Page 1 of 4

In the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania

United States of America, Plaintiff, v. City of Erie, Pennsylvania, Defendant.

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 VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., as amended ("Title VII").

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 Erie, Pennsylvania, is a municipal government and/or political subdivision created pursuant to the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
4. Defendant City of Erie 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 Erie employs police officers who, among their other responsibilities, are responsible for protecting individuals and property in the City of Erie and apprehending persons violating any laws within the City of Erie.
6. Defendant City of Erie is responsible for establishing the terms, conditions, and other practices which bear upon the employment of the City of Erie's police officers.
7. Since at least 1996, defendant City of Erie has administered and used a physical agility test ("PAT") in the screening and selection of applicants for hire into the entry-level position of City of Erie police officer,
8. Defendant City of Erie has required that applicants pass the PAT in order to continue in the screening and selection process for the position of City of Erie police officer.
9. In 1996, only two of the 46 women who took defendant City of Erie's entry-level police officer PAT passed the test. During the same period, 122 of the 227 men who took the entry-level police officer PAT passed the test.

10. In 1998, only three of the 21 women who took defendant City of Erie's entry-level police officer PAT passed the test. During the same period, 83 of the 115 men who took the entry-level police officer

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/emp/documents/eriecomp.htm

8/13/2007

Page 2 of 4
PAT passed the test.
11. In 2000, only four of the 34 women who took defendant City of Erie's entry-level police officer PAT passed the test. During the same period, 174 of the 225 men who took the entry-level police officer PAT passed the test.
12. In 2002, only seven of the 23 women who took defendant City of Erie's entry-level police officer PAT passed the test. During the same period, 144 of the 170 men who took the entry-level police officer PAT passed the test.
13. From 1996 to the present, only 13% of the female applicants for the entry-level position of police officer who took defendant City of Erie's PAT passed the test. During the same period, 71% of the male applicants for the entry-level position of police officer who took the PAT passed the test.
14. As of November 11, 2002, the sworn workforce of defendant City of Erie's Bureau of Police consisted of 193 men and 9 women.
15. The PAT administered by defendant City of Erie to applicants for the entry-level position of City of Erie police officer has an adverse impact on female applicants and it is not job-related for the position in question or consistent with business necessity.
16. Defendant City of Erie has pursued and continues to pursue policies and practices that discriminate against women and that deprive or tend to deprive women of employment opportunities because of their sex, in violation of Section 707 of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-6. Defendant City of Erie has implemented these policies and practices, among other ways, as follows:
a. by failing or refusing to hire women for the entry-level position of police officer on the same basis as men;
b. by using selection procedures and physical agility standards for the entry-level position of police officer that have an adverse impact on women, and that are not job-related for the position in question or consistent with business necessity; and
c. by failing or refusing to take appropriate action to correct the present effects of its discriminatory policies and practices.
17. In accordance with Section 707 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-6, the United States, through the Department of Justice, has investigated the employment practices of defendant City of Erie, has notified defendant of the investigation and the policies and practices described in paragraphs 7 through 16, above, and has unsuccessfully attempted to resolve this matter through negotiation.
18. The policies and practices of defendant City of Erie described in paragraphs 7 through 16, above, constitute a pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment by women of their right to equal employment opportunities without discrimination based on sex, in violation of Section 707 of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-6. The pattern or practice is of such a nature and is intended to deny the full exercise of the rights secured by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. Unless restrained by order of this Court, defendant City of Erie will continue to pursue policies and practices that are the same as or similar to those alleged in this Complaint.

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/emp/documents/eriecomp.htm

8/13/2007

Page 3 of 4
19. All conditions precedent to the filing of suit have been performed or have occurred.
Wherefore, plaintiff United States prays for an order enjoining defendant City of Erie, its officers, agents, employees, successors and all persons in active concert or participation with them, from engaging in discriminatory employment practices against women based on their sex, and specifically from:
a. failing or refusing to hire women for the entry-level position of police officer on an equal basis as men;
b. using selection procedures and physical agility standards for the entry-level position of police officer that have an adverse impact on women, and that are not job-related for the position in question or consistent with business necessity;
c. failing or refusing to provide make-whole relief, including back pay with interest, offers of employment, retroactive seniority, and other benefits to individuals who have suffered loss or will suffer loss as a result of the discriminatory policies and practices alleged in this Complaint; and
d. failing or refusing to take other appropriate non-discriminatory measures to overcome the effects of their discriminatory policies and practices.
Plaintiff United States prays for such additional relief as justice may require, together with its costs and disbursements in this action.
John D. Ashcroft Attorney General
By:
______________________ R. Alexander Acosta Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division
___________________________________ John M. Gadzichowski [WI Bar # 1014294] Deputy Chief Benjamin Blustein [D.C. Bar # 418930] Jay D. Adelstein [D.C. Bar # 396257] Trial Attorneys U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Employment Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Patrick Henry Building, Room 4908 Washington, D.C. 20530 Telephone: (202) 514-4073 Facsimile: (202) 514-1005
_____________________________

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/emp/documents/eriecomp.htm

8/13/2007

Mary Beth Buchanan United States Attorney Western District of Pennsylvania 633 U. S. Post Office Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219 Telephone: (412) 644-3500 Facsimile: (412) 644-4549

Page 4 of 4

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/emp/documents/eriecomp.htm

8/13/2007

 
 Case 1:04-cv-00004-SJM Document 92 Filed 03/07/2006 Page 4 of 43

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

PLAINTIFF,
V.

CIVIL ACTION No. 04-4 ERIE

CITY OF ERIE, PENNSYLVANIA,

JUDGE McLAUGHLIN

DEFENDANT.

CONSENT DECREE 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1. The United States brought this action against the City of Erie, Pennsylvania (the "City") pursuant to Section 707 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-6, et~. ("Title VII"). In its Complaint, the United States alleged that, since at least 1996, the City had violated Title VII by using a particular physical agility test (the "PAT") to

screen applicants for employment as entry-level police officers. Specifically, the United States alleged that the City's use of the PAT disproportionately excluded female applicants from consideration for employment and was not job-related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity. 2. The Court bifurcated proceedings in this case into two phases, a liability phase and a relief phase. 3. On October 8, 2004, the Court granted partial summary judgment for the United States, finding that the City's use of the PAT caused a disparate impact against female applicants for the entry-level police officer position between 1996 and 2002, and, therefore, that the United

-~-~

-------

Case 1:04-cv-00004-SJM Document 92 Filed 03/07/2006 Page 5 of 43
States had established a prima facie case. 4. A bench trial regarding the remaining liability issues was held on March 7-10,2005, during which the City attempted to demonstrate that its use of the PAT was "job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity," as required by Title VII. See 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(k)(I)(A)(i). On December 13, 2005, the Court issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, determining that the City had failed to prove that its use of the PAT was job related and consistent with business necessity and, accordingly, that the City's use ofthe PAT violated Title VII. On the same date, the Court entered judgment in favor of the United States with respect to the City's liability under Title VII. 5. The United States and the City now have agreed to enter into this Consent Decree to resolve all reliefphase issues without further contested litigation. Subject to the Court's approval of this Decree, the parties waive relief phase hearings and findings of fact and conclusions oflaw. The City also agrees that it shall not seek judicial appeal of any of the findings and conclusions of this Court related to the City'S liability under Title VII, including, but not limited to, the Court's determination that the City's use of the PAT caused a disparate impact against female applicants and that the City failed to establish that its use of the PAT was job related and consistent with business necessity. The parties agree that this Consent Decree resolves all issues raised in the United States' Complaint, and is final and binding on the parties and their officials, agents, employees and successors, and all persons acting on their behalf or in active concert or participation with them.
In resolution of this action, the United States and the City hereby AGREE to, and the
Court APPROVES, ENTERS and ORDERS, the following:
2

I_~_-

---------------------

Case 1:04-cv-00004-SJM Document 92 Filed 03/07/2006 Page 6 of 43
II. DEFINITIONS 6. "Claimant" refers to an individual who satisfies the requirements for eligibility for remedial relief pursuant to Paragraph 18 of this Decree. 7. "Claimant Eligible for Hiring Consideration" means a Claimant who, pursuant to
Sections VII and vrn of this Decree, timely returns an Interest in Relief form, indicates on the
form that she is interested in hiring relief ahd is listed on the Relief Awards List approved by the Court, following a Fairness Hearing on Individual Relief, as eligible for consideration for Priority Hire. 8. "Date of entry" of the Decree refers to the date on which the Court orders entry of the Decree at or following a fairness hearing. 9. "Day" or "days" refers to calendar, not business, days. 10. "Retroactive seniority" refers to the seniority that a Claimant would have had if she had been hired as a result of the application process during which she took and failed the PAT. All retroactive seniority awarded pursuant to this Decree is seniority for all purposes, except for purposes of pension benefits, consideration or eligibility for promotion or requirements for completion of a probationary period. 11. For purposes of Paragraphs 14 through 16 of this Decree, "use" of a physical ability test shall include, but not be limited to, making the completion of any training, course of study or process which includes a physical ability test a requirement for eligibility for, or hire into, an entry-level police officer position. III. PURPOSES OF THIS DECREE 12. The purposes ofthis Decree are to ensure that:
(a) the City. does not discriminate against women on the basis of their gender, in 3

Case 1:04-cv-00004-SJM Document 92 Filed 03/07/2006 Page 7 of 43
violation of Title VII, in hiring entry-level police officers; (b) the City does not retaliate against individuals who complain of such
discrimination or who have participated in the .investigation or litigation of this case; and (c) individuals who were denied employment in the City's Bureau of Police as a result of the City's unlawful use of the PAT obtain remedial relief, including, as appropriate, backpay, an offer of employment and retroactive seniority. IV. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 13. The City, its officials, agents, employees and successors, and all persons acting on their behalf or in active concert or participation with them, shall not engage in any entry-level police officer selection practice utilizing the PAT used by the City between 1996 and 2002. 14. While this Consent Decree remains in effect, the City, its officials, agents, employees and successors, and all persons acting on their behalf or in active concert or participation with them, shall not use, in the selection of entry-level police officers, any physical ability test that results in a disparate impact against female applicants and is not job related for the entry-level police officer position and consistent with business necessity. To that end, the City shall not use, in the selection of entry-level police officers, any physical ability test without the prior agreement of the United States or, absent such agreement, prior approval of the Court. 15. If the City wishes to use any physical ability test to screen or select entry-level police officers, other than the MPOETC test with the 30th percentile passing standard used at the time of trial to determine eligibility for entry into the police academy, as set forth in Trial Exhibit HH and referenced in the Court's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law at n.8, the City must so notify the United States not less than one hundred twenty (120) days prior to the City's intended
4

Case 1:04-cv-00004-SJM Document 92 Filed 03/07/2006 Page 8 of 43
use of the physical ability test. With the notice, the City must provide: a description of the physical ability test and the manner in which the City intends to use it; the known or likely disparate impact, if any, of the physical ability test; all evidence of the job relatedness or validity of the test available to the City; and any basis for a conclusion that the use of the test is job related and consistent with business necessity. 16. If the United States has not agreed to the City's use of the physical ability test within sixty (60) days after receipt of notice of the City's intended use of the test pursuant to the preceding Paragraph, the City may apply to this Court for approval of its use of the test. The Court shall approve the City's use of the physical ability test only if the City establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that its use ofthe test is job related for the entry-level police officer position and consistent with business necessity. 17. The City, its officials, agents, employees and successors, and all persons acting on their behalf or in active concert or participation with them, shall not discriminate or retaliate against any person because ofhislher participation in the.United States' investigation giving rise to this lawsuit, or any proceedings related to this lawsuit or arising under this Consent Decree, including, but not limited to, seeking or obtaining relief provided under this Consent Decree. V. INDIVIDUAL RELIEF A. Individuals Eligible for Relief 18. Claimants who are eligible for relief under this Decree are all women who:
(a) applied for employment in an entry-level police officer position in the City of Erie Bureau of Police between January 1, 1996 and December 31,2002; and
(b) failed the PAT at any time between January 1, 1996 and December 31, 2002. A list of all such Claimants is set forth in Appendix A, attached hereto.
5

Case 1:04-cv-00004-SJM Document 92 Filed 03/07/2006 Page 9 of 43 19. A Claimant shall not be required to now express an interest in hiring relief or to accept a job offer in order to receive monetary relief under this Consent Decree. B. Monetary Relief
1. Deposit of the Settlement Fund 20. The City shall provide the sum of One Hundred Seventy Thousand Dollars ($170,000) (the "Settlement Fund") in four installments, as described below, to be used to satisfy all monetary claims to be paid under this Consent Decree. This amount represents backpay, less mitigation, plus the value of benefits and prejudgment interest. 21. Within thirty (30) days after the date of entry of this Consent Decree, the City shall deposit the sum of Forty-Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($42,500) into an account in a federally insured financial institutiori agreed to by the parties. 22. Within fourteen (14) months after the date of entry of this Consent Decree, the City shall deposit an additional sum of Forty-Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($42,500) into the same account. 23. Within twenty-six (26) months after the date of entry ofthis Consent Decree, the City shall make a third deposit of Forty-Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($42,500) into the same account. 24. Within thirty-eight (38) months after the date of entry of this Consent Decree, the City shall deposit a final sum of Forty-Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($42,500) in the same account.
2. Monetary Relief Awards from the Settlement Fund 25. The Settlement Fund, including any interest that accrues on the Settlement Fund, shall be distributed by the City at the direction ofthe United States, as provided in Section X of this Decree. The amounts of monetary relief to be paid to individual Claimants by the City from the Settlement Fund shall be subject only to review by the Court.
6

Case 1:04-cv-00004-SJM Document 92 Filed 03/07/2006 Page 10 of 43
26 The City shall pay all federal, state or local taxes or contributions that normally are paid by employers and that are due on any monetary relief award paid to a Claimant, including the appropriate employer's contributions to Medicare and the Social Security fund. No such taxes or contributions shall be deducted from either the Settlement Fund, the interest that accrues thereon or any Claimant's monetary relief award. 27. The City shall, to the extent required by law, withhold from each Claimant's monetary relief award all appropriate federal and state income taxes and any other required employee withholdings or deductions. Such amounts shall be deducted by the City from each claimant's monetary relief award and shall be paid by the City from the Settlement Fund. C. Hiring Relief
1. Definitions Regarding Priority Hiring 28. In order for a hire to qualify as a Priority Hire under this Decree, the person hired must be a Claimant Eligible for Hiring Consideration who is hired after receiving an Offer of Priority Hire. 29. An Offer of Priority Hire is made only when the City makes an offer of employment in the entry-level police officer position to a Claimant by certified mail (return receipt requested), indicating that the offer is being made pursuant to this Decree, that the Claimant to whom the offer is made will be entitled to retroactive seniority at the completion of her probationary period, and that the Claimant has at least fourteen (14) days from the date on which she receives the written offer to notify the City that she accepts the offer. In addition, an Offer of Priority Hire must state that, if the Claimant accepts the offer, the City will pay the Claimant as a police officer recruit during the period of any police academy training required for certification as a law enforcement officer by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and will pay the costs of such
7

Case 1:04-cv-00004-SJM Document 92 Filed 03/07/2006 Page 11 of 43
training. 30. Nothing in this Consent Decree precludes any Claimant from applying for hire or being hired as a police officer under the City's regular selection and hiring process. However, a hire of a Claimant under the City's regular selection and hiring process shall not be counted toward the City's Priority Hiring requirement under this Decree.
2. Priority Hiring Requirement 3l. The City shall make up to, but no more than, five (5) Priority Hires. 32. The City shall not hire any person other than a Claimant Eligible for Hiring Consideration into an entry-level police officer position until:
(a) five (5) Priority Hires have been made; or (b) after the date on which the group of Claimants Eligible for Hiring Consideration
is exhausted. For purposes of this Paragraph, recall by the City of a police officer who was laid off within one (1) year prior to the date ofthe Court's liability judgment (December 13, 2005) or was laid off in January 2006 as a result of the City's 2006 budget reduction ofthe police force shall not be deemed a hire. The City may satisfy the priority hiring requirement of this Decree by hiring any five (5) Claimants Eligible for Priority Hire and is not require to consider such claimants in any particular order. 33. The group of Claimants Eligible for Hiring Consideration shall be exhausted for purposes of the preceding Paragraph only when each Claimant Eligible for Hiring Consideration, as that term is defined in Paragraph 7 of this Decree:
(a) has been hired as a Priority Hire; or (b) in writing has rejected an Offer of Priority Hire made by the City pursuant to this
8

Case 1:04-cv-00004-SJM Document 92 Filed 03/07/2006 Page 12 of 43
Decree; or (c) has been agreed by the parties or determined by the Court to be currently
unqualified for the entry-level police officer position, using the lawful, objective hiring criteria in use by the City at the time it evaluates the Claimant's qualifications. Regardless whether the City currently requires that individuals who apply for the entry-level police officer position complete academy training and/or be certified by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in order to be eligible to apply or be hired, a Claimant Eligible for Hiring Consideration will not be deemed currently unqualified because she has not met such a training or certification requirement. 34. Within ten (10) days after the City has made a Priority Hire, the City shall notify the United States of the identity of the Claimant hired. 35. Within ten (10) days after the City receives from a Claimant a written rej ection of an Offer of Priority Hire made pursuant to this Decree, the City shall provide a copy of such written rejection to the United States. 36. Within ten (10) days after the City determines that any Claimant currently is unqualified for the entry-level police officer position using the lawful, objective hiring criteria in use by the City at the time it evaluates the Claimant's qualifications, the City shall: (a) so notify the United States in writing; (b) provide a written statement of all reason(s) the Claimant currently is unqualified; and (c) provide the information and documents (~, background investigation reports, criminal history records, driving records, test scores, etc.) on which the City based its determination. 37. If the United States notifies the City that the United States wishes to interview any
9

- --- - -- -----~

---~-

Case 1:04-cv-00004-SJM Document 92 Filed 03/07/2006 Page 13 of 43
official, agent or employee of the City involved in evaluating the qualifications of a Claimant determined by the City to be currently unqualified, the City shall make such person available for interview by the United States within ten (10) days. 38. If the United States does not agree with the City's determination that a Claimant currently is unqualified for the entry-level police officer position, the United States shall so notify the City within sixty (60) days after the date on which it receives notice of the City's determination. 39. If the parties are unable to resolve a disagreement regarding a Claimant's current qualification for the entry-level police officer position, either party may request that the Court resolve the dispute. In any proceedings regarding such a dispute, the City-shall bear the burden of proving that the Claimant currently is unqualified. D. Training and Certification of Priority Hires 40. The City shall pay each Claimant hired as a Priority Hire as a police officer recruit during the period of police academy training required for certification as a law enforcement officer by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and shall pay the costs of such training and certification. E. Remedial Seniority Relief 41. On the date on which a Claimant hired as a Priority Hire pursuant to this Decree completes her probationary period, the Claimant shall be credited with retroactive seniority in the entry-level police officer position as of the date corresponding to her name on Appendix A to this Decree.
10
,
------

Case 1:04-cv-00004-SJM Document 92 Filed 03/07/2006 Page 14 of 43
VI. FAIRNESS HEARING ON CONSENT DECREE A. Request for Fairness Hearing on Consent Decree 42. Upon execution of this Decree, the United States and the City shall file a joint motion for the provisional approval and entry of the Decree by the Court and shall request a Fairness Hearing to allow the Court to determine whether the terms of this Decree are fair, reasonable, equitable and otherwise consistent with federal law. The Court shall provide the parties with at least ninety (90) days' notice of the date and time set for the Fairness Hearing on the Consent Decree. 43. The purpose of the Fairness Hearing on the Consent Decree and related notification provisions of this Decree is to provide to all individuals whose identities are currently known to the parties who may be affected by the terms of the Decree notice and an opportunity to present objections prior to entry of the Decree, in accordance with Section 703(n) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(n). B. Notice of Fairness Hearing on Consent Decree 44. No later than sixty (60) days prior to the Fairness Hearing on the Consent Decree, the City shall provide written notice of the Hearing and information concerning the manner in which objections to this Decree may be made, in the form set forth in Appendix B, as follows:
(a) by certified mail to the last known address of each Claimant listed on Appendix A to this Decree or such updated address as may be provided by the United States; and
(b) to all incumbents in sworn positions in the City of Erie Bureau of Police, by hand delivery at the place of employment of each such individual, or as an attachment to each such individual's regularly distributed paycheck information. 11

Case 1:04-cv-00004-SJM Document 92 .Filed 03/07/2006 Page 15 of 43
No later than fifty (50) days prior to the Fairness Hearing on the Consent Decree, the City shall provide to the United States a list ofthe individuals to whom notice was given pursuant to subpart (a) of this Paragraph, a copy of each certified mail receipt, and a list of the individuals to whom notice was provided pursuant to subpart (b) of this Paragraph. 45. The City shall publish notice, in a form substantially similar to Appendix C, in the Wednesday, Friday and Sunday editions ofThe Erie Times-News. The published notice shall appear with a headline in bold typeface surrounded by a dark border, shall be no smaller than six (6) inches by ten (10) inches in size, and shall be placed in the local news section or other prominent location agreed to by the parties. All such newspaper notices shall be published for two (2) weeks concluding no later than four (4) weeks prior to the date set for the Fairness Hearing. 46. No later than seven (7) days prior to the Fairness Hearing, the United States and the City shall file a response to any objections to the Consent Decree timely filed with the Court and timely served on the United States and the City as provided in Appendix B and Appendix C. VII. DETERMINATION OF INDIVIDUAL RELIEF AWARDS A. Notice to Claimants of Entry of Consent Decree 47. Within ten (10) days after the date of entry of this Consent Decree by the Court at or after the Fairness Hearing on the Consent Decree, the City shall send the following by certified mail (return receipt requested), to the last known address of each Claimant listed on Appendix A to this Decree:
(a) Process for Filing a Claim for Relief (as set forth as Appendix D); and (b) Interest in Relief form (as set forth as Appendix E).
12

Case 1:04-cv-00004-SJM Document 92 Filed 03/07/2006 Page 16 of 43
B. Claimants to Submit Interest in Relief Forms 48. Any Claimant who fails to submit a completed and signed Interest in Relief form to the United States within twenty-five (25) days after entry of the Consent Decree by the Court at or after the Fairness Hearing on the Consent Decree, absent a showing of good cause, shall be deemed to have waived any right to be considered for individual remedial relief under this Consent Decree. The determination that a Claimant has shown good cause shall be within the sole discretion of the United States. C. United States to Determine Relief Awards 49. Within sixty (60) days after the last date for submission of such forms by the Claimants, the United States shall file with the Court a Relief Awards List, indicating, for each Claimant:
(a) whether the Claimant has submitted a timely Interest in Relief form; (b) whether the Claimant has indicated an interest in Priority Hire; and (c) the nature and amount of relief which the United States has determined the
Claimant should be awarded under this Decree. The United States shall simultaneously serve a copy of the Relief Awards List on the City and provide to the City a copy of all Interest in Relief forms received by the United States. The United States shall determine the amount of reliefto be awarded under this Decree to each Claimant in a manner that is reasonable and equitable in relation to the Claimant popUlation and the total amount ofthe Settlement Fund and that is consistent with the provisions ofthis Decree. VIII. FAIRNESS HEARING ON INDIVIDUAL RELIEF AWARDS 50. Upon filing the Relief Awards List, the United States shall move the Court to hold a Fairness Hearing on Individual Relief. The Court shall provide the parties with at least sixty (60) days' notice of the date and time set for the Fairness Hearing on Individual Relief.
13

Case 1:04-cv-00004-SJM Document 92 Filed 03/07/2006 Page 17 of 43
51. No later than forty-five (45) days before the date set for the Fairness Hearing on fudividual Relief, the United States shall notify each Claimant of the United States' determination regarding the Claimant's eligibility for relief, the reason(s) for any determination by the United States that the Claimant is not eligible for any relief sought by the Claimant and the amount of the Claimant's monetary relief award, by letter in the form attached as Appendix F. The letter also will provide Claimants notice of the date, time and purpose of the hearing,as well as instructions for filing an objection to the United States' relief determinations, in the form attached as Appendix G. 52. Claimants who object to the United States' proposed relief determinations may file objections as follows:
(a) Objections must be returned by mail, postmarked no later than thirty (30) days prior to the date set for the Fairness Hearing on fudividual Relief;
(b) Objections shall: state the objector's name, address and telephone number; set forth a description ofthe objector's basis for disputing the United States' relief determination; include copies of any documentation supporting the objections; state the name and address ofthe objector's counsel, if any; and state whether the objector wishes the opportunity to be heard in court at the Fairness Hearing on fudividual Relief.
(c) Objections shall be submitted by filing the original with the Court at the following address: Clerk of the United States District Court for the Western District ofPennsylvania Erie Division 17 South Park Row Erie, Pennsylvania 16501 14

Case 1:04-cv-00004-SJM Document 92 Filed 03/07/2006 Page 18 of 43
(d) Obj ectors also must mail a copy of any obj ection to the United States Department of Justice and the City at the following addresses: Erie Police Settlement Team Employment Litigation Section Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, D.C. 20530 Office of the City Solicitor 626 State Street, Room 505 Erie,Pennsylvania 16501
53. No later than seven (7) business 'days prior to the date set for the Fairness Hearing on Individual Relief, the United States and the City shall file with the Court a reply to each timely objection made by a Claimant. 54. lfthe City disagrees with the United States' determination that a Claimant is eligible for consideration for Priority Hire, no later than thirty (30) days prior to the date set for the Fairness Hearing on Individual Relief the City shall file with the Court an objection stating all grounds for the City's contention that the Claimant is not eligible for such relief and identifying all documents relating to the City's contention and all witnesses with knowledge of facts supporting the City's contention. On the same date, the City shall serve a copy of the objection on the United States along with a copy of all documents relating to the City's contention that the Claimant is not eligible for hiring relief. In addition, the City shall make available for interview or deposition all officials, agents and employees of the City with knowledge of facts supporting the City's contention within seven (7) days after the United States so requests. 55. At or following the Fairness Hearing on Individual Relief, the Court shall determine which, if any, objections to the United States' relief determinations, as stated in the Relief
15

Case 1:04-cv-00004-SJM Document 92 Filed 03/07/2006 Page 19 of 43
Awards List, are well-founded. The Court shall then approve the Relief Awards List as submitted or, ifthe Court finds that any objection(s) are well-founded, shall amend it to adjust the amount and nature ofthe reliefto be awarded to the Claimants consistent with such finding, while maintaining, to the extent possible, the proportionate shares of the Settlement Fund awarded to all other Claimants. The Court shall find that any objection regarding the amount of monetary relief to be awarded to a Claimant is well-founded only if the amount is not reasonable and equitable in relation to the Claimant population and the total amount of the Settlement Fund. The Court shall find that any objection, including any objection made by the City, regarding a Claimant's eligibility for consideration for Priority Hire is well-founded only ifthe objector(s) prove by a preponderance of the evidence that, at the time she failed the PAT, the Claimant was not qualified for the position of entry-level police officer in the City's Bureau of Police using the lawful, objective hiring criteria in use by the City at that time, for reasons including, but not necessarily limited to, the Claimant's medical background, psychological background or criminal history. IX. ACCEPTANCE OF MONETARY RELIEF AND RETURN OF RELEASE 56. No later than thirty (30) days after the Court approves or adjusts the Relief Awards List at or following the Fairness Hearing on Individual Relief, the United States shall mail, by certified mail (return receipt requested), to each Claimant entitled to individual relief as stated in the Relief Awards List, at her last known address a notice which shall include:
(a) a statement ofthe amount of the monetary relief awarded the Claimant; (b) an explanation of the time limit for acceptance of the monetary relief award; (c) a release form as described in the following Paragraph of this Decree; and (d) any withholding forms that the City deems necessary to comply with its
16

Case 1:04-cv-00004-SJM Document 92 Filed 03/07/2006 Page 20 of 43
withholding obligations under law. With each notice the United States shall include a stamped return envelope addressed to:
Erie Police Settlement Team Employment Litigation Section Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, D.C. 20530 57. As a condition for the receipt of a monetary relief award, each Claimant otherwise entitled to monetary relief as stated on the Relief Awards List approved by the Court shall be required to execute a copy of the release form set forth in Appendix H and return it to the United States no later than sixty (60) days after the Court approves the Relief Awards List. The date of return to the United States shall be the date of receipt by the United States of the executed release form. A failure to accept a monetary relief award and to return the release and withholding forms within the time allowed, absent a showing of good cause, shall constitute a rejection of the offer ofmonetary relief and shall release the United States and the City from any further obligation under this Decree to make a monetary relief award to that Claimant. The determination that a Claimant has shown good cause shall be within the sole discretion of the United States. Any amount of monetary relief which otherwise would be due under this Decree to a Claimant who, without good cause, fails to timely return the release and withholding forms shall remain in the Settlement Fund and be distributed by the City as directed by the United States as part of the Final Distribution, pursuant to Paragraph 64 of this Decree.
x. PAYMENT OF MONETARY RELIEF
A. Annual Distributions to Claimants 58. No later than thirty (30) days after the time for return of the release and withholding
17

Case 1:04-cv-00004-SJM Document 92 Filed 03/07/2006 Page 21 of 43
forms by the Claimants, the United States shall forward to the City all executed release and withholding forms it receives, and shall direct the City to distribute 114 ofthe total amount of the Settlement Fund. 59. No later than thirty (30) days after the United States directs the City, pursuant to the preceding Paragraph, to make a distribution from the Settlement Fund, the City shall send by certified mail, return receipt requested, a first set ofmonetary relief award checks to the Claimants as directed by the United States. A check shall be made payable to each Claimant entitled to monetary relief in the amount of 114 of the amount set forth for that Claimant on the Relief Awards List approved by the Court, less ,appropriate employee withholdings and deductions pursuant to Paragraph 27 ofthis Decree. One (1) year, two (2) and three (3) years after the City mails the first set of monetary relief award checks, the City shall distribute, respectively, a second, third and fourth set of monetary relief award checks in the same manner. Each distribution shall total 1/4 of the Settlement Fund. 60. Within five (5) days after each distribution from the Settlement Fund, the City shall provide to the United States a statement, indicating the amount paid to each Claimant, as well as the amounts withheld from each Claimant's monetary award, and a copy of each monetary relief award check. 61. Sixty (60) days prior to the second distribution of monetary relief from the Settlement Fund, again sixty (60) days prior to the third distribution, and again sixty (60) days prior to the fourth distribution, the City shall notify the United States in writing whether any monetary award checks from the prior distribution were returned undeliverable or otherwise were not cashed and, if so, of the name and last known address of each Claimant to whom such a check was made payable.
18

Case 1:04-cv-00004-SJM Document 92 Filed 03/07/2006 Page 22 of 43
B. Monetary Relief Due to Deceased Claimants 62. The monetary relief due to any Claimant who dies after timely sUbmitting a completed Interest in Relief form shall be paid as directed by the United States and approved by the Court. C. Final Accounting and Distribution 63. Within sixty (60) days after the City mails the fourth set of monetary relief award checks, the City shall file with the Court and serve on the United States a written report, which shall set forth: the total amount of monetary relief provided to each Claimant; the amount of funds remaining in the Settlement Fund account; and the amount of each monetary relief award check that was returned to the City undeliverable, and the name and last known address of the Claimant to whom each such check was payable. 64. Within sixty (60) days after the City files the report required by the preceding Paragraph, the United States shall direct the City to distribute the remaining funds in a manner consistent with the purposes ofthis Decree. Within thirty (30) days thereafter, the City shall.make a Final Distribution, distributing the remaining funds to Claimants as directed by the United States. Any funds remaining in the account sixty (60) days after the Final Distribution shall revert to the City. XI. DISPUTE RESOLUTION 65. The parties shall attempt to resolve informally any dispute that may arise under this Decree. If the parties are unable to resolve the dispute expeditiously, any party may move the Court for a resolution of the disputed issue. XII. RECORD RETENTION 66. The City shall retain all of the following records (including those in electronic form) during the term ofthis Decree:
19

Case 1:04-cv-00004-SJM Document 92 Filed 03/07/2006 Page 23 of 43
(a) all applications for entry-level police.officer positions in the City's Bureau of Police, as well as all documents related to the screening or evaluation of applicants and selection of entry-level police officers;
(b) all documents relating to written or verbal complaints made by any person or organization regarding: (i) discrimination in hiring of police officers on the basis of gender; or (ii) retaliation for complaining of or participating in any proceedings involving a complaint of such discrimination;
(c) all documents relating to the evaluation of any Claimant for Priority Hire pursuant to this Decree; and
(d) all other 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.
XIII. COMPLIANCE MONITORING 67. The United States may review the City's compliance with this Decree at any time. Upon fifteen (15) days written notice to the City, without further order of this Court, the United States shall have the right to inspect and copy any documents that are relevant to the City's compliance with this Decree, including, but not limited to, those retained pursuant to Paragraph 66, above. XIV. RETENTION OF JURISDICTION AND DURATION OF DECREE 68. The Court shall retain jurisdiction over this Decree for the purpose of resolving any disputes or entering any orders that may be appropriate to implement the Decree. 69. This Consent 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 events:
20

· Case 1:04-cv-00004-SJM Document 92 Filed 03/07/2006 Page 24 of 43
(a) the passage of four (4) years from the date of entry of this Decree; (b) the fullfillment of all Individual Reliefprovisions contained in Section V of this
Decree.
xv. COSTS AND FEES
70. The parties shall bear their own costs and attorney's fees in this action, including any costs or fees incurred to comply with the terms of this Decree, except that the parties shall retain the right to seek costs for any matter which, in the future, may arise under this Decree and require resolution by the Court. XVI. MISCELLANEOUS 71. Except for objections pursuant to Paragraph 52, above, all documents required to be delivered under this Decree to the United States by the City shall be sent to the attention of:
Chief, Employment Litigation Section U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Employment Litigation Section-:-PHB 4040 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, D.C. 20530 72. Any documents required to be delivered under this Decree to the City shall be sent to the attention of: Office of the City Solicitor 626 State Street, Room 505 Erie, Pennsylvania 16501
PROVISIONALLY APPROVED subject to the fairness hearing this _ _ day of _ _ _ _ _, 2006.
UNITED STATES DISTRlCT JUDGE
21

Case 1:04-cv-00004-SJM Document 92 Filed 03/07/2006 Page 25 of 43

APPROVED and ORDERED tms

.ay of-<-._ __ 'J!)06.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

AGREED AND CONSENTED TO:

For plaintiff United States ofAmerica:

WANJ.KIM Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division
By: .
Q-4R~ DAVID J. PALMER Chief

C ty So icitor

G

D J. VILLELLA, ESQ.

KENNETH A. ZAK, ESQ.

Assistant City Solicitors

Office of the City Solicitor 626 State Street, Room 505 Erie, Pennsylvania 16501 (814) 870-1235 - telephone (814) 455-9438 - facsimile

SHARON A. SEELEY CLARE GELLER Attorneys
U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Employment Litigation Section PHB 4040 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Wasmngton, D.C. 20530 (202) 514-4761 - telephone (202) 514-1105 - facsimile

22

 
 U.S. District Court Western District of Pennsylvania (Erie) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:04-cv-00004-SJM

CLOSED

UNITED STATES v. CITY OF ERIE, PA Assigned to: Judge Sean J. McLaughlin Demand: $0 Cause: 42:2000 Civil Rights: Other

Date Filed: 01/08/2004 Date Terminated: 11/20/2006 Jury Demand: Defendant Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff UNITED STATES

represented by Benjamin Blustein U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division (Employment) 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Patrick Henry Building, Room 4908 Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514-4073 TERMINATED: 03/13/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christine M. Roth U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division (Employment) 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Patrick Henry Building, Room 4908 Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514-4073 TERMINATED: 03/13/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jay D. Adelstein U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division (Employment) 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Patrick Henry Building, Room 4908 Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514-4073 TERMINATED: 03/13/2006

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica Lieber Smolar United States Attorney's Office 700 Grant Street Suite 4000 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (412) 894-7419 Email: jessica.smolar@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John M. Gadzichowski U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division (Employment) 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Patrick Henry Building, Room 4908 Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514-4073 TERMINATED: 04/28/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary Beth Buchanan United States Attorney's Office 700 Grant Street Suite 400 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (412) 644-3500 Email: marybeth.buchanan@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 03/02/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sharon A. Seeley U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division (Employment) 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Patrick Henry Building, Room 4908 Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514-4761 TERMINATED: 09/06/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant CITY OF ERIE, PA
Intervenor Defendant PENNSYLVANIA HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION

represented by Gerald J. Villella Dailey, Karle & Villella 900 State Street Suite 310 Erie, PA 16501 (814) 453-4651 Email: gvillella@ci.erie.pa.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kenneth A. Zak City Solicitor's Office 626 State Street Room 505, Municipal Building Erie, PA 16501 814-870-1237 Email: kzak@ci.erie.pa.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Larry D. Meredith 1805 Prospect Avenue Erie, PA 16510 (814) 899-2397 Email: ldm47_936@msn.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul F. Curry City Solicitor's Office 626 State Street Room 505, Municipal Building Erie, PA 16501 (814) 870-1230 TERMINATED: 04/28/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Katherine H. Fein Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission

300 Liberty Avenue Suite 1100 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 565-5698 TERMINATED: 02/27/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 01/08/2004 02/05/2004 02/11/2004
02/12/2004
02/20/2004 03/15/2004 03/15/2004 03/16/2004 03/16/2004
03/18/2004
03/18/2004

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT with summons issued (mad) (Entered: 01/09/2004)

2 RETURN OF SERVICE executed as to CITY OF ERIE, PA 1/23/04 (mad) (Entered: 02/06/2004)

3 ANSWER to Complaint by CITY OF ERIE, PA (Attorney Paul F. Curry, Larry D. Meredith, Gerald J. Villella) (mad) (Entered: 02/11/2004)

4 PRELIMINARY SCHEDULING ORDER, set Case Management Conference for 10:00 3/18/04 ( signed by Judge Sean J. McLaughlin on 2/12/04 ) CM all parties of record. (mad) (Entered: 02/12/2004)

5 DEMAND for jury trial by CITY OF ERIE, PA (nk) (Entered: 02/20/2004)

6 PROPOSED DISCOVERY PLAN pursuant to Rule 26(f) by CITY OF ERIE, PA (nk) (Entered: 03/15/2004)

7 PROPOSED DISCOVERY PLAN pursuant to Rule 26(f) by UNITED STATES, CITY OF ERIE, PA (nk) (Entered: 03/16/2004)

8 MOTION by UNITED STATES to Strike [5-1] demand jury by CITY OF ERIE, PA with Proposed Order. (mad) (Entered: 03/17/2004)

9 BRIEF by UNITED STATES in support of [8-1] motion to Strike [5-1] demand jury by CITY OF ERIE, PA by UNITED STATES (mad) (Entered: 03/17/2004)

10 MOTION by PA HUMAN RELATIONS to Intervene as a Pltf under Rule 24 by PENNSYLVANIA HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION with Proposed Order. (mad) (Entered: 03/18/2004)

11 Case Management Conference held 3/18/04 @ 10:00 a.m. before Judge Sean J. McLaughlin [ Reporter: Ron Bench ] Motion to Strike Response due in 10 days. Court adopts the U.S. Discovery Plan. Clerk to enter dates from Doc. 7 and enter on the docket. (mad) (Entered: 03/18/2004)

03/18/2004
03/24/2004 03/29/2004 03/29/2004 04/06/2004 04/06/2004 04/08/2004 04/08/2004 04/19/2004 04/29/2004 04/30/2004

Deadline updated; set Pretrial Order Deadlines: Discovery cutoff on 8/2/04 ; Initial expert disclosures: 5/1/04; Pretrial Conference set for 45 days before trial date ; Joining of parties amending of pleadings by 3/30/04 ; Motion Filing deadline due 9/15/04 ; File motions to challenge the qualifications and/or substance of any proposed expert witness: 9/15/04; Designate, if appropriate, the case for mediation: After discovery period; Presumptive Trial date set for January 2005 ; Rebuttal Expert reports due 7/15/04 ; Complete expert depositions: 8/1/04 (mad) (Entered: 03/18/2004)
12 TRANSCRIPT Status Conference before McLaughlin, J. for date of 3/18/04. Court Reporter: Ronald J. Bench. (mad) (Entered: 03/24/2004)
13 BRIEF IN RESPONSE by CITY OF ERIE, PA to Pltf's Motion to strike jury trial demand (mad) (Entered: 03/29/2004)
14 BRIEF by PA HUMAN RELATIONS in support of [10-1] motion to Intervene as a Pltf under Rule 24 by PENNSYLVANIA HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION by PA HUMAN RELATIONS (mad) (Entered: 03/31/2004)
15 REPLY BRIEF by UNITED STATES in support of [8-1] motion to Strike [5-1] demand jury by CITY OF ERIE, PA by UNITED STATES (mad) (Entered: 04/06/2004)
16 Hearing on Motion held before McLaughlin, J. on 4/6/04 re: GRANTED as set forth on the record-- [8-1] motion to Strike [5-1] demand jury by CITY OF ERIE, PA by UNITED STATES [ Reporter: Ron Bench] (mad) (Entered: 04/07/2004)
17 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance for UNITED STATES by Christine M. Roth, Jessica Lieber Smolar (nk) (Entered: 04/09/2004)
18 BRIEF by UNITED STATES in opposition to [10-1] motion to Intervene as a Pltf under Rule 24 by PENNSYLVANIA HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION by PA HUMAN RELATIONS (nk) (Entered: 04/09/2004)
19 TRANSCRIPT for Hearing on Pltf U.S's Motion to strike Jury Trial Demand for date of 4/6/04 before McLaughlin, J. Court Reporter: Ronald J. Bench. (mad) (Entered: 04/19/2004)
20 MOTION by CITY OF ERIE, PA to Amend Case Management Order regarding Expert Witness Report with Proposed Order. (mad) (Entered: 04/29/2004)
ORDER upon motion granting [20-1] motion to Amend Case Management Order regarding Expert Witness Report to May 10, 2004. ( signed by Judge Sean J. McLaughlin on 4/30/04 ) CM all parties of

05/04/2004 05/11/2004
06/17/2004 06/17/2004 06/23/2004
06/23/2004 06/23/2004 06/25/2004 06/30/2004

record. (mad) (Entered: 04/30/2004)
21 Hearing on Motion re: [10-1] motion to Intervene as a Pltf under Rule 24 by PENNSYLVANIA HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION by PA HUMAN RELATIONS set for 10:30 5/11/04 before McLaughlin, J. (mad) (Entered: 05/04/2004)
22 Hearing on Motion held 5/11/04 before McLaughlin, J. re: DENIED WITH PREJUDICE w/right to re-assert once a PHRC order is issued. [10-1] motion to Intervene as a Pltf under Rule 24 by PENNSYLVANIA HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION by PA HUMAN RELATIONS. PHRC permitted to participate Amicus Curai(Friend of the Court)- participation limited to filing of briefs, but not discovery. [ Reporter: Ron Bench] (mad) (Entered: 05/11/2004)
23 MOTION by UNITED STATES to exclude validation study as untimely , or, in the alternative to Modify Discovery schedule with Proposed Order. (mad) (Entered: 06/22/2004)
24 BRIEF by UNITED STATES in support of [23-1] motion to exclude validation study as untimely by UNITED STATES, [23-2] motion to Modify Discovery schedule by UNITED STATES (mad) (Entered: 06/22/2004)
25 ORDER, that the City of Erie file a Brief in Opposition set to 7/13/04 for [23-1] motion to exclude validation study as untimely, set to 7/13/04 for [23-2] motion to Modify Discovery schedule ( signed by Judge Sean J. McLaughlin on 6/23/04 ) CM all parties of record. (mad) (Entered: 06/23/2004)
26 REPLY by CITY OF ERIE, PA to [23-1] motion to exclude validation study as untimely by UNITED STATES (mad) (Entered: 06/23/2004)
27 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance for UNITED STATES by Jessica Lieber Smolar, AUSA and Sharon A. Seeley, US Attorney (mad) (Entered: 06/24/2004)
28 REPLY BRIEF by UNITED STATES in support of [23-1] motion to exclude validation study as untimely by UNITED STATES (mad) (Entered: 06/28/2004)
29 Hearing on Motion held 6/30/04 before McLaughlin, J. re: DENIED IN PART AND GRANTED IN PART [23-1] motion to exclude validation study as untimely by UNITED STATES, [23-2] motion to Modify Discovery schedule by UNITED STATES [ Reporter: Ron Bench] Motion to Exclude Validation Study (Doc. No. 23) is DENIED; Motion to Modify Discovery Schedule - GRANTED. Rport due - 7/15/04; Rebuttal Report 9/1/04; Complete Expert Disc. - 9/15/04. (mad) (Entered: 06/30/2004)

08/05/2004 08/05/2004 08/05/2004 08/05/2004 08/11/2004 08/11/2004 08/13/2004
08/26/2004 08/26/2004 09/03/2004 10/08/2004 10/14/2004
10/22/2004 10/25/2004

30 MOTION by UNITED STATES for Summary Judgment with Proposed Order. (mad) (Entered: 08/06/2004)
31 BRIEF by UNITED STATES in support of [30-1] motion for Summary Judgment by UNITED STATES (mad) (Entered: 08/06/2004)
32 CONCISE STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS by UNITED STATES (mad) (Entered: 08/06/2004)
33 APPENDIX to [32-1] by UNITED STATES (mad) (Entered: 08/06/2004)
34 JOINT MOTION by UNITED STATES, CITY OF ERIE, PA to Extend Time and modified discovery schedule with Proposed Order. (mad) (Entered: 08/13/2004)
35 BRIEF by UNITED STATES, CITY OF ERIE, PA in support of [34-1] joint motion to Extend Time and modified discovery schedule by CITY OF ERIE, PA, UNITED STATES (mad) (Entered: 08/13/2004)
ORDER upon motion granting [34-1] joint motion to Extend Time and modified discovery schedule, City of Erie shall Response to Motion set to 8/27/04 for [30-1] motion for Summary Judgment , United States may file a Reply Brief in Support set to 9/3/04 for [30-1] motion for Summary Judgment , Court will hear oral argument Motion Hearing set for 10:00 10/8/04 for [30-1] motion for Summary Judgment ( signed by Judge Sean J. McLaughlin on 8/13/04 ) CM all parties of record. (mad) (Entered: 08/13/2004)
36 BRIEF by CITY OF ERIE, PA in opposition to [30-1] motion for Summary Judgment by UNITED STATES (nk) (Entered: 08/26/2004)
37 APPENDIX to [36-1] brief in opposition by CITY OF ERIE, PA (nk) (Entered: 08/26/2004)
38 REPLY BRIEF by UNITED STATES in support of [30-1] motion for Summary Judgment by UNITED STATES (mad) (Entered: 09/09/2004)
39 AFFIDAVIT by Paul O. Davis PH.D. (nk) (Entered: 10/08/2004)
40 Hearing on Motion held 10/8/04 10:00 a.m. before McLaughlin, J. re: DENIED for reasons set forth on the record [30-1] motion for Summary Judgment by UNITED STATES [ Reporter: Ferguson & Holdnack] (mad) (Entered: 10/15/2004)
41 TRANSCRIPT of Hearing for date of 10/8/04 before McLaughlin, J. Court Reporter: Sondra A. Black. (mad) (Entered: 10/25/2004)
42 RESPONSE by CITY OF ERIE, PA to Pltf's Motion to Compel or

10/25/2004 10/26/2004 10/26/2004
10/26/2004 10/26/2004 11/01/2004 11/03/2004 11/03/2004 11/09/2004 11/09/2004
11/10/2004

Strike Expert Testimony regarding New York Police Study (mad) (Entered: 10/25/2004)
43 MOTION by UNITED STATES to Compel , to Strike Testimony Regarding The New York City Police Department Study with Proposed Order. (mad) Modified on 10/26/2004 (Entered: 10/26/2004)
44 BRIEF by UNITED STATES in support of [43-1] motion to Compel by UNITED STATES, [43-2] motion to Strike Testimony Regarding The New York City Police Department Study by UNITED STATES (mad) (Entered: 10/26/2004)
45 Hearing on Motion held 10/26/04 @ 1:35 p.m. before McLaughlin, J. re: [43-1] GRANTED--- motion to Compel by UNITED STATES [ Reporter: R. Bench] Non-Jury Trial set for 2/28/05 at 9:00 a.m. Proposed Findings of fact and Conclusions of due 2/21/05 (mad) (Entered: 10/26/2004)
Deadline updated; set Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law deadline for 2/23/04 , set Non-Jury Trial for 9:00 2/28/05 (mad) (Entered: 10/26/2004)
46 NOTICE Non-Jury Trial set for 9:00 2/28/05 before McLaughlin, J. (mad) (Entered: 10/27/2004)
47 TRANSCRIPT of MOTION TO COMPEL for date of 10/26/04. Court Reporter: Ron Bench. (nk) (Entered: 11/01/2004)
48 MOTION by CITY OF ERIE, PA for Protective Order regarding RAW DATA of New York City Police Study with Proposed Order. (mad) (Entered: 11/03/2004)
49 BRIEF by CITY OF ERIE, PA in support of [48-1] motion for Protective Order regarding RAW DATA of New York City Police Study by CITY OF ERIE, PA (mad) (Entered: 11/03/2004)
50 RESPONSE by UNITED STATES in opposition to [48-1] motion for Protective Order regarding RAW DATA of New York City Police Study by CITY OF ERIE, PA (mad) (Entered: 11/09/2004)
51 Hearing on Motion held 11/9/04 @ 11:45 a.m. before McLaughlin, J. re: [48-1] DENIED (for reasons stated on the record.) motion for Protective Order regarding RAW DATA of New York City Police Study by CITY OF ERIE, PA [ Reporter: Ron Bench] Any reference to New York Study will be excised from Deft's Expert's Report. (mad) (Entered: 11/10/2004)
52 DECLARATION by UNITED STATES Bernard R. Siskin, Ph.D and Leonard A. Cupingood, Ph.D, Expert Witnesses, in support of the Re: [50-1] opposition response by UNITED STATES (mad) (Entered:

12/02/2004 12/09/2004 12/13/2004 01/31/2005 01/31/2005 02/01/2005 02/01/2005 02/01/2005 02/02/2005
02/07/2005
02/10/2005

11/12/2004)
53 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance for CITY OF ERIE, PA by Kenneth A. Zak (mad) (Entered: 12/02/2004)
54 JOINT MOTION by UNITED STATES, CITY OF ERIE, PA to Extend Time to file expert Rebuttal Reports with Proposed Order. (mad) (Entered: 12/10/2004)
ORDER upon motion granting [54-1] joint motion to Extend Time to file expert Rebuttal Reports to 12/30/04. ( signed by Judge Sean J. McLaughlin on 12/13/04 ) CM all parties of record. (mad) (Entered: 12/14/2004)
56 JOINT MOTION by UNITED STATES, CITY OF ERIE, PA for Pretrial Schedule with Proposed Order. (mad) (Entered: 02/01/2005)
57 BRIEF by UNITED STATES, CITY OF ERIE, PA in support of [56-1] joint motion for Pretrial Schedule by CITY OF ERIE, PA, UNITED STATES (mad) (Entered: 02/01/2005)
55 PRETRIAL STATEMENT by CITY OF ERIE, PA (sdp) (Entered: 02/01/2005)
58 MOTION by UNITED STATES to exclude Testimony Pursuant to F.R.Evid. 702 with Proposed Order. (mad) (Entered: 02/02/2005)
59 BRIEF by UNITED STATES in support of [58-1] motion to exclude Testimony Pursuant to F.R.Evid. 702 by UNITED STATES (mad) (Entered: 02/02/2005)
ORDER upon motion granting [56-1] joint motion for Pretrial Schedule, set Pretrial Order Deadlines: Pretrial Statements for (as functional Plaintiffs) City of Erie due 1/31/05 ; Pretrial Statements for (as functional Defendants) United States due 2/14/05 ; Pretrial Conference set for 9:00 2/25/05 ; Motion Filing deadline due 2/14/05 ; Response to motions due 2/23/05 ; ( signed by Judge Sean J. McLaughlin on 2/2/05 ) CM all parties of record. (mad) (Entered: 02/03/2005)
60 Status Conference held 2/4/05 @ 11:35 a.m. before Judge Sean J. McLaughlin [ Reporter: Ron Bench ] City to respond to USA's Dauberl motion w/in 10 days Trial moved to March 7, 2005. Pretrial conference remains scheduled for 2/25/05 @ 9:00 a.m. Pretrial Memorand & proposed finding of fact and conclusinons of law may be filed by 2/23/05. (mad) (Entered: 02/07/2005)
61 Stipulation by UNITED STATES, CITY OF ERIE, PA with proposed order. (mad) (Entered: 02/10/2005)

02/12/2005 02/14/2005
02/14/2005 02/14/2005 02/14/2005 02/15/2005 02/23/2005 02/23/2005 02/23/2005
02/23/2005 02/23/2005 02/23/2005 02/28/2005
03/01/2005
03/02/2005
03/07/2005

62 Status Conference held 2/11/05 before Judge Sean J. McLaughlin [ Reporter: Ron Bench ] (mad) (Entered: 02/12/2005)
63 RESPONSE by CITY OF ERIE, PA to [58-1] motion to exclude Testimony Pursuant to F.R.Evid. 702 by UNITED STATES (mad) (Entered: 02/14/2005)
64 PRETRIAL STATEMENT by UNITED STATES (mad) (Entered: 02/15/2005)
65 MOTION by UNITED STATES in Limine with Proposed Order. (mad) (Entered: 02/15/2005)
66 BRIEF by UNITED STATES in support of [65-1] motion in Limine by UNITED STATES (mad) (Entered: 02/15/2005)
67 EXPERT REPORT by UNITED STATES (sdp) (Entered: 02/16/2005)
68 Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law by CITY OF ERIE, PA (mad) (Entered: 02/23/2005)
69 TRIAL BRIEF by CITY OF ERIE, PA (mad) (Entered: 02/23/2005)
70 REPLY BRIEF by UNITED STATES in support of [58-1] motion to exclude Testimony Pursuant to F.R.Evid. 702 by UNITED STATES (mad) (Entered: 02/24/2005)
71 OBJECTIONS to Deft, CITY OF ERIE'S Proposed Trial Exhibits and Witnesses by UNITED STATES (mad) (Entered: 02/24/2005)
72 TRIAL BRIEF by UNITED STATES (mad) (Entered: 02/24/2005)
73 Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law by UNITED STATES (mad) (Entered: 02/24/2005)
74 Pre-Trial Conference held 2/25/05 before Judge Sean J. McLaughlin [ Reporter: Ron Bench ] Pltf's Motion (Doc. 58-1) to exclude testimony Pursuant to F.R.Evid. 702 is DENIED w/o Prejudice and Pltf's Motion (Doc. 65-1) in limine is DENIED w/o prjudice as set forth on the record. (mad) (Entered: 02/28/2005)
75 DEPOSITION of Barber, Benge, Bowers, Dahlstrand, Davis DeDionisio, Emerick, Fetterman, Filippi, Ford, Haller, Hines, Kemling, Kovacs, Kress, Kuhn, Mangan, Nowkeji, Putnam, Raszkowski, Szocki, Szoszorek, Tempestini (mad) (Entered: 03/01/2005)
76 TRANSCRIPT PRETRIAL MOTIONS & PRETRIAL CONFERENCE for date of 2/25/05 before McLaughlin, J. Court Reporter: Ronald J. Bench. (mad) (Entered: 03/02/2005)
Non-Jury Trial begins 3/7/05. Continued to 3/8/05 before Judge Sean J.

03/08/2005 03/09/2005 03/10/2005
05/24/2005 05/24/2005 05/24/2005 05/24/2005 06/10/2005 06/30/2005 06/30/2005 06/30/2005 12/13/2005 12/13/2005 12/15/2005

McLaughlin (mad) (Entered: 03/14/2005)
Non-Jury Trial continued to 3/9/05 before Judge Sean J. McLaughlin (mad) (Entered: 03/14/2005)
Non-Jury Trial continued to 3/10/05 before Judge Sean J. McLaughlin (mad) (Entered: 03/14/2005)
77 Non-Jury Trial before McLaughlin concluded 3/10/05 . Court Reporter: Ron Bench. Upon receipt of the trial transcript, Deft has 20 days in which to submit supplemental Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law. Pltf has 20 days thereafter in which to submit its own supplemental proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. (mad) (Entered: 03/14/2005)
78 TRANSCRIPT of Non-Jury Day No. 1 before McLaughlin, J. for date of 3/7/05. Court Reporter: Ronald J. Bench. (mad) (Entered: 05/24/2005)
79 TRANSCRIPT of Non-Jury Trial - Day No. 2 for date of 3/8/05 befor McLaughlin, J. Court Reporter: Ronald J. Bench. (mad) (Entered: 05/24/2005)
80 TRANSCRIPT of Non-Jury Trial - Day No. 3 for date of 3/9/05 before McLaughlin, J. Court Reporter: Ronald J. Bench. (mad) (Entered: 05/24/2005)
81 TRANSCRIPT of Non - Jury Trial - Day No. 4 for date of 3/10/05 before McLaughlin, J. Court Reporter: Ronald J. Bench. (mad) (Entered: 05/24/2005)
82 POST-TRIAL BRIEF by CITY OF ERIE, PA (mad) (Entered: 06/13/2005)
83 Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law by UNITED STATES. (mad) (Entered: 07/01/2005)
84 Witness and Exhibit List by UNITED STATES.. (mad) (Entered: 07/01/2005)
85 PROPOSED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (mad) (Entered: 07/01/2005)
86 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. Signed by Judge Sean J. McLaughlin on 12/13/05. (kas) (Entered: 12/13/2005)
87 PARTIAL JUDGMENT in favor of Plaintiff against Defendant on the issue of liability. Signed by Judge Sean J. McLaughlin on 12/13/05. (kas) (Entered: 12/13/2005)
88 NOTICE of Hearing: Status Conference set for 1/6/2006 at 1:30 PM in Courtroom C before the Honorable Sean J. McLaughlin. (nk) (Entered:

01/06/2006
01/09/2006 01/10/2006 01/27/2006 01/27/2006 02/10/2006 02/10/2006 02/27/2006 02/27/2006 03/07/2006 03/10/2006

12/15/2005)
Text Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Sean J. McLaughlin : Status Conference held on 1/6/2006. A proposed settlement conference is scheduled for 1/27/06 at 9:00 a.m. Within 10 days Plaintiff will notify Defendant of Settlement proposal. This is a text only entry; no PDF document attached; this is an official Court entry. (Court Reporter Ron Bench.) (nk) (Entered: 01/06/2006)
89 TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference Proceedings held on 1/6/06 before Judge Sean J. McLaughlin. Court Reporter: Ron Bench. Request for Redaction of specific personal identifiers 1/24/2006. (sdp) (Entered: 01/09/2006)
TEXT NOTICE of Hearing: Settlement Conference set for 1/27/2006 at 9:00 AM in Courtroom C before Judge Sean J. McLaughlin. This is a text-only notice; no PDF document attached; this is an Official Court Notice.(nk) (Entered: 01/10/2006)
TEXT NOTICE of Hearing: Settlement Conference set for 2/10/2006 at 9:00 AM in Courtroom C before Judge Sean J. McLaughlin. This is a text-only Notice; no PDF Document attached; this is an Official Court Notice. (nk) (Entered: 01/27/2006)
90 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Sean J. McLaughlin: Settlement Conference held on 1/27/2006. (Court Reporter Janice Ferguson.) (nk) (Entered: 01/27/2006)
Text Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Sean J. McLaughlin : Settlement conference held on 2/10/2006. This is a textonly Minute Entry; no PDF document attached; this is an Official Court Minute Entry. (nk) Modified on 2/10/2006 (nk). (Entered: 02/10/2006)
Errata re Scheduling Conference Reason for Correction: Wrong event selected. (nk) (Entered: 02/10/2006)
91 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by PENNSYLVANIA HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION. (sdp) (Entered: 02/27/2006)
TEXT ORDER granting 91 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Katherine H. Fein terminated. Signed by Judge Sean J. McLaughlin on 2/27/06. This is a text-only Order; no PDF document attached; this is an Official Court Order. (nk) (Entered: 02/27/2006)
92 PROPOSED CONSENT DECREE by CITY OF ERIE, PA. (Villella, Gerald) (Entered: 03/07/2006)
TEXT ORDER re 92 Consent Decree filed by CITY OF ERIE, PA,. Consent Decree is PROVISIONALLY APPROVED subject to teh fairness hearing. This is a text only Order; no PDF document attached;

03/10/2006
04/13/2006 04/26/2006 05/02/2006 05/04/2006
05/04/2006 05/04/2006 05/04/2006 05/04/2006 05/04/2006 05/04/2006 05/04/2006 05/04/2006 05/04/2006 05/04/2006 05/04/2006

this is an Official Court Order. Signed by Judge Sean J. McLaughlin on 3/10/06. (nk) (Entered: 03/10/2006)
93 ORDER re: Consent Decree, Fairness Hearing set for 6/15/2006 at 9:30 AM in Courtroom C before Judge Sean J. McLaughlin. Signed by Judge Sean J. McLaughlin on 3/10/06. (nk) (Entered: 03/10/2006)
94 OBJECTIONS to Entry of the Consent Decree by THOMAS EDWARD BORRELLI. (sdp) (Entered: 04/13/2006)
95 OBJECTIONS to PROPOSED CONSENT DECREE by MARK SANDERS. (sdp) (Entered: 04/26/2006)
96 OBJECTIONS to the Entry of the Consent Decree by ZABRINA THOMPSON. (sdp) (Entered: 05/02/2006)
97 OBJECTIONS to the Entry of the Consent Decree by Police Relief and Pension Association of Erie, Pennsylvania. (Spero, Joseph) (Entered: 05/04/2006)
98 OBJECTIONS to THE ENTRY OF THE CONSENT DECREE by LINDA A. WOLCOTT. (sdp) (Entered: 05/04/2006)
99 OBJECTIONS to THE ENTRY OF THE CONSENT DECREE by GREGORY L. BANEY. (sdp) (Entered: 05/04/2006)
100 OBJECTIONS to THE ENTRY OF THE CONSENT DECREE by JOHN M. BARBER. (sdp) (Entered: 05/04/2006)
101 OBJECTIONS to THE ENTRY OF THE CONSENT DECREE by PAMELA A. BARBER. (sdp) (Entered: 05/04/2006)
102 OBJECTIONS to ENTRY OF THE CONSENT DECREE by ROBERT K. BORLAND. (sdp) (Entered: 05/04/2006)
103 OBJECTIONS to ENTRY OF THE CONSENT DECREE by MICHAEL F. BRADY. (sdp) (Entered: 05/04/2006)
104 OBJECTIONS to THE ENTRY OF THE CONSENT DECREE by MICHAEL BURROWS. (sdp) (Entered: 05/04/2006)
105 OBJECTIONS to THE ENTRY OF THE CONSENT DECREE by JEFF DAHLSTRAND. (sdp) (Entered: 05/04/2006)
106 OBJECTIONS to ENTRY OF CONSENT DECREE by ANTHONY J. DEBACCO. (jd) (Entered: 05/05/2006)
107 OBJECTIONS to ENTRY OF CONSENT DECREE by STEVEN DELUCA. (jd) (Entered: 05/05/2006)
108 OBJECTIONS to ENTRY OF CONSENT DECREE by ADAM

05/04/2006 05/04/2006 05/04/2006 05/04/2006 05/04/2006 05/04/2006 05/04/2006 05/04/2006 05/04/2006 05/04/2006 05/04/2006 05/04/2006 05/04/2006 05/04/2006 05/04/2006 05/04/2006 05/04/2006

DIGILARMO. (jd) (Entered: 05/05/2006)
109 OBJECTIONS to ENTRY OF CONSENT DECREE by DOMINIC DILULLO. (jd) (Entered: 05/05/2006)
110 OBJECTIONS to ENTRY OF CONSENT DECREE by PATRICK DURKIN. (jd) (Entered: 05/05/2006)
111 OBJECTIONS to ENTRY OF CONSENT DECREE by ERIE FOP #7. (jd) (Entered: 05/05/2006)
112 OBJECTIONS to ENTRY OF CONSENT DECREE by THOMAS J. FALCONER. (jd) (Entered: 05/05/2006)
113 OBJECTIONS to ENTRY OF CONSENT DECREE by LES FETTERMAN. (jd) (Entered: 05/05/2006)
114 OBJECTIONS to ENTRY OF CONSENT DECREE by KEVIN C. FRIES. (jd) (Entered: 05/05/2006)
115 OBJECTIONS to ENTRY OF CONSENT DECREE by CHARLES R. FUHRMAN. (jd) (Entered: 05/05/2006)
116 OBJECTIONS to ENTRY OF CONSENT DECREE by DONALD J. FUHRMANN, JR. (jd) (Entered: 05/05/2006)
117 OBJECTIONS to ENTRY OF CONSENT DECREE by DAMYAN GRAVES. (jd) (Entered: 05/05/2006)
118 OBJECTIONS to ENTRY OF CONSENT DECREE by MATTHEW GUSTAFSON. (jd) (Entered: 05/05/2006)
119 OBJECTIONS to ENTRY OF CONSENT DECREE by ROBERT W. HILL. (jd) (Entered: 05/05/2006)
120 OBJECTIONS to ENTRY OF CONSENT DECREE by JOHN B. HOLMES, JR. (jd) (Entered: 05/05/2006)
121 OBJECTIONS to ENTRY OF CONSENT DECREE by DAVID F. HUDSON. (jd) (Entered: 05/05/2006)
122 OBJECTIONS to ENTRY OF CONSENT DECREE by JAMES C. HUNTER. (jd) (Entered: 05/05/2006)
123 OBJECTIONS to ENTRY OF CONSENT DECREE by JULIE A. KEMLING. (jd) (Entered: 05/05/2006)
124 OBJECTIONS to ENTRY OF CONSENT DECREE by KENNETH KENSILL. (jd) (Entered: 05/05/2006)
125 OBJECTIONS to ENTRY OF CONSENT DECREE by SCOTT A. KORNETZ. (jd) (Entered: 05/05/2006)

05/04/2006 05/04/2006 05/04/2006 05/04/2006 05/04/2006 05/04/2006 05/04/2006 05/04/2006 05/04/2006 05/04/2006 05/04/2006 05/04/2006 05/04/2006 05/04/2006 05/04/2006 05/04/2006 05/04/2006 05/04/2006

126 OBJECTIONS to ENTRY OF CONSENT DECREE by BRUCE E. KOSKO. (jd) (Entered: 05/05/2006)
127 OBJECTIONS to ENTRY OF CONSENT DECREE by CHRIS LAWRENCE. (jd) (Entered: 05/08/2006)
128 OBJECTIONS to ENTRY OF CONSENT DECREE by BRYAN C. LECHNER. (jd) (Entered: 05/08/2006)
129 OBJECTIONS to ENTRY OF CONSENT DECREE by JACOB LETKIEWICZ. (jd) (Entered: 05/08/2006)
130 OBJECTIONS to ENTRY OF CONSENT DECREE by MICHAEL R. MANCUSO. (jd) (Entered: 05/08/2006)
131 OBJECTIONS to ENTRY OF CONSENT DECREE by WILLIAM MARUCCI, II. (jd) (Entered: 05/08/2006)
132 OBJECTIONS to ENTRY OF CONSENT DECREE by EARL MATSON. (jd) (Entered: 05/08/2006)
133 OBJECTIONS to ENTRY OF CONSENT DECREE by ROBERT H. MCDONALD, JR. (jd) (Entered: 05/08/2006)
134 OBJECTIONS to ENTRY OF CONSENT DECREE by JAMES D. MCLELLAN. (jd) (Entered: 05/08/2006)
135 OBJECTIONS to ENTRY OF CONSENT DECREE by RYAN ONDERKO. (jd) (Entered: 05/08/2006)
136 OBJECTIONS to ENTRY OF CONSENT DECREE by DENNIS F. OBORSKI. (jd) (Entered: 05/08/2006)
137 OBJECTIONS to ENTRY OF CONSENT DECREE #1 by JAMES PIETRAS. (jd) (Entered: 05/08/2006)
138 OBJECTIONS to ENTRY OF CONSENT DECREE #2 by JAMES PIETRAS. (jd) (Entered: 05/08/2006)
139 OBJECTIONS to ENTRY OF CONSENT DECREE by GLENN A. ROGERS. (jd) (Entered: 05/09/2006)
140 OBJECTIONS to ENTRY OF CONSENT DECREE by JAMIE RUSSO. (jd) (Entered: 05/09/2006)
141 OBJECTIONS to ENTRY OF CONSENT DECREE by MARK J. SENNETT. (jd) (Entered: 05/09/2006)
142 OBJECTIONS to ENTRY OF CONSENT DECREE by DANIEL SPIZARNY. (jd) (Entered: 05/09/2006)
143 OBJECTIONS to ENTRY OF CONSENT DECREE by NICK

05/04/2006 05/04/2006 05/04/2006 05/04/2006 05/04/2006 05/04/2006 05/04/2006 05/04/2006 05/05/2006 05/08/2006 05/08/2006 05/08/2006 06/01/2006

STADLER. (jd) (Entered: 05/09/2006)
144 OBJECTIONS to ENTRY OF CONSENT DECREE by J. TRIANA. (jd) (Entered: 05/09/2006)
145 OBJECTIONS to ENTRY OF CONSENT DECREE by SALVADOR VELEZ. (jd) (Entered: 05/09/2006)
146 OBJECTIONS to ENTRY OF CONSENT DECREE by DAVID P. WALKER. (jd) (Entered: 05/09/2006)
148 OBJECTIONS to ENTRY OF CONSENT DECREE by LUKE J. YATES. (jd) (Entered: 05/09/2006)
149 OBJECTIONS to ENTRY OF CONSENT DECREE by MICHAEL A. WOLF. (jd) (Entered: 05/09/2006)
150 OBJECTIONS to ENTRY OF CONSENT DECREE by THEODORE F. WISNIEWSKI. (jd) (Entered: 05/09/2006)
151 OBJECTIONS to ENTRY OF CONSENT DECREE by JAY E. WHITE. (jd) (Entered: 05/09/2006)
152 OBJECTIONS to ENTRY OF CONSENT DECREE by ROBERT WIERBINSKI. (jd) (Entered: 05/09/2006)
147 OBJECTIONS to ENTRY OF CONSENT DECREE by ROBERT E. WILLIAMS. (jd) (Entered: 05/09/2006)
153 OBJECTIONS to ENTRY OF CONSENT DECREE by MELANIE SZOSZOREK. (jd) (Entered: 05/09/2006)
154 OBJECTIONS to ENTRY OF CONSENT DECREE by ETHEL L. EASTER. (jd) (Entered: 05/09/2006)
155 OBJECTIONS to ENTRY OF CONSENT DECREE by JUDITH GARCIA. (jd) (Entered: 05/09/2006)
156 RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONS TO CONSENT DECREE to 145 Objections To, 134 Objections To, 94 Objections To, 119 Objections To, 99 Objections To, 155 Objections To, 150 Objections To, 97 Objections To, 117 Objections To, 110 Objections To, 151 Objections To, 154 Objections To, 136 Objections To, 127 Objections To, 148 Objections To, 153 Objections To, 142 Objections To, 133 Objections To, 109 Objections To, 107 Objections To, 130 Objections To, 122 Objections To, 98 Objections To, 113 Objections To, 138 Objections To, 106 Objections To, 128 Objections To, 135 Objections To, 141 Objections To, 124 Objections To, 137 Objections To, 112 Objections To, 95 Objections To, 152 Objections To, 120 Objections To, 104 Objections To, 101 Objections To, 139 Objections To, 114 Objections

06/06/2006
06/15/2006 06/15/2006 06/19/2006

To, 118 Objections To, 132 Objections To, 129 Objections To, 103 Objections To, 121 Objections To, 126 Objections To, 147 Objections To, 140 Objections To, 115 Objections To, 149 Objections To, 146 Objections To, 116 Objections To, 96 Objections To, 131 Objections To, 125 Objections To, 123 Objections To, 105 Objections To, 111 Objections To, 144 Objections To, 143 Objections To, 108 Objections To, 100 Objections To, 102 Objections To filed by CITY OF ERIE, PA. (Villella, Gerald) (Entered: 06/01/2006)
157 MEMORANDUM RESPONSE To Objections and In Support of Final Entry of Consent Decree to 145 Objections To, 94 Objections To, 119 Objections To, 155 Objections To, 97 Objections To, 151 Objections To, 154 Objections To, 148 Objections To, 142 Objections To, 133 Objections To, 109 Objections To, 107 Objections To, 122 Objections To, 113 Objections To, 135 Objections To, 141 Objections To, 137 Objections To, 112 Objections To, 95 Objections To, 152 Objections To, 120 Objections To, 101 Objections To, 132 Objections To, 140 Objections To, 115 Objections To, 149 Objections To, 146 Objections To, 116 Objections To, 96 Objections To, 123 Objections To, 111 Objections To, 144 Objections To, 143 Objections To, 108 Objections To, 100 Objections To, 134 Objections To, 99 Objections To, 150 Objections To, 117 Objections To, 110 Objections To, 136 Objections To, 127 Objections To, 153 Objections To, 130 Objections To, 98 Objections To, 106 Objections To, 138 Objections To, 128 Objections To, 124 Objections To, 104 Objections To, 139 Objections To, 114 Objections To, 118 Objections To, 129 Objections To, 103 Objections To, 121 Objections To, 126 Objections To, 147 Objections To, 125 Objections To, 131 Objections To, 105 Objections To, 102 Objections To filed by UNITED STATES. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Part I# 2 Appendix Part II)(Smolar, Jessica) (Entered: 06/06/2006)
158 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Sean J. McLaughlin : Evidentiary Hearing held on 6/15/2006. (Court Reporter Sonya Hoffman.) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit and Witness List# 2 Exhibit 1Easter Exhibit# 3 Exhibit 1-FOP) (nk) Modified on 6/16/2006 (sdp, ). (Entered: 06/15/2006)
TEXT ORDER re 92 Consent Decree filed by CITY OF ERIE, PA, Approved subject to Amendments to Appendix A as set forth on the Record. Signed by Judge Sean J. McLaughlin on 6/15/06. This is a text only Order; no PDF document attached; this is an Official Court Order. (nk) (Entered: 06/15/2006)
159 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on June 15, 2006 before Judge McLaughlin. Court Reporter: Sonya Hoffman. The parties have five (5) business days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript

06/26/2006 09/08/2006 09/08/2006
10/02/2006 10/02/2006
10/05/2006
10/16/2006 10/16/2006

may be made remotely, electronically available to the public without redaction. Any party needing a copy of the transcript to review for redaction purposes may purchase a copy from the court or the court reporter/transcriber. Notice of Intent for Redaction of Personal Data Identifiers due by 7/3/2006. (dm) (Entered: 06/19/2006)
160 OBJECTIONS to the Entry of the Consent Decree by FRANCES BOOTH. (sdp) (Entered: 06/26/2006)
161 MOTION for Hearing (Request for Scheduling of Fairness Hearing on Individual Relief and Submission of Relief Awards List) by UNITED STATES. (Attachments: # 1 Relief Awards List# 2 Attachment 1# 3 Attachment 2# 4 Proposed Order)(Smolar, Jessica) (Entered: 09/08/2006)
162 ORDER granting 161 Motion for Hearing (Request for Scheduling of Fairness Hearing on Individual Relief and Submission of Relief Awards List) filed by UNITED STATES, Fairness Hearing set for 11/20/2006 at 9:00 AM in Courtroom C before Judge Sean J. McLaughlin. Signed by Judge Sean J. McLaughlin on 9/8/06. (nk) (Entered: 09/08/2006)
163 RESPONSE Defendant's First Set of Objections to Relief Awards List to 161 Motion for Hearing, filed by CITY OF ERIE, PA. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3)(Villella, Gerald) (Entered: 10/02/2006)
TEXT NOTICE of TELEPHONIC Status Conference set for 10/5/2006 at 10:30 AM before Judge Sean J. McLaughlin re: Defendant's first set of objections to relief awards list. Attorney Karle will initiate the call with all counsel on the line and call the conference line at 814-4649615. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Court's order or notice on the matter.(nk) Modified on 10/5/2006 (nk). (Entered: 10/02/2006)
Text Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Sean J. McLaughlin : Status Conference held on 10/5/2006. City of Erie to File a Motion to Compel with supporting brief on or before 10/16/06; Brief in Opposition due 7 days upon receipt. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Court's order or notice on the matter. (Court Reporter Ron Bench.) (nk) (Entered: 10/05/2006)
164 MOTION to Compel Production of Documents by CITY OF ERIE, PA. (Attachments: # 1)(Villella, Gerald) (Entered: 10/16/2006)
165 BRIEF in Support re 164 MOTION to Compel Production of Documents filed by CITY OF ERIE, PA. (Villella, Gerald) (Entered: 10/16/2006)

10/16/2006 10/20/2006 10/23/2006 10/23/2006 10/23/2006 11/07/2006 11/08/2006
11/09/2006 11/13/2006 11/14/2006 11/17/2006 11/20/2006

166 OBJECTIONS to 92 Consent Decree by ZABRINA THOMPSON. (sdp) (Entered: 10/16/2006)
167 OBJECTIONS to Individual Relief Awards--Detailed 161 Motion for Hearing, by CITY OF ERIE, PA. (Villella, Gerald) (Entered: 10/20/2006)
168 RESPONSE to Motion re 164 MOTION to Compel Production of Documents filed by UNITED STATES. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment 1)(Smolar, Jessica) (Entered: 10/23/2006)
169 OBJECTIONS to U.S. Determination Regarding Individual Relief to be awarded under the Consent Decree by FATINA GIBBS. (sdp) (Entered: 10/23/2006)
170 OBJECTIONS to U.S. Determination Regarding Individual Relief to be awarded under the Consent Decree by TRELANE BATTLES SHERROD. (sdp) (Entered: 10/23/2006)
171 Unopposed MOTION to Amend/Correct Relief Awards List by UNITED STATES. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order # 2 Corrected Relief Awards List)(Smolar, Jessica) (Entered: 11/07/2006)
172 STIPULATION by UNITED STATES, CITY OF ERIE, PA. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment 1# 2 Attachment 2# 3 Attachment 3# 4 Attachment 4# 5 Attachment 5# 6 Attachment 6# 7 Attachment 7# 8 Attachment 8# 9 Attachment 9)(Smolar, Jessica) (Entered: 11/08/2006)
173 RESPONSE to 170 Objections To, 167 Objections To, 169 Objections To filed by UNITED STATES. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3)(Smolar, Jessica) (Entered: 11/09/2006)
174 ORDER granting 171 Motion to Amend/Correct. Signed by Judge Sean J. McLaughlin on 11/13/06. (nk) (Entered: 11/13/2006)
175 STIPULATION (Second Set of Relief Phase Stipulations) by UNITED STATES, CITY OF ERIE, PA. (Smolar, Jessica) (Entered: 11/14/2006)
176 MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 164 Motion to Compel Production of Documents Regarding Proposed Relief Awards. Signed by Judge Sean J. McLaughlin on 11/17/06. (kas) (Entered: 11/17/2006)
177 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Sean J. McLaughlin : Fairness Hearing held on 11/20/2006. Plaintiff's Oral Motion in Limine to exclude evidence as to various written civil service exams is GRANTED. Objections to Plaintiff's relief determinations are overruled and the relief determinations, as amended will be upheld. Judgment order to follow. (Court Reporter Ron Bench.) (nk) Modified on 11/20/2006 (nk). (Entered: 11/20/2006)

11/20/2006 11/24/2006

178 JUDGMENT in favor of Claimants and against City of Erie in the total amount of $170,000.00 see attached exhibit 1. Signed by Judge Sean J. McLaughlin on 11/20/06. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit- Relief Awards List)(nk) (Entered: 11/20/2006)
179 TRANSCRIPT of Fairness Hearing Proceedings held on 11-20-06 before Judge Sean J. McLaughlin. Court Reporter: Ron Bench. The parties have five (5) business days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely, electronically available to the public without redaction. Any party needing a copy of the transcript to review for redaction purposes may purchase a copy from the court or the court reporter/transcriber. Notice of Intent for Redaction of Personal Data Identifiers due by 12/8/2006. (sdp, ) (Entered: 11/24/2006)