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

2Dub APR - 3 PI: 41

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA,
Defendant.

~: f33 Civil Action No.

tJb C // !

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 seg., 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 Virginia Beach, Virginia, is a municipal government and/or political subdivision created pursuant to the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. 4. Defendant City of Virginia Beach 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 Virginia Beach employs police officers who, among other things, are responsible for protecting individuals and property in the City of Virginia Beach and apprehending persons violating any laws within the City of Virginia Beach.

6. Defendant City of Virginia Beach is responsible for establishing the terms, conditions, and other practices which bear upon the employment of the City's police officers.
7. Since at least 1998, defendant City of Virginia Beach 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 Virginia Beach Police Department.
8. The versions of the POST used by defendant City of Virginia Beach have included three or four components, including a test intended to measure certain mathematics skills ("the mathematics test").
9. Since at least 1998, defendant City of Virginia Beach has allowed an applicant to continue in the City's screening and selection process for the entry-level police officer position only if the applicant passed (i.e., obtained a score of at least 70% on) each of the POST's component tests, including the mathematics test.
10. Between on or about January 1, 2002 and on or about June 30, 2005, approximately 41 % ofthe African-American applicants to whom Virginia Beach administered the POST failed the mathematics test, while approximately 15% of the white applicants who took the mathematics test failed it.
11. Between on or about January 1, 2002 and on or about June 30, 2005, approximately 34% of the Hispanic applicants to whom Virginia Beach administered the POST failed the mathematics test.
12. Defendant City of Virginia Beach's use of the mathematics test in the manner described above has an adverse impact on African-American and Hispanic applicants for the position of entry-level police officer in the Virginia Beach Police Department, and it is not job
2

!
related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity. 13. Defendant City of Virginia Beach has pursued and continues to pursue policies and
practices that discriminate against African-ArUerican and Hispanic applicants and that deprive or tend to deprive African Americans and Hispanics of employment opportunities because of their race and national origin, in violation of Section 707 of Title VIT, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-6. Defendant City of Virginia Beach has implemented these policies and practices, among other ways, as follows:
a. by failing or refusing to hire African-American and Hispanic applicants for the position of entry-level police officer on the same basis as white applicants;
b. by using an employment practice, use of the POST mathematics test with a cutoff score of70% as a pass/fail screening device, that has an adverse impact on African-American and Hispanic applicants for the position of entry-level police officer and that is not job related for the position in question and 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.
14. In accordance with Section 707 of Title VIT 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 Virginia Beach, has notified defendant of the investigation and the policies and practices described in paragraphs 7 through 13, above, and has attempted to resolve this matter through negotiation.
15. The policies and practices of defendant City of Virginia Beach described in paragraphs 7 through 13, above, constitute a pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment
3

by African Americans and Hispanics of their right to equal employment opportunities without discrimination based on race or national origin, 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 vn of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Unless restrained by order of this
Court, defendant City of Virginia Beach will continue to pursue policies and practices that are the same as or similar to those alleged in this Complaint.
16. 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 Virginia Beach, its officers, agents, employees, successors and all persons in active concert or participation with them, from engaging in discriminatory employment practices based on race or national origin, and specifically from:
a. failing or refusing to hire African-American or Hispanic applicants for the entrylevel position of police officer on the same basis as white applicants;
b. using an employment practice, use of the POST mathematics test with a cutoff score of 70% as a pass/fail screening device, that has an adverse impact on African Americans and Hispanics and that is not job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity; and
c. failing or refusing to provide make-whole relief, including back pay with interest, offers of rightful place employment, 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 4

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.
WAN J. KIM Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division
/----,-
By: (~~/d //)z/J//; /) ;~
DAVID J. 'pALMER [VA Bar No. 27802] Chief
KAREN D. WOODARD Deputy Chief
SHARON A. SEELEY HECTORRUIZ 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) 514-4761 Facsimile: (202) 514-1005 CHUCK ROSENBERG
un~ ~~~<-,-4~=.t: a'Lt~:~:::A:::t:At~r_tCe~l ~i~t,.~_
SUSANL. WATT [VA Bar No. 17733] Supervisory Assistant United States Attorney
8000 World Trade Center 101 West Main Street Norfolk, Virginia 23510-1624 Telephone: (757) 441-6331 Fax (757)441-6739
5

 
 ", .. ~. .'.': .

.. . '" ':" ~ ,'.;

. • . ,., ,.... :........ " ..;·.. .. d·,.~,;"· ,.... , ...•'.• \, "'~''''~'-./··-'~''''';.I.J.,·.·,·,.,,, "

' •••'} .>.,' J •

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRlCT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DrSTRlCT OFVIRGlNIA
NORFOLK DIVISION

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERlCA,

)

)

PLAINTIFF,

)

)

v.

)

)

CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA,

)

)

DEFENDANT.

)

--------------------------------- ')

CIVIL ACTION No.

CONSENT DECREE

f~~.F~· C.Et\/ £ .0

mUb I'\D'.nn - "j"l

,,r,

'.\""

11"""1'
11

This action was brought by the United States against the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia

(the "City") to enforce the provisions of Title VIl of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.C.'

§ 2000e et seg., as amended. This Court has jurisdiction ofthe action under 42 U.S.c. § 2000e-6,

28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1345.

In its Complaint, the United States alleges that the City has pursued policies and practices

that discriminate against and deprive or tend to deprive African Americans and Hispanics of

employment opportunities because oftheir race and national origin, in violation of Section 703(a)

, of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). Specifically, the United States alleges that the City'S use of a

mathematics test as a pass/fail scre~ning device in the selection process for the entry-level

position of police officer has had a statistically significant disparate impact against African-

AU1erican and Hispanic applicants. The United States further alleges that the City's use ofthe

mathematics test has not been shown to be job related for the position in question and consistent

with business necessity.

This action alleges disparate impact discrimination. Intent to discriminate is not an

CONSENT DECREE

,." '.. ': .,.,'..• ~" .• ' ,.: .... ; :/ .''',', ..' p' .,' ., .• ~ .." /:.; "~ ,.,' ..,,',,'.
,,0#".

.... ~',.',"'"

~.:. " .;""

element of disparate impact discrimination. The United States does not allege that the City of

Virginia Beach or the Virginia Beach Police Department has intentionally discriminated against

any person or group of persons under Title VIT.

The City denies that it has violated Title VIT. Nevertheless, the United States and the City,

desiring that this action be settled by an appropriate Decree and without the burden of protracted
c
litigation, agree to the jurisdiction of this Court over the parties and the subject matter of this

action. The United States and the City further agree to the entry of this Decree as final and binding

between themselve.s as to the issues raised in the United States' Complaint in this case. Subject to .

the Court's approval of this Decree, the parties waive heariJ:?gs 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 June 2004, the United States began a formal investigation to determine whether

)

the City's employment practices in its Police Department complied with Title VIT.

(b) Since at least 1998, the selection process used by the City inthe screening and

selection of applicants for hire into the position of entry-leyel police officer in its

Police Department has included the administration of a written examination, the

National Police Officer Sele~tion Test ("POST").

(c) The version of the POST used by the City since 2001 consists of three components,

described by Stanard & Associates, Inc. as a reading test; a grammar test and a

mathematics test.

(d) Regardless how well applicants score on the reading and gr?-mmar components of

the POST, the City requires that applicants score at least 70% on the POST

mathematics test in order to be considered for hire as entry-level police officers.

Co"NSENT DECREE

2

.':••.. ;.. - . . . .- ~' ..•. '.,~,,' ... ~ ~., .... , .,...•" , ..:.," ·,_···:.h:,.;..·· .. ~:.-,.- <: •••.~..,.:;., • " :•... < ••~:••,,"'-••, ......."; ,"

:,.' \,
\rj)
\\.~ .........-'"./-

(e) Between 2002 and June 2005, the City administered the POST mathematics test to

approximately 1,800 white applicants and 477 African-American applicants. The

pass rate for African-American applicants was approximately 59%, while the pass

rate for white applicants was approximately 85%.. The disparity between the white

and African-American pass rates is equivalent to approximately 11 units of

standard deviation.
Cf) . Between 2002 and June 2005, the City administered the POST mathematics test to

232 Hispanic applicants.· Approximately 66% of these applicants passed the

mathematics test. The .disparity between the white and Hispanic pass ·rates is

equivalent to approximately 6 units of standard deviation.

In resolution of this action, 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, by the United States Department·

of Justice, and the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia.

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

and benefits 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.

3. "Claimant" refers to any African-American or Hispanic applicant who took the POST used

by the City as part ofthe selection process for entry-level police officers between 2002 and the

date of entry ofthis Decree, received a score ofless than 70% on the mathematics component of

the POST, received a score of at least 70% on each of the other components ofthe POST, received

an overall POST score (calculated as the equally weighted average of the candidate's scores on

CONSENT DECREE

3

the three components ofthe POST) of at least 60% and timely submits a claim fonn indicating that

the applicant is interested 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 following the Fairness Hearing on the Consent Decree described in Section IV of this

Decree.

5. "Days" refers to calendar' days unless business days are clearly specified in the context of

a specific provision ofthis Decree.

6. "Entry-level police officer" refers to the entry-level position in the City's Police

Department even though an individual hired into that position may be called a "recruit" (or other

title) until the individual has completed academy training.

7. "Individual relief" refers to a monetary award in the form of backpay and/or an offer of

priority hire, with retroactive hire date, that a claimant may be offered pursuant to the terms of this

Decree.

8. "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, or ifno such applicant was hired, the earliest date of hire of any individual hired after the

date on which the claimant failed the POST.

9. "Retroactive hire date" refers to the right of a claimant who is hired by the City as a

pliority hire pursuant to the terms ofthis Decree and successfully completes his/her probationary

period to receive 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 priority hire. A

claimant's retroactive hire date shall not be used for purposes of any applicable probationary

periods, time requirements relevant to progression to Master Police .Officer, a requirement of three

CONSENT DECREE

4

\ ...... ," ...... ".. • .••••• '.~' .' .", ......._ ....., t· ... ·•• ••••

years of experience as a patrol officer for eligibility for the specialized assignments listed in Exhibit 1 to this Decree or promotion, but shall be used for all other purposes, inc1:uding without limitation: amount of salary or other pay, pension benefits (to the extent that back contributions to the Virginia Retirement System ("VRS") are allowed by state law and policy and regulation), future accrual of leave, including both vacation and sick leave, layoffs/reductions in work force, and eligibility for retirement. 10. "Title VII" refers to Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.c. § 2000e, et seg., as amended. II. PURPOSES OF THIS DECREE 11. . The purp~ses of this Decree are to ensure that: .
(a) the City does not violate Title VII by using policies and practices that have a disparate impact against African American or Hispanic applicants for the police officer position on the basis ofrace or national origin and are not job related for that position and consistent with bUSIness necessity;
(b) the City does not retaliate against individuals who complain of such policies and practices, who have participated in the investigation or litigation ofthis case, or who seek or are awarded any relief under this Decree; and
(c) .the City provides, as appropriate, monetary relief and/or priority hiring with retroactive hire date to qualified individuals who were denied employment with the City due to the employment practices challenged by the United States in this case.

(

'J

___ 1~T- ~/ , ,

1

,

'.'-..... ..- )

J

.I

CONSENT DECREE

5

'.1, ,-,c'. ".' " '."~~ '" ,. '.' .,;:,,~.', ..... '..., •• , •• ':. "," •• _. ,_ •••• -. • ":,;1.-'; .. ,.: :';:'~. ~ ... ..',:.,.t;•.••..,.. , • .,•••• ,;"'" , .••.••.: ;,., ••••

., "" ". , •. ,.;, .• ' .'_.. ,..". '.''''.~' . '""'., ~:, ; .. ,,··...·c:. '. , .. '." ;,. ".,....

.': ..•..~•• , •. -.' _._ ......, ••.'. ',."

,.,----..,\
) . \~............../
...' ........,..:~..;:

III. GENERAL INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

12. The City, its employees, supervisors, agents and all individuals in active concert or

participation with it, are enjoined from:·

(a) using any policy or practice that has a disparate impact against African-American

or Hispanic applicants for the police officer position on the basis of race or

national origin and are not j ob related for that position and consistent with business

necessity; and

(b) retaliating against or in any way adversely affecting the terms and conditions of

employment of any person because that person has complained of such

discrimination, has participated in the investigation or litig':ltion of this case, or has

sought or been awarded any relief under this Decree.

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 use the POST mathematics test asa

pass/fail screening device, with its own cutoff score, as part of its entry-level police officer

selection process.

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 test ofmathematics skills or

abilities that results in a disparate impact against African-American or Hispanic 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-levelpolice officers, any test of

mathematics skills or'abilities (other than the POST mathematics test in the manner described in

the following Paragraph) without the prior agreement ofthe United States or, absent such

CONSENT DECREE

6

agreement, prior approval of the Court.

15. ' The City may use the POST mathematics test in the selection of entry-level police officers

in the following manner: the City will consider all applicants who score at least 70% on the

reading component .ofthe POST, score at least 70% on the grammar component of the POST and

obtain an overall POST score (calculated as the equally-weighted average of scores on the

mathematics, reading and grammar components ofthe POST) of at least 60%. If the ,City wishes to

use the mathematics component of the POST in any other manner or wishes to use any other written

examination to screen or select entry-level police officers, the City must so notify the United States

not less than ninety (90) days prior to the City's intended use of the test With the notice, the City

must provide: a description ofthe test and the manner in which the City intends to use it; the

known or likely disparate impact, if any, ofthe test; all evidence of job relatedness or validity of

the test available to the City; and any basis for a conclusion that the use of the test in the manner in

which the City intends to 'use it is job related and consistent with business necessity.

16. lfthe United States has not agreed to the City:s use of the test within sixty (60) days after

receipt of notice of the City's intended use of the test and related materials 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 test only if the City establishes by a preponderance ofthe

evidence that its use of the test is job related for the entry-level police officer position and

consistent with business necessity.

17. The City shall designate an individual who shall be responsible for enforcing the

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

the following:

(a) ensuring that the City fully implements and complies with all paragraphs of this

CONSENT DECREE

7

~" ._" ., ".:. ..,,~ ..:.:-,..... :•.. ;~.' ,_ "'._ \'''' ..•.;:.

ro· • . ,. ..' "',,.',', ...•..

)
( )
!..'";~'"
{ \ \,-...-,,'/

Decr~e;

(b) receiving complaints of discrimination on the basis of race or national origin in the

screening, selection and hiring of entry-level police officers in the Virginia Beach

Police Department; and

(c) receiving complaints of retaliation because an individual has complained of such

discrimination, has participated in the investigation or litigation of this case, or has

sought or been awarded any reliefunder this Decree.

IV. FAIRNESS HEARING ON THE CONSENT DECREE

18. Upon execution ofthis 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

on the Consent Decree to allow the Court to detel111ine 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·ofthedate and time set for this Fairness Hearing.

19. The purpose of the Fairness Hearing on the Consent Decree and the related notification

provisions of this Decree is to provide to all individuals who may be affected by the tel111S of the

Decree notice and an opportunity to present objections prior to final entry of the Decree, in

accordance with Section 703(n) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(n).

20. No later than sixty (60) days prior to the Fairness Hearing on the Consent Decree, the City

shall provide a Notice of Settlement and Fairness Hearing, Instructions for Filing an Objection

Prior to the Fairness Hearing, and Objection to the Entry of the Consent Decree form, in the form

set forth in Appendix A, as follows:

(a) via certified U.S. mail to the last known address of each African-American or

Hispanic applicant who took the POST as part of the City's police officer selection

CONSENT DECREE

8

process during or after 2002, received a score of less than 70% on the mathematlcs

component of the POST, received a score of at least 70% on each ofthe other

components of the POST, received an overall POST score (calculated as the

equally-weighted average of scores on the mathematics, reading and grammar

<components of the POST) of at least 60% and was considered by the City to have

failed the POST (each such individual is listed in Appendix B to this Decree),

along with a c.over letter in the form set forth in Appendix C to this Decree;

(b) to all sworn employees in the Virginia Beach Police Department, via hand delivery

at the place of employment of each such individual, as an attachment to each such

individual's regularly distributed pay check information, or as a PDF file sent by e-

mail to an e-mail account maintained by the City for each such individual and to

which the Cityregularly sends employment-related notices; the City will provide a

cover letter in the fonnset,forth in Appendix D to this Decree with the notice,'

instructions and objection form.

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)

ofttis Paragraph, the City shall provide to the United States a list of the individuals to whom

notice is being provided pursuant to subparagraph (b).

21. The City shall <publish notice, in a fornl substantially the same as Appendix E to this

Decree, in the Wednesday, Friday and Sunday editions of the Virginian Pilot and the New York

Daily News. The published notice shall appear with a headline in bold typeface, surrounded by a

dark border, shall be no smaller than 6 inches by 10 inches in size, and shall be placed in the local

CONSENT DECREE

9

· ··f'~"·. ....\ .....

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 six (6) weeks prior to the date set for the Faimess Hearing on the Consent Decree. 22. No later than five (5) 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 served on the United States and the City. V. ENTRY OF THE CONSENT UECREE 23. Ifthe Court determines that the tenns of this Decree are fair, reasonable, equitable and otherwise consistent with federal law, the Court shall enter the Decree at or following the Faimess Hearing on the Consent Decree. VI. INDIVIDUAL RELIEF
A. Deposit of the Settlement Fund 24. Within thirty (30)·days after the date of entry of this Decree at or fo116wingthe Fairness Hearing on the Consent Decree, the City shall deposit the sum of One Hundred Twenty-Eight Thousand Dollars ($128,000) into an account ("Settlement Fund I") in a federally insured financial institution agreed to by the parties. On the same date, the City shall deposit an additional sum of Thirty-two Thousand Dollars ($32,000) into a second account ("Settlement Fund II") at the same financial institution.
B. Monetary Relief Awards from the Settlement Fund 25. The funds in Settlement Fund I, including any·interest that accrues on Settlement FundJ, shall be distributed by the City to African-American claimants entitled to monetary reliefunder this Decree, as provided in Section VU. ofthis Decree. The funds in Settlement Fund II,

CONSENT DECREE

10

·' ,~_~'" "~~'''''' ..._... '. ,~,....,. ~" ., .. _ " ".".,_, . ,,,..:' ."... "" .,: •., _~,_l,.~,-··::, .,.,

. r'. •..•..•

~,: '1...·.'.···_ : •

including any interest that accrues on Settlement Fund n, shall be distributed by the City to

Hispanic claimants entitled to monetary relief under this Decree, as provided in Section VIJ. of

this Decree.

26. The City shall pay all federal, state or local tax.es 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 deduc~ed from Settlement Fund J or Settlement Fund n, the interest that

accrues on either Settlement Fund I or Settlement Fund II or any claimant's monetary relief award.

27. The City shall, to the extentrequired 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 Settlement Fund I for African-American

claimants and from Settlement Fund·n for Hispanic claimants.

C. . Preliminary Eligibility for Individual Relief

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

Americans and Hispanics who:

(a) took t11e POST as part of the City'S selection process for entry-level police officers

during or after 2002; and

(b) received a score below 70% on the mathematics component of the POST; and

(c) received a score of at least 70% 011 each of the other components of the POST; and

(d) received an overall POST score (calculated as the equally weighted average of

scores on the mathematics, reading and grammar components ofthe POST) of at

least 60%; and

CONSENT DECREE

11

\
I

'~~~.-'

\

I.)

.......

(e) were considered by the Ci~y to have failed 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 of monetary relief. 29. Within thirty (30) days after the entry of this Decree by the Court at or following the Faimess Hearing on the Consent Decree, the City shall send a copy of the Notice of Entry of Consent Decree and Interest In ReliefForm, attached to this Decree as Appendix F, by certified U.S. mail to the last known address of each individual preliminarily eligible for relief, as described in the preceding Paragraph.
D.C1aimants to Submit Interest in Relief Form 30. Any claimant who fails to submit a completed and signed Interest in Relief Form to the United States within sixty (60) days after entry ofthe Consent Decree by the Court at or after the Fairness Hearing on the Consent Decree, absenLa.showing of good cause, shall be deemed to have waived any right to be considered for individual relief under this Consent Decree. The determination that a claimant has shown good cause shall be within the sale discretion of the United States.
E. United States to Make Initial Determination of Claimants' Eligibilitv for Individual.Relief
31. Within ninety (90) days after entry of this Decree by the Court at or following the Faimess Hearing on the Consent Decree, the United States shall provide to the City a list that identifies an individuals preliminarily eligible for relief who have submitted an Interest in Relief Form to the United States. The list required by this Paragraph shall indicate the type(s) of relief, .if any, for which the United States has determined e(!.ch such claimant is eligible, each such claimant's

CONSENT DECREE

12

...~,' .... .y..... . ... . "'., ..... ~,,' <•••• : ••

race/national origin and each such claimant's presumptive hire date, as defined in Paragraph 8,

above. P.

City to Evaluate Eligibility for Indjvidual Relief

32. The City may, during the one hundred twenty (120) days following the date on which the

United States provides to the City the list required by the preceding Paragraph of this Decree,

require any claimant the United States deemed eligible for priority hiring relief to appear for and

cooperate in any selection procedure designed to allow the City to evaluate the claimant's

qualifications for the position of entry-level police officer in the City's Police Department, using

. the lawful, objective selection procedures then in use by the City. The City.shall make reasonable

efforts to accommodate claimants in scheduling such selection procedures.

33. No later than two·hundred ten (210) days after entry ofthis Decree by the Court at or

following the Fairness Hearing on the Consent Decre.e, the City shall provide to the United States

. in writing all objections it has to the entitlement of any claimant to monetary and/or hiring relief as

detennined by the United States. Any.such objection shall state all grounds for the City's

yontention that a claimant is not eligible for monetary and!or hiring relief and shall identify all

witnesses' with Imowledgeoffacts supporting the City's contention. On the date on which it

provides to the United States any such objections, the City also shall provide to the United States

copies of all documents relating to the City's objections. In addition, the City shall malce

available for interview or deposition all officials, agents and employe.es ofthe City with

knowledge of facts supporting the City'S objections within fourteen (14) 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 ofthe claimants entitled to relief and the type(s) of

relief to which each claimant is entitled.

CONSENT DECREE

13

.... ,.... ,".' ,-, '

I, .. , ...:..,.,.. ,. '.' :' .... '," ,'.'''.', ",~ •.,.,.'"" , •.,,," ." ':'~,1,'"·' ... , .•... ,;,'" •. " " .! •• ,;:,':~'

.' .. . ....~.'; "." ,. ,:" .' ,"-

.' .....

/
... -''/
)
l,.. ~_/

G. Filing of Relief Awards List

34. Within two hundred seventy (270) days after entry ofthis Decree by the Court at or

following the Fairness Hearing on the Consent Decree, the United States shall file with the Court a .

Relief Awards List stating, for each individual listed in Appendix B to this Decree, whether the

claimant timely returned an Interest in Relieffonn, the claimant's race/national origin, the type(s)

of relief sought by the claimant, the type(s) of relief for which the United States deems the claimant

eligible and the claimant's presumptive hire date. In addition, for each African-American claimant

.

,

the United States deems eligible for monetary relief, the Relief Awards List shall state the share of

Settlement Fund I that the United States has detennined should be awarded to the claimant. For

each Hispanic claimant the United St,ates deems eligible for monetary relief, the Relief Awards

List shall state the share of Settlement Fund II that the United States has determined should be

awarded to the claimant. The United States shall simultaneously serve a copy of the Relief

Awards List on the City.

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

share of the total amount of monetary relief in a manner that is reasonable and equitable in relation

to the claimant population and the total amount of monetary relief available under the Decree from

the appropriate Settlement Fund and that is consistent with the provisions ofthis Decree.

H. Fairness Hearing on Individual Relief

36. Upon filing the Relief Awards List described in Section VI.G. of this Decree, the United

States shal11110ve the Court to hold a Fairness Hearing on Individual Reliefto allow the Court to

detenlline whether the Relief Awards List filed by the United States should be approved or

amended. 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 Relie{

CONSENT DECREE

14

" .-.' "'''. ,.." .,<,. ~

... ~.~. ' •... :;.•.. ,..•. ~'. . . ···.'0 . '_'~I. ,

.", ... " , .. , "·t· .' " ".

'.' ...... ~. ." , ..~ •••....

37. Ifthe City disagrees with the United States' relief determinations as stated in the Relief

Awards List, the City may file obj ections with the Court no later than forty-five (45) days prior to

the date set for the Fairness Hearing on Individual Relief, stating all grounds for each of the City's

objections and ·identifying all documents relating to the City's objections and all witnesses with

knowledge of facts supporting the City's objections. 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 objections within fourteen (14) days after the United States so requests.

38. No later thanforty-five (45) days before the date set for the Fairness Hearing on Individual

Relief, the United States shall send by first-class U.S. mail to each individual listed in Appendix B

to this Decree, addressed to the last known address o~ such individual, a Notice ofFaimess

\1

Hearing on Individual Relief, Instructions for Filing an Objection to Individual Relief and

Objection form, in the form attached as. Appendix I} ~o this Decree,as well as.a letter, in the form

) attached as Appendix H, notifying the individual of the United.States' relief determinations

regarding the individual's eligibili~y for relief under the Decree, the reasons for any determination

that. the individual is ineligible for any form of relief and the individual's proposed share of the

monetary relief.

39. Claimants who object to the United States' proposed relief determinations may file

objections as fcmows:

(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 orany documentation supporting the objections; state

the name and address of the objector's counsel, if any; and state whether the

objector wishes the opportunity to be heard in court at the Fairness Hearing on

CON SENT DECREE

15

.'.•• '. ""'~:. ",or:]. -_.".,.•.•:." ••.••. : - • .' ••,; .. ,' •• -

i

\

'

"-:-j',

i
\""j

Individual Relief.

(b) Objections shall be submitted by filing the original with the Court at the following

address:

Clerk of the United States District Court for the· Eastern District of Virginia
United States Courthouse 600 Granby Street Norfolk, Virginia 23510

(c) Objectors also must mail a copy of any obj,ection to the United States Department of

Justice and the City at the following addresses:

Virginia Beach Police Settlement Team Employment Litigation Section U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division PHB, Room 4024 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW ,Washington, DC 20530

City of Virginia Beach City Attorney Municipal Center, Bldg 1 2401 Courthouse Drive Virginia Beach, VA 23456

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

Fairness Hearing on Individual Relief.

40. 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 other party a reply

to each timely objection.

1. Approval of Final Relief Awards List

41. At or following the Fairness Hearing on Individual Relief, the Court shall determine

which, if any, obj ections to the United States' relief determinations, as stated in the Relief Awards

CONSENT DECREE

16

..,." . . ,. '-''':'':\~''<'_'' I.""· .".' ,··,........i- ......,.-...·.,\~.I:'·.··: ....~". '.,'. -=:.:.~ ••.• '.• ." .• -".......... ' "', ·.'l"'~'·.·.··,·.~,

..-.; '

....... -;;"~",-;

'

., .......

. . .... , .... ~., "" ..:, :- ,,:.. .

".~"

...... ,. -"".....,.' ..:::. '..;

List filed pursuant to Section VIG. ofthis Decree, are well-founded. The Court shall then

approve the Relief Awards List as submitted or, if the Court finds that any objection(s) are well-

founded, shall amend the list to adjust the amount and nature of the relief to be awarded to the

claimants consistent with such finding, while maintaining, to the extent possible, the proportionate

shares of monetary relief awarded to all other claimants. The list approved by the Court will be

the Final Relief Awards List.

42. 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 monetary reli ef to be awarded under this'

Decree .

.43. The Court shall find that any objecti.on, including any objection made by the City, regarding.

)

a claimant's eligibility for priority hiring relief is well-founded only if the objector(s) prove by a

,
preponderance of the evidence that, at the time the claimant failed 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 hiring criteria in use by the City at that time, or is not currently qualified as of the

date of the Fairness Hearing on Individual Relief, using the lawful, objective selection procedures

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 ofthe evidence that the claimant failed to cooperate

in or to appear for the administration of a measure or e;valuation of one of the claimant's

qualifications, as allowed by Paragraph 32 ofthis Decree.

J. Payment of Monetary Relief Awards

44. No later than thirty (30) days after the Court determines, at or following the Fairness

CONSENT DECREE

17

Hearing on Individual Relief, each claimant's eligibility for relief under this Decree, the United

States shall mail by certified U.S. mail notices ofthe 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 ofRelief Award and Release of Claims as described in the following Paragraph of this Decree; and

.(c) any withholding forms provided by the City that it deems necessary to comply with its withholding obligations under law.

45. 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 fonn set forth in Appendix I of this

Decree and return it to the United States no later than thirty (30) .daysafter the United States mails

the notices required by the preceding Paragraph. The date of return to the United States shall be

the date of receipt:by the United States of the executed form. A failure to accept a monetary relief

award and to return the executed Acceptance of. Relief Award and Release of Claims and

witb.holding forms within the time allowed shall constitute a rejection of the offer ofrelief and

shal1 release the United States and the City from any further obligation under this Decree to make a

monetary relief award to that individual.

46. 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 44 of this

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

Release of Claims and withholding forms it receives.

CONSENT DECREE

18

• -._ •..••••,.._~ ..•_'.,\',':"_',.,..,.

_:•• , ....~,- ,:,,": •••• ~ .;...... " "."

. . . ~.""'~""

. - : / . " ...... : .... , .. ~"

...•• , .... • '.J •• ":. • ,,,,, --...••••••." , .. -.•.• , .••

47. If any claimant listed on the Final Relief Awards List rej ects a relief award, the United

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

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

withholding forms, in a mmmer designed to allocate the total amount of monetary relief available

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

shares of the Settlement Fund as stated on the Final Relief Awards List. 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 infornl the City that no amendments are req"\lired)

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

44 of this Decree.

48. No later than forty-five (45) days after the United States provides to the City the amended

Final Relief Awards List or informs the City that nO .amendments are required, the City shall mail a

) monetary relief award check to each claimant listed on the Final Relief Awards List as eligible to

receive a monetary awm'd 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 forthe claimant on the Final Relief Awards List, as amended pursuant to the

preceding Paragraph, less all appropriate taxes and other amounts required to be 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 from any amount of monetary reliefto be paid to any claimant under this

Decree.

49. No later than forty-five (45) 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

CONSENT DECREE

19

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 the preceding

Paragraph, along with a statement indicating the amounts withheld from each such check and the

purpose of each withholding.

50. One hundred twenty (120) days after the City mails the last monetary relief award check

required by Paragraph 48 ofthis Decree, the City shall provide to the United States a list of all

checks that have been returned to the City undeliverable and .of any other checks that have not been

cashed, as well as a statement of the amount of funds remaining in each ofthe Settlement Funds.

Unless the United States determines that the amount ofmonetary relief represented by the returned

checks is de minimis, that amountwill be redistributed as directed by the United States in a manner

consistent with this Decree. Whether the amount of monetary relief represented by the returned

checks is de minimis shall be within the sole d.lscretion of the United States.

K. .Prioritv Hiring with Retroactive Hire Date

51. For purposes ofthe following paragraphs of Section V.K. ofthis Decree: "the First

Academy Class" means the first police academy class attended by Virginia Beach entry-level

police officers beginning at least one hundred twenty (120) days after the Court rules on the

claimants' eligibility for priority hiring relief at or following the Fairness Hearing on Individual

Relief; and "the Second Academy Class" means the second police academy class attended by

Virginia Beach entry.-level police officers beginning at least one hundred twenty (120) days after

the Court rules on the claimants' eligibility for priority hiring relief at or following the Fairness

Hearing on Individual Relief.

52. No later than thirty (30) days prior to the beginning ofthe First Academy Class, the City

... \
',.~ ,.

shall hire as entry-level police officers in the Virginia Beach Police Department a total of at least

CONSENT DECREE

20

six (6) African-American claimants whom the Court has approved as eligible for priority hiring

relief as indicated on the Final Relief Awards List. The employment of an entry-level police

officer hired pursuant to this Paragraph shall begin on the first day of the police academy class

attended by that officer. The City may make more than six priority hires of African-American

claimants pursuant to this Paragraph.

53. No later than thirty (30) days prior to the beginning of the.First Academy Class, the City

shall hire as entry-level polipe officers' in the Virginia Beach Police Department a total of up to

three (3) Hispanic claimants whom the Court has approved as eligible for priority hiring relief as

indicated on the Final Relief Awards List. The employment of entry-level police officers hired

pursuant tothis Paragraph shan begin on the first day ofthe police academy class attended by that

officer.

54. In order to fulfill the priority hiring requirements of Paragraph 52, above, the City shall

extend conditional offers o.f employment in writing to African:"American claimants who are

eligible for priority hiring relief as indicated on the Final Relief Awards List until at least six (6)

African-American priority hires have been made or all such claimants have been hired as priority

hires pursuant to this Decree, have rejected an offer of priority hire, have accepted an offer of

priority hire but failed to appear to begin the police academy on the date scheduled, or have failed

the post-offer medical or psychological examination regularly required of newly-hired Virginia

Beach police officers. Only an offer that results in an African-American claimant eligible for

priority hiring relief attending the police academy as a Virginia Beach entry-level police officer in

the First Academy Class or an earlier academy class will count as a priority hire for purposes of

this Paragraph and Paragraph 52, above.

55. ili order to fulfill the priority hiring requirements of Paragraph 53, above, the City shall

CONSENT DECREE

21

extend conditional offers of employment in writing to Hispanic claimants who are eligible for

priority hiring relief as indicated on the Final Relief Awards until three (3) Hispanic priority

hires have been made or all such c1ain1ants have been hired as priority hires pursuant to this

Decree, have rejected an offer ofpriority hire; have accepted an offer of priority hire but failed to

appear to begin the police academy on the date scheduled, or have failed the post-offer medical or

psychological examination regularly required of newly-hired Virginia Beach police officers. Only

an offer that results in a Hispanic claimant eligible for priority hiring relief attending the police

academy as a Virginia Beach entry-level police officer in the First Academy Class or an earlier

academy class will count as a priority hire for purposes of this Paragraph and Paragraph 53,

above.

56. No later than thirty (30) days after the beginning of the First Academy Class, the City shall

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

Paragraphs 52 and 53 oHhis Decree, the name of each claimant who has accepted such an offer, .

whether or not each claimant who accepted such an offer was actually employed by the City, a

statement of the reason(s) that any claimant to whom an offer of priority hire was made was not

hired, and a statement of the reason(s) the City has determined that any claimant listed as eligible

for priority hiring relief on the Final Relief Awards List was not currently qualified, along with all

available documentation of such reason(s).

57. No later than thirty (30) days prior to the beginning of the Second Academy Class, the City

shall hire as entry-level police officers in the Virginia Beach Police Department a total of up to

twelve (12) African-American claimants whom the Court has approved as eligible for priority

hiring relief as indicated on the Final Relief Awards List. The employment of entry-level police

officers hired pursuant to this Paragraph shall begin on the first day of the police academy class

CONSENT DECREE

22

attended by that officer. .Any claimants hired as priority hires pursuant to Paragraph 52 of this

Decree who attends the police academy as a Virginia Beach entry-level police officer in the First

Academy Class or an earlier academy class shall be counted toward the total number of priority

hires for purposes of the .priority hiring requirement of this Paragraph.

58.. In order to fulfill the priority hiring requirements of Paragraph 57, above, the City shall

extend conditional offers of employment in writing to African-American claimants who are

eligible for priority hiring relief as indicated on the Final Relief Awards List until a total of

twelve (12) African-American priority hires have been made or all such claimants have been hired

as priority hires pursuant to this Decree, have rejected an offer of priority hire, or have failed the

post-offer medical or psychological examination regularly required ofnewly-hired Virginia Beach

police officers. Only an effier that results in anAfrican-.Anlerican claimant eligible for priority

hiring relief attending the Second Academy Class or an earlier police academy class as a Virginia

Beach entry-level police officer will count asa priority hire for purposes of this Paragraph and

Paragraph 57, above.

59. No later than thirty.(30) days after the·beginning of the Second Academy Class, the City

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

Paragraph 57 of this Decree, whether or not each claimant who accepted such an offer was

actually employed by the City, a statement of the reason(s) that any claimant to whom an offer of

priority hire was made pursuant to Paragraph 57 of this Decree was 110t hired, the 11anle and date of

hire of each claimant hired as a priority hire pursuant to Paragraph 57 of this Decree, and a

statement of the reason(s) the City determined that any claimant listed as eligible for priority hiring

relief 011 the Final Relief Awards List was 110t currently qualified, along with all available

documentation of such reason(s).

CONSENT DECREE

23

60. On the date: all which a claimant who was hired as a priority hire under this Decree

completes hislher probationary period, the City shall credit the claimant with a retroactive hire

date 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 47 of this Decree.

61. Any claimant hired as a priority hire pursuant to this Decree Who at the time of hire is

already certified by the Commonwealth ofVirginia as a law enforcement. officer will be given

credit for any experience the claimant may have had as a certified police officer with a department

other than the City's Police Department in accordance with the City's existing policy regarding

certified/experienced officers at the time of hire.

VII. RECORD KEEPING AND COMPLIANCE MONITORING

62. The City shall maintain all of the following records (including those in electronic form):

(a) all applications for entry-level police officer positions in the City's Police

Department;

(b) all docume:o.ts relating to the screeniJ:J,g, evaluation .or selection of applicants for the·

entry-level police officer position;

(c) all records relating to the development andlor validation of any selection practice

or procedure the City uses to screen or select entry-level police officers;

(d) an documents relating to written or verbal complaints made by any person or

organization regarding: (i) discrimination in hiring of entry-level police officers on

the basis of race or national origin; or (ii) retaliation for complaining of or

participating in any proceedings involving a complaint of such discrimination;

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

.priority hire and/or to the employment of claimants hired as priority hires under this

CONSENT DECREE

24

Decree; and (f) all other documents relating to the City's compliance with the requirements ofthis
Decree, including but not limited to documents relating to the payment or award of individual relief to any claimant under this Decree. 63. Except as otherwise provided in this 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 accordance with the preceding Paragraph of this Decree and any additional documents relating to any dispute arising under the Decree. . 64. When possible, all records furnished to the United States shall be provided in computerreadable format. 65. Within thirty (30) days after the United States so requests in writing, the City shall make available for interview by the United States any agent, employee or official of the City who the ) United States :reasonab.ly believes has knowledge of information'necessary to verify the City's compliance with the terms ofthis Decree or to resolve a dispute arising under this Decree. VIII. DISPUTE RESOLUTION 66. The parties shall attempt in good faith to resolve informally any disputes that arise under this Decree. Ifthe parties are unable to resolve the dispute expeditiously, either party may submit the disputed issue to the Court for resolution. IX. DURATION OF DECREE 67. 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 events: (a) the passage ofthirty (30) months from the date of entry of this Decree;

CONSENT DECREE

25

)
('c~./· .
(",.,/i

(b) the fulfillment of all the parties' obl~gations regarding Individual Reliefcontained

in Section VI ofthis Decree, including crediting by the City of retroactive hire date

to claimants hired as priority hires.

X. COSTS AND FEES

68. 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.

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

XI. MISCELLANEOUS

70. 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. .

71. Except as otherwise provided in this Decree, 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

Virginia Beach.Police Settlement Team

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 by the United States to the City

shall be sent to the attention of:

City Attorney City of Virginia Beach Municipal Center, Bldg 1 2401 Courthouse Drive Virginia Beach, VA 23456

CONSENT DECREE

26

It is so ORDERED, this _ _ _ day of _ _ _ _ _ , 2006. UNITED STATES DISTRlCT JUDGE

AGREED AND CONSENTED TO:
For plaintiff United States of America:
WAN J. Kllv1
Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division

DAVID J. ,PALMER [VA Bar No. 27802J

Chief, Employment Litigation Section

vI _ r" , ' / .

./.

~~.l ,

/(,,,/~1 IrGvIvv[','\..

/
v

/I'
(

.

l 'Z-LC);>-,\-_.'''-

JOHN M. GADZICHOWSKI U

Principal Deputy Chief

KAREND. WOODARD

Deputy Chief

SHARON A. SEELEY

HECTORRUIZ

Attorneys

U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Employment Litigation Section-PHB 4500 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, D.C.' 20530 (202) 514-4761 - telephone (202) 514-1105 - facsimile

'For defendant City of Virginia Beach:
LESLIE L. LILLEY [VA Bar No. 18196J City Attorney MARK STILES [VA Bar No. 30683J Deputy City Attorney
Municipal Center, Bldg 1 Virginia Beach, Virginia 23456 (757) 427-8032 - telephone (757) 426-5687 - fl:j.csimUe

CONSENT DECREE

27

 
 CLOSED
U.S. District Court Eastern District of Virginia (Norfolk) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:06-cv-00189-RAJ-FBS

United States of America v. City of Virginia Beach, Virginia Assigned to: District Judge Raymond A. Jackson Referred to: Magistrate Judge F. Bradford Stillman Cause: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Race)

Date Filed: 04/03/2006 Date Terminated: 08/02/2007 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff United States of America

represented by David J. Palmer US Department of Justice Civil Rights Division 950 Pennsylvania Ave NW Patrick Henry Building, Room 4040 Washington, DC 20530 (202) 616-5570 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Hector Federico Ruiz, Jr United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave NW PHB 4034 Washington, DC 20530 **NA* (202) 514-9694 Fax: (202) 514-1005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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
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
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

Defendant City of Virginia Beach, Virginia

represented by Leslie Louis Lilley Office of the City Attorney Municipal Center Virginia Beach, VA 23456 (757) 427-8032 Fax: (757) 426-5687 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Douglas Stiles Office of the City Attorney Municipal Center Virginia Beach, VA 23456 (757) 427-4531 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Interested Party Jose B. Lopez Objection filed 6/8/06
Interested Party Ebony Payne Objection filed 6/16/06
Interested Party Victor M. Rivas Objection filed 6/22/06
Interested Party Kevin O. Frater (Objection filed 7/3/07)
Interested Party Merlin Burchett (Objection filed 7/5/07)
Interested Party James M. Scott (Objection filed 7/9/07)

represented by Jose B. Lopez 6016 Margate Avenue Virginia Beach, VA 23462 757-240-0390 PRO SE
represented by Ebony Payne 2828 W. 28th Street Apt. 10F Brooklyn, NY 11224 718-975-3513 PRO SE
represented by Victor M. Rivas One Marian Court Warwick, NY 10990 845-987-9467 PRO SE
represented by Kevin O. Frater 175 Dupre Ave. Apt. C Norfolk, VA 23503 757-641-4192 PRO SE
represented by Merlin Burchett 400 Clay Rd. Skipwith, VA 23968-1902 434-372-0499 PRO SE
represented by James M. Scott 2061 St. Raymond Ave.

Apt.# ME, Bldg. #58 Bronx, NY 10462 718-664-8984 PRO SE

Date Filed 04/03/2006 04/03/2006
04/03/2006 04/03/2006 04/03/2006 04/03/2006 04/17/2006 04/19/2006
04/19/2006

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT against City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, filed by United States of America.(mwin, ) (Entered: 04/04/2006)

2 JOINT MOTION by United States of America and City of Virginia Beach, Virginia for provisional entry of consent decree and scheduling of fairness hearing. (mwin, ) (Entered: 04/04/2006)

3 Memorandum in Support of [2] MOTION for Settlement, by United States of America, City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, received. (mwin, ) (Entered: 04/04/2006)

4 MOTION for Karen Donnella Woodard to appear Pro hac vice on behalf of the United States of America. (mwin, ) (Entered: 04/05/2006)

5 MOTION for Hector Federico Ruiz, Jr. to appear Pro hac vice on behalf of United States of America. (mwin, ) (Entered: 04/05/2006)

6 MOTION for Sharon Ann Seeley to appear Pro hac vice on behalf of United States of America. (mwin, ) (Entered: 04/05/2006)

7 JOINT MOTION for leave to substitute corrected appendix to consent decree by United States of America, City of Virginia Beach, Virginia. (mwin, ) (Entered: 04/18/2006)

ORDER granting [7] joint Motion to substitute corrected Appendix B to proposed consent decree, by stamped endorsement upon the face of [7] motion. Signed by Judge Raymond A. Jackson on 4/18/06; filed 4/19/06. Copies mailed to counsel 4/18/06. (mwin, ) (Entered: 04/20/2006)

8 ORDER provisionally approving proposed consent decree; setting fairness hearing for 7/24/06, 10:00 a.m., Courtroom #4. Signed by Judge Raymond A. Jackson on 4/18/06; filed 4/19/06. Copies mailed to counsel 4/19/06.(mwin, ) (Entered: 04/20/2006)

04/19/2006 04/19/2006 04/19/2006 04/19/2006 06/08/2006 06/16/2006 06/22/2006 07/14/2006 07/24/2006
07/24/2006 10/18/2006

ORDER granting and endorsed upon [4] Motion for Karen Donnella Woodard to appear Pro hac vice for United States of America. Signed by Judge Raymond A. Jackson on 4/5/06; filed 4/19/06. (mwin, ) (Entered: 04/20/2006)
ORDER granting and endorsed upon [5] Motion for Hector Federico Ruiz, Jr. to appear Pro hac vice for United States of America. Signed by Judge Raymond A. Jackson on 4/5/06; filed 4/19/06. Copies mailed 4/20/06. (mwin, ) (Entered: 04/20/2006)
ORDER granting and endorsed upon [6] Motion for Sharon Ann Seeley to appear Pro hac vice for United States of America . Signed by Judge Raymond A. Jackson on 4/5/06; filed 4/19/06. Copies mailed 4/20/06. (mwin, ) (Entered: 04/20/2006)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Fairness hearing re proposed consent decree set by [8] order for 7/24/2006 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 4 before District Judge Raymond A. Jackson. (mwin, ) (Entered: 04/20/2006)
9 Objection to the entry of the consent decree, filed by Jose B. Lopez. (mwin, ) (Entered: 06/09/2006)
10 Objection to entry of consent decree, filed by Ebony Payne (mwin, ) (Entered: 06/21/2006)
11 Objection to the entry of the consent decree, filed by Victor M. Rivas. (mwin, ) (Entered: 06/23/2006)
12 Memorandum in response to [9] Objection, [11] Objection, [10] Objection, by United States of America, City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, received (mwin, ) (Entered: 07/18/2006)
13 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Raymond A. Jackson : Plaintiff appeared through H. Ruiz, Jr.; K. Woodard; S. Seeley; and S. Watt. Defendant appeared through M. Stiles. Fairness hearing held on 7/24/06. Comments of court. Argued. Court approves consent decree. Consent decree entered & filed in open court held on 7/24/2006. (Court Reporter Sharon Borden, OCR) (glen) (Entered: 07/24/2006)
14 CONSENT DECREE ORDER ent & filed in open court by District Judge Raymond A. Jackson on 07/24/2006. (glen) (Entered: 07/24/2006)
15 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 7/24/06 (Fairness Hearing) before Judge Raymond A. Jackson. Court Reporter: Sharon B. Borden, official court reporter. (mwin, ) (Entered: 10/19/2006)

04/20/2007 04/20/2007 05/02/2007 05/10/2007 05/10/2007 05/31/2007 06/01/2007
06/06/2007 07/03/2007 07/05/2007 07/09/2007

16 MOTION to modify the terms of the [14] Decree and request for scheduling of fairness hearing on individual relief and submission of relief awards list, by United States of America. (mwin, ) (Entered: 04/23/2007)
17 Memorandum in Support of [16] MOTION to modify [14] Order by United States of America, received. (mwin, ) (Entered: 04/23/2007)
18 MOTION and memorandum for leave to substitute corrected relief awards list for the original list attached to [16] motion to modify terms of decree, by United States of America. (mwin, ) (Entered: 05/04/2007)
19 Letter RESPONSE to [18] MOTION for leave to substitute corrected relief awards list and to [16] MOTION to modify terms of decree, filed by City of Virginia Beach, Virginia. (mwin, ) (Entered: 05/10/2007)
[18] MOTION for leave to substitute corrected relief awards list and [16] MOTION to modify terms of decree REFERRED to Judge Jackson. (mwin, ) (Entered: 05/10/2007)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Fairness Hearing set for 7/31/2007 10:00 AM in N Courtroom 4 before District Judge Raymond A. Jackson. (glen) (Entered: 05/31/2007)
20 ORDER granting [16] Motion to modify terms of decree; modifying Paragraph 35 of Consent Decree as outlined; scheduling fairness hearing on individual relief 7/31/07, 10:00 a.m. Signed by Judge Raymond A. Jackson and filed on 6/1/07. Copies to counsel (and to three pro se parties) 6/1/07. (mwin, ) (Entered: 06/05/2007)
21 ORDER granting [18] Motion for leave to substitute corrected awards list nunc pro tunc 6/1/07. Signed by Judge Raymond A. Jackson and filed on 6/6/07. (mwin, ) (Entered: 06/07/2007)
22 Objection to United States' determination regarding individual relief to be awarded under consent decree, filed by Kevin O. Frater. (mwin, ) (Entered: 07/05/2007)
23 Objection to United States' determination regarding individual relief to be awarded under consent decree, filed by Merlin Burchett, postmarked 7/2/07. (mwin, ) (Entered: 07/06/2007)
24 Objection to United States' determination regarding individual relief to be awarded under consent decree, filed by James M. Scott, postmarked June 30, 2007. (mwin, ) (Entered:

07/26/2007 07/26/2007 07/26/2007 07/26/2007
07/31/2007
08/02/2007

07/11/2007)
25 Response to claimants' [24] Objection, [22] Objection, [23] Objection filed by City of Virginia Beach, Virginia. (mwin, ) (Entered: 07/26/2007)
AFFIDAVIT of David G. Squires, attached to and in support of [25] Response to Claimants' objections, filed by City of Virginia Beach, Virginia. (mwin, ) (Entered: 07/26/2007)
26 SEALED Response to [22] Objection, [23] Objection, [24] Objection, by United States of America; filed UNDER SEAL pursuant to E-Government Act. (mwin, ) (Entered: 07/27/2007)
27 REDACTED version of Response to [22] Objection, [23] Objection, [24] Objection, filed by United States of America, with attached DECLARATION of Hector Ruiz and DECLARATION of Danielle Pruden(mwin, ) Modified on 7/27/2007 to add Pruden declaration (mwin, ). (Entered: 07/27/2007)
28 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Raymond A. Jackson : Plaintiff appeared through Hector F. Ruiz, Jr., Karen D. Woodard and Susan Watt, AUSA. Defendants appeared through Mark D. Stiles. Came on for a Fairness Hearing on 7/31/07. Argued. Court took matter under advisement, and will prepare an order. (Court Reporter Sharon Borden, OCR) (glen) (Entered: 07/31/2007)
29 MEMORANDUM ORDER overruling objections to entry of Consent Decree; entering [14] Consent Decree as a final resolution of all claims asserted by the United States against the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia. Signed by Judge Raymond A. Jackson and filed on 8/2/07. Copies to counsel of record and pro se interested parties/objectors 8/2/07. ob(mwin, ) (Entered: 08/02/2007)