Case 1:05-cv-10213-PBS Document 1 Filed 02/02/2005 Page 1 of 9

I,'Jy! ClfF'/1' -£.0

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT . RIfS OFF/Cr:

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACH~}IS

...

t8 -2, p

u <,

3: Sf;

JACOB BRADLEY, NOAH BRADLEY, KEITH

)) a/STn,%,~,r!:;rOtcFrHcA

RIDLEY, and JARED THOMAS,

) \J r;j

individually and on behalf of a class of

MAqiSTRATE JUDG,-,-,,-,,-,,,,,,-:::::=».L.

similarly situated individuals,

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

V.

)

Civil Action No.

)

CITY OF LYNN; EDWARD J. CLANCY, JR.,

)

in his capacity as Mayor of the City of Lynn;

)

the COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS,

)

DIVISION OF HUMAN RESOURCES; and

)

XO lAiEMCOEUiPNTT#~u'~-~,~.-~-~~-A-<----=­
SUMMONS ISSUE1D LOCAL RULE 4.1--\-_ __

RUTH BRAMSON, in her capacity as Personnel

)

Administrator of the Division of Human Resources )

of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,

)

Defendants.

)

WAIVER FORM_\------
MCF ISSUEDL--/!.:f-'----
BDYID\!'T~r1:C~~KL~\~----

--------------------------------)

COMPLAINT, PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF REQUESTED

I.

INTRODUCTION.

1. This is an action brought under state and federal law, challenging the

entry-level firefighter examination for the position of firefighter in the City of Lynn

conducted by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. As set forth below, the

defendants' conduct in hiring candidates from this examination, based upon a rank

ordering system which utilizes scores as the primary criteria, results in a significantly

disparate impact upon minority candidates, and cannot be demonstrated to be required

by business necessity under state or federal law. Hence, the exam as utilized is

unlawful. The plaintiffs, and the class they represent, seek preliminary and permanent

injunctive relief barring the use of the entrance level firefighter examination in the City of

Case 1:05-cv-10213-PBS Document 1 Filed 02/02/2005 Page 2 of 9
Lynn, to the extent such examination is utilized to select candidates based upon a rank ordering system. II. JURISDICTION.
2. The jurisdiction of this court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. This case arises under the laws of the United States of America, and plaintiffs invoke the Doctrine of Pendent Jurisdiction over their state claims. III. PARTIES.
3. Plaintiffs Jacob Bradley, Noah Bradley, Keith Ridley, and Jared Thomas are adult residents of the City of Lynn, Massachusetts. They are African American and they each have all of the qualifications to be a Lynn firefighter.
4. The plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and a group of minority candidates similarly situated. That group of candidates, similarly situated, are minority individuals who meet the basic eligibility requirements to be a Lynn firefighter, have taken the entrance level firefighter examination to be firefighters for the City of Lynn, and who have not been selected. The class meets all of the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
5. The defendant City of Lynn is a duly incorporated municipality of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The City maintains a fire department.
6. The defendant Edward J. Clancy, Jr. is the Mayor of the City of Lynn, Massachusetts, and has the overall responsibility for the administrative functions for the City of Lynn, including the Lynn Fire Department.
7. The defendant Commonwealth of Massachusetts, maintains an agency, the Human Resources Division, which has overall responsibility for establishing
2

Case 1:05-cv-10213-PBS Document 1 Filed 02/02/2005 Page 3 of 9
entrance-level firefighter and police examinations for Massachusetts' municipalities that are subject to the civil service law, M.G.L. ch. 31, and establishing lists for entry-level hiring based thereon.
8. The defendant Ruth Bramson is the Administrator of the Human Resources Division, and in that capacity is responsible for the overall conduct of the affairs of the Human Resources Division. IV. FACTS.
A. Hiring For The Lynn Fire Department. 9. At all times relevant hereto, the City of Lynn has been subject to the civil service law, M.G.L. ch.31. Pursuant to the civil service law, entry-level hiring for all firefighters in the City of Lynn is conducted through an examination and ranking process conducted by the defendant Human Resources Division of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 10. Pursuant to such system, candidates for the position of firefighter, who meet certain minimum qualifications, including residency within the City of Lynn, apply for and take a written examination established by the Human Resources Division, and their scores on such examination are recorded. Based upon their scores on such written examination, candidates are then rank ordered on said civil service list for firefighter in the City of Lynn based upon such written scores. Certain categories of candidates, such as candidates who are veterans or who are the children of police or firefighters who died in the line of duty, are given an absolute preference over all other candidates, and these individuals are rank ordered on the civil service list within their categories based upon their scores on the written examination.
3

Case 1:05-cv-10213-PBS Document 1 Filed 02/02/2005 Page 4 of 9
11. When vacancies are to be filled in the Lynn Fire Department, candidates are chosen for selection based exclusively upon their ranking on such civil service list. They then must go on to complete a physical agility test, background investigation, and medical exam.
B. The Examination Utilized By Defendant Division of Human Resources Has An Overwhelming Disparate Impact On Minority Candidates.
12. Generally, the Human Resources Division ("HRD") administers entry-level firefighter examinations for towns and cities in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts covered by the civil service law, every two years. The Commonwealth, HRD, keeps records on the scores received by Caucasian and minority candidates [minorities being defined as Spanish surname or black]. Over the course of the last several entrance level examinations administered by HRD, the Commonwealth has used a cutoff score of 70, meaning that any score below 70 constitutes a failure prohibiting the individual from being considered in the hiring process.
13. Both in the City of Lynn and elsewhere in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the HRD entry-level firefighter examination has a significant disparate impact on minority candidates, in that statistically minority candidates fare far worse on the examination than do Caucasian candidates. The impact is so significant, that in many communities, few, if any, minorities get hired based upon a rank ordering of their scores on the civil service examination.
C. Facts Relating To Plaintiffs. 14. In or about November of 2001, Plaintiffs Jacob Bradley, Noah Bradley, and Keith Ridley, all of whom are African-American, took the entrance level examination administered by HRD for the position of firefighter in the City of Lynn. Each plaintiff was
4

Case 1:05-cv-10213-PBS Document 1 Filed 02/02/2005 Page 5 of 9
well qualified for such position and had a lifelong goal to become a firefighter in the City of Lynn. Plaintiffs Jacob Bradley and Noah Bradley are the sons of a Lynn firefighter, and plaintiff Keith Ridley is the nephew of a Lynn firefighter and a Peabody firefighter.
15. Plaintiff Jacob Bradley received a score of approximately 94 on the 2001 civil service examination, a score which demonstrates that he is fully qualified for the position of firefighter. Plaintiff Noah Bradley received a score of 84, a score demonstrating he is qualified to be a Lynn firefighter. Plaintiff Keith Ridley scored in the low-to-mid 90s, demonstrating that he is qualified to be a Lynn firefighter.
16. In or about April of 2002, HRD created a "Civil Service" rank ordered list resulting from the November 2001 examination. That list remained in effect through at least November of 2004. Approximately 20 firefighters were hired from that list. None of the firefighters hired were minorities, and plaintiffs Jacob Bradley, Noah Bradley, and Keith Ridley were not reached for consideration based solely on their civil service scores. The last hiring from that list occurred in October of 2004.
17. Each plaintiff has taken the November 2004 HRD civil service examination for the position of firefighter in the City of Lynn. Plaintiff Jacob Bradley received a score of 94; plaintiff Noah Bradley received a score under 70; plaintiff Keith Ridley received a score of 90; and plaintiff Jared Thomas received a score of 92.
18. On information and belief, the City of Lynn will be hiring approximately 16 firefighters in the Spring of 2005, based upon candidates' ranking on the civil service examination. Should the City of Lynn hire from a rank ordered list created by the HRD based on exam score, which has been the City's practice, none of the plaintiffs will be reached for consideration due to their scores on the civil service examination.
5

Case 1:05-cv-10213-PBS Document 1 Filed 02/02/2005 Page 6 of 9
D. The City Of Lynn's Historv Of Hiring Minority Firefighters. 19. From 1974 until in or about January 1986, the City of Lynn was subject to a consent decree entered in the case of Boston Chapter. NAACP. Inc. v. Beecher. et ai, 371 F. Supp. 507 (D. Mass. 1974) (Civ. Act. Nos. 72-3060-F and 73-269-F), requiring the City of Lynn and other cities in Massachusetts to hire minority firefighters in a ratio of one minority for every three Caucasians hired. The City of Lynn was subject to such consent decree by reason of a finding by the Federal District Court that the entry-level police and fire written civil service examination utilized by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts had a disparate impact on minorities and was not validly determined to be job-related. 20. In or about January 1986, the City of Lynn petitioned the defendant Human Resources Division for permission to be relieved of complying with the Beecher decree, and defendant HRD granted this request. 21. Since that time, the City of Lynn has hired firefighters based strictly upon civil service score and the statutory preferences described above. Over the course of the last ten years, of the some forty (40) or more firefighters hired in the City of Lynn (other than paramedics), fewer than eight (8) have been minorities. Of the 179 firefighters currently employed by the City of Lynn, only fifteen (15) are minorities. 22. Currently, approximately 40% of the population of the City of Lynn is minority. 23. The use of the HRD written examination for the entry-level position of firefighter, including its use as a rank ordering system, has resulted in a significant
6

Case 1:05-cv-10213-PBS Document 1 Filed 02/02/2005 Page 7 of 9
disparate impact adversely affecting minority candidates for the position of firefighter in the City of Lynn.
24. The HRD examination, particularly when utilized as a rank ordering system (as opposed to a pass/fail qualifying examination), has a significant disparate impact on minority candidates generally, and cannot be shown to be a valid business necessity under the standards developed by federal EEOC and state MCAD law.
25. Without the grant of preliminary injunctive relief, the City of Lynn will continue to hire entry-firefighters based upon a civil service level examination that is unlawful.
E. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies 26. Pursuant to state and federal requirements, Plaintiffs are filing their discrimination claims at the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination ("MCAD") and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC,,).l
COUNT I (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) The actions of the defendants as set forth above constitute a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000(e).
As set forth in this Complaint, Plaintiffs are requesting preliminary injunctive relief due to the imminent potential harm facing Plaintiffs based on the City's intention to hire a number of firefighters based on the scores of the November 2004 civil service examination. Thus, Plaintiffs are including their discrimination claims immediately in this Complaint as the baSis for the preliminary injunctive relief they are requesting. Upon receiving right-to-sue letters from the MCAD and EEOC, with whom they are filing their administrative complaints today, they will amend this Complaint to state that they have received these letters.
7

Case 1:05-cv-10213-PBS Document 1 Filed 02/02/2005 Page 8 of 9
COUNT II (Equal Protection) The conduct of the defendants as set forth above constitutes a violation of the equal protection clause of Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
COUNT III (42 U.S.C. §1981) The actions of the defendants as set forth above constitute a violation of 42 U.S.C. §1981.
COUNT IV (Chapter 151 B) The actions of the defendants as set forth above constitute a violation of M.G.L. ch.151 B, Section 4.
COUNT V (M.G.L. ch.93. §103) The actions of the defendants as set forth above constitute a violation of M.G.L. ch. 93, §1 03, and the equal protection clause of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.
8

Case 1:05-cv-10213-PBS Document 1 Filed 02/02/2005 Page 9 of 9

COUNTVI (Enforcement and/or Clarification of Consent Decree) The actions of the defendants as set forth above violate the consent decree issued in the case of Boston Chapter, NAACP, Inc. v. Beecher, et ai, 371 F. Supp. 507 (D. Mass. 1974) (Civ. Act. Nos. 72-3060-F and 73-269-F).

WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs pray this Court to grant them preliminary and permanent injunctive relief (1) holding that the examination system used by the defendants is unlawful; (2) ordering that the plaintiffs and appropriate class members be hired as firefighters for the City of Lynn, Massachusetts, with retroactive back pay, seniority, and other damages to which they are entitled; (3) ordering that the defendants be required to devise a hiring system that does not have disparate impact on minorities; and (4) granting other further and appropriate relief to the plaintiffs and the class they represent.

Dated: February -z... ,2005

Respectfully submitted,
JACOB BRADLEY, NOAH BRADLEY, KEITH RIDLEY, and JARED THOMAS, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals,
~~-~
Harold L. Lichten, BBO#54989 Shannon Liss-Riordan, BBO# 640716 Alfred Gordon, BBO #630456
Pyle, Rome, Lichten, Ehrenberg &
Liss-Riordan, P.C. 18 Tremont St., Ste. 500 Boston, MA 02108 (617) 367-7200

9

Case 1:05-cv-10213-PBS Document 1-2 Filed 02/02/2005 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
1. TITLE OF CASE (NAME OF FIRST PARTY ON EACH SIDE ONLY) JACOB BRADLEY et. al. v. CITY OF LYNN et al.

2. CATEGORY IN WHICH THE CASE BELONGS BASED UPO':j,-1:~M~lATn cr"JjUlloot)STE@~~

COVER SHEET. (SEE LOCAL RULE 40.1(A)(1)).

,." - , U t1:J V JJ. D u

lL

I.

160,410,470, R.23, REGARDLESS OF N"A'T"URVE OF SUIT.

II.

195,368,400,440.441-444, '540, 550, 555,625,710,720,730,

*Also complete N:J 120 or AO 121

740,790,791,820*,830·,840*,850,890.892-894,895,950.

for patent, trademark or copyright cases

III.

110,120,130,140,151,190,210, 230, 240,245, 290, 310,

315,320,330.340,345,350,355,360,362,365,.370,371.

380,3~,450,891.

1'0(.
\"

220,422,423,430, 4Sl, 510, 530. 610, 620,630,640,650,660, 690,810,861-865,870,871,875,900.

V. \ I,, 150,152,153.

3. TITLE AND NU¥BER, IF ANY, OF RELAlED CASES. (SEE LOCAL RULE 40.1(G)). IF MORE THAN ONE PRIOR RELATED CASE HAS BEEN FILED IN THIS DISTRICT PLEASE INDICATE THE TITLE AND NUMBER OF THE FIRST FILED CASE IN THIS COURT.
Boston Chapter, NAACP, Inc. et al. v. Beecher et al., 72-3060-F

4. HAS APRIOR ACTION BETWEEN THE SAME PARTIES AND BASED ON THE SAME CLAIM EVER BEEN FILED IN THIS COURT?

YES

NO

5. DOES THE COMPLAINT IN THIS CASE QUESTION THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS AFFECTING THE PUBLIC INTEREST? (SEE 28 USC §2403)

YES

NO

IF SO, IS THE U.S.A. ORAN OFFICER, AGENT OR EMPLOYEE OF THE U.S. A PARTY?

YES

NO

6. IS THIS CASE REQUIRED TO BE HEARD AND DETERMINED BYA DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES PURSUANT TO TITLE 28 USC §2284?

YES

NO

7. DO ~ OF THE PARTIES IN THIS ACTION, EXCLUDING GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES OF THE UNITED STA1ES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ("GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES"), RESIDING IN MASSACHUSETTS RESIDE IN THE SAME DIVISION? - (SEE LOCAL RULE40.1(D)).

YES

NO

A.

IF YES, IN WHICH DIVISION DO ALL OF THE NON-GOVERNMENTAL PARTES RESIDE?

EASTERN DIVISION

CENTRAL DIVISION

WESTERN DIVISION

B.

IF NO,IN WHICH DIVISION DO THE MAJORITY OF THE PLAINTIFFS OR THE ONLY PARTIES, EXCLUDING

GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES, RESIDING N MASSACHUSETTS RESIDE?

EASTERN DIVISION

CENTRAL DIVISION

WESTERN DIVISION

(PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT)
ATTORNEY'S NAME Ha,;bld,Lichten, Shannon Liss-Riordan, and Alfred Gordon ADDRESS Pyle, Rome, 18 Tremont Street, Suite 500, Boston MA 02108
TELEPHONE NO. (617) 367-7200

(Cover sheet local.wpd ·11/27/00)

Case 1:05-cv-10213-PBS Document 1-2 Filed 02/02/2005 Page 2 of 2

~JS 44 (Rev. 399)

CIVIL COVER SHEET

The JS-44 civil cover meet and the information contained herein neither replace nor suppltment the filing and service ofpleadings or other papers as required
by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conrerence of the Uni~d States in September 1974, is required for the

use of the Clerk ofCourt for the purpose ofinitiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIOFSlf!'f:f!f" REVERSE OF THE FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS

D!H&~JU{~ OFtJffn

JACOB BRADLEY, NOAH BRADLEY, KEITH RIDLEY, and CITY OF LYNN; E

J. CLANCY, JR. ; the

JARED THOMAS, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals

CP~~TH OF MASSACHUSETTS, DIVISION

OF·

riSb@C585~nd RUTH BRAMSON

(b) County ofResidencc of First Listed Plaintiff
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)

County of Residence of First Listed
0a.Sf9. TD~ISe.rl(D{Aft~p~<IFF~CCAASSEES, SUoSENTLHEYL)OCATION OF THE
Afj I L . "

(e) (617) Attorncy's (Firm Namc, Addrcss, and Telephone Number) 367Harold Lichten, Shannon Liss-Riordan, and 7200 Alfred Gordon Pyle, Rome, Lichten, Ehernberg & Liss-Riordan,
18 Tremont Street, Suite SOD, Boston MA 02108

Attorne)S (If Known)
.C.

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an "X" in 0 nc Box Only)

01 U.S. Government
Plaintiff

~3 Federal Question
(U.S. Government Not a Party)

III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIE8(Placc an "X"in One Box for Plaintiff

(For Diversi ty Cases Only)

and One Box for Dc fend ant)

Citizen of This State

DE'

DE'

I 0

01 Incorpomted or Principal Place 04 04

n of Business This State

02 U.S. Government
Defendant

04 Diversity
(Indicate Citi zenship of Part ies
in Item lID

Citizen of Another State 0 2 02 Incorpomted and Principal Place 0 5 05
of Business In Another State

Citizen or Subject ofa 03 03 Foreign Nation

D 6 06

IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an ")(" in One Box OnlY)

CONTRACT

TORTS

Foreirn Countrv
FORFEITURE/PENAL 1Y

BANKRUPTCY

OTHER STATUTES

D 110 Insurance

PERSONAL INJURY

PERSONAL INJURY D

D 120 Mllrine

D 310 Airplane

D 362 Personal Injury-

D

D 130 Miller Act

D 315 Airplane Pmduct

Mcd. Malpractice

D

D 140 Negotiable Inatrumcnt

Liability

D 365 Personal Injury-

D ISO RccoYCry of Overpayment D 320 Ass.ult, Libel &:

Product Liabllity

D

o &: En forcement 0

Slander

D 368 Asbestos Personal

~~Dllfll'care Act

0 330 Federal Emplo)tlrs'

Injury Pmduct

0 0

0 152 Rccovery of Defaded

Liability

Liability

0

Student Loans

0 340 Marinc

PERSONAL PROPERTY

(Exc1. Veterans)

0 345 Marine Product

0 370 Other Fraud

0

0 153 Recove ry of Overpayment

Liability

0 371 Truth in Lending

of Veteran's Benefits

0 350 Motor V chicle

0 380 Othcr Personal

0 160 Stoc kholders' Suits 0 190 Other ContrQct

0 3SS Motor V chicle
Product Liability

Property Damage
0 385 Properly Damage

0

0 195 Contract Product Liability 0 360 Olher Pcrsonal Injury

Product Liability

0

REAL PROPERTY

CIVIL RIGHTS

0 210 Land Condemnation

~:41 Voting

o 0 220 Forcclosulll
0 230 Rent Lease &: Ejeclm ~nt

442 Employment 443 Housing!

PRISONER PETITION
0

0 5 10M otions te Vacate

Scntence

0

Habeas Corpus:

0 240 TorlS to Land

Accommod .tions 0 530 General

0

0 245 Tort Product LiQbility

0 444 Welfllre

0 535 De alh Penalty

0 290 All Other Real Property 0 440 Othc r Civil Rights 0 540 Mandamus &: Other 0

0 550 Civil Righls

V. ORIGIN

.. . 0 555 Prison Condiion
(PLACE AN X IN ONE BOX ONLY)

610 Agricultuill 620 Other Food &: Drug 625 Drug Related Seizure
of Property 21 USC 630 Liqoor L....... 640 R.R. &: Truck 650 Airlile Regs. 660 Occupational
SafetyfHcalth 690 Other
LABOR

D 422 Appea128 USC 158
D 423 Withdrawal
28 USC 157
PROPERTY RIGHTS
0 820 Co pyrights 0 830 Patent 0 840 Trad cmark
SOCIAL SEC\JRITY

710 Fair Labor Slandards 0 861 HIA{l395ff)

A"

0 862 Black LUng (923)

720 Labor/M gmt. Rclalions 0 863 DIW C/DIW W (405 (8»)

0 864 ssm Title XVI

730 Labor/Mgml.Reporting 0 865 RS I (405(g))

& Disclosure Act 740 R.ilway Labor Act

FEDERAL TAX SUITS

o 790 Other Labor L~igathn

870 T axes (U.S. Plaintiff or Defenda nt)

791 Empl. Ret. Inc. Security Act

o 871 IRS-Third Pllrty
26 USC 7609

Transferred from

o 400 State ReQP portionment o 410 Antitrust o 430 Banks and Banking o 450 CommercellCC Ratnfetc. o 460 DeportBlion o 470 RQcketeer Influenced and o Corrupt Organizations
810 Selective Service
o 8S0 Securites/Commoditiesf
Exchange
o B75 Customer Challenge
12 USC 3410
o 89 I Agricultural Acts o 892 Economic StQbDintDn Act o 893 Environm entat Mailers o 894 Energy Allocation Act o 895 Freodom of
lnformdon Act 0900 A. pp C III of F"
DcteuniRft9l1ual Acces s to
o Justice 950 C onstitu tionalily 0 f State Statltes
o 890 Other Statutory Actions
Appeal to
District

~ 1 Original

o 2 Removed from

o 3 Remanded from

o another district 4 Reinstated or 0 5 (specify)

o o 6 Multidistrict

7

Judge from Magistrate

Procceding

Statc Court

Appellate Court

Reopened

Litigation

Judgment

VI. CA USE 0 F ACTION (Cite the ~.~. C.iVi.1 S.Btutc under which yo~ Qrc. filng nnd write brief stallnlcnt of CBUSC.
Do not cnc )uTJsd IClional statutes unlcss d Ivcrsny.)

42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000 (e), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1981

VII. REQ UESTE D IN

xx CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION

DEMANDS

COMPLAINT:

UNDER F.R.CP. 23

(See
VIII. RELATED CASE(S) instmctions): IF ANY

mDO
E Patti B. Saris

CHECK YES oo.ly If delTDnded 10 complamt:

JURY DEMAND:

0 Yes ~No

DOCKET NUMBER 72-3060-F

RECEIPT N_ _ _ _ __ AMOUN _ _ _ _ _ _ __ APPLYING IFr _ _ _ _ _ __

JUDGE ____________ MA.G. JUDGE,_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

___________________________

)

JACOB BRADLEY, et al.,

)

Plaintiffs

)

)

v.

)

)

CITY OF LYNN, et al.,

)

Defendants

)

___________________________)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 05-10213-PBS

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT All parties to this action, excluding the City of Lynn and Edward J. Clancy, Jr., hereby enter into this comprehensive settlement agreement, subject to the court’s approval, resolving all issues pending in the above-titled case except the claims specific to the City of Lynn. This agreement and the terms contained herein are intended to effectuate and further this court’s memorandum and order of August 8, 2006 (Document 127) and remedial order dated December 6, 2006, as amended February 8, 2007 (Document 154, hereinafter “remedy order”), and to apply the remedy order to the 2003 and 2005 police officer examinations. A. HIRING. 1. Future hirings of fire fighters from the 2002 and 2004 examinations, and of police officers from the 2003 and 2005 examinations, shall be conducted in accordance with the methodology and procedures specified in ¶¶A(1)-A(5) of the remedy order. Utilizing the court’s shortfall methodology set forth in the remedy order, the

1

municipalities and numbers of shortfall minorities thereby identified for police officer or fire fighter positions are as follows:

Fire Shortfall Police Shortfall

Ashland

1

Bedford

1

Belmont

1

Beverly

1

Boston

8

18

Brookline

4

4

Cambridge

6

Everett

1

Fall River

1

Leominster 1

Lynn

2

4

New Bedford 1

North Adams

1

North Andover

1

Quincy

1

Revere

1

1

Sharon

1

Southbridge

1

Taunton

2

Waltham

3

TOTAL

21

45

2. With respect to the shortfall number of 18 shown above for the City of Boston Police Department based on hirings to date from the 2003 and 2005 examinations, in light of the City’s significant use of so-called PAR8 lists, the Commonwealth’s Human Resources Division (HRD) will certify the names of Black candidates to the City for the so-called shortfall hiring until six Black candidates in each

2

of the next three recruit classes are hired, or the list of eligible candidates is exhausted. HRD will certify names to the City first from the Boston residents on the 2003 list who were not reached, then from Boston residents on the 2003 and 2005 lists who were reached but did not sign the certification, and finally, if necessary, from the 2005 list, non-Boston residents who had selected Boston as an employment location as of May 21, 2007. However, any candidate hired pursuant to this paragraph shall not be entitled to back pay under Section B of this agreement.
3. With respect to the City of Boston and any future hiring of police officers from the 2005 exam after April 1, 2007, should the City (1) hire non-resident veterans, but fail to exhaust the list of non-resident veterans; or (2) hire non-resident, nonveterans (having exhausted the list of non-resident veterans), then upon completion of such hiring, the parties will conduct a shortfall analysis in the same manner as provided in paragraph 1 or paragraph 2 above, and if such shortfalls are found, subsequent hiring for the Boston Police Department will include the consideration of additional shortfall candidates from the 2003 and 2005 lists, in addition to the number of 18 shown above. However, any candidate hired pursuant to this paragraph shall not be entitled to back pay under Section B of this agreement. B. BACK PAY AND CREDITABLE SERVICE.
4. The Commonwealth shall pay back pay, including retirement contributions, to or on behalf of those class members who were (1) hired later than would otherwise have occurred under the parties’ “delay” analysis; or (2) hired as a result of the court’s remedy order on shortfall hiring, subject to the following procedures and limitations:
3

a. The Commonwealth shall pay a total amount not to exceed $1,450,000 in full satisfaction of all claims for back pay, other compensation, and lost retirement contributions. The breakdown by category for such payment shall be as follows:
(1.) Firefighters hired as a result of shortfall hiring - $400,000; (2.) Firefighters whose hiring was delayed - $250,000; (3.) Police Officers hired as a result of shortfall hiring - $500,000; (4.) Police Officers whose hiring was delayed - $300,000. 5. All eligible class members described above in paragraphs 4(a)(1)-(4) shall receive a pro rata share of the amounts set forth in paragraphs 4(a)(1)-(4) for their respective sub-groups utilizing the following procedure and formula: a. For shortfall hires for both police and fire (excluding those hired pursuant to paragraphs 2 and 3), each candidate shall, upon his or her hiring, receive the same gross payment (which the parties approximate will be $18,750). b. Minority candidates already hired, who have been identified by the parties as delay candidates, shall be paid a pro rata share of the amount set aside to compensate their sub-group, which sum shall be based upon the relative lengths of their respective hiring delays. Compensation under paragraph (a) above and this paragraph (b) shall be subject to the claims procedure set forth in the following paragraphs. It is estimated that there are approximately 22 police delay candidates and 19 fire delay candidates, which would yield an average payment of approximately $13,415. The estimated distribution of delay candidates is as follows:
4

Police Delay Fire Delay

Barnstable

1

Boston

15

11

Brockton

Brookline

1

E. Bridgewater 1

Fitchburg

3

Gardner

1

Lynn

2

New Bedford

1

Revere

1

Taunton

1

Waltham

2

Wareham

1

TOTAL

22

19

c. Upon submission of required documentation to make payment and subject to appropriation, the Commonwealth shall pay to the current or former municipal employer of each class member who is entitled to a payment hereunder, for the benefit of such class member, the gross amount to which she or he is entitled. As required by law, the employer shall deduct from the gross amount the applicable state, federal and Medicare tax withholdings, and the employer and employee shares of retirement contributions, and shall pay the net benefit to such employee.
d. The employer shall transmit the employer and employee shares of retirement contributions to the appropriate retirement board. Upon request, this court will issue an appropriate order directed to such municipality and applicable retirement board, if necessary, to effectuate this settlement agreement and in furtherance of section B of the remedy order.
5

6. Plaintiffs’ and Intervenors’ counsel, working cooperatively with HRD and its counsel, will attempt to identify and locate every individual who may be entitled to (1) be considered for shortfall hiring under Section A of this settlement agreement; and/or (2) a payment under Section B of this settlement agreement. Each individual so identified and located shall be sent a notice in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A, A1 (in the case of Boston Police candidates), or B which shall notify said individual of his or her rights under this settlement agreement. In addition, HRD will post a copy of this notice to class members on its website and the Plaintiffs’ counsel and Intervenors may take whatever additional steps they deem appropriate to contact potential class members entitled to relief under this settlement agreement. In addition to informing said class members of their rights under this settlement agreement, the notice will also enclose a claim form to be agreed upon by the parties.
7. After waiting 45 days from the time notices are first sent out with claim forms, and after taking reasonable efforts to contact all potential class members, plaintiffs’ counsel shall identify all firefighters and police officers entitled to a so-called “delay” payment and shall tentatively calculate the pro rata shares to be distributed to such class members. Plaintiffs’ counsel shall then present to the Commonwealth, the Intervenors, and this court a proposed distribution of said funds, and the Commonwealth shall distribute such funds upon approval by the court.
8. For those class members who are hired as police officers or firefighters under the shortfall procedures set forth herein, payment of their shares of compensation/back pay shall be made upon HRD’s confirmation to Plaintiffs’ counsel that such minority candidate has been hired, and such payment can be made without
6

further approval by the court. Once all shortfall hiring is completed for all of the towns/cities described in paragraph A(1) of this settlement agreement, and in the event, after a period of 90 days thereafter, that the maximum obligation set forth in paragraph B(4)(a) is not exhausted, the Commonwealth shall have no obligation to pay any remaining balance. Thereafter, HRD shall file with the court, with copies to all parties, an accounting of all sums paid out under this agreement. Once filed, no further amounts will be payable under this settlement agreement and the Commonwealth shall be released of all further liability. C. ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS.
9. Upon approval of this settlement agreement by the court, the Commonwealth shall, subject to appropriation, pay the following amounts to Plaintiffs’ counsel and Intervenors’ counsel in full satisfaction of all claims for attorneys’ fees and costs:
1. To the law firm of Pyle, Rome, Lichten, Ehrenberg & Liss-Riordan, P.C., expenses in the amount of $350,000, which sum shall include all future expenses connected with this case and the disbursements set forth herein;
2. To the law firm of Pyle, Rome, Lichten, Ehrenberg & Liss-Riordan, P.C., attorneys’ fees in the amount of $310,000 which shall include all further work necessary to supervise the distribution of compensation to class members and to carry out the provisions of this settlement agreement and the remedy order; and
3. To the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights attorneys’ fees and expenses in the amount of $40,000, which shall include all further work
7

necessary to carry out the provisions of this settlement agreement and the remedy order.
D. MISCELLANEOUS. 10. To the extent permitted by law, HRD will record each shortfall candidate
identified by this agreement – with the exception of Boston shortfall police candidates with civil service seniority under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 31, retroactive to the last date that the relevant city or town appointed a class from the examination taken by that particular candidate. For example, if a shortfall candidate took the 2002 firefighter exam, and is hired from the 2002 list, he or she will be given seniority back to the appointment date of the last class hired from the 2002 list in the relevant city or town. Each delay candidate will be given seniority retroactive to the appointment date of the previous recruit class from the examination taken by that particular candidate in the relevant city or town. For example, if a delay candidate took the 2004 fire exam and is hired in the second class appointed from the 2004 list, he or she will be given seniority back to the appointment date of the first class hired from the 2004 list in the relevant city or town.
11. The Plaintiffs and Intervenors shall dismiss without prejudice any claims relating to the 2006 fire fighter examination or the 2007 police officer examination. HRD shall still be responsible for compliance with Section C of the remedy order and such terms shall be extended to the 2007 police officer examination.
12. The Plaintiffs shall dismiss with prejudice the pending state court action known as “Jacob Bradley et al v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts et al,” Suffolk County (Mass.) Superior Court Civil Action No. 2005-05275-H.
8

13. The parties agree to conduct a shortfall analysis of the MBTA police and, if
one or more shortfalls are found, HRD will require the MBTA to consider shortfall
candidates for hiring as provided above for other police. If the parties are not able to
agree on this provision, they will bring it to the Court for decision.
Agreed to:
For the Commonwealth:
__/s/ Paul Dietl________________________ Paul Dietl Acting Chief Human Resources Officer
__/s/ Sally McNeely____________________ Sally McNeely Director, Organizational Development Group Human Resources Division
__/s/ Sookyoung Shin _________________ Ronald F. Kehoe, BBO #264260 Sookyoung Shin, BBO #643713 Attorney General’s Office One Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108 Tel: (617) 727-2200 x 2619
For the Plaintiffs:
_/s/ Shannon Liss-Riordan_____________ Harold L. Lichten, BBO # 549689 Shannon Liss-Riordan, BBO # 640716 Pyle, Rome, Lichten, Ehrenberg & Liss-Riordan, P.C. 18 Tremont Street, Suite 500 Boston, MA 02108 (617) 367-7200
9

For the Intervenors: __/s/ Nadine Cohen_______________________ Nadine Cohen, BBO #090040 Lawyers Committee for Civil RightsUnder Law 294 Washington Street Boston, Massachusetts 02108 (617) 482-1145 July 30, 2007
10

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

JACOB BRADLEY, NOAH BRADLEY, KEITH RIDLEY, and JARED THOMAS,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF LYNN, et al.,
Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 05-10213-PBS ) ) ) ) ) )

ORDER ALLOWING CLASS CERTIFICATION March 24, 2006
Saris, U.S.D.J.
Having determined that this case satisfies the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(2), after hearing, the Court ALLOWS Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification (Docket No. 53) with respect to the claims asserted in the First Amended Complaint (Docket No. 44) against the Human Resources Division (“HRD”) of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the Personnel Administrator for the HRD. See Donahue v. City of Boston, 371 F.3d 7, 12-14 (1st Cir. 2004) (holding that plaintiff had standing to challenge a race conscious hiring program where police officers demonstrated an “inability to compete on equal footing” and were “able and ready”).
The Court certifies the following classes: All minorities (Black and Hispanic) who took the civil service examination for the position of fire fighter within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in

the years 2002 and 2004. All minorities (Black and Hispanic) who took the civil service examination for the position of police officer within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in the years 2003 and 2005. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g), the Court appoints as class counsel the law firm Pyle, Rome, Lichter, Ehrenberg & LissRiordan.
S/PATTI B. SARIS United States District Judge
2

 
 443 F.Supp.2d 145 (2006)
Jacob BRADLEY, Noah Bradley, Keith Ridley, and Jared Thomas, Plaintiffs, v.
CITY OF LYNN, et al., Defendants.
Civil Action No. 05-10213-PBS.
United States District Court, D. Massachusetts.
August 8, 2006.
14678 *146 *147 *148 Nadine M. Cohen, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Mark D. Selwyn, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Alfred Gordon, Harold L. Lichten, Shannon E. Liss-Riordan, Pyle, Rome, Lichten, Ehrenberg & Liss-Riordan, P.C., Boston, MA, for Plaintiffs.
George S. Markopoulos, James Lamanna, City Solicitor's Office, Lynn, MA, Ronald F. Kehoe, Sookyoung Shin, Attorney General's Office, Boston, MA, for Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
SARIS, District Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION
In this class action, the plaintiffs[1] allege that the written civil service cognitive ability examination used in 2002 and 2004 to qualify and rank applicants has had a disparate and adverse impact on Black and Hispanic candidates for entry-level firefighter positions in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a), (k) (2006), and the federal consent decree in Boston Chapter, NAACP, Inc. v. Beecher, 371 F.Supp. 507 (D.Mass.1974) (the "Beecher decree"). The defendants are the Human Resources Division of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (the "HRD"), which develops and administers the examination, the City of Lynn, and various public officials. The HRD argues that because of the statutory veterans preference, residency requirements, and other selection factors, the examination has no disparate impact on the bottom-line hiring of Black and Hispanic candidates for entry-level firefighter positions in Massachusetts.
Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a) and (b)(2), the Court certified the plaintiff firefighter and police officer classes on March 24, 2006. The Court certified the firefighter class as "[a]ll minorities (Black and Hispanic) who took the civil service examination for the position of fire fighter within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in the years 2002 and 2004." (Docket No. 81.) A six-day bench trial for the liability phase of the firefighter class began on April 11, 2006, and the parties rested on May 4, 2006.
The following witnesses testified for the plaintiffs: Dr. Frank Landy, an expert in industrial psychology and 149 statistics and a former consultant to the HRD; Dr. Joel *149 Wiesen, an expert in industrial psychology and
statistics and the HRD Chief of Test Development and Validation between 1977 and 1993; Elizabeth Dennis, the former HRD Director of the Civil Service Unit between the mid-1990s and 2003; and Kevin Bradley, a Lynn firefighter since 1977 and the father of two of the named plaintiffs. The following witnesses testified for the HRD: Dr. Rick Jacobs, an expert in industrial psychology and statistics and a former and current consultant to the HRD; Marc Chavanne, the HRD Deputy Director of Selection and Validation between 1991 and 1996; and Sally McNeely, the current, HRD Director of the Organizational Development Group since 2003.
The parties submitted closing briefs, and oral argument was held on June 9, 2006. After trial, oral argument, and review of the post-trial submissions, the Court holds that the written civil service cognitive ability examinations used in 2002 and 2004 have an adverse and disparate impact on the employment opportunities of Black and

Hispanic candidates for entrylevel firefighter positions, and that the selection process that uses the examination scores to rank candidates is not job related and consistent with business necessity under applicable federal law and the longstanding Beecher decree. The plaintiffs have also demonstrated that there are alternative selection methods with less discriminatory effects that would serve the employer's legitimate interest in selecting capable firefighters based in part on cognitive ability. Accordingly, I conclude that judgment on liability should enter in favor of the plaintiff firefighter class.
II. FINDINGS OF FACT
A. Statutory and Administrative Framework
The civil service law currently applies to the fire departments of approximately 110 municipalities in Massachusetts, including Boston and Lynn. To become a firefighter in a municipality where the civil service law applies, an individual must first pass a statewide civil service examination. See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 31, §§ 6, 59.
The personnel administrator for the HRD (the "HRD Administrator") conducts, determines the form, method, and subject matter of, and develops the examinations, id. §§ 5(e), 16; prepares and posts notices of the examinations, id. §§ 18-19; and determines the passing requirements, id. § 22. Based on the examination results, the HRD Administrator ranks the names of those who pass on the "eligible list" based on the following statutory priority. Id. §§ 25, 26.
The names of persons who pass examinations for original appointment to any position in the official service shall be placed on eligible lists in the following order: (1) disabled veterans, in the order of their respective standings; (2) veterans, in the order of their respective standings; (3) widows or widowed mothers of veterans who were killed in action or died from a service connected disability incurred in wartime service, in the order of their respective standings; (4) all others, in the order of their respective standings.
Id. § 27.
To hire for a firefighter vacancy, a municipality's appointing authority submits a request to the HRD Administrator, who then certifies "from the eligible list sufficient names of persons for consideration" in rank order. Id. § 6. In addition to the statutory priority, the appointing authority may have the HRD Administrator rank residents ahead of 150 non-residents, see id. § 58, and may request special certification lists for candidates with certain qualifications, *150 such as Spanish-language abilities (Ex. 9, at 16 (Pers. Admin. Rule 8(4))). The HRD and the HRD Administrator (the "State defendants") have interpreted the civil service law as giving them discretion to decide how many names should be certified from the eligible list.
Once the HRD Administrator certifies a list to a municipality, each candidate must sign the certified list and express a willingness to accept employment in order to be considered for appointment. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 31, § 25. According to the HRD's Personnel Administration Rules, the appointing authorities for a municipality "may appoint only from among the first 2n + 1 persons named in the certification willing to accept appointment," where "n" is the number of vacancies. (Ex. 9, at 16-17 (Pers. Admin. Rule 9(1)).) For five vacancies, for example, a municipality may only appoint from the first eleven named in the certification willing to accept. (See id.; see also Exs. 33P, 33Q (stating on certification lists that selection "must be" within first 2n + 1 "who will accept").)
In evaluating the candidates within the "2n + 1" pool, a municipality may establish its own hiring criteria, such as a drug test, a background check, or an interview. After conditional offers are made by the municipality, the HRD administers a pass/fail physical abilities test. Some municipalities conduct a full medical or psychological examination. According to Ms. McNeely, some municipalities use these post-certification hurdles to determine the composition of the "2n + 1" pool.
None of the post-certification hurdles, however, changes a candidate's ranking on the list. By statute, to bypass higher-ranked individuals on the certified list to hire lower-ranked individuals, a municipality must submit a written statement to the HRD Administrator justifying the bypass. Mass Gen. Laws ch. 31, § 27. The HRD Administrator

has the right to review and withdraw any bypass appointment. MacHenry v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 40 Mass.App.Ct. 632, 634-36, 666 N.E.2d 1029, 1030-31 (Mass.App.Ct.1996).[2]

B. Beecher Firefighter Litigation

The civil service examination for firefighters has been the subject of employment discrimination litigation since the 1970's. The Beecher class action was brought by the Boston Chapter, NAACP, on behalf of a statewide class of Black and Spanish-surnamed applicants for the firefighter position. Beecher, 371 F.Supp. at 509-10. In Beecher, although the available examination statistics were "meager," after comparing the minority population and employment statistics, the district court concluded that the plaintiffs established a prima facie case that the written examination had a discriminatory effect on Blacks and Spanish-surnamed persons and that the defendants failed to demonstrate that the examination was substantially related to job performance. 371 F.Supp. at 514, 517.

As a result, the district court issued a consent decree, which established certification quotas for minorities in "all cities and towns subject to Civil Service law" until "a city or town achieves a complement of [firefighter] minorities commensurate with the percentage of minorities within the community." Id. at 522-23. Importantly, the decree ordered:

The Massachusetts Division of Civil Service shall cease using written firefighter entrance

examinations of the type administered by the Division of Civil Service in August 1971, for the

151

purpose of *151 determining qualifications for the selection of firefighters. Should the Division of

Civil Service desire to utilize entrance examinations in the future for the purpose of selecting

firefighters, such examinations shall be demonstrably job-related and validated in accordance with

the "Guidelines on Employees Selection Procedures" issued by the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission, 29 C.F.R. § 1607.1 et seq., or otherwise shown to have no

discriminatory impact. If the parties disagree as to whether a written examination has been shown

to be valid within the meaning of the Guidelines,,the question of their validity and job relatedness

shall be resolved by the Court, and such resolution, whether by the parties' agreement or by the

Court, shall be accomplished before any such test is put into use for the purpose of qualifying or

selecting. As with the instant study, the Court will scrutinize closely a future study which shows

only a minimal level of job-relatedness.

Id. at 521.

The First Circuit affirmed the district court's disparate impact findings in Boston Chapter, NAACP, Inc. v. Beecher, 504 F.2d 1017, 1021, 1026 (1st Cir.1974). With respect to the prima facie burden, the First Circuit stated: "Plaintiffs usually meet their initial burden by demonstrating that minority candidates have a higher test failure rate." Id. at 1019. In addition, the First Circuit found that the validation study did not survive close scrutiny and affirmed the Beecher decree's implementation of certification quotas that remained in effect for each local fire department "until that department attains sufficient minority fire fighters to have a percentage on the force approximately equal to the percentage of minorities in the locality." Id. at 1024-28.

Over the past thirty-plus years, municipalities have been released from the Beecher decree as their fire departments achieved racial parity with their populations. As of March 14, 2006, only nine of the 110 municipalities subject to the civil service law remain under the decree. (Ex. 8.) Since the Beecher decree ended in Lynn in 1986, Mr. Bradley has estimated that only four of the 106 entry-level firefighters hired in Lynn have been Black or Hispanic. Since the First Circuit held that the Beecher decree should no longer apply to Boston in Quinn v. City of Boston, 325 F.3d 18, 37 (1st Cir.2003), as of the time of trial, only seven of the 105 entry-level firefighters hired in Boston from the 2004 examination have been reported to be Black or Hispanic. (See Ex. 33D, at 2.)

C. Firefighter Hiring from the 2002 and 2004 Civil Service Examinations

The HRD administered a civil service examination for firefighters on April 27, 2002 (Ex. 28) and another on April 24, 2004 (Ex. 30). Both examinations contained one-hundred multiple choice questions testing only cognitive

ability.[3] The 2002 examination tested 4543 applicants, and the 2004 examination tested 2447 applicants. (See Ex. 5, Table 1; Ex. 6, Table 1.)
152 *152 The HRD used the passing point of seventy, an arbitrary number that has been used since at least 1971. See, e.g., Beecher, 371 F.Supp. at 511-12. The HRD adjusted scores after administering the examination both by removing questions and by crediting multiple answers as correct on questions so that the passing point of seventy produced no adverse impact on minorities under the EEOC Guidelines. (Ex. 10, at 3; Ex. 12, at 4-5; Trial Tr. 23, May 3, 2006; Trial Tr. 144-46, May 4, 2006.)
Before putting the 2002 and 2004 examination results into use for hiring, the HRD provided adverse impact analyses to the court-appointed NAACP monitor for the Beecher decree. (Exs. 10, 12.) The analyses for both examinations showed no adverse impact at the passing point of seventy under the EEOC Guidelines; however, the analyses did show that minorities were adversely impacted at every score above seventy. (Ex. 10, Attach. I; Ex. 12, Attach. G.) While stating to the HRD that the "examination results reflect a significant adverse impact on Black and Hispanic candidates at scores higher than 70," the NAACP monitor did not object before the HRD put the 2002 and 2004 examination results into use for firefighter hiring. (Ex. 13.)
Based on the certified lists the HRD Administrator provided in response to requests from municipalities, 311 candidates were hired from the 2002 examination, and thus far, 200 candidates have been hired from the 2004 examination. (See Ex. 5, Table 1; Ex. 6, Table 1.) The overall hiring numbers in Massachusetts indicate that minority candidates have been hired less frequently than non-minority candidates:

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

Civil Service Exam

2002 2004

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

Number of Minority Takers

555 502

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

Number Minorities Appointed

19 16

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

Minority Appointment Rate

3.4% 3.2%

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

Number of Non-Minority Takers 3988 1945

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

Number of Non-Minorities

292 194

Appointed

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

Non-Minority Appointment Rate 7.3% 10%

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

Ratio of Appointment Rates

47% 32%

Between Minorities and

Non-Minorities

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

(See Ex. 5, Table 1; Ex. 6, Table 1.)

There will be further hiring from the pool of candidates who passed the 2004 examination. For example, Boston, which hired a class in June 2005 and January 2006, recently requested a new list of candidates based on the 2004 examination to hire for fifty vacancies. The HRD certified a list of candidates to Boston on April 11, 2006, and expanded it on April 21, 2006, providing a total of 156 candidates. The expanded list was produced to the plaintiffs on May 4, 2006, the last day of testimony. (Exs. 33M, 33Q.) Also on May 4, 2006, the HRD certified thirty-seven candidates in response to Lynn's request to fill four vacancies. (Ex. 33P.)

D. Creation of the Entry0907Level Civil Service Examination for the Rank Ordering of Candidates

Beginning in 1992 and continuing throughout the 1990's, the HRD hired Landy, Jacobs and Associates, Inc. ("Landy-Jacobs") to develop the written cognitive examinations. Dr. Landy is now the plaintiff's expert; Dr. Jacobs is the HRD's expert. While no longer affiliated, they remain good friends.
In June 1992, Landy-Jacobs completed the Massachusetts Firefighter Final Validation Report (the "1992 Report"). (Ex. 27.) The 1992 Report was done under the direction of Dr. Landy and concluded that the written 153 and physical examinations proposed by Landy-Jacobs for use in the *153 selection of firefighters in Massachusetts were valid. Criterion-related validity evidence[4] existed for both the written and physical examinations from a study performed in 1986 for the Columbus, Ohio Fire Department. (Id. at 7.) The 1992 Report also documented a "high degree of demonstrated similarity between the job of firefighter in Massachusetts and the job of firefighter in Columbus," indicating the transportability of the written and physical examinations developed in Columbus, Ohio to Massachusetts. (Id. at 1-2.) In addition, the 1992 Report found that the written and physical examinations could validly be used for rank-order selection. (Id. at 5.) Importantly, LandyJacobs did not validate tile written cognitive examination for rank ordering as a stand-alone mechanism; rather, the 1992 Report validated rank ordering only when the written examination constituted 40% and the physical examination constituted 60% of the overall composite score. (See Trial Tr. 5-9, Apr. 13, 2006 ("[W]hat we did was to validate the procedure, which was a combination of a weighted cognitive ability and a weighted physical ability exam."); Trial Tr. 8-9, May 4, 2006 ("[T] he weighting [Landy-Jacobs] recommended should be 60 percent physical and 40 percent cognitive.").)
Criterion-related validity studies, such as the 1986 Columbus, Ohio study, determine whether "the selection procedure is predictive of or significantly correlated with important elements of job performance." 29 C.F.R. § 1607.5(B). The magnitude of the relationship is measured by calculating a correlation coefficient. Id. § 1607.14(B) (6).
In the 1986 Columbus, Ohio study, Landy-Jacobs found the correlation coefficient of the cognitive ability exam to be between 0.2 and 0.3 (Ex. 24, Tab 6, at 2; Ex. 27, Attach. A.) The physical abilities test was found to have a correlation coefficient between 0.3 and 0.4. (Ex. 27, Attach. 9.) These correlation coefficients were one of the reasons why Landy-Jacobs believed that the physical agility test should comprise 60% of the total score. LandyJacobs never validated the cognitive examination to be the exclusive basis for rank ordering.
The HRD purchased the written cognitive examination from Landy-Jacobs, administered it on May 22, 1993, and weighted it at 40% of the overall score. (Ex. 24, Attach. 6, at 1, 9.) The other 60% of the overall score came from the physical examination, which the HRD developed, with the help of Landy-Jacobs.
E. Physical Examination
The physical examination, which was paired with the 1993 written civil service examination, consisted of several timed events, such as a stair climb event that required candidates to make six trips up and down two flights of stairs carrying different pieces of equipment, a ladder event where a pulley mechanism replicated raising a ladder, and a rescue event that replicated crawling into a dark area to save a victim. (Trial Tr. 8-9, 14-16, May 4, 2006.)
During this selection process, two factors delayed the HRD's ability to issue certified lists for municipal vacancies. First, by placing the physical examination at the beginning of the hiring process as an initial screen rather than at 154 the end as a final pass/fail hurdle, the number of applicants tested physically increased to almost *154 5000. This increase required the HRD to secure and construct additional testing sites, which it did. Second, the HRD had to suspend the administration of the physical examination after receiving medical complaints from eight candidates. An expert panel convened by the HRD concluded that the physical examination could resume with additional safeguards, including making water more accessible and giving more discretion to on-site emergency medical technicians to screen out candidates based on high blood pressure or heart rate. When the HRD resumed administering the physical examination, no further medical problems were reported.
The average physical examination score of non-minority candidates was 95.55 and of minority candidates was 92.43. While 78.6% of non-minority candidates achieved one of the top two possible scores of 100 or 95, only

61.3% of minority candidates scored as well. (Ex. 35B.) Based on these results, the HRD concluded that administering the physical examination at the beginning of the hiring process did not "mitigate the adverse impact [of the written cognitive examination] as much as [the HRD] had hoped it would." The HRD thus "saw no advantage in continuing this beyond 1994" and instead, decided to test for physical abilities at the end when making conditional job offers, enabling full-fledged medical evaluations and avoiding administrative time and costs. (Trial Tr. 68, May 3, 2006; Trial Tr. 24-27, May 4, 2006; Ex. 24, Attach. 6, at 9.) Dr. Landy testified, however, that the difference in physical examination scores was not statistically significant. As such, the use of the physical examination at the beginning of the hiring process, which decreased the weight of the written examination to 40% of the overall score, had the effect of diluting the adverse impact of the written examination. (Trial Tr. 44-47, Apr. 13, 2006.)
Regardless, after 1993, the HRD ultimately decided to use only the written cognitive examination for rank ordering and to administer the physical examination at the end of the hiring process as one of the final pass/fail hurdles for entry-level firefighter candidates who already received conditional offers.
F. Subsequent Job Analyses and Validation Studies
In December 1995, Landy-Jacobs completed the Massachusetts Fire Departments Job Analysis and Physical Fitness Standards Test Development Report (the "1995 Report"). (Ex. 36.) The 1995 Report documented a job analysis and validation of physical fitness and medical standards for firefighters of all ranks. (Id. at 1.) The job analysis consisted of (a) developing a preliminary list of tasks by using job analyses conducted of fire departments in other cities; and (b) surveying a sample of Massachusetts firefighters to determine whether each task was performed by them, whether a firefighter would be responsible for performing the task on their first day, and the task's importance and frequency. (Id. at 4-5.) The 1995 Report concluded that the physical fitness standards test was content-valid.[5] (Id. at 11-12.) The development of the physical fitness test included using a sample of incumbent firefighters to set reasonable cut times for each event. (Id. at 9.)
In June 2002, SHL USA, Inc. ("SHL"), the firm that purchased Landy-Jacobs, completed the Commonwealth of 155 Massachusetts *155 2002 Entry-Level Firefighter and Police Officer Job Analysis Report (the "2002 Job
Analysis"). (Ex. 38.) The 2002 Job Analysis updated and revised the job analysis from the 1996 Report. (Id. at 1.) SHL used the findings from the 1996 Report to form a preliminary task list, which SHL enhanced by referencing previously conducted job analyses for entry-level firefighters in other jurisdictions and by interviewing incumbents and supervisors from Massachusetts. (Id. at 5-6.) SHL matched the tasks with a set of cognitive and motor abilities based on a published ability taxonomy. (Id. at 7-8.) The HRD then administered a SHL-developed survey to determine each task's importance and frequency and each ability's relative importance. (Id. at 9-14.) The 2002 Job Analysis concluded that "the basic areas of responsibility for firefighters have changed very little over the years in terms of the importance of the duties relative to one another" and that "the abilities needed to succeed as a firefighter or police officer within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts have not changed substantially over time." (Id. at 24.) "This suggests that the existing cognitive and physical examinations should continue to have great relevancy in their current form with only slight enhancements based on the 2002 job analysis results." (Id.)
Also in June 2002, SHL completed the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Entry-Level Firefighter and Police Officer Medical Standards Update Report (the "2002 Medical Update"). (Ex. 37.) The 2002 Medical Update documented an update and a content-validation of the then existing medical standards based on the 2002 Job Analysis. (See id. at 1-3.)
G. Creation of the 2002 and 2004 Civil Service Examinations
The HRD designed the 2002 and 2004 examinations in-house with the goal that they would be equivalent or comparable to the Landy-Jacobs examinations. (Ex. 10, at 1; Ex. 12, at 3.) No outside consultants assisted, and during that time, the HRD employed no industrial psychologists. Dr. Jacobs believes that the 2002 and 2004 examinations are similar to the examination created by Landy-Jacobs for Massachusetts in 1992, and Dr. Landy agrees that the 2002 and 2004 examinations appear to follow the "spirit" of the Landy-Jacobs 1992 examination. Dr. Landy also points out, however, that there is no evidence of the HRD analyzing the 2002 and 2004 examinations to ensure, for example, that the reading level of the new examinations did not exceed the reading level of the job or that the new questions were linked with the constructs intended to be tested. (See Ex. 1, at

22-23.) Beginning in June 2006, the HRD administered a new test, which it claims is state-of-the-art and will be validated.
III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
A. Title VII
1. Statutory Framework
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a), prohibits not only overt and intentional discrimination but also "more subtle forms of discrimination, known as disparate impact discrimination." EEOC v. Steamship Clerks Union, Local 1066, 48 F.3d 594, 600-01 (1st Cir.1995). The "disparate impact approach roots out `employment policies that are facially neutral in their treatment of different groups but that in fact fall more harshly on one group than another and cannot be justified by business necessity.'" Id. (citations omitted). Stated 156 another way, the disparate impact approach prohibits employment "practices *156 that are fair in form, but discriminatory in operation." Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 431, 91 S.Ct. 849, 28 L.Ed.2d 158 (1971).
Section 2000e-2(a)(2) provides inrelevant part:
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer0907 . . .
(2) 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.
The Civil Rights Act of 1991[6] added a provision to make the burden of proof in disparate impact cases explicit:
An unlawful employment practice based on disparate impact is established under this subchapter only if 0907
(i) a complaining party demonstrates that a respondent uses a particular employment practice that causes a disparate impact on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin and the respondent fails to demonstrate that the challenged practice is job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity; or
(ii) the complaining party makes the demonstration described in subparagraph (C) with respect to an alternative employment practice and the respondent refuses to adopt such alternative employment practice.
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(k)(1)(A). "The term `demonstrates' means meets the burdens of production and persuasion." Id. § 2000e(m). "The demonstration referred to by subparagraph (A)(ii) shall be in accordance with the law as it existed on June 4, 1989, with respect to the concept of `alternative employment practice,'" id. § 2000e-2(k)(1)(C), which the courts had defined as another selection device without a similar discriminatory effect that would also serve the employer's legitimate interest. The plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating the existence of alternative business practices. Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers v. Miss. Power & Light Co., 442 F.3d 313, 317-18 (5th Cir.2006).
2. Shifting Burden
The First Circuit set forth the legal framework that applies to disparate impact cases in Steamship Clerks.
[I]t is incumbent upon the plaintiff to demonstrate a prima facie case of discrimination. In the disparate impact milieu, the prima facie case consists of three elements: identification, impact, and causation. First, the plaintiff must identify the challenged employment practice or policy, and pinpoint the defendant's use of it. Second, the plaintiff must demonstrate a disparate impact on a group characteristic, such as race, that falls within the protective ambit of Title VII. Third, the

plaintiff must demonstrate a causal relationship between the identified practice and the disparate impact.

When the plaintiff rests, declaring herself satisfied that she has established a prima facie case of

disparate impact discrimination, the ball bounces into the defendant's court. At that point, the

defendant has several options. First, it may attack the plaintiff's proof head-on, debunking its

157

sufficiency or attempting to rebut it by adducing countervailing *157 evidence addressed to one or

more of the three constituent strands from which the prima facie case is woven, [] asserting, say,

that no identifiable policy exists, or that the policy's implementation produces no disparate impact,

or that the plaintiff's empirical claims-such as the claim of causation-are insupportable.

Alternatively, the defendant may confess and avoid, acknowledging the legal sufficiency of the prima facie case but endeavoring to show either that the challenged practice is job-related and consistent with business necessity, [] or that it fits within one or more of the explicit statutory exceptions covering bona fide seniority systems, veterans' preferences, and the like. In all events, however, a defendant's good faith is not a defense to a disparate impact claim.

If the defendant fails in its efforts to counter the plaintiff's prima facie case, then the factfinder is entitled-though not necessarily compelled, [] 0907 to enter judgment for the plaintiff. On the other hand, even if the defendant stalemates the prima facie case by elucidating a legitimate, nondiscriminatory rationale for utilizing the challenged practice, the plaintiff may still prevail if she is able to establish that the professed rationale is pretextual. The plaintiff might demonstrate, for example, that some other practice, without a similarly undesirable side effect, was available and would have served the defendant's legitimate interest equally well. Such an exhibition constitutes competent evidence that the defendant was using the interdicted practice "merely as a `pretext' for discrimination."

48 F.3d at 601-02 (citations and footnotes omitted). While Steamship Clerks addressed the legal framework as it existed prior to 1991, the First Circuit has applied the same framework in the context of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. See Donnelly v. R.I. Bd. of Governors for Higher Educ., 110 F.3d 2, 4 (1st Cir.1997).

As part of the prima facie case, the plaintiffs must demonstrate that the civil service examinations have both an adverse and disparate impact. Specifically, the plaintiffs must demonstrate that the adverse effects of the practice fall more heavily on members of the protected class than they fall on nonmembers who are similarly situated. Steamship Clerks, 48 F.3d at 601.

With respect to the causation prong, the Supreme Court has stated that:

[T]he plaintiff must offer statistical evidence of a kind and degree sufficient to show that the practice in question has caused the exclusion of applicants for jobs or promotions because of their membership in a protected group. Our formulations, which have never been framed in terms of any rigid mathematical formula, have consistently stressed that statistical disparities must be sufficiently substantial that they raise such an inference of causation.

Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust, 487 U.S. 977, 994-95, 108 S.Ct. 2777, 101 L.Ed.2d 827 (1988) (plurality); see Wessmann v. Gittens, 160 F.3d 790, 804 (1st Cir.1998) ("Even strong statistical correlation between variables does not automatically establish causation."). The Second Circuit has summarized:

Because statistical analysis, by its very nature, can never scientifically prove discrimination, a

disparate impact plaintiff need not prove causation to a scientific degree of certainty. Accordingly,

this Court has held that a plaintiff may establish a prima facie case of disparate impact

discrimination by proffering statistical evidence which reveals a disparity substantial enough to

158

raise an inference of causation. That is, a plaintiff's *158 statistical evidence must reflect a

disparity so great that it cannot be accounted for by chance.

EEOC v. Joint Apprenticeship Comm. of the Joint Indus. Bd. of the Elec. Indus., 186 F.3d 110, 117 (2d Cir.1999) (citations omitted). However, causation need not "invariably include a formal statistical analysis." Steamship Clerks, 48 F.3d at 606.
Where the employment practice at issue dispositively excludes individuals, some courts have observed that the disparate impact and causation elements appear to merge. See Nash v. Consol. City of Jacksonville, 905 F.2d 355, 358 (11th Cir.1990) (finding that "the fact that an examinee's failure to pass the examination absolutely bars promotion satisfies the Court's `specific causation' requirement"); cf. Phillips v. Cohen, 400 F.3d 388, 398 n. 8 (6th Cir.2005) ("If the employee challenges the employer's promotion process as a whole, however as 0907 is the case here0907then the disparate impact and causation elements merge.").
3. Testing Caselaw
The starting point for analysis of the Title VII claim is the seminal case Connecticut v. Teal, 457 U.S. 440, 102 S.Ct. 2525, 73 L.Ed.2d 130 (1982), in which the Supreme Court reaffirmed that Title VII prohibits "procedures or testing mechanisms that operate as `built-in headwinds' for minority groups." Id. at 448-49, 102 S.Ct. 2525 (quoting Griggs, 401 U.S. at 432, 91 S.Ct. 849). Commenting on congressional concern about the widespread use by state and local governmental agencies of invalid selection techniques that had a discriminatory impact, the Supreme Court stated:
In considering claims of disparate impact under [Title VII], this Court has consistently focused on employment and promotion requirements that create a discriminatory bar to opportunities. This Court has never read [Title VII] as requiring the focus to be placed on the overall number of minority or female applicants actually hired or promoted.
Id. at 450, 91 S.Ct. 849. In Teal, the passfail examination for a public agency had a disparate impact on minorities' eligibility for promotion but no effect on the bottom-line promotion statistics because of an affirmative action program for promoting those who passed. See id. at 443-44, 102 S.Ct. 2525. Rejecting the agency's "bottom-line defense," the Supreme Court admonished, "[t]he suggestion that disparate impact should be measured only at the bottom line ignores the fact that Title VII guarantees these individual respondents the opportunity to compete equally with white workers on the basis of job-related criteria." Id. at 451, 102 S.Ct. 2525; cf. Donahue v. City of Boston, 304 F.3d 110, 119-20 (1st Cir.2002) (stating that standing to assert non-Title VII equal protection claim for prospective relief is established if plaintiff is denied "the opportunity to compete on equal footing in the[] hiring process on account of his race").
When the Supreme Court first held that the Civil Rights Act proscribes disparate impact discrimination in Griggs, the focus was on barriers to employment rather than who was hired.
[T]he Act does not command that any person be hired simply because he was formerly the subject of discrimination, or because he is a member of a minority group. . . . What is required by Congress is the removal of artificial, arbitrary, and unnecessary barriers to employment when the barriers operate invidiously to discriminate on the basis of racial or other impermissible classification.
Griggs, 401 U.S. at 430-31, 91 S.Ct. 849.
159 Thus, under Teal and its progeny, individual components of a hiring process may *159 constitute separate and independent employment practices subject to Title VII even if the overall decision-making process does not disparately impact the ultimate employment decisions involving a protected group. See, e.g., Stout v. Potter, 276 F.3d 1118, 1122 (9th Cir.2002) ("The nonadverse results of the ultimate promotion decisions cannot refute a prima facie case of disparate impact at the dispositive interview selection stage."); Smith v. Xerox Corp., 196 F.3d 358, 370 (2d Cir.1999) ("Even if the overall decision-making process did not create an adverse impact on a protected group, that group still has a cause of action if it can show that some component of the decision-making process caused a disparate impact."); Newark Branch, NAACP v. City of Bayonne, N.J., 134 F.3d 113, 124 (3d Cir.1998) "(Teal suggests that a subsequent affirmative action program cannot `redeem' discriminatory conduct that produces disparate results.").

Courts have applied Teal to reject examinations used to rank-order candidates. For example, in Waisome v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 948 F.2d 1370, 1378 (2d Cir.1991), involving a composite score of tests to rank police officers for promotion, the Second Circuit held:
Moreover, our prior case law lends support to the use of the [effective cutoff score]. Where a written test served, as here, both as a passing "gate" to further consideration for promotion, and as a major component of the ultimate score required for promotion, we indicated there was no disparate impact in the pass rate, but the disparity in actual promotions established that the written test had a prohibited disparate impact. In [Kirkland v. New York State Dep't of Correctional Servs., 711 F.2d 1117 (2d Cir.1983)], as in the present case, evidence demonstrated that, though there was no disparity in the rate at which minority candidates for promotion passed an examination, their representation on the eligibility list was disproportionately low at the top of the list and high at its bottom. Hence, remand is required for the district court to develop a full record against which to evaluate the evidence of bunching and to determine whether the written examination had a disparate impact when these statistics and all the surrounding facts and circumstances are considered.
Id. at 1378 (citations omitted) (finding that written test served as pass-fail mechanism requiring score of sixty-six to move on in hiring process and as ranking mechanism requiring score of seventy-six to be hired, both of which constituted employment practices under Teal). Thus, when an examination is a ranking mechanism that dictates whether and when passing candidates are reached for consideration, the Court must determine whether it is a gateway that has a disparate impact on minority hiring.
Teal does not necessarily require that courts deconstruct employment practices into their individual components and evaluate each for disparate impact. Recognizing the potential burden of such a requirement, some courts have interpreted Teal as applying Title VII protection to a component of an employment practice regardless of the "bottom-line" only if that component is an identifiable and dispositive barrier that denies an employment opportunity by preventing an individual from proceeding to the next step in the employment process. See, e.g., District Council 37, AFL-CIO v. N.Y. City Dep't of Parks & Recreation, 113 F.3d 347, 352-54 (2d Cir.1997) (finding that plaintiffs could challenge only "dispositive step" under Teal when bottom-line was nondiscriminatory); City of 160 Chicago v. Lindley, 66 F.3d 819, 829 (7th Cir.1995) (finding Teal applicable *160 only where "one `step' disparately excluded minority individuals from moving on to the next step and, in turn, deprived them of any opportunity for benefits"); Reynolds v. Ala. Dep't. of Transp., 295 F.Supp.2d 1298, 1315 (M.D.Ala.2003) (finding Teal inapplicable because examinations did not work as absolute barrier to further hiring consideration and because there was no Title VII issue before court). Similarly, the EEOC Guidelines provide:
C. Evaluation of selection rates. The "bottom line". . . . If this information shows that the total selection process does not have an adverse impact, the Federal enforcement agencies, in the exercise of their administrative and prosecutorial discretion, in usual circukstances, will not expect a user to evaluate the individual components for adverse impact, or to validate such individual components, and will not take enforcement action based upon adverse impact of any component of that process, including the separate parts of a multipart selection procedure or any separate procedure that is used as an alternative method of selection.
See 29 C.F.R. § 1607.4(C) (emphasis added).
4. Statistical Evidence
a. Prima Facie Case
In evaluating statistical evidence, "[t]he Supreme Court has said that no single test controls in measuring disparate impact." Langlois v. Abington Hous. Auth., 207 F.3d 43, 50 (1st Cir.2000) (citing Watson, 487 U.S. at 995-96 n. 3, 108 S.Ct. 2777 (plurality) ("[W]e believe that such a case-by-case approach properly reflects our recognition that statistics `come in infinite variety and . . . their usefulness depends on all of the surrounding facts and circumstances'" (citation omitted).)). In this case, the plaintiffs offer the "four-fifths rule" and chi-square analysis as the statistical benchmarks.

The "four-fifths rule" comes from the EEOC's Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (1978) (the "EEOC Guidelines"), which provide:
A selection rate for any race . . . which is less than four-fifths (4/5) (or eighty percent) of the rate for the group with the highest rate will generally be regarded by the Federal enforcement agencies as evidence of adverse impact, while a greater than four-fifths rate will generally not be regarded by Federal enforcement agencies as evidence of adverse impact.
29 C.F.R. § 1607.4(D). For example, if a government agency promoted female candidates 20% of the time but male candidates 40% of the time, the selection rate for females would be 50% (or half) of the selection rate for males. This 50% ratio is less than 80% and thus, would violate the four-fifths rule and demonstrate adverse impact.
The four-fifths rule is a pertinent benchmark in the employment context. See Langlois, 207 F.3d at 50. The Supreme Court has cautioned, however, that the rule "has not provided more than a rule of thumb for the courts." Watson, 487 U.S. at 995 n. 3, 108 S.Ct. 2777 (plurality) (citations omitted). Indeed, the EEOC Guidelines limit the rule's applicability in two ways. First, "[s]maller differences in selection rate may nevertheless constitute adverse impact, where they are significant in both statistical and practical terms or where a user's actions have discouraged applicants disproportionately on grounds of race, sex, or ethnic group." 29 C.F.R. § 1607.4(D). Second, "[Oreater differences in selection rate may not constitute adverse impact where the differences are 161 based on small numbers" that "are too small to be reliable." Id. When *161 numbers are "too small to be reliable," the federal agencies that issued the EEOC Guidelines provided the following guidance:
Generally, it is inappropriate to require validity evidence or to take enforcement action where the number of persons and the difference in selection rates are so small that the selection of one different person for one job would shift the result from adverse impact against one group to a situation in which that group has a higher selection rate than the other group.
On the other hand, if a lower selection rate continued over a period of time, so as to constitute a pattern, then the lower selection rate would constitute adverse impact, warranting the need for validity evidence.
44 Fed.Reg. 11996, 11999 (Mar. 2, 1979).
At times, courts have also used chisquare calculations in determining the existence of disparate impact. See, e.g., NAACP v. City of Mansfield, Ohio, 866 F.2d 162, 167-69 (6th Cir.1989). Without describing the details of the calculation, chi-square is a statistical calculation that examines differences between what is expected and what is observed. For example, if a government agency hired 85 of 600 non-minority candidates ( 0907 14.2% hiring rate) and 15 of 400 minority candidates (0907 3.8% hiring rate), a chi-square calculation would indicate that the probability of the difference in hiring rates being due to chance is 0.236%. Because the probability due to chance is 0.236% and less than 5% in this example, there is "a very powerful indication that the process of selecting new hires acts disparately on [minorities] in the applicant pool." See Walter B. Connolly, Jr., David W. Peterson & Michael J. Connolly, Use of Statistics In Equal Employment Opportunity Litigation § 4.05[4][a] (1996); see also id. § 8.04[1] [b] (applying chi-square calculation to exam scores). If the probability due to chance is 5% or less, the difference is said to rise to the 0.05 level of statistical significance (i.e., 95% certainty that difference is due to nonrandom factors). See, e.g., Xerox, 196 F.3d at 366-67.
b. Job Related and Consistent With Business Necessity
In this case, the HRD asserts that a criterion-related study validates the written cognitive examination. Criterionrelated studies examine the relationship between selection procedure scores and job performance. The selection procedures are valid if "the selection procedure is predictive of or significantly correlated with important elements of job performance." 29 C.F.R. § 1607.5(B). The magnitude of the relationship is determined by calculating a correlation coefficient. Id. § 1607.14(B)(6).

"A correlation coefficient of + 1.0 indicates a complete identity between relative test scores and relative job performance." Williams v. Ford Motor Co., 187 F.3d 533, 540 (6th Cir.1999). As Dr. Landy explained, a correlation coefficient of 0.0 indicates that the examination has no relationship with job performance. Correlation coefficients "around .300907.40 are considered acceptable (by testing professionals) for tests used in selecting employees" (Ex. 24, Tab 6, at 2). See also Beecher, 371 F.Supp. at 516 ("[A]s a `rule of thumb' a coefficient of .3 would be the minimum level to indicate a satisfactory relationship. A lower coefficient would not be practically significant and would not justify use of the test."). Therefore, for a selection procedure to be valid under a criterion-related study, the correlation coefficient must generally exceed a 0.3 threshold.
162 In addition to the 0.3 threshold, in measuring the correlation coefficient, the calculation *162 must be "statistically significant at the 0.05 level of significance." 29 C.F.R. § 1607.14(B)(5).
Lastly, as explained by Dr. Jacobs, correlation coefficients of different selection procedures do not necessary add to one another. This is because there may be overlap when the different selection procedures correlate with overall job performance. For example, cognitive examinations and physical ability tests are both correlated with certain entry-level fire fighting duties, such as search and rescue. (See Ex. 1, at 14.) Therefore, the correlation coefficient of a selection procedure that uses both a cognitive examination and a physical ability test cannot be calculated by simply adding the correlation coefficients of each component.
B. Prima Facie Case
The plaintiffs identify the HRD's use of the entry-level civil service examination as the employment practice subject to their challenge under Title VII, asserting that it has an adverse and disparate impact with respect to the selection and consideration of minority candidates for hire as firefighters in specific municipalities and statewide. The HRD asserts that the Court should not consider the disparate impact of the examination on the scores of minorities because the plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the examination has caused a discriminatory impact on the hiring of minorities.
1. Examination Scores
The statistical evidence shows clear differences in scores as a function of race for both the 2002 and 2004 examinations.[7] On average, minority candidates score lower than non-minority candidates:

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

African

Whites Americans Hispanics

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

2002 Examination 89.10

77.80

78.44

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

2004 Examination 88.10

77.00

78.70

(Ex. 33A.) The examination scores of minority candidates are disproportionately lower at all scores above the nominal passing score of seventy. (See Ex. 1, Tables 6-7.) In addition, all parties agree that to be hired in most communities, which are not applying for a special certification (e.g., Spanish-language ability) or subject to the Beecher certification quotas, non-veteran candidates must obtain a score above an effective cutoff score of ninety. (Ex. 24, at 68-69.) In other words, in most municipalities, any non-veteran candidate with a score under ninety who is hired is a rare bird. Accordingly, the following table demonstrates the passing rates and ratio of passing rates for the 2002 examination at the scores of seventy, which is the nominal passing score, and ninety, which is the effective cutoff score for non-veteran candidates in most communities.

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

Ratio of

Ratio of

African

Other

American

Minority

African

and

Other

and

Majority American Majority Minority Majority

2002 Passing Passing

Passing

Passing Passing

Score Rate

Rate

Rates

Rate

Rates

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

90

60.20%

19.93%

33.11%

22.63%

37.60%

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

70

96.20%

76.20%

79.19%

77.96%

81.03%

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

163 *163 (See Ex. 1, Table 6; Ex. 10, Attach. I.)[8] For the 2004 examination:

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

Ratio of

African

Ratio of

American

Hispanic

Non

and Non-

and Non-

Protected African Protected

Protected

Group American

Group

Hispanic

Group

2004 Passing Passing

Passing Passing

Passing

Score Rate

Rate

Rates

Rate

Rates

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

90

52.47% 17.69%

33.71%

19.12%

36.45%

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

70

96.52% 75.55%

78.27%

80.36%

83.26%

(See Ex. 1, Table 7; Ex. 12, Attach. G.)

Under the four-fifths rule, there is no adverse impact on minorities (Hispanics and African-Americans) at the nominal passing score of seventy. (See Trial Tr. 39-40, Apr. 14, 2006.) It is undisputed, however, that the fourfifths rule is violated for every score greater than seventy. (See Ex. 1, Tables 6-7.) The examinations thus have a severe adverse and disparate impact on non-veteran minority candidates, who must score above the effective cutoff score of ninety to be hired in most communities. The chi-square calculations support these findings by demonstrating that the differences in scores by race are statistically significant. (See Ex. 1, Tables 8-9.)

2. Hiring Statistics

Examination statistics are not determinative of the critical issue of whether the examination disparately precludes minority candidates from being hired. The plaintiffs argue that the 2002 and 2004 examinations have an adverse and disparate impact on the employment opportunities of these minority candidates, as demonstrated by an overall comparison of the percentage of candidates who passed the examination to the percentage of those hired. In rebuttal, the HRD urges the Court to take a more nuanced approach, insisting that these overall statistics improperly aggregate numbers statewide and gloss over the major impact of preferences for veterans and residents on minority hiring. The HRD believes that adverse impact must be determined by municipality because each is a separate hiring unit with different requirements and separate appointing authorities.

The Court finds merit in some of the HRD's arguments. The statutory framework in Massachusetts gives candidates with veteran status priority over those without, regardless of examination score. This distinction between veterans and nonveterans is important because there is a lower percentage of minorities in the veteran 164 candidate pool. *164

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

2002

2004

Exam

Exam

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

Minority Candidates With Veteran

83

78

Status

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

Minority Candidates Total

1845 864

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

% of Minority Candidates With

4.5% 9.0%

Veteran Status

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

Non-Minority Candidates With

824 822

Veteran Status

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

Non-Minority Candidates Total

10052 6165

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

% of Non-Minority Candidates With

8.2% 13.3%

Veteran Status

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

(Ex. 331, at 5-6.) Therefore, to ensure that apples are compared with apples, the Court evaluates veterans and non-veterans separately.[9]

In addition, the Court finds that the statewide aggregated approach advocated by the plaintiffs and the disaggregated municipality approach advocated by the HRD are both useful in this case. As Dr. Jacobs observes, determining the appropriate level of hiring analysis "is a complicated question that statisticians would argue about, but my opinion is that when we look at what happens in hiring, we try and replicate the decision process." (Trial Tr. 100-02, Apr. 13, 2006.) The decision process in hiring firefighters in Massachusetts, however, contains multiple steps that span both the state and municipal levels. See Bradley v. City of Lynn, 403 F.Supp.2d 161 (D.Mass.2005) (holding HRD to be Title VII employer). Therefore, the Court considers hiring statistics on both statewide and municipality levels.

Lastly, the Court does not compare hiring data from municipalities subject to the Beecher certification quotas with those that have been released from the decree. Indeed, the parties focused on the hiring statistics of only nonBeecher municipalities, and I do so as well.

a. Statewide Aggregated Hiring Data

i. Candidates With Veteran Status

The following table summarizes the statewide veteran hiring statistics for non-Beecher municipalities, excluding data from municipalities that did not appoint anyone or had no minority candidates.

Number of Candidates Taking
Examination

Number Appointed

Selection Ratio

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

Minorities (2002)

37

4

10.8%

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

Non-Minorities (2002) 187

67

35.8%

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

Minorities (2004)

45

12

26.7%

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

Non-Minorities (2004) 275

127

46.2%

(See Ex. 33E, Table 2; Ex. 33F, Table 2.) Under the four-fifths rule, the disparate impact ratio is 30% for the 2002 examination and 58% for the 2004 examination, evidencing adverse impact (i.e., less than 80%). The chi-square calculations support these findings by demonstrating that the differences in scores by race are statistically significant. (See Ex. 33E, at 2; Ex. 33F, at 3.)
ii. Candidates Without Veteran Status
The following table summarizes the statewide non-veteran hiring statistics for non-Beecher municipalities, 165 excluding data *165 from municipalities that did not appoint any non-veterans.

Number of

Candidates Taking Number Selection

Examination

Appointed Ratio

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

Minorities (2002)

210

6

2.9%

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

Non-Minorities (2002) 2561

152

5.9%

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

Minorities (2004)

62

3

4.8%

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

Non-Minorities (2004)

456

41

9.0%

Under the four-fifths rule, the disparate impact ratio is 49% for the 2002 examination and 54% for the 2004 examination, evidencing adverse impact (i.e., less than 80%). (See Ex. 5, Table 3; Ex. 6, Table 3.)

b. Disaggregated Hiring Statistics

The HRD argues that statistical evidence aggregated on a statewide basis is flawed because hiring decisions are made individually by each municipality at the local level and because a large municipality can distort the whole adverse impact analysis. Dr. Jacobs asserts that aggregation "allows one single jurisdiction to have a major influence on the entire system leading to a conclusion of adverse impact for the entire Commonwealth when a single community is responsible for the outcome." (Ex. 33S.) Specifically, Dr. Jacobs argues that Boston's hiring distorts the calculation, because if it is remedied, the state passes the four-fifths rule.

Because this seems reasonable, the Court examines the disaggregated hiring data of Boston. The Court also examines the disaggregated hiring data of Lynn, the municipality of the four named plaintiffs. The data shows that the examination has a disparate impact on the hiring of minorities in both of these municipalities.

i. Boston

The following table summarizes the Boston hiring statistics for the 2004 examination of candidates with veteran status.[10]

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

Non-Minorities Minorities

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

Number of Candidates

177

27

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

Number Appointed

90

7

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

Appointment Ratio

51%

26%

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

(See Ex. 33D, at 2.) Under the four-fifths rule, the disparate impact ratio is 51%, evidencing adverse impact (i.e., less than 80%). The chi-square calculations support these findings by demonstrating that the differences in scores by race are statistically significant. (See id.)
It is also important to note that Boston has hired two separate classes of entry-level firefighters from the 2004 examination0907one in June 2005 and one in January 2006. The following table summarizes in which class candidates were hired as a function of race.

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

June January

2005 2006

Class Class

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

Non-Minorities

50

40

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

Non-Minorities Hired in Class/ 55% 45%

Non-Minorities Hired Total

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

Minorities

2

5

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

Minorities Hired in Class/

28% 72%

Minorities Hired Total

166 *166 (See Ex. 33D, at 3.) Under the four-fifths rule, the disparate impact ratio for the first June 2005 class is 51%, evidencing adverse impact (i.e., less than 80%). Stated plainly, white veterans were twice as likely to be appointed in the first June 2005 class as minority veterans. (Id.)

ii. Lynn

The data from Lynn, where the named plaintiffs reside, are less clear. Since 1986, when Lynn was released from the Beecher decree, it is estimated that only four of the 106 entry-level firefighters have been minorities. The following table summarizes the Lynn non-veteran hiring statistics for the 2004 examination.

Non-Minorities Minorities

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

Number of Candidates

69

15

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

Number Appointed

12

0

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

Appointment Ratio

17.4%

0.0%

(See Ex. 33, at 17.)[11]

As a statistical matter, the experts disagree on whether a disparate impact ratio can be calculated under the fourfifths rule when Lynn hired zero minorities. That may be an interesting mathematical quandary, but in this case, the "fine tuning of the statistics could not have obscured the glaring absence of minority" hires. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324, 342 n. 23, 97 S.Ct. 1843, 52 L.Ed.2d 396 (1977). The Court concludes that the 2004 examination has had a disparate impact on the hiring of non-veterans in Lynn.

However, the record is poor on the impact of the 2004 examination on veterans. The record does not contain a summary of Lynn hiring for the 2004 examination of candidates with veteran status. Thus, the record is too sparse to tell if there has been a disparate impact on hiring veteran minority candidates in Lynn from the 2004 examination.

The record is equally unclear with respect to all candidates from the 2002 examination. According to Dr. Jacobs' summary statistics, Lynn hired eight candidates from the 2002 examination; all were paramedics without veteran status, but none were minorities. (Ex. 32, at 15.) Since all were non-veteran paramedics, this would appear to be a class hired pursuant to a special certification request for emergency medical technicians. However, nothing in the record indicates whether the class was the result of a special certification, and the raw certification data is again unhelpful as it conflicts with Dr. Jacobs' summary data. According to the raw certification data, Lynn hired twelve candidates from the 2002 examination, some of whom were not veterans or paramedics. (See Ex. 17.) Thus, the record is too sparse to evaluate the disparate impact on hiring in Lynn from the 2002 examination.
iii. Other Municipalities
The HRD contends that in most communities, the number hired is too small to determine whether there has been a disparate impact under the four-fifths rule or to be statistically significant. Disparate impact in hiring is not found in some municipalities because the numbers are "too small to be reliable" under the four-fifths rule. (See Ex. 331, at 3-4.) For example, if Haverhill had hired one additional minority from the 2002 examination, its hiring statistics would change from the presence to the absence of adverse impact under the four-fifths rule. (See id. at 3 167 (showing minority shortfall under four-fifths *167 rule to be less than one for Haverhill).)
While it is true that in some municipalities there is no disparate impact, based on the testimony of Dr. Landy and Dr. Wiesen, the plaintiffs have demonstrated a reasonable statistical basis to address the "small numbers" problem by aggregating non-Beecher communities with minority applicants to determine whether there was an adverse impact on minority hiring. Given the statutory framework mandating the HRD's involvement in the hiring process across municipalities, the aggregation approach is supported in this case by the EEOC Guidelines and the caselaw. 29 C.F.R. § 1607.4(D);[12]Vulcan Pioneers, Inc. v. N.J. Dep't of Civil Serv., 625 F.Supp. 527, 534-35, 544-45 (D.N.J.1985) (finding aggregation across municipalities and across years appropriate where State administered firefighter promotion examination for municipalities and examinations were extremely similar across years). But see Bailey v. Se. Area Joint Apprenticeship Comm., 561 F.Supp. 895, 901, 910 (N.D.W.Va.1983) (finding aggregation across localities inappropriate where each jurisdiction implemented standards autonomously); but cf. Fudge v. City of Providence Fire Dep't, 766 F.2d 650, 656-57 (1st Cir.1985) (finding aggregation across years clearly erroneous where examinations were sufficiently different). Moreover, even examining Boston and Lynn independently at the municipality level, there is a disparate impact from the 2004 examination in hiring veterans in Boston and nonveterans in Lynn.
3. Causation
The plaintiffs have thus demonstrated through significant statistical evidence not only that the examination has a disparate impact on the scores of minority candidates but also that there is a disparate impact on the hiring of minorities regardless of veteran status statewide, of minority veterans in Boston, and of minority non-veterans in Lynn. Coupled with the statistical evidence is the fact that the statutory framework by ranking candidates by score makes the examination integral to whether and when individuals are hired. For example, Jacob Bradley, one of the named African American plaintiffs, was neither hired nor certified for hiring consideration in Lynn in 2005 because of his examination score. Despite scoring ninety-four on the 2004 examination, Jacob Bradley scored too low. In contrast, a score of ninety-five enabled three white non-veteran candidates to be certified for hiring consideration, and Lynn hired all three. (See Exs. 14, 18; Trial Tr. 20, Apr. 12, 2006.)
Significantly, Dr. Jacobs, the HRD's expert, conceded that "race does have some adverse impact in the hiring process in Massachusetts." (Ex. 26, at 4; Trial Tr. 121-22, Apr. 14, 2006.) Dr. Jacobs added that, based on his experience as an expert in the field, jurisdictions that use cognitive ability examinations as the sole basis for rank ordering are "likely to get adverse impact." (Trial Tr. 100, Apr. 14, 2006.)
The HRD asserts several arguments in rebuttal regarding causation.
168 *168 a. Statutory Preferences
First, the HRD argues that the statutory preference for veterans causes the disparate impact in hiring. Dr. Jacobs testified: "Well, the chain of evidence that I see is that minorities score lower on the test. Minorities have less

veterans status. And those two things combine to have whatever the adverse impact ratios might be, whatever way we calculate it. What proportion is in the test, what proportion is to the veterans status I can't tease out." (Trial Tr. 122, Apr. 14, 2006.) While it is true that the veterans preference has a disparate impact on minority hiring, the use of the examination also has a disparate impact on hiring even within the veterans category.
To be sure, this disparate impact does not exist in every municipality. For example, municipalities such as Haverhill had only one vacancy, and the veteran candidates on the certification list had scores ranging from 81 to 95. All the candidates on the list were white, and there is no evidence there were any minority veteran candidates who resided in Haverhill. (See Ex. 21, at 11.) Therefore, in Haverhill, the lower minority examination scores did not cause the hiring disparity.
To address the HRD's concern that the examination played no role in the hiring in some municipalities, the Court certified a class pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2) for liability only. With respect to remedies for individual applicants, the Court will have to look separately at each municipality to determine whether there were any minority applicants in the hiring category impacted by the examination. The differences in the demographics of each municipality, however, do not undermine a finding of a prima facie case, which need not be proven to a mathematical certainty.
b. Timing
Next, the HRD argues that it is too early to assess whether there was adverse impact in hiring from the 2004 examination because some municipalities are still appointing from the 2004 list. In a municipality like Boston, which hires in multiple classes, the delay in hiring alone constitutes adverse and disparate impact. Municipalities "may appoint only from among the first 2n + 1 persons named in the certification willing to accept appointment." (Ex. 9, at 16-17 (Pers. Admin. Rule 9(1)).). Thus, regardless of whether an applicant is a veteran or non-veteran, the examination score determines both whether and when a candidate is certified or hired. For example, veteran candidates had no opportunity to be hired in Boston's June 2005 class unless they were ranked higher on the certification list than a score of ninety-three (see Ex. 21, at 2-7). Cf. Waisome, 948 F.2d at 1377-78 (identifying "the minimum score a candidate could achieve on the written component and still be within" the candidates actually hired to be determinative of whether a candidate had a "real opportunity for promotion"); Guinyard v. City of New York, 800 F.Supp. 1083, 1088-89 (E.D.N.Y.1992) (finding that delay in promotions of minority candidates to police captain may constitute adverse and disparate impact).
The effect of using examination scores, which disparately impact minorities at all scores above seventy, for rank ordering, is to bunch minorities at the bottom of the eligible list. Of the last seven veterans on the 2004 Boston list, five are minorities. (Ex. 33H.) Ranking by examination score thus disproportionately has precluded minority candidates from hiring consideration in the initial June 2005 class. Even if hired in future classes, minorities as a 169 class have been adversely and disparately *169 impacted by loss of pay, benefits, and seniority caused by the delay.
c. "Drop Out" Rate
Lastly, the HRD argues that the "drop out" rate of minority applicants exceeds that of majority applicants, and that this causes the disparate hiring statistics. The plaintiffs dispute that the disparity exists or is significant.
To determine the "drop out" rate, Dr. Jacobs identified the lowest score hired on the ranked certification list. All candidates on the list with a score at or above the lowest score hired were candidates reached for consideration. Those reached for consideration but not hired were candidates who "dropped out." The "drop out" rate is the percentage of candidates who "dropped out" among those who were reached for hiring consideration. (See Ex. 33S, at 7.) Therefore, based on the statutory and administrative framework, the "drop out" rate used by the HRD included not only candidates who voluntarily were unwilling to serve but also those whom municipalities bypassed for various reasons, including a drug test, background check, physical abilities test, or medical or psychological examination.
On a statewide aggregate level, Dr. Landy found that the "drop out" rate for minorities and non-minorities was essentially the same090748% for minorities and 47% for whites. (Ex. 33T, at 2.) Dr. Jacobs did not disagree. (See Ex. 33U, at 3.)

The bone of contention was Boston. Dr. Landy and Dr. Jacobs engaged in an ongoing point-counterpoint dialogue during and after trial to determine whether there was a difference in "drop-out" rates between minorities and non-minorities in Boston. In the end, Dr. Landy and Dr. Jacobs agreed that in Boston the "drop out" rate for minorities was higher than the rate for whites, but disagreed on the scope and significance of the difference. Dr. Jacobs believed that the "drop-out" rate was 58% for minorities and 41% for whites in Boston and that the difference was a "big difference." Dr. Landy believed that the "drop-out" rate was 53% for minorities and 41% for whites and that the difference was not statistically significant.
Unfortunately, the HRD did not address "drop-out" rates until late in the trial, and neither expert focused on these rates in their original expert reports or was subject to cross-examination.[13] While the statistical evidence was heavily disputed, I conclude that the higher minority "drop out" rate in Boston does not undercut the plaintiff's prima facie case.
The only difference in "drop out" rates occurred in Boston, which hired in at least two stages from the 2004 examination0907 June 2005 and January 2006. Dr. Jacobs did not differentiate between the "drop out" rates in these different classes. Neither did he evaluate the particular factors causing the "drop out." There is nothing in the record to demonstrate when a minority candidate "dropped out" or the reason for the "drop out." Boston had a pool of approximately 212 veteran candidates from the 2004 examination. For the first June 2005 class, however, 170 only the top 109 were reached for consideration. (See Ex. *170 21, at 2-7.) Thus, the "drop out" rate had no effect on the disparate impact on minority veterans who scored too low even to be reached for hiring consideration in June 2005.
Moreover, rank ordering by written cognitive examination likely caused the "drop out" rate to be higher for minority candidates. Minority veteran candidates were bunched by cognitive examination score at the bottom of the veterans list and were not reached for hiring consideration until the second January 2006 class, or later. It is reasonable to infer that more minority candidates were unwilling to serve and thus, "dropped out" because they took other employment opportunities with the passage of time and the need to earn a living. Based on the literature in the field, Dr. Landy points out:
[T]he length of time an applicant has to wait before appointment (white or minority) has a substantial impact on drop out likelihood0907the longer you wait for appointment, the more likely it is that you will have taken another job or lost interest in the job in question if and when the employment offer comes.
(Ex. 33T, at 3.) Therefore, because the difference in examination scores causes a difference in the timing of employment opportunities, the higher minority "drop out" rate in Boston does not undermine the finding of disparate impact and causation in Boston.
As stated by the First Circuit in Beecher, the purpose of a prima facie determination is to ferret out qualifications that are reasonable to ask an employer to justify. "When widespread minority underemployment is shown to exist in a given occupation, primary selection devices should not be immunized from study by placing unrealistically high threshold burden upon those with least access to relevant data." Beecher, 504 F.2d at 1020-21. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the statistical evidence is substantial, significant, and sufficient to raise an inference of causation, and the plaintiffs have demonstrated a prima facie case here.
C. Job Related and Consistent With Business Necessity
Once the plaintiffs prove a prima facie case that withstands the head-on attacks by the defendants, the burden of production and persuasion shifts to the defendants to prove 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), (m); see Steamship Clerks, 48 F.3d at 601-02.
One of the explicit purposes of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 is "to codify the concepts of `business necessity' and `job related' enunciated by the Supreme Court in Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 91 S.Ct. 849, 28 L.Ed.2d 158 (1971), and in the other Supreme Court decisions prior to Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio, 490 U.S. 642, 109 S.Ct. 2115, 104 L.Ed.2d 733 (1989)." Pub.L. No. 102-166 § 3(2). In Griggs, the Supreme Court

found a Title VII violation because the employment practices disparately impacted the plaintiffs based on race and because "neither the high school completion requirement nor the general intelligence test [wa]s shown to bear a demonstrable relationship to successful performance of the jobs for which it was used." Id. "Congress has placed on the employer the burden of showing that any given requirement must have a manifest relationship to the employment in question." Griggs, 401 U.S. at 432, 91 S.Ct. 849.
171 To pass muster under Title VII, the civil service examination must be both "job related" for the entry level fire *171 fighter position and consistent with "business necessity." Langlois, 207 F.3d at 53-54 (stating that employment practice may be discriminatory without intent if it, "without demonstrably advancing the interest asserted in justification, somehow impedes persons of color from competing on an equal footing with others"). To be sure, "employers are not required, even when defending standardized or objective tests, to introduce formal `validation studies' showing that particular criteria predict actual on-the-job performance." Watson, 487 U.S. at 998, 108 S.Ct. 2777 (plurality).
In Beazer, for example, the Court considered it obvious that "legitimate employment goals of safety and efficiency" permitted the exclusion of methadone users from employment with the New York City Transit Authority ..... 440 U.S. at 587, n. 31[, 99 S.Ct. 1355]. Similarly, in Washington v. Davis, the Court held that the "job relatedness" requirement was satisfied when the employer demonstrated that a written test was related to success at a police training academy "wholly aside from [the test's] possible relationship to actual performance as a police officer." 426 U.S. at 250[, 96 S.Ct. 2040].
Watson, 487 U.S. at 998-99, 108 S.Ct. 2777 (plurality). The HRD, however, must do more than ask the Court "to undertake a leap of faith. . . . If courts were to accept an employer's arbitrary ipse dixit as a satisfactory justification for retaining a policy that produces an invidiously discriminatory impact, Title VII would be reduced to no more than a toothless tiger." Steamship Clerks, 48 F.3d at 607.
The HRD asserts that it has shouldered its burden under Title VII through the 1992 Report (Ex. 27), which was conducted in accordance with the EEOC Guidelines. As such, the Court looks to the EEOC Guidelines, as "a body of experience and informed judgment to which courts and litigants may properly resort for guidance." Mentor Say. Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 65, 106 S.Ct. 2399, 91 L.Ed.2d 49 (1986). The EEOC Guidelines describe three types of validity0907 studies criterion-related, content, and construct 0907all of which first require a job analysis. See 29 C.F.R. §§ 1607.5, 1607.14(A). Based on the job analysis, the EEOC Guidelines detail the minimum technical standards0907regulating topics such as the representativeness of the sample, statistical significance, and reliability0907for validating the selection procedure in the three types of studies. See id. § 1607.14.
In addition, the "evidence of both the validity and utility of a selection procedure should support the method the user chooses for operational use of the procedure." Id. § 1607.5(G). To validate the use of examinations for ranking:
Evidence which may be sufficient to support the use of a selection procedure on a pass/fail (screening) basis may be insufficient to support the use of the same procedure on a ranking basis under these guidelines. Thus, if a user decides to use a selection procedure on a ranking basis, and that method of use has a greater adverse impact than use on an appropriate pass/fail basis . . ., the user should have sufficient evidence of validity and utility to support the use on a ranking basis.
Id. In this case, the "four-fifths rule" statistics demonstrate that the use of the examination for ranking has a greater adverse and disparate impact than the use of the examination for pass/fail. Therefore, it is not enough to validate the examinations generally. To pass muster under Title VII and the EEOC Guidelines, the HRD must 172 validate the scoring on examinations to support their use on a ranking *172 basis. Cf. Bew v. City of Chicago, 252 F.3d 891, 894-95 (7th Cir.2001) (finding that examinations "must be scored so that it properly discriminates between those who can and cannot perform the job well" (citation and quotations omitted)).
The 1992 Report documents the validity of the written cognitive examination in Massachusetts by showing that criterion-related evidence from a 1986 Columbus, Ohio study could be appropriately transported here. The 1995

Report and the 2002 Job Analysis both document professionally-conducted analyses of the tasks and abilities of entry-level firefighters; however, all three experts agreed that neither of these analyses documented a validity study.[14] The plaintiffs thus assert that the validity evidence is outdated because the only proffered validity study comes from the 1992 Report. The plaintiffs also assert that the 1992 Report does not support the use of the written cognitive examination as the sole basis for ranking. Nonetheless, the HRD asserts that the 1992 Report is sufficient because the 1995 Report and 2002 Job Analysis show no evidence of the job duties of entry-level firefighters changing between 1992 and 2004. The Court finds that the HRD has failed to meet its validation burden for several reasons.
First, the HRD's own expert recommends, and other experts agree, that a validity study should be conducted every five years. The 1992 Report is not only a decade old but relies on 1986 data from another jurisdiction. This is too long a hiatus under the standards in the industry. Second, the 1992 Report validates an examination professionally-written by experts in industrial psychology and test development. By contrast, the 2002 and 2004 examinations, which were written by the HRD based on past examinations, are neither professionally-created nor professionally-validated. See Beecher, 504 F.2d at 1024-25 (affirming that validation study of examination did not survive Title VII scrutiny in part because examination was not professionally developed). The HRD explains that professionals were unnecessary because past examinations served as models and that there is no evidence that the 2002 and 2004 examinations differed significantly from past examinations. However, confidence in the validity of the examination is undermined by the evidence that the HRD adjusted scores after administering the examination by removing questions and by crediting multiple answers as correct on questions so that the arbitrary passing point of seventy produced no adverse impact on minorities under the four-fifths rule.[15] Based on the reliance on an outdated validity study, the failure to use professional experts, and the practice of gerryrigging the test, I find that the HRD dropped the Beecher ball and failed to ensure that the 2002 and 2004 examinations were properly validated.
Even more significantly, the 1992 Report validated rank ordering by score only when a cognitive test constituted 40% and a physical test constituted 60% of the overall composite score. Dr. Landy, who supervised the 1992 Report, testified to this, and this composite score was what the HRD implemented for the hiring process that 173 followed the 1992 Report. Indeed, in *173 evaluating the same 1986 criterion-related study from Columbus, Ohio, which the 1992 Report was based upon, the Sixth Circuit stated: "We reiterate that a selection procedure that ranks only on the basis of [cognitive ability test] scores is not acceptable." Brunet v. City of Columbus, Ohio, 58 F.3d 251, 255 (6th Cir.1995). The HRD has never validated the use of the written cognitive examination as the sole basis for rank ordering and thus, has failed to meet its burden. 29 C.F.R. § 1607.5(g) ("[T]he user should have sufficient evidence of validity and utility [in all studies under the EEOC Guidelines] to support the use on a ranking basis."); id. § 1607.14(B)(6) ("Users should evaluate each selection procedure [in a criterion-related study] to assure that it is appropriate for operational use, including establishment of cut-off scores or rank ordering.").
While cognitive ability examinations predict overall entry-level firefighter job performance to some degree (see Ex. 1, at 14), both Dr. Jacobs and Dr. Landy testified that the 2002 and 2004 examinations cannot be used reliably to distinguish candidates within a spread of as much as eight points. (Trial Tr. 15-16, Apr. 12, 2006 (Dr. Landy: "[T]he margin of error is 8 points. That would be considered confidence interval. So that there would be no difference between a score of 100 and a score of 92."); Trial Tr. 8, Apr. 13, 2006 (Dr. Jacobs: "[Dr. Landy]'s about right. It might be a little smaller because the test reliability was .9, which means that spread might be six points. But there is a spread ..... Where it doesn't matter.").)
In light of the evidence that cognitive abilities have a relatively low correlation with overall job performance (a correlation coefficient of between 0.2 and 0.3) and this eight-point margin of error, nothing in the record supports the HRD's stand-alone use of the written cognitive examinations to distinguish and rank candidates by single examination points. Cf. Boston Police Superior Officers Fed'n v. City of Boston, 147 F.3d 13, 23-24 (1st Cir.1998) (finding that one-point difference in promotional exam was "as a matter of testing accuracy, negligible" where evidence showed that "candidates who scored within a three-point band should be considered functionally equivalent . . . and equally qualified to successfully perform the job as any other person in that score band"); Kirkland v. N.Y. State Dep't of Correctional Serv., 711 F.2d 1117, 1133 (2d Cir.1983) (accepting zone-banding

approach to "eliminate[] the central cause of the adverse impact" and to "create[] a more valid method to assess the significance of test scores").
To summarize, as all experts testified, I find that cognitive ability is correlated with job performance in public safety positions and thus, that cognitive ability examinations, in part, predict entry-level firefighter job performance. However, these cognitive examinations do not predict how quickly a firefighter can climb stairs with equipment or raise a ladder. Memorization skills only carry you so far. Teamwork and physical prowess are even more highly correlated with job performance. There is no persuasive evidence in this record that the use of the written cognitive examination as the sole basis for rank ordering entry-level firefighter candidates is a valid selection procedure.
Thirty years after Beecher, the First Circuit's words regarding the validity of the civil service examination unfortunately continue to ring true: "Too many doubts persist concerning the validity of this test, the format of which has persisted for years, to make a convincing case for its unaltered use in fire departments notable for the absence of minority employees." 504 F.2d at 1022. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the HRD has not met its 174 *174 burden of demonstrating that use of the 2002 and 2004 civil service examinations for rank ordering is job related and consistent with business necessity.
D. Alternative Employment Practices
Even if the HRD had properly validated the written cognitive examination for use as the sole basis for rank ordering, the plaintiffs have demonstrated the availability of alternative selection devices with less discriminatory effects that would validly serve the HRD's legitimate interests. While there is no dispute that cognitive ability examinations provide information relevant to the selection of entry-level fire-fighters, the experts from both sides discussed several acceptable alternatives.
First, the HRD could have banded the written cognitive examination scores. As all experts agree, there is no rational, statistically valid basis for distinguishing between candidates within a band of eight points because of the examination's reliability. A score of 100 is thus no different from a score of 92 in predicting job performance. The HRD has expressed some legal uncertainty as to whether the statutory framework in Massachusetts allows banding. The statute does require that candidates in each category "shall be arranged . . . in the order of their marks on the examination." Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 31, §§ 25-26. The Personnel Administration Rules state that the HRD shall "certify the names standing highest on such list in order of their place." (Ex. 9, at 14.) While the attorneys have not briefed the issue, banding based on scores that have no statistical difference to diminish the adverse impact of a rank-order system seems consistent with the statutory scheme and applicable caselaw under Title VII. Other courts have adopted the banding approach to "eliminate[] the central cause of the adverse impact, i.e., the rankordering system" and to "create[] a more valid method to assess the significance of test scores." Kirkland, 711 F.2d at 1133.
Second, the HRD could have used a physical abilities, personality (a.k.a. work style),[16] and/or biodata (a.k.a. life experience)[17] test in combination with the written cognitive examination to rank candidates. Based on the record, the HRD is one of the few major jurisdictions nationwide that uses a written cognitive examination as the exclusive basis for ranking firefighter candidates. Other major jurisdictions use written cognitive examinations either for pass/fail purposes only or for ranking in conjunction with these other tests for an overall score.
While none of these approaches alone provides the silver bullet, these other noncognitive tests operate to reduce the disparate impact of the written cognitive examination. Dr. Landy states that the "scientific literature clearly illustrates the efficacy of such an approach" (Ex. 1, at 71-74), and Dr. Jacobs agrees that such an approach "would reduce the adverse impact from what it is now to a much better level." (Trial Tr. 124-25, April 14, 2006.)
175 *175 In addition, the use of non-cognitive tests with the written cognitive examination increases the validity of the selection procedure. Statistically speaking, incorporating physical, personality, and/or biodata into the ranking mechanism increases its correlation coefficient. For example, the written examination that Dr. Jacobs currently recommends to his clients tests for cognitive, personality, and biodata. The written cognitive examination alone has a correlation coefficient of 0.2 to 0.3. By adding the personality and biodata tests to the examination, the correlation coefficient of Dr. Jacobs' examination increases to a range of 0.3 to 0.35. In Dr. Jacobs' words, the

correlation coefficient goes "up substantiqlly and I0907 can use this term in this case 0907`significantly.'" (Trial Tr. 86-87, Apr. 14, 2006.) Similarly, a physical test alone has a correlation coefficient between 0.3 and 0.4, making it a better predictor than cognitive examinations. The experts agree that there is a higher correlation between job duties and physical ability than between job duties and cognitive ability. See also Zamlen v. City of Cleveland, 906 F.2d 209, 217-20 (6th Cir.1990) (holding that rank ordering by combination of cognitive and physical test is valid and job related under Title VII even though physical test may have adverse impact on women). Plainly speaking, combining the physical, personality, and/or biodata tests with the written cognitive examination would not only allow the HRD to continue to serve its interest in selecting candidates based in part on cognitive ability but would also make the rank ordering of candidates by score a better predictor of overall entry-level firefighter performance.

The HRD argues that this multipronged testing approach to establish a candidate's ranking fails because the plaintiffs have not proposed precise personality or biodata questions, grading mechanisms for a physical abilities test, or weights of the different tests. The plaintiffs, however, have no obligation to provide the exact floor plan. The 1992 Report sets forth a specific alternative: ranking based on 60% physical and 40% cognitive. The Court finds that the HRD too quickly deep-sixed the use of the physical test as a significant component of the ranking, as originally recommended by Landy-Jacobs. Dr. Jacobs testified that most fire departments consider physical ability to comprise about fifty percent of a firefighter's job, yet in Massachusetts, it has no role in ranking candidates. While the HRD did have medical problems with the initial physical test, those problems were solved.

Accordingly, the plaintiffs have demonstrated the availability of several alternative selection procedures. While there is no cookie-cutter approach to hiring firefighters in the field, other jurisdictions have managed to devise selection procedures to have a less adverse impact. Massachusetts has had over thirty years to fine-tune a better approach, but the Beecher certification quotas provided a convenient shortcut inducing the HRD to forget the other Beecher mandate0907to create a better examination.

E. Beecher Decree

The plaintiffs also assert that the HRD has violated the Beecher decree. The First Circuit affirmed the district court's decision that the entry-level firefighter examination given at that time had not been shown "demonstrably [to] select people who will perform better the required on-the-job behaviors after they have been hired and trained." Beecher, 504 F.2d at 1021-1022. Specifically, the First Circuit stated:

Too many doubts persist concerning the validity of this test, the format of which has persisted for

176

years, to make a convincing *176 case for its unaltered use in fire departments notable for the

absence of minority employees. Although perfect tests are goals as illusory as perfect schools . . .

the evidence justifies compelling defendants to attempt to fashion a more sensitive test, one that

will not needlessly serve as a "built-in head" wind to competent minority members, depriving both

them and the Commonwealth of an opportunity for which they are qualified.

Id. at 1022. Thirty years later, not much has changed.

The, Beecher decree orders the HRD to "cease using written firefighter entrance examinations" and provides that "[s]hould the [HRD] desire to utilize entrance examinations in the future for the purpose of selecting firefighters, such examinations shall be demonstrably job-related and validated in accordance with the [EEOC Guidelines], or otherwise shown to have no discriminatory impact." 371 F.Supp. at 521. As discussed under the Title VII analysis, the HRD has failed to show that the 2002 and 2004 examinations are validated, and the plaintiffs proved discriminatory impact. Accordingly, the Court finds that the HRD has violated its obligations under the Beecher decree.

The HRD first responds that the plaintiffs have no standing as non-parties to enforce the decree. The class plaintiffs acknowledge that "they are not parties to the original decrees." However, Intervenor Plaintiff NAACP is one of the parties who brought the original Beecher lawsuit against the HRD and is a party to the decree. See 371 F.Supp. at 510.

Next, the HRD argues that the Beecher decree was intended to remedy the effects of only past discrimination and thus, confers benefits only to minorities in communities where parity has not been attained. However, the

provision requiring the HRD to validate its examinations is a separate, independent, and continuing obligation. The district court "retain[ed] jurisdiction for such further action as may be necessary or appropriate" and stated that the "decree is subject to amendment where the parties so agree and with the approval of the Court." Beecher, 371 F.Supp. at 520, 523. To be sure, "the decree was not meant to operate in perpetuity." Quinn, 325 F.3d at 24. Therefore, once the examination is finally fixed, and the effects of any discrimination cured, it might be time to dissolve the decree. Until that time, it must be followed.
The defendants argue, however, that timing also cuts against the plaintiffs. The Beecher decree states:
If the parties disagree as to whether a written examination has been shown to be valid within the meaning of the Guidelines, the question of their validity and job relatedness shall be resolved by the Court, and such resolution, whether by the parties' agreement or by the Court, shall be accomplished before any such test is put into use for the purpose of qualifying or selecting.
Id. (emphasis added). The plaintiffs have questioned the consistency of the HRD's Goldilocks position that it is "too early" to challenge the 2004 examination under Title VII because the hiring is not yet complete, and that it is "too late" to challenge the test under the Beecher decree. These positions, however, are not inconsistent because the standards of Title VII and the Beecher decree are different though related. On the one hand, as the first prima facie step of the Title VII framework, the plaintiffs must show that the examination has caused an adverse and disparate impact. Steamship Clerks, 48 F.3d at 601. On the other hand, the Beecher decree 177 requires no showing of disparate impact. *177 Instead, the Beecher decree requires that the HRD validate the examination. No parties to the Beecher decree objected before the HRD put the 2002 and 2004 examinations into use for hiring. Therefore, while the Court finds a Beecher decree violation, the objection is untimely for purposes of contempt relief.
ORDER
I order entry of judgment in favor of the plaintiff class regarding liability under Title VII for the 2002 and 2004 entry-level firefighter examinations. The plaintiffs shall propose a remedy within thirty days, and the defendants shall respond within thirty days. In addition, the plaintiffs shall propose a schedule with respect to the entry-level police class as well as the separate allegations involving Lynn. The Court will hold a hearing on October 30, 2006 at 3 p.m.
[1] On May 31, 2005, the Court allowed the New England Area Conference of the NAACP and the Boston Society of the Vulcans to intervene. On June 2, 2006, the Court denied the intervenor plaintiffs' request for preliminary relief to require the defendants to reorder the certification list based on the 2004 civil service examination, which continues to be used for the hiring of firefighters in Boston. (Docket No. 119.)
[2] On December 6, 2005, the Court ruled that the HRD constitutes a Title VII employer with respect to the entrylevel hiring of firefighters and police officers. (Docket No. 60.)
[3] The HRD designed the 2002 and 2004 examinations to test nine cognitive ability areas: memorization, visualization, spatial orientation, verbal comprehension, verbal expression, information ordering, problem sensitivity, deductive reasoning, and inductive reasoning. (Ex. 10, Attach. C, at 12-38; Ex. 12, Attach. B., at 12-38.) The 2004 examination, for example, gave applicants five minutes to study an illustrated scene of a fire and subsequently, asked seventeen questions of memorization, such as "How many motor vehicles are shown in the scene?" and "What is the license plate number of the Engine 3 fire truck?" (Ex. 30.)
[4] "Evidence of the validity of a test or other selection procedure by a criterion-related validity study should consist of empirical data demonstrating that the selection procedure is predictive of or significantly correlated with important elements of job performance." 29 C.F.R. § 1607.5(B).
[5] "Evidence of the validity of a test or other selection procedure by a content validity study should consist of data showing that the content of the selection procedure is representative of important aspects of performance on the job for which the candidates are to be evaluated." 29 C.F.R. § 1607.5(B).

[6] Pub.L. No. 102-166, 105 Stat. 1071 (codified in scattered sections of 2, 16 29, 42 U.S.C.) amended Section 703 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2.
[7] For the 2002 examination, 878 candidates identified themselves as African American, 835 as Hispanic, and 10,152 as majority. (Ex. 10, at 4.) For the 2004 examination, 458 candidates identified themselves as African American, 387 as Hispanic, and 6185 as nonprotected group members. (Ex. 12, at 5-6.)
[8] The HRD did not provide 2002 examination data distinguishing Hispanics from "other minorities." (Trial Tr. 69-70, Apr. 11, 2006.) The EEOC Guidelines require that Title VII employers maintain records by enumerated race classifications, including Blacks and Hispanics. 29 C.F.R. § 1607.4(B). Where the data has not been maintained as required, "the Federal enforcement agencies may draw an inference of adverse impact of the selection process from the failure, if [there is] an underutilization of a group in the job category, as compared to the group's representation in the relevant labor market." Id. § 1607.4(D).
[9] Neither side produced any evidence on differences with respect to the racial populations of disabled veterans versus non-disabled veterans. The primary focus at trial was on the veterans category, which includes both disabled and non-disabled. Thus, that will be my focus as well.
[10] Boston did not hire any candidates from the 2002 examination and had not, by the end of this trial, hired any candidates without veteran status from the 2004 examination. Between the 2002 and 2004 examinations, Boston hired only white firefighters as a result of the Quinn case, which resulted in Boston being released from the Beecher minority certification quotas. See Quinn, 325 F.3d at 18.
[11] The Court examines Dr. Jacobs's "equity analysis" tables (Ex. 33) rather than his expert report (Ex. 26, at 12), because the expert report does not distinguish between veterans and non-veterans.
[12] 29 C.F.R. § 1607.4(D) provides:
Where the user's evidence concerning the impact of a selection procedure indicates adverse impact but is based upon numbers which are too small to be reliable, evidence concerning the impact of the procedure over a longer period of time and/or evidence concerning the impact which the selection procedure had when used in the same manner in similar circumstances elsewhere may be considered in determining adverse impact.
[13] The parties and their experts engaged in a back-and-forth statistical battle during and after trial that added at least five supplemental responses to the record, four of which were submitted after the last day of testimony on May 4, 2006 and two of which arrived after oral argument on June 9, 2006. (See Exs. 33R, 33S, 33T, 33IJ; Docket No. 125.) While the Court offered, neither party requested that the record be reopened so that the experts could testify and be cross-examined. Because this factor was less well vetted, I give it less weight.
[14] The plaintiffs attack these reports on other grounds. For example, the plaintiffs assert that the HRD has produced none of the appendices to the reports containing the underlying data.
[15] While no parties pressed this point, Title VII expressly prohibits employers from "adjust[ing] the scores of . . . or otherwise alter[ing] the results of, employment related tests on the basis of race." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(l).
[16] Several jurisdictions use personality tests, including Baltimore, Chicago, and Minneapolis. (Exs. 33N, 33O.) Personality tests are a fairly new development, and experts have concerns about applicants faking. Jurisdictions such as New Jersey thus have implemented personality tests with appropriate skepticism. (Ex. 25.) The HRD has just developed a new test that includes this component.
[17] As explained by Dr. Jacobs, biodata tests include questions about a candidate's background, such as: "Did you belong to a lot of clubs when you were in high school?" or "Do other people consider you to be motivated?" "There aren't right or wrong answers. There are certain answers that garner more points. I can't tell you. It's trade secret." (Trial Tr. 82, Apr. 14, 2006.)
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 United States District Court District of Massachusetts (Boston) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:05−cv−10213−PBS

CLOSED

Bradley et al v. City of Lynn et al Assigned to: Judge Patti B. Saris related Case: 72−3060 Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Intervenor Plaintiff

Date Filed: 02/02/2005 Date Terminated: 08/23/2007 Jury Demand: Defendant Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: Federal Question

New England Area Conference of the NAACP

represented by Nadine M. Cohen Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law Suite 443 294 Washington Street Boston, MA 02108 617−482−1145 Fax: 617−482−4392 Email: ncohen@gbls.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark D. Selwyn WilmerHale LLP 60 State Street Boston, MA 02109 617−526−6923 Fax: 617−526−5000 Email: mark.selwyn@wilmerhale.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff The Boston Society of the Vulcans

represented by Nadine M. Cohen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark D. Selwyn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jacob Bradley Individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals

represented by Alfred Gordon Pyle, Rome, Lichten &Ehrenberg, P.C. Suite 500 18 Tremont Street Boston, MA 02108 617−367−7200 Fax: 617−367−4820 Email: agordon@prle.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harold L. Lichten Pyle, Rome Lichten, Ehrenberg &Liss−Riordan, P.C. 18 Tremont Street Suite 500 Boston, MA 02108 617−367−7200

Plaintiff Noah Bradley Individually and on behalf of a class of similary situated individuals
Plaintiff Keith Ridley Individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals
Plaintiff Jared Thomas Individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals

Fax: 617−367−4820 Email: harold@prle.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shannon E. Liss−Riordan Pyle, Rome Lichten, Ehrenberg &Liss−Riordan, P.C. 18 Tremont Street Suite 500 Boston, MA 02108 617−367−7200 Fax: 617−367−4820 Email: sliss@prle.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alfred Gordon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harold L. Lichten (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shannon E. Liss−Riordan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alfred Gordon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harold L. Lichten (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shannon E. Liss−Riordan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alfred Gordon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harold L. Lichten (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shannon E. Liss−Riordan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

V. Defendant City of Lynn
Defendant Edward J. Clancy, Jr. in his capacity as Mayor of the City of Lynn Defendant Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Division of Human Resources

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by George S. Markopoulos City Solicitor's Office City of Lynn 3 City Hall Square Room 406 Lynn, MA 01901 81−586−6843 Fax: 781−477−7043 Email: lynncitysolicitor@hotmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Lamanna City Solicitor's Office Room 406 Lynn City Hall Lynn, MA 01901 781−598−4000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alfred Gordon Pyle, Rome, Lichten &Ehrenberg, P.C. 18 Tremont Street Boston, MA 02108 617−367−7200 Fax: 617−367−4820 Email: agordon@prle.com
represented by Alfred Gordon (See above for address)
represented by Ronald F. Kehoe Attorney General's Office Room 1813 One Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108−1598 617−727−2200 ext. 2619 Fax: 617−727−3076 Email: ronald.kehoe@state.ma.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Victoria S. Cole Mass. Attorney General Room 2019 1 Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108 617−727−2200 Fax: 617−727−5785 Email: victoria.cole@ago.state.ma.us TERMINATED: 06/15/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Ruth Bramson in her capacity as Personnel Administrator of the Division of Human Resources of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Interested Party International Association of Firefighters, Local 739
Interested Party Matthew Reidy President, International Association of Firefighters, Local 739
Mediator Leo Sorokin TERMINATED: 09/18/2007

Sookyoung Shin Office of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place 18th Floor Boston, MA 02108 617−727−2200 Fax: 617−727−5785 Email: sookyoung.shin@ago.state.ma.us ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ronald F. Kehoe (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Victoria S. Cole (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/15/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sookyoung Shin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by John F. McMahon Angoff, Goldman, Manning, Wanger &Hynes, PC 45 Bromfield Street 8th and 9th Floor Boston, MA 02108 617−723−5500 Fax: 617−742−1015 Email: jack.mcmahon@comcast.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by John F. McMahon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed # 02/02/2005
02/02/2005

Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT, Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive Relief Requested, against City of Lynn, Edward J. Clancy, Jr, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Division of Human Resources, Ruth Bramson Filing fee: $ 150, receipt number 61797, filed by Keith Ridley, Jared Thomas, Jacob Bradley, Noah Bradley. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Patch, Christine) Modified on 2/3/2005 (Patch, Christine). (Entered: 02/03/2005)
Summons Issued as to City of Lynn, Edward J. Clancy, Jr, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Division of Human Resources, Ruth Bramson. (Patch, Christine) (Entered: 02/03/2005)

02/02/2005 02/18/2005 02/22/2005 02/22/2005 02/22/2005 02/24/2005 02/24/2005 02/25/2005 03/07/2005 03/07/2005 03/10/2005 03/10/2005 03/10/2005 03/10/2005 03/11/2005 03/18/2005 03/18/2005
03/25/2005 03/25/2005 03/25/2005

If the trial Judge issues an Order of Reference of any matter in this case to a Magistrate Judge, the matter will be transmitted to Magistrate Judge Collings. (Patch, Christine) (Entered: 02/03/2005)
2 ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand by City of Lynn.(Patch, Christine) (Entered: 02/23/2005)
3 Letter to Judge Saris from Shannon Liss−Riordan regarding scheduling a conference to plan for expedited discovery. (Patch, Christine) (Entered: 02/23/2005)
5 SUMMONS Returned Executed Edward J. Clancy, Jr served on 2/9/2005, answer due 3/1/2005. (Patch, Christine) (Entered: 03/01/2005)
6 SUMMONS Returned Executed City of Lynn served on 2/9/2005, answer due 3/1/2005. (Patch, Christine) (Entered: 03/01/2005)
7 SUMMONS Returned Executed Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Division of Human Resources served on 2/18/2005, answer due 3/10/2005. (Patch, Christine) (Entered: 03/03/2005)
8 SUMMONS Returned Executed Ruth Bramson served on 2/18/2005, answer due 3/10/2005. (Patch, Christine) (Entered: 03/03/2005)
4 NOTICE of Scheduling Conference. Scheduling Conference set for 3/25/2005 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 19 before Judge Patti B. Saris. (Alba, Robert) (Entered: 02/25/2005)
9 MOTION to be Designated as a Nominal Party by City of Lynn.(Patch, Christine) (Entered: 03/09/2005)
10 MOTION to Join the International Association of Fire Fighters Local 739, Matthew Reddy, President by City of Lynn.(Patch, Christine) (Entered: 03/09/2005)
11 NOTICE of Appearance by Ronald F. Kehoe on behalf of Ruth Bramson (Kehoe, Ronald) (Entered: 03/10/2005)
12 NOTICE of Appearance by Ronald F. Kehoe on behalf of Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Division of Human Resources (Kehoe, Ronald) (Entered: 03/10/2005)
13 ANSWER to Complaint by Ruth Bramson.(Kehoe, Ronald) (Entered: 03/10/2005)
14 ANSWER to Complaint by Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Division of Human Resources.(Kehoe, Ronald) (Entered: 03/10/2005)
15 NOTICE of Appearance by Victoria S. Cole on behalf of Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Division of Human Resources, Ruth Bramson (Patch, Christine) (Entered: 03/18/2005)
16 Opposition re 9 MOTION to be Designated as a Nominal Party filed by Keith Ridley, Jared Thomas, Jacob Bradley, Noah Bradley. (Gordon, Alfred) (Entered: 03/18/2005)
17 Opposition re 10 MOTION to Join the International Association of Fire Fighters Local 739, Matthew Reddy, President filed by Keith Ridley, Jared Thomas, Jacob Bradley, Noah Bradley. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D)(Gordon, Alfred) (Entered: 03/18/2005)
18 JOINT SUBMISSION pursuant to Local Rule 16.1 (D) by Keith Ridley, Jared Thomas, City of Lynn, Edward J. Clancy, Jr, Jacob Bradley, Noah Bradley.(Liss−Riordan, Shannon) (Entered: 03/25/2005)
19 JOINT STATEMENT re scheduling conference Statement of State defendants. (Cole, Victoria) (Entered: 03/25/2005)
20 CERTIFICATION pursuant to Local Rule 16.1 by Jacob Bradley.(Gordon, Alfred) (Entered: 03/25/2005)

03/25/2005 03/25/2005 03/25/2005 03/25/2005
03/25/2005
03/28/2005 04/06/2005 04/07/2005 04/12/2005 04/13/2005 04/25/2005 05/02/2005 05/18/2005 05/26/2005 05/31/2005
05/31/2005 06/06/2005

21 CERTIFICATION pursuant to Local Rule 16.1 by Noah Bradley.(Gordon, Alfred) (Entered: 03/25/2005)
22 CERTIFICATION pursuant to Local Rule 16.1 by Keith Ridley.(Gordon, Alfred) (Entered: 03/25/2005)
23 CERTIFICATION pursuant to Local Rule 16.1 by Jared Thomas.(Gordon, Alfred) (Entered: 03/25/2005)
Electronic Clerk's Notes for proceedings held before Judge Patti B. Saris: Scheduling Conference held on 3/25/2005. Court sets discovery and motion filing schedules as to City of Lynn and Commonwealth of Mass. (Alba, Robert) (Entered: 03/25/2005)
24 Judge Patti B. Saris : ORDER entered. SCHEDULING ORDER:Fact Discovery for City of Lynn due 9/30/05; for Comm. of Mass: 6/30/05. Plaintiff's expert designation deadline for City of Lynn due 10/30/05; for Comm. of Mass: 8/31/05. Defendant's expert designation deadline for City of Lynn due 11/30/05; for Comm. of Mass: 9/30/05. Expert discovery deadline for Comm. of Mass: 10/31/05. Summary Judgment Motion due by 1/15/200; opposition due 2/15/06.Summary Judgment Hearing or Pretrial Conference (City of Lynn) set for 3/9/2006 02:00 PM in Courtroom 19 before Judge Patti B. Saris. Evidentiary Hearing (Comm. of Mass): 11/17/05 and 11/18/05 at 2:00 PM. (Patch, Christine) (Entered: 03/28/2005)
25 JOINT STATEMENT re scheduling conference of Plaintiffs and the City of Lynn Defendants (City of Lynn and Edward Clancy). (Patch, Christine) (Entered: 03/29/2005)
28 NOTICE of Appearance by John F. McMahon on behalf of International Association of Firefighters, Local 739, Matthew Reidy (Patch, Christine) (Entered: 04/29/2005)
NOTICE of Rejection of Filing letter sent. (Patch, Christine) (Entered: 04/07/2005)
27 Letter to Judge Saris from Ronald F. Kehoe regarding mediation discussions. (Patch, Christine) (Entered: 04/19/2005)
26 MOTION for Waiver of Electronic Filing, by International Association of Firefighters, Local 739 and Matthew Reddy. (Patch, Christine) (Entered: 04/19/2005)
Judge Patti B. Saris : Electronic ORDER entered granting 26 Motion for Waiver of Electronic Filing. "However, the waiver is effective for only three months." (Patch, Christine) (Entered: 04/27/2005)
Letter sent to Attorney E. David Wanger advising of inactive status in the Bar of this Court. Notice, reregistration and ECF application included. (Patch, Christine) (Entered: 05/02/2005)
29 Opposition re 10 MOTION to Join the International Association of Fire Fighters Local 739, Matthew Reddy, President filed by International Association of Firefighters, Local 739. (Patch, Christine) (Entered: 05/26/2005)
30 Assented to MOTION to Intervene (Partially Assented−To) by New England Area Conference of the NAACP, The Boston Society of the Vulcans.(Selwyn, Mark) (Entered: 05/26/2005)
31 NOTICE of Hearing on 10 MOTION to Join the International Association of Fire Fighters Local 739 and Matthew Reddy: Motion Hearing set for 6/15/2005 at 3:00 PM in Courtroom 19 before Judge Patti B. Saris. (Alba, Robert) (Entered: 05/31/2005)
Judge Patti B. Saris : Electronic ORDER entered granting 30 Motion to Intervene (Patch, Christine) (Entered: 06/01/2005)
32 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment by Ruth Bramson.(Cole, Victoria) Additional attachment(s) added on

06/06/2005 06/06/2005 06/06/2005 06/06/2005 06/06/2005 06/06/2005 06/07/2005 06/07/2005
06/07/2005 06/15/2005 06/15/2005
06/15/2005 06/15/2005 06/28/2005 06/28/2005 06/28/2005

6/7/2005 (Patch, Christine). (Entered: 06/06/2005)
33 MEMORANDUM in Support re 32 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment filed by Ruth Bramson. (Cole, Victoria) (Entered: 06/06/2005)
34 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 32 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment (McNeely Aff. # 1, Exhibit A to Motion) filed by Ruth Bramson. (Cole, Victoria) (Entered: 06/06/2005)
35 ADDENDUM re 32 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment (PAR Rules, Exhibit B to Motion) filed by Ruth Bramson. (Cole, Victoria) (Entered: 06/06/2005)
36 ADDENDUM re 32 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment (HRD Certification Handbook, Exhbit C to Motion) filed by Ruth Bramson. (Cole, Victoria) (Entered: 06/06/2005)
37 ADDENDUM re 32 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment (HRD Special Certifications, Exhibit D to Motion) filed by Ruth Bramson. (Cole, Victoria) (Entered: 06/06/2005)
38 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages (Memorandum in Support of Rule 12(c)/56 Motion) by Ruth Bramson.(Cole, Victoria) (Entered: 06/06/2005)
Judge Patti B. Saris: Electronic ORDER entered granting 38 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. (Alba, Robert) (Entered: 06/07/2005)
Documents terminated: 37 Addendum to Motion/Memorandum filed by Ruth Bramson,, 34 Affidavit in Support of Motion filed by Ruth Bramson,, 35 Addendum to Motion/Memorandum filed by Ruth Bramson,, 36 Addendum to Motion/Memorandum filed by Ruth Bramson,. (Patch, Christine) (Entered: 06/07/2005)
Notice of correction to docket made by Court staff. Correction: Documents No. 34, 35, 36, and 37 terminated because they should have been filed as attachments to Document No. 32 (Patch, Christine) (Entered: 06/07/2005)
39 NOTICE of Withdrawal of Appearance Attorney Victoria S. Cole terminated. (Cole, Victoria) (Entered: 06/15/2005)
Electronic Clerk's Notes for proceedings held before Judge Patti B. Saris: Motion Hearing held on 6/15/2005 re 10 MOTION to Join the International Association of Fire Fighters Local 739, Matthew Reddy, President filed by City of Lynn. Court hears argument of counsel. Court makes rulings on the record. Hearing on 32 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings set for 7/28/2005 at 4:00 PM in Courtroom 19 before Judge Patti B. Saris. (Court Reporter Nancy Eaton.) (Alba, Robert) (Entered: 06/15/2005)
Judge Patti B. Saris : Electronic ORDER entered denying 10 Motion to Join the International Association of Fire Fighters Local 739, Matthew Reddy, President (Patch, Christine) (Entered: 06/20/2005)
Judge Patti B. Saris : Electronic ORDER entered denying 9 Motion to be Designated as a Nominal Party (Patch, Christine) (Entered: 06/20/2005)
40 MOTION for Leave to File Amended Complaint by Keith Ridley, Jared Thomas, Jacob Bradley, Noah Bradley.(Gordon, Alfred) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/29/2005 (Patch, Christine). (Entered: 06/28/2005)
41 AMENDED COMPLAINT Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive Relief Requested against all defendants, filed by Keith Ridley, Jared Thomas, Jacob Bradley, Noah Bradley.(Gordon, Alfred) (Entered: 06/28/2005)
42 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings Plaintiffs' Opposition to Commonwealth Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment by Keith Ridley, Jared Thomas, Jacob Bradley, Noah Bradley.(Gordon, Alfred) (Entered: 06/28/2005)

06/28/2005 06/29/2005 06/29/2005 06/29/2005
06/29/2005 07/01/2005 07/01/2005 07/19/2005 07/19/2005
07/19/2005
07/20/2005
07/28/2005
08/04/2005 08/08/2005 08/10/2005

43 Opposition re 32 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment filed by Keith Ridley, Jared Thomas, Jacob Bradley, Noah Bradley. Re−entered by court staff to correct data entry error. (Patch, Christine) (Entered: 06/29/2005)
Documents terminated: 41 Amended Complaint filed by Jacob Bradley,, Noah Bradley,, Keith Ridley,, Jared Thomas,. (Patch, Christine) (Entered: 06/29/2005)
Notice of correction to docket made by Court staff. Correction: Document No. 41 terminated because it should have been filed as an attachment to Document No. 40 (Patch, Christine) (Entered: 06/29/2005)
Motions terminated: 42 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings Plaintiffs' Opposition to Commonwealth Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment filed by Jacob Bradley,, Noah Bradley,, Keith Ridley,, Jared Thomas,. (Patch, Christine) (Entered: 06/29/2005)
Notice of correction to docket made by Court staff. Correction: Document No. 42 terminated because: It was filed using the wrong event. Please see Document No. 43 for corrected filing. (Patch, Christine) (Entered: 06/29/2005)
Judge Patti B. Saris : Electronic ORDER entered granting 40 Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint (Patch, Christine) (Entered: 07/06/2005)
44 AMENDED COMPLAINT against City of Lynn, Edward J. Clancy, Jr, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Division of Human Resources, Ruth Bramson, filed by Keith Ridley, Jared Thomas, Jacob Bradley, Noah Bradley.(Patch, Christine) (Entered: 07/06/2005)
45 ANSWER to Amended Complaint by Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Division of Human Resources, Ruth Bramson.(Kehoe, Ronald) (Entered: 07/19/2005)
46 MOTION for Leave to File Answer of State Defendant's to the First Amended Complaint and Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion for Judgment on Pleadings or for Summary Judgment by Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Division of Human Resources, Ruth Bramson.(Kehoe, Ronald) (Entered: 07/19/2005)
47 REPLY to Response to Motion re 42 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings Plaintiffs' Opposition to Commonwealth Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment filed by Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Division of Human Resources, Ruth Bramson. (Kehoe, Ronald) (Entered: 07/19/2005)
Judge Patti B. Saris: Electronic ORDER entered granting 46 MOTION for Leave to File Answer of State Defendant's to the First Amended Complaint and Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion for Judgment on Pleadings or for Summary Judgment by Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Division of Human Resources, Ruth Bramson. (Alba, Robert) (Entered: 07/20/2005)
Electronic Clerk's Notes for proceedings held before Judge Patti B. Saris: Motion Hearing held on 7/28/2005 re 32 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment filed by Ruth Bramson. Court hears argument of counsel. Court takes motion under advisement. (Court Reporter Nancy Eaton.) (Alba, Robert) (Entered: 07/28/2005)
48 Letter/request (non−motion) from Harold L. Lichten. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D)(Lichten, Harold) (Entered: 08/04/2005)
49 NOTICE of Rejection of Filing re: Notice of Appearance sent to Sookyoung Shin. (Patch, Christine) (Entered: 08/08/2005)
50 NOTICE of Appearance by Sookyoung Shin on behalf of Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Division of Human Resources, Ruth Bramson (Shin, Sookyoung) (Entered: 08/10/2005)

08/30/2005 11/04/2005 11/07/2005 11/07/2005 11/07/2005
11/08/2005 11/10/2005
11/14/2005 11/18/2005 11/18/2005 11/21/2005 12/01/2005
12/02/2005 12/06/2005 12/20/2005 12/21/2005

51 Letter/request (non−motion) from Sookyoung Shin in reply to Plaintiffs' letter of 08/04/05. (Shin, Sookyoung) (Entered: 08/30/2005)
52 MOTION for Hearing Conference and Additional Hearing Date by Keith Ridley, Jared Thomas, Jacob Bradley, Noah Bradley.(Gordon, Alfred) (Entered: 11/04/2005)
53 MOTION to Certify Class by Keith Ridley, Jared Thomas, Jacob Bradley, Noah Bradley.(Gordon, Alfred) (Entered: 11/07/2005)
54 MEMORANDUM in Support re 53 MOTION to Certify Class Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 23(b)(2) filed by Keith Ridley, Jared Thomas, Jacob Bradley, Noah Bradley. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2)(Gordon, Alfred) (Entered: 11/07/2005)
56 MOTION in Limine to Preclude Testimony Regarding the Validity of the Firefighter Entrance Examinations by Keith Ridley, Jared Thomas, Jacob Bradley, Noah Bradley. Please note: due to size, exibits A−C are not scanned. (Patch, Christine) Modified on 11/9/2005 (Patch, Christine). (Entered: 11/09/2005)
55 NOTICE of Scheduling Conference. Scheduling Conference set for 11/10/2005 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 19 before Judge Patti B. Saris. (Alba, Robert) (Entered: 11/08/2005)
ElectronicClerk's Notes for proceedings held before Judge Patti B. Saris: Scheduling Conference held on 11/10/2005. Hearing on Class Certification set for 12/21/2005 at 2:30 PM in Courtroom 19 before Judge Patti B. Saris. Bench Trial set for 3/13/2006 at 9:00 AM in Courtroom 19 before Judge Patti B. Saris. Counsel to notify the Court within one week as to selection of a Mediator. The hearings of 11/17/05 and 11/18/05 are cancelled. (Court Reporter Lee Marzilli.) (Alba, Robert) (Entered: 11/10/2005)
Judge Patti B. Saris : Electronic ORDER entered finding as moot 56 Motion in Limine to Preclude Testimony Regarding the Validity of the Firefighter Entrance Examinations (Patch, Christine) (Entered: 11/15/2005)
57 Letter/request (non−motion) from Alfred Gordon. (Gordon, Alfred) (Entered: 11/18/2005)
58 First MOTION for Extension of Time to 12/05/05 to File Response/Reply as to 53 MOTION to Certify Class by Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Division of Human Resources, Ruth Bramson.(Shin, Sookyoung) (Entered: 11/18/2005)
Judge Patti B. Saris: Electronic ORDER entered granting 58 First MOTION for Extension of Time to 12/05/05 to File Response/Reply as to 53 MOTION to Certify Class. Responses due by 12/5/2005 (Alba, Robert) (Entered: 11/21/2005)
59 Joint MOTION to Defer Hearing on Class Certification and to Extend Due Date for Filing Response to Motion for Class Certification re 53 MOTION to Certify Class by Keith Ridley, Jared Thomas, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Division of Human Resources, Ruth Bramson, Jacob Bradley, Noah Bradley.(Shin, Sookyoung) (Entered: 12/01/2005)
Judge Patti B. Saris : Electronic ORDER entered granting 59 Motion to Defer Hearing on Class Certification and to Extend Due Date for Filing Response to Motion for Class Certification (Patch, Christine) (Entered: 12/06/2005)
60 Judge Patti B. Saris : ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 32 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment filed by Ruth Bramson,.(Patch, Christine) (Entered: 12/08/2005)
61 NOTICE OF RESCHEDULED MOTION HEARING. The Motion Hearing re Motion to Certify Class previously scheduled for 12/21/05, has been rescheduled to January 25, 2006, at 3:00 p.m. (Alba, Robert) (Entered: 12/20/2005)
62 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Pleadings by Keith Ridley, Jared Thomas, Jacob Bradley, Noah Bradley. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement

12/22/2005 12/22/2005 01/13/2006
01/13/2006 02/06/2006
02/06/2006 02/07/2006 02/13/2006 02/15/2006 02/15/2006 02/15/2006
02/16/2006 02/16/2006 03/03/2006

Complaint)(Gordon, Alfred) (Entered: 12/21/2005)
Judge Patti B. Saris : Electronic ORDER entered granting 62 Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Pleadings. (Patch, Christine) (Entered: 12/23/2005)
63 Supplemental COMPLAINT against City of Lynn, Edward J. Clancy, Jr, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Division of Human Resources, Ruth Bramson, filed by Keith Ridley, Jared Thomas, Jacob Bradley, Noah Bradley.(Patch, Christine) (Entered: 12/23/2005)
64 Joint MOTION to Defer Hearing on Class Certification and to Extend Due Date for Filing Response to Motion for Class Certification re 53 MOTION to Certify Class by Keith Ridley, Jared Thomas, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Division of Human Resources, Ruth Bramson, Jacob Bradley, Noah Bradley.(Shin, Sookyoung) (Entered: 01/13/2006)
Judge Patti B. Saris: Electronic ORDER entered allowing 64 Joint MOTION to Defer Hearing on Class Certification and to Extend Due Date for Filing Response to Motion for Class Certification. "Allowed. The hearing is continued to February 17, 2006, at 2:00 p.m." (Alba, Robert) (Entered: 01/13/2006)
65 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction by Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Division of Human Resources, Ruth Bramson. (Attachments: # Exhibit A − Declaration of Sally McNeely# 2 Exhibit B − Affidavit of Sally McNeely)(Shin, Sookyoung) Modified on 2/7/2006 (Patch, Christine). (Entered: 02/06/2006)
66 MEMORANDUM in Support re 65 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Division of Human Resources, Ruth Bramson. Re−entered by court staff to correct data entry error. (Patch, Christine) (Entered: 02/07/2006)
Notice of correction to docket made by Court staff. Correction: Document No. 65 corrected because: the Memorandum in Support of the Motion to Dismiss should have been filed as a separate event. Please refer to Document No. 66 for corrected filing of the Memorandum (Patch, Christine) (Entered: 02/07/2006)
E−Mail Notice returned as undeliverable. Email addressed to John McMahon's primary e−mail address are returned undeliverable. The attorney has been contacted, who will attempt to resolve the problem with his internet provider. (Hurley, Virginia) (Entered: 02/13/2006)
67 Joint Scheduling Request Letter/request (non−motion) from Ronald F. Kehoe Plaintiff's Attorney joins in request. (Kehoe, Ronald) (Entered: 02/15/2006)
68 Joint Scheduling Request Letter Letter/request (non−motion) from Ronald F. Kehoe Plaintiffs' Attorney joins in request. (Kehoe, Ronald) (Entered: 02/15/2006)
Judge Patti B. Saris: Electronic ORDER entered allowing 68 Joint Scheduling Request Letter. "ALLOWED. THE CLASS CERTIFICATION HEARING AND HEARING ON MOTION TO DISMISS WILL BE HELD ON MARCH 14, 2006, AT 3:30 P.M. THE FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE IS RESCHEDULED TO APRIL 5, 2006, AT 3:00 P.M. THE BENCH TRIAL IS RESCHEDULED TO APRIL 10, 2006, AT 9:00 A.M."(Alba, Robert) (Entered: 02/15/2006)
Documents terminated: 67 Letter/request (non−motion). (Patch, Christine) (Entered: 02/16/2006)
Notice of correction to docket made by Court staff. Correction: Document No. 67 terminated per request of counsel. Document No. 68 is the correct filing. (Patch, Christine) (Entered: 02/16/2006)
72 Letter to Judge Saris from Shannon Liss−Riordan stating that the parties have been unable to resolve this case and it will require ruling following trial scheduled for April. (Patch, Christine) (Entered: 03/08/2006)

03/06/2006 03/07/2006 03/07/2006 03/08/2006 03/08/2006 03/13/2006 03/13/2006 03/14/2006 03/16/2006 03/20/2006 03/22/2006 03/23/2006 03/24/2006 03/27/2006
03/28/2006 03/28/2006

69 Opposition re 65 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Keith Ridley, Jared Thomas, Jacob Bradley, Noah Bradley. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3)(Gordon, Alfred) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
70 Opposition re 53 MOTION to Certify Class filed by Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Division of Human Resources, Ruth Bramson. (Attachments: # Exhibit A# Exhibit B)(Shin, Sookyoung) Additional attachment(s) added on 3/7/2006 (Patch, Christine). (Entered: 03/07/2006)
71 NOTICE by Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Division of Human Resources, Ruth Bramson re 70 Opposition to Motion of Filing with Clerk's Office (Shin, Sookyoung) (Entered: 03/07/2006)
73 MOTION for Leave to File Second Supplemental Complaint Pursuant to Rule 15(d) by Keith Ridley, Jared Thomas, Jacob Bradley, Noah Bradley.(Liss−Riordan, Shannon) (Entered: 03/08/2006)
74 AMENDED COMPLAINT Second Supplemental Complaint against all defendants, filed by Keith Ridley, Jared Thomas, Jacob Bradley, Noah Bradley.(Liss−Riordan, Shannon) (Entered: 03/08/2006)
75 REPLY to Response to Motion re 53 MOTION to Certify Class PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P 23(b)(2) filed by Jacob Bradley, Noah Bradley. (Liss−Riordan, Shannon) (Entered: 03/13/2006)
76 REPLY to Response to Motion re 65 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Division of Human Resources, Ruth Bramson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Shin, Sookyoung) (Entered: 03/13/2006)
ElectronicClerk's Notes for proceedings held before Judge Patti B. Saris: Motion Hearing held on 3/14/2006 re 53 MOTION to Certify Class filed by Jacob Bradley, Noah Bradley, Keith Ridley, Jared Thomas. (Court Reporter Lee Martzilli.) (Alba, Robert) (Entered: 03/14/2006)
77 Judge Patti B. Saris: PRETRIAL ORDER entered. (Alba, Robert) (Entered: 03/16/2006)
78 Proposed Document(s) submitted by Keith Ridley, Jared Thomas, Jacob Bradley, Noah Bradley. Document received: Proposed Order Granting Class Certification. (Liss−Riordan, Shannon) (Entered: 03/20/2006)
79 Opposition re 73 MOTION for Leave to File Second Supplemental Complaint Pursuant to Rule 15(d) filed by Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Division of Human Resources, Ruth Bramson. (Shin, Sookyoung) (Entered: 03/22/2006)
80 Assented to MOTION for Extension of Time of Pretrial Deadlines by Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Division of Human Resources, Ruth Bramson.(Shin, Sookyoung) (Entered: 03/23/2006)
81 Judge Patti B. Saris : ORDER entered granting 53 MOTION to Certify Class filed by Jacob Bradley,, Noah Bradley,, Keith Ridley,, Jared Thomas. (Patch, Christine) (Entered: 03/28/2006)
Judge Patti B. Saris : Electronic ORDER entered granting 73 Motion for Leave to File Second Supplemental Complaint. "However, the trial will not be about the new exam. I reserve the right to dismiss the new claims if they are not ripe. The action is stayed with respect to the new claims until after the trial." Counsel using the Electronic Case Files system should now file the document for which leave to file has been granted in accordance with the CM/ECF Administrative Procedures. (Patch, Christine) (Entered: 03/31/2006)
Judge Patti B. Saris : Electronic ORDER entered granting 80 Motion to Extend Pretrial Deadlines. (Patch, Christine) (Entered: 03/29/2006)
88 MOTION in Limine to (1) Establish that the Parties' Sworn Expert Reports Subsitute as their Direct Testimony; or (2) Limit Expert Testimony Only to Those Facts and Expert Opinions which are Actually in Dispute as Evidenced by

03/29/2006 03/29/2006 03/29/2006 03/29/2006 03/29/2006 03/29/2006 03/31/2006
03/31/2006 03/31/2006 04/03/2006 04/04/2006 04/04/2006 04/06/2006
04/06/2006 04/07/2006 04/07/2006 04/10/2006

the Parties' Expert Reports; or (3) Limit Direct and Cross−Examination to Those Parts of the Parties' Expert Reports which have Actually Generated Factual or Expert Opinion Disputes by Keith Ridley, Jared Thomas, Jacob Bradley, Noah Bradley. Please note that Exhibits were not scanned in due to size. (Patch, Christine) (Entered: 03/30/2006)
82 Exhibit List and Witness List by Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Division of Human Resources, Ruth Bramson.. (Shin, Sookyoung) (Entered: 03/29/2006)
83 Proposed Findings of Fact by Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Division of Human Resources, Ruth Bramson. (Shin, Sookyoung) (Entered: 03/29/2006)
84 Proposed Conclusions of Law Response by Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Division of Human Resources, Ruth Bramson. (Shin, Sookyoung) (Entered: 03/29/2006)
85 Witness List by New England Area Conference of the NAACP, The Boston Society of the Vulcans. (Selwyn, Mark) (Entered: 03/29/2006)
86 Proposed Findings of Fact by Keith Ridley, Jared Thomas, Jacob Bradley, Noah Bradley. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B)(Gordon, Alfred) (Entered: 03/29/2006)
87 Plaintiffs' Witness List and Exhibit List by Keith Ridley, Jared Thomas, Jacob Bradley, Noah Bradley. (Gordon, Alfred) (Entered: 03/29/2006)
89 NOTICE OF RESCHEDULED FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE. The Final Pretrial Conference previously scheduled for April 5, 2006, has been rescheduled to April 6, 2006, at 4:00 p.m. in Courtroom 19 before Judge Patti B. Saris. (Alba, Robert) (Entered: 03/31/2006)
90 Letter/request (non−motion) from Shannon Liss−Riordan. (Liss−Riordan, Shannon) (Entered: 03/31/2006)
91 AMENDED COMPLAINT Second Supplemental Complaint against all defendants, filed by Keith Ridley, Jared Thomas, Jacob Bradley, Noah Bradley.(Liss−Riordan, Shannon) (Entered: 03/31/2006)
92 Assented to MOTION for Extension of Time of Discovery Schedule Regarding Allegations Pertaining to the City Defendants by Keith Ridley, Jared Thomas, Jacob Bradley, Noah Bradley.(Gordon, Alfred) (Entered: 04/03/2006)
93 TRIAL BRIEF by Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Division of Human Resources, Ruth Bramson. (Shin, Sookyoung) (Entered: 04/04/2006)
94 Response by Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Division of Human Resources, Ruth Bramson to 86 Proposed Findings of Fact. (Shin, Sookyoung) (Entered: 04/04/2006)
95 NOTICE OF RESCHEDULED FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE. The Final Pretrial Conference previously scheduled for April 6, 2006, has been rescheduled to April 7, 2006, at 3:00 p.m. in Courtroom 19 before Judge Patti B. Saris. (Alba, Robert) (Entered: 04/06/2006)
96 TRIAL BRIEF by Keith Ridley, Jared Thomas, Jacob Bradley, Noah Bradley. (Liss−Riordan, Shannon) (Entered: 04/06/2006)
97 Objection to 82 Exhibit List by Keith Ridley, Jared Thomas, Jacob Bradley, Noah Bradley Plaintiffs' Objections to State Defendants' Proposed Witnesses and Exhibits. (Liss−Riordan, Shannon) (Entered: 04/07/2006)
ElectronicClerk's Notes for proceedings held before Judge Patti B. Saris: Final Pretrial Conference held on 4/7/2006. Trial to commence on Tuesday, April 11, 2006. (Court Reporter Valerie O'Hara.) (Alba, Robert) (Entered: 04/07/2006)
98 Letter/request (non−motion) from Shannon Liss−Riordan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Beecher Decision# 2 Exhibit EEOC Uniform Guidelines# 3 Exhibit Landy Text)(Liss−Riordan, Shannon) (Entered: 04/10/2006)

04/11/2006 04/12/2006 04/13/2006 04/14/2006 04/14/2006 04/14/2006 04/19/2006 04/27/2006 05/02/2006 05/04/2006 05/12/2006 05/12/2006
05/15/2006

ElectronicClerk's Notes for proceedings held before Judge Patti B. Saris: Bench Trial − Day One held on 4/11/2006. (Court Reporter Lee Marzilli.) (Alba, Robert) (Entered: 04/11/2006)
ElectronicClerk's Notes for proceedings held before Judge Patti B. Saris: Bench Trial − Day Three held on 4/12/2006. (Court Reporter Lee Marzilli.) (Alba, Robert) (Entered: 04/12/2006)
ElectronicClerk's Notes for proceedings held before Judge Patti B. Saris: Bench Trial − Day Three held on 4/13/2006. (Court Reporter Valerie O'Hara.) (Alba, Robert) (Entered: 04/13/2006)
99 TRANSCRIPT of Bench Trial − Day One held on April 11, 2006 before Judge Saris. Court Reporter: Lee A. Marzilli. The original transcripts are maintained in the case file in the Clerk's Office. Copies may be obtained by contacting the court reporter at 617/345−6787 or the Clerk's Office. (Scalfani, Deborah) (Entered: 04/14/2006)
100 EXCERPT TRANSCRIPT of Bench Trial Day Three (Testimony of Rick Jacobs only) Proceedings held on April 13, 2006 before Judge Saris. Court Reporter: Valerie A. O'Hara. The original transcripts are maintained in the case file in the Clerk's Office. Copies may be obtained by contacting the court reporter at 617/737−2346 or the Clerk's Office. (Scalfani, Deborah) (Entered: 04/14/2006)
ElectronicClerk's Notes for proceedings held before Judge Patti B. Saris: Bench Trial − Day Four held on 4/14/2006. Trial tentatively to resume on 4/27/06 at 2:00 p.m. (Court Reporter Lee Marzilli.) (Alba, Robert) (Entered: 04/14/2006)
101 TRANSCRIPT of Bench Trial Day Four held on April 14, 2006 before Judge Saris. Court Reporter: Lee A. Marzilli. The original transcripts are maintained in the case file in the Clerk's Office. Copies may be obtained by contacting the court reporter at 617/345−6787 or the Clerk's Office. (Scalfani, Deborah) (Entered: 04/19/2006)
ELECTRONIC NOTICE OF RESCHEDULED BENCH TRIAL. At the request of counsel, the Bench Trial will resume on 5/3/2006 at 9:00 AM in Courtroom 19 before Judge Patti B. Saris. (Alba, Robert) (Entered: 04/27/2006)
102 TRANSCRIPT of Bench Trial Day Two held on April 12, 2006 before Judge Saris. Court Reporter: Lee A. Marzilli. The original transcripts are maintained in the case file in the Clerk's Office. Copies may be obtained by contacting the court reporter at 617/345−6787 or the Clerk's Office. (Scalfani, Deborah) (Entered: 05/02/2006)
ElectronicClerk's Notes for proceedings held before Judge Patti B. Saris: Bench Trial − Day Six held on 5/4/2006. Trial continued to 6/9/06 at 9:00 a.m. (Court Reporter Lee Marzilli.) (Alba, Robert) (Entered: 05/04/2006)
103 Joint MOTION To Require The Commonwealth To Reorder Boston Firefighter Certification List No. 260302 To Ensure No Adverse Impact With Respect To Black And Hispanic Candidates by the Plaintiffs and by New England Area Conference of the NAACP, The Boston Society of the Vulcans, Keith Ridley, Jacob Bradley, Noah Bradley.(Selwyn, Mark) (Entered: 05/12/2006)
104 MEMORANDUM in Support re 103 Joint MOTION To Require The Commonwealth To Reorder Boston Firefighter Certification List No. 260302 To Ensure No Adverse Impact With Respect To Black And Hispanic Candidates by the Plaintiffs and filed by New England Area Conference of the NAACP, The Boston Society of the Vulcans, Keith Ridley, Jared Thomas, Jacob Bradley, Noah Bradley. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D)(Selwyn, Mark) (Entered: 05/12/2006)
105 NOTICE of HEARING on 103 Joint MOTION To Require The Commonwealth To Reorder Boston Firefighter Certification List No. 260302 To Ensure No Adverse Impact With Respect To Black And Hispanic Candidates. Motion Hearing set for 5/24/2006 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 19 before Judge Patti B. Saris. (Alba, Robert) (Entered: 05/15/2006)

05/15/2006
05/15/2006
05/16/2006 05/17/2006
05/17/2006
05/19/2006 05/24/2006
05/25/2006
05/31/2006 05/31/2006 06/01/2006 06/01/2006 06/01/2006 06/01/2006

106 NOTICE of RESCHEDULED HEARING ON 103 Joint MOTION To Require The Commonwealth To Reorder Boston Firefighter Certification List No. 260302 To Ensure No Adverse Impact With Respect To Black And Hispanic Candidates. Motion Hearing rescheduled to 5/25/2006 at 9:00 AM in Courtroom 19 before Judge Patti B. Saris. (Alba, Robert) (Entered: 05/15/2006)
107 TRANSCRIPT of Bench Trial − Day Six held on May 4, 2006 before Judge Saris. Court Reporter: Lee A. Marzilli. The original transcripts are maintained in the case file in the Clerk's Office. Copies may be obtained by contacting the court reporter at 617/345−6787 or the Clerk's Office. (Scalfani, Deborah) (Entered: 05/15/2006)
108 Letter/request (non−motion) from Harold L. Lichten. (Lichten, Harold) (Entered: 05/16/2006)
109 Amended MOTION To Require The Commonwealth To Reorder Boston Firefighter Certification List No. 260302 To Ensure No Adverse Impact With Respect To Black And Hispanic Candidates by New England Area Conference of the NAACP, The Boston Society of the Vulcans.(Selwyn, Mark) (Entered: 05/17/2006)
110 Amended MEMORANDUM in Support re 109 Amended MOTION To Require The Commonwealth To Reorder Boston Firefighter Certification List No. 260302 To Ensure No Adverse Impact With Respect To Black And Hispanic Candidates filed by New England Area Conference of the NAACP, The Boston Society of the Vulcans. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D)(Selwyn, Mark) (Entered: 05/17/2006)
111 EXHIBIT Response of Dr. Rick Jacobs to Testimony and Reports of Dr. Frank Landy and Dr. Joel Wiesen by Ruth Bramson. (Kehoe, Ronald) (Entered: 05/19/2006)
112 Opposition re 109 Amended MOTION To Require The Commonwealth To Reorder Boston Firefighter Certification List No. 260302 To Ensure No Adverse Impact With Respect To Black And Hispanic Candidates filed by Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Division of Human Resources. (Kehoe, Ronald) (Entered: 05/24/2006)
ElectronicClerk's Notes for proceedings held before Judge Patti B. Saris: Motion Hearing held on 5/25/2006 re 103 Joint MOTION To Require The Commonwealth To Reorder Boston Firefighter Certification List No. 260302 To Ensure No Adverse Impact With Respect To Black And Hispanic Candidates, and 109 Amended MOTION To Require The Commonwealth To Reorder Boston Firefighter Certification List No. 260302 To Ensure No Adverse Impact With Respect To Black And Hispanic Candidates. Court hears argument of counsel. Court takes motions under advisement. Counsel for Comm. of MA to file affidavit with the Court. (Court Reporter Lee Marzilli.) (Alba, Robert) (Entered: 05/25/2006)
113 Letter/request (non−motion) from Shannon Liss−Riordan. (Liss−Riordan, Shannon) (Entered: 05/31/2006)
114 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition re 111 Exhibit. (Liss−Riordan, Shannon) (Entered: 05/31/2006)
115 MOTION to Strike 113 Letter/request (non−motion), 114 Affidavit in Opposition by Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Division of Human Resources, Ruth Bramson.(Shin, Sookyoung) (Entered: 06/01/2006)
116 TRIAL BRIEF by Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Division of Human Resources, Ruth Bramson. (Shin, Sookyoung) (Entered: 06/01/2006)
117 Proposed Findings of Fact by Keith Ridley, Jared Thomas, Jacob Bradley, Noah Bradley. (Liss−Riordan, Shannon) (Entered: 06/01/2006)
118 TRIAL BRIEF − Proposed Conclusions of Law by Keith Ridley, Jared Thomas, Jacob Bradley, Noah Bradley. (Liss−Riordan, Shannon) (Entered: 06/01/2006)

06/02/2006
06/08/2006 06/09/2006 06/09/2006 06/13/2006
06/13/2006 06/14/2006 06/14/2006 06/19/2006 06/19/2006 06/23/2006 06/30/2006 07/07/2006 07/12/2006 08/08/2006
08/08/2006 09/07/2006

119 Judge Patti B. Saris: ORDER entered denying 109 Amended MOTION To Require The Commonwealth To Reorder Boston Firefighter Certification List No. 260302 To Ensure No Adverse Impact With Respect To Black And Hispanic Candidates by New England Area Conference of the NAACP, The Boston Society of the Vulcans. (Malloch, Nancy) (Entered: 06/02/2006)
120 Opposition re 115 MOTION to Strike 113 Letter/request (non−motion), 114 Affidavit in Opposition filed by Jacob Bradley. (Liss−Riordan, Shannon) (Entered: 06/08/2006)
ElectronicClerk's Notes for proceedings held before Judge Patti B. Saris: Bench Trial − Day Seven held on 6/9/2006. Counsel make closing arguments. (Court Reporter Lee Marzilli.) (Alba, Robert) (Entered: 06/09/2006)
128 AFFIDAVIT of Robert J. Moran. (Patch, Christine) (Entered: 08/16/2006)
Motion terminated from Court's statistical report: 52 MOTION for Hearing Conference and Additional Hearing Date filed by Jacob Bradley, Noah Bradley, Keith Ridley, Jared Thomas. (motion addressed by prior Court action.) (Alba, Robert) (Entered: 06/13/2006)
Judge Patti B. Saris : Electronic ORDER entered denying 115 Motion to Strike 114 Affidavit of Dr. Frank Landy. (Patch, Christine) (Entered: 06/14/2006)
121 Letter clarifying hirings Letter/request (non−motion) from Defendants' counsel. (Kehoe, Ronald) (Entered: 06/14/2006)
122 EXHIBIT re 114 Affidavit in Opposition (Response by Rick Jacobs) by Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Division of Human Resources, Ruth Bramson. (Shin, Sookyoung) (Entered: 06/14/2006)
123 Court's Exhibit List for Bench Trial held on 4/11/06 − 4/14/06, 5/3/06, 5/4/06 and 6/9/06. (Alba, Robert) Additional attachment(s) added on 7/12/2006 (Patch, Christine). (Entered: 06/19/2006)
124 Courts Witness List for Bench Trial held on 4/11/06 − 4/14/06, 5/3/06, 5/4/06 and 6/9/06. (Alba, Robert) (Entered: 06/19/2006)
125 Letter/request (non−motion) from Shannon Liss−Riordan. (Liss−Riordan, Shannon) (Entered: 06/23/2006)
126 Joint MOTION To Substitute Exhibit List re 123 Exhibit List by Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Division of Human Resources, Ruth Bramson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Shin, Sookyoung) (Entered: 06/30/2006)
Judge Patti B. Saris : Electronic ORDER entered granting 126 Motion to Substitute Exhibit List (Patch, Christine) (Entered: 07/12/2006)
Notice of correction to docket made by Court staff. Correction: Document No. 123 corrected because: motion to substitute exhibit list granted (Patch, Christine) (Entered: 07/12/2006)
127 Judge Patti B. Saris : ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: "I order entry of judgment in favor of the plaintiff class regarding liability under Title VII for the 2002 and 2004 entry−level firefighter examinations. The plaintiffs shall propose a remedy within thirty days, and the defendants shall respond within thirty days. In addition, the plaintiffs shall propose a schedule with respect to entry−level police class as well as the separate allegations involving Lynn. The Court will hold a hearing on October 30, 2006 at 3:00 PM."(Patch, Christine) (Entered: 08/08/2006)
Set/Reset Hearings: Hearing set for 10/30/2006 03:00 PM in Courtroom 19 before Judge Patti B. Saris. (Patch, Christine) (Entered: 08/08/2006)
129 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to September 15, 2006 to For Filing Proposed Remedial Plan by New England Area Conference of the NAACP, The Boston Society of the Vulcans.(Selwyn, Mark) (Entered: 09/07/2006)

09/08/2006 09/11/2006 09/15/2006
10/20/2006 10/20/2006 10/23/2006 10/23/2006 10/27/2006 10/27/2006 10/30/2006
11/13/2006 11/15/2006 11/15/2006 11/16/2006 11/16/2006

Judge Patti B. Saris: ORDER entered granting 129 Joint Motion for Extension of Time to September 15, 2006 to For Filing Proposed Remedial Plan. (Filo, Jennifer) (Entered: 09/11/2006)
Judge Patti B. Saris : Electronic ORDER entered denying 65 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Filo, Jennifer) (Entered: 09/11/2006)
130 Proposed Document(s) submitted by New England Area Conference of the NAACP, The Boston Society of the Vulcans, Keith Ridley, Jared Thomas, Jacob Bradley, Noah Bradley. Document received: Proposed Remedial Order. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A)(Liss−Riordan, Shannon) (Entered: 09/15/2006)
131 Proposed Document(s) submitted by Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Division of Human Resources, Ruth Bramson. Document received: Response to Plaintiffs' Proposed Remedial Order. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (proposed order)# 2 Exhibit B)(Shin, Sookyoung) (Entered: 10/20/2006)
132 Response by Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Division of Human Resources, Ruth Bramson to 130 Proposed Document. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order # 2 Exhibit B). Re−entered by court staff to correct data entry error.(Patch, Christine) (Entered: 10/23/2006)
Documents terminated: 131 Proposed Document(s) submitted, Proposed Document(s) submitted filed by Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Division of Human Resources,, Ruth Bramson,. (Patch, Christine) (Entered: 10/23/2006)
Notice of correction to docket made by Court staff. Correction: Document No. 131 terminated because: it was filed using the incorrect event. Please refer to Document No. 132 for corrected filing (Patch, Christine) (Entered: 10/23/2006)
133 Letter/request (non−motion) from Shannon Liss−Riordan , Counsel for Jacob Bradley, et al. (Liss−Riordan, Shannon) (Entered: 10/27/2006)
134 Proposed Document(s) submitted by New England Area Conference of the NAACP, The Boston Society of the Vulcans, Keith Ridley, Jared Thomas, Jacob Bradley, Noah Bradley. Document received: Amended Proposed Remedial Order. (Liss−Riordan, Shannon) (Entered: 10/27/2006)
ElectronicClerk's Notes for proceedings held before Judge Patti B. Saris: Hearing held on 10/30/2006 re: Proposed Remedial Order. Court sets discovery schedule. Discovery by 4/30/07. Plaintiff's Expert 5/30/07. Defendant's Expert 6/30/07. Motion for Summary Judgement to be filed by 7/30/07. (Court Reporter Marie Cloonan.) (Alba, Robert) (Entered: 10/30/2006)
135 Assented to MOTION for Extension of Time to November 15, 2006 to File Post−Hear Briefs Relating to Remedy and Attorneys' Fees by all plaintiffs.(Gordon, Alfred) (Entered: 11/13/2006)
136 Assented to MOTION for Extension of Time to 11/16/2006 to to File Post−Hearing Briefs Relating to Remedy and Attorneys' Fees by Keith Ridley, Jared Thomas, Jacob Bradley, Noah Bradley.(Gordon, Alfred) (Entered: 11/15/2006)
Judge Patti B. Saris: Electronic ORDER entered granting 135 Assented to MOTION for Extension of Time to November 15, 2006 to File Post−Hear Briefs Relating to Remedy and Attorneys' Fees by all plaintiffs. (Alba, Robert) (Entered: 11/16/2006)
Judge Patti B. Saris: Electronic ORDER entered granting 136 Assented to MOTION for Extension of Time to 11/16/2006 to to File Post−Hearing Briefs Relating to Remedy and Attorneys' Fees by Keith Ridley, Jared Thomas, Jacob Bradley, Noah Bradley. (Alba, Robert) (Entered: 11/16/2006)
137 MEMORANDUM OF LAW by Keith Ridley, Jared Thomas, Jacob Bradley, Noah Bradley. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B)(Lichten, Harold) (Entered: 11/16/2006)

11/16/2006 11/16/2006
11/16/2006 11/16/2006 11/17/2006
11/22/2006 11/30/2006 12/06/2006 12/06/2006 12/11/2006 12/15/2006 12/19/2006 12/20/2006 01/05/2007 01/05/2007

138 AMENDED DOCUMENT by New England Area Conference of the NAACP, The Boston Society of the Vulcans, Keith Ridley, Jared Thomas, Jacob Bradley, Noah Bradley. Amendment to 137 Memorandum of Law Amended Proposed Remedial Order. (Lichten, Harold) (Entered: 11/16/2006)
139 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs by Keith Ridley, Jared Thomas, Jacob Bradley, Noah Bradley. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit E# 6 Exhibit F# 7 Exhibit G# 8 Exhibit H# 9 Exhibit I# 10 Exhibit J# 11 Exhibit K# 12 Exhibit L# 13 Exhibit M# 14 Exhibit N# 15 Exhibit O# 16 Exhibit P)(Liss−Riordan, Shannon) (Entered: 11/16/2006)
140 Letter/request (non−motion) from State defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B)(Shin, Sookyoung) (Entered: 11/16/2006)
141 Letter/request (non−motion) from Shannon Liss−Riordan. (Liss−Riordan, Shannon) (Entered: 11/16/2006)
ELECTRONIC NOTICE issued requesting courtesy copy for 139 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs. Counsel who filed this document are requested to submit a courtesy copy of this document (or documents) to the Clerk's Office. These documents must be clearly marked as a Courtesy Copy and reflect the document number assigned by CM/ECF. (Patch, Christine) (Entered: 11/17/2006)
142 Further Response by Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Division of Human Resources to Plaintiffs' Amended Remedy Proposal. (Kehoe, Ronald) (Entered: 11/22/2006)
143 First MOTION for Extension of Time to 12/15/2006 to File Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Fees and Costs by Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Division of Human Resources, Ruth Bramson.(Shin, Sookyoung) (Entered: 11/30/2006)
ElectronicClerk's Notes for proceedings held before Judge Patti B. Saris: Status Conference held on 12/6/2006. (Court Reporter Marie Cloonan.) (Alba, Robert) (Entered: 12/06/2006)
144 Judge Patti B. Saris : REMEDIAL ORDER entered. (Patch, Christine) (Entered: 12/06/2006)
Judge Patti B. Saris : Electronic ORDER entered granting 143 Motion for Extension of Time for Filing Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs. (Patch, Christine) (Entered: 12/12/2006)
145 Second MOTION for Extension of Time to 01/08/2007 to File Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Fees and Costs by Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Division of Human Resources, Ruth Bramson.(Shin, Sookyoung) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
Judge Patti B. Saris : Electronic ORDER entered granting 145 Motion for Extension of Time for Filing Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs (Patch, Christine) (Entered: 12/21/2006)
146 Joint MOTION to Amend Remedial Order to Add Intervenors in Certain Sections by New England Area Conference of the NAACP, The Boston Society of the Vulcans. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit [Proposed] Amended Remedial Order)(Selwyn, Mark) (Entered: 12/20/2006)
147 MOTION Entry of Rule 58 Judgment or for Extension of Time to File Appeal by Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Division of Human Resources, Ruth Bramson.(Shin, Sookyoung) (Entered: 01/05/2007)
Judge Patti B. Saris: Electronic ORDER entered regarding 147 MOTION Entry of Rule 58 Judgment or for Extension of Time to File Appeal by Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Division of Human Resources, Ruth Bramson. "The Motion for Extension of Time is allowed without opposition." (Alba, Robert) (Entered: 01/05/2007)

01/08/2007 01/09/2007 01/10/2007 01/16/2007 01/29/2007 01/30/2007 01/31/2007 02/05/2007 02/07/2007
02/07/2007 02/07/2007 02/08/2007 02/08/2007 02/08/2007

148 Third MOTION for Extension of Time to 1/29/2007 to File Response/Reply as to 139 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs by Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Division of Human Resources, Ruth Bramson.(Shin, Sookyoung) (Entered: 01/08/2007)
Judge Patti B. Saris: Electronic ORDER entered granting 148 Third MOTION for Extension of Time to 1/29/2007 to File Response/Reply as to 139 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs. (Alba, Robert) (Entered: 01/09/2007)
ELECTRONIC NOTICE of STATUS CONFERENCE. Status Conference with all counsel present set for 1/23/2007 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 19 before Judge Patti B. Saris. (Alba, Robert) (Entered: 01/10/2007)
ELECTRONIC NOTICE OF RESCHEDULED STATUS CONFERENCE. At the request of counsel, the Status Conference previously set for 1/23/07 has been rescheduled to 2/7/07 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 19 before Judge Patti B. Saris. (Alba, Robert) (Entered: 01/16/2007)
149 Assented to MOTION for Extension of Time to 2/28/07 to File Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Fees and Costs by Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Division of Human Resources, Ruth Bramson.(Shin, Sookyoung) (Entered: 01/29/2007)
Judge Patti B. Saris : Electronic ORDER entered granting 149 Motion for Extension of Time for Filing Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs. "Allowed without objection." (Patch, Christine) (Entered: 02/01/2007)
150 Assented to MOTION for Clarification re Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, by Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Division of Human Resources, Ruth Bramson.(Shin, Sookyoung) (Entered: 01/31/2007)
151 Letter/request (non−motion) from State defendants (recruitment plan attached). (Shin, Sookyoung) (Entered: 02/05/2007)
ElectronicClerk's Notes for proceedings held before Judge Patti B. Saris: Status Conference held on 2/7/2007. Response to Motion for Attorney's Fees due 4/30/07. Hearing on Motion for Attorney's Fees set for 5/23/2007 at 2:00 PM. Court sets discovery schedule for Police case. Fact Discovery due: 6/30/07. Plaintiff's Expert: 7/30/07. Defendant's Expert: 8/30/07. Motion for Summary Judgment to be filed by 9/30/07. Opposition by 10/15/07. Hearing on Summary Judgment/Pretrial Conference set for 11/7/2007 at 2:00 PM. Court refers parties to mediation for Police case, and City of Lynn case. Comm of Mass to file motion for separate and final judgment by 3/15/07. Intervenors to file Motion for Attorney's Fees by 3/15/07. (Court Reporter Lee Marzilli.) (Alba, Robert) (Entered: 02/07/2007)
152 Judge Patti B. Saris: ORDER entered REFERRING CASE to Alternative Dispute Resolution a.s.a.p with regard to the Police case. Mediation to be assigned to same mediator handling the City of Lynn case.(Alba, Robert) (Entered: 02/07/2007)
153 Judge Patti B. Saris: ORDER entered REFERRING CASE to Alternative Dispute Resolution a.s.a.p. with regard to the City of Lynn case. Mediation to be assigned to same mediator handling the Police case.(Alba, Robert) (Entered: 02/07/2007)
ELECTRONIC NOTICE of assignment to ADR Provider. U.S. Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin appointed. The Court will contact counsel with regard to scheduling. (Franklin, Yvonne) (Entered: 02/08/2007)
Judge Patti B. Saris : Electronic ORDER entered granting 146 Motion to Amend Remedial Order to Add Intervenors in Certain Sections. (Patch, Christine) (Entered: 02/12/2007)
154 Judge Patti B. Saris : AMENDED REMEDIAL ORDER entered. (Patch, Christine) (Entered: 02/15/2007)

02/21/2007
03/15/2007 03/15/2007 03/15/2007 03/15/2007 03/20/2007 04/18/2007 04/19/2007 04/20/2007 04/23/2007
05/14/2007 05/21/2007 05/22/2007 05/25/2007

NOTICE of ADR Conference; Alternative Dispute Resolution Hearing set for 4/27/2007 10:00 AM in Courtroom 14 before Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin. Counsel and principals are directed to be present and have full settlement authority. A brief mediation memoranda should be submitted no later than five (5) days prior to the mediation and marked "Confidential − Not for Docketing". In the event that you believe the case is not ripe for mediation at this time, counsel are to notify opposing counsel and the court as soon as possible. If this date poses a conflict counsel are requested to file an assented to motion to continue the mediation date. The ADR hearing date will NOT be continued without the requested motion filed promptly. (Simeone, Maria) (Entered: 02/21/2007)
155 Letter/request (non−motion) from State defendants with proposed final judgment. (Shin, Sookyoung) (Entered: 03/15/2007)
156 MOTION for Costs Intervenor's Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs by New England Area Conference of the NAACP, The Boston Society of the Vulcans.(Selwyn, Mark) Additional attachment(s) added on 3/16/2007 (Patch, Christine). (Entered: 03/15/2007)
157 AFFIDAVIT in Support of Intervener's Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs. (Selwyn, Mark) (Entered: 03/15/2007)
158 AFFIDAVIT in Support Affidavit of Nadine Cohen In Support of Motion for Attorneys Fees and Costs. (Selwyn, Mark) (Entered: 03/15/2007)
159 Judge Patti B. Saris : ORDER entered. JUDGMENT in favor of Plaintiffs against State Defendants(Patch, Christine) (Entered: 03/23/2007)
160 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to May 19, 2007 to file notice of appeal by state defendants by Keith Ridley, Jared Thomas, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Division of Human Resources, Ruth Bramson, Jacob Bradley, Noah Bradley.(Kehoe, Ronald) (Entered: 04/18/2007)
Judge Patti B. Saris: Electronic ORDER entered allowing 160 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to May 19, 2007 to file notice of appeal. "Allowed. The Hearing on attorney's fees is rescheduled to June 25, 2007 at 2:00 PM." (Alba, Robert) (Entered: 04/19/2007)
161 Joint MOTION to Continue Alternative Dispute Resolution Hearing by Keith Ridley, Jared Thomas, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Division of Human Resources, Ruth Bramson, Jacob Bradley, Noah Bradley.(Shin, Sookyoung) (Entered: 04/20/2007)
Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin : Electronic ORDER entered granting 161 Motion to Continue; The Alternative Dispute Resolution Hearing has been reset for 6/19/2007 09:30 AM in Courtroom 14 before Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin. counsel are to file a joint status report on or before May 27, 2007 stating the status of the settlement and whether the mediation is necessary. (Simeone, Maria) (Entered: 04/23/2007)
ELECTRONIC NOTICE RESCHEDULING HEARING. The Hearing on Attorneys' Fees previously set for 6/25/07, has been RESCHEDULED to 6/18/2007 at 3:00 PM in Courtroom 19 before Judge Patti B. Saris. (Alba, Robert) (Entered: 05/14/2007)
162 Letter/request (non−motion) from Shannon Liss−Riordan. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment 1# 2 Attachment 2# 3 Attachment 3)(Liss−Riordan, Shannon) (Entered: 05/21/2007)
163 Letter/request (non−motion) from Sookyoung Shin re revised settlement agreement. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Shin, Sookyoung) (Entered: 05/22/2007)
164 MOTION for Settlement Approval by Keith Ridley, Jared Thomas, Jacob Bradley, Noah Bradley.(Lichten, Harold) (Entered: 05/25/2007)

05/25/2007 05/25/2007 05/25/2007 05/29/2007 05/29/2007 05/29/2007 06/06/2007
06/06/2007 06/07/2007 07/30/2007 07/30/2007 07/30/2007 07/30/2007 08/23/2007 08/23/2007

165 MEMORANDUM in Support re 164 MOTION for Settlement Approval filed by Keith Ridley, Jared Thomas, Jacob Bradley, Noah Bradley. (Lichten, Harold) (Entered: 05/25/2007)
166 STATUS REPORT and Motion to Continue ADR Hearing by Keith Ridley, Jared Thomas, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Division of Human Resources, Ruth Bramson, Jacob Bradley, Noah Bradley. (Shin, Sookyoung) (Entered: 05/25/2007)
167 Joint Status Report and MOTION to Continue ADR Hearing to 8/17/07 by Keith Ridley, Jared Thomas, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Division of Human Resources, Ruth Bramson, Jacob Bradley, Noah Bradley. Re−entered by court staff to correct data entry error.(Patch, Christine) (Entered: 05/29/2007)
Documents terminated: 166 Status Report and Motion to Continue ADR Hearing (Patch, Christine) (Entered: 05/29/2007)
Notice of correction to docket made by Court staff. Correction: Document No. 166 terminated because: it was filed using the incorrect event. Please refer to Document No. 166 for corrected filing (Patch, Christine) (Entered: 05/29/2007)
ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Hearing on 164 MOTION for Settlement Approval. Motion Hearing set for 6/6/2007 at 3:00 PM in Courtroom 19 before Judge Patti B. Saris. (Alba, Robert) (Entered: 05/29/2007)
Electronic Clerk's Notes for proceedings held before Judge Patti B. Saris: Motion Hearing held on 6/6/2007 re 164 MOTION for Settlement Approval filed by Jacob Bradley, Keith Ridley, Jared Thomas, Noah Bradley. Court allows preliminary approval of settlement. Settlement Fairness Hearing set for 7/30/2007 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 19 before Judge Patti B. Saris. Pretrial Conference as to the City of Lynn set for 7/30/2007 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 19 before Judge Patti B. Saris.,(Court Reporter Lee Marzilli.) (Alba, Robert) (Entered: 06/06/2007)
Judge Patti B. Saris : ELECTRONIC ENDORSEMENT re 81 Order Allowing Class Certification. "I preliminarily approve the settlement. The hearing on final approval will be 7/30/07 at 2:00 pm." (Patch, Christine) (Entered: 06/11/2007)
168 Letter/request (non−motion) from Harold Lichten. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit A# 3 Exhibit A1# 4 Exhibit B)(Lichten, Harold) (Entered: 06/07/2007)
170 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT by Keith Ridley, Jared Thomas, Jacob Bradley, Noah Bradley. (Liss−Riordan, Shannon) (Entered: 07/30/2007)
171 Joint MOTION to Continue Pre−Trial Conference as to City of Lynn Civil Action to after August 9, 2007 by Keith Ridley, Jared Thomas, City of Lynn, Edward J. Clancy, Jr, Jacob Bradley, Noah Bradley.(Gordon, Alfred) (Entered: 07/30/2007)
Judge Patti B. Saris: Electronic ORDER entered allowing 171 Joint MOTION to Continue Pre−Trial Conference as to City of Lynn Civil Action to after August 9, 2007. "Allowed. The Pretrial Conference is Continued to August 23, 2007 at 2:00 PM." (Alba, Robert) (Entered: 07/30/2007)
Electronic Clerk's Notes for proceedings held before Judge Patti B. Saris: Settlement Approval Hearing held on 7/30/2007. Parties to notice revised settlement agreement. Further Settlement Approval Hearing set for 8/23/2007 at 2:30 PM. (Court Reporter Lee Marzilli.) (Alba, Robert) (Entered: 07/30/2007)
172 AFFIDAVIT of Shannon Liss−Riordan by Keith Ridley, Jared Thomas, Jacob Bradley, Noah Bradley. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C)(Liss−Riordan, Shannon) (Entered: 08/23/2007)
Electronic Clerk's Notes for proceedings held before Judge Patti B. Saris: Pretrial Conference as to City of Lynn held on 8/23/2007. Parties report they have resolved all outstanding issues. Court to issue a 120 Order of Dismissal. (Court Reporter Lee Marzilli.) (Alba, Robert) (Entered: 08/23/2007)

08/23/2007
08/23/2007 08/23/2007 08/23/2007 08/27/2007 09/18/2007 10/17/2007 10/18/2007 10/25/2007 12/07/2007 12/14/2007 12/17/2007 12/18/2007 01/18/2008 01/22/2008 02/21/2008
02/25/2008
03/12/2008

Electronic Clerk's Notes for proceedings held before Judge Patti B. Saris: Settlement Hearing held on 8/23/2007. Court approves settlement. Plaintiff to file Status Report with the Court within six months. (Court Reporter Lee Marzilli.) (Alba, Robert) (Entered: 08/23/2007)
Judge Patti B. Saris : ELECTRONIC ENDORSEMENT re 170 Settlement Agreement filed by Jacob Bradley, Keith Ridley, Jared Thomas, Noah Bradley. "Approved after hearing." (Patch, Christine) (Entered: 08/23/2007)
173 Judge Patti B. Saris : ORDER entered. SETTLEMENT ORDER OF DISMISSAL (Patch, Christine) (Entered: 08/27/2007)
Civil Case Terminated. (Patch, Christine) (Entered: 08/27/2007)
174 Judge Patti B. Saris : ORDER entered. SEPARATE AND FINAL JUDGMENT (Patch, Christine) (Entered: 09/05/2007)
175 REPORT of Alternative Dispute Resolution Provider. Leo T. Sorokin, USMJ reports case has settled. (See attached report.) (Franklin, Yvonne) (Entered: 09/18/2007)
176 Letter to Judge Saris from Laetitia Aby regarding recovery/backpay. (Patch, Christine) (Entered: 10/24/2007)
Judge Patti B. Saris : ELECTRONIC ENDORSEMENT re 176 Letter from Laetitia Aby. "Plaintiffs shall filed a response within 14 days." (Patch, Christine) (Entered: 10/24/2007)
177 Letter/request (non−motion) from Harold L. Lichten. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Lichten, Harold) (Entered: 10/25/2007)
178 Letter to Judge Saris from Laetitia Aby. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Patch, Christine) (Entered: 12/12/2007)
179 Assented to MOTION for Extension of Time for the Order of Dismissal as to the Claims Against the City Defendants by Keith Ridley, Jared Thomas, Jacob Bradley, Noah Bradley.(Gordon, Alfred) (Entered: 12/14/2007)
Judge Judge Patti B. Saris: Electronic ORDER entered granting 179 Motion to Extend the Period for the Order of Dismissal as to the Claims Against the Defendants. (Patch, Christine) (Entered: 12/17/2007)
180 Letter to Laetitia Aby from Judge Patti B. Saris stating that her claim and challenge to the class settlement are not viable. (Patch, Christine) (Entered: 12/20/2007)
181 Assented to MOTION for Extension of Time Period for the Order of Dismissal as to the Claims Against the City Defendants by Keith Ridley, Jared Thomas, Jacob Bradley, Noah Bradley.(Gordon, Alfred) (Entered: 01/18/2008)
Judge Patti B. Saris: Electronic ORDER entered granting 181 Motion for Extension of Time for the Order of Dismissal as to the Claims against the City Defendants. (Patch, Christine) (Entered: 01/23/2008)
182 Assented to MOTION for Extension of Time for the Order of Dismissal as to the Claims Against the City Defendants and Request for a Conference Before the Court by Keith Ridley, Jared Thomas, Jacob Bradley, Noah Bradley.(Gordon, Alfred) (Entered: 02/21/2008)
ELECTRONIC NOTICE of HEARING on 182 Assented to MOTION for Extension of Time for the Order of Dismissal as to the Claims Against the City Defendants and Request for a Conference Before the Court. Motion Hearing set for 3/11/2008 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 19 before Judge Patti B. Saris. (Alba, Robert) (Entered: 02/25/2008)
ELECTRONIC NOTICE of RESCHEDULED HEARING on 182 Assented to MOTION for Extension of Time for the Order of Dismissal as to the Claims Against the City Defendants and Request for a Conference Before the Court : At the request of counsel, the Motion Hearing previously set for 3/11/08 has been RESCHEDULED to 3/17/2008 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 19 before Judge Patti

B. Saris. (Alba, Robert) (Entered: 03/12/2008)