Case 1:78-cv-00388-RLY-WTL Document 76-2 Filed 07/30/2007 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

UNITED STATES, Plaintiff,
v. CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, et al,
Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) 1:78-CV-0388-RLY-WTL ) ) ) )

ORDER ON JOINT MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE Upon consideration of the parties' Joint Motion to Consolidate pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42 and Local Rule 42.2, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that said motion is GRANTED. United States v. City of Indianapolis, et al, 1:78-CV-0388-RLY-WTL shall be consolidated with Lawrence Wheeler v. City of Indianapolis, 1:05-CV-1220-LJM-JMS and United States v. City of Indianapolis, 1:07-CV-897-DFH-WTL and shall proceed under cause number 1:78-CV-388.-RLY-WTL. The clerk of the court shall close 1:05-CV-1220-LJMJMS and 1:07-cv-897-DFH-WTL.

SO ORDERED this 31st day of July

, 2007.

RICHARD L. YOUNG U_N__IT__E_D__S_T_A_T__E_S_D__I_S_T_R_I_C_T__J_U_D__G_E_
RICHARD L. YOUNG, JUDGE United States District Court Southern District of Indiana

BDDB01 4835712v1

Case 1:78-cv-00388-RLY-WTL Document 76-2 Filed 07/30/2007 Page 2 of 2

Copy to:
David J. Palmer david.palmer@usdoj.gov Jodi B. Danis jodi.danis@usdoj.gov Reid Alan Cox reid.cox@usdoj.gov Andrew G. Braniff andrew.braniff@usdoj.gov John Cunningham john.cunningham4@usdoj.gov U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Employee Litigation Section
Myra C. Selby myra.selby@icemiller.com Ice Miller, LLP
Nathaniel Lee nlee@nleelaw.com Lee, Cossell, Kuehn & Love, LLP
Kobi M. Wright kwright@indygov.org James B. Osborn josborn@indygov.org Alison Chestovich achestov@indygov.org Office of Corporation Counsel

A. Scott Chinn scott.chinn@bakerd.com Anne K. Ricchiuto anne.ricchiuto@bakerd.com Baker & Daniels LLP
John C. Ruckelshaus jcr@rucklaw.com John F. Kautzman jfk@rucklaw.com Ruckelshaus, Kautzman, Blackwell, Bemis & Hasbrook

BDDB01 4835712v1

- 2 -

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

)

Plaintiff, and

)

)

SCOTT A. HESSONG, BENJAMIN D. )

HUNTER, BRANDON C. LASER,

)

BRENT E. HENDRICKS, BRENT D.

)

MILLER, DANIEL R. GREEN, THOMAS )

I. BLACK, and ROBERT M. McCLARY, )

)

)

Plaintiff-Intervenors

)

)

v.

)

)

CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, JERRY

)

BARKER, MICHAEL T. SPEARS, JAMES )

WYATT, JAMES RENO, EDWARD

)

DELLANEY, MARY MAXWELL,

)

CORDELIA LEWIS BURKS, and JOSEPH )

SMITH,

)

)

Defendants.

)

1:78-cv-388 RLY-WTL
(Consolidated with 1:07-cv-897 DFH-WTL and 1:05-cv-1220 LJM-JMS)

INTERVENORS’ COMPLAINT Scott A. Hesong, Benjamin D. Hunter, Thomas I. Black, Brent D. Miller, Brent E. Hendricks, Brandon C. Laser, and Robert M. McClary, by counsel, respectfully make their Intervenors’ Complaint for Damages.

Nature of Case 1. Plaintiff-Intervenors seek to vindicate rights guaranteed by Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 and by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that Defendants violated by discriminating against them on the basis of their race and sex.
Jurisdiction 2. Plaintiff-Intervenors bring this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C § 1983 to vindicate
their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. to vindicate their statutory civil rights. 3. This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over the federal questions presented pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 1343. 4. Venue is proper in the Indianapolis Division because the Defendants reside in this division and the events complained of occurred in this division. 5. Plaintiff-Intervenors timely filed charges of discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). 6. This action was timely commenced by the United States of America following issuance of the EEOC’s referral of the charges to the U.S. Department of Justice.
Parties 7. Plaintiff United States of America (“Plaintiff USA”) is authorized to bring this
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f). 8. The City of Indianapolis is a government unit located in Marion County, Indiana. 9. Scott A. Hessong is an adult citizen of the United States residing in Marion
County, Indiana. 10. Benjamin D. Hunter is an adult citizen of the United States residing in Marion
County, Indiana.
2

11. Brandon C. Laser is an adult citizen of the United States residing in Marion County, Indiana.
12. Brent E. Hendricks is an adult citizen of the United States residing in Marion County, Indiana.
13. Brent D. Miller is an adult citizen of the United States residing in Marion County, Indiana.
14. Daniel R. Green is an adult citizen of the United States residing in Marion County, Indiana.
15. Thomas I. Black is an adult citizen of the United States residing in Marion County, Indiana.
16. Robert M. McClary is an adult citizen of the United States residing in Marion County, Indiana.
17. Jerry Barker is an adult citizen of the United States residing in Marion County, Indiana. He is sued individually and in his official capacity as Chief of the Indianapolis Police Department and an official of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department.
18. Michael Spears is an adult citizen of the United States residing in Marion County, Indiana. He is sued individually and in his official capacity as Chief of the Indianapolis Police Department and an official of the if the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department.
19. James O. Wyatt is an adult citizen of the United States residing in Marion County, Indiana. He is sued individually and in his official capacity as Assistant Chief of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department.
3

20. James Reno is an adult citizen of the United States residing in Marion County, Indiana. He is sued individually and in his official capacity as Deputy Chief of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department.
21. Debbie Barnett is an adult citizen of the United States residing in Marion County, Indiana. She is sued individually and in her official capacity as a member of the Civilian Police Merit Board.
22. Cordelia Lewis Burks is an adult citizen of the United States residing in Marion County, Indiana. She is sued individually and in her official capacity as a member of the Civilian Police Merit Board.
23. Edward Dellaney is an adult citizen of the United States residing in Marion County, Indiana. He is sued individually and in her official capacity as a member of the Civilian Police Merit Board.
24. Joseph Smith is an adult citizen of the United States residing in Marion County, Indiana. He is sued individually and in her official capacity as a member of the Civilian Police Merit Board.
Factual Allegations 25. The City of Indianapolis maintains a police department, commonly known as the
Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department (“IMPD”), which Indianapolis Rev. Code § 279-102(b) designates as the successor-in-interest of the former Indianapolis Police Department (“IPD”). 26. Defendant City is responsible for establishing the terms and conditions for the employment and promotion of sworn officers of IMPD and the former IPD.
4

27. Defendant City has maintained and currently maintains a competitive promotions process whereby applicants for promotion to the merit ranks of Sergeant and Lieutenant of its police force are screened, ranked, and selected.
28. On January 20, 2005 the City promoted fifteen (15) patrol officers to the rank of Sergeant, including a white female ranked 33rd, three (3) black females ranked 25th, 35th, and 50th, and a black male ranked 55th on the eligibility list then in effect for the merit rank of Sergeant. Each of the other ten (10) patrol officers promoted to Sergeant on January 20, 2005 ranked among the top fifteen (15) places on the eligibility list for Sergeant.
29. On August 24, 2005 the City promoted two (2) patrol officers to the rank of Sergeant from the same eligibility list that was used on January 20, 2005. On September 15, 2005 the City promoted three (3) patrol officers the rank of Sergeant from the same eligibility list that was used on January 20 and August 24, 2005. On Decempber 15, 2005 the City promoted six (6) patrol officers to the rank of Sergeant from the same eligibility list that was used on January 20, August 24, and September 15, 2005. The promotions to Sergent that were made on August 24, September 15, and December 15 were made in the rank order of the candidates who remained on the eligibility list at those times.
30. On January 20, 2005 the City promoted eleven (11) sergeants to the rank of Lieutenant, including a white female ranked 16th and a black male ranked 21st on the eligibility list. Each of the other nine (9) sergeants promoted to the merit rank of Lieutenant on January 20, 2005 ranked among the top eleven (11) places on the eligibility list then in effect for Lieutenant.
5

31. On December 15, 2005 the City promoted one (1) sergeant to the rank of Lieutenant from the same eligibility list that was used on January 20, 2005. The promotion to the rank of Lieutenant that was made on December 15, 2005 was made in the rank order of the candidates who remained on the eligibility list at that time.
32. The City has discriminated against Scott A. Hessong, Benjamin D. Hunter, Brandon C. Laser, Brent E. Hendricks, Brent D. Miller, and Daniel R. Green on the basis of their sex (male) and race (white) in violation of section 703(a) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by refusing to timely promote them to the rank of Sergeant on the basis of their sex and race and by refusing to remedy the effects of such discriminatory treatment.
33. The City has discriminated against Robert M. McClary and Thomas I. Black on the basis of their sex (male) and race (white) in violation of section 703(a) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by refusing to timely promote them to the rank of Lieutenant on the basis of their sex and race and by refusing to remedy the effects of such discriminatory treatment.
34. Defendants Jerry Barker, Michael Spears, Sonny Wyatt, and James Reno expressly directed that less qualified black and female candidates be promoted over Plaintiff-Intervenors who were ranked higher on their respective eligibility lists.
6

35. As members of the Civilian Police Merit Board, Cordelia Lewis Burks, Edward Dellaney, Mary Maxwell, and Joseph Smith approved the promotions of black or female officers ahead of higher-ranked white male candidates.
36. At all relevant times Defendants acted under color of Indiana law. 37. The individual Defendants formulated, and the Defendant City maintains, a policy
or practice discrimination against white males in favor of black and female officers in promotions to Sergeant and Lieutenant. 38. Plaintiff-Intervenors have been damaged by Defendants’ policy of race and sex discrimination through the loss of pay, reputation, professional opportunities and experience, collegiality with fellow officers, and consortium with family members, and have suffered stress and emotional distress.
7

Relief 39. Plaintiff-Intervenors seek all relief allowable by law, including back pay, front
pay, injunctive relief, attorney’s fees, and compensatory and punitive damages.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff-Intervenors pray that the Court will enter judgment against Defendants and in favor of Plaintiffs, and grant Plaintiffs all just and proper relief.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Jeffrey S. McQuary, 16791-49
BROWN TOMPKINS LORY
608 E. Market Street Indianapolis, IN 46202 317/631-6866 Attorney for Plaintiff-Intervenors
8

 
 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF..., 2007 WL 2677863...
2007 WL 2677863 (S.D.Ind.) (Trial Pleading) United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, Defendant.
No. 1:07-cv-0897-DFH-WTL. July 11, 2007.
Complaint
Wan J. Kim, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, David J. Palmer [DC Bar No. 417834], Chief, John M. Gadzichowski [WI Bar No. 1014294], Principal Deputy Chief, Jodi B. Danis [DC Bar No. 453493], Deputy Chief.
Reid Alan Cox [TN Bar No. 021438], Andrew G. Braniff [IN Bar No. 23430-71], John P. Cunningham [VA Bar No. 43973], Trial Attorneys, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Employment Litigation Section, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Patrick Henry Building, Fourth Floor, Washington, DC 20530, Telephone: (202) 514-3831, Facsimile: (202) 514-1005, Attorneys for plaintiff United States of America.
Plaintiff United States of America (“United States”) 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, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.
2. This Court has jurisdiction of this action under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f), 28 U.S.C. § 1345 and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
3. Defendant City of Indianapolis (“City”) is a consolidated city and political subdivision created pursuant to the laws of the State of Indiana.
4. Defendant City 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 maintains a police department, the Metropolitan Law Enforcement Agency a/k/a the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department (“IMPD”), which Section 279-102(b) of the Revised Code of the Consolidated City and County designates as the legal successor-in-interest to the former Indianapolis Police Department (“IPD”), and employs police officers who, among other things, are responsible for law enforcement, including protecting individuals and property.
6. Defendant City is responsible for establishing the terms, conditions and other practices which bear upon the employment and promotion of police officers in the IMPD, and formerly the IPD.
7. Defendant City has maintained and continues to maintain competitive promotions processes by which applicants for promotion and appointment to the merit ranks of Sergeant and Lieutenant in the IMPD, and formerly the IPD, are screened, ranked and selected.
Defendant City’s Promotion to the Merit Rank of Sergeant of Lower Ranked Black and/or Female Candidates over Higher Ranked White Male Candidates
Promotions to Sergeant Made by Defendant City in 2005
8. On January 20, 2005, defendant City promoted fifteen (15) patrol officers to the merit rank of Sergeant, including a white
1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF..., 2007 WL 2677863...
female ranked 33rd, three (3) black females ranked 27th, 35th, and 50th, and a black male ranked 55th on the eligibility list then in effect for such promotions. Each of the other ten (10) patrol officers promoted to the merit rank of Sergeant on January 20, 2005 ranked among the top fifteen (15) places on the eligibility list then in effect for such promotions.
9. On August 24, 2005, defendant City promoted two (2) patrol officers to the merit rank of Sergeant from the same eligibility list that was used on January 20, 2005. On September 15, 2005, defendant City promoted three (3) patrol officers to the merit rank of Sergeant from the same eligibility list that was used on January 20 and August 24, 2005. On December 15, 2005, defendant City promoted six (6) patrol officers to the merit rank of Sergeant from the same eligibility list that was used on January 20, August 24 and September 15, 2005. The promotions to the merit rank of Sergeant that were made on August 24, September 15 and December 15, 2005 were made in the rank order of the candidates who remained on the eligibility list at those times.
10. Defendant City has discriminated against Scott A. Hessong, Benjamin D. Hunter, Brandon C. Laser, Brent E. Hendricks, Brent D. Miller, Daniel R. Green and similarly situated individuals presently and/or formerly employed as patrol officers in the IMPD and/or the former IPD on the basis of their race (white) and/or sex (male), in violation of Section 703(a) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a), among other ways by: a. failing or refusing to promote or timely promote such individuals to the merit rank of Sergeant on the basis of their race and/or sex; and
b. failing or refusing to take appropriate action to remedy the effects of the discriminatory treatment.
Determinations by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
11. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) received timely charges of discrimination filed by Scott A. Hessong (Charge No. 240-2005-7908), Benjamin D. Hunter (Charge No. 240-2005-7910), Brandon C. Laser (Charge No. 240-2006-0830), Brent E. Hendricks (Charge No. 240-2006-1618), Brent D. Miller (Charge No. 470-2006-4140) and Daniel R. Green (Charge No. 470-2006-4141), in which these Charging Parties alleged, inter alia, that (i) they were not promoted to the merit rank of Sergeant; (ii) other lower ranking black and/or female candidates were promoted to the merit rank of Sergeant; and (iii) in failing to promote the higher ranking white male candidates, defendant City discriminated against them because of their race and/or sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.
12. In accordance with Section 706 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5, the EEOC investigated the charges of discrimination filed by Scott A. Hessong, Benjamin D. Hunter, Brandon C. Laser, Brent E. Hendricks, Brent D. Miller and Daniel R. Green, and found reasonable cause to believe that defendant City violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, with respect to the Charging Parties and all those similarly situated. The EEOC attempted unsuccessfully to achieve a voluntary resolution of the charges through conciliation, and subsequently referred the matters to the United States Department of Justice.
Defendant City’s Promotion to the Merit Rank of Lieutenant of Lower Ranked Female Candidates over Higher Ranked Male Candidates
Promotions to Lieutenant Made by Defendant City in 2005
13. On January 20, 2005, defendant City promoted eleven (11) sergeants to the merit rank of Lieutenant, including a white female ranked 16th and a black male ranked 21st on the eligibility list. Each of the other nine (9) sergeants promoted to the merit rank of Lieutenant on January 20, 2005 ranked among the top eleven (11) places on the eligibility list then in effect for such promotions.
14. On December 15, 2005, defendant City promoted one (1) sergeant to the merit rank of Lieutenant from the same eligibility list that was used on January 20, 2005. The promotion to the merit rank of Lieutenant that was made on December 15, 2005 was made in the rank order of the candidates who remained on the eligibility list at that time.
15. Defendant has discriminated against Robert M. McClary, Thomas I. Black and similarly situated individuals presently 2

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF..., 2007 WL 2677863...
and/or formerly employed as sergeants in the IMPD and/or the former IPD on the basis of their sex (male), in violation of Section 703(a) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a), among other ways by: a. failing or refusing to promote or timely promote such individuals to the merit rank of Lieutenant on the basis of their sex; and
b. failing or refusing to take appropriate action to remedy the effects of the discriminatory treatment.
Determinations by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
16. The EEOC received timely charges of discrimination filed by Robert M. McClary (Charge No. 240-2006-0807) and Thomas I. Black (Charge No. 240-2006-0145), in which these Charging Parties alleged, inter alia, that (i) they were not promoted to the merit rank of Lieutenant; (ii) other lower ranking female candidates were promoted to the merit rank of Lieutenant; and (iii) in failing to promote the higher ranking male candidates, defendant City discriminated against them because of their sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.
17. In accordance with Section 706 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5, the EEOC investigated the charges of discrimination filed by Robert M. McClary and Thomas I. Black, and found reasonable cause to believe that defendant City violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, with respect to the Charging Parties and all those similarly situated. The EEOC attempted unsuccessfully to achieve a voluntary resolution of the charges through conciliation, and subsequently referred the matters to the United States Department of Justice.
18. All conditions precedent to the filing of this suit have been performed or have occurred. WHEREFORE, plaintiff United States prays that the Court grant the following relief: Enjoin defendant City from failing or refusing to:
a. provide remedial relief sufficient to make whole Charging Parties Scott A. Hessong, Benjamin D. Hunter, Brandon C. Laser, Brent E. Hendricks, Brent D. Miller, Daniel R. Green and all other similarly situated individuals, and Charging Parties Robert M. McClary, Thomas I. Black and all other similarly situated individuals for the losses they have suffered as a result of the discrimination against them as alleged in this Complaint; and
b. take other appropriate nondiscriminatory measures to overcome and remedy the effects of the discrimination.
Enjoin defendant City from engaging in race and sex discrimination in promoting police officers in the IMPD.
Award such additional relief as justice may require, together with plaintiff United States’ costs, fees and disbursements in this action.
<<signature>>
WAN J. KIM
Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
<<signature>>
DAVID J. PALMER [DC Bar No. 417834]
Chief
JOHN M. GADZICHOWSKI [WI Bar No. 1014294]
Principal Deputy Chief 3

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF..., 2007 WL 2677863... JODI B. DANIS [DC Bar No. 453493] Deputy Chief <<signature>> REID ALAN COX [TN Bar No. 021438] ANDREW G. BRANIFF [IN Bar No. 23430-71] JOHN P. CUNNINGHAM [VA Bar No. 43973] Trial Attorneys U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Employment Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Patrick Henry Building, Fourth Floor Washington, DC 20530 Telephone: (202) 514-3831 Facsimile: (202) 514-1005 Attorneys for plaintiff United States of America
4

 
 Case 1:07-cv-00897-SEB-TAB Document 30 Filed 02/12/09 Page 1 of 32 PageID #: 663

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

UNITED STATES, Plaintiff,
v. CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS,
Defendant.

No. 1:07-CV-897-DFH-WTL
Consolidated with No. 1:78-CV-388-RLY-WGH & No. 1:05-CV-1220-LJM-JMS

CONSENT DECREE IN RESOLUTION OF SUIT This action was brought by the United States against the City of Indianapolis, Indiana (the “City”), to enforce the provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. This Court has jurisdiction of the action under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5, 28 U.S.C. § 1345 and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. In this litigation, the United States alleges that the City violated Title VII by discriminating in promotions made in its Police Department on the basis of race and/or sex. The City denies that it violated Title VII, and, in agreeing to the entry of this Consent Decree, does not admit to discrimination in any form. The City maintains that it has been and remains committed to equal employment opportunity, including the promotion of qualified officers in the Police Department. As demonstration of its commitment to equal employment opportunity, the City notes its long history of compliance with and satisfaction of a pair of Consent Decrees and an Addendum concerning hiring and promotion of blacks and the hiring of women in both the City’s Police and Fire Departments. However, in order to avoid the risk, cost and distraction of

Case 1:07-cv-00897-SEB-TAB Document 30 Filed 02/12/09 Page 2 of 32 PageID #: 664
further litigation, and to resolve additional claims of discrimination that have arisen in the wake of this litigation, the City agrees and consents to the entry of this Consent Decree to resolve the matters addressed herein.
BACKGROUND Nearly thirty years ago, the United States and the City agreed and consented to, and the Court approved and entered in 1978, 1979, and 1981, respectively, two Consent Decrees and an Addendum concerning the hiring and promotion of black and the hiring of women police officers and firefighters in the City’s Police and Fire Departments. By 2005, the City had fully complied with the goals and purposes of those consent agreements. In related litigation that is being resolved separately, the United States and the City have agreed that those Consent Decrees and Addendum have served their purpose and are no longer necessary because of the City’s demonstrated history of compliance and achievement in satisfying the goals and purposes of those consent agreements. The City has maintained throughout the litigation, and continues to maintain, that it is committed to equal employment opportunity, including in its Police Department, and that diversity is important. In 2005 and 2006, eight (8) police officers in the City’s Police Department filed charges of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the “EEOC”), alleging that the City discriminated against them based on their race (white) and/or sex (male) in delaying or denying their promotions to the merit ranks of Sergeant and Lieutenant in 2005. In answering the charges, the City denied discriminating against the police officers. After investigating the charges, the EEOC issued determinations in June, August and September 2006, concluding there was reasonable cause to believe that the City had
2

Case 1:07-cv-00897-SEB-TAB Document 30 Filed 02/12/09 Page 3 of 32 PageID #: 665
discriminated against the charging parties and similarly situated police officers in violation of Title VII. With respect to the six (6) charges filed by police officers who had sought promotions to the merit rank of Sergeant, the EEOC’s determinations found cause on the basis of both race and sex. And, with respect to the two (2) charges filed by police officers who had sought promotions to the merit rank of Lieutenant, the EEOC’s determinations found cause on the basis of sex alone. The EEOC then referred these cause determinations to the Department of Justice pursuant to Section 706 of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5, after conciliation efforts failed.
The Department of Justice received the EEOC charge referrals in August and September 2006, and initiated a supplemental investigation concerning the allegations. In late December 2006, the Department of Justice learned that the City also had made promotions to the merit rank of Captain earlier that month, and that similar allegations were being made with respect to those promotions. As a result, and because its supplemental investigation was ongoing, the Department of Justice added these allegations with respect to the merit rank of Captain to those it was already investigating with respect to the merit ranks of Sergeant and Lieutenant based on the EEOC referrals. Based on the supplemental investigation, which included interviewing numerous witnesses and reviewing substantial personnel information, the Department of Justice concluded that the City had violated Title VII, by discriminating based on race and/or sex in making Police Department promotions to the merit ranks of Sergeant and Lieutenant in 2005, and to the merit rank of Captain in 2006. Later, in March 2008, during the pendency of this action, the United States learned of further similar allegations of discrimination concerning promotions made by the City to the merit ranks of Sergeant and Lieutenant in the Police Department from new eligibility lists. The United States, once again, investigated the allegations
3

Case 1:07-cv-00897-SEB-TAB Document 30 Filed 02/12/09 Page 4 of 32 PageID #: 666
because they were related and this action was ongoing, and the City defended the promotions by offering defenses against any potential Title VII claims and maintaining that it did not discriminate in any form. The EEOC has not made any cause determination with respect to the 2008 allegations, but, based on its review, the United States concluded that these promotions also violated Title VII.
The United States filed its Complaint pursuant to Section 706 of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5, on July 11, 2007, alleging discrimination against eight (8) named police officers who had sought promotions in 2005, as well as two classes of similarly situated individuals. On September 10, 2007, the City filed its Answer, in which the City admitted certain facts, but continued to deny that it had violated Title VII in any form. The City also raised a number of affirmative defenses to the United States’ claims, including that its promotions practices complied with the consent agreements entered in 1978 and 1979.
On October 22, 2007, the EEOC issued determinations on the three (3) charges of discrimination filed by police officers who sought promotions to the merit rank of Captain in the Police Department. The EEOC concluded there was reasonable cause to believe that the City had discriminated against the charging parties in violation of Title VII on the basis of their race (white). The EEOC then referred these cause determinations to the Department of Justice pursuant to Section 706 of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5, after conciliation efforts failed.
In this litigation, therefore, the United States alleges that the City violated Title VII by discriminating in promotions in its Police Department on the basis of race and/or sex. The City continues to deny that it violated Title VII, and, in agreeing to the entry of this Consent Decree, does not admit to discrimination in any form. Rather, the City enters into this Consent Decree in
4

Case 1:07-cv-00897-SEB-TAB Document 30 Filed 02/12/09 Page 5 of 32 PageID #: 667
an effort to avoid the cost and distraction of further litigation and to resolve these matters. Thus, the United States and the City, desiring that this action and the above-referenced
allegations be settled by an appropriate Consent Decree, without the burden and risks of further protracted and contested litigation, agree to the jurisdiction of this Court over the parties and the subject-matter of this action and the above-referenced claims and allegations. Subject to the Court’s approval of this Decree, the parties waive hearings and findings of fact and conclusions of law, and further agree to the entry of this Decree as 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, as to all issues raised in the United States’ Complaint in this case.
In resolution of this action, the United States and the City hereby AGREE to, and the Court APPROVES, ENTERS and ORDERS, the following: I. DEFINITIONS AND PARTIES
1. The parties to this Decree are the United States, by the Department of Justice, and the City of Indianapolis, Indiana.
2. “Backpay” refers to a monetary award that represents some or all of the wages that a Claimant would have earned up to the date of final approval and entry of this Decree if the Claimant had been, or had been earlier, promoted.
3. The “City” refers to the City of Indianapolis, Indiana, which is a consolidated city and political subdivision created pursuant to the laws of the State of Indiana.
4. “Claimant” refers to an individual who satisfies the eligibility requirements for individual remedial relief pursuant to Paragraph 15, infra, and who is identified in Paragraph 17,
5

Case 1:07-cv-00897-SEB-TAB Document 30 Filed 02/12/09 Page 6 of 32 PageID #: 668
infra. 5. “Date of final approval and entry” of the Decree refers to the date on which the
Court orders the entry of this Decree. 6. “Day” or “days” refers to calendar, not business, days. 7. “Frontpay” refers to a monetary award that represents some or all of the wages
that a Claimant would have earned from the date of final approval and entry of this Decree up to the date the Claimant is promoted pursuant to Paragraph 22, infra.
8. “Individual remedial relief ” refers to any promotion, backpay, frontpay and/or retroactive seniority that may be provided pursuant to this Decree to Claimants who, as a result of the City’s alleged race- and/or sex-based promotional practices, were not promoted or not timely promoted to the merit rank in the Police Department that they sought (i.e., Sergeant, Lieutenant or Captain).
9. The “Police Department” refers to the Metropolitan Law Enforcement Agency, a/k/a the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department, and the former Indianapolis Police Department, through which the City employs, or employed, police officers. Section 279-102(c) of the Revised Code of the Consolidated City and County designated the Metropolitan Law Enforcement Agency, a/k/a the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department, as the legal successor-in-interest to the former Indianapolis Police Department.
10. “Retroactive seniority” refers to a seniority award that represents some or all of the seniority that a Claimant would have earned for the promotion sought if the Claimant had been, or had been earlier, promoted. All retroactive seniority awarded pursuant to this Decree is seniority for all purposes, including, but not limited to, any time-in-service requirements for
6

Case 1:07-cv-00897-SEB-TAB Document 30 Filed 02/12/09 Page 7 of 32 PageID #: 669
eligibility for promotion, as well as for pension benefits. 11. “Title VII” refers to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42
U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. II. PURPOSES OF THIS DECREE
12. The purposes of this Decree are to ensure that: (a) the City makes promotions in the Police Department consistent with Title
VII, and free of discrimination on the basis of race or sex; and (b) the City provides remedial relief, including, as appropriate, promotions,
backpay, frontpay and retroactive seniority, to those individuals whose promotions in the Police Department were allegedly delayed or denied on the basis of their race and/or sex, as referenced in this Decree. III. GENERAL INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 13. The City, its agents, officials, supervisors, employees and successors, and all persons acting on their behalf or in active concert or participation with them, are enjoined from:
(a) engaging in or agreeing to any act or practice that discriminates on the basis of race or sex, in violation of Title VII, with respect to promotions in the Police Department; and
(b) retaliating against, or in any way adversely affecting the terms and conditions of employment of, any person because that person has engaged in practices protected under Title VII, see, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a), including, but not limited to, cooperating with the United States’ investigation of the City and the Police Department, participating in the litigation of this case or seeking or receiving individual remedial
7

Case 1:07-cv-00897-SEB-TAB Document 30 Filed 02/12/09 Page 8 of 32 PageID #: 670
relief pursuant to this Decree. IV. INDIVIDUAL REMEDIAL RELIEF
14. This Decree provides specific individual remedial relief to Claimants, including, as appropriate, promotions, backpay, frontpay and retroactive seniority.
15. The Claimants who are eligible for individual remedial relief pursuant to this Decree are those:
(a) who sought and were qualified for promotion to the merit ranks of Sergeant and Lieutenant in the Police Department in 2005 and 2008, and the merit rank of Captain in the Police Department in 2006, as defined by the respective eligibility lists that were certified and from which promotions were made in those years; and
(b) whose promotions were allegedly delayed or denied on the basis of their race and/or sex at those relevant times. 16. Although the parties disagree as to whether the facts stated below constitute unlawful employment practices under Title VII, the parties agree that the facts stated below are accurate:
(a) With respect to promotions to the merit rank of Sergeant in the Police Department in 2005:
(1) On January 20, 2005, the City promoted fifteen (15) police officers to the merit rank of Sergeant, including a white female, three (3) black females and a black male who all ranked lower than 26th on the eligibility list then in effect for such promotions. Each of the other ten (10) police officers promoted to the merit rank of Sergeant on January 20, 2005, ranked among the top fifteen (15)
8

Case 1:07-cv-00897-SEB-TAB Document 30 Filed 02/12/09 Page 9 of 32 PageID #: 671
places on the eligibility list then in effect for such promotions. (2) On August 24, 2005, the City promoted two (2) police officers to
the merit rank of Sergeant from the same eligibility list that was used on January 20, 2005. On September 15, 2005, the City promoted three (3) police officers to the merit rank of Sergeant from the same eligibility list that was used on January 20 and August 24, 2005. On December 15, 2005, the City promoted six (6) police officers to the merit rank of Sergeant from the same eligibility list that was used on January 20, August 24 and September 15, 2005. The promotions to the merit rank of Sergeant that were made on August 24, September 15 and December 15, 2005, were made in the rank order of the candidates who remained on the eligibility list at those times.
(3) Thus, in 2005, the City promoted a total of twenty-six (26) police officers to the merit rank of Sergeant in the Police Department from the eligibility list, including five (5) black and/or female police officers who were promoted out of rank order on January 20, 2005.
(4) The United States alleges and, solely for the purposes of this Decree, the City does not contest that, as a result of the City’s promotions of black and/or female police officers ranked lower than 26th on the eligibility list to the merit rank of Sergeant in 2005, the promotions of the following individuals, who ranked higher on the eligibility list, were delayed: (i) Mark E. Fagan, who ranked 9th on the eligibility list; (ii) Brian D. Churchill, who ranked 10th on the eligibility list; (iii) Scott A. Hessong, who ranked 12th on the eligibility list; (iv)
9

Case 1:07-cv-00897-SEB-TAB Document 30 Filed 02/12/09 Page 10 of 32 PageID #: 672
Benjamin D. Hunter, who ranked 13th on the eligibility list; (v) Richard P. Riddle, who ranked 14th on the eligibility list; (vi) Edward A. Bruce, who ranked 16th on the eligibility list; (vii) Joseph S. Sherron, who ranked 17th on the eligibility list; (viii) Christopher L. Bailey, who ranked 18th on the eligibility list; (ix) Brandon C. Laser, who ranked 19th on the eligibility list; (x) Lawrence A. Wheeler, who ranked 20th on the eligibility list; and (xi) Daniel R. Green, who ranked 24th on the eligibility list.
(5) The United States also alleges and, solely for the purposes of this Decree, the City also does not contest that, as a result of the City’s promotions of black and/or female police officers ranked lower than 26th on the eligibility list to the merit rank of Sergeant in 2005, the promotions of the following individuals, who ranked higher on the eligibility list, were denied, and these individuals have not since been promoted: (i) Brent E. Hendricks, who ranked 22nd on the eligibility list; (ii) Brent D. Miller, who ranked 23rd on the eligibility list; (iii) Jeffrey G. Smith, who ranked 25th on the eligibility list; and (iv) Roger T. Suesz, who ranked 26th on the eligibility list.
(6) On March 5, 2008, after the establishment of a new eligibility list, the City promoted nine (9) police officers to the merit rank of Sergeant, including a white female and a black male who both ranked lower than 9th on that new eligibility list then in effect for such promotions. With the exception of one (1) police officer (white male) whom the City represents was promoted to the merit rank of Sergeant to fulfill a statutory provision for the promotion of former
10

Case 1:07-cv-00897-SEB-TAB Document 30 Filed 02/12/09 Page 11 of 32 PageID #: 673
Marion County Sheriff’s Department personnel who had been merged into the Police Department and who ranked 17th on the eligibility list, each of the other six (6) police officers promoted to the merit rank of Sergeant on March 5, 2008, ranked among the top nine (9) places on the new eligibility list then in effect for such promotions.
(7) Thus, from January 1 through April 11, 2008, the City promoted a total of nine (9) police officers to the merit rank of Sergeant in the Police Department from the newly established eligibility list, including a white female and a black male police officer who were both promoted out of rank order on March 5, 2008.
(8) The United States alleges and, solely for the purposes of this Decree, the City does not contest that, as a result of the City’s promotions of black and/or female police officers ranked lower than 9th on the newly established eligibility list to the merit rank of Sergeant in 2008, the promotions of the following individuals, who ranked higher on the eligibility list, were denied, and these individuals have not since been promoted: (i) Jeffrey Augustinovicz, who ranked 7th on the eligibility list; and (ii) Jonathan R. Baker, who ranked 8th on the eligibility list. (b) With respect to promotions to the merit rank of Lieutenant in the Police Department in 2005:
(1) On January 20, 2005, the City promoted eleven (11) police officers to the merit rank of Lieutenant, including a white female and a black male who
11

Case 1:07-cv-00897-SEB-TAB Document 30 Filed 02/12/09 Page 12 of 32 PageID #: 674
both ranked lower than 12th on the eligibility list then in effect for such promotions. Each of the other nine (9) police officers promoted to the merit rank of Lieutenant on January 20, 2005, ranked among the top eleven (11) places on the eligibility list then in effect for such promotions.
(2) On December 15, 2005, the City promoted one (1) police officer to the merit rank of Lieutenant from the same eligibility list that was used on January 20, 2005. The promotion to the merit rank of Lieutenant that was made on December 15, 2005, was made in the rank order of the candidates who remained on the eligibility list at that time.
(3) Thus, in 2005, the City promoted a total of twelve (12) police officers to the merit rank of Lieutenant in the Police Department from the eligibility list, including a female police officer who was promoted out of rank order on January 20, 2005.
(4) The United States alleges and, solely for the purposes of this Decree, the City does not contest that, as a result of the City’s promotion of a female police officer ranked lower than 12th on the eligibility list to the merit rank of Lieutenant in 2005, the promotions of the following individuals, who ranked higher on the eligibility list, were delayed: (i) Robert M. McClary, who ranked 9th on the eligibility list; and (ii) Thomas I. Black, who ranked 10th on the eligibility list.
(5) On March 5, 2008, after the establishment of a new eligibility list, the City promoted nine (9) police officers to the merit rank of Lieutenant,
12

Case 1:07-cv-00897-SEB-TAB Document 30 Filed 02/12/09 Page 13 of 32 PageID #: 675
including a black female who ranked lower than 9th on that new eligibility list then in effect for such promotions. Each of the other eight (8) police officers promoted to the merit rank of Lieutenant on March 5, 2008, ranked among the top nine (9) places on the new eligibility list then in effect for such promotions.
(6) On April 2, 2008, the City promoted three (3) police officers to the merit rank of Lieutenant from the same eligibility list that was used on March 5, 2008. The promotions to the merit rank of Lieutenant that were made on April 2, 2008, were made in the rank order of the candidates who remained on the eligibility list at that time.
(7) Thus, from January 1 through April 11, 2008, the City promoted a total of twelve (12) police officers to the merit rank of Lieutenant in the Police Department from the newly established eligibility list, including a total of nine (9) promotions on March 5, 2008, which included a black female police officer who was promoted out of rank order on March 5, 2008.
(8) The United States alleges and, solely for the purposes of this Decree, the City does not contest that, as a result of the City’s promotion of a black female police officer ranked lower than 9th on the newly established eligibility list to the merit rank of Sergeant on March 5, 2008, the promotion of the following individual, who ranked higher on the eligibility list, was delayed: (i) Thomas J. Kern, who ranked 8th on the eligibility list. (c) With respect to promotions to the merit rank of Captain in the thenmerging Police Department in 2006:
13

Case 1:07-cv-00897-SEB-TAB Document 30 Filed 02/12/09 Page 14 of 32 PageID #: 676
(1) On December 19, 2006, the City promoted eleven (11) police officers in the then-merging Police Department to the merit rank of Captain, including three (3) black males who all ranked lower than 11th on the eligibility list then in effect for such promotions. With the exception of one (1) police officer (white male) whom the City represents was promoted to the merit rank of Captain in order to fulfill a specialized and required need and who ranked 13th on the eligibility list, each of the other seven (7) police officers promoted to the merit rank of Captain on December 19, 2006, ranked among the top eleven (11) places on the eligibility list then in effect for such promotions.
(2) Thus, in 2006, the City promoted a total of eleven (11) police officers to the merit rank of Captain in the then-merging Police Department from the eligibility list, including three (3) black police officers who were promoted out of rank order on December 19, 2006.
(3) The United States alleges and, solely for the purposes of this Decree, the City does not contest that, as a result of the City’s promotion of black police officers ranked lower than 11th on the eligibility list to the merit rank of Captain in 2006, the promotions of the following individuals, who ranked higher on the eligibility list, were delayed: (i) David E. Hensley, who ranked 8th on the eligibility list; (ii) Joseph W. Finch, who ranked 9th on the eligibility list; and (iii) Peter W. Mungovan, who ranked 10th on the eligibility list. 17. Although the City maintains that it did not violate Title VII and denies that it discriminated in any form, the parties agree that the individuals identified below are the
14

Case 1:07-cv-00897-SEB-TAB Document 30 Filed 02/12/09 Page 15 of 32 PageID #: 677
Claimants who are eligible, see Paragraph 15, supra, for individual remedial relief provided pursuant to this Decree, and further agree that each Claimant identified below remains, subject to the release requirement of Paragraph 30, infra, qualified for and eligible to receive any and all individual remedial relief provided pursuant to this Decree:
(a) Mark E. Fagan, individual remedial relief for his allegedly delayed promotion to the merit rank of Sergeant;
(b) Brian D. Churchill, individual remedial relief for his allegedly delayed promotion to the merit rank of Sergeant;
(c) Scott A. Hessong, individual remedial relief for his allegedly delayed promotion to the merit rank of Sergeant;
(d) Benjamin D. Hunter, individual remedial relief for his allegedly delayed promotion to the merit rank of Sergeant;
(e) Richard P. Riddle, individual remedial relief for his allegedly delayed promotion to the merit rank of Sergeant;
(f) Edward A. Bruce, individual remedial relief for his allegedly delayed promotion to the merit rank of Sergeant;
(g) Joseph S. Sherron, individual remedial relief for his allegedly delayed promotion to the merit rank of Sergeant;
(h) Christopher L. Bailey, individual remedial relief for his allegedly delayed promotion to the merit rank of Sergeant;
(i) Brandon C. Laser, individual remedial relief for his allegedly delayed promotion to the merit rank of Sergeant;
15

Case 1:07-cv-00897-SEB-TAB Document 30 Filed 02/12/09 Page 16 of 32 PageID #: 678
(j) Lawrence A. Wheeler, individual remedial relief for his allegedly delayed promotion to the merit rank of Sergeant;
(k) Daniel R. Green, individual remedial relief for his allegedly delayed promotion to the merit rank of Sergeant;
(l) Brent E. Hendricks, individual remedial relief for his allegedly denied promotion to the merit rank of Sergeant;
(m) Brent D. Miller, individual remedial relief for his allegedly denied promotion to the merit rank of Sergeant;
(n) Jeffrey G. Smith, individual remedial relief for his allegedly denied promotion to the merit rank of Sergeant;
(o) Roger T. Suesz, individual remedial relief for his allegedly denied promotion to the merit rank of Sergeant;
(p) Jeffrey Augustinovicz, individual remedial relief for his allegedly denied promotion to the merit rank of Sergeant;
(q) Jonathan R. Baker, individual remedial relief for his allegedly denied promotion to the merit rank of Sergeant;
(r) Robert M. McClary, individual remedial relief for his allegedly delayed promotion to the merit rank of Lieutenant;
(s) Thomas I. Black, individual remedial relief for his allegedly delayed promotion to the merit rank of Lieutenant;
(t) Thomas J. Kern, individual remedial relief for his allegedly delayed promotion to the merit rank of Lieutenant;
16

Case 1:07-cv-00897-SEB-TAB Document 30 Filed 02/12/09 Page 17 of 32 PageID #: 679
(u) David E. Hensley, individual remedial relief for his allegedly delayed promotion to the merit rank of Captain;
(v) Joseph W. Finch, individual remedial relief for his allegedly delayed promotion to the merit rank of Captain; and
(w) Peter W. Mungovan, individual remedial relief for his allegedly delayed promotion to the merit rank of Captain. 18. Subject to the release requirement of Paragraph 30, infra, within sixty (60) days after the date of final approval and entry of this Decree, the City shall send, via first class mail with return receipt requested, checks representing backpay and prejudgment interest made payable to each Claimant listed below, in the amount designated below for each Claimant less withholdings appropriate pursuant to Paragraph 19, infra:
(a) Mark E. Fagan, in the amount of $4,208.20 (comprised of $3,354.48 in backpay, and $853.72 in prejudgment interest);
(b) Brian D. Churchill, in the amount of $4,143.16 (comprised of $3,302.64 in backpay, and $840.52 in prejudgment interest);
(c) Scott A. Hessong, in the amount of $4,558.40 (comprised of $3,639.02 in backpay, and $919.38 in prejudgment interest);
(d) Benjamin D. Hunter, in the amount of $4,558.40 (comprised of $3,639.02 in backpay, and $919.38 in prejudgment interest);
(e) Richard P. Riddle, in the amount of $4,558.40 (comprised of $3,639.02 in backpay, and $919.38 in prejudgment interest);
(f) Edward A. Bruce, in the amount of $2,108.47 (comprised of $1,727.77 in
17

Case 1:07-cv-00897-SEB-TAB Document 30 Filed 02/12/09 Page 18 of 32 PageID #: 680
backpay, and $380.70 in prejudgment interest); (g) Joseph S. Sherron, in the amount of $2,108.47 (comprised of $1,727.77 in
backpay, and $380.70 in prejudgment interest); (h) Christopher L. Bailey, in the amount of $1,693.23 (comprised of
$1,391.39 in backpay, and $301.84 in prejudgment interest); (i) Brandon C. Laser, in the amount of $1,693.23 (comprised of $1,391.39 in
backpay, and $301.84 in prejudgment interest); (j) Lawrence A. Wheeler, in the amount of $1,719.81 (comprised of
$1,413.23 in backpay, and $306.58 in prejudgment interest); (k) Daniel R. Green, in the amount of $14,632.52 (comprised of $13,150.89 in
backpay, and $1,481.63 in prejudgment interest); (l) Brent E. Hendricks, in the amount of $18,158.29 (comprised of
$16,645.29 in backpay, and $1,513.00 in prejudgment interest); (m) Brent D. Miller, in the amount of $18,158.29 (comprised of $16,645.29 in
backpay, and $1,513.00 in prejudgment interest); (n) Jeffrey G. Smith, in the amount of $18,163.24 (comprised of $16,649.37
in backpay, and $1,513.87 in prejudgment interest); (o) Roger T. Suesz, in the amount of $18,158.29 (comprised of $16,645.29 in
backpay, and $1,513.00 in prejudgment interest); (p) Jeffrey Augustinovicz, in the amount of $3,525.77 (comprised of
$3,494.40 in backpay, and $31.37 in prejudgment interest); (q) Jonathan R. Baker, in the amount of $3,525.77 (comprised of $3,494.40 in
18

Case 1:07-cv-00897-SEB-TAB Document 30 Filed 02/12/09 Page 19 of 32 PageID #: 681
backpay, and $31.37 in prejudgment interest); (r) Robert M. McClary, in the amount of $6,844.50 (comprised of $5,507.46
in backpay, and $1,337.04 in prejudgment interest); (s) Thomas I. Black, in the amount of $15,697.42 (comprised of $14,107.49
in backpay, and $1,589.93 in prejudgment interest); (t) Thomas J. Kern, in the amount of $513.08 (comprised of $499.52 in
backpay, and $13.56 in prejudgment interest); (u) David E. Hensley, in the amount of $9,395.03 (comprised of $8,773.85 in
backpay, and $621.18 in prejudgment interest); (v) Joseph W. Finch, in the amount of $9,395.03 (comprised of $8,773.85 in
backpay, and $621.18 in prejudgment interest); and (w) Peter W. Mungovan, in the amount of $9,395.03 (comprised of $8,773.85
in backpay, and $621.18 in prejudgment interest). 19. The City shall withhold from the backpay and frontpay (but not the prejudgment interest) portion of each payment listed in Paragraph 18, supra, and Paragraph 23, infra, the amount required by applicable federal and state income tax laws. Because police officers employed by the City in its Police Department do not participate in the federal Social Security fund, although they do participate in the federal Medicare/Medicaid funds, for each payment listed in Paragraph 18, supra, and Paragraph 23, infra, the City shall not withhold the amount required by applicable federal and state laws with respect to Social Security withholding, but the City shall withhold the amount required by applicable federal and state laws with respect to Medicare/Medicaid withholding.
19

Case 1:07-cv-00897-SEB-TAB Document 30 Filed 02/12/09 Page 20 of 32 PageID #: 682
20. Because police officers employed by the City in its Police Department do not participate in the federal Social Security fund, although they do participate in the federal Medicare/Medicaid funds, for each payment listed in Paragraph 18, supra, and Paragraph 23, infra, the City shall not pay the appropriate employer’s contribution to the Social Security fund that would have been paid by the City, but the City shall pay the appropriate employer’s contribution to the Medicare/Medicaid fund that would have been paid by the City.
21. Within thirty (30) days after the City has made the payments representing backpay and prejudgment interest less withholdings, see Paragraphs 18 and 19, supra, the City shall so notify the United States in writing, and shall provide the United States with a list detailing:
(a) the amount of the check made payable and sent via first class mail with return receipt requested to each Claimant;
(b) the amount withheld from each Claimant’s check pursuant to federal and state income tax laws; and
(c) the amount paid by the City for the employer’s contribution to the Social Security and/or Medicare/Medicaid fund for each Claimant. 22. Subject to the release requirement of Paragraph 30, infra, within sixty (60) days after the date of final approval and entry of this Decree, and before making any other promotions to the merit rank of Sergeant in the Police Department, the City shall promote each Claimant listed below to the merit rank of Sergeant, and if all such promotions cannot be made on the same date, then the City shall make such promotions in the order in which the Claimants are listed below, beginning with (a) and ending with (f):
20

Case 1:07-cv-00897-SEB-TAB Document 30 Filed 02/12/09 Page 21 of 32 PageID #: 683 21

Case 1:07-cv-00897-SEB-TAB Document 30 Filed 02/12/09 Page 22 of 32 PageID #: 684
(a) Brent E. Hendricks, (b) Brent D. Miller, (c) Jeffrey G. Smith, (d) Roger T. Suesz, (e) Jeffrey Augustinovicz, and (f) Jonathan R. Baker. 23. Subject to the release requirement of Paragraph 30, infra, within sixty (60) days of the date of final approval and entry of this Decree, the City shall mail, via regular first class mail with return receipt requested, checks representing frontpay made payable to each Claimant listed below, in the amount calculated using the formula designated below for each Claimant less withholdings appropriate pursuant to Paragraph 19, supra: (a) Brent E. Hendricks, in the amount calculated by multiplying the number of days from the date of final approval and entry of this Decree to the date of his promotion pursuant to Paragraph 22, supra, by $16.64, representing the daily difference in salary between a Patrol Officer and a Sergeant; (b) Brent D. Miller, in the amount calculated by multiplying the number of days from the date of final approval and entry of this Decree to the date of his promotion pursuant to Paragraph 22, supra, by $16.64, representing the daily difference in salary between a Patrol Officer and a Sergeant; (c) Jeffrey G. Smith, in the amount calculated by multiplying the number of days from the date of final approval and entry of this Decree to the date of his promotion pursuant to Paragraph 22, supra, by $16.64, representing the daily difference in salary
22

Case 1:07-cv-00897-SEB-TAB Document 30 Filed 02/12/09 Page 23 of 32 PageID #: 685
between a Patrol Officer and a Sergeant; (d) Roger T. Suesz, in the amount calculated by multiplying the number of
days from the date of final approval and entry of this Decree to the date of his promotion pursuant to Paragraph 22, supra, by $16.64, representing the daily difference in salary between a Patrol Officer and a Sergeant;
(e) Jeffrey Augustinovicz, in the amount calculated by multiplying the number of days from the date of final approval and entry of this Decree to the date of his promotion pursuant to Paragraph 22, supra, by $16.64, representing the daily difference in salary between a Patrol Officer and a Sergeant; and
(f) Jonathan R. Baker, in the amount calculated by multiplying the number of days from the date of final approval and entry of this Decree to the date of his promotion pursuant to Paragraph 22, supra, by $16.64, representing the daily difference in salary between a Patrol Officer and a Sergeant. 24. Within thirty (30) days after the City has made the payments representing frontpay less withholdings, see Paragraphs 23 and 19, supra, the City shall so notify the United States in writing, and shall provide the United States with a list detailing:
(a) the amount of the check made payable and sent via first class mail with return receipt requested to each Claimant;
(b) the amount withheld from each Claimant’s check pursuant to federal and state income tax laws; and
(c) the amount paid by the City for the employer’s contribution to the Social Security and/or Medicare/Medicaid fund for each Claimant.
23

Case 1:07-cv-00897-SEB-TAB Document 30 Filed 02/12/09 Page 24 of 32 PageID #: 686
25. Subject to the release requirement of Paragraph 30, infra, within sixty (60) days of the date of final approval and entry of this Decree, the City shall credit each Claimant listed below with retroactive seniority for the merit rank designated below back to the date designated below for each Claimant:
(a) Mark E. Fagan, retroactive seniority for the merit rank of Sergeant back to January 15, 2005;
(b) Brian D. Churchill, retroactive seniority for the merit rank of Sergeant back to January 15, 2005;
(c) Scott A. Hessong, retroactive seniority for the merit rank of Sergeant back to January 15, 2005;
(d) Benjamin D. Hunter, retroactive seniority for the merit rank of Sergeant back to January 15, 2005;
(e) Richard P. Riddle, retroactive seniority for the merit rank of Sergeant back to January 15, 2005;
(f) Edward A. Bruce, retroactive seniority for the merit rank of Sergeant back to August 24, 2005;
(g) Joseph S. Sherron, retroactive seniority for the merit rank of Sergeant back to August 24, 2005;
(h) Christopher L. Bailey, retroactive seniority for the merit rank of Sergeant back to September 15, 2005;
(i) Brandon C. Laser, retroactive seniority for the merit rank of Sergeant back to September 15, 2005;
24

Case 1:07-cv-00897-SEB-TAB Document 30 Filed 02/12/09 Page 25 of 32 PageID #: 687
(j) Lawrence A. Wheeler, retroactive seniority for the merit rank of Sergeant back to September 15, 2005;
(k) Daniel R. Green, retroactive seniority for the merit rank of Sergeant back to December 15, 2005;
(l) Brent E. Hendricks, retroactive seniority for the merit rank of Sergeant back to December 15, 2005;
(m) Brent D. Miller, retroactive seniority for the merit rank of Sergeant back to December 15, 2005;
(n) Jeffrey G. Smith, retroactive seniority for the merit rank of Sergeant back to December 15, 2005;
(o) Roger T. Suesz, retroactive seniority for the merit rank of Sergeant back to December 15, 2005;
(p) Jeffrey Augustinovicz, retroactive seniority for the merit rank of Sergeant back to March 5, 2008;
(q) Jonathan R. Baker, retroactive seniority for the merit rank of Sergeant back to March 5, 2008;
(r) Robert M. McClary, retroactive seniority for the merit rank of Lieutenant back to January 20, 2005;
(s) Thomas I. Black, retroactive seniority for the merit rank of Lieutenant back to December 15, 2005;
(t) Thomas J. Kern, retroactive seniority for the merit rank of Lieutenant back to March 5, 2008;
25

Case 1:07-cv-00897-SEB-TAB Document 30 Filed 02/12/09 Page 26 of 32 PageID #: 688
(u) David E. Hensley, retroactive seniority for the merit rank of Captain back to December 9, 2006;
(v) Joseph W. Finch, retroactive seniority for the merit rank of Captain back to December 9, 2006; and
(w) Peter W. Mungovan, retroactive seniority for the merit rank of Captain back to December 9, 2006. 26. Within ninety (90) days of the date on which the City satisfies all of its obligations under Paragraphs 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25, supra, the City shall certify and notify the United States in writing that the City has fulfilled all of its obligations under those Paragraphs of this Decree. In making such certification and notification, the City shall include documents demonstrating its fulfillment of the obligations under Paragraphs 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25, supra. V. FAIRNESS HEARING 27. Upon provisional approval of this Decree, the Court will set a date for a fairness hearing to consider giving its final approval and to hear any objections filed by individuals affected by this Decree. The fairness hearing shall be held no less than sixty (60) days after provisional approval of this Consent Decree. 28. Within ten (10) days after the date of the Court’s provisional approval of this Decree, the City shall provide written notice of the Court’s provisional approval of this Decree to each of the Claimants listed in Paragraph 17, supra, and to all incumbent sworn personnel of the Police Department. The notice shall provide a description of the relief to be provided pursuant to this Decree, specify the date, time and place for the fairness hearing, and describe the
26

Case 1:07-cv-00897-SEB-TAB Document 30 Filed 02/12/09 Page 27 of 32 PageID #: 689
procedure for filing objections to the Decree. Notice for purposes of this Paragraph shall be by regular first class mail to each individual’s last known address. An example of such notice is attached to this Decree as Appendix A. VI. RELEASE OF CLAIMS
29. Within ten (10) days after the date of final approval and entry of this Decree, the United States shall mail to each of the Claimants listed in Paragraph 17, supra, a release of claims (“Release”) in the form attached to this Decree as Appendix B, along with a copy of this Decree.
30. Any Claimant otherwise entitled to individual remedial relief pursuant to this Decree shall, to remain eligible for and obtain such individual remedial relief, sign the Release, have it notarized and return it to the City at the address set forth in Paragraph 38, infra. Any Claimant who does not return his signed and notarized Release to the City within thirty (30) days after the mailing of the Release, absent a showing of good cause, shall be deemed to have waived his entitlement to individual remedial relief pursuant to this Decree. The determination that a Claimant has shown good cause shall be within the sole discretion of the United States.
31. Within forty-five (45) days after the date of final approval and entry of this Decree, the City shall provide to the United States a copy of each Release that is returned to the City by a Claimant. VII. DISPUTE RESOLUTION
32. 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, and after providing notice to the opposing party, any party may move the Court for a resolution of the disputed issue.
27

Case 1:07-cv-00897-SEB-TAB Document 30 Filed 02/12/09 Page 28 of 32 PageID #: 690
VIII. RECORD RETENTION, COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS 33. To the extent that the City is not already under a legal obligation to maintain such
records, documents, data and information throughout the term of this Decree, and will not otherwise maintain such records, documents, data and information pursuant to routine personnel file maintenance policies, the City shall retain all of the following records, documents, data and information (including those in electronic form) during the term of this Decree:
(a) all applications or materials submitted for promotion to any sworn position within the Police Department, regardless of rank or title, as well as all records, documents, data and information related to the evaluation of applicants and the selection of applicants to be promoted;
(b) all records, documents, data and information related to written or oral complaints made by any applicant for employment or employee in the Police Department with respect to:
(1) discrimination in promotion on the basis of race or sex, or (2) retaliation for complaining of, or participating in any proceedings involving a complaint of, such discrimination; and (c) all records, documents, data and information related to the individual remedial relief provided to any Claimant pursuant to this Decree. 34. The United States may review compliance with this Decree at any time. Upon thirty (30) days written notice to the City, without further order of this Court, the United States shall have the right to inspect and copy any records, documents, data and information that are relevant to monitor the City’s compliance with this Decree, including, but not limited to, those
28

Case 1:07-cv-00897-SEB-TAB Document 30 Filed 02/12/09 Page 29 of 32 PageID #: 691
retained pursuant to Paragraph 33, supra. 35. Additionally, the City agrees to submit the periodic reports listed below to the
United States at the address set forth in Paragraph 37, infra, every six (6) months, detailing the City’s efforts in furtherance of the objectives of this Decree for so long as this Decree remains in effect. Each semi-annual report shall contain the information for the period of time covered by the report.
(a) A list of the sworn personnel hired into the Police Department, identifying each such individual by name, race, sex, date of hire, rank, job assigned and salary.
(b) A list of the sworn personnel promoted within the Police Department, identifying each such individual by name, race, sex, date of promotion, promoted rank, job assigned and salary of both the promoted rank and the rank from which the individual was promoted.
(c) A list of the sworn personnel in the Police Department whose employment has been terminated, identifying each such individual by name, race, sex, date of hire, date(s) of any promotion(s), date of termination of employment and reason for such termination of employment.
(d) A list or chart showing the total number of sworn personnel in the Police Department, identified by race and sex, who are employed in each of the various ranks.
(e) Copies of all published policies for hiring into or promotion within the Police Department.
(f) A list or chart indicating by race, sex, rank, and unit assignment the number or grievances or complaints concerning race and/or sex discrimination filed by
29

Case 1:07-cv-00897-SEB-TAB Document 30 Filed 02/12/09 Page 30 of 32 PageID #: 692
sworn personnel in the Police Department. (g) A list or chart indicating by race, sex, rank, and unit assignment the
number of disciplinary actions brought against sworn personnel in the Police Department, including the type of violation involved, and the disposition of such disciplinary action.
(h) In the event of a challenge by the United States as to the lawfulness of examinations for hiring into and/or promotion within the Police Department, the City agrees to provide the Department of Justice with such examinations and all materials regarding their validity.
IX. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 36. The parties shall bear their own costs and attorney’s fees in this action, except
that the parties shall retain the right to seek costs and attorney’s fees for any matter which, in the future, may arise under this Decree and require resolution by the Court.
37. Any records, documents, data and information required to be delivered pursuant to this Decree to the United States shall be sent to the attention of:
Lead Attorney, Indianapolis Police Department Case U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Employment Litigation Section—PHB 4th Floor 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530 38. Any records, documents, data and information required to be delivered pursuant to this Decree to the City shall be sent to the attention of: Corporation Counsel City of Indianapolis Office of Corporation Counsel 1601 City-County Building 200 E. Washington Street
30

Case 1:07-cv-00897-SEB-TAB Document 30 Filed 02/12/09 Page 31 of 32 PageID #: 693
Indianapolis, IN 46204 X. JURISDICTION OF THE COURT
39. 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 terms or relief provided in this Decree.
40. This Decree shall dissolve and this action shall be dismissed without further order of the Court at the end of two (2) years from the date of final approval and entry of this Decree, or ninety (90) days after the City has certified and notified the United States in writing, pursuant to Paragraph 26, supra, that City has fulfilled all of its obligations under Paragraphs 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25, supra, whichever occurs later.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 0_2_/_1_2_/2d0a0y9of _______________, 2009.

AGREED AND CONSENTED TO:
For plaintiff United States:
GRACE C. BECKER Acting Assistant Attorney General

_______________________________
______RU_In_Ci_tHe_dA_SR_tD_at_eLs_._DY_iOs_tUr_ic_Nt_GC_,o_JuU_rt_D_G_E_____ UNITESDouSthTeArnTDEisStriDctIoSfTInRdIiaCnTa JUDGE
For defendant City of Indianapolis:

__/s/ Andrew G. Braniff_________________ JOHN M. GADZICHOWSKI Acting Chief ANDREW G. BRANIFF

__/s/ Chris W. Cotterill_________________ CHRIS W. COTTERILL Corporation Counsel JONATHAN L. MAYES

31

Case 1:07-cv-00897-SEB-TAB Document 30 Filed 02/12/09 Page 32 of 32 PageID #: 694

Trial Attorney U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Employment Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Patrick Henry Building, Fourth Floor Washington, DC 20530 Telephone: (202) 514-3831 Facsimile: (202) 514-1005

Chief Litigation Counsel Office of Corporation Counsel 1601 City County Building 200 E. Washington Street Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 327-4055 Facsimile: (317) 327-3968
JOSEPH C. CHAPELLE ANNE B. HAYES Barnes & Thornburg, LLP 11 S. Meridian Street Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 236-1313 Facsimile: (317) 231-7433

Attorneys for plaintiff United States

Attorneys for defendant City of Indianapolis

32

 
 Case 1:07-cv-00897-SEB-TAB Document 31 Filed 02/12/09 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 695

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

UNITED STATES,

Pl

aintiff,

v. Consolidate

No. 1:07-CV-897-DFH-WTL d with
No. 1:05-CV-1220-LJM-JMS & No. 1:78-CV-388-RLY-DML

CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, et al.,

Defendants.

ADDENDUM TO CONSENT DECREE IN RESOLUTION OF SUIT

The following provisions shall b e read in conce rt with the C onsent Decree in re solution

of suit provisionally approved by this Court on August 28, 2008:

13A. Nothing in this Decree prohibits the City from undertaking all lawful efforts to ensure the

continued diversity of th e sworn f orce of the I MPD at a ll ranks. Additio nally, no thing in this

Decree prohibits the United States from taking en forcement action pursuant to Title VII aga inst

the City with respec t to the IMPD that is inde pendent of and in additi on to the U nited States ’

enforcement of the terms of this Decree.

13B. Six (6) months from the date of final appr oval and entry of this Decree, the United States

and the City shall m eet and confer regarding the City’s compliance with Part III of this Decree.

In the event that the United States and the City, as a result of that meet and confer, agree that Part

III needs to be m odified to ensure th e City’s compliance with Part III, the parties sh all promptly

submit such proposed modifications to the Court for approval. In the event that the United States

and the City, as a result of that m eet and confer, agree that Part III does not need to be m odified

Case 1:07-cv-00897-SEB-TAB Document 31 Filed 02/12/09 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 696

to ensure th e City’s co mpliance with Part III, the parties s hall, within thirty (30) d ays of such

meet and confer, so advise the Court in writing. In the event that the City and the United States

cannot reach agreem ent as to whether Part III of th is Decree needs to be m odified, or as to the

modifications to Part II I that ne ed to be m ade, either pa rty may submit this issu e for resolution

by the Court by motion, with a supporting memorandum, after sixty (60) days notice to the other

party.

IT IS SO ORDERED, this0_2_/1_2_/_20d0a9y of _______________, 2009.

________________________________ UNITED

_______________________________
RICHARD L. YOUNG, JUDGE United States District Court
STSAouTthEeSrnDDIisStrTicRt IoCf ITndJiUanDa GE

AGREED AND CONSENTED TO: For plaintiff United States:

For defendant City of Indianapolis:

GRACE C. BECKER Acting Assistant Attorney General

__/s/ Andrew G. Braniff_________________ JOHN M. GADZICHOWSKI Chief ANDREW G. BRANIFF Trial Attorney U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Employment Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Patrick Henry Building, Fourth Floor Washington, DC 20530 Telephone: (202) 514-3831 Facsimile: (202) 514-1005

__/s/ Chris W. Cotterill_________________ CHRIS W. COTTERILL Corporation Counsel JONATHAN L. MAYES Chief Litigation Counsel Office of Corporation Counsel 1601 City County Building 200 E. Washington Street Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 327-4055 Facsimile: (317) 327-3968

2

 
 Case 1:07-cv-00897-SEB-TAB Document 37 Filed 02/19/10 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 719
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v. CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS,
Defendant.

No. 1:07-cv-897-SEB-TAB

JOINT STATUS REPORT In accordance with the Court’s February 4, 2010, order directing the parties to advise the Court, no later than February 19, 2010, of the parties’ “intentions for the further handling of this cause and their positions as to the action that ought to be taken by the Court at this time,” the parties jointly respectfully submit the following status report. This action was brought by the United States against the City of Indianapolis, Indiana (the “City”), to enforce the provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. This Court had original jurisdiction of the action under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5, 28 U.S.C. § 1345 and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This court retains jurisdiction of this matter to enforce the terms of the Consent Decree (the “Decree”) entered on February 12, 2009 (Dkt. No. 30), which will dissolve, by its terms, on February 12, 2011. Pursuant to the Decree, the City is enjoined from “engaging in or agreeing to any act or practice that discriminates on the basis of race or sex, in violation of Title VII, with respect to promotions in the Police Department; and . . . retaliating against, or in any way adversely

Case 1:07-cv-00897-SEB-TAB Document 37 Filed 02/19/10 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 720
affecting the terms and conditions of employment of, any person because that person has engaged in practices protected under Title VII . . . .” See Decree at ¶ 13(a) & (b). The Decree further required that the City provide specific individual remedial relief to several claimants, including promotions, backpay, frontpay, and retroactive seniority. See Decree at ¶ ¶14-25. Finally, pursuant to an addendum entered simultaneously with the Consent Decree, the parties were required to meet and confer regarding the City’s compliance with Part III of the Decree, which, among other things, enjoins the City from violating Title VII with respect to promotions in the City’s police department. See Addendum at ¶ 14B (Dkt. No. 31).
On August 25, 2009, the parties conducted the required conference. During the conference, the City informed the United States that it has fully complied with the individual remedial relief required by the Decree and intends to develop new selection procedures for promotional positions in its police department. Consistent with the United States’ obligations under the Decree, the United States asked the City to provide it with information regarding the City’s proposed selection procedures, including any existing evidence of the processes’ validity, as well as any and all information relating to the validity strategy or strategies contemplated by the City for the selection processes at issue. The City has provided the United States with that information and continues to develop its new promotion process. Specifically, the City has convened the Mayor's Public Safety Personnel Diversity Taskforce to review hiring and promotional practices within the City's police and fire departments. The Taskforce’s membership represents a cross-section of the Indianapolis community, and they have met on several occasions to begin the review process. The City’s Police Department's Career and Leadership Development team ("CLD"), comprised of diverse members of the Police
2

Case 1:07-cv-00897-SEB-TAB Document 37 Filed 02/19/10 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 721

Department, has prepared a recommendation on a new promotional process that will be introduced to the Taskforce in the next sixty (60) days. The City provided the United States with a preliminary copy of the CLD’s recommendation. The City expects a full report from the Taskforce in the next 180 days. The United States has retained an expert to review the City’s new processes as they are developed.
The Decree also requires that “[i]n the event that the United States and the City, as a result of that meet and confer,” agree that Part III of the Decree needs to be modified to ensure the City’s compliance therewith, the Parties must present to the Court for its approval any proposed modifications to the Decree. See Addendum at ¶ 14C (Dckt. No. 31). The United States does not propose any modification to Part III of the Decree. Moreover, as there are no current disputes concerning the implementation of the Decree, no action by the Court is presently required. Should the City or the United States have a dispute concerning the terms of the Decree or Addendum, or should the City fail to meet its obligations under the Decree, the parties will inform the Court. See Decree at ¶ 39 (the Court retains jurisdiction “for the purpose of resolving any disputes or entering any orders that may be appropriate to implement the terms or relief provided in this Decree”).
Respectfully submitted,

JOHN M. GADZICHOWSKI Chief
/s/ Andrew G. Braniff ANDREW G. BRANIFF DAVID N. REESE Trial Attorneys U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division

SAMANTHA S. KARN Corporation Counsel
/s/ Jonathan L. Mayes JONATHAN L. MAYES Chief Litigation Counsel Office of Corporation Counsel 1601 City County Building 200 E. Washington Street
3

Case 1:07-cv-00897-SEB-TAB Document 37 Filed 02/19/10 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 722

Employment Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Patrick Henry Building, Fourth Floor Washington, DC 20530 Telephone: (202) 514-3831 Facsimile: (202) 514-1005 Attorneys for plaintiff United States

Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 327-4055 Facsimile: (317) 327-396 Attorneys for defendant City of Indianapolis

4

Case 1:07-cv-00897-SEB-TAB Document 37 Filed 02/19/10 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 723

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on February 19, 2010 a true and correct copy of this Joint

Status Report was delivered electronically via the CM/ECF system to:

John C. Ruckelshaus jcr@rucklaw.com John F. Kautzman jfk@rucklaw.com M. Elizabeth Bemis meb@rucklaw.com Ruckelshaus, Kautzman,
Blackwell, Bemis & Hasbrook 107 N. Pennsylvania St. Suite 900 Indianapolis, IN 46204
Jeffrey S. McQuary jmcquary@brown-tompkins-lory.com Brown Tompkins Lory 608 E. Market St. Indianapolis, IN 46202

Jonathan L. Mayes jmayes@indygov.org Office of Corporation Counsel 1601 City County Building 200 E. Washington St. Indianapolis, IN 46204
Myra C. Selby myra.selby@icemiller.com Ice Miller, LLP One American Square, Suite 3100 Indianapolis, IN 46282
Nathaniel Lee nlee@nleelaw.com Lee, Cossell, Kuehn & Love, LLP 127 E. Michigan St. Indianapolis, IN 46204

s/ Andrew G. Braniff Andrew G. Braniff

5

 
 Case: 1:07-cv-897 As of: 07/17/2014 11:23 AM EDT 1 of 5
U.S. District Court Southern District of Indiana (Indianapolis) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:07−cv−00897−SEB−TAB

CLOSED

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS Assigned to: Judge Sarah Evans Barker Referred to: Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker Lead case: 1:78−cv−00388−RLY−DML Member case: (View Member Case) Cause: 42:2003 Job Discrimination
Plaintiff
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Date Filed: 07/11/2007 Date Terminated: 02/23/2010 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff
represented by Andrew G. Braniff U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514−9229 Fax: (2020 514−1005 Email: andrew.braniff@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Jacob Palmer U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20530 202−353−3631 Fax: 202−514−1005

David Nathan Reese U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Rights Division 601 D Street NW Washington, DC 20004 202−514−3851 Fax: 202−353−8961 Email: david.reese@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jodi B. Danis UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW PHB Room 4022 Washington, DC 20530 (202) 307−5768 Fax: (202) 514−1005 Email: jodi.danis@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John P. Cunningham UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW 4th Floor Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514−3831 Fax: (202) 514−1005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John M. Gadzichowski U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Case: 1:07-cv-897 As of: 07/17/2014 11:23 AM EDT 2 of 5
Employment Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Patrick Henry Building, Fourth Floor Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514−3831 Fax: (202) 514−1005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Reid Alan Cox U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 307−1552 Fax: (202) 514−1005 Email: reid.cox@usdoj.gov
Wan J. Kim Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS
Amicus NAACP

represented by Jonathan Lamont Mayes BOSE MCKINNEY &EVANS, LLP 111 Monument Circle Suite 2700 Indianapolis, IN 46204 317−684−5245 Fax: 317−684−5245 Email: jmayes@boselaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Cherry Malichi LEE COSSELL KUEHN CROWLEY &TURNER LLP 127 East Michigan Street Indianapolis, IN 46204 (317) 631−5151 Fax: (317) 624−4561 Email: cmalichi@nleelaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nathaniel Lee LEE COSSELL KUEHN CROWLEY &TURNER LLP 127 East Michigan Street Indianapolis, IN 46204 (317) 631−5151 Fax: (317) 624−4561 Email: nlee@nleelaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 07/11/2007
07/11/2007

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.(TAA) (Entered: 07/12/2007)
2 CIVIL COVER SHEET, filed by Plaintiff UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (TAA) (Entered: 07/12/2007)

Case: 1:07-cv-897 As of: 07/17/2014 11:23 AM EDT 3 of 5

07/11/2007 07/13/2007 07/13/2007 07/17/2007 07/24/2007 07/30/2007 07/31/2007 07/31/2007 08/22/2008
08/28/2008 08/28/2008 10/21/2008 10/21/2008 10/22/2008 10/22/2008 10/23/2008 11/11/2008 11/14/2008 11/14/2008 11/14/2008

3 MAGISTRATE JUDGE's NOTICE of Availability to Exercise Jurisdiction issued. (TAA) (Entered: 07/12/2007)
4 NOTICE of Appearance by Anthony Scott Chinn on behalf of Defendant CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS. (Chinn, Anthony) (Entered: 07/13/2007)
5 NOTICE of Appearance by Anne Kramer Ricchiuto on behalf of Defendant CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS. (Ricchiuto, Anne) (Entered: 07/13/2007)
6 NOTICE of Appearance by Alison Margaret Chestovich on behalf of Defendant CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS. (Chestovich, Alison) (Entered: 07/17/2007)
7 SCHEDULING ORDER:Status Conference set for 7/31/2007 02:00 PM in room #277 before Magistrate Judge William T. Lawrence. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 7/24/07. (JHO) (Entered: 07/24/2007)
8 NOTICE of Filing of Motion to Consolidate in related case no. 1:78−cv−0388−RLY−WTL, filed by Defendant CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS (Ricchiuto, Anne) Modified on 7/31/2007 (LSC). (Entered: 07/30/2007)
9 CLOSED DISMISSED per 7/31/07 Order To Consolidate into 1:78−CV−388−RLY−WTL. Signed by Judge Richard L. Young on 7/31/07. (CLL) (Entered: 07/31/2007)
Cases associated: Create association to 1:78−cv−00388−RLY−WTL. (CLL) (Entered: 07/31/2007)
15 JOINT MOTION FOR PROVISIONAL APPROVAL AND ENTRY OF THE CONSENT DECREE IN RESOLUTION OF SUIT, filed by Plaintiff UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit 2−Attachment of Consent Decree with Notice and Release, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(LBK) (Entered: 10/29/2009)
16 ORDER granting 15 Motion for Provisional Approval and Entry of the Consent Decree in Resolution of Suit. Signed by Judge Richard L. Young on 8/28/2008. (LBK) (Entered: 10/29/2009)
17 CONSENT DECREE in Resolution of Suit. Signed by Judge Richard L. Young on 8/28/08. (LBK) (Entered: 10/29/2009)
18 OBJECTION to Dismissal of Consent Decree, Request for Additional Discovery and Evidentiary Hearing by NAACP with Attachments.(LBK) (Entered: 10/29/2009)
19 NOTICE OF PROPOSED ORDER, filed by Amicus NAACP filed by Nathaniel Lee. (LBK) (Entered: 10/29/2009)
20 NOTICE of Appearance by Cherry Malichi on behalf of Amicus NAACP. (LBK) (Entered: 10/29/2009)
21 NAACP'S ADDITIONAL OBJECTION TO CONSENT DECREE, IN RESOLUTIONI OF SUIT. Filed by Cherry Malichi. (LBK) (Entered: 10/29/2009)
22 Submission of Signature Requirement re 18 Objection to Dismissal of Consent Decree, Request for Additional Discovery and Evidentiary Hearing by NAACP. (Nathaniel Lee) (LBK) (Entered: 10/29/2009)
23 MOTION for Continuance of 11/21/08 Hearing Regarding Consent Decre in Resolution of Suit, filed by Amicus NAACP. (LBK) (Entered: 10/29/2009)
24 REPLY in Support of Motion re 23 MOTION for Continuance, filed by Plaintiff UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (LBK) (Entered: 10/29/2009)
25 RESPONSE in Opposition re 23 MOTION for Continuance, filed by Plaintiff UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (LBK) (Entered: 10/29/2009)
26 ORDER granting 23 Motion for Continuance, Hearing Regarding the Consent Decree in Resolution of Suit is VACATED AND RESET FOR 2/11/09 9:00 a.m. in Room 349 before Judge Richard L. Young. Signed by Judge Richard L. Young on 11/14/2008. (LBK) (Entered: 10/29/2009)

Case: 1:07-cv-897 As of: 07/17/2014 11:23 AM EDT 4 of 5

12/17/2008 12/23/2008
02/10/2009
02/11/2009 02/12/2009 02/12/2009 02/26/2009 08/31/2009 10/20/2009 10/27/2009
11/24/2009 11/25/2009 11/29/2009 02/04/2010 02/04/2010

27 RESPONSE in opposition to Emergency Motion for Discovery Protective Order filed by Defendant City of Indianapolis. (Mayes, Jonathan) (LBK) (Entered: 10/29/2009)
28 NAACP'S OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF−INTERVENORS' Verified Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement, Defendant City of Indianapolis' Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement, and Defendants' Motion to Submit Additional Evidence in Support of their Motion to Enforce Settlement. (Malichi, Cherry) (LBK) (Entered: 10/29/2009)
10 Unopposed MOTION to Withdraw (143 in 1:78−cv−00388−RLY−DML) MOTION to Enforce Settlment Agreement, filed by Plaintiffs SCOTT A HESSONG, BRENT E. HENDRICKS, Intervenor Plaintiffs BENJAMIN D. HUNTER, BRANDON C. LASER, BRENT D. MILLER, DANIEL R. GREEN, THOMAS I. BLACK, ROBERT M. McCLARY. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)Associated Cases: 1:78−cv−00388−RLY−DML, 1:07−cv−00897−DFH−WTL(McQuary, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/10/2009)
29 NAACP'S MOTION TO INTERVENE. (Malichi, Cherry). (LBK) (Entered: 10/29/2009)
30 CONSENT DECREE IN RESOLUTION OF SUIT (Dkt. No. 182 in 1:78−cv−388−RLY−WTL. Signed by Judge Richard L. Young on 2/12/2009. (LBK) Modified on 10/30/2009 (LBK). (Entered: 10/29/2009)
31 ADDENDUM TO CONSENT DECREE IN RESOLUTION TO SUIT (Dkt. No. 183 in 1:78−cv−388−RLY−WTL. Signed by Judge Richard L. Young on 2/12/2009. (LBK) Modified on 10/30/2009 (LBK). (Entered: 10/29/2009)
11 NOTICE of Substitution of Appearance by Jonathan Lamont Mayes replacing Alison Chestovich on behalf of CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS (Mayes, Jonathan) (Entered: 02/26/2009)
12 NOTICE of Appearance by David Nathan Reese on behalf of Plaintiff UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Reese, David) (Entered: 08/31/2009)
13 Joint MOTION to Reopen Case, filed by Defendant CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, Plaintiff UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Braniff, Andrew) (Entered: 10/20/2009)
14 ORDER granting 13 Joint Motion to Reopen Case. The records associated with this action that were entered in the consolidated action, 78−cv−388−RLY−WTL, after 7/31/07 including the above referenced consent decree (Dkt. No. 182), shall be moved to the record in this action. Signed by Judge David Frank Hamilton on 10/27/2009. (LBK) (Entered: 10/28/2009)
32 MOTION to Withdraw Attorneys, filed by Defendant CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Order on Motion to Withdraw Attorneys)(Ricchiuto, Anne) (Entered: 11/24/2009)
33 Reassignment of Case to Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker. Judge William T. Lawrence no longer assigned to the case. Please include the new case number, 1:07−cv−00897−DFH−TAB, on all future filings in this matter. Motions referred to Tim A. Baker.(JD) (Entered: 11/25/2009)
34 Reassignment of Case to Judge Sarah Evans Barker. Judge David Frank Hamilton no longer assigned to the case. Please include the new case number ( 1:07−cv−897−SEB−TAB), which includes the initials of the newly assigned judge, on all future filings in this matter. (MAC) (Entered: 11/29/2009)
35 ORDER granting A. Scott Chinn and Anne K. Ricchiuto's 32 Motion to Withdraw as counsel of record for the defts. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker on 2/4/2010. (SWM) (Entered: 02/05/2010)
36 ORDER for Status Reports. The parties shall file status reports with the Court on or before February 19, 2010, advising of their intentions for the further handling of this cause and their positions as to the action that ought to be taken by the Court at this time. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 2/4/2010.(MAC) (Entered: 02/05/2010)

Case: 1:07-cv-897 As of: 07/17/2014 11:23 AM EDT 5 of 5

02/19/2010 02/23/2010

37 STATUS REPORT filed Jointly by CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Braniff, Andrew) (Entered: 02/19/2010)
38 CLOSED − there is no reason for this cause to remain open and active on the Courts docket and directs the Clerk to close it. Of course, either party may move to reopen this case, should the need arise, subject to the Courts ongoing jurisdiction to enforce the terms of their Consent Decree.. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 2/23/2010.(MAC) Modified on 2/25/2010 (MAC). (Entered: 02/24/2010)

Case #: 1:07−cv−00897−SEB−TAB

 
 Case: 1:78-cv-00388-RLY-DML As of: 07/17/2014 11:27 AM EDT 1 of 21
CMP,CLOSED
U.S. District Court Southern District of Indiana (Indianapolis) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:78−cv−00388−RLY−DML

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS et al Assigned to: Judge Richard L. Young Referred to: Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch Cause: 42:1981 Civil Rights
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 06/29/1978 Date Terminated: 10/08/2009 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

represented by Andrew G. Braniff U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514−9229 Fax: (2020 514−1005 Email: andrew.braniff@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John P. Cunningham UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW 4th Floor Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514−3831 Fax: (202) 514−1005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John M. Gadzichowski U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Employment Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Patrick Henry Building, Fourth Floor Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514−3831 Fax: (202) 514−1005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff SCOTT A HESSONG

represented by Jeffrey S. McQuary BROWN TOMPKINS LORY 608 East Market Street Indianapolis, IN 46202 (317) 631−6866 Fax: (317) 685−2329 Email: jmcquary@brown−tompkins−lory.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff BRENT E. HENDRICKS

represented by Jeffrey S. McQuary (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS A Municipal Corporation

represented by Alexander Phillip Will OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL

Case: 1:78-cv-00388-RLY-DML As of: 07/17/2014 11:27 AM EDT 2 of 21

CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS 200 E. Washington Street Suite 1601 Indianapolis, IN 46204 (317) 327−4055 Fax: (317) 327−3968 Email: awill@fbtlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY A Unigov Unit Thereof

represented by Alexander Phillip Will (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
ROBERT TURNER Director of Public Safety

represented by Alexander Phillip Will (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
MICHAEL T. SPEARS Chief, Indianapolis Police Department

represented by Alexander Phillip Will (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
JAMES L. GREESON Chief, Indianapolis Fire Department

represented by Alexander Phillip Will (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant MICHAEL MORKEN

represented by Alexander Phillip Will (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant MARY MAXWELL

represented by Alexander Phillip Will (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant CORDELIA BURKS

represented by Alexander Phillip Will (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant EDWARD DELANEY

represented by Alexander Phillip Will (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
DEBORAH BARNETT Police Merit Board Members

represented by Alexander Phillip Will (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant KEVIN MURRAY

represented by Alexander Phillip Will (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:78-cv-00388-RLY-DML As of: 07/17/2014 11:27 AM EDT 3 of 21

Defendant GEORGE EDWARDS
Defendant ELWOOD BLACK
Defendant MEG BABCOCK
Defendant STEVE RECKLEY
Defendant JOE LUCAS Fire Merit Board Members
Defendant JERRY BARKER
Defendant JAMES WYATT
Defendant JAMES RENO
Defendant JOSEPH SMITH

represented by Alexander Phillip Will (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alexander Phillip Will (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alexander Phillip Will (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alexander Phillip Will (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alexander Phillip Will (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alexander Phillip Will (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alexander Phillip Will (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alexander Phillip Will (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alexander Phillip Will (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Intervenor Plaintiff BENJAMIN D. HUNTER
Intervenor Plaintiff BRANDON C. LASER

represented by Jeffrey S. McQuary (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jeffrey S. McQuary (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:78-cv-00388-RLY-DML As of: 07/17/2014 11:27 AM EDT 4 of 21

Intervenor Plaintiff BRENT D. MILLER

represented by Jeffrey S. McQuary (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff DANIEL R. GREEN

represented by Jeffrey S. McQuary (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff THOMAS I. BLACK

represented by Jeffrey S. McQuary (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff ROBERT M. MCCLARY

represented by Jeffrey S. McQuary (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus
100 BLACK MEN OF INDIANAPOLIS, INC.

represented by Myra Consetta Selby ICE MILLER LLP One American Square Suite 2900 Indianapolis, IN 46282 (317) 236−5903 Fax: (317) 592−4880 Email: myra.selby@icemiller.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus
INDIANAPOLIS BLACK FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION

represented by Myra Consetta Selby (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus
INDIANAPOLIS URBAN LEAGUE, INC.

represented by Myra Consetta Selby (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus NAACP

represented by Cherry Malichi LEE COSSELL KUEHN CROWLEY &TURNER LLP 127 East Michigan Street Indianapolis, IN 46204 (317) 631−5151 Fax: (317) 624−4561 Email: cmalichi@nleelaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nathaniel Lee LEE COSSELL KUEHN CROWLEY &TURNER LLP 127 East Michigan Street Indianapolis, IN 46204 (317) 631−5151 Fax: (317) 624−4561 Email: nlee@nleelaw.com

Case: 1:78-cv-00388-RLY-DML As of: 07/17/2014 11:27 AM EDT 5 of 21 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 06/29/1978 10/07/2005 10/07/2005 10/07/2005
10/14/2005 10/17/2005 10/17/2005 10/19/2005 10/19/2005 10/24/2005 10/24/2005

# Docket Text
1 *** DOCKET CONTINUED FROM THE COURT'S JUDICIAL AUTOMATED MANAGMENT SYSTEM (JAMS) PER ORDER DATED 10/19/05 *** (Carpentier, Wendy) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/20/2005 (Carpentier, Wendy). (Entered: 10/20/2005)
2 MOTION to Dissolve the Consent Decrees and Dismiss this Action filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (This docket entry was created for administrative purposes only − JAMS entry #501) (Carpentier, Wendy) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/20/2005 (Carpentier, Wendy). (Entered: 10/20/2005)
8 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support of 2 MOTION to Dissolve Consent Decree and Dismiss Action filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (This docket entry was created for administrative purposes only − JAMS entry #502) (Carpentier, Wendy) (Entered: 10/20/2005)
9 INDEX of EXHIBITS re 2 MOTION to Dissolve Consent Decree and Dismiss Action filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Indianapolis Weed and Seed Program Summary# 2 Exhibit 2 − Consent Decree I dated June 29, 1978# 3 Exhibit 3 − Consent Decree II dated January 9, 1979# 4 Exhibit 4 − Addendum to Consent Decree II dated May 20, 1981# 5 Exhibit 5 − IFD 2004 Interim Status Report (part 1)# 6 Exhibit 5 (part 2)# 7 Exhibit 6 − 2004 Workforce Development Statistics# 8 Exhibit 7 − IPD 2004 Interim Status Report (part 1)# 9 Exhibit 7 (part 2)# 10 Exhibit 7 (part 3)# 11 Exhibit 7 (part 4)# 12 Exhibit 7 (part 5)# 13 Exhibit 7 (part 6)# 14 Exhibit 7 (part 7)# 15 Exhibit 7 (part 8)# 16 Exhibit 7 (part 9)# 17 Exhibit 7 (part 10)# 18 Exhibit 8 − 2000 Law Enforcement Statistics# 19 Exhibit 9 − National Fire Protection Association 2003 Data)(Carpentier, Wendy) (Entered: 10/20/2005)
3 MOTION for Extension of Time to file Response to 2 MOTION to Dissolve Consent Decrees AND MOTION for Status Conference filed by all defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (This docket entry was created for administrative purposes only − JAMS entry #512) (Carpentier, Wendy) Modified on 10/24/2005 (Carpentier, Wendy). (Entered: 10/20/2005)
4 MOTION to Substitute Parties and Amend Caption filed by all defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (This docket entry was created for administrative purposes only − JAMS entry #513) (Carpentier, Wendy) (Entered: 10/20/2005)
5 MOTION to Reopen Case filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (This docket entry was created for administrative purposes only − JAMS entry #515) (Carpentier, Wendy) (Entered: 10/20/2005)
6 ORDER Directing Clerk to transfer this action to the Court's electronic filing system, CM/ECF. All future filings in this matter must be submitted electronically. Signed by Judge Richard L. Young on 10/19/05. (Attachments: # 1 Registration Form# 2 ECF Policies and Procedures)(Carpentier, Wendy) (Entered: 10/20/2005)
7 ORDER granting 5 Motion to Reopen Case. This Court's Order of November 13, 1991, administratively closing the case, is rescinded, and the case is hereby reopened for docketing. Signed by Judge Richard L. Young on 10/19/05.(Carpentier, Wendy) (Entered: 10/20/2005)
10 RESPONSE to Motion re 4 MOTION to Substitute Parties and Amend Caption filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Braniff, Andrew) (Entered: 10/24/2005)
11 RESPONSE in Opposition re 3 MOTION for Extension of Time to to file response to 2 MOTION to Dissolve and Dismiss MOTION for Status Conference MOTION for Status Conference filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Appendix A, September 16 Letter to Kobi Wright)(Braniff, Andrew) (Entered: 10/24/2005)

Case: 1:78-cv-00388-RLY-DML As of: 07/17/2014 11:27 AM EDT 6 of 21

10/25/2005 10/31/2005
10/31/2005 10/31/2005 11/01/2005 11/22/2005 11/28/2005

12 REPLY in support of Motion re 3 MOTION for Extension of Time to file response to 2 MOTION to Dissolve and Dismiss MOTION for Status Conference MOTION for Status Conference filed by DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, MURRILL M. LOWRY, EUGENE GALLAGHERE, WILLIAM J. PATTERSON, JOHN LAUTER, ROBERT MOORHEAD, RICHARD GUTHRIE, CHARLES R. THOMAS, GEORGE COMFORT, HAROLD J. EGENES, CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS. (Whiteman, Kelly) (Entered: 10/25/2005)
13 ORDER granting defts' 4 Motion to Substitute Party and Amend Caption. ROBERT TURNER rep by Kelly Jean Whiteman, Robin C. Clay, Julie Annette Hoffman, Kobi M. Wright, Anthony Scott Chinn, and MICHAEL T. SPEARS rep by Kelly Jean Whiteman, Robin C. Clay, Julie Annette Hoffman, Kobi M. Wright, Anthony Scott Chinn, and James L. Greeson rep by Kelly Jean Whiteman, Robin C. Clay, Julie Annette Hoffman, Kobi M. Wright, Anthony Scott Chinn, and Michael Morken rep by Kelly Jean Whiteman, Robin C. Clay, Julie Annette Hoffman, Kobi M. Wright, Anthony Scott Chinn, and Mary Maxwell rep by Kelly Jean Whiteman, Robin C. Clay, Julie Annette Hoffman, Kobi M. Wright, Anthony Scott Chinn, and Cordelia Lewis Burks rep by Kelly Jean Whiteman, Robin C. Clay, Julie Annette Hoffman, Kobi M. Wright, Anthony Scott Chinn, and Edward Delaney rep by Kelly Jean Whiteman, Robin C. Clay, Julie Annette Hoffman, Kobi M. Wright, Anthony Scott Chinn, and Deborah Barnett rep by Kelly Jean Whiteman, Robin C. Clay, Julie Annette Hoffman, Kobi M. Wright, Anthony Scott Chinn, and Kevin Murray rep by Kelly Jean Whiteman, Robin C. Clay, Julie Annette Hoffman, Kobi M. Wright, Anthony Scott Chinn, and GEORGE EDWARDS rep by Kelly Jean Whiteman, Robin C. Clay, Julie Annette Hoffman, Kobi M. Wright, Anthony Scott Chinn, and ELWOOD BLACK rep by Kelly Jean Whiteman, Robin C. Clay, Julie Annette Hoffman, Kobi M. Wright, Anthony Scott Chinn, and MEG BABCOCK rep by Kelly Jean Whiteman, Robin C. Clay, Julie Annette Hoffman, Kobi M. Wright, Anthony Scott Chinn, and STEVE RECKLEY rep by Kelly Jean Whiteman, Robin C. Clay, Julie Annette Hoffman, Kobi M. Wright, Anthony Scott Chinn, and JOE LUCAS rep by Kelly Jean Whiteman, Robin C. Clay, Julie Annette Hoffman, Kobi M. Wright, Anthony Scott Chinn added. EUGENE GALLAGHERE; RICHARD GUTHRIE; JOHN LAUTER; MURRILL M. LOWRY; ROBERT MOORHEAD; WILLIAM J. PATTERSON; CHARLES R. THOMAS; GEORGE COMFORT and HAROLD J. EGENES terminated . Signed by Judge V. Sue Shields on 10/31/05. (SWM, ) Modified on 11/1/2005 (SWM, ). (Entered: 11/01/2005)
14 ORDER granting IN PART defts' 3 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to 11/28/2005 re 2 MOTION to Dissolve Consent Decree and Dismiss Action. ORDER granting defts' 3 Motion for Status Conference. Signed by Judge V. Sue Shields on 10/31/05. (SWM, ) (Entered: 11/01/2005)
*** Continuation of Docket No 14 *** SCHEDULING ORDER: Status Conference set for 11/8/2005 11:00 AM in room #256 before Magistrate Judge V. Sue Shields. Signed by Judge V. Sue Shields on 10/31/05. (SWM, ) (Entered: 11/01/2005)
15 NOTICE of Appearance (SUBSTITUTION for Julie A. Hoffman) by Anne Kramer Ricchiuto of Baker &Daniels on behalf of DEBORAH BARNETT, KEVIN MURRAY, GEORGE EDWARDS, ELWOOD BLACK, MEG BABCOCK, STEVE RECKLEY, JOE LUCAS, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, ROBERT TURNER, MICHAEL T. SPEARS, JAMES L. GREESON, MICHAEL MORKEN, CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, MARY MAXWELL, CORDELIA BURKS, EDWARD DELANEY (CLL, ) (Entered: 11/02/2005)
16 Entry for proceedings held before Judge V. Sue Shields : Status Conference held on 11/8/2005. Deft shall answer by 11/28/2005; Parties shall file contentions by 1/28/2006; Parties shall file their witness/exhibit lists by 2/28/2006; Parties shall identify and exchange expert reports by 4/28/2006; All discovery to be completed by 6/28/2006. Magistrate recommends hearing date in 8/2006. (LSC, ) (Entered: 11/22/2005)
17 ENTRY for 11/28/2005 and SCHEDULING ORDER: Telephonic Status Conference set for 2/10/2006 at 01:00 PM before Magistrate Judge V. Sue Shields. Counsel shall call the court. (LSC, ) (Entered: 11/28/2005)

Case: 1:78-cv-00388-RLY-DML As of: 07/17/2014 11:27 AM EDT 7 of 21

11/28/2005 12/07/2005 12/13/2005
12/20/2005
01/05/2006 01/06/2006 01/12/2006 01/13/2006 01/13/2006 01/18/2006 01/18/2006 01/19/2006
01/27/2006 01/30/2006 02/13/2006 02/13/2006
02/16/2006 03/23/2006

18 RESPONSE in Opposition re 2 MOTION to Dissolve Consent Decree and Dismiss Action filed by all defendants. (Ricchiuto, Anne) (Entered: 11/28/2005)
19 REPLY in support of Motion re 2 MOTION to Dissolve Consent Decree and Dismiss Action filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Roth, Christine) (Entered: 12/07/2005)
20 ENTRY designates the Honorable Tim A. Baker to issue a report and recommendation regarding the proper disposition of plaintiff's motion to dissolve the consent decrees and dismiss this action. Signed by Judge Richard L. Young on 12/13/05. (CLL, ) (Entered: 12/13/2005)
21 ORDER withdraws its 12/13/05 designation to the Honorable Tim A. Baker to issue a report and recommendation re: disposition of plaintiff's Motion to Dissolve the Consent Decrees and Dismiss this Action. Magistrate Judge V. Sue Shields' 11/8/05 Entry remains in effect. This court will schedule a hearing on said motion at a later date. Signed by Judge Richard L. Young on 12/20/05. (CLL, ) (Entered: 12/20/2005)
22 NOTICE of Substitution of Appearance by Reid Alan Cox replacing Christine Mary Roth on behalf of UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Cox, Reid) (Entered: 01/05/2006)
23 NOTICE of Appearance by Allison Wells Gritton on behalf of all defendants (Gritton, Allison) (Entered: 01/06/2006)
24 MOTION to Modify Case Management Order by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Modified Case Management Order)(Cox, Reid) (Entered: 01/12/2006)
25 Submission of Signature Requirement re 23 Notice of Appearance by all defendants. (Gritton, Allison) (Entered: 01/13/2006)
26 RESPONSE in Opposition re 24 MOTION to Modify Case Management Order filed by all defendants. (Chinn, Anthony) (Entered: 01/13/2006)
27 NOTICE of Appearance by Jodi B. Danis on behalf of UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Danis, Jodi) (Entered: 01/18/2006)
28 REPLY in support of Motion re 24 MOTION to Modify Case Management Order filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Cox, Reid) (Entered: 01/18/2006)
29 ORDER granting parties' 24 Motion to Modify case management order (See Order for established deadlines). Based upon this schedule the undersigned continues to recommend a hearing date in August 2006. Signed by Judge V. Sue Shields on 1/19/06. (SWM, ) (Entered: 01/19/2006)
30 CONTENTIONS (Preliminary) by all defendants.. (Chinn, Anthony) (Entered: 01/27/2006)
31 CONTENTIONS (Preliminary) by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.. (Cox, Reid) (Entered: 01/30/2006)
32 Joint MOTION for Protective Order (Stipulated) by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Stipulated Protective Order)(Cox, Reid) (Entered: 02/13/2006)
33 ENTRY for 2/10/06. The parties appeared, by counsel, this date for a telephonic status conference. The parties report that they soon will be filing an agreed protective order governing confidential discovery documents. The case management order is modified (See Entry). Signed by Judge V. Sue Shields on 2/13/06. (SWM, ) (Entered: 02/15/2006)
34 Stipulated Protective Order APPROVED. Signed by Judge V. Sue Shields on 2/16/06. (SWM, ) Modified on 2/17/2006 (SWM, ). (Entered: 02/17/2006)
35 NOTICE of Appearance by Myra Consetta Selby on behalf of 100 Black Men of Indianapolis, Inc., Indianapolis Black Firefighters Association, INDIANAPOLIS URBAN LEAGUE, INC. (Selby, Myra) (Entered: 03/23/2006)

Case: 1:78-cv-00388-RLY-DML As of: 07/17/2014 11:27 AM EDT 8 of 21

03/23/2006 03/23/2006 03/29/2006 03/30/2006 04/05/2006 04/10/2006 04/24/2006 04/28/2006 04/28/2006 04/28/2006
05/01/2006 05/02/2006 05/05/2006 05/19/2006

36 NOTICE of Appearance by Steven F. Pockrass on behalf of 100 Black Men of Indianapolis, Inc., Indianapolis Black Firefighters Association, INDIANAPOLIS URBAN LEAGUE, INC. (Pockrass, Steven) (Entered: 03/23/2006)
37 MOTION for Leave to File Brief as Amicus Curiae on Behalf of Defendants by 100 Black Men of Indianapolis, Inc., Indianapolis Black Firefighters Association, INDIANAPOLIS URBAN LEAGUE, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pockrass, Steven) (Entered: 03/23/2006)
38 RESPONSE to Motion re 37 MOTION for Leave to File Brief as Amicus Curiae on Behalf of Defendants filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Cox, Reid) (Entered: 03/29/2006)
39 NOTICE by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Withdrawal of Bradley J. Schlozman (Braniff, Andrew) (Entered: 03/30/2006)
40 ORDER granting Urban League, 100 Black Men and the IBFA's 37 Motion to file brief their Brief of Amicus Curiae on a date to be established by the Court in conjunction with the evidentiary hearing to be conducted in this case. Signed by Judge V. Sue Shields on 4/5/06. (SWM, ) (Entered: 04/05/2006)
41 NOTICE of Appearance by John P. Cunningham on behalf of UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Cunningham, John) (Entered: 04/10/2006)
42 Joint MOTION to Modify Case Management Order by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Cox, Reid) (Entered: 04/24/2006)
43 NOTICE by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Identification of its Expert (Cox, Reid) (Entered: 04/28/2006)
44 ORDER granting parties' 42 Joint Motion to Modify case management order (See Order for established deadlines). Based upon this schedule the undersigned continues to recommend a hearing date in 10/06. Signed by Judge V. Sue Shields on 4/28/06. (SWM, ) (Entered: 04/28/2006)
45 NOTICE by DEBORAH BARNETT, KEVIN MURRAY, GEORGE EDWARDS, ELWOOD BLACK, MEG BABCOCK, STEVE RECKLEY, JOE LUCAS, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, MURRILL M. LOWRY, EUGENE GALLAGHERE, WILLIAM J. PATTERSON, JOHN LAUTER, ROBERT MOORHEAD, RICHARD GUTHRIE, CHARLES R. THOMAS, GEORGE COMFORT, HAROLD J. EGENES, ROBERT TURNER, MICHAEL T. SPEARS, JAMES L. GREESON, MICHAEL MORKEN, CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, MARY MAXWELL, CORDELIA BURKS, EDWARD DELANEY Defendants' Identification of Expert Witnesses (Ricchiuto, Anne) (Entered: 04/28/2006)
46 First MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Brief by NAACP. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order # 2 Exhibit A# 3 Exhibit B# 4 Exhibit C (Part 1of 4)# 5 Exhibit C (Part 2 of 4)# 6 Exhibit C (Part 3 of 4)# 7 Exhibit C (Part 4 of 4))(Lee, Nathaniel) (Entered: 05/01/2006)
47 RESPONSE to Motion re 46 First MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Brief by the NAACP filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Cox, Reid) (Entered: 05/02/2006)
48 ORDER granting 46 Motion for Leave to File amicus brief. Signed by Judge Richard L. Young on 5/5/06. (CLL, ) (Entered: 05/05/2006)
49 Joint MOTION to Modify Case Management Order by DEBORAH BARNETT, KEVIN MURRAY, GEORGE EDWARDS, ELWOOD BLACK, MEG BABCOCK, STEVE RECKLEY, JOE LUCAS, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, ROBERT TURNER, MICHAEL T. SPEARS, JAMES L. GREESON, MICHAEL MORKEN, CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, MARY MAXWELL, CORDELIA BURKS, EDWARD DELANEY. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Ricchiuto, Anne) (Entered: 05/19/2006)

Case: 1:78-cv-00388-RLY-DML As of: 07/17/2014 11:27 AM EDT 9 of 21

05/24/2006 06/01/2006
06/06/2006 06/12/2006 06/14/2006 07/25/2006
07/26/2006
07/26/2006
07/31/2006 07/31/2006 09/25/2006 09/26/2006

50 ORDER granting Parties Agreed 49 Motion to Modify Case Management Order deadlines. (See order for specific deadlines). Signed by Judge V. Sue Shields on 5/24/06. (MAC, ) (Entered: 05/24/2006)
51 Joint MOTION to Stay Case Management Plan Deadlines by DEBORAH BARNETT, KEVIN MURRAY, GEORGE EDWARDS, ELWOOD BLACK, MEG BABCOCK, STEVE RECKLEY, JOE LUCAS, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ROBERT TURNER, MICHAEL T. SPEARS, JAMES L. GREESON, MICHAEL MORKEN, CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, MARY MAXWELL, CORDELIA BURKS, EDWARD DELANEY. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Chinn, Anthony) (Entered: 06/01/2006)
52 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney : Petition for Leave to Withdraw Appearance of Steven F. Pockrass by 100 Black Men of Indianapolis, Inc., Indianapolis Black Firefighters Association, INDIANAPOLIS URBAN LEAGUE, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pockrass, Steven) (Entered: 06/06/2006)
53 ORDER granting parties' 51 Joint Motion to Stay CMP deadlines (See Order). Signed by Judge V. Sue Shields on 6/12/06. (SWM, ) (Entered: 06/14/2006)
54 ORDER granting Steven F. Pockrass' 52 Motion to Withdraw Appearance. Signed by Judge V. Sue Shields on 6/14/06. (SWM, ) (Entered: 06/15/2006)
55 *** WITHDRAWN PER ORDER DATED 7/31/06 *** Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to September 25, 2006 for Stay of Case Management Plan Deadlines by DEBORAH BARNETT, KEVIN MURRAY, GEORGE EDWARDS, ELWOOD BLACK, MEG BABCOCK, STEVE RECKLEY, JOE LUCAS, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, MURRILL M. LOWRY, EUGENE GALLAGHERE, WILLIAM J. PATTERSON, JOHN LAUTER, ROBERT MOORHEAD, RICHARD GUTHRIE, CHARLES R. THOMAS, GEORGE COMFORT, HAROLD J. EGENES, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ROBERT TURNER, MICHAEL T. SPEARS, JAMES L. GREESON, MICHAEL MORKEN, CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, MARY MAXWELL, CORDELIA BURKS, EDWARD DELANEY. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Ricchiuto, Anne) Modified on 8/1/2006 (SWM, ). (Entered: 07/25/2006)
56 MOTION to Withdraw Docket Entry #55 by DEBORAH BARNETT, KEVIN MURRAY, GEORGE EDWARDS, ELWOOD BLACK, MEG BABCOCK, STEVE RECKLEY, JOE LUCAS, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, ROBERT TURNER, MICHAEL T. SPEARS, JAMES L. GREESON, MICHAEL MORKEN, CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, MARY MAXWELL, CORDELIA BURKS, EDWARD DELANEY. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Ricchiuto, Anne) (Entered: 07/26/2006)
57 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to September 25, 2006 for Stay of Case Management Plan Deadlines by DEBORAH BARNETT, KEVIN MURRAY, GEORGE EDWARDS, ELWOOD BLACK, MEG BABCOCK, STEVE RECKLEY, JOE LUCAS, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ROBERT TURNER, MICHAEL T. SPEARS, JAMES L. GREESON, MICHAEL MORKEN, CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, MARY MAXWELL, CORDELIA BURKS, EDWARD DELANEY. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Ricchiuto, Anne) (Entered: 07/26/2006)
58 ORDER granting defts' 56 Motion to Withdraw Docket Entry #55. Signed by Judge V. Sue Shields on 7/31/06. (SWM, ) (Entered: 08/01/2006)
59 ORDER granting parties' 57 Joint Motion for enlargement of stay of CMP deadlines (See Order). Signed by Judge V. Sue Shields on 7/31/06. (SWM, ) (Entered: 08/01/2006)
60 Joint MOTION to Stay (Enlarge) Case Management Order, filed by Plaintiff UNITED STATES OF AMERICA., (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Cox, Reid) (Entered: 09/25/2006)
61 ORDER granting parties' 60 Joint Motion to Enlarge Stay of Case Management Order (See Order). Signed by Judge V. Sue Shields on 9/26/06. (SWM) (Entered:

Case: 1:78-cv-00388-RLY-DML As of: 07/17/2014 11:27 AM EDT 10 of 21

12/14/2006 12/19/2006 01/29/2007 03/02/2007 03/02/2007 03/30/2007
04/10/2007 04/11/2007 06/07/2007
06/07/2007
07/09/2007 07/12/2007 07/16/2007
07/24/2007

09/27/2006)
62 Joint MOTION to Stay Case Management Plan, filed by Plaintiff UNITED STATES OF AMERICA., (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Cox, Reid) (Entered: 12/14/2006)
63 ORDER granting parties' 62 Joint Motion to enlarge stay of case management order (See Order). Signed by Judge V. Sue Shields on 12/19/06. (SWM) (Entered: 12/20/2006)
64 NOTICE OF REASSIGNMENT of Magistrate Judge Magnus−Stinson to this case. Parties are to use the initials JMS in the cause number of future filings. All scheduled dates or deadlines before the district judge remain unchanged. (MRI) (Entered: 01/30/2007)
65 PAPER DOCKET from 6/29/78 through 11/13/91. (CLL) (Entered: 03/02/2007)
66 JAMS DOCKET from 1/2/91 through 10/17/05. (CLL) (Entered: 03/02/2007)
67 NOTICE of Withdrawal of Appearance by Robin C. Clay on behalf of DEBORAH BARNETT, KEVIN MURRAY, ELWOOD BLACK, MEG BABCOCK, STEVE RECKLEY, JOE LUCAS, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, ROBERT TURNER, MICHAEL T. SPEARS, JAMES L. GREESON, MICHAEL MORKEN, CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, MARY MAXWELL, CORDELIA BURKS, EDWARD DELANEY (Clay, Robin) (Entered: 03/30/2007)
68 Joint MOTION to Stay Case Management Plan, filed by Plaintiff UNITED STATES OF AMERICA., (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Cox, Reid) (Entered: 04/10/2007)
69 ORDER granting parties' 68 Joint Motion to enlarge stay of case management order (See Order). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 4/11/07. (SWM) (Entered: 04/11/2007)
70 NOTICE of Appearance by James B. Osborn on behalf of Defendants DEBORAH BARNETT, KEVIN MURRAY, GEORGE EDWARDS, ELWOOD BLACK, MEG BABCOCK, STEVE RECKLEY, JOE LUCAS, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, ROBERT TURNER, MICHAEL T. SPEARS, JAMES L. GREESON, MICHAEL MORKEN, CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, MARY MAXWELL, CORDELIA BURKS, EDWARD DELANEY. (Osborn, James) (Entered: 06/07/2007)
71 NOTICE of Withdrawal of Appearance by Allison Wells Gritton on behalf of DEBORAH BARNETT, KEVIN MURRAY, GEORGE EDWARDS, ELWOOD BLACK, MEG BABCOCK, STEVE RECKLEY, JOE LUCAS, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, ROBERT TURNER, MICHAEL T. SPEARS, JAMES L. GREESON, MICHAEL MORKEN, CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, MARY MAXWELL, CORDELIA BURKS, EDWARD DELANEY (Gritton, Allison) (Entered: 06/07/2007)
72 SCHEDULING ORDER: Status Conference set for 7/31/2007 02:00 PM in room #256 before Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 7/9/07. (SWM) (Entered: 07/09/2007)
73 ENTRY: The undersigned judge on the court's own motion RECUSES herself from this action. The clerk is therefore directed to reassign the action by random selection and to notify the parties of this action and of the reassignment. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 7/12/07. (SWM) (Entered: 07/12/2007)
74 Case Reassigned to Judge William T. Lawrence. Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson no longer assigned to the case. The cause number for this case has been changed to reflect the initials (WTL) of the newly assigned judge. Please note that cause number 1:78−cv−388−RLY−WTL must be used on all future filings. (TAA) (Entered: 07/17/2007)
75 SCHEDULING ORDER: Status Conference to go forward on 7/31/2007 02:00 PM in room #277 before Magistrate Judge William T. Lawrence (rather than before Magistrate Judge Magnus−Stinson). Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on

Case: 1:78-cv-00388-RLY-DML As of: 07/17/2014 11:27 AM EDT 11 of 21

07/30/2007
07/31/2007 07/31/2007
08/01/2007 08/02/2007
08/07/2007 08/15/2007
08/15/2007 08/23/2007 08/24/2007 08/24/2007 09/10/2007 10/17/2007

7/24/07. (JHO) (Entered: 07/24/2007)
76 Joint MOTION to Consolidate Cases, filed by Defendants DEBORAH BARNETT, KEVIN MURRAY, GEORGE EDWARDS, ELWOOD BLACK, MEG BABCOCK, STEVE RECKLEY, JOE LUCAS, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, ROBERT TURNER, MICHAEL T. SPEARS, JAMES L. GREESON, MICHAEL MORKEN, CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, MARY MAXWELL, CORDELIA BURKS, EDWARD DELANEY, Plaintiff UNITED STATES OF AMERICA., (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Ricchiuto, Anne) (Entered: 07/30/2007)
77 ORDER granting 76 Motion to Consolidate Cases. 1:05−CV−1220−LJM−JMS and 1:07−CV−897−DFH−WTL are consolidated into 1:78−CV−388−RLY−WTL. Signed by Judge Richard L. Young on 7/31/07. (CLL) (Entered: 07/31/2007)
78 SCHEDULING ORDER: Initial Pretrial Conference set for 10/24/2007 10:00 AM in room #277 before Magistrate Judge William T. Lawrence. Settlement Conference set for 12/7/2007 10:00 AM in room #277 before Magistrate Judge William T. Lawrence. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 07/31/2007. (TMA) (Entered: 07/31/2007)
79 ENTRY FOR 7/31/07: Parties appear by counsel for status conference. Parties to file joint notice re: Magistrate Judge's assignment by 8/10/07. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 7/31/07. (JHO) (Entered: 08/01/2007)
80 NOTICE of Appearance by Alison Margaret Chestovich on behalf of Defendants DEBORAH BARNETT, KEVIN MURRAY, GEORGE EDWARDS, ELWOOD BLACK, MEG BABCOCK, STEVE RECKLEY, JOE LUCAS, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, ROBERT TURNER, MICHAEL T. SPEARS, JAMES L. GREESON, MICHAEL MORKEN, CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, MARY MAXWELL, CORDELIA BURKS, EDWARD DELANEY. (Chestovich, Alison) (Entered: 08/02/2007)
81 NOTICE (JOINT) OF CONSOLIDATED PARTIES, filed by Plaintiff UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Cox, Reid) (Entered: 08/07/2007)
82 MOTION to Intervene as Plaintiffs., (Attachments: # (1) Text of Proposed Order granting Motion to Intervene# (2) Exhibit Intervenors' Complaint)(McQuary, Jeffrey) Modified on 8/24/2007 (TMA). *** EXHIBIT 2, INTERVENORS' COMPLAINT, IS SUBSTITUTED PER 86 ORDER OF 8/24/07 *** Additional attachment(s) added on 8/24/2007 (TMA). (Entered: 08/15/2007)
83 NOTICE of Appearance by Jeffrey S. McQuary on behalf of Plaintiff Scott A Hessong. (McQuary, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/15/2007)
84 MOTION to Amend/Correct 82 MOTION to Intervene as Plaintiffs, filed by Plaintiff Scott A Hessong., (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Corrected Intervenors' Complaint# 2 Text of Proposed Order substituting corrected Complaint)(McQuary, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/23/2007)
85 RESPONSE to Motion re 82 MOTION to Intervene as Plaintiffs, filed by Plaintiff UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Cox, Reid) (Entered: 08/24/2007)
86 ORDER granting 84 MOTION to Amend 82 MOTION to Intervene as Plaintiffs, filed by Plaintiff Scott A Hessong. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 08/24/2007. (TMA) (Entered: 08/24/2007)
87 Defendant's ANSWER to Complaint filed by Plaintiff, filed by CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS.(Ricchiuto, Anne) (Entered: 09/10/2007)
88 CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN TENDERED, filed by Defendants DEBORAH BARNETT, KEVIN MURRAY, GEORGE EDWARDS, ELWOOD BLACK, MEG BABCOCK, STEVE RECKLEY, JOE LUCAS, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, ROBERT TURNER, MICHAEL T. SPEARS, JAMES L. GREESON, MICHAEL MORKEN, CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, MARY MAXWELL, CORDELIA BURKS, EDWARD DELANEY, Plaintiff UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Joint Submission). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Case Management Summary)(Chinn, Anthony) (Entered: 10/17/2007)

Case: 1:78-cv-00388-RLY-DML As of: 07/17/2014 11:27 AM EDT 12 of 21

10/19/2007 10/22/2007 10/22/2007 10/24/2007
10/25/2007 11/09/2007
11/15/2007
11/16/2007 11/19/2007 11/19/2007 11/19/2007 12/05/2007 12/11/2007

89 NOTICE of Withdrawal of Appearance by Jodi B. Danis on behalf of UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Danis, Jodi) (Entered: 10/19/2007)
90 ORDER granting 82 Motion to Intervene. Signed by Judge Richard L. Young on 10/22/07. (CLL) Modified on 10/22/2007−−WRONG DOCUMENT ATTACHED (CLL). Additional attachment(s) added on 10/22/2007 (CLL). (Entered: 10/22/2007)
91 Intervenor COMPLAINT, filed by BENJAMIN D. HUNTER, BRANDON C. LASER, BRENT E. HENDRICKS, BRENT D. MILLER, DANIEL R. GREEN, THOMAS I. BLACK, ROBERT M. McCLARY.(CLL) (Entered: 10/22/2007)
92 MOTION to Amend/Correct Intervenor's Complaint, filed by Plaintiffs Scott A Hessong, BRENT E. HENDRICKS, Intervenor Plaintiffs BENJAMIN D. HUNTER, BRANDON C. LASER, BRENT D. MILLER, DANIEL R. GREEN, THOMAS I. BLACK, ROBERT M. McCLARY., (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit proposed Amended Complaint# 2 Text of Proposed Order granting leave for Intervenors to file Amended Complaint)(McQuary, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/24/2007)
93 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge William T. Lawrence : Status Conference held on 10/24/2007. (See Entry) (TMA) (Entered: 10/25/2007)
94 Amended MOTION to Partially Dissolve the Consent Decrees, filed by Plaintiff UNITED STATES OF AMERICA., (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support &Appendix# 2 Exhibit Exhibit 1−Part 1# 3 Exhibit Exhibit 1−Part 2# 4 Exhibit Exhibit 2# 5 Exhibit Exhibit 3# 6 Exhibit Exhibit 4# 7 Exhibit Exhibit 5# 8 Exhibit Exhibit 6# 9 Exhibit Exhibit 7# 10 Exhibit Exhibit 8# 11 Exhibit Exhibit 9# 12 Exhibit Exhibit 10# 13 Exhibit Exhibit 11−Part 1# 14 Exhibit Exhibit 11−Part 2# 15 Exhibit Exhibit 11−Part 3# 16 Exhibit Exhibit 12−Part 1# 17 Exhibit Exhibit 12−Part 2# 18 Exhibit Exhibit 13# 19 Exhibit Exhibit 14# 20 Exhibit Exhibit 15−Part 1# 21 Exhibit Exhibit 15−Part 2# 22 Text of Proposed Order)(Cox, Reid) (Entered: 11/09/2007)
95 MOTION to Stay, filed by Defendants DEBORAH BARNETT, KEVIN MURRAY, GEORGE EDWARDS, ELWOOD BLACK, MEG BABCOCK, STEVE RECKLEY, JOE LUCAS, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, ROBERT TURNER, MICHAEL T. SPEARS, JAMES L. GREESON, MICHAEL MORKEN, CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, MARY MAXWELL, CORDELIA BURKS, EDWARD DELANEY., (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Order on Motion to Stay All Deadlines)(Ricchiuto, Anne) (Entered: 11/15/2007)
96 RESPONSE in Opposition re 95 MOTION to Stay of all Deadlines, filed by Plaintiff UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Cox, Reid) (Entered: 11/16/2007)
97 ORDER granting 92 Intervenors' Motion to Amend Complaint. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 11/19/2007. (TMA) (Entered: 11/19/2007)
98 AMENDED COMPLAINT, filed by Scott A Hessong, BENJAMIN D. HUNTER, BRANDON C. LASER, BRENT E. HENDRICKS, BRENT D. MILLER, THOMAS I. BLACK, ROBERT M. McCLARY.(TMA) (Entered: 11/19/2007)
99 NOTICE of Intervenors' Concurrence with United States' response to Motion for Stay, filed by Plaintiffs Scott A Hessong, BRENT E. HENDRICKS, Intervenor Plaintiffs BENJAMIN D. HUNTER, BRANDON C. LASER, BRENT D. MILLER, DANIEL R. GREEN, THOMAS I. BLACK, ROBERT M. McCLARY, re 96 Response in Opposition to Motion. (McQuary, Jeffrey) (Entered: 11/19/2007)
100 ENTRY − The Settlement Conference scheduled for Friday, December 7, 2007 is hereby VACATED pending ruling on Defendants Motion to Stay (#95). Signed by Magistrate Judge William T. Lawrence on 12/05/2007. (TMA) (Entered: 12/05/2007)
101 ORDER granting 95 Motion to Stay All Deadlines. All deadlines in these consolidated cases shall be stayed until January 31, 2008. Status Conference set for 1/31/2008 01:00 PM in room #277 before Magistrate Judge William T. Lawrence. Signed by Magistrate Judge William T. Lawrence on 12/11/2007. (TMA) (Entered: 12/11/2007)

Case: 1:78-cv-00388-RLY-DML As of: 07/17/2014 11:27 AM EDT 13 of 21

12/31/2007 01/02/2008 01/03/2008 01/30/2008
01/30/2008
01/30/2008
01/30/2008 01/31/2008 01/31/2008 02/01/2008
02/01/2008

102 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney, filed by Defendant CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Chestovich, Alison) (Entered: 12/31/2007)
103 NOTICE of Withdrawal of Appearance by James B. Osborn on behalf of KEVIN MURRAY, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, JERRY BARKER, JAMES RENO, ROBERT TURNER, MICHAEL T. SPEARS, JAMES L. GREESON, CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS (Osborn, James) (Entered: 01/02/2008)
104 ORDER granting 102 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Alison Margaret Chestovich withdrawn. Signed by Magistrate Judge William T. Lawrence on 1/02/08. (JHO) (Entered: 01/03/2008)
105 NOTICE of Appearance by Joseph C. Chapelle on behalf of Defendants DEBORAH BARNETT, KEVIN MURRAY, GEORGE EDWARDS, ELWOOD BLACK, MEG BABCOCK, STEVE RECKLEY, JOE LUCAS, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, MURRILL M. LOWRY, EUGENE GALLAGHERE, WILLIAM J. PATTERSON, JOHN LAUTER, ROBERT MOORHEAD, RICHARD GUTHRIE, CHARLES R. THOMAS, GEORGE COMFORT, HAROLD J. EGENES, JERRY BARKER, JAMES WYATT, JAMES RENO, JOSEPH SMITH, ROBERT TURNER, MICHAEL T. SPEARS, JAMES L. GREESON, MICHAEL MORKEN, CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, MARY MAXWELL, CORDELIA BURKS, EDWARD DELANEY. (Chapelle, Joseph) (Entered: 01/30/2008)
106 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney, filed by Defendants DEBORAH BARNETT, KEVIN MURRAY, GEORGE EDWARDS, ELWOOD BLACK, MEG BABCOCK, STEVE RECKLEY, JOE LUCAS, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, ROBERT TURNER, MICHAEL T. SPEARS, JAMES L. GREESON, MICHAEL MORKEN, CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, MARY MAXWELL, CORDELIA BURKS, EDWARD DELANEY. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Order on Motion to Withdraw Attorney)(Ricchiuto, Anne) (Entered: 01/30/2008)
107 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney, filed by Defendants DEBORAH BARNETT, KEVIN MURRAY, GEORGE EDWARDS, ELWOOD BLACK, MEG BABCOCK, STEVE RECKLEY, JOE LUCAS, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, ROBERT TURNER, MICHAEL T. SPEARS, JAMES L. GREESON, MICHAEL MORKEN, CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, MARY MAXWELL, CORDELIA BURKS, EDWARD DELANEY. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Chinn, Anthony) (Entered: 01/30/2008)
108 NOTICE of Appearance by M. Elizabeth Bemis on behalf of Consol Plaintiff LAWRENCE WHEELER. (Bemis, M.) (Entered: 01/30/2008)
109 ORDER granting 106 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Anne Kramer Ricchiuto withdrawn. Signed by Magistrate Judge William T. Lawrence on 01/31/08. (TMA) (Entered: 01/31/2008)
110 ORDER granting 107 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Anthony Scott Chinn withdrawn. Signed by Magistrate Judge William T. Lawrence on 01/31/08. (TMA) (Entered: 01/31/2008)
111 NOTICE of Substitution of Appearance by Jonathan Lamont Mayes replacing Robin Clay and Kelly Whiteman on behalf of DEBORAH BARNETT, KEVIN MURRAY, GEORGE EDWARDS, ELWOOD BLACK, MEG BABCOCK, STEVE RECKLEY, JOE LUCAS, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, ROBERT TURNER, MICHAEL T. SPEARS, JAMES L. GREESON, MICHAEL MORKEN, CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, MARY MAXWELL, CORDELIA BURKS, EDWARD DELANEY (Mayes, Jonathan) (Entered: 02/01/2008)
112 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge William T. Lawrence: Parties appear by counsel for status conference on 1/31/08. Conference held and concluded. All deadlines in the Case Management Plan and all responses to pending motions and pending discovery are hereby STAYED until further order of the Court. Settlement Conference set for 3/17/2008 01:30 PM in room #277 before Magistrate Judge William T. Lawrence. (TMA) (Entered: 02/01/2008)

Case: 1:78-cv-00388-RLY-DML As of: 07/17/2014 11:27 AM EDT 14 of 21

02/21/2008 04/16/2008 04/17/2008 06/02/2008
06/30/2008 07/02/2008 07/09/2008 07/11/2008 07/23/2008
07/23/2008
07/25/2008

113 SCHEDULING ORDER: Settlement Conference set for 3/17/08 is VACATED AND RESCHEDULED for 4/21/2008 01:30 PM in room #277 before Magistrate Judge William T. Lawrence. (TMA) (Entered: 02/21/2008)
114 MOTION Requesting Leave to Permit Client Representative With Settlement Authority to be Available By Phone, filed by Plaintiff UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Cox, Reid) (Entered: 04/16/2008)
115 ORDER granting 114 Plaintiff United States' Motion requesting leave to permit its party representative with settlement authority be available by telephone for the 4/21/08 settlement conference. Signed by Magistrate Judge William T. Lawrence on 4/17/08. (TMA) (Entered: 04/17/2008)
116 ORDER DIRECTING FILING OF A PLEADING AUTHORIZING DISMISSAL − The Court has been advised that a settlement has been reached. Therefore, all pending motions, if any, are now DENIED AS MOOT and all previously ordered dates, if any, are VACATED. IT IS ORDERED that within thirty (30) days of this date, counsel for the plaintiff shall file a motion to dismiss this cause or a stipulation of dismissal. Deadlines and Motions terminated. Signed by Magistrate Judge William T. Lawrence on 6/2/08. (TMA) (Entered: 06/03/2008)
117 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to 07/23/2008 to Complete Execution and Submission of Settlement, filed by Plaintiff UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Cox, Reid) (Entered: 06/30/2008)
118 ORDER granting parties' 117 Joint Motion for Extension of Time to complete execution and submission of settlement to 7/23/08. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker on 7/2/08. (SWM) (Entered: 07/03/2008)
119 *** PLEASE DISREGARD (This entry was created in error) *** Reassignment of Case to Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson. Judge William T. Lawrence no longer assigned to the case. Please include the new case number (1:78−cv−388−RLY−JMS), which includes the initials of the newly assigned judge, on all future filings in this matter. (WJC) Modified on 7/11/2008 (WJC). (Entered: 07/09/2008)
120 Reassignment of Case to Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr. Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson no longer assigned to the case. Please include the new case number (1:78−cv−388−RLY−WGH), which includes the initials of the newly assigned judge, on all future filings in this matter. (WJC) (Entered: 07/11/2008)
121 NOTICE of Appearance by Anne B. Hayes on behalf of Defendants DEBORAH BARNETT, KEVIN MURRAY, GEORGE EDWARDS, ELWOOD BLACK, MEG BABCOCK, STEVE RECKLEY, JOE LUCAS, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, JERRY BARKER, JAMES WYATT, JAMES RENO, JOSEPH SMITH, ROBERT TURNER, MICHAEL T. SPEARS, JAMES L. GREESON, MICHAEL MORKEN, CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, MARY MAXWELL, CORDELIA BURKS, EDWARD DELANEY. (Hayes, Anne) (Entered: 07/23/2008)
122 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Wednesday, July 30, 2008 (Joint Motion for Additional Time to Complete Execution and Submission of Settlement), filed by Defendants DEBORAH BARNETT, KEVIN MURRAY, GEORGE EDWARDS, ELWOOD BLACK, MEG BABCOCK, STEVE RECKLEY, JOE LUCAS, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, JERRY BARKER, JAMES WYATT, JAMES RENO, JOSEPH SMITH, ROBERT TURNER, MICHAEL T. SPEARS, JAMES L. GREESON, MICHAEL MORKEN, CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, MARY MAXWELL, CORDELIA BURKS, EDWARD DELANEY. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Order to Joint Motion for Additional Time to Complete Execution and Submission of Settlement, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order to Joint Motion for Additional Time to Complete Execution and Submission of Settlement)(Hayes, Anne) (Entered: 07/23/2008)
123 ORDER granting parties' 122 Motion for Extension of Time to File settlement documents to 7/30/08. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr on 7/25/08. (SMD) (Entered: 07/25/2008)

Case: 1:78-cv-00388-RLY-DML As of: 07/17/2014 11:27 AM EDT 15 of 21

07/30/2008 07/31/2008 08/07/2008 08/08/2008
08/12/2008
08/12/2008

124 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to August 8, 2008 (Joint Motion for Additional Time to Complete Execution and Submission of Settlement), filed by Defendants DEBORAH BARNETT, KEVIN MURRAY, GEORGE EDWARDS, ELWOOD BLACK, MEG BABCOCK, STEVE RECKLEY, JOE LUCAS, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, JERRY BARKER, JAMES WYATT, JAMES RENO, JOSEPH SMITH, ROBERT TURNER, MICHAEL T. SPEARS, JAMES L. GREESON, MICHAEL MORKEN, CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, MARY MAXWELL, CORDELIA BURKS, EDWARD DELANEY. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. A − Proposed Order to Joint Motion for Additional Time to Complete Execution and Submission of Settlement, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order to Joint Motion for Additional Time to Complete Execution and Submission of Settlement)(Hayes, Anne) (Entered: 07/30/2008)
125 ORDER granting 124 Motion for Extension of Time to and including Friday, 08/08/2008. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr on 07/31/2008. (TLH) (Entered: 07/31/2008)
126 NOTICE of Appearance by Christopher W. Cotterill on behalf of Defendants DEBORAH BARNETT, KEVIN MURRAY, GEORGE EDWARDS, ELWOOD BLACK, MEG BABCOCK, STEVE RECKLEY, JOE LUCAS, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, JERRY BARKER, JAMES WYATT, JAMES RENO, JOSEPH SMITH, ROBERT TURNER, MICHAEL T. SPEARS, JAMES L. GREESON, MICHAEL MORKEN, CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, MARY MAXWELL, CORDELIA BURKS, EDWARD DELANEY. (Cotterill, Christopher) (Entered: 08/07/2008)
127 Joint MOTION for Additional Time to Complete Execution and Submission of Settlement, filed by Defendants DEBORAH BARNETT, KEVIN MURRAY, GEORGE EDWARDS, ELWOOD BLACK, MEG BABCOCK, STEVE RECKLEY, JOE LUCAS, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, MURRILL M. LOWRY, EUGENE GALLAGHERE, WILLIAM J. PATTERSON, JOHN LAUTER, ROBERT MOORHEAD, RICHARD GUTHRIE, CHARLES R. THOMAS, GEORGE COMFORT, HAROLD J. EGENES, JERRY BARKER, JAMES WYATT, JAMES RENO, JOSEPH SMITH, ROBERT TURNER, MICHAEL T. SPEARS, JAMES L. GREESON, MICHAEL MORKEN, CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, MARY MAXWELL, CORDELIA BURKS, EDWARD DELANEY, Amicus Parties 100 Black Men of Indianapolis, Inc., Indianapolis Black Firefighters Association, INDIANAPOLIS URBAN LEAGUE, INC., NAACP, Plaintiffs UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Scott A Hessong, BRENT E. HENDRICKS, Intervenor Plaintiffs BENJAMIN D. HUNTER, BRANDON C. LASER, BRENT D. MILLER, DANIEL R. GREEN, THOMAS I. BLACK, ROBERT M. McCLARY, Consol Plaintiff LAWRENCE WHEELER. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Mayes, Jonathan) (Entered: 08/08/2008)
128 Submission, filed by Defendants DEBORAH BARNETT, KEVIN MURRAY, GEORGE EDWARDS, ELWOOD BLACK, MEG BABCOCK, STEVE RECKLEY, JOE LUCAS, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, MURRILL M. LOWRY, EUGENE GALLAGHERE, WILLIAM J. PATTERSON, JOHN LAUTER, ROBERT MOORHEAD, RICHARD GUTHRIE, CHARLES R. THOMAS, GEORGE COMFORT, HAROLD J. EGENES, JERRY BARKER, JAMES WYATT, JAMES RENO, JOSEPH SMITH, ROBERT TURNER, MICHAEL T. SPEARS, JAMES L. GREESON, MICHAEL MORKEN, CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, MARY MAXWELL, CORDELIA BURKS, EDWARD DELANEY, Amicus Parties 100 Black Men of Indianapolis, Inc., Indianapolis Black Firefighters Association, INDIANAPOLIS URBAN LEAGUE, INC., NAACP, Plaintiffs UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Scott A Hessong, BRENT E. HENDRICKS, Intervenor Plaintiffs BENJAMIN D. HUNTER, BRANDON C. LASER, BRENT D. MILLER, DANIEL R. GREEN, THOMAS I. BLACK, ROBERT M. McCLARY, Consol Plaintiff LAWRENCE WHEELER. (Mayes, Jonathan) (Entered: 08/12/2008)
129 ORDER granting parties' 127 Motion for additional time. Deadline extended to 8/22/08 to submit settlement documents. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr on 8/12/08. (SMD) (Entered: 08/13/2008)

Case: 1:78-cv-00388-RLY-DML As of: 07/17/2014 11:27 AM EDT 16 of 21

08/15/2008 08/22/2008
08/22/2008 08/28/2008 08/28/2008 08/28/2008 09/09/2008 09/10/2008 09/11/2008 09/11/2008
09/11/2008

130 NOTICE of Withdrawal of Appearance by Reid Alan Cox on behalf of UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Cox, Reid) (Entered: 08/15/2008)
131 Joint MOTION to Dissolve Consent Decrees and Dismiss this Action, filed by Plaintiff UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum In Support, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 1, Part 1, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 1, Part 2, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit 2, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit 3, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit 4, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit 5, # 9 Exhibit Exhibit 6, # 10 Exhibit Exhibit 7, # 11 Exhibit Exhibit 8, Part 1, # 12 Exhibit Exhibit 8, Part 2, # 13 Exhibit Exhibit 8, Part 3, # 14 Exhibit Exhibit 9, Part 1, # 15 Exhibit Exhibit 9, Part 2, # 16 Exhibit Exhibt 10, # 17 Exhibit Exhibit 11, # 18 Exhibit Exhibit 12, Part 1, # 19 Exhibit Exhibit 12, Part 2, # 20 Exhibit Exhibit 12, Part 3, # 21 Exhibit Exhibit 13, # 22 Exhibit Exhibit 14, Part 1, # 23 Exhibit Exhibit 14, Part 2)(Braniff, Andrew) (Entered: 08/22/2008)
132 Joint MOTION for Provisional Approval and Entry of the Consent Decree in Resolution of Suit, filed by Plaintiff UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum In Support, # 2 Attachment of Consent Decree with Notice and Release, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Braniff, Andrew) (Entered: 08/22/2008)
133 ORDER granting 131 Motion to Dissolve the Consent Decrees and Dismiss this Action. Signed by Judge Richard L. Young on 08/28/08. (PG) (Entered: 08/29/2008)
134 ORDER granting 132 Motion for Provisional Approval and Entry of the Consent Decree in Resolution of Suit. Signed by Judge Richard L. Young on 08/28/08. (PG) (Entered: 08/29/2008)
135 ORDER − Consent Decree in Resolution of Suit (see Consent Decree). Signed by Judge Richard L. Young on 08/28/08.(PG) (Entered: 08/29/2008)
136 MOTION to Set Deadline for Execution of Settlement Documents, filed by Plaintiffs SCOTT A HESSONG, BRENT E. HENDRICKS, Intervenor Plaintiffs BENJAMIN D. HUNTER, BRANDON C. LASER, BRENT D. MILLER, DANIEL R. GREEN, THOMAS I. BLACK, ROBERT M. McCLARY. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McQuary, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/09/2008)
137 Submission of Corrected Proposed Order for Docket # 136, filed by Plaintiffs SCOTT A HESSONG, BRENT E. HENDRICKS, Intervenor Plaintiffs BENJAMIN D. HUNTER, BRANDON C. LASER, BRENT D. MILLER, DANIEL R. GREEN, THOMAS I. BLACK, ROBERT M. McCLARY. (McQuary, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/10/2008)
138 ORDER granting 136 Motion Setting Deadline to Execute Settlement Documents. The City and the Intervenors shall execute all documents needed to effectuate settlement of the Intervenors claims against the City no later than September 30, 2008. A Stipulation of Dismissal shall be filed after execution of the settlement documents but no later than October 1, 2008. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr on 09/11/2008. (TLH) (Entered: 09/11/2008)
139 NOTICE of Withdrawal of Appearance by Anne B. Hayes on behalf of DEBORAH BARNETT, KEVIN MURRAY, GEORGE EDWARDS, ELWOOD BLACK, MEG BABCOCK, STEVE RECKLEY, JOE LUCAS, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, JERRY BARKER, JAMES WYATT, JAMES RENO, JOSEPH SMITH, ROBERT TURNER, MICHAEL T. SPEARS, JAMES L. GREESON, MICHAEL MORKEN, CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, MARY MAXWELL, CORDELIA BURKS, EDWARD DELANEY (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order Granting Notice for Leave to Withdraw Appearance) (Hayes, Anne) (Entered: 09/11/2008)
140 NOTICE of Withdrawal of Appearance by Joseph C. Chapelle on behalf of DEBORAH BARNETT, KEVIN MURRAY, GEORGE EDWARDS, ELWOOD BLACK, MEG BABCOCK, STEVE RECKLEY, JOE LUCAS, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, JERRY BARKER, JAMES WYATT, JAMES RENO, JOSEPH SMITH, ROBERT TURNER, MICHAEL T. SPEARS, JAMES L. GREESON, MICHAEL MORKEN, CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, MARY

Case: 1:78-cv-00388-RLY-DML As of: 07/17/2014 11:27 AM EDT 17 of 21

09/12/2008 09/12/2008 09/30/2008 09/30/2008
10/01/2008
10/01/2008 10/02/2008
10/03/2008 10/06/2008
10/21/2008
10/21/2008 10/22/2008 10/22/2008 10/23/2008

MAXWELL, CORDELIA BURKS, EDWARD DELANEY (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order Granting Notice for Leave to Withdraw Appearance) (Chapelle, Joseph) (Entered: 09/11/2008)
141 ORDER Granting 139 Notice of Withdrawal of Appearance of Amy B. Hayes. Signed by Judge Richard L. Young on 09/12/08.(PG) (Entered: 09/12/2008)
142 ORDER Granting 140 Notice of Withdrawal of Appearance of Joseph C. Chapelle. Signed by Judge Richard L. Young on 09/12/08.(PG) (Entered: 09/12/2008)
143 MOTION to Enforce Settlment Agreement, filed by Plaintiff SCOTT A HESSONG, Intervenor Plaintiffs BENJAMIN D. HUNTER, BRANDON C. LASER, BRENT D. MILLER, DANIEL R. GREEN, THOMAS I. BLACK, ROBERT M. McCLARY. (McQuary, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/30/2008)
144 NOTICE of Compliance, filed by Defendants DEBORAH BARNETT, KEVIN MURRAY, GEORGE EDWARDS, ELWOOD BLACK, MEG BABCOCK, STEVE RECKLEY, JOE LUCAS, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, JERRY BARKER, JAMES WYATT, JAMES RENO, JOSEPH SMITH, ROBERT TURNER, MICHAEL T. SPEARS, JAMES L. GREESON, MICHAEL MORKEN, CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, MARY MAXWELL, CORDELIA BURKS, EDWARD DELANEY (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Wheeler Agreement) (Mayes, Jonathan) (Entered: 09/30/2008)
145 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr: Attorney Conference Call held on 9/26/2008. Deadline to execute settlement documents is extended to 10/3/08. Telephonic Status Conference set for 10/3/2008 12:00 PM before Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann Jr. (SMD) (Entered: 10/01/2008)
146 STIPULATION of Dismissal, filed by Consol Plaintiff LAWRENCE WHEELER. (Kautzman, John) (Entered: 10/01/2008)
147 NOTICE of Substitution of Appearance by Jonathan Lamont Mayes replacing Kobi Wright on behalf of DEBORAH BARNETT, KEVIN MURRAY, GEORGE EDWARDS, ELWOOD BLACK, MEG BABCOCK, STEVE RECKLEY, JOE LUCAS, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, JERRY BARKER, JAMES WYATT, JAMES RENO, JOSEPH SMITH, ROBERT TURNER, MICHAEL T. SPEARS, JAMES L. GREESON, MICHAEL MORKEN, CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, MARY MAXWELL, CORDELIA BURKS, EDWARD DELANEY (Mayes, Jonathan) (Entered: 10/02/2008)
148 ORDER of Dissmissal as to Lawrence Wheeler with prejudice. Signed by Judge Richard L. Young on 10/03/08.(PG) (Entered: 10/03/2008)
149 Minute Entry for Telephonic Status Conference held on 10/3/2008 before Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr. Ordered: On or before October 8, 2008, the plaintiffs will advise the defendants whether the currently pending Verified Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement (Docket No. 143) must be briefed. (TLH) (Entered: 10/06/2008)
150 OBJECTION to Dismissal of Consent Decree, Request for Additional Discovery and Evidentiary Hearing by NAACP. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Brownie Coleman, Jr., # 2 Exhibit A−1, # 3 Exhibit A−2, # 4 Exhibit A−3, # 5 Exhibit A−4, # 6 Exhibit A−5, # 7 Exhibit A−6, # 8 Exhibit A−7, # 9 Exhibit A−8, # 10 Exhibit A−9, # 11 Exhibit A−10)(Lee, Nathaniel) (Entered: 10/21/2008)
151 NOTICE Proposed Order, filed by Amicus NAACP (Lee, Nathaniel) (Entered: 10/21/2008)
152 NOTICE of Appearance by Cherry Malichi on behalf of Amicus NAACP. (Malichi, Cherry) (Entered: 10/22/2008)
153 OBJECTION to Consent Decree in Resolution of Suit by NAACP. (Malichi, Cherry) (Entered: 10/22/2008)
154 Submission of Signature Requirement re 150 Objection by NAACP. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Brownie Coleman, Jr., # 2 Exhibit A−1, # 3 Exhibit A−2, # 4

Case: 1:78-cv-00388-RLY-DML As of: 07/17/2014 11:27 AM EDT 18 of 21

10/24/2008 11/07/2008
11/11/2008 11/14/2008 11/14/2008
11/14/2008

Exhibit A−3, # 5 Exhibit A−4, # 6 Exhibit A−5, # 7 Exhibit A−6, # 8 Exhibit A−7, # 9 Exhibit A−8, # 10 Exhibit A−9, # 11 Exhibit A−10)(Lee, Nathaniel) (Entered: 10/23/2008)
155 Reassignment of Case to Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch. Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr no longer assigned to the case. Please include the new case number (1:78−cv−0388−RLY−DML), which includes the initials of the newly assigned judge, on all future filings in this matter. (TMA) (Entered: 10/24/2008)
156 RESPONSE in Opposition re 143 MOTION to Enforce Settlment Agreement and Defendant City of Indianapolis' Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement, filed by Defendant CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A May 15, 2008 letter from Mr. McQuary and Mr. Kautzman, # 2 Exhibit B June 19, 2008 letter from Ms. Hayes, City's counsel, to Mr. McQuary, # 3 Exhibit B−1 Under Forty Agreement, # 4 Exhibit B−2 Over Forty Agreement, # 5 Exhibit C June 25, 2008 letter to Mr. McQuary, # 6 Exhibit D June 25, 2008 email between Mr. McQuary and Mr. Mayes, # 7 Exhibit E Black EEOC Charge, # 8 Exhibit F July 8, 2008 emails with Ms. Hayes, # 9 Exhibit G July 15, 2008 letter from Ms. Hayes, # 10 Exhibit H Emails between Mr. Mayes and Mr. McQuary, # 11 Exhibit I September 25, 2008 email from Mr. McQuary, # 12 Exhibit J July 23−24, 2008 emails, # 13 Exhibit K July 29, 2008 email and attachments, # 14 Exhibit L August 21, 2008 email and attachments, # 15 Exhibit M September 11, 2008 email to Mr. McQuary, # 16 Exhibit N September 11, 2008 email from Mr. McQuary, # 17 Exhibit O September 24, 2008 email to Mr. Mayes, # 18 Exhibit P September 23, 2008 letter from Mr. McQuary, # 19 Exhibit Q September 25, 2008 letter to Mr. McQuary, # 20 Text of Proposed Order)(Mayes, Jonathan) (Entered: 11/07/2008)
157 MOTION for Continuance of November 21, 2008 Hearing Regarding the Consent Decree in Resolution of Suit, filed by Amicus NAACP. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Order Granting Continuance)(Lee, Nathaniel) (Entered: 11/11/2008)
158 REPLY in Support of Motion re 143 MOTION to Enforce Settlment Agreement, filed by Plaintiffs SCOTT A HESSONG, BRENT E. HENDRICKS, Intervenor Plaintiffs BENJAMIN D. HUNTER, BRANDON C. LASER, BRENT D. MILLER, DANIEL R. GREEN, THOMAS I. BLACK, ROBERT M. McCLARY. (McQuary, Jeffrey) (Entered: 11/14/2008)
159 RESPONSE re 154 Submission of Signature Requirement, 150 Objection, 153 Objection, 157 MOTION for Continuance of November 21, 2008 Hearing Regarding the Consent Decree in Resolution of Suit, filed by Defendants DEBORAH BARNETT, KEVIN MURRAY, GEORGE EDWARDS, ELWOOD BLACK, MEG BABCOCK, STEVE RECKLEY, JOE LUCAS, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, MURRILL M. LOWRY, EUGENE GALLAGHERE, WILLIAM J. PATTERSON, JOHN LAUTER, ROBERT MOORHEAD, RICHARD GUTHRIE, CHARLES R. THOMAS, GEORGE COMFORT, HAROLD J. EGENES, JERRY BARKER, JAMES WYATT, JAMES RENO, JOSEPH SMITH, ROBERT TURNER, MICHAEL T. SPEARS, JAMES L. GREESON, MICHAEL MORKEN, CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, MARY MAXWELL, CORDELIA BURKS, EDWARD DELANEY, Amicus Parties 100 BLACK MEN OF INDIANAPOLIS, INC., INDIANAPOLIS BLACK FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION, INDIANAPOLIS URBAN LEAGUE, INC., NAACP, Plaintiffs UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, SCOTT A HESSONG, BRENT E. HENDRICKS, Intervenor Plaintiffs BENJAMIN D. HUNTER, BRANDON C. LASER, BRENT D. MILLER, DANIEL R. GREEN, THOMAS I. BLACK, ROBERT M. McCLARY, Consol Plaintiff LAWRENCE WHEELER. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Addendum to Proposed Consent Decree)(Mayes, Jonathan) (Entered: 11/14/2008)
160 RESPONSE re 153 Objection and in Further Support of Final Entry of the Decree, filed by Plaintiff UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Objections Received to Final Entry Of Decree)(Braniff, Andrew) (Entered: 11/14/2008)

Case: 1:78-cv-00388-RLY-DML As of: 07/17/2014 11:27 AM EDT 19 of 21

11/14/2008
11/14/2008 11/18/2008
11/26/2008
12/15/2008
12/15/2008 12/16/2008 12/16/2008 12/17/2008 12/17/2008 12/18/2008
12/23/2008 02/03/2009 02/04/2009
02/06/2009 02/06/2009 02/09/2009

161 RESPONSE in Opposition re 157 MOTION for Continuance of November 21, 2008 Hearing Regarding the Consent Decree in Resolution of Suit, filed by Plaintiff UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Braniff, Andrew) (Entered: 11/14/2008)
162 RESPONSE re 154 Submission of Signature Requirement, 153 Objection to the Dismissal of the Decrees, filed by Plaintiff UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Braniff, Andrew) (Entered: 11/14/2008)
163 ORDER granting 157 Motion for Continuance. Hearing Regarding the Consent Decree in Resolution of Suit is VACATED AND RESET for 2/11/2009 09:00 AM in room #349 before Judge Richard L. Young. Signed by Judge Richard L. Young on 11/18/08. (PG) (Entered: 11/18/2008)
164 MOTION to Submit Additional Evidence in Support of Their Motion to Enforce Settlement, filed by Defendant CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A EEOC No Cause Determination, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Mayes, Jonathan) (Entered: 11/26/2008)
165 Emergency MOTION for Discovery Protective Order, filed by Defendant CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Subpoena of Jerry Barker, # 2 Exhibit Subpoena of Michael Spears, # 3 Exhibit Subpoena of Jeffrey Savitsky, # 4 Text of Proposed Order)(Mayes, Jonathan) (Entered: 12/15/2008)
166 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re 165 Emergency MOTION for Discovery Protective Order, filed by Defendant CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS. (Mayes, Jonathan) (Entered: 12/15/2008)
169 ORDER granting 164 Motion to Submit Additional Evidence in Support of Motion to Enforce Settlement. Signed by Judge Richard L. Young on 12/16/08. (PG) (Entered: 12/17/2008)
170 EXHIBIT in Support of Motion re 143 MOTION to Enforce Settlment Agreement, filed by Defendant CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS. (PG) (Entered: 12/17/2008)
167 RESPONSE in Opposition re 165 Emergency MOTION for Discovery Protective Order, filed by Amicus NAACP. (Malichi, Cherry) (Entered: 12/17/2008)
168 REPLY in Support of Motion re 165 Emergency MOTION for Discovery Protective Order, filed by Defendant CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 Docket)(Mayes, Jonathan) (Entered: 12/17/2008)
171 ORDER granting 165 Defendant City of Indianapolis's Emergency Motion for Protective Order Preventing Amicus NAACP's Discovery Efforts. Signed by Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch on 12/18/08. (TMA) (Entered: 12/18/2008)
172 OBJECTION TO ENFORCEMENT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT by NAACP. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Knight Affidavit, # 2 Affidavit Taylor Affidavit)(Malichi, Cherry) (Entered: 12/23/2008)
173 MOTION for Continuance of February 11, 2009 Hearing, filed by Amicus NAACP. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Complaint for Damages, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Granting Motion for Continuance)(Lee, Nathaniel) (Entered: 02/03/2009)
174 Submission Defendant City of Indianapolis' Support of NAACP's Concerns Raised in its Motion to Continue the February 11, 2009 Fairness Hearing, filed by Defendant CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS. (Cotterill, Christopher) (Entered: 02/04/2009)
175 NOTICE of Appearance by Andrew G. Braniff on behalf of Plaintiff UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Braniff, Andrew) (Entered: 02/06/2009)
176 RESPONSE in Opposition re 173 MOTION for Continuance of February 11, 2009 Hearing, filed by Plaintiff UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Braniff, Andrew) (Entered: 02/06/2009)
177 ENTRY denying NAACP's 173 Motion for Continuance. Signed by Judge Richard L. Young on 2/9/2009. (PG) (Entered: 02/10/2009)

Case: 1:78-cv-00388-RLY-DML As of: 07/17/2014 11:27 AM EDT 20 of 21

02/10/2009
02/11/2009 02/11/2009 02/11/2009 02/12/2009 02/12/2009 02/12/2009 03/12/2009
03/12/2009 10/08/2009 05/11/2010
05/11/2010
05/12/2010

178 Unopposed MOTION to Withdraw (143 in 1:78−cv−00388−RLY−DML) MOTION to Enforce Settlment Agreement, filed by Plaintiffs SCOTT A HESSONG, BRENT E. HENDRICKS, Intervenor Plaintiffs BENJAMIN D. HUNTER, BRANDON C. LASER, BRENT D. MILLER, DANIEL R. GREEN, THOMAS I. BLACK, ROBERT M. McCLARY. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)Associated Cases: 1:78−cv−00388−RLY−DML, 1:07−cv−00897−DFH−WTL(McQuary, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/10/2009)
179 MOTION to Intervene, filed by Amicus NAACP. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Order Granting Motion To Intervene)(Malichi, Cherry) (Entered: 02/11/2009)
180 ORDER granting 178 Motion to Withdraw 143 Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement. Signed by Judge Richard L. Young on 2/11/2009. (PG) (Entered: 02/12/2009)
181 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Richard L. Young: Fairness hearing held on 2/11/2009. Amicus party, NAACP's Motion 179 to Intervene is denied. Final approval of the Decree is given and the hearing is concluded. (Court Reporter Jean Knepley.)(PG) (Entered: 02/12/2009)
182 CONSENT DECREE IN RESOLUTION OF SUIT. Signed by Judge Richard L. Young on 2/12/2009.(PG) (Entered: 02/12/2009)
183 ADDENDUM to Consent Decree in Resolution of Suit re 182 . Signed by Judge Richard L. Young on 2/12/2009.(PG) (Entered: 02/12/2009)
184 SCHEDULING ORDER: Status Hearing set for 10/8/2009 01:00 PM in room #349 before Judge Richard L. Young.(PG) (Entered: 02/12/2009)
185 TRANSCRIPT of Fairness Hearing Proceedings held Feb. 11, 2009, before Judge Richard L. Young. Court Reporter/Transcriber Jean Knepley, Telephone number (317) 686−0197. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.. Redaction Statement due 4/2/2009. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/10/2009. (Knepley, Jean) Released on 6/11/2009 (TLH). (Entered: 03/12/2009)
186 NOTICE of FILING of OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Fairness Hearing Proceedings held before Judge Richard L. Young on 02−11−09. (Knepley, Jean) (Entered: 03/13/2009)
187 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Richard L. Young: Status Conference held on 10/8/2009. (Court Reporter Fred Pratt.) (PG) (Entered: 10/16/2009)
188 NOTICE of Substitution of Appearance by Alexander Phillip Will replacing Jonathan L. Mayes on behalf of MEG BABCOCK, JERRY BARKER, DEBORAH BARNETT, ELWOOD BLACK, CORDELIA BURKS, CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, EDWARD DELANEY, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, GEORGE EDWARDS, JAMES L. GREESON, JOE LUCAS, MARY MAXWELL, MICHAEL MORKEN, KEVIN MURRAY, STEVE RECKLEY, JAMES RENO, JOSEPH SMITH, MICHAEL T. SPEARS, ROBERT TURNER, JAMES WYATT (Will, Alexander) (Entered: 05/11/2010)
189 MOTION to Withdraw the Appearance of Christopher W. Cotterill, filed by Defendants MEG BABCOCK, JERRY BARKER, DEBORAH BARNETT, ELWOOD BLACK, CORDELIA BURKS, CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, EDWARD DELANEY, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, GEORGE EDWARDS, JAMES L. GREESON, JOE LUCAS, MARY MAXWELL, MICHAEL MORKEN, KEVIN MURRAY, STEVE RECKLEY, JAMES RENO, JOSEPH SMITH, MICHAEL T. SPEARS, ROBERT TURNER, JAMES WYATT. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Will, Alexander) (Entered: 05/11/2010)
190 ORDER granting 189 Motion to Withdraw appearance of Christopher W. Cotterill. Signed by Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch on 5/12/2010. (TMA) (Entered: 05/13/2010)

Case: 1:78-cv-00388-RLY-DML As of: 07/17/2014 11:27 AM EDT 21 of 21 Case #: 1:78−cv−00388−RLY−DML