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

CORTNEY HORNE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff
v.
CITY OF READING, Defendant

:

:

C.A. No. ___

:

:

:

:

Class Action

:

:

:

COMPLAINT INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiff, Cortney Horne, brings this lawsuit against the City of Reading to ensure that the City of Reading’s Fire Department (“Fire Department”) is operated in accordance with laws requiring non-discrimination in hiring. Presently, the Fire Department is comprised of approximately 147 full-time, uniformed employees, but no African Americans and fewer than five Hispanics. In the City of Reading, 11% of the population is African American and 37% is Hispanic. Thus, the Fire Department is virtually all-White in a City with one of the Commonwealth’s most racially and ethnically diverse populations. Plaintiff submits that these profound statistical disparities are the result of discriminatory recruitment, application, and hiring practices implemented and maintained by the City. 2. The Fire Department recruitment, application, and hiring practices constitute illegal discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, see 42 U.S.C. §2000e, et seq., the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and 42 U.S.C. §§1981 and 1983. Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief and an injunction prohibiting the City from continuing its

discriminatory practices and requiring the City to implement new practices that conform to federal law.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS 3. On November 19, 2004, Plaintiff dual-filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity commission (“EEOC”) and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (“PHRC”) a charge alleging that the Reading Fire Department’s recruitment, application, and hiring practices violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), see 42 U.S.C.§2000e, et seq., under both disparate treatment and disparate impact theories of liability. 4. On September 15, 2005, the EEOC issued a right-to-sue letter permitting Plaintiff to pursue its Title VII claims in this Court. See Exhibit A.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims under 28 U.S.C.§ 1331. 6. Venue in this Court is proper under 28 U.S. C. §1391(b).
PARTIES 7. Plaintiff Cortney Horne (“Plaintiff”) is an African American resident of Reading, Pennsylvania who has sought employment in the Reading Fire Department and who currently desires employment as a firefighter in that Department. 8. Defendant City of Reading (“Defendant” or “City”) is a municipality existing pursuant to Pennsylvania law and having its principal place of business at Reading City Hall, Reading, Pennsylvania. Defendant provides fire and other emergency services to its residents through the Reading Fire Department. 9. During all relevant times, Defendant acted under color of state law.
2

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 10. Plaintiff Horne seeks to maintain this action on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff Horne represents a class of African-American and Hispanic persons who are eligible for employment within the Fire Department. The Plaintiff Class seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to remedy defendant’s actions, policies and practices which caused, are causing, and will continue to cause statutory and constitutional violations. 11. The requirements of Rules 23(a) and (b) are satisfied by this class action. Upon information and belief, the Plaintiff Class consists of hundreds of individuals, thereby making joinder of all members impractical. 12. There are questions of law and fact common to the class, and specifically, the legality and constitutionality of Defendants’ practices, customs and policies. Furthermore, the claims of Plaintiff are typical of the claims of the class and Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the class. 13. Plaintiff Horne is an adequate representative of the Plaintiff Class as he has sought employment in the Fire Department and is currently subject to defendant’s pattern, practice and policy of unlawfully denying employment in the Fire Department on racially discriminatory grounds. It is the existence of this pattern, practice and policy that gives rise to questions of law and fact common to all members of the plaintiff claiss. 14. There is no pending litigation concerning these issues which would be disrupted by maintaining this matter as a class action, and this is the appropriate forum for this litigation. Furthermore, Plaintiff is represented by experienced civil rights litigators of the law firms of
3

Kairys, Rudovsky, Epstein & Messing and Trujillo, Rodriguez & Richards, LLC. This representation will substantially reduce the burdens of the Court and litigants. Plaintiff’s counsel have substantial experience litigating class action lawsuits in the federal court. 15. Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Plaintiff Class, thereby making final injunctive and declaratory relief appropriate with respect to the class as a whole.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 16. Reading is a racially and ethnically diverse community. According to census figures, Reading’s 2000 population consisted of 81,207 residents. Of these residents, 39,038 (48.1%) are White; 30,302 (37.3%) are Hispanic; and 8,799 (10.8%) are African American. 17. The 2000 census reveals that Reading’s working age population consists of 56,913 adult residents. Of these adults, 32,052 (56.3%) are White; 17,278 (30.4%) are Hispanic; and 5,754 (10.1%) are African American. Upon information and belief, since the above data was compiled for the 2000 census, Reading minority population has grown beyond the 40% of the working age population then recorded. 18. The Defendant’s Fire Department does not reflect Reading’s racially diverse community. Of the Fire Department’s 147 members there are no African Americans and fewer than 5 Hispanics. 19. Defendant has implemented and maintained Fire Department recruitment practices that have an adverse impact on actual and potential African American and Hispanic jobseekers. Moreover, these practices have been implemented and maintained because of their adverse effects on actual and potential African American and Hispanic jobseekers.
4

20. “[T]he use of recruiting procedures designed to attract members of a particular race, sex, or ethnic group, which were previously denied employment opportunities or which are currently underutilized, may be necessary to bring an employer into compliance with Federal Law . . . .” 29 CFR § 1907.2(c). 21. Defendant’s efforts to recruit African Americans and Hispanic job applicants are insufficient. Defendant has failed to use minority recruitment practices that have been successfully utilized by municipalities with similar demographics. 22. Defendant has implemented and maintained recruitment practices whereby important information concerning the Fire Department recruitment, application, and hiring process is conveyed to potential applicants by “word-of-mouth” and through other informal means. By this process, friends and relatives of incumbent City and Fire Department employees – the great majority of whom are White – receive more information concerning the application/hiring process than is provided to African Americans and Hispanics. 23. Beyond recruitment, Defendant has implemented and maintained application and hiring practices that have an adverse impact on actual and potential African American and Hispanic jobseekers. Moreover, these practices have been implemented and maintained because of their adverse effects on actual and potential minority jobseekers. 24. On information and belief, Defendant engages in various discriminatory practices including, but not limited to, the following:
a. Maintaining selection criteria, including, inter alia, written examinations, background investigations, and oral interviews that, both individually and in the aggregate, disqualify a disproportionate number of African American and Hispanic applicants and are not sufficiently job related to the position of Reading Firefighter to justify the discriminatory effect;
5

b. Maintaining unreliable and overly-subjective selection criteria, including, written examinations and oral interviews that, both individually and in the aggregate, are administered and interpreted in a manner that disadvantages African American and Hispanic job applicants;
c. Failing to give adequate weight to an applicant’s minority status and/or City residence;
d. Failing to implement alternative selection criteria and procedures that would alleviate the discriminatory impact of the status quo and that are job related to the position of Reading Firefighter.
25. Plaintiff Horne is currently able and ready to become a Reading Firefighter, but the City’s discriminatory recruitment, application, and hiring practices prevent him from competing for a this position on an equal footing with White candidates. 26. Plaintiff Horne has applied for employment as a Reading Firefighter two times, but has not been hired. 27. Plaintiff Horne is fully qualified to serve as a Reading firefighter, and he continues to desire to become a Reading Firefighter. 28. Defendant’s recruitment, application, and hiring practices have adversely effected plaintiff Horne’s ability to become a Reading Firefighter.
LEGAL CLAIMS COUNT I
Alleging Violations of Title VII Under a Disparate Impact Theory of Liability 32. Plaintiff repeats and reasserts the allegations set forth in all preceding paragraphs as though fully stated herein. 33. Title VII makes it illegal for an employer to “fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any
6

individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin,” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), or to “limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”Id. at § 2000e-2(a)(2). 34. Title VII “proscribes not only overt discrimination but also practices that are fair in form, but discriminatory in operation.” Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 431 (1971). Title VII’s “disparate impact theory of discrimination combats not intentional, obvious discriminatory policies, but a type of covert discrimination in which facially neutral practices are employed to exclude, unnecessarily and disparately, protected groups from employment opportunities.” Lanning v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Trans. Auth., 181 F.3d 478, 490 (3d Cir. 1999). 35. Defendant is an employer covered by Title VII. 36. Defendant’s Fire Department recruitment, application, and hiring practices have a discriminatory impact on actual and potential African American and Hispanic jobseekers. 37. Defendant’s Fire Department recruitment, application, and hiring practices are not sufficiently job related and consistent with business necessity to legally justify the practices’ discriminatory impact on actual and potential African American and Hispanic jobseekers. 38. Based on the above, Defendant’s Fire Department recruitment, application, and hiring practices violate Title VII under a disparate impact theory of liability.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court: (a) Enter a declaratory judgment that the City’s recruitment, application, and
7

hiring practices violate Title VII; (b) Enter an injunction prohibiting the City from engaging in future discriminatory
conduct and requiring the City to implement new recruitment, application, and hiring practices that do not violate Title VII; ( c) Award Plaintiff all litigation costs, expenses, and attorney’s fees recoverable under federal law; and (d) Award such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
COUNT II Alleging Violations of Title VII Under a Disparate Treatment Theory of Liability 39. Plaintiff repeats and reasserts the allegations set forth in all preceding paragraphs as though fully stated herein. 40. Title VII makes it illegal for an employer to “fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin,” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), or to “limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” Id. at § 2000e-2(a)(2). 41. Defendant is an employer covered by Title VII. 42. Defendant has violated Title VII by implementing and maintaining Fire Department recruitment, application, and hiring practices with the intent of discriminating against actual and potential African American and Hispanic jobseekers. 43. Defendant’s Fire Department recruitment, application, and hiring practices violate Title
8

VII under a disparate treatment theory of liability. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court: (a) Enter a declaratory judgment that the City’s Fire Department recruitment, application, and hiring practices violate Title VII; (b) Enter an injunction prohibiting the City from engaging in future discriminatory conduct and requiring the City to implement new recruitment, application, and hiring practices that do not violate Title VII; ( c) Award Plaintiff all litigation costs, expenses, and attorney’s fees recoverable under federal law; and (d) Award such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. COUNT III Alleging Violations of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
44. Plaintiff repeats and reasserts the allegations set forth in all preceding paragraphs as though fully stated herein. 45. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, actionable pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, applies to municipal employers such as Defendant and prevents them from intentionally discriminating against racial and ethnic minorities with respect to the hiring of municipal employees. 46. Defendant has violated the Equal Protection Clause by implementing and maintaining Fire Department recruitment, application, and hiring practices with the intent of discriminating against actual and potential African American and Hispanic jobseekers.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court: (a) Enter a declaratory judgment that the City’s recruitment, application, and hiring
practices violate the Equal Protection Clause;
9

(b) Enter an injunction prohibiting the City from engaging in future discriminatory conduct and requiring the City to implement new recruitment, application, and hiring practices that do not violate the Equal Protection Clause;
( c) Award Plaintiff all litigation costs, expenses, and attorney’s fees recoverable under federal law; and
(d) Award such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. COUNT IV
Alleging Violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 47. Plaintiff repeats and reasserts the allegations set forth in all preceding paragraphs as though fully stated herein. 48. 42 U.S.C. § 1981 prohibits employers from intentionally discriminating against racial and ethnic minorities with respect to the hiring decisions. 49. Defendant is an employer covered by 42 U.S.C. § 1981. 50. Defendant has violated 42 U.S.C. § 1981 by implementing and maintaining Fire Department recruitment, application, and hiring practices with the intent of discriminating against actual and potential African American and Hispanic jobseekers.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court: (a) Enter a declaratory judgment that the City’s recruitment, application, and hiring practices violate 42 U.S.C. § 1981; (b) Enter an injunction prohibiting the City from engaging in future discriminatory conduct and requiring the City to implement new recruitment, application, and hiring practices that do not violate § 1981; (c) Award Plaintiff all litigation costs, expenses, and attorney’s fees recoverable under federal law; and (d) Award such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
10

David Rudovsky I.D. No. 15168 Jonathan H. Feinberg I.D. No. 88227 Kairys, Rudovsky, Epstein & Messing 924 Cherry Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19107 (215) 925-4400
__________________________ Peter Winebrake I.D. No. 80496 Andrew Santillo I.D. No. 93041 Trujillo, Rodriguez & Richards, LLC The Penthouse 226 W. Rittenhouse Square Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 731-9004 Counsel for Plaintiff
11

 
 Case 2:05-cv-06334-JS DG6dPf'lilmle!!!'lI"j(~8i FiiiiiiiiFiiiflilfiji8:p1jd"O-r~'i1/"~l!f.T~l2):f:O~Wg:---:""'~ajllfgg~i~6~illllfli3~

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

READING BRANCH, NATIONAL

PIlED MAR i

ASSOCIAnON FOR THE ADVANCEMENT

OF COLORED PEOPLE, the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT

Civil Action No. 05-6334-JS

OF COLORED PEOPLE, and CORTNEY

HORNE, on behalf of himself and all others

similarly situated,

Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF READING,
Defendant.

ENTERED
MAR L 7 z001
CLERK vr COURT

CONSENT DECREE

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs NAACP - on behalf of itself and its Reading Branch office - and

Courtney Home ("Plaintiffs") have commenced the above-captioned action, which alleges that

Defendant City of Reading ("City") has implemented and maintained Fire Department

recruitment, application, and hiring practices that have an adverse impact on African-American

and other minority Fire Department applicants and prospective applicants in violation of the Title

VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.C. § 2000e-l, et seq. ("Title VII"); and

WHEREAS, throughout the above-captioned litigation, the City consistently has denied

liability under Title VII or any other anti-discrimination statute and has steadfastly asserted that its

Fire Department recruitment, application, and hiring practices are non-discriminatory in both

purpose and impact; and

1

Case 2:05-cv-06334-JS Document 18 Filed 03/27/2007 Page 2 of 13

WHEREAS, due to the significant time, expense, and uncertainty of continued litigation,

the parties have made good faith efforts to resolve their disputes amicably and in the public

interest and have participated in ongoing and extensive settlement negotiations; and

WHEREAS, the signatories herein have the full authority of their respective principals to

enter into this Consent Decree on their behalf;

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED, by and between the undersigned, that

the following terms shall be implemented without undue delay:

The 2005 Entry Level Firefighter List

1. The City may hire up to ten firefighters from the civil service list certified on June

13, 2005 and entitled "2005 Entry Level Firefighter" and will promptly develop plans for the

administration of a new civil service examination in conformance with this Consent Decree. The

current civil service list will not be extended..

Recruitment of Firefighter Job Applicants

2. The City shall in good faith seek to recruit and employ qualified black and other

minority applicants for firefighters in numbers reflecting their availability in the relevant labor

market which, for the purposes of this Decree, shall be Berks County, Pennsylvania. The most

current U.S. Census Bureau population Census reports the racial composition of Berks County as

follows:

White persons, percent, 2004 Black persons, percent, 2004 American Indian and Alaska Native persons, percent, 2004 Asian persons, percent, 2004 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, percent, 2004

92.7% 4.6% 0.2% 1.2% 0.1%

2

Case 2:05-cv-06334-JS Document 18 Filed 03/27/2007 Page 7 of 13
17. At least 20 days prior to the formal issuance of any recornrnendation(s), the DB shall provide the undersigned parties with the proposed recommendation(s) and an opportunity to review and comment to the DB. Upon formal issuance, the DB's recommendation(s) shall be entitled to great weight, and it is anticipated that both parties will jointly support the recommendation(s) and that the City will act in good faith to implement the recommendation(s). If both the City and the NAACP support any of the DB's recornrnendation(s), the parties shall file with the Court a petition to modifY this Consent Decree to include the substance of the DB's recommendation(s). If, however, either the plaintiffs or the City objects to implementation of any of the DB's recommendation(s), as issued, the objecting party shall give reasonable written notice to opposing counsel, specifically identifYing the recornrnendation(s) not approved, and the parties shall engage in good faith efforts to amicably resolve the dispute. If the dispute cannot be resolved the parties shall notifY the Court, and the Court will determine, after appropriate fact-finding proceedings whether to modifY the Consent Decree to require implementation of the disputed DB recommendation(s). In determining whether to modifY the Consent Decree to include any DB recommendation, the Court shall consider whether the recommendation is consistent with the intent of the parties in entering into this Consent Decree and whether the recommendation can be implemented in a manner that does not violate substantive law. See, e.g., Firefighters Local Union No. 1784 v. Stotts, 467 U.S. 561, 576 n.9 (1984) ("a district court cannot enter a disputed modification ofa Consent Decree in Title VII litigation if the resulting order is inconsistent with the statute").
7

Case 2:05-cv-06334-JS Document 18 Filed 03/27/2007 Page 8 of 13
18. The DB shall have timely access to the applicant flow data referenced in para. 8, and shall monitor and analyze this data on a regular basis.
19. The DB shall have timely access to and monitor the Fire Department's Firefighter recruitment, application, testing, and selection processes and assure that such processes are free from adverse impact and that such processes are validated in a manner that complies with 29 C.F.R. § 1604.01, et seq.
20. Whenever a African American or other minority job applicant is disqualified at any stage of the Fire Department application/selection process, except the written examination stage, the DB shall be so informed and shall be granted access to information concerning the disqualification decision in order to asses whether the decision was non-discriminatory and whether the disqualified applicant was treated in the same manner as similarly situated White applicants. If, after reviewing the information, the DB has concerns that the disqualified applicant's minority status may have been a factor in the disqualification decision, the DB shall report its concerns to the City's Fire Civil Service Commission which shall review the disqualification decision, take any remedial actions it deems appropriate, and apprise the DB of its response to the DB's concerns. It is understood that, in performing its duties under this paragraph, the DB shall take all steps necessary to ensure that applicants' personal information remain confidential.
The Diversity Consultant 21. The City shall retain a qualified person to serve in the position of Diversity Consultant ("Consultant"). The City may designate the person in the newly created job position
8

Case 2:05-cv-06334-JS Document 18 Filed 03/27/2007 Page 9 of 13
m the Human Resources Department dedicated to equal opportunity issues provided that slhe is qualified to serve as the Consultant. The Diversity Consultant shall demonstrate experience with state or locally mandated civil service systems. Ifa member of the City's human resources department is not qualified to serve as as the Consultant, then the DB shall consult with the undersigned parties about the selection of a Consultant.
22. If the Consultant is not otherwise employed by the City, slhe shall be paid by the City.
23. The Consultant shall serve as a resource to the DB and to the Fire Department for expert guidance on issues concerning recruitment, application and hiring practices. Among hislher duties, the Consultant shall assist the DB with the development and implementation of recommendations, data monitoring obligations, and reporting obligations.
Application Fee Waiver 24. The City agrees to waive the application fee for financially disadvantaged Firefighter job applicants. The DB shall develop a plan for the criteria and method for administering the application fee waiver. Alternatively, it may apply the plan applicable to police officer applicants. Prior to formal enactment, the application fee waiver plan shall be submitted to the undersigned parties, who shall have an opportunity to review and make recommendation(s) to the proposed plan.
9

Case 2:05-cv-06334-JS Document 18 Filed 03/27/2007 Page 11 of 13
employment opportunity. Furthermore, the City agrees to make a good faith effort to pay extra expenses beyond the budgeted amount upon a showing of good cause for the need for supplemental funding by the DB. The parties further agree that they will attempt, in good faith, to fmd alternate funding sources for supplemental funding.
Implementation and Compliance 27. The Court shall retain jurisdiction over this action for purposes of enforcement, interpretation, or modification of this Consent Decree until such time as this Consent Decree is terminated. 28. If either party believes that this Consent Decree has been violated or improperly applied or that it is about to be violated or improperly applied, that party shall give reasonable written notice to opposing counsel, and the parties shall engage in good faith efforts to amicably resolve the dispute. If, after the exhaustion of such good faith efforts, any party deems such efforts unsuccessful, the complaining party shall be permitted to commence mediation proceedings before a Court-annexed mediator designated by the Court. Where a dispute proceeds to mediation, the parties shall work in good faith to resolve the dispute in a practical, economical, and amicable manner. Absent extraordinary circumstances, no party shall engage in formal contempt proceedings unless the above mediation process has been exhausted. The parties understand that formal contempt proceedings are to be used, if ever, as a final resort. 29. All notices, instructions, requests for review, reports, or other written submissions required by this Consent Decree shall be sent by the required body or person by certified United States mail, return receipt requested, to the following representatives:
11

Case 2:05-cv-06334-JS Document 18 Filed 03/27/2007 Page 12 of 13

For the City of Reading:
Leon Churchill, Managing Director City of Reading 815 Washington Street, Room 2-54 Reading, PA 19601-3690
Charles D. Younger, City Solicitor City of Reading 815 Washington Street, Room 2-54 Reading, PA 19601-3690
Steven K. Ludwig, Esquire Fox Rothschild LLP 2000 Market Street, 10th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103-3291

For NAACP and lor Home:
Peter D. Winebrake, Esquire The Winebrake Law Firm, LLC Twining Office Center, Suite 114 715 Twining Road Dresher, PA pWinebrake@winebrakelaw.com
David Rudovsky, Esquire Kairys Rudovsky Epstein 718 Arch Street, Suite SOlS Philadelphia, PA 19106 drudovsky@krlawphila.com
David L. Rose, Esquire Rose & Rose, P.C. 1320 19th Street N.W. Suite 601 Washington, D.C. 20036
Anson Asaka, General Counsel NAACP 4805 Mount Hope Drive Baltimore, MD 21215

30. This Consent Decree may be terminated at any time after its entry upon joint motion of the parties. Furthermore, at any time after five years from the date of Court approval of the Consent Decree, the City may move to, and the Court may, terminate or modify the Consent Decree upon a showing of substantial and good faith compliance with the Consent Decree's terms and proof that the purposes of the Consent Decree have been attained. Upon the filing of a motion to terminate or modify this Consent Decree, the Consent Decree shall remain in effect until such time as the Court shall rule upon the motion.

12

Case 2:05-cv-06334-JS Document 18 Filed 03/27/2007 Page 13 of 13
Litigation Costs, Expenses, and Fees 31. Within thirty days after this Consent Decree is approved by the Court, the City shall pay to Plaintiffs' counsel a total amount of Twenty-Three Thousand Dollars ($23,000.00). This payment satisfies the City's entire liability to Plaintiffs for costs, expenses, and counsel fees which plaintiffs assert would be recoverable under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k), 42 U.S.C. § 1988, or any other cost/fee recovery provision, and neither Plaintiffs nor their undersigned counsel shall seek the payment of additional damages, costs, expenses, or fees. However, nothing herein shall preclude Plaintiffs or their counsel from seeking future costs, expenses, or fees incurred due to future contempt proceedings, future adversarial proceedings concerning the modification or continued application of this Consent Decree, or future proceedings necessitated by a thirdparty's challenge to the legality or validity of this Consent Decree.
13

 
 Case 2:05-cv-06334-JS Document 4 Filed 02/27/06 Page 1 of 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

READING BRANCH, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, and CORTNEY HORNE, on behalf ofhin1self and others sil1lilarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v.
CITY OF READING,
Defendant.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C.A. No. 05-6334 ) ) ) ) )

AMENDED COMPLAINT 1. PlaintiffCortney Horne ("Honle" or "Plaintiff Horne") brings this suit to enforce his own rights and the rights of other African An1ericans and n1inorities to be free fron1 discrin1inatory elnployn1ent practices. Mr. Hon1e's co-Plaintiffs, the Reading Branch of the National Association for the Advancen1ent of Colored People, and the National Association for the Advancernent of Colored People (hereinafter "NAACP" or "NAACP Plaintiffs") are voluntary associations cornn1itted to the inlproven1ent of the status of n1inority groups, the elin1ination of discrin1inatory practices, and the achievernent of equal enlploynlent opportunities regardless of race or color. The NAACP Plaintiffs bring this suit to secure the full enjoyment of the rights of their 111ernbers and other persons they represent under Title VII of the Ci vi I Rights Act of 1964, as arnended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et. seq. (hereinafter "Title VII").
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2. This Court has jurisdiction of this action under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)( 1), 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and 28 U.S.C. § 1343.

Case 2:05-cv-06334-JS Document 4 Filed 02/27/06 Page 2 of 9
3. Venue in this Court is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). PARTIES
4. Plaintiff HOll1e is an African-An1erican resident of Berks County, Pennsylvania, who, until recently, resided within the City of Reading, Pennsylvania. PlaintitI Horne has sought en1ployrnent as a firefighter in the Reading Fire Depart111ent and still seeks such elnploynlent.
5. Plaintiff NAACP is a voluntary association cornn1itted to the irnprovelnent of the social and econo111ic status of n1inority groups, the elirnination of racial prejudice and discrin1ination, and the attainn1ent of civil rights and equal opportunities for its n1ernbers and other persons.
6. Plaintiff Reading Branch, NAACP is a constituent unit of the NAACP, with the san1e pU1110ses and objectives as the NAACP. While the NAACP is conunitted to the achieven1ent of civil rights and equal opportunities for all n1inority groups, the Inajority of their n1en1bers are black. Plaintiff Horne is a 111ernber of the NAACP.
7. The Defendant City of Reading ("Defendant City" or "City") is a rnunicipality incorporated under the laws of the State of Pennsylvania and is a political subdivision of the State of Pennsylvania.
8. Defendant City has a population of approxirnately 81,000 persons of whonl at least 8,500 are black (African An1erican) and at least 30,000 are Hispanic, and Defendant City has a working age population Of1110re than 56,000 adults, ofwho111 at least 5,700 are black (African-An1erican) and at least 17,000 are Hispanic.
9. Defendant City provides fire prevention and fire repression services and other ernergency services to its residents through the Reading Departrnent of Fire and Rescue Services
2

Case 2:05-cv-06334-JS Document 4 Filed 02/27/06 Page 3 of 9
("Fire Departrnent"), which Defendant City operates and nlaintains. 10. Defendant City is an eruployer of enlployees under conln10n usage and is an
enlployer as that tenll is defined under Title VII. 11. Of the approxinlately 147 uniforlTled Fire DepalilTlent ernployees working for
Defendant City, not one (0) is African-Arnerican (black) and approxirnately two (2) are Hispanic.
12. Plaintiff Horne and rnernbers of the NAACP and other rninorities who reside in and near Reading are qualified for elnploYlnent as firefighters, and have been injured by Defendant's racially discrinlinatory enlployrnent practices. They are threatened with continued and future injury by Defendant's discrinlinatory recruitrnent and hiring practices.
13. Plaintiff Horne and other nlelTlbers of the NAACP and other Ininorities who reside in and near Reading who are interested in en1ployrnent by the Reading Fire Departlnent have applied or attenlpted to apply for en1ployrnent with Defendant City but have not been offered enlploynlent.
14. Plaintiff Horne has applied for enlploynlent as a Reading firefighter two tilnes, but has not been hired.
15. On or about April 17,2004, Plaintiff Honle attenlpted to take the City's Civil Service eXaInination for appointInent to the position of firefighter. Upon his arrival at the specified location and tinle for the scheduled exanlination, Horne was told that he could not take the exanlination. Despite his protests, Honle was not allowed to sit for the exalnination, which is a necessary first step for ernployrnent with the Reading Fire Departrnent.
16. Other rnenlbers of the NAACP Plaintiffs have been injured by the discrinlinatory
3

Case 2:05-cv-06334-JS Document 4 Filed 02/27/06 Page 4 of 9

recruitnlent practices of the Defendant City by not being infonned of en1ploynlent opportunities

for firefighter vacancies with Defendant City. Sorne such n1en1bers have reasonably believed

that subn1itting an application for enlployn1ent as a firefighter with Defendant City would be

futile because of their race.

17. The Defendant City has engaged in en1ployn1ent policies and practices that have

discrin1inated and continue to discrilninate against n1inorities, including Plaintiff Horne and other

l11en1bers of the NAACP Plaintiffs and other persons represented by the plaintiffs because of

their race and/or national origin. The Defendant City has inIplenlented these policies, aillong

other ways, by:

a.

refusing to recruit and hire African An1ericans and other luinorities for

firefighter positions on the sanIe basis as whites;

b.

basing such recruitnlent on a prirnarily "word of nl0uth" systenl that

results in the enlploYlllent of friends and relatives of current City firefighters, the vast lnajority of

WhOlll are white;

c.

failing or refusing to adopt nondiscrirninatory recruitrnent, appl ication,

testing, and selection techniques for the position of firefighter;

d.

failing or refusing to take appropriate action to correct the effects of its

past discrin1inatory policies and practices.

18. The above eillploynlent policies and practices have had a disparate irnpact on

nlinority job applicants and prospective job applicants on the basis of their race and/or national

origin, and such policies and practices are neither job related for the position of firefighter nor

consistent with business necessity.

4

Case 2:05-cv-06334-JS Document 4 Filed 02/27/06 Page 5 of 9
19. The NAACP Plaintiffs have conducted an investigation of the Defendant's ernploYll1ent practices pertaining to the Fire Departll1ent. The plaintiffs have notified the Defendant City of the results of the investigation and of the facts and policies and practices described in this cOll1plaint and have atternpted to elilninate these practices through negotiation and settlelnent.
20. The Plaintiffs have perfonlled all of the prerequisites necessary to filing suit under Title VII. Plaintiff Horne dual-filed a charge alleging discrinlination by the City of Reading with the Equal Enlploynlent Opportunity Conlnlission and the Pennsylvania Hlunan Relations COll1nlission on Novenlber 19, 2004. On Septelnber 15, 2005, the EEOC issued a right-to-sue letter.
COUNT I
(Disparate Treatment Under Title VII) 21. Plaintiff inco1110rates by reference all previous paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 22. Title VII n1akes it illegal for an enlployer to "fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discrin1inate against any individual with respect to his con1pensation, tenns, conditions, or privileges of elnployn1ent, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin," 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(l), or to "lin1it, segregate, or classify his enlployees or applicants for elnploynlent in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of elnployn1ent opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an ell1ployee, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin," id. at § 2000e-2( a)(2). 23. The acts and practices of Defendant City described above constitute a pattern and
5

Case 2:05-cv-06334-JS Document 4 Filed 02/27/06 Page 6 of 9
practice of resistance to the full enjoyn1ent of the rights of African Anlericans and other rninorities (including the rights of nlen1bers and other persons represented by plaintiffs) to equal en1ployn1ent opportunities with the Defendant City in its Fire Departn1ent without discrinlination because of race and/or national origin. These acts and practices are of such a nature and are intended to deny the full exercise of rights secured by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as anlended, to n1inorities who are rnernbers of the plaintiffs or are otherwise represented by the Plaintiffs.
24. Unless restrained by order of this Court, Defendant City will continue to pursue policies and practices that are the satne as or sirnilar to those alleged in this complaint, and wi 11 not take adequate steps to redress the discrinlinatory effects of those pol icies and practices.
COUNT II (Disparate Impact Under Title VII) 25. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all previous paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 26. Title VII "proscribes not only overi discrirnination but also practices that are fair and fon11, but discrinlinatory in operation." Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 431 (1971). Under the disparate irnpact theory of Title VII liability, a ernployrnent practice is unlawful if it "causes a disparate in1pact on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin and the respondent fails to den10nstrate that the challenged practice is job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(k)( 1)(A)(i). 27. Based on the facts alleged herein, Defendant is liable to Plaintiff and other class n1enlbers for violating Title VII under the disparate irnpact theory of liability. 28. Unless restrained by order of this Court, Defendant City will continue to pursue
6

Case 2:05-cv-06334-JS Document 4 Filed 02/27/06 Page 7 of 9

policies and practices that are the Saine as or sirnilar to those alleged in this complaint, and will

not take adequate steps to redress the discrilIlinatory in1pact of those policies and practices.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for orders prelinlinarily and pernlanently enjoining the

Defendant, its officers, agents, en1ployees, successors and all persons in active concert or

participation with thelIl fr01n engaging in ernployrnent practices which discrirninate on the basis

of race and/or national origin, and specifically fron1:

a. discrilIlinating against African Arnerican and other rninority candidates for

en1ploynlent as firefighters on the basis of race and/or national origin in the recruitrnent,

selection, and hiring of firefighters;

b. discrirninating against African An1erican and other rninority candidates by

recruiting and hiring firefighters prinlarily through a word of lIlOuth systern;

c.

failing to adopt fair and nondiscrilIlinatory en1ploYlnent practices which

are designed to assure that African Al11erican and other n1inority applicants for enlploYlIlent and

en1ployees are treated without discrirnination and are treated as fairly and well as white

applicants for en1ploynlent who are equally qualified for the ernployrnent they seek;

d. failing to adopt and irnplernent a vigorous recruitInent prograrn designed

to attract qualified African Arnerican and other lIlinority applicants for ernploYlnent in nunlbers

which at least reflect the proportion of rninority applicants and candidates in and around the City

of Reading, and to advise those 11linority candidates and applicants that the Defendant City is an

equal 0PPoliunity elIlployer that seeks qualified rninority applicants for ernploynlent as

firefighters, as well as other qualified applicants.

7

Case 2:05-cv-06334-JS Document 4 Filed 02/27/06 Page 8 of 9

e. failing to take such n1easures, including the award of lost incOI11e and benefits as n1ay be appropriate to n1ake Plaintiff Horne and other victinls of past discriminatory practices and to correct the present effects of Defendant City's discrinlinatory el11ploYl11ent practices.
In addition, Plaintiffs pray for the costs of litigation, including reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees, and for such additional relief as justice n1ay require, and Plaintiff H0111e seeks an injunction appointing hinl to a city firefighter position, reirnbursing hinl for all lost benefits and wages, and awarding all appropriate con1pensatory dan1ages. Date: February 24, 2006

Dennis C. Hayes General Counsel Anson Asaka Associate General Counsel NAACP 4805 Mount Hope Drive Baltirnore, MD 21215 (410) 580-5789 (Pro Hac Vice Adn1ission Anticipated)

David Rudovsky (PA No. 15168) Jonathan H. Feinberg (PA No 88227) Kairys, Rudovsky, Epstein, & Messing 924 ChelTY Street Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19107 (215) 925-4400

David L. Rose (DCB376379) Terri N. Marcus (DCB483175) Rose & Rose, P. C. 1320 19th Street, N.W. Suite 601 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 331-8555 (Pro Hac Vice Adn1ission Anticipated)

Peter Winebrake (PA No. 80496) Andrew Santillo (PA No. 93041) TRUJILLO RODRIGUEZ & RICHARDS, LLC 226 W. Rittenhouse Square Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 731-9004
Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Class

8

Case 2:05-cv-06334-JS Document 4 Filed 02/27/06 Page 9 of 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

READING BRANCH, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, and CORTNEY HORNE, on behalf ofhin1self and others sin1ilarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v.
CITY OF READING,
Defendant.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C.A. No. 05-6334 ) ) ) ) )

DECLARATION OF SERVICE

I declare under penalty of perjury that a copy of the foregoing docurnent entitled

"An1ended COlnplaint" was served upon all parties, as addressed, on February 24, 2006 in the

n1anner so indicated:

_X_ via First Class Mail, U.S. Post Office

via Facsirnile

__ via Overnight Delivery

__ via Hand Delivery

_X__ via Electronic filing and Notification

via Electronic Mail

Steven K. Ludwig, Esq.
Fox Rothschild, LLP 2000 Market Street, 10th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103-3291

sludwig@foxrothschild.cOln

 
 A/R, CLOSED, SPECIAL
United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:05−cv−06334−JS

HORNE v. CITY OF READING Assigned to: HONORABLE JUAN R. SANCHEZ Cause: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Race)
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 12/08/2005 Date Terminated: 03/27/2007 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: Federal Question

CORTNEY HORNE ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED

represented by DAVID RUDOVSKY KAIRYS RUDOVSKY MESSING &FEINBERG THE CAST IRON BUILDING SUITE 501 SOUTH 718 ARCH STREET PHILADELPHIA , PA 19106 215−925−4400 Fax: 215−925−5365 Email: drudovsky@krlawphila.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

PETER D. WINEBRAKE THE WINEBRAKE LAW FIRM LLC TWINING OFFICE CENTER, SUITE 114 715 TWINING ROAD DRESHER , PA 19025 215−884−2491 Fax: 215−884−2492 Email: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
READING BRANCH, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE

represented by DAVID L. ROSE ROSE &ROSE PC 1320 19TH ST. NW SUITE 601 WASHINGTON , DC 20036 202−331−8555 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

PETER D. WINEBRAKE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE

represented by PETER D. WINEBRAKE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant CITY OF READING

represented by

Date Filed 12/08/2005 12/08/2005 01/03/2006 02/24/2006 02/27/2006
03/17/2006 03/20/2006 04/05/2006
04/05/2006 05/01/2006
05/03/2006

STEVEN K. LUDWIG FOX ROTHSCHILD O'BRIEN &FRANKEL, LLP 2000 MARKET ST., 10TH FL PHILADELPHIA , PA 19103−3291 215−299−2164 Fax: 215−299−2150 Email: sludwig@foxrothschild.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT against CITY OF READING ( Filing fee $ 250 receipt number 923920.), filed by CORTNEY HORNE.(tj, ) (Entered: 12/08/2005)

Summons Issued; 1 mailed to counsel 12/8/05 as to CITY OF READING. (tj, ) (Entered: 12/08/2005)

2 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by CORTNEY HORNE. CITY OF READING waiver sent on 12/28/2005, answer due 2/27/2006. (FEINBERG, JONATHAN) (Entered: 01/03/2006)

3 NOTICE of Appearance by STEVEN K. LUDWIG on behalf of CITY OF READING with Certificate of Service (LUDWIG, STEVEN) (Entered: 02/24/2006)

4 AMENDED COMPLAINT AGAINST CITY OF READING FILED BY READING BRANCH, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, CORTNEY HORNE, DECLARATION OF SERVICE.(ac, ) (Entered: 02/27/2006)

5 ORDER THAT THE INITIAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE BE HELD ON APRIL 3, 2006, AT 10:00 A.M.. SIGNED BY JUDGE JUAN R. SANCHEZ ON 03/17/06. 03/17/06 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(ac, ) (Entered: 03/17/2006)

6 ANSWER to Amended Complaint with Affirmative Defenses and Certificate of service by CITY OF READING.(LUDWIG, STEVEN) Modified on 3/21/2006 (np). (Entered: 03/20/2006)

7 ORDER THAT A SECOND PRETRIAL CONFERENCE IS SET FOR 7/6/2006 AT 10:00 AM IN JUDGE'S CHAMBERS BEFORE HONORABLE JUAN R. SANCHEZ. SIGNED BY JUDGE JUAN R. SANCHEZ ON 4/5/06. 4/5/06 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(mac, ) (Entered: 04/05/2006)

8 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge JUAN R. SANCHEZ : Pretrial Conference held on 04/03/06. (ac, ) (Entered: 04/06/2006)

9 APPLICATION OF DAVID L. ROSE, ESQUIRE TO PRACTICE IN THIS COURT BY READING BRANCH, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, STATMENT, DECLARATION, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (ac, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 5/18/2006 (ac, ). (Entered: 05/01/2006)

10 ORDER THAT THE APPLICATION OF DAVID L. ROSE, ESQUIRE TO PRACTICE IN THIS COURT ON BEHALF OF READING BRANCH NAACP IS GRANTED. SIGNED BY JUDGE JUAN R. SANCHEZ ON 05/03/06. 05/03/06 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED.(ac, ) (ti, ). (Entered: 05/03/2006)

06/14/2006
07/06/2006
07/25/2006 10/06/2006 01/08/2007
01/18/2007 02/05/2007 03/27/2007
03/27/2007

11 ORDER THAT A SECOND PRETRIAL CONFERENCE BE HELD ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2006, AT 8:30 A.M. SIGNED BY JUDGE JUAN R. SANCHEZ ON 06/13/06. 06/14/06 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E−MAILED. (FILED IN ERROR) (ac, ) (Entered: 06/14/2006)
12 ORDER THAT EACH PARTY SHALL SUBMIT A WRITTEN STATUS REPORT TO THE COURT ON OR BEFORE OCTOBER 6, 2006. SIGNED BY JUDGE JUAN R. SANCHEZ ON 07/06/06. 07/07/06 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E−MAILED.(ac, ) (Entered: 07/07/2006)
13 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge JUAN R. SANCHEZ : Pretrial Conference held on 07/06/06. (ac, ) (Entered: 07/25/2006)
14 STATUS REPORT (Joint) by CITY OF READING. (LUDWIG, STEVEN) (Entered: 10/06/2006)
15 ORDER THAT A TELECONFERENCE WILL TAKE PLACE ON FEBRUARY 1, 2007, AT 11:30 A.M. TO DISCUSS THE STATUS OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT . SIGNED BY JUDGE JUAN R. SANCHEZ ON 01/08/07. 01/08/07 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E−MAILED.(ac, ) (Entered: 01/08/2007)
16 NOTICE of Change of Address by PETER D. WINEBRAKE (WINEBRAKE, PETER) (Entered: 01/18/2007)
17 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge JUAN R. SANCHEZ : Telephone Conference held on 02/01/07. (ac, ) (Entered: 02/05/2007)
18 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT by READING BRANCH, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, CORTNEY HORNE, CITY OF READING. (LUDWIG, STEVEN) (Entered: 03/27/2007)
19 CONSENT DECREE WITH COURT APPROVAL. SIGNED BY JUDGE JUAN R. SANCHEZ ON 03/27/07. 03/27/07 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED.(ac, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 5/24/2007 (nda, ). (Entered: 03/27/2007)