely objection. 


i.

H. - -Avvroval-of-Final-Relief-Awards-List-

'c

42. At or following the Fairness Hearing on Indiddual Relief, the Court shall determine 


which, if any, objections to the United States' relief determinations, as stated in the Relief 


Awards List filed pursuant to Section VI, subsection F of this Decree, above, are well-founded. 


The Court shall then approve the Relief Awards List as submitted or, if the Court finds any 


---obje~tion~s-)-well-f~unded,shall-amend-it-to-adjust-the-amount-dnature-of-the~elie- f~to~b~e~

awarded to the claimants consistentwith such fmding(s), while maintaining, to the extent 


possible, the proportionate amount of backpay awarded to all other claimants (but not to exceed 


five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) per individual). The list approved by the Court will be the 


Final Relief Awards List. 


43, The Court shall find that any objection regarding the amount of backpay to be awarded to a claimant is well-founded only if the amount is not reasonable and equitable in relation to the total number of claiinants eligible for monetary relief and the total amount of monetary relief to be awarded under this Decree, but, in accordance with the provisions of this Decree, will ensure that no individual is awardedbackpay in an amount greater than five thousand dollars
44. The Courtlshall find that any objection, including any objection made by the City, regarding'a1claimanf's-eligibilitfyor priority hiring relief iswel'l-founded only if the 'objector(s) proves by a preponderance of the evidence that, at the time the claimant failed the mathematics colnponent of the POST', but passed the readipg comprehension and grammar components of the POST, the claimant was not qualified for the position of entry-level police officer in the City's Police Department using the lawful, objective selection procedures in use by the City at that time, .,. or is-not-currentlyqualified-as-of-thedate-of-the-Fairness--Heaz.zg-on-Indivlielieuf sing-the - -+ lawful, objective selectionprocedures then in use by the City.' In addition, the Court shall find that an objection, including an objection made by the City, regarding a claimant's eligibility for priority hiring relief is well-founded if the objector(s) establish(es)by a preponderance of the evidence that the claimant failed to cooperate in or to appear for the administrationof a measure - or-evaluation-ofone-of-the-~laimant~s-quali~fications,-as-allowed-by-Paragr3a-pohf--t3his-D-ecree,. above.
I. Payment of Monetarv Relief Awards 45. No later than thirty (30) days after the Court determines at or following the Fairness Hearing on Individual Relief each claimant's eligibility for relief under this Decree, the United

States shall mail, via certified U.S. mail, notices of the monetary relief awards to all claimants
determined by the Court to be entitled to monetary relief, as stated in the Final Relief Awards
List, at their current or last known address. Each notice shall include:
(a) a statement of the amount of the monetary relief award for that claimant as stated on the Final Relief Awards List and an explanation of the time limit for acceptance of the monetary relief offer;

(b) an Acceptance of Relief Award and Release of Claims, as described in Paragraph 46 of this Decree, below; and

(c) anywithholding forms provided by the City that it deems\necessaryto comply with its withholding obligations under law.

46. As a condition for the receipt of a monetary relief award, each claimant otherwise entitled

to monetary relief as indicated in the Final Relief Awards List shall be required to execute a copy

of the Acceptance of Relief Award and Release of Claims form, set forth in Appendix I to this

Decree, and return it to the United States no later than thirty (30) days after the United States

-

- -.- - -

- -

m

United States shall be the postmark date. A failure to accept a monetary relief award and to

return the executed Acceptance of Relief Award and Release of Claims and withholding forms

within the time allowed shall constitute a rejection of the offer of relief and shall release the

United States and the City fiom any further obligation under this Decree to make a monetary

-- -

--

. - ---

-- --

-- -

-- - - - -. - -- -- - -

relief award to that individual.

47. No later than forty-five (45) days after the United States mails the Acceptance of Relief

Award and Release of Claims forms and other materials as required by Paragraph 45 of this

Decree, above, the United States shall forward to the City all executed Acceptance of Relief

Award and Release of Claims and withholding forms it receives.

48. If any claimant listed on the Final Relief Awards List rejects a relief award, the United

States shall reallocate the amount of monetary relief allocated to that claimant on the Final Relief

Awards List to those claimants who timely returned Acceptance of Relief Award and Release of

1

Claims and withholding fonns, in a manner designed to allocate the total amount of monetary

I

relief available in the Settlement Fund, while preserving the relative proportions of the claimants'

shares of the SettlementFund as'statedon the Final Relief Awards List, but no individual shall

be awarded an amount exceeding five thousand dollars ($5,000.00). The United States shall

amend the Final Relief Awards List to reflect any such reallocation and provide a copy of the

amended Final Relief Awards List to the City (or inform the City that no amendments are

required) no later than forty-five (45) days after the United States mails the materials required by 2

Pasagraph-45-ofthis-Decree,-above;If-the-Final-Relief-Awards-List-is-modified-pursuant to this -A

Paragrapli, the United States shall file a copy of the amended Final 'Relief Awards List with the

Court.

49. No later than thirty (30) days after the United States provides io the City the amended

Final Relief Awards List or informs the City that no amendments are required, the City shall mail

a-nlonetary-relief-award-~heck-to-ea~h-~laimant-listed-on-the-Final-Relief-A-w~ds-List-as-eli~ble

to receive a monetary award who has timely returned an executed Acceptance of Relief Award

and Release of Claims and withholding forms. The amount of each such claimant's check shall

be the amount stated for the claimant on the Final Relief Awards List, as amended pursuant to

Paragraph 48 of this Decree, above, less all appropriate taxes and other amounts required to be

I i

withheld by law. The City shall forward to the appropriate government agency such taxes and

other amounts required to be withheld by law. The employer's share of any applicable payroll or

other taxes shall not be deducted fi-omany amount of monetary relief to be paid to any claimant

under this Decree.

50. No later than thirty (30) days after the United States provides to the City the executed

Acceptance of Relief Award and Release of Claims and withholding forms and the amended

Final Relief Awards List (or notice that no amendment is required), the City shall provide to the

United States a copy of each monetary relief award check mailed to a claimant pursuant to

Paragraph 49 of this Decree, above, along with a statement indicating the amounts withheld fi-om

each such check and the purpose of each withholding.

51. One l~undredtwenty (120) days after the City mails the last monetary relief award check

required by Paragraph 49 of this Decree, above, the City shall provide to the United States a list ,#;,
, of all-checksihat-have-been-returnedto the-Gty-undeliverableand-of-anyother-checks-that-have

not been cashed, as well as a statement of the amount of funds remaining in the SettlementFund

account. Unless the United States determines that the amount of monetary relief represented by

the returned and/or uncashed checks is de minimis, that amount will be redistributed as directed

I

by the United States in a manner consistent with the provisions of this Decree. Whether the

amount oEmonet~-relief-represented-by-the-returned-~he~ks-is-de-mine-within-t-he

sole discretion of the United States.

52. One hundred eighty (180) days after any redistribution of monies in the Settlement

I

Fund account, as provided for in Paragraph 51 of this Decree, above, the City shall provide the

United States with a final accounting of the monies still remaining in the Settlement Fund

account. T121rty (30) days after such accounting is provided to the United States, the monies

remaining in the Settlement Fund account shall revert back to the City.

J. Priority Hiring with Retroactive Senioritv and Contributions to the Pension Fund

53. Within ninety (90) days after the Court rules on the claimants' eligibility for priority

hiring relief at or following the Fairness Hearing on Individual Relief, the City shall hire as entry-

level police officers in the Chesapeake Police Department a total of up to eight (8) claimants

whom the Court has approved as eligible for priority hiring relief as indicated on the Final Relief

Awards List. In making its priority hire decisions, the City shall attempt to provide priority

hiring relief to both African-American and Hispanic claimants.

54. The City shall extend conditional offers of employment in writing to claimants who

are eligible for priority hiring relief as indicated on the Final Relief A m d s List until eight (8)

priority hires have been made or the Final Relief Awards List has been exhausted, as defined by

-Paragraph-55- of-thisDecree;below. Only-an offer-that-results-inthe-p~icipation-of-a-c1aiman:t;-

eligible for priority hiringrelief in at least the first day of the police training academy will count

as a priority hire.

55. For purposes of Paragraph 54 of this Decree, above, the Final Relief Awards List

i

shall be exhausted when all claimants who are eligible for priority hiring relief as indicated on

-- the Final-Relief-Awards-List-have-met-one-of-the-following-~ndit1i(ao2n-shave-been-hired- as - -

priority hires pursuant to this Decree; (b) have rejected an offer of priority hire; (c) have failed

the post-offer medical or psychological examination regularly required of new entry-level police

officers with the City; or (d) based on information discovered by the City after the City provides

its objections to the United States, as set forth in Paragraph 34 of this Decree, above, at the time

I

the claimant took and failed the mathematics component of the POST, but passed the reading

comprehension and grammar components of the POST, the claimant was not eligible for the

entry-level police officer position with the City using the lawful, objective selection criteria used

by the City at that time. If there is a dispute between the parties regarding whether a claimant

was eligible for the entry-level police officer position with the City using the lawful, objective

selection criteria used by the City at the time the applicant took and failed the mathematics

component of the POST, but passed the reading comprehension and grammar components of the

POST, the parties shall submit the dispute to the Court pursuant to Paragraph 62 of this Decree,

below. In resolving any such dispute, the Court shall fmd that the claimant was eliable for the

position, unless the City establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the claimant did not

meet the lawful, objective selection criteria used by the City at the time the claimant took and

failed the mathematics component of the POST, but passed the reading comprehension and L.

grammar-components-ofthe-POST- - - -- --

- -- - -

56. W i t h one hundred tweidy (120) d@s after the Court'rules on the claimants'

eligibility for priority hiring relief at or following the Fairness Hearing on Individual Relief, the

City shall provide to the United States a copy of each written offer of priority hire made pursuant

to this Decree, the name and date of hire of each claimant hired as a priority hire pursuant to this

the Final Relief Awards List was not hired, along with all available documentation of such

57. On the date on which a claimant who was hired as a priority hire under this Decree
successfully completes the police training academy, the City shall credit the claimant with
--- -

retroactive seniority in the police officer position as of the claimant's presumptive hire date as stated on the Final Relief Awards List, as amended pursuant to Paragraph 48 of this Decree, above, and make all pension contributions consistent with Paragraph 8 of this Decree, above. , VII. RECORD KEEPING AND COMPLIANCE MONITORING 58. The City shall maintain all of the f o l l o ~ &r~ecords, as defined in Title 42.1, Section 77 of the CodesofVirginia of 1950, as.amended, for the life of this Decree:

(8) all applications for eiitryrlevelpolice officer positions in the City's Police Department;

(b) all documents relating to the screening, evaluation or selection of applicants for the enby-level police officer position;

(c) all records relating to the development and/or validation of any selection practice

- -

-

----

- - - - -- -

or procedure the City uses to screen or select

(d) all documents relating to written or verbal complaints made by any person or organization regarding discriminationin hiring of police officers on the basis of race or national origin;

(e) . - - -- - . .-..-- - -
1

all documents relating to the evaluation or selection of claimants to be offered

p - p - p p - - - p

- --

priority hire andlor to the employment of claimants hired as priority hires under

this Decree; and

(f) allother documents relating to the City's compliance with the requirements of this Decree, including but not limited to documents relating to the payment or award of individual relief to any claimant under this Decree.

59. Except as otherwiseprovided in this Decree, for the duration of the Decree, the City will make available to the United States, no later than thirty (30) days after the United States so requests in writing, any records maintained in accordancewith Paragraph 58 of this Decree, above, and any additional documents relating to any dispute arising under the Decree.
(,',
omputerreadable format.

61. Within thirty (30) days after the United States so requests in writing, the City shall make

available for interview (to be conducted In Chesapeake, Virginia) by the United States any agent,

employee or official of the City who the United States reasonablybelieves has knowledge of

City's compliancewith the terms of this Decree or to resolve

I

<

a

a dispute arising under this Decree. This obligation shall remain for the duration of this Decree.

VIII. DISPUTE RESOLUTION

62. The parties shall attempt in good faith to resolve infonnally.any disputes that arise under this Decree. If the parties are unable to resolve the dispute expeditiously, either paity may submit the disputed issue to the Court for resolution.

IX. DURATION OF DECREE

63. This Decree shall be dissolved and this action shall be dismissed, without further order of the Court, upon the occurrence of the later of the following two (2) events:

26

(a) the passage of twelve (12) months fiom the date of entry of this Decree; (b) the Eull implementationof all individual relief as contained in Section VI of this
Decree, including, but not limited to, payment of backpay to all claimants eligible for relief, crediting by the City of retroactive seniority to all claimants receiving priority hiring relief, and payment by the City of the appropriate pension amounts to all claimants hired as priority hires.

X. COSTS AND FEES

64. Except as set forth in this Decree, each party shall bear its own costs and expenses 
 incurred as a result of obligations imposed by this Decree, including the cost of all notification 
 and publication procedures. 


65. Each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorney's fees incurred in this

-,

litigation, including those incurred in resolving any dis

*,41

- -. ..

- - - - -- . -

XI. MISCELLANEOUS

w,.

66. For the duration of this Decree, the Court shall retainjurisdiction over this Decree for the 
 purpose of resolving any disputes or entering any orders that may be appropriate to implement 
 the Decree. 


- 6-7. - ~~Bxc~pt~as~~th-e~~iseprovi-ded-in~t~s~Decree~drelq-udiorecdw-ntoi-=bn-et-sdeliveredunder this Decree to the United States by the City shall be sent to the attention of:

Chesapeake Police Settlement Team U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Employment Litigation Section-PHI3 4040 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, D.C. 20530

68. Any documents required to be delivered under this Decree by the United States to the City shall be sent to the attention of
Darlene P. Bradberry, Esq. 
 Breeden, Salb, Beasley & DuVall, P.L.C. 
 555 East Main Street, Suite 1210 
 Norfolk, Virginia 235 10 


AGREED AND CONSENTED TO:
For Plaintiff United States: 

Qz2Dp~WANJ. KIM
 Assistant Attorney General 

DAVID J. PALMER 
 Chief 
 Employment Litigation Section 


./'-I
For D.~fe!bdantCity of Chesapeake, VA:
i 

i 

I4...'
 .d
DARLENE YBRADBERRY
555 East Main Street, Suite 1210 
 Norfolk, Virginia 23510 
 Telephone: (757) 622-1111 
 Facsimile: (757) 622-4049 


SONYA A. RAO 
 S M O N A. SEELEY 
 MICHAEL J. ALEXIS [VA Bar No. 437961 
 ELIZABETH A. SPECK 
 Trial Attorneys 
 U.S. Department of Justice 
 Civil Rights Division 
 Employment Litigation Section 

- . .-- 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. . -__ Patrick Henry Building, Room 4036 
 Washngton, D.C. 20530 
 Telephone: (202) 514-6269 
 Facsimile: (202) 514-1005 


Office of the City Attorney 


30.6 Cedar Road 


Chesapeake, VA 23322 


- Te-lephone: (757) 382-6586 
 L-

..

Facslmlle: (7577--3-8822-g74-9 


 
 U.S. District Court Eastern District of Virginia (Norfolk) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:06-cv-00415-RAJ

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. City of Chesapeake, Virginia Assigned to: District Judge Raymond A. Jackson Referred to: Magistrate Judge William T. Prince Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

Date Filed: 07/24/2006 Date Terminated: 10/01/2007 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

represented by John Patrick Cunningham U. S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Employment Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Ave NW Patrick Henry Building, 4th Floor Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514-3831 Fax: (202) 514-1005 TERMINATED: 10/25/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY

Karen Donnella Woodard United States Department of Justice USDOJ/CRT/ELS 950 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20530 **NA* (202) 514-3831 Fax: (202) 514-1005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Joseph Alexis U. S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Employment Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Ave NW Patrick Henry Building, 4th Floor Washington, DC 20530 (202) 305-3056 Fax: (202) 514-1005 Email: michael.alexis@usdoj.gov

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sharon Ann Seeley U S Department of Justice Civil Rights Division 601 D St NW Washington, DC 20004 **NA** (202) 514-3831 Fax: (202) 514-1005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sonya Aparna Rao United States Department of Justice USDOJ/CRT/ELS 950 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20530 **NA* (202) 514-3831 Fax: (202) 514-1005 TERMINATED: 08/20/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY
Susan Lynn Watt United States Attorney's Office 101 W Main St Suite 8000 Norfolk, VA 23510 (757) 441-6331 Email: susan.watt@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Anne Speck U. S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Employment Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Ave NW Patrick Henry Building, 4th Floor Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514-3831 Fax: (202) 514-1005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant City of Chesapeake, Virginia
Movant Stanard and Associates, Inc.
Movant Timothy F. McGlone

represented by Darlene Paige Bradberry Breeden Salb Beasley & DuVall 1210 First Virginia Tower 555 Main Street Norfolk, VA 23510-2234 (757) 622-1111 Email: dbradberry@breedenlaw.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Jeffrey Salb Breeden Salb Beasley & DuVall 1210 First Virginia Tower 555 Main Street Norfolk, VA 23510-2234 (757) 622-1111 Email: JSalb@breedenlaw.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by William Franklin Devine Williams Mullen 1700 Dominion Tower 999 Waterside Dr Norfolk, VA 23510 (757) 622-3366 Fax: (757) 629-0660 Email: bdevine@williamsmullen.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Conrad Moss Shumadine Willcox & Savage PC One Commercial Place Suite 1800 Norfolk, VA 23510 (757) 628-5500 Email: cshumadine@wilsav.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Interested Party Virginia L. Atkins

represented by Virginia L. Atkins 4224 Duke of Gloucester Drive Chesapeake, VA 23321 (757) 399-2479 PRO SE

Date Filed 07/24/2006 07/24/2006
07/24/2006
08/11/2006
08/11/2006 09/22/2006 09/25/2006 09/28/2006
10/17/2006 10/18/2006 10/18/2006

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT against City of Chesapeake, Virginia , filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.(kspi) (Entered: 07/24/2006)

2 MOTION for Karen Donnella Woodard, Sonya Aparna Rao to appear Pro hac vice by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (kspi) (Entered: 07/24/2006)

ORDER granting re:[2] Motion for Pro hac vice, Karen Donnella Woodard and Sonya Aparna Rao for UNITED STATES OF AMERICA . Signed by Judge Raymond A. Jackson and filed 07/24/06. Copies mailed 07/26/06. (kspi) (Entered: 07/26/2006)

3 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. City of Chesapeake, Virginia waiver sent on 7/26/2006, answer due 9/25/2006. (jcow, ) (Entered: 08/11/2006)

4 NOTICE of Appearance by John Patrick Cunningham on behalf of UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (jcow, ) (Entered: 08/11/2006)

5 ANSWER to Complaint by City of Chesapeake, Virginia.(jcow, ) (Entered: 09/25/2006)

Refer for 16(b) (jcow, ) (Entered: 09/25/2006)

6 SCHEDULING ORDER: Initial Pretrial Conference set for 10/24/2006 09:00 AM. Signed by Judge F. Bradford Stillman on 9/27/06 and filed. Copies mailed: 9/28/06 (jcow, ) (Entered: 09/28/2006)

7 CONSENT to Jurisdiction by US Magistrate Judge by City of Chesapeake, Virginia. (jcow, ) (Entered: 10/19/2006)

8 NOTICE of Withdrawal for John Cunningham by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (jcow, ) (Entered: 10/19/2006)

9 NOTICE of Appearance by Michael Joseph Alexis on behalf of UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (jcow, ) (Entered: 10/19/2006)

10/24/2006
10/25/2006
12/14/2006 12/14/2006
12/15/2006 12/15/2006 12/22/2006 12/22/2006 12/26/2006 12/29/2006 12/29/2006 01/03/2007 01/03/2007

10 SCHEDULING ORDER: Final Pretrial Conference set for 4/13/2007 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge F. Bradford Stillman. Bench Trial set for 4/24/2007 10:00 AM before District Judge Raymond A. Jackson. Trial by jury has not been demanded, proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law shall be delivered to the clerk by 4/17/07. Signed by Judge F. Bradford Stillman and filed on 10/24/06. Copies mailed: 10/24/06(jcow, ) (Entered: 10/24/2006)
11 AGREED ORDER that the appearance of John P. Cunningham as counsel for the plaintiff is withdrawn. Signed by Judge Raymond A. Jackson and filed on 10/25/06. Copies mailed: 10/25/06(jcow, ) (Entered: 10/25/2006)
12 MOTION for Elizabeth A. Speck to appear Pro hac vice by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (jcow, ) (Entered: 12/14/2006)
ORDER granting [12] Motion for Elizabeth Anne Speck to appear pro hac vice on behalf of UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Signed by Judge Raymond A. Jackson and filed on 12/14/06. Copies to counsel 12/15/06 (mwin, ) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
13 MOTION to Bifurcate by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (jcow, ) (Entered: 12/18/2006)
14 Memorandum in Support re [13] MOTION to Bifurcate filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, received. (jcow, ) (Entered: 12/18/2006)
15 MOTION to Continue trial date by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (jcow, ) (Entered: 12/27/2006)
16 Memorandum in Support re [15] MOTION to Continue trial date filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, received. (jcow, ) (Entered: 12/27/2006)
17 Memorandum in Opposition re [13] MOTION to Bifurcate filed by City of Chesapeake, Virginia, received. (jcow, ) (Entered: 12/27/2006)
18 MOTION to Compel discovery by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (jcow, ) (Entered: 01/03/2007)
19 Memorandum in Support re [18] MOTION to Compel discovery filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, received. (jcow, ) (Entered: 01/03/2007)
20 REPLY to Response to Motion re [15] MOTION to Continue filed by City of Chesapeake, Virginia, received. (jcow, ) (Entered: 01/04/2007)
21 REPLY to Response to Motion re [13] MOTION to Bifurcate filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, received. (jcow, ) (Entered:

01/04/2007 01/11/2007 01/12/2007 01/12/2007 01/17/2007 01/18/2007 01/22/2007 01/31/2007
02/02/2007 02/02/2007 02/02/2007 02/06/2007 02/06/2007

01/04/2007)
MOTIONS REFERRED: [13] MOTION to Bifurcate, [15] MOTION to Continue REFERRED to Judge Raymond A. Jackson. (jcow, ) (Entered: 01/04/2007)
22 Memorandum in Opposition re [18] MOTION to Compel discovery filed by City of Chesapeake, Virginia, received (jcow, ) (Entered: 01/11/2007)
23 Joint MOTION for Protective Order by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, City of Chesapeake, Virginia. (jcow, ) (Entered: 01/12/2007)
24 Joint Memorandum in Support re [23] Joint MOTION for Protective Order filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, City of Chesapeake, Virginia, received. (jcow, ) (Entered: 01/12/2007)
25 REPLY to Response to Motion re [18] MOTION to Compel filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, received. (jcow, ) (Entered: 01/17/2007)
Set/Reset Hearings: Motion Hearing set for 2/8/2007 09:30 AM in N Mag Courtroom 1 before Magistrate Judge F. Bradford Stillman. (jcow, ) (Entered: 01/18/2007)
Set/Reset Hearings: Motion Hearing set for 2/8/2007 02:30 PM in N Courtroom 4 before District Judge Raymond A. Jackson. (jcow, ) (Entered: 01/22/2007)
26 MOTION with memorandum in support for Leave to File objections to plaintiff's third set of interrogatories and second request for production of documents out of time by City of Chesapeake, Virginia. (jcow, ) (Entered: 01/31/2007)
27 NOTICE motion for sealing order by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, City of Chesapeake, Virginia (jcow, ) (Entered: 02/06/2007)
28 MOTION for Protective Order by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, City of Chesapeake, Virginia. (jcow, ) (Entered: 02/06/2007)
29 Memorandum in Support re [28] MOTION for Protective Order filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, City of Chesapeake, Virginia, received. (jcow, ) (Entered: 02/06/2007)
30 MOTION to Compel discovery by City of Chesapeake, Virginia. (jcow, ) (Entered: 02/07/2007)
31 Memorandum in Support re [30] MOTION to Compel discovery filed

02/07/2007 02/08/2007 02/08/2007 02/08/2007 02/08/2007
02/08/2007

by City of Chesapeake, Virginia, received (jcow, ) (Entered: 02/07/2007)
Set/Reset Hearings: Settlement Conference set for 2/21/2007 02:00 PM before Magistrate Judge F. Bradford Stillman. (jcow, ) (Entered: 02/07/2007)
32 MOTION to modify the scheduling order and to extend discovery by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (jcow, ) (Entered: 02/08/2007)
33 Memorandum in Support re [32] MOTION to modify the scheduling order and to extend discovery filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, received. (jcow, ) (Entered: 02/08/2007)
Set/Reset Hearings: Motion Hearing set for 2/16/2007 02:00 PM in N Mag Courtroom 1 before Magistrate Judge F. Bradford Stillman. (jcow, ) (Entered: 02/08/2007)
34 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge F. Bradford Stillman : Motion Hearing held on 2/8/2007 re [18] MOTION to Compel filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Court Reporter Paul McManus, OCR.)Present were Elizabeth A. Speck, Sonya A. Rao and Susan Watt on behalf of the plaintiff. Darlene Bradberry, Thomas Salb and Dana Sanford (representative of the City of Chesapeake) present on behalf of the defendant. Court confirms pending dates with counsel. Court goes through individual requests to interrogatories and requests for production, as well as privilege log, with each counsel that are in dispute and makes rulings on the record. Defendant is to supply a supplemental privilege log no later than noon on Thursday, Feb. 15, 2007. Motion hearing set for Friday, Feb. 16, 2007 at 2:00 pm for all pending motions, to include plaintiffs motion to extend discovery cutoff and defendant motion to compel. Each side is to respond to the respective motion by 2:00 pm on 02/15/07 (on an expedited briefing schedule) and the court will dispense with any reply memoranda. The parties are urged to come to any possible agreements as to the privilege log prior to the next hearing. The parties submit a joint motion for leave for the plaintiff to conduct 30(b)(6) depos. after 2/13/07 and proposed agreed order. The Court endorses the order and it is filed in open court. Court to enter order regarding all of the rulings made on the record as to the interrogatories and requests for production. Court takes up housekeeping matters regarding the upcoming settlement conference. Court adjourned. (cdod, ) Modified on 2/8/2007 (cdod, ). (Entered: 02/08/2007)
35 MOTION for leave to take depositions of the City of Chesapeake and of Stanard and Associates by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, City of Chesapeake, Virginia, filed in open court. (jcow, ) (Entered: 02/08/2007)

02/08/2007 02/08/2007 02/08/2007 02/08/2007 02/08/2007
02/08/2007 02/09/2007 02/09/2007
02/12/2007

36 Memorandum in Support re [35] MOTION for leave to take depositions of the City of Chesapeake and of Stanard and Associates filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, City of Chesapeake, Virginia, received in open court. (jcow, ) (Entered: 02/08/2007)
37 ORDER granting [35] Motion for leave to take depositions of the City of Chesapeake and of Stanard and Associates (see order for specifics). Signed by Judge F. Bradford Stillman and filed in open court on 2/8/07. Copies mailed: 2/8/07 (jcow, ) (Entered: 02/08/2007)
38 Memorandum in Opposition re [26] MOTION for Leave to File objections to plaintiff's interrogatories and requests for production of documents out of time, filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, received. (jcow, ) (Entered: 02/08/2007)
39 ORDER granting in part and denying in part [18] Motion to Compel discovery (see order for specifics). Signed by Judge F. Bradford Stillman and filed on 2/8/07. Copies mailed: 2/8/07 (jcow, ) (Entered: 02/08/2007)
40 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Raymond A. Jackson : Appearances: Sonya Rao, Susan Watt, Elizabeth Speck, Thomas Salb and Dana Sanford.Motion Hearing held on 2/8/2007 re [15] MOTION to Continue filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, [13] MOTION to Bifurcate filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, [32] MOTION to modify the scheduling order and to extend discovery filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Argued. Court GRANTED motions. Plaintiff's cut-off extended to 4/13/07. Courtroom Deputy to adjust other dates and prepare a new 16(b) order. Court adjourned. (Court Reporter Sharon Borden, OCR) (glen) (Entered: 02/09/2007)
41 PROTECTIVE ORDER entered by District Judge Raymond A. Jackson on 2/8/07, in open court. (glen) (Entered: 02/09/2007)
42 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion [32] MOTION to extend discovery set for 2/16/07 at 2:00, filed by defendant. (jcow, ) (Entered: 02/12/2007)
43 SUPPLEMENTAL SCHEDULING ORDER: Final Pretrial Conference set for 5/23/2007 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge F. Bradford Stillman. Bench Trial set for 6/6/2007 10:00 AM before District Judge Raymond A. Jackson. Trial by jury has not been demanded, proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law shall be delivered to the clerk by 5/29/07. Signed by Judge Raymond A. Jackson and filed on 2/9/07. Copies mailed: 2/12/07(jcow, ) (Entered: 02/12/2007)
44 ORDER granting [32] Motion to modify the scheduling order, supplemental scheduling order issued separately; granting [13] Motion to Bifurcate the trial; granting [15] Motion to Continue the trial date,

02/13/2007 02/13/2007 02/14/2007 02/16/2007
02/16/2007 02/21/2007
02/21/2007

supplemental scheduling order issued separately; ordering that the parties will conduct discovery on all issues pursuant to the supplemental scheduling order issued by the court in this matter. Signed by Judge Raymond A. Jackson and filed on 2/12/07. Copies mailed: 2/12/07 (jcow, ) (Entered: 02/12/2007)
45 MOTION for Protective Order by City of Chesapeake, Virginia. (jcow, ) (Entered: 02/14/2007)
46 Memorandum in Support re [45] MOTION for Protective Order filed by City of Chesapeake, Virginia, received. (jcow, ) (Entered: 02/14/2007)
47 Memorandum in Opposition re [30] MOTION to Compel discovery filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, received. (jcow, ) (Entered: 02/14/2007)
Set/Reset Hearings: Motion Hearing set for 2/21/2007 02:00 PM in N Mag Courtroom 1 before Magistrate Judge F. Bradford Stillman. Settlement Conference set for 2/22/2007 02:30 PM before Magistrate Judge F. Bradford Stillman. (jcow, ) (Entered: 02/16/2007)
48 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 2/8/07 before Judge F. Bradford Stillman. Court Reporter: Paul mcManus. (jcow, ) (Entered: 02/16/2007)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge F. Bradford Stillman : Pre-Settlement Conference held on 2/21/2007 in chambers. (4:00 pm to 4:20 pm) Settlement conference to continue on 02/22/07. (cdod) (Entered: 02/22/2007)
49 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge F. Bradford Stillman : Motion Hearing held on 2/21/2007 re [30] MOTION to Compel filed by City of Chesapeake, Virginia and issues regarding the amended privilege log. (Court Reporter Gloria Smith, OCR.)Present were Sonya A. Rao, Karen D. Woodard and Susan L. Watt on behalf of the United States, and Thomas J. Salb and Darlene P. Bradberry on behalf of the defendant, City of Chesapeake. Sonya Rao presents issues to the Court with regard to the privilege log on behalf of the United States. Darlene Bradberry responds on behalf of the City of Chesapeake. Court makes rulings on the record as to the production of documents on the privilege log. Court moves on to the defendant's motion to compel. Thomas Salb argues the motion for the City of Chesapeake and Sonya Rao responds for the United States. Court makes rulings on the record as to the requests for production and the interrogatories at issue in the motion to compel. Court reserves rulings on several of the matters and directs the parties to return on Thursday, February 22, 2007 at 1:30 pm for a continuation of the motions hearing. The settlement conference will

02/22/2007
02/22/2007 02/23/2007 02/26/2007 02/26/2007 02/26/2007 02/27/2007 03/01/2007 03/01/2007

commence immediately following the hearing. Court adjourned. (cdod, ) (Entered: 02/22/2007)
50 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge F. Bradford Stillman : Continuation of Motion Hearing held on 2/22/2007 re [30] MOTION to Compel filed by City of Chesapeake, Virginia, [32] MOTION to modify the scheduling order and to extend discovery filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Court Reporter Gloria Smith, OCR.)Present were Sonya A. Rao, Karen D. Woodard and Susan L. Watt on behalf of the United States, Darlene P. Bradberry, Thomas J. Salb, Ron Hallman, Chesapeake City Attorney and Dana Sanford on behalf of the City of Chesapeake. Sonya Rao argues on behalf of the United States and Darlene Bradberry and Thomas Salb argue on behalf of the City of Chesapeake. The Judge makes rulings on the record. Parties adjourn to commence the settlement conference. Court is adjourned. (cdod) (Entered: 02/22/2007)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge F. Bradford Stillman : Settlement Conference held on 2/22/2007 in chambers. (1:55 pm to 5:10 pm) (cdod) (Entered: 02/23/2007)
Set Hearings: continuation of Settlement Conference set for 3/8/2007 09:30 AM before Magistrate Judge F. Bradford Stillman. (cdod) (Entered: 02/23/2007)
51 ORDER granting [26] Motion for Leave to File objections to plaintiff's third set of interrogatories out of time; granting in part and denying in part [30] Motion to Compel (see order for specifics). Signed by Judge F. Bradford Stillman on 2/22/07 and filed 2/26/07. Copies mailed: 2/27/07 (jcow, ) (Entered: 02/27/2007)
52 ORDER directing the clerk to reassign this matter to another U.S. Magistrate Judge. Signed by Judge F. Bradford Stillman on 2/22/07 and filed 2/26/07. Copies mailed: 2/27/07 (jcow, ) (Entered: 02/27/2007)
53 Memorandum in Opposition re [45] MOTION for Protective Order filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, received. (jcow, ) (Entered: 02/27/2007)
This case randomly reassigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Tommy E. Miller. (jcow, ) (Entered: 02/27/2007)
54 REPLY to Response to Motion re [45] MOTION for Protective Order filed by City of Chesapeake, Virginia, received. (jcow, ) (Entered: 03/01/2007)
55 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 2/21/07 before Judge F. Bradford Stillman. Court Reporter: Gloria Smith. (jcow, ) (Entered: 03/01/2007)

03/01/2007 03/01/2007 03/01/2007 03/08/2007 03/09/2007 03/09/2007 03/09/2007 03/12/2007 03/13/2007 03/13/2007 03/13/2007 03/13/2007 03/15/2007

56 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 2/22/07 before Judge F. Bradford Stillman. Court Reporter: Gloria Smith. (jcow, ) (Entered: 03/01/2007)
MOTION REFERRED: [45] MOTION for Protective Order REFERRED to Judge Raymond A. Jackson. (jcow, ) (Entered: 03/01/2007)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge F. Bradford Stillman : Telephone Conference held on 3/1/2007 in chambers. (10:30 am to 10:40 am) (cdod) (Entered: 03/05/2007)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge F. Bradford Stillman : Settlement Conference held on 3/8/2007 in chambers. 9:30 am to 11:30 am. (cdod) (Entered: 03/08/2007)
Set/Reset Hearings: Motion Hearing set for 4/2/2007 10:30 AM in N Courtroom 4 before District Judge Raymond A. Jackson on motion for protective order. (jcow, ) (Entered: 03/09/2007)
57 MOTION for entry of Protective Order by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (jcow, ) (Entered: 03/12/2007)
58 Memorandum in Support re [57] MOTION for entry of Protective Order filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, received. (jcow, ) (Entered: 03/12/2007)
59 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re: [45] MOTION for Protective Order set for 4/2/07 at 10:30 filed by defendant. (jcow, ) (Entered: 03/14/2007)
60 MOTION for Leave to File expert witness rebuttal report by 3/15/07 by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (jcow, ) (Entered: 03/14/2007)
61 Memorandum in Support re [60] MOTION for Leave to File expert witness rebuttal report by 3/15/07 filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, received. (jcow, ) (Entered: 03/14/2007)
62 MOTION for Leave to File expert witness rebuttal report by 3/15/07 by City of Chesapeake, Virginia. (jcow, ) (Entered: 03/14/2007)
63 Memorandum in Support re [62] MOTION for Leave to File expert witness rebuttal report by 3/15/07 filed by City of Chesapeake, Virginia, received. (jcow, ) (Entered: 03/14/2007)
64 ORDER granting [60] Motion for Leave to File expert witness rebuttal by 3/15/07 for the report of Bernard Siskin, Ph.D.. Signed by Judge Raymond A. Jackson and filed on 3/15/07. Copies mailed: 3/16/07 (jcow, ) (Entered: 03/16/2007)

03/15/2007 03/20/2007 03/23/2007 03/23/2007 03/29/2007 03/30/2007 03/30/2007 03/30/2007 04/02/2007 04/02/2007 04/02/2007
04/05/2007

65 ORDER granting [62] Motion for Leave to File expert witness rebuttal report by 3/15/07 of doctors Mark J. Schmit and Kathleen K. Lundquist. Signed by Judge Raymond A. Jackson and filed on 3/15/07. Copies mailed:3/16/07 (jcow, ) (Entered: 03/16/2007)
66 Memorandum in Opposition re [57] MOTION for Protective Order filed by City of Chesapeake, Virginia, received. (jcow, ) (Entered: 03/20/2007)
67 REPLY to Response to Motion re [57] MOTION for Protective Order filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, received. (jcow, ) (Entered: 03/23/2007)
MOTION REFERRED: [57] MOTION for Protective Order REFERRED to Judge Raymond A. Jackson. (jcow, ) (Entered: 03/23/2007)
68 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 2/8/07 before Judge Raymond A. Jackson. Court Reporter: Sharon Borden. (jcow, ) (Entered: 03/30/2007)
69 MOTION to Quash deposition subpoena and notice issued to Allan Fromen for 4/12/07, by City of Chesapeake, Virginia. (mwin, ) (Entered: 03/30/2007)
70 Memorandum in Support of [69] MOTION to Quash, by City of Chesapeake, Virginia, received. (mwin, ) (Entered: 03/30/2007)
71 MOTION for expedited Hearing on [69] MOTION to Quash, by City of Chesapeake, Virginia. (mwin, ) (Entered: 03/30/2007)
72 Letter from defendant titled "Certification". (jcow, ) (Entered: 04/02/2007)
73 Memorandum in Support re [71] MOTION for Hearing re [69] MOTION to Quash filed by City of Chesapeake, Virginia, received. (jcow, ) (Entered: 04/02/2007)
74 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Raymond A. Jackson : Appearances: Michael Alexis, Sonya Rao, Darlene Bradberry and Thomas Salb. Motion Hearing held on 4/2/2007 re [57] MOTION for Protective Order filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, [45] MOTION for Protective Order filed by City of Chesapeake, Virginia. Argued. Court DENIED #45 motion. Court GRANTED #57 motion. Argument heard on #69 motion to quash. Motion to quash moot (parties to confer)Court will prepare an order. (Court Reporter Sharon Borden, OCR) (glen) (Entered: 04/02/2007)
75 MEMORANDUM ORDER denying defendant's [45] Motion for Protective Order; granting plaintiff's [57] Motion for Protective Order;

04/10/2007 04/11/2007 04/12/2007 04/12/2007 04/13/2007
04/26/2007 04/26/2007 04/26/2007 04/27/2007
04/27/2007 04/30/2007

finding as moot [69] Motion to Quash; granting [71] Motion for expedited Hearing on motion to quash; further ordering that the parties be allowed to schedule defendant's deposition of Allen Fromen outside of the discovery period. Signed by Judge Raymond A. Jackson on 4/4/07 and filed 4/5/07. Copies mailed: 4/5/07 (jcow, ) (Entered: 04/05/2007)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Raymond A. Jackson : Scheduling Conference held on 4/10/2007. (Court Reporter Sharon Borden, OCR) (glen) (Entered: 05/08/2007)
76 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 4/2/07 before Judge Raymond A. Jackson. Court Reporter: Sharon Borden. (jcow, ) (Entered: 04/11/2007)
77 MOTION for Sharon Seeley to appear Pro hac vice by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (jcow, ) (Entered: 04/12/2007)
78 MOTION for Sharon Seeley to appear Pro hac vice by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (jcow, ) (Entered: 04/12/2007)
ORDER on motion, granting [78] Motion for Pro hac vice, Appointed Sharon Ann Seeley for UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Signed by Judge Raymond A. Jackson on 4/12/07 and filed 4/13/07. Copies mailed: 4/13/07 (jcow, ) (Entered: 04/13/2007)
79 NOTICE of motion for sealing order by Stanard and Associates, Inc., UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, City of Chesapeake, Virginia (jcow, ) (Entered: 04/26/2007)
80 MOTION for Protective Order by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Stanard and Associates, Inc.. (jcow, ) (Entered: 04/26/2007)
81 Memorandum in Support re [80] MOTION for Protective Order filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Stanard and Associates, Inc., City of Chesapeake, Virginia, received. (jcow, ) (Entered: 04/26/2007)
82 MOTION for Protective Order by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Attachments: # (1) Proposed Order # (2) Memorandum in Support# (3) Exhibits to Memorandum in Support)(Alexis, Michael) (Entered: 04/27/2007)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Raymond A. Jackson in chambers: Telephone Conference held on 4/27/2007. (glen) (Entered: 05/08/2007)
Notice of Correction as to document number 82: The document was electronically filed in a paper case. The filing user was notified to file an original paper document with the clerks office, and the document has been removed from the docket sheet (jcow, ) (Entered: 04/30/2007)

04/30/2007 05/01/2007 05/01/2007 05/01/2007
05/02/2007 05/02/2007 05/02/2007 05/03/2007 05/03/2007 05/03/2007 05/03/2007 05/08/2007 05/10/2007 05/11/2007

83 MOTION for Extension of time to file an opposition to motion and request to seal records by plaintiff and Stanard and Associates, by Timothy F. McGlone. (jcow, ) (Entered: 04/30/2007)
84 MOTION for Protective Order by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (jcow, ) (Entered: 05/01/2007)
85 Memorandum in Support re [84] MOTION for Protective Order filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, received. (jcow, ) (Entered: 05/01/2007)
86 AGREED ORDER granting [80] Motion for Protective Order as to Stanard & Associates' confidential business materials, see order for specifics. Signed by Judge Raymond A. Jackson and filed on 5/1/07. Copies mailed: 5/1/07 (jcow,) (Entered: 05/01/2007)
87 MOTION to Strike by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (jcow, ) (Entered: 05/02/2007)
88 Memorandum in Support re [87] MOTION to Strike filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, FILED UNDER SEAL with exhibits. (jcow, ) (Entered: 05/02/2007)
89 MOTION for Leave to File supplemental briefs (filed with motion to strike) by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (jcow, ) (Entered: 05/02/2007)
Set Hearings: Motion Hearing set for 5/8/2007 11:30 AM re #84 motion for protective order in N Courtroom 4 before District Judge Raymond A. Jackson. (glen) (Entered: 05/03/2007)
90 Withdraw of Motion by Timothy F. McGlone re [83] MOTION for Extension of time. (jcow, ) (Entered: 05/03/2007)
91 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by City of Chesapeake, Virginia. (jcow, ) (Entered: 05/04/2007)
92 Memorandum in Support re [91] MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by City of Chesapeake, Virginia, received. (jcow, ) (Entered: 05/04/2007)
93 Memorandum in Opposition re [84] MOTION for Protective Order filed by City of Chesapeake, Virginia, received. (jcow, ) (Entered: 05/09/2007)
Reset Hearings: Motion Hearing (#80& 87)set for 5/21/2007 10:00 AM in N Courtroom 4 before District Judge Raymond A. Jackson. (glen) (Entered: 05/10/2007)
94 REPLY to Response to Motion re [84] MOTION for Protective Order

05/11/2007 05/14/2007 05/14/2007 05/14/2007 05/14/2007
05/15/2007 05/15/2007 05/17/2007
05/21/2007 05/21/2007 05/21/2007 05/30/2007

filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, received. (jcow, ) (Entered: 05/11/2007)
MOTION REFERRED: [84] MOTION for Protective Order REFERRED to Judge Raymond A. Jackson. (jcow, ) (Entered: 05/11/2007)
95 MOTION to Strike defendant's motion for partial summary judgment by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (jcow, ) (Entered: 05/15/2007)
96 Memorandum in Support re [95] MOTION to Strike defendant's motion for partial summary judgment filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, received. (jcow, ) (Entered: 05/15/2007)
97 Memorandum in Opposition re [91] MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, received. (jcow, ) (Entered: 05/15/2007)
98 SEALED VERSION with SEALED EXHIBITS of Memorandum in Support re [95] MOTION to Strike defendant's motion for partial summary judgment filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, received UNDER SEAL. (jcow, ) (Entered: 05/15/2007)
99 Memorandum in Opposition re [87] MOTION to Strike, [89] MOTION for Leave to File supplemental reports filed by City of Chesapeake, Virginia, received. (jcow, ) (Entered: 05/16/2007)
100 JOINT MOTION and memorandum in support for leave to take expert depositions out of time by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, City of Chesapeake, Virginia. (jcow, ) (Entered: 05/16/2007)
101 ORDER STAYING CASE until May 30, 2007, if there is a delay in the submission of a settlement agreement beyond 5/30/07, the parties are instructed to appear before the court to set a revised schedule for conclusion of all discovery and to set a new trial date. Signed by Judge Raymond A. Jackson and filed on 5/17/07. Copies mailed: 5/17/07(jcow, ) (Entered: 05/17/2007)
102 ORDER directing the clerk to reassign this matter to an alternate U.S. Magistrate Judge. Signed by Judge Tommy E. Miller and filed on 5/21/07. Copies mailed: 5/21/07(jcow, ) (Entered: 05/21/2007)
Judge James E. Bradberry added. Judge Tommy E. Miller no longer assigned to case. (jcow, ) (Entered: 05/21/2007)
Judge William T. Prince added. Judge James E. Bradberry no longer assigned to case. (jcow, ) (Entered: 05/21/2007)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Raymond A. Jackson : Telephone Conference held on 5/30/2007 with counsel.

05/31/2007
06/08/2007 06/08/2007 06/15/2007 06/15/2007 06/15/2007 08/03/2007 08/17/2007 08/20/2007 08/21/2007 08/30/2007

(Court Reporter Sharon Borden, OCR) (glen) (Entered: 05/31/2007)
103 ORDER STAYING CASE until June 8, 2007; in the event that there is a dely in submission of a settlement agreement in this matter beyond June 8, 2007, the parties are instructed to appear before the Court to set a revised schedule for conclusion of all discovery and to set a new trial date. Signed by Judge Raymond A. Jackson and filed on 5/31/07. Copies mailed 5/31/07 (rlam) Modified on 5/31/2007 to add text (rlam). (Entered: 05/31/2007)
104 MOTION for provisional entry of consent decree and scheduling of fairness hearing by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, City of Chesapeake, Virginia. (jcow, ) (Entered: 06/11/2007)
105 Memorandum in Support re [104] MOTION for provisional entry of consent decree and scheduling of fairness hearing filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, City of Chesapeake, Virginia, received. (jcow, ) (Entered: 06/11/2007)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Fairness Hearing set for 9/12/2007 11:30 AM in N Courtroom 4 before District Judge Raymond A. Jackson. (glen) (Entered: 06/15/2007)
106 ORDER granting [104] Motion for provisional entry of consent decree; a fairness hearing will be held on 9/12/07 at 11:30am. Signed by Judge Raymond A. Jackson and filed on 6/15/07. Copies mailed: 6/15/07 (jcow, ) (Entered: 06/15/2007)
107 CONSENT DECREE filed per separate order of 6/15/07 (see consent decree for specifics). Signed by Judge Raymond A. Jackson and filed on 6/15/07. Copies mailed: 6/15/07(jcow, ) (Entered: 06/15/2007)
108 MOTION with memorandum in support for Sonya A. Rao to Withdraw as Attorney by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (jcow, ) (Entered: 08/06/2007)
MOTION REFERRED: [108] MOTION for Rao to Withdraw as Attorney REFERRED to Judge Raymond A. Jackson. (jcow, ) (Entered: 08/17/2007)
109 ORDER granting United States' [108] Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Sonya Aparna Rao terminated. Signed by Judge Raymond A. Jackson and filed on 8/20/07. Copies mailed: 8/20/07 (jcow, ) (Entered: 08/20/2007)
110 Objection to [107] entry of the consent decree filed by Virginia L. Atkins. (jcow, ) (Entered: 08/21/2007)
111 Memorandum in response to [110] Objections to the consent decree filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, received. (jcow, ) (Entered:

08/31/2007 08/31/2007 09/12/2007
09/17/2007 10/01/2007

08/30/2007)
112 MOTION to Strike [110] Objection by City of Chesapeake, Virginia. (jcow, ) Modified on 9/4/2007 to correct filer (mwin, ). (Entered: 08/31/2007)
113 Memorandum in Support re [112] MOTION to Strike [110] Objection filed by City of Chesapeake, Virginia, received. (jcow, ) Modified on 9/4/2007 to correct the filer (mwin, ). (Entered: 08/31/2007)
114 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Raymond A. Jackson :Appearances: Elizabeth Speck, Karen Woodard, Susan Watt, Thomas J. Salb and Darlene Bradberry. No appearance by Virginia L. Atkins. Fairness Hearing held on 9/12/2007. Argued. Court made rulings on the record. Court will prepare a memorandum and order. (Court Reporter Sharon Borden, OCR) (glen) (Entered: 09/14/2007)
MOTION REFERRED: [112] MOTION to Strike [110] Objection to consent decree REFERRED to Judge Raymond A. Jackson. (jcow, ) (Entered: 09/17/2007)
115 MEMORANDUM ORDER overruling Ms. Atkins's objections; finding that the Consent Decree and the corresponding relief determination is fair, reasonable, legal, not a product of cullusion and consistent with the public interest; the Consent Decree shall be and is entered as a final resolution of all claims asserted by the United States against the City of Chesapeake, Virginia. Signed by Judge Raymond A. Jackson and filed on 10/1/07. Copies Mailed: 10/1/07(jcow, ) (Entered: 10/01/2007)