Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 1 of 16 PageID 1
FILED

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT cg~PR 23 PH 3: 08
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLditi>X
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION C.L.:•t1Er"1rR.0.:ID,:".l'_L:u'.E,.:s;.,.D,'D1ISI1~II..RJ.. !.=Im.'C. C~TLT. OO~CrI:O,D.F;~.Lfln

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v.

)

)

CONSOLIDATED CITY OF JACKSOl'l"VILLE,

)

Defendant, )

and

)

)

JACKSONVILLE ASSOCIATION OF

)

FIREFIGHTERS, LOCAL 122, INTERNATIONAL

)

ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS,

)

Defendant. )

)

Civil Action No: _ __
g~,;).-tV·tlS'''SA&\Wlmw -~

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff United States of America alleges as follows:

1. This action is brought on behalfof the United S~tes to enforce the provisions ofTitle VII of the Civij Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., as amended ("Title YII"). As is more fully set forth below, the United States alleges that Defendant, the Consolidated City of Jacksonville ("Jacksonville"), through its Fire and Rescue Department ("JFRO"), has used and continues to use written examinations on a pass/fail as well as on a rank-order basis for screening and selecting candidates for promotion to the ranks of District Chief (Suppression), Captain (Suppression), Lieutenant (Suppression), and Engineer, and such use has resulted in a disparate impact upon black candidates, is not job related and consistent with business necessity for the positions in question, and does not otherwise meet the requirements ofTitle VII.

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 2 of 16 PageID 2
2. 'Ims Court has jurisdiction of this action under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-6(b), 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3), and 28 U.S.C. § 1345.
3. Defendant Jacksonville is a municipal government and a political subdivision created pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida and is located in this judicial distri~t.
4. Defendant Jacksonville is a person within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(a) and an employer within the meaning of 42 U,S.C. § 2000e(b).
5. Defendant Jacksonville maintains a fire department, JFRD, which consists of six major divisions: Rescue, Operations/Suppression, Fire Prevention, Emergency Preparedness, Training, and Administrative Services, and which employs uniformed firefighters in classifications including District Chief, Captain, Lieutenant, and Engineer.
6. JFRD employs more than 1,200 uniformed firefighters in all ranks. 7. Defendant Jacksonville Association ofFircfighters, Local 122, IAFF, an affiliated andlor chartered Local with the International Association of Firefighters ("Union''), represents the firefighters holding ranks including District Chief, Captain, Lieutenant, and Engineer employed by Defendant Jacksonville and is named solely as a party pursuant to Rule 19(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because its joinder is necessary for complete relief. 8. Defendant Union is a person within the meaning of 42 U.S,C. § 2000e(a) and is a labor organization within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(d) and (e). 9, Defendant Union is the exclusive representative of the JFRD firefighters, including firefighters employed by Defendant Jacksonville who hold the ranks including District Chief (Suppression), Captain (Suppression), Lieutenant (Suppression), and Engineer for the purpose of bargaining collectively terms, conditions, and other practices which bear upon screening and promotion. .
2

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 3 of 16 PageID 3
WRITTEN EXAMINATIONS ADMINISTERED SINCE 2004 FOR PROMOTING FIREFIGHTERS TO THE RANKS OF DISTRICT CHIEF (SUPPRESSION).
CAPTAIN (SUPPRESSION). LIEUTENANT (SUPPRESSION). AND ENGINEER 10. Defendant Jacksonville, through the JFRO, has maintained and continues to maintain selection procedures by which candidates for promotion to the positions of District Chief (Suppression). Captain (Suppression). Lieutenant (Suppression). and Engineer are screened and promoted. 11. As part of its promotion process for the positions of District Chief (Suppression), Captain (Suppression), Lieutenant (Suppression), and Engineer, Defendant Jacksonville, through the JFRD, has administered and continues to administer, either by itself or through a contractor. written examinations to JFRD candidates. 12. The examinations that are administered are unique to the position sought and the division in which the position is located. As such, the promotional examinations for the ranks of District Chief (Suppression), Captain (Suppression), Lieutenant (Suppression), and Engineer are different from one another. 13. Defendant Jacksonville, through the JFRD, used and continues to use written examinations on a pass/fail basis and to rank-order candidates for selection for promotions. 14. Defendant Jacksonville, through the JFRD, used and continues "to use the examinations on a pass/fail basis with the pass point set at 70% pursuant to collective bargaining agreements with Defendant Union. As such, only those candidates who scored 70% or higher on the written examinations are eligible for consideration for promotion. . 15. JFRD also used and continues to use the results of the written examinations as part of the rank order process. As such, JFRO candidates who pass the written promotional examinations for a particular rank within a division are placed on eligibility lists in descending
3

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 4 of 16 PageID 4
rank order based on their written examination scores, with applicable additional seniority and veteran preference points.
16. When vacancies occur, JFRD candidates for a particular rank within a division are selected in strict rank order as their names appear on the eligibility lists. Because ofthe rank order processing, only those individuals who secured a high score on the written examinations are promoted.
DISTRICT CHIEF (SUPPRESSION) EXA1vflNATIONS 17. Since 2006, Defendant Jacksonville, through the JFRD, has used two competitive examination processes in the screening and selection of candidates for promotion to the rank of District Chief (Suppression) in the JFRD. Each of these two competitive processes has involved the administration of written examinations. 18. The first of these competitive examination processes involved the administration ofa written examination by Defendant Jacksonville on or about April 2006, and the JFRD used the eligibility list that was generated therefrom from July 2006 until September 2009. The second of these competitive examination processes involved the administration ofa written examination by Defendant Jacksonville on or about September 18,2009, and the JFRD used the eligibility list that was generated therefrom since September 2009. ]9. The 2006 and 2009 District Chief (S uppression) examinations were developed by the same private firm that was hired by Defendant Jacksonville. 20. In order to take the examination for District Chief (Suppression), candidates must first have held the positions of Engineer, Lieutenant, and Captain (Suppression).
4

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 5 of 16 PageID 5
21. Very few black candidates were eligible to take the District Chief (Suppression) examinations in 2006 and 2009 because, as alleged infra, the Captain (Suppression), Lieutenant (Suppression), and Engineer examinations screened out a large number of black candidates.
22. Fifteen of the test takers who took either the 2006 or 2009 District Chief (Suppression) examinations were black. Seventy of the test takers who took either the 2006 or 2009 District Chief (Suppression) examinations were white.
23. While black candidates were able to pass the District Chief (Suppression) examinations in 2006 and 2009, they never scored high enough to be promoted to the position of District Chief.
24. Defendant Jacksonville promoted sixteen individuals to the position of District Chief (Suppression) based on the 2006 and 2009 examinations, none of whom are black.
25. In 2006 and 2009, black candidates who passed the District Chief (Suppression) examination were ranked statistically significantly lower on the eligibility list than white candidates when the results of the examinations are considered together.
CAPTAIN (SUPPRESSION) EXAMINATIONS 26. Since 2004, Defendant Jacksonville has used two competitive exa.niination processes in the screening and selection ofcandidates for promotion to the rank of Captain (Suppression) in the JFRD. Each of these two competitive processes involved the administration of written examinations. 27. The first ofthese competitive examination processes involved the administration ofa written examination by Defendant Jacksonville on or about August 27,2004, and the JFRD used the eligibility li~1 that was generated therefTom from November 2004 until December 2008. The second of these competitive examination processes involved the administration ofa written
5

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 6 of 16 PageID 6
examination by Defendant Jacksonville on or about December 11, 2008, and the JFRD used the eligibility list that was generated therefrom since December 2008.
28. The 2004 and 2008 Captain (Suppression) examinations were developed by the same private fIrm that was hired by Defendant Jacksonville.
29. Defendant Jacksonville promoted 49 candidates to the position of Captain (Suppression) based on the 2004 and 2008 Captain (Suppression) examinations.
30. Defendant Jacksonville promoted only one black candidate to the position of Captain (Suppression) based on the 2004 Captain (Suppression) examination.
31. Defendant Jacksonville did not promote any black candidates to the position of Captain (Suppression) based on the 2008 Captain (Suppression) examination.
32. Tho pass rate for black candidates who took the 2004 Captain (Suppression) examination was statistically significantly lower than the pass rate of white candidates.
33. The pass rate for black candidates who took the 2008 Captain (Suppression) examination was statistically significantly lower than the pass rate of white candidates.
34. The pass rate for black candidates who took either the 2004 or the 2008 Captain (Suppression) examination was statistically significantly lower than the pass rate ofwhite candidates when the results of the examinations are considered together.
35. The promotion rate of black candidates who took either the 2004 or the 2008 Captain (Suppression) examination was statistically significantly lower than the promotion rate of white candidates when the results of the examinations are considered together.
36. The promotion rate of black candidates who passed either the 2004 or the 2008 Captain (Suppression) examination was statistically significantly lower than the promotion rate of white candidates when the results of the examinations are considered together.
6

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 7 of 16 PageID 7
37. Black candidates who passed the Captain (Suppression) examination in 2004 or 2009 were ranked statistically significantly lower on the eligibility list than white candidates when the results of the examinations are considered together.
LIEUTENANT (SUPPRESSION) EXAMINATIONS 38. Since 2004, Defendant Jacksonville has used three competitive examination processes in the screening and selection of candidates for promotion to the rank of JFRD Lieutenant (Suppression). Each of these three competitive processes has involved the administration of written examinations. 39. The first ofthese competitive examination processes involved the administration ofa written examination by Defendant Jacksonville on or about August 26, 2004, and the JFRD used the eligibility list that was generated therefrom from August 2004 until May 2007. The second of these competitive examination processes involved the administration ofa written examination by Defendant Jacksonville on or about May 31, 2007, and the JFRD used the eligibility list that was generated therefrom from May 2007 until April 2011. The third of these competitive examination processes involved the administration of a written examination by Defendant Jacksonville on or about April 15, 2011, and the JFRO used the eligibility list that was generated therefrom since April 2011. 40. The ~004 and 2007 Lieutenant (Suppression) examinations were developed by the same private firm that was hired by Defendant Jacksonville. The 201] examination was developed by a different private firm that was hired by Defendant Jacksonville. 41. Defendant Jacksonville promoted ninety-three candidates to the position of Lieutenant (Suppression) based on the 2004, 2007, and 2011 Lieutenant (Suppression) examinations.
7

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 8 of 16 PageID 8
42. Defendant Jacksonville promoted only seven black candidates to the position of Lieutenant (Suppression) based on the 2004,2007, and 2011 Lieutenant (Suppression) examinations.
43. Six black candidates were promoted to the position of Lieutenant (Suppression) based on the 2004 examination.
44. One black candidate was promoted to the position of Lieutenant (Suppression) based on the 2007 examination.
45. No black candidates were promoted to the position of Lieutenant (Suppression) based on the 2011 examination.
46. The pass rate for black candidates who took the 2004 Lieutenant (Suppression) examination was statistically significantly lower than the pass rate of white candidates.
47. The pass ratc for black candidates who took the 2007 Lieutenant (Suppression) examination was statistically significantly lower than the pass rate of white candidates.
48. The pass rate for black candidates who took either the 2004 or the 2007 Lieutenant (Suppression) examination was statistically significantly lower than the pass rate of white candidates when the results of the examinations are considered together.
49. The promotion ratc of black candidates who took the either the 2004 or the 2007 Lieutenant (Suppression) examination was statistically significantly lower than the promotion rate of white candidates when the results of the examinations are considered together.
50. Black candidates who passed the Lieutenant (Suppression) examination in 2()04 or the 2007 were ranked statistically significantly lower on the eligibility list than white candidates when the results of the examinations are considered together.
8

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 9 of 16 PageID 9
51. The pass rate for black candidates who took the 2011 Lieutenant (Suppression) examination was statistically significantly lower than the pass rate of white candidates.
52. Among those candidates who passed the Lieutenant (Suppression) examination in 2011, black candidates were ranked statistically significantly lower on the eligibility list than white candidates.
ENGINEER EXAMINATIONS 53. Since 2005, Defendant Jacksonville, through the JFRD, has used three competitive examination processes in the screening and selection of candidates for promotion to the rank of Engineer in the JFRD. Each of these three competitive processes involved the administration of a written examination. 54. The first ofthese competitive examination processes involved the administration of a written examination by Defendant Jacksonville on or about May 5, 2005, and the JFRD used the eligibility list that was generated therefrom from May 2005 until May 2008. The second of these competitive examination processes involved the administration ofa written examination by Defendant Jacksonville on or about May 19,2008, and the JFRD used the eligibility list that was generated therefrom from May 2008 until May 2011. The third of these competitive examination processes involved the administration of a written examination by Defendant Jacksonville on or about June 30, 20 II, and the JFRD used the eligibility list that was generated therefrom since July 2011. 55. The 2005 and 2008 Engineer examinations were developed by the same private firm that was hired by Defendant Jacksonville. The 2011 examination was developed by a different private finn that was hired by Defendant Jacksonville.
9

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 10 of 16 PageID 10
56. Jacksonville promoted 246 candidates to the position of Engineer based on the 2005, 2008, and 2011 Engineer examinations, only twelve of whom are black.
57. Jacksonville promoted 126 candidates to the position of Engineer based on the 2005 Engineer examination, only six of whom are black.
58. Jacksonville promoted 91 candidates to the position of Engineer based on the 2008 Engineer examination, only five of whom are black.
59. Jacksonville promoted 29 candidates to the position of Engineer based on the 2011 Engineer examination, only one of whom is black.
60. The pass rate for black candidates who took the 2005 Engineer examination was statistically significantly lower than the pass rate of white candidates.
61. The pass rate for black candidates who took the 2008 Engineer examina~on, was statistically significantly lower than the pass rate of white candidates.
62. The pass rate for black candidates who took either the 2005 or the 2008 Engineer examinations was statistically significantly lower than the pass rate of white candidates when the results of the two examinations are considered together.
63. The pass rate for black candidates who took the 2011 Engineer examination was statistically significantly lower than the pass rate of white candidates.
64. The promotion rate for black candidates who took the 2005 Engineer examination was statistically significantly lower than the promotion rate of white candidates.
65. The promotion rate for black candidates who took the 2008 Engineer examination was statistically significantly lower than the promotion rate of white candidates.
10

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 11 of 16 PageID 11
66. The promotion rate for black candidates who took either the 2005 or the 2008 Engineer examinations was statistically significantly lower than the promotion rate of white candidates when the results of the two examinations are considered together.
67. The promotion rate of black candidates who took the 2011 Engineer examination was statistically significantly lower than the promotion rate of white candidates.
68. Among those candidates who passed the 2005 Engineer examination, the promotion rate of black candidates was statistically significantly lower than the promotion rate of white candidates.
69. Among those candidates who passed the 2008 Engineer examination, the promotion rate of black candidates was statistically significantly lower than the promotion rate of white candidates
70. Among those candidates who passed either the 2005 or the 2008 Engineer examination, the promotion rate of black candidates was statistically significantly lower than the promotion rate of white candidates when the results ofthe two examinations are considered together.
71. Among those candidates who passed the Engineer examination in 2011, the promotion rate of black candidates is statistically significantly lower than the promotion rate of white candidates.
72. Among those candidates who passed the Engineer examination in 2005, black candidates ranked statistically significantly lower than white candidates on the eligibility list.
73. Among those candidates who passed the Engineer examination in 2008, black candidates ranked statistically significantly lower than white candidates on the eligibility list.
11

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 12 of 16 PageID 12
74. Black candidates who passed the 2005 or the 2008' Engineer examination were ranked statistically significantly lower on the eligibility list than white candidates when the results of the examinations are considered together.
75. Among those candidates who passed the 2011 Engineer examination, black candidates ranked statistically significantly lower than white candidates on the eligibility list.
THE UNITED STATES' PATIERN OR PRACTICE CLAIM PURSUANT TO § 707 OF mLE VII
76. Plaintiff United States realleges Paragraphs 1 through 75, supra, as if fully set forth herein.
77. Defendant Jacksonville's use ofthc of the 2006 and 2009 written examinations for the position of District Chief (Suppression); 2004 and 2008 written examinations for the position of Captain (Suppression); 2004, 2007, and 20~ 1 written examinations for the position of Lieutenant (Suppression); and 2005, 2008, and 2011 written examinations for the position of Engineer result in disparate impact upon black candidates, is not job related for the positions in question and not consistent with business necessity, and otherwise does not meet the requirements of Section 703(k) ofTitle VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(k}.
78. Defendant Jacksonville has pursued and continues to pursue policies and practices that discriminate against blacks and that deprive or tend to deprive blacks of employment opportunities because of their race, in violation of Section 707 ofTitle VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-6. Defendant Jacksonville has implemented these policies and practices, among other ways, by:
a. failing or refusing to appoint black candidates to the ranks of District Chief (Suppression), Captain (Suppression), Lieutenant (Suppression), and Engineer on the same basis as white candidates;
]2

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 13 of 16 PageID 13
b. using, in the screening and selection ofcandidates for appointment to the ranks of District Chief (Suppression), Captain (Suppression), Lieutenant (Suppression), and Engineer, through its competitive examination process, written examinations as pass/fail screening devices, where such use of the written examinations results in disparate impact upon black candidates, is not job related for the positions in question and consistent with business necessity and does not otherwise meet the requirements of Section 703(k) ofTitle VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(k);
c. rank-order processing of candidates, in the screening and selection of candidates for appointment to the ranks of District Chief(Suppression), Captain (Suppression), Lieutenant (Suppression), and Engineer, through its competitive examination process, which results in disparate impact upon blacks, is not job related for the positions in question and consistent with business necessity and does nol otherwise meet the requirements ofScction 703(k) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(k);
d. failing or refusing to take appropriate action to correct the present effects of its discriminatory policies and practices; and
e. failing or refusing to "make whole" those black candidates for promotion to the ranks of Captain (Suppression), Lieutenant (Suppression), and Engineer who have been harmed by its unlawful use of its written examinations.
79. In accordance with Section 707 ofTitle VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-6, the United States, through the Department of Justice, has conducted an investigation of the policies and practices of Defendant Jacksonville with respect to itc; screening and selection of JFRD candidates for promotion to the ranks of District Chief (Suppression), Captain (Suppression), Lieutenant (Suppression), and Enginecr as such practiccs affeet black candidates, has notified Defendant
13

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 14 of 16 PageID 14
Jacksonville of that investigation and ofthc United States' determination that the policies and practices described in Paragraphs 1 through 75, supra, are unlawful.
80. All conditions precedent to the filing of suit have been performed or have oecurred. 81. The policies and practices of Defendant Jacksonville described in paragraphs 1 through 75, supra, constitute a patt~rn or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment by blacks of their right to equal employment opportunities without discrimination based upon race, in violation of Section 707 of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-6. This pattern or practice is of such a nature as to deny the full exercise of the rights secured by Title VII. Unless restrained by order of this Court, Defendant Jacksonville will continue to pursue policies and practices that are the same as or similar to those alleged in this Complaint. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff United States prays for an order enjoining Defendant Jacksonville, its officers, agents, employees, successors and all persons in active concert or participation with them, from engaging in discriminatory employment practices against blacks on the basis of race, and specifically from: a. failing or refusing to appoint black candidates to the ranks of District Chief
(Suppression), Captain (Suppression), Lieutenant (Suppression), and Engineer on the same basis as white candidates; b. using, in the screening and selection of candidates for appointment to the ranks of District Chief (Suppression), Captain (Suppression), Lieutenant (Suppression), and Engineer, written examinations as pass/fail screening devices, where such use of the written examinations results in disparate impact upon blacks, is not job related for the positions in question and consistent with business necessity and
14

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 15 of 16 PageID 15
does not otherwise meet the requirements of Section 703(k) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(k); c. rank-order processing of candidates, in the screening and selection of candidates for appointment to the ranks ofDistrict Chief (Suppression), Captain (Suppression), Lieutenant (Suppression), and Engineer through its examination process, based on the candidates' written examination scores, adjusted for seniority and veterans' preference, where such use of candidates' written examination scores results in disparate impact upon blacks, is not job related for the positions in question and consistent with business necessity and does not otherwise meet the requirements of Section 703(k) ofTitle VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000c-2(k); d. failing or refusing to take appropriate action to correct the present effects of its discriminatory policies and practices; e. failing or refusing to "make whole" those black candidates for promotion to the ranks of Captain (Suppression), Lieutenant (Suppression), and Engineer who have been hanned by thc unlawful use of its written examinations including, but not limited to, failing or refusing to provide promotions, back pay, and retroactive seniority; and f. failing or refusing to take other appropriate non-discriminatory measures to overcome the effects of its discriminatory policies and practices.
15

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 16 of 16 PageID 16

Plaintiff United States prays for such additional relief as justice may requiret together

with its costs and disbursements in this action.

ROBERT E. OtNEILL

THOMAS E. PEREZ

U.S. Attorney

Assistant Attorney General

E. KENNETH STEGEBY

~w.ar Civil ~ViSion
DELORA

No. 414320)

Assistant U.S. Attorney

Chief

USO No. 112

Employment Litigation Section

YOHANCE A. PErrIS
Florida BarNo. 021216 400 N. Tampa Slt Suite 3200

~~
~ J~

TampBt Florida 33602 Telephone: (813) 274-6000

S~TEJANl(DCBar No. 456150)

Facsimile: (813) 274-6200

Special Litigation

el ..

Email: yohance.pettis@usdoj ....ft.,.~".;:;;~

usdoj .gov

Attorneys for Plaintiff United States of America

AY ADELSTEIN (DC BarNo. 396257) Email: jay.d.adelstein@usdoj.gov HECTOR RUIZ (TX Bar. No. 24029814) Email: hector.ruiZ@usdoj.gov Senior Trial Attorneys U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Employment Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Avenuet NW Patrick Henry Buildingt Room 4026 Washingto~ DC 20530 Telephone: (202) 514-3749 Facsimile: (202) 514-1005

16

 
 Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 53 Filed 04/30/13 Page 1 of 19 PageID 523

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, JACKSONVILLE BRANCH,
JACKSONVILLE BROTHERHOOD OF FIREFIGHTERS, A CHAPTER OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF AFRICAN-AMERICAN PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTERS,
DOMINIQUE BARTLEY,
BYRON JACKSON,
CORY MCKINNEY,
EMANUEL PORTER,
ERNEST GLOVER, JR.,
ERVIN YOUNG, JR.,
ESLEY L. BAKER, JR.,
GREGORY NEAL, SR.,
HOWARD SMOTHERS, JR.,
KING ROSEVELT DAVIS, JR.,
ROOSEVELT PRIER, JR.,
MICHAEL HARRIS,
SHARON GOULD,
ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND THE CLASS THEY REPRESENT,

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No: ) 3:12-cv-451-TJC-MCR ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 53 Filed 04/30/13 Page 2 of 19 PageID 524

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

CONSOLIDATED CITY OF JACKSONVILLE,

)

)

Defendant, )

and

)

)

JACKSONVILLE ASSOCIATION OF

)

FIREFIGHTERS, LOCAL 122, INTERNATIONAL

)

ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS,

)

Defendant. )

________________________________________________)

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION

Plaintiff-Intervenors, Jacksonville Branch of the National Association for the

Advancement of Colored People (“NAACP”), Jacksonville Brotherhood of Firefighters, a

Chapter of the International Association of African-American Professional Fire Fighters,

(“JBOF”), Dominique Bartley, Byron Jackson, Cory McKinney, Emanuel Porter, Ernest

Glover, Jr., Ervin Young, Jr., Esley L. Baker, Jr., Gregory Neal, Sr., Howard Smothers,

Jr., King Rosevelt Davis, Jr., Michael Harris, Roosevelt Prier, Jr., Sharon Gould, and the

class they represent allege as follows:

SUMMARY OF CLAIMS

1.

This action is brought on behalf of the above named plaintiffs and a class

of Black firefighters (hereinafter “Plaintiff- Intervenors”) for violations of Title VII of the

Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., (“Title VII”). As set forth more

fully below, the parties allege that Defendant, the Consolidated City of Jacksonville

(“Jacksonville”), through its Fire and Rescue Department (“JFRD”), has used and

continues to use examinations for screening and selecting candidates for promotion to the

2

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 53 Filed 04/30/13 Page 3 of 19 PageID 525

ranks of Engineer, Lieutenant (Suppression), Captain (Suppression), and/or District Chief (Suppression) that have a disparate impact on Black candidates, are not job related or consistent with business necessity for the positions in question, and do not otherwise meet the requirements of Title VII.

JURISDICTION

2.

The Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 1343 (a)(4) as

this claim arose under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, and under §

706 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5, et seq.

PARTIES

3.

Plaintiff-Intervenor NAACP is an organization representing the interests

of minority groups in Jacksonville, Florida. The mission of the NAACP is to eliminate

racial prejudice and to remove racial discrimination through the democratic process. The

NAACP’s members include former and current employees of the JFRD who have been,

and continue to be, subjected to the JFRD’s unlawful discriminatory employment

practices. On July 30, 2008, the NAACP filed a charge of discrimination on its own

behalf, on behalf of its individual members, and on behalf of a class of Black firefighters

who have been, and continue to be, harmed by the Fire Department’s discriminatory

practices. On August 3, 2012, the NAACP received a right to sue letter from the

Department of Justice (“DOJ”).

4.

Plaintiff-Intervenor JBOF is an organization representing the interests of

minority firefighters in Jacksonville. The objectives of the Brotherhood include

encouraging Blacks to consider a career in firefighting, ensuring a fair and equitable

3

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 53 Filed 04/30/13 Page 4 of 19 PageID 526

working environment for minority firefighters, and advancing Blacks to the upper ranks

of the JFRD. The JBOF’s members include current and former employees of the JFRD

who have been, and continue to be, subjected to unlawful discriminatory employment

practices. On July 30, 2008, the JBOF filed a charge of discrimination on its own behalf,

on behalf of its individual members, and on behalf of a class of Black firefighters who

have been, and continue to be, harmed by the Fire Department’s discriminatory practices.

The JBOF has requested a right to sue but has not yet obtained one.

5.

Dominique Bartley is a Black female firefighter with the JFRD. From

2001-2009, Bartley was a dispatcher with JFRD. In February 2009, Bartlett was hired as

a firefighter with the department. In June 20011, she sat for the written examination for

promotion from firefighter to engineer. She received a score of 90 on the examination

and a total adjusted score of 91.183, which placed her at number 214 on the eligibility

list. Because of her low ranking on the list, it is extremely unlikely that she will be

promoted to engineer before the list expires.

6.

Byron Jackson is a Black male firefighter who commenced employment

with the JFRD in 2000. In 2007 and again in 2011, Jackson sat for the examination for

promotion from engineer to lieutenant. Jackson passed the exam in 2007 but had not been

promoted off the rank order list at the time when the list expired. Jackson passed the

exam in 2011 but to date has not been promoted off the rank order list.

7.

Emanuel Porter is a Black male who commenced employment with JFRD

in 1990. Porter is presently a lieutenant and sat for the 2008 captain’s exam. He failed to

reach the cut-off score of 70 and was not promoted to captain.

4

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 53 Filed 04/30/13 Page 5 of 19 PageID 527

8.

Ernest Glover, Jr. is a Black male who commenced employment with

JFRD in 1987. Glover is presently a captain with JFRD. In 2006, he sat for and passed

the district chief exam. He was ranked number 14 on the list and was not promoted

before the list expired. Glover took and passed the district chief exam again in 2009. He

was ranked number 11 on the list and was not promoted before the list expired.

9.

Ervin Young, Jr. is a Black male who commenced employment with JFRD

in 2003. He sat for the engineer exam in 2003, 2008, and 2011. He passed the exam each

time but failed to get promoted in 2003 and 2008 before the list expired. He is ranked

175th on the list following the 2011 exam.

10. Esley L. Baker, Jr. is a Black male who commenced employment with

JFRD in 1989. He is presently an engineer and sat for the 2007 lieutenant’s exam. He

passed the exam but was not promoted before the list expired.

11. Gregory Neal, Sr. is a Black male who commenced employment with

JFRD in 1988. He is presently an engineer. He sat for the 2005 engineer exam which he

passed but he was not promoted off the eligibility before the list expired. He sat for the

2004 lieutenant’s exam which he also passed, but again, he was not promoted off the list

before it expired.

12. Howard Smothers, Jr. is a Black male who commenced employment with

JFRD in 2005. He sat for the engineer exam in 2008 and 2011. He passed the exam both

times but failed to be promoted in 2008 before the eligibility list expired and has not been

promoted off the 2011 eligibility list to date.

5

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 53 Filed 04/30/13 Page 6 of 19 PageID 528

13. King Rosevelt Davis, Jr. is a Black male who commenced employment

with JFRD in 1991. He presently holds the rank of lieutenant with JFRD and sat for the

2008 captain exam. He passed the exam but had not been promoted as of the time the

eligibility list expired.

14. Michael Harris is a Black male who commenced employment with JFRD

in 2009. He sat for the 2011 engineer exam and failed to reach the cut-off score of 70.

15. Roosevelt Prier, Jr. is a Black male who commenced employment with

JFRD in 1988. He is presently a captain with JFRD. He sat for the 2006 and 2009 District

Chief exam. He passed both times but was not promoted off the eligibility lists before

they expired.

16. Sharon Gould is a Black female who commenced employment with JFRD

in 2005. She sat for the 2008 and 2011 Engineer exam and passed both times. She was

not promoted in 2008 before the eligibility list expired and has not been promoted off the

2011 list.

17.

A class of firefighters defined as all present or past Black candidates for

promotion to Engineer, Lieutenant (Suppression), Captain (Suppression), and/or District

Chief (Suppression) from July 30, 2006 to the present.

18. Defendant Jacksonville is a municipal government and political

subdivision created pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida and is located in this

judicial district.

19. Defendant Jacksonville is a person within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §

2000e(a) and an employer within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b).

6

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 53 Filed 04/30/13 Page 7 of 19 PageID 529
20. Defendant Jacksonville maintains a fire department, Jacksonville Fire and Rescue Department (“JFRD”), which consists of six major divisions: Rescue, Operations/Suppression, Fire Prevention, Emergency Preparedness, Training, and Administrative Services, and which employs uniformed firefighters in classifications including District Chief, Captain, Lieutenant, and Engineer.
21. JFRD employs more than 1,200 uniformed firefighters in all ranks. 22. Defendant Jacksonville Association of Firefighters, Local 122, IAFF, an affiliated and/or chartered Local with the International Association of Firefighters (“Union”), represents the firefighters holding the ranks of District Chief (Suppression), Captain (Suppression), Lieutenant (Suppression), and Engineer employed by Defendant Jacksonville and is named as a party pursuant to Rule 19(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure solely because its joinder is necessary for complete relief. 23. Defendant Union is a person within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(a) and is a labor organization within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(d) and (e). 24. Defendant Union is the exclusive representative of the JFRD firefighters, including firefighters employed by Defendant Jacksonville who hold the ranks including District Chief (Suppression), Captain (Suppression), Lieutenant (Suppression), and Engineer for the purpose of bargaining collectively terms, conditions, and other practices which bear upon screening and promotion.
7

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 53 Filed 04/30/13 Page 8 of 19 PageID 530

BACKGROUND 25. On July 30, 2008, the NAACP and JBOF filed charges with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“the EEOC”) alleging discrimination in hiring, promotion, and terms and conditions of work by the Jacksonville Fire and Rescue Department (“JFRD”). On June 5, 2009, the EEOC issued a Letter of Determination finding that the JFRD engaged in the alleged discrimination and ordered the charge to the conciliation stage. On July 3, 2009, attorneys in another civil action before this Court, Coffey v. Braddy, Case No. 3:71-cv-00044, filed an emergency motion against the City of Jacksonville asking the Court to stay all hiring and promotion procedures within the JFRD. (Doc. No. 6) The Court denied the motion, but ordered the parties to enter into mediation before Senior United States District Judge Harvey E. Schlesinger. (Doc. No. 88) The NAACP, the JBOF1, and the EEOC agreed to stay the EEOC conciliation process in order to participate in the mediation. The Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division (“DOJ”) also participated in the mediation sessions prior to initiating the present action. 26. The mediation efforts have continued for almost three years and the claims of discrimination have not been resolved. As a result of the failure to reach agreement on the promotion claims and based on its investigation of the City’s promotion practices, the DOJ filed the present action on April 23, 2012, alleging a pattern or practice of race

1

The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Dickstein Shapiro, LLC,

and The Law Office of Kirsten Doolittle, P.A. ceased representation of JBOF because of

a conflict of interest on approximately December 15, 2011. The conflict of interest has

been resolved and Kirsten Doolittle and the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil rights Under

Law have resumed representation of JBOF as of August 14, 2012.

8

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 53 Filed 04/30/13 Page 9 of 19 PageID 531
discrimination in promotions in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e. The allegations in the DOJ complaint are substantially the same allegations that were the subject of the 3 year mediation efforts in which Plaintiff Interveners’ NAACP and JBOF participated.
CLASS DEFINITION 27. Plaintiff- Intervenors bring this case as a class action under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23 (a)(2) and (b)(2), on behalf of the following class:
All present and former Black candidates for promotion to Engineer, Lieutenant (Suppression), Captain (Suppression), and/or District Chief (Suppression) from July 30, 2006 to the present.
STATEMENT OF THE CLAIM 28. Defendant Jacksonville, through the JFRD, has maintained and continues to maintain selection procedures by which candidates for promotion to the positions of District Chief (Suppression), Captain (Suppression), Lieutenant (Suppression), and Engineer are screened for promotion. 29. As part of its promotion process for the positions of District Chief (Suppression), Captain (Suppression), Lieutenant (Suppression), and Engineer, Defendant, through the JRFD, had administered and continues to administer, either by itself or through a contractor, written examinations to JFRD candidates. 30. Defendant Jacksonville, through the JFRD, used and continues to use written examinations both to establish a minimum score to be eligible for promotion and to rank-order eligible candidates for selection for promotions.
9

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 53 Filed 04/30/13 Page 10 of 19 PageID 532
31. Defendant Jacksonville, through the JFRD, used and continues to use examinations as a screening device pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement with Defendant Union. As such, only candidates who scored 70% or higher on the written examinations are eligible for consideration for promotion.
32. JFRD also used and continues to use the results of written examinations as the most important element of the score used in the rank order selection process for promotions. As such, JFRD places candidates who pass written promotional examinations for a particular rank within a division on eligibility lists in descending rank order based on their written examination scores, adjusted to reflect applicable additional seniority and veteran preference points.
33. When vacancies occur, JFRD candidates for a particular rank within a division are selected in strict rank order as their names appear on the eligibility lists. Because of the rank order processing, only those individuals who secured a high score on the written examinations are promoted.
34. Since 2004, Defendant Jacksonville, through the JFRD, has used competitive examination processes in the screening and selection of candidates for promotion to the ranks of District Chief (Suppression), Captain (Suppression), Lieutenant (Suppression), and Engineer. Each competitive process has involved the administration of written examinations to JFRD candidates.
35. In 2006 and 2009, Black candidates who passed the District Chief (Suppression) examination were ranked statistically significantly lower on the eligibility lists than white candidates.
10

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 53 Filed 04/30/13 Page 11 of 19 PageID 533
36. The pass rate for Black candidates who took the 2004 and 2008 Captain (Suppression) examination was statistically significantly lower than the pass rates of white candidates.
37. The promotion rates for Black candidates who took the 2004 and 2008 Captain (Suppression) examinations were statistically significantly lower than the promotion rate of white candidates.
38. Black candidates who passed the Captain (Suppression) examination in 2004 or 2008 were ranked statistically significantly lower on the eligibility list than white candidates.
39. The pass rate for Black candidates who took the 2004, 2007, and 2011 Lieutenant (Suppression) examination was statistically significantly lower than the pass rate of white candidates.
40. The promotion rates for Black candidates who took the 2004 and 2007 Lieutenant (Suppression) examinations were statistically significantly lower than the promotion rate of white candidates.
41. Black candidates who passed the Lieutenant (Suppression) examination in 2004, 2007, or 2011 were ranked statistically significantly lower on the eligibility list than white candidates.
42. The pass rate for Black candidates who took the 2005, 2008, or 2011 Engineer examination was statistically significantly lower than the pass rates of white candidates.
11

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 53 Filed 04/30/13 Page 12 of 19 PageID 534
43. The promotion rates for Black candidates who took the 2005, 2008, or 2011 Engineer examination were statistically significantly lower than the promotion rate of white candidates.
44. Among those candidates who passed either the 2005, 2008, or 2011 Engineer examination, Black candidates ranked statistically significantly lower than white candidates on the eligibility list.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 45. The Class includes all Black candidates for promotion to Engineer, Lieutenant (Suppression), Captain (Suppression), and/or District Chief (Suppression) from July 30, 2006 to the present. The individual Plaintiff-Interveners are all members of the Class, and both the JBOF and NAACP’s memberships include members of the Class. 46. The members of the Class are so numerous that joinder of all of them is impracticable. 47. There are questions of law and fact common to the Class and these questions predominate over any questions affecting only individual members. Common questions include but are not limited to: (1) whether JFRD’s policy and practice of using written examinations, with cut-off scores of 70%, to establish eligibility for promotion to Engineer, Lieutenant (Suppression), Captain (Suppression), and/or District Chief (Suppression) had and continues to have a disparate impact on Black firefighters; (2) whether JFRD’s use of rank order promotion to Engineer, Lieutenant (Suppression), Captain (Suppression), and/or District Chief (Suppression) from an eligibility list had and continues to have a disparate impact on Black firefighters; (3) whether less
12

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 53 Filed 04/30/13 Page 13 of 19 PageID 535
discriminatory policies exist that would meet Defendant’s legitimate needs; and (4) what equitable and injunctive relief for the Class is warranted.
48. Plaintiff-Intervenors’ claims are typical of the claims of the Class. Each of the individual named Plaintiff-Intervenors have taken one or more of the challenged exams and each has either been screened out of consideration for promotion as a result of the examination or has failed to be promoted because they ranked lower on the eligibility list than white candidates. All of these claims are shared by members of the class.
49. The JBOF and the NAACP include within their membership Black firefighters who have taken one or more written examinations for promotion to Engineer, Lieutenant (Suppression), Captain (Suppression), and/or District Chief (Suppression), and have either been screened out of consideration for promotion as a result of the examination or have been ranked lower on the eligibility list than white candidates. All of these claims are shared by members of the class.
50. Plaintiff-Intervenors will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the members of the Class. Plaintiff-Intervenors have no conflict with one another or any class member. Plaintiff-Intervenors are committed to the goal of having the JFRD revise its promotion policies and practices to eliminate the discrimination these policies and practices have on Black applicants for promotion.
51. Plaintiff-Intervenors have retained counsel competent and experienced in complex class actions and employment discrimination litigation.
52. Class certification is appropriate pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) because Defendants have acted and/or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to
13

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 53 Filed 04/30/13 Page 14 of 19 PageID 536
the Class, making appropriate declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to PlaintiffIntervenors and the Class as a whole. The Class members are entitled to injunctive relief to end Defendants’ common, uniform, unfair, and discriminatory policies and practices.
CLAIM FOR RELIEF 53. Plaintiff-Intervenors reallege Paragraphs 1 through 52 supra, as if fully set forth herein. 54. Defendant Jacksonville has pursued employment practices that result in a disparate impact on Black candidates, are not job related for the positions in question and are not consistent with business necessity, and otherwise do not meet the requirements of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-et.seq. Defendant Jacksonville’s discriminatory practices include but are not limited to:
a. using minimum cut-off scores on written examinations as screening devices in the screening and selection of candidates for appointment to the ranks of District Chief (Suppression), Captain (Suppression), Lieutenant (Suppression), and Engineer, where such use of the written examinations results in a disparate impact on Black candidates, is not job related for the positions in question or consistent with business necessity and does not otherwise meet the requirements of Section 703(k) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C § 2000e-2(k); and
b. rank-order processing of candidates, in the screening and selection of candidates for appointment to the ranks of District Chief (Suppression), Captain (Suppression), Lieutenant (Suppression), and Engineer, through
14

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 53 Filed 04/30/13 Page 15 of 19 PageID 537
its competitive examination process, which results in a disparate impact on Blacks, is not job related for the positions in question and consistent with business necessity and does not otherwise meet the requirements of Section 703(k) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C § 2000e-2(k). 55. Defendant Jacksonville has pursued a pattern and practice of discrimination against Blacks with respect to promotion, compensation, terms, or conditions, or privileges of employment, because of their race, in violation of Section 703 of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e. Defendant Jacksonville has implemented these employment practices, among other ways, by: a. failing or refusing to appoint Black candidates to the ranks of District Chief (Suppression), Captain (Suppression), Lieutenant (Suppression), and Engineer on the same basis as white candidates; b. failing or refusing to take appropriate action to correct the present effects of its discriminatory employment practices; and c. failing or refusing to “make whole” those Black candidates for promotion to the ranks of Captain (Suppression), Lieutenant (Suppression), and Engineer who have been harmed by its unlawful use of its written examinations. 56. The practices of Defendant Jacksonville described in paragraphs 1 through 52, supra, constitute employment practices that discriminate against Blacks with respect to promotion, compensation, terms, or conditions, or privileges of employment, because of their race; and deprive or tend to deprive Blacks of employment opportunities because
15

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 53 Filed 04/30/13 Page 16 of 19 PageID 538

of their race, in violation of Section 703 of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e. These practices are of such a nature as to deny the full exercise of the rights secured by Title VII. Unless restrained by order of this Court, Defendant Jacksonville will continue to pursue practices that are the same or similar to those alleged in this Complaint.

Wherefore, Plaintiff-Intervenors pray for an order enjoining Defendant

Jacksonville, its officers, agents, employees, successors and all persons in active concert

or participation with them, from engaging in discriminatory employment practices

against Blacks on the basis of race, and specifically from:

a.

failing or refusing to appoint Black candidates to the ranks of District

Chief (Suppression), Captain (Suppression), Lieutenant (Suppression), and

Engineer on the same basis as white candidates;

b. using minimum cut-off scores on written examinations as screening

devices in the screening and selection of candidates for appointment to the

ranks of District Chief (Suppression), Captain (Suppression), Lieutenant

(Suppression), and Engineer, where such use of the written examinations

results in disparate impact upon Blacks, is not job related for the position

in question and consistent with business necessity and does not otherwise

meet the requirements of Section 703(k) of Title VII, § 2000e-2(k);

c. rank-order processing of candidates, in the screening and selection of

candidates for appointment to the ranks of District Chief (Suppression),

Captain (Suppression), Lieutenant (Suppression), and Engineer through its

examination process, based on the candidates’ written examination scores,

16

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 53 Filed 04/30/13 Page 17 of 19 PageID 539
adjusted for seniority and veterans’ preference, where such use of candidates’ written examination scores results in disparate impact upon Blacks, is not job-related for the positions in question and consistent with business necessity and does not otherwise meet the requirements of Section 703(k) of Title VII, § 2000e-2(k); d. failing or refusing to take appropriate action to correct the present effects of its discriminatory practices; e. failing or refusing to “make whole” those Black candidates for promotion to the ranks of Captain (Suppression), Lieutenant (Suppression), and Engineer, including the named Plaintiff-Intervenors who have been harmed by the unlawful use of its written examinations including, but not limited to, failing or refusing to provide promotions, back pay, and retroactive seniority; g. failing or refusing to take other appropriate non-discriminatory measures to overcome the effects of its discriminatory practices.
17

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 53 Filed 04/30/13 Page 18 of 19 PageID 540

Plaintiff-Intervenors pray for such additional relief as justice may require, together with its costs and disbursements in this action.

Dated: April 30, 2013

Respectfully submitted, The Law Office of Kirsten Doolittle, P.A.

s/Kirsten Doolittle_______________ KIRSTEN DOOLITTLE
The Elks Building 207 North Laura Street, Suite 240 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Telephone: (904) 551-7775 Facsimile: (813) 274-6200 Email: kd@kdlawoffice.com
Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law

s/Jane Dolkart__________________ JANE DOLKART
1401 New York Avenue, NW Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 662-8391 Facsimile: (202) 783-0857 Email: jdolkart@lawyerscommittee.org
RAY MCCLAIN 1401 New York Avenue, NW Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 662-8342 Facsimile: (202) 783-0857 Email: rmcclain@lawyerscommittee.org
Counsel for Intervenors

18

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 53 Filed 04/30/13 Page 19 of 19 PageID 541 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 30th day of April, 2013, I filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system which will automatically send a notice to all counsel of record.
s/Kirsten Doolittle_______________ KIRSTEN DOOLITTLE
19

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff, vs.
CONSOLIDATED CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 3:12-cv-451-J-32MCR

ORDER The Department of Justice filed this laws uit in April 2012 alleging that the process used by the City of Jacksonville to promote certani ranks of firefightersdiscriminates against African-Americans. Among the allegations, the DOJ claims that the 2004 and 2008 testing regimes us ed to promote fire suppression c aptains were discriminatory. When the City scheduled a new promotions test for fire suppression captains for November 18, 2013, the DOJ filed the motion for tempoar ry restraining order now before the Court, seeking an Order that would require the City to set aside fiveslots from the next roundof promotions following the November 18, 2013 tes t for those fire suppression captain candidates allegedly discriminated against on the 2004 and 2008 test administrations. After the motion was filed, ht e City advised that the resulst of the November 18, 2013 exam would not be certified earlier than January 6, 2014, whereupon the Court converted the motion to one for preliminary injunction, the par ties briefed the issues and filed supporting materials (including preliminary expetr reports), and the Coutr held a lengthy non-

evidentiary hearing on December 3, 2013, t he transcript of whic h is incorporated by reference. See Docs. 73-79, 82, 84, 85, 89, 92, 93, 98, 101.
To secur e a preliminary injunction, the movant is required to establish “(1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits ; (2) that irreparable harm will be suffered if the relief is not granted; (3) that the threatened injury outweighs the harm the relief would inflict on t he non-movant; and (4) that entry of the relief would serve the public interest.” Schiavo ex rel. Schindler v. Schiavo , 403 F.3d 1223, 1225-26 (11t h Cir. 2005) (citations omitted). “[A] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy not to be granted until the movant clearly carries the burden of persuasion as to [each of these] four prerequisites.” Northeastern Fla.Chapter of Ass’n of General Contractors of America v. City of Jacksonville, Fla., 896 F.2d 1283, 1285 (11th Ci.r 1990) (quotation andcitations omitted). Additionally, “[a]lthough federal courts hav e broad equitable powers to remedy proven constitutional violations, injunctive relief must be tailored to fit the nature and extent of the established violation.” Gibson v. Firestone, 741 F.2d 1268, 1273 (11th Cir. 1984) (citation omitted).
Upon review, the Court finds the DOJ has not proven that a pr eliminary injunction should issue which would prevent the City from making probationary and then permanent fire suppression captain appointments off the certified list. First, the ill-defined remedy the DOJ seeks through this injunction (preservingfive slots for test-takers of the 2004 and 2008 fire suppression c aptains exams) does not su fficiently correlate with the alleged injury to those test-takers and does not warrant the major disruption t o t he F ire Department’s promotional processes, the effects of which would likely radiate throughout the department
2

for years. In balancing t hese harms, the C ourt would have to be convinced that such a remedy was truly its only recourse. It is not. If the DOJ proves its case at summary judgment or trial, the Fire Depart ment’s ent ire promotional process would be subject to reexamination and the Court will not hesitate to exercise it s broad equitable powers in fashioning appropriate relief. Thus, enjoining thepromotion process currently in place is not the only way to make victims of proven past discrimination whole.
Moreover, to the same point, the alleged vicitms the DOJ attempts to protect through this injunction are unidentified test-takers who, to the extent they have been discriminated against, presumably suffered their injuries the day others were pr omoted instead of them back in 2004 and 2008. While the DOJ explains the delay by stating that the evidentiary proof to substantiate these claims is only now available from the discovery gathered in this case, the passage of time has neverthele ss diminished the urgency which or dinarily accompanies preliminary injunctive relief. Entering an injunction at this point would displace persons who have already spentsubstantial resources to study for and pass the 2013 exam, having had no reason to expect that test takers from up to nine years earlier (who may or may not even work for the Fire Department atthis point and whose present qualifications are unknown) would now stake a claim to their newly earned positions. Furthermore, the actual implementation of the proposed injunction is unworkable in that it would require numerous other modific ations to the Fire Department ’s promotion procedures, including those embodied in its collective bargai ning agreement with the Union. While that alone is not a basis upon which the Court would deny the relief if otherwise warranted, the DOJ’s plan to simply leave it to the City to figure out a means to make it work is untenable, especially in
3

the short time between the filing of the motion and the upcoming promotions. Second, proving the DOJ’s discrimination case is not a simple matter. This complex
case is at the beginning stages of litigation in accordance with a case schedule the parties urged the Court to adopt and which, without any deal y, is not expected to be trial ready until 2016. The reports of the parties’ experts (who have not yet been deposed) are preliminary as is the information upon which they rely. At this stage, not surpris ingly, the experts disagree as to whether the 2004 and 2008 tests had an adverse racial impact, whether the tests were validated, whether the City will s how a business necessity, whether there a re alternative promotion methods which would have less of an adverse impact on AfricanAmericans, and whether the other side’s experts are relying on faulty assumptions. The preliminary materials submitted by the defendants’ experts, Dr . Barrett and Dr. MorrelSamuels, create a sufficient ju xtaposition with the reports of the DOJ’s experts to require further development and analysis. Thus, withoutat all prejudging what the evidence will be at summary judgment or trial, the questions at this preliminary stage are significant enough such that it is simply toosoon to say that the DOJ has asubstantial likelihood of success on the merits.
Accordingly, because the Court finds t he DOJ cannot establish all the required elements to secure a preliminary injunction, the motion (Doc. 73) is denied.
4

DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida this 27th day of December, 2013. s. Copies: counsel of record
5

 
 Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 1 of 109 PageID 10119

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

United States of America,

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

Jacksonville Brotherhood of Fire Fighters,)

Jacksonville Branch of NAACP, et al., )

Plaintiff Intervenors,

)

)

v.

)

)

Consolidated City of Jacksonville,

)

Jacksonville Association of Fire Fighters, )

Local 122, IAFF,

)

Defendants.

)

___________________________________ )

Case No. 3:12-cv-451-J-32MCR

Rufus Smith, et al.,

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

Consolidated City of Jacksonville,

)

Jacksonville Association of Fire Fighters, )

Local 122, IAFF,

)

Defendants.

)

__________________________________ )

Equal Employment Opportunity

)

Commission,

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

Jacksonville Association of Fire Fighters, )

Local 122, IAFF,

)

Defendant.

)

__________________________________ )

Case No. 3:11-cv-345-J-32MCR Case No. 3:12-cv-491-J-32MCR

CONSENT DECREE

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 2 of 109 PageID 10120
This Consent Decree addresses three lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division. United States’ Allegations
United States of America v. Consolidated City of Jacksonville (“City”) and Jacksonville Association of Fire Fighters, Local 122, International Association of Fire Fighters (“Union”), Case No.: 3:12-cv-451-J-32MCR, was filed by the United States on April 23, 2012, alleging that the City, through its Fire and Rescue Department, engaged in a pattern or practice of unintentional discrimination by administering, between 2004-2011, ten (10) promotion examinations that had a disparate impact on African-American candidates. Specifically, the United States alleges that: (1) the City’s rank-order use of final scores (written examination score with applicable points for seniority and veterans’ preference) in two examinations1; and (2) the City’s pass/fail and rank-order use of examination scores in eight (8) other examinations2 to make promotions to specific ranks resulted in a statistically significant disparate impact upon African Americans. The United States alleges that the City’s pass/fail use of the abovereferenced examinations and rank-order use of final scores are not job-related and consistent with business necessity for the positions in question and do not otherwise meet the requirements of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. as amended (“Title VII”). The United States further contends that absent the disparate impact resulting from the City’s pass/fail and rank-order use of the examinations, at least an additional fifty-nine (59) African Americans would have been promoted amongst the four ranks at issue.
1 District Chief (Suppression) examinations (2006 and 2009). 2 Engineer (2005, 2008, and 2011), Lieutenant (Suppression) (2004, 2007, and 2011), and Captain (Suppression) (2004 and 2008).
2

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 3 of 109 PageID 10121
The United States also named the Union as a defendant pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(a) because it believed its joinder was necessary for complete relief. This Court has jurisdiction of this action under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-6 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1343(a)(3) and 1345.
Baker Intervenors’ Allegations On August 6, 2012, Intervenors National Association for the Advancement of Colored
People, Jacksonville Branch (“NAACP”), Jacksonville Brotherhood of Fire Fighters (“JBOF”), and thirteen named individuals (“Baker Intervenors”) who represent an uncertified class defined as “all present or past African-American candidates for promotion to Engineer, Lieutenant (Suppression), Captain (Suppression), and/or District Chief (Suppression) from July 30, 2006 to the present” (“Intervenor Class”), moved to intervene in the United States’ pattern or practice lawsuit, alleging that the City’s pass/fail and rank-order uses of the same examinations cited in the United States’ Complaint resulted in a disparate impact and shortfall, as alleged by the United States, upon the Intervenor Class.
Smith Plaintiffs’ Allegations On April 12, 2011, Case No. 3:11-cv-345-J-32MCR was filed by a group of individual
promotion candidates (“Smith Plaintiffs”), claiming that eight (8) specific JFRD promotion examinations administered by the City between 2006 and 2011 had a disparate impact against African Americans and also constituted disparate treatment against the Smith Plaintiffs, in violation of Title VII and the Florida Civil Rights Act. The Smith Plaintiffs allege claims of racial discrimination against the Union as being responsible for the promotion testing program used by the City. In addition, the Smith Plaintiffs allege interference with the right to contract and other civil rights, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, against the Union. The Court
3

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 4 of 109 PageID 10122 consolidated the Smith case with the United States’ case for the purposes of the overlapping claims. The Smith Plaintiffs’ claims have been split into two complaints. Complaint A addresses the disparate impact claims related to promotion examinations for Engineer (2008 and 2011), Lieutenant (Suppression) (2007 and 2011), Captain (Suppression) (2008), District Chief (Suppression) (2006), and is filed in Case No: 3:12-cv-451-J-32MCR. Complaint B addresses the disparate impact claims in Complaint A against the Union, disparate impact and disparate treatment claims against the City and the Union related to the Captain (Rescue) (2008) and District Chief (Rescue) (2008) examinations, and other disparate treatment claims against the City and the Union, and is filed as 3:11-cv-345-J-32MCR. The Smith Plaintiffs contend that test scores of African-American and racial minority candidates on all challenged promotion examinations were disproportionately ranked near the bottom of the results. The Court stayed Complaint B, and the City and the Union have not been required to answer it. This Consent Decree resolves all claims asserted in Complaints A and B. The Smith Plaintiffs contend that both the City and the Union have committed to complying with the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection, 29 C.F.R. §1607 et seq., and contend that the validity of the promotion process is not consistent with the Uniform Guidelines. The Smith Plaintiffs’ allegations parallel in most respects the allegations in the case brought by the United States. The Court has not addressed the Smith Plaintiffs’ Rescue claims in the June 9, 2015 order (ECF No. 202) and no further pre-trial proceedings will occur if this Consent Decree is approved.
4

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 5 of 109 PageID 10123
EEOC’s Allegations On April 30, 2012, Case No. 3:12-cv-491-J-32MCR was filed by the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), claiming that with respect to the ten (10) examinations cited in the United States’ Complaint, the Union negotiated and advocated for a discriminatory promotion process that resulted in a disparate impact against African Americans. Accordingly, the EEOC alleges that the Union intentionally pursued policies and practices that discriminate against African Americans and that deprive or tend to deprive African Americans of employment opportunities because of their race, in violation of Title VII. The Court stayed the EEOC’s lawsuit pending resolution of the United States’ claims against the City.
The United States, NAACP, JBOF, Baker Intervenors, and the Smith Plaintiffs are hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiffs.”
The Plaintiffs contend that the City’s use of promotion examinations measuring job knowledge on a pass/fail basis and in descending rank order have not been demonstrated, using professionally accepted validation standards, to be valid and are, therefore, neither job-related nor consistent with business necessity and, even if they were job-related and consistent with business necessity, there are alternative candidate assessment procedures capable of producing equal or more valid predictions of future on-the-job performance for the positions at issue while producing less adverse impact upon African-American candidates.
The City’s and Union’s Position The City and the Union dispute the Plaintiffs’ claims and allegations, and deny that they
have violated Title VII. The Defendants rely in part on this court’s findings in Nash v. City of Jacksonville (M.D. Fla. 1995), aff’d, 85 F.3d 643 (11th Cir. 1996), and contend that the promotion process and tests in use at JFRD: (a) did not have disparate impact against African
5

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 6 of 109 PageID 10124
Americans; (b) were content valid, job-related, consistent with the City’s business necessity, or otherwise consistent with the requirements of Title VII; and (c) were previously approved by a federal district court and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. The Defendants also contend that Plaintiffs’ proposed alternatives would not meet the City’s business needs equally well and lessen adverse impact.
Factual Background Subject to the Court’s approval of this Consent Decree, the Parties waive hearings and
findings of fact and conclusions of law on the merits of this case. For purposes of this Consent Decree only, and without any admission of liability by the Defendants, the Parties set forth the following background facts, arguments, and proposed evidence.
The Jacksonville Fire and Rescue Department (“JFRD”) consists of five major divisions: Rescue, Suppression (a/k/a Operations), Fire Prevention, Emergency Preparedness, and Training. The Suppression Division is the largest division, employing approximately 75% of JFRD’s uniformed workforce. JFRD’s command structure consists of the following ranks in ascending order: Fire Fighter, Engineer, Lieutenant, Captain, District Chief, Battalion Chief, Division Chief, and Department Chief. Promotion to the ranks of Engineer, Lieutenant, Captain, and District Chief is accomplished through a written promotion examination, combined with seniority points and veterans’ preference points, as applicable. Above the rank of Engineer, the written promotion examinations are both rank and division specific.
Between 2004 and 2011, JFRD screened and selected candidates for promotion to Engineer, Lieutenant (Suppression), Captain (Suppression), and District Chief (Suppression) by administering and scoring a 100-question multiple choice examination to those applicants who met all other eligibility requirements at the time they signed up to take the examination (i.e., at
6

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 7 of 109 PageID 10125
least 12 months in current rank, no discipline in the last 12 months, all required training and certifications or licenses, and, starting in 2007, various Professional Growth and Development requirements). Questions on the examinations were developed from written materials to which examination takers had access prior to the examinations’ administration. The written materials from which questions were constructed were publicized to examination candidates in the form of a reading list.
In order to pass the written examination and be eligible for promotion consideration, a candidate must have answered 70% of the written questions correctly (after challenges to questions were taken into account). Candidates who scored less than 70% on the written examination were considered to have failed the examination and were not eligible for further promotion consideration. The JFRD awarded applicable seniority points and veterans’ preference points to candidates who passed the examination to arrive at a candidate’s final score. Candidates who achieved a passing score on the examination were placed on eligibility lists in descending rank order based on final scores.
On June 9, 2015, the Court granted partial summary judgment for the United States, the NAACP, JBOF, Baker Intervenors, and Smith Plaintiffs (as to their allegations in Complaint A only) in phase one of the United States’ lawsuit, finding that, “plaintiffs have made the necessary prima facie showing of disparate impact to warrant continuance of the case” with respect to 9 of the 10 examinations challenged in the United States’ complaint. (ECF No. 202 at 3).
Consent Decree The Parties desire that this action be settled by an appropriate Consent Decree in order to
avoid the burden of further protracted litigation, and agree to the jurisdiction of this Court over the Parties and subject matter of this action. The Parties further agree to the entry of this
7

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 8 of 109 PageID 10126
Consent Decree as final and binding between themselves as to the issues raised in the complaints filed in these actions as well as the issues and actions referenced in Paragraph 17.
This settlement, as reflected in this Consent Decree and appendices, is fair, reasonable, adequate, and consistent with federal law. The settlement promotions given to Claimants under this Consent Decree do not exceed Plaintiffs’ estimate of the promotion opportunities allegedly lost by African-American candidates on the examinations at issue as a result of the City’s pass/fail use of the written examinations and rank-order use of final scores, represent a compromise by the Parties, and are remedial relief for identified individuals whom Plaintiffs contend are victims of the employment practices challenged by the Plaintiffs as unlawful. The Defendants contend that the method used by Plaintiffs for estimating the alleged lost promotion opportunities is not the only professionally acceptable method for estimating promotion opportunities, but, for purposes of this settlement, Defendants do not challenge Plaintiffs’ estimate. Further, the relief provided by this Consent Decree does not exceed make-whole relief to the class of Claimants who Plaintiffs contend were alleged victims of the practices challenged by the Plaintiffs. I. DEFINITIONS 1. The “Parties” to this Consent Decree are: (i) the United States; (ii) the Consolidated City of Jacksonville (“City”); (iii) the Jacksonville Association of Fire Fighters, Local 122, International Association of Fire Fighters (“Union”); (iv) Intervenor National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Jacksonville Branch (“NAACP”); (v) Intervenor Jacksonville Brotherhood of Fire Fighters (“JBOF”); (vi) the Baker Intervenors; (vii) the Smith Plaintiffs named in the most recent version of Complaints A and B (“named Smith Plaintiffs”); and (viii) the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”).
8

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 9 of 109 PageID 10127
2. “Claimant” refers to (i) any African-American candidate who sat for one of the following examinations: 2004 Lieutenant (Suppression), 2004 Captain (Suppression), 2005 Engineer, 2006 District Chief (Suppression), 2007 Lieutenant (Suppression), 2008 Engineer, 2008 Captain (Suppression), 2009 District Chief (Suppression), 2011 Engineer, 2011 Lieutenant (Suppression) and who was not promoted from that examination; or (ii) any named Smith Plaintiff who sat for one or more of the “Relevant Promotion Examinations” (defined in Paragraph 10), and who was not promoted from that examination. The individuals described in (i) and (ii) qualify as claimants regardless of whether the person is still employed by the City or was promoted from a subsequent examination. 3. “Final Entry” of the Consent Decree refers to the date that the Court enters the Consent Decree as final in an Order at or after the Fairness Hearing on the Terms of the Consent Decree as set forth in Paragraph 31 of this Consent Decree. 4. “Individual Relief” means Monetary Relief, and/or an offer of Settlement Promotion as defined in this Consent Decree, which a Claimant may receive pursuant to the terms of this Consent Decree. 5. “New Promotion Examinations” means the examinations developed for each Promotion Position pursuant to Paragraphs 76-107. 6. “Settlement Fund” means the four million, nine hundred thousand dollars ($4,900,000) the City will provide pursuant to Paragraph 16 of this Consent Decree. 7. “Promotion Position” means the ranks of Engineer, Lieutenant, Captain, and District Chief in JFRD’s Suppression, Rescue, and/or Prevention Divisions. 8. “Settlement Promotion” means the position to which an eligible Claimant will be promoted pursuant to this Consent Decree (eligibility as determined by Paragraph 37 of this Consent Decree) and represents the rank to which Plaintiffs allege the Claimant would have been
9

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 10 of 109 PageID 10128
promoted based on the Relevant Promotion Examination taken by the Claimant in the absence of the discrimination alleged by the Plaintiffs. If the Claimant took a Relevant Promotion Examination for more than one rank, it is the higher rank to which an eligible Claimant would have been promoted. The position of Captain (Rescue) will be replaced with Lieutenant (Rescue) solely for the purpose of creating a Settlement Promotion, recognizing that Lieutenant (Rescue) is neither a Relevant Promotion Examination nor a Relevant Promotion Position. 9. “Relevant Promotion Position” means the following promotion positions in the JFRD: Engineer, Lieutenant (Suppression), Captain (Suppression), District Chief (Suppression), Captain (Rescue), and District Chief (Rescue). 10. “Relevant Promotion Examination” means each of the following 100-question multiple choice examinations used by the City to select candidates for promotion: 2004 Lieutenant (Suppression), 2004 Captain (Suppression), 2005 Engineer, 2006 District Chief (Suppression), 2007 Lieutenant (Suppression), 2008 Engineer, 2008 Captain (Suppression), 2009 District Chief (Suppression), 2011 Engineer, 2011 Lieutenant (Suppression), 2008 Captain (Rescue), and 2008 District Chief (Rescue). 11. “Reviewing Party(ies)” means experts and counsel for the City and the United States, who will review all Engineer, Suppression, Rescue and Prevention examination materials as specified herein, which materials shall be treated as confidential as set forth in Paragraph 107, for examinations given during the life of the Consent Decree. If, in the process of reviewing any specific examination, a Plaintiff establishes to the Court’s satisfaction that there is an irreconcilable and material disagreement between the United States and other Plaintiffs as to the application of the terms of the Consent Decree to the review of the development of a specific New Promotion Examination, the Reviewing Party(ies) for that examination shall become:
10

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 11 of 109 PageID 10129
a. For any Engineer and Suppression examination: experts and counsel for the City, the Union, the NAACP, and JBOF. Counsel and the expert for the Smith Plaintiffs shall serve as a Reviewing Party for any of these examinations only in the event that no other Plaintiff agrees to serve as a Reviewing Party; and
b. For any Captain (Rescue) or District Chief (Rescue) examination: experts and counsel for the City, the Union, and the Smith Plaintiffs.
12. “Pension Adjustment Group” (“PAG”) are those Claimants who will use a portion of their Monetary Relief to adjust their pension benefit pursuant to a formula agreed to by the parties. 13. “Pension Non-Adjustment Group” (“PNAG”) are those Claimants who will not use a portion of their Monetary Relief to adjust their pension benefit. 14. “Monetary Relief” under this Consent Decree is the amount paid to each qualified Claimant in the PAG or PNAG. 15. “Days” refers to calendar days unless business days are clearly specified. If any deadline referenced in this Consent Decree should fall on a weekend or federal or City of Jacksonville holiday, the deadline shall be extended by two business days. For purposes of this paragraph, a “holiday” shall include any official closure of the offices of any governmental entity because of inclement weather or other unanticipated contingency or government shutdown. II. SCOPE OF THE CONSENT DECREE 16. In exchange for the release detailed in Section III below, the City will:
a. Expend a total sum of $4,900,000.00 to be used as set forth in this Consent Decree;
11

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 12 of 109 PageID 10130
b. Implement New Promotion Examinations for promotions to Engineer, the Suppression Division, the Prevention Division and the Rescue Division in accordance with Paragraphs 76-107; and
c. Create up to forty 40 Settlement Promotion Positions that will be offered to eligible Claimants, as discussed in Paragraphs 108-117 of this Consent Decree.
III. RELEASE 17. In exchange for the relief provided herein, (1) the United States releases the City and Union from any and all of the claims made in its Complaint and any and all other Title VII disparate impact, disparate treatment, or pattern-or-practice claims that could have been made in any legal proceeding related to any JFRD promotion examinations through the Final Entry of this Consent Decree; the United States further agrees to not use Commissioner’s Charge No. 5102008-02364 (against the City) or Charge No. 510-2008-02365 (against the Union) as the jurisdictional basis for filing a lawsuit against the City or Union; (2) the NAACP, JBOF, Baker Intervenors, and Smith Plaintiffs release the City and the Union from any and all legal or administrative claims filed or that could have been filed relating to JFRD promotions (including but not limited to eligibility for examination, promotion examinations, award of seniority points and veterans’ preference points and any discrimination or retaliation claims related thereto) through the Final Entry of this Consent Decree; (3) the Smith Plaintiffs also release the City and Union from all claims made or that could have been made in Complaints A and B through the Final Entry of this Consent Decree; (4) all individual Claimants will release the City and Union upon their signing of the Acceptance of Relief and Release of Claims Form referenced in Paragraphs 51-52; and (5) The EEOC releases the Union from any and all claims made in its Complaint. The EEOC further releases the Union from all other Title VII claims (including but not limited to disparate impact, disparate treatment, or pattern or practice claims) that could have
12

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 13 of 109 PageID 10131
been made in any legal proceeding related to any JFRD promotional examinations or the JFRD promotional process through the date of the entry of this Consent Decree. The EEOC further agrees not to use Commissioner’s Charge No. 510-2008-02365 (against the Union) as the jurisdictional basis for filing a lawsuit against the Union. As of the date of EEOC’s execution of the Consent Decree, there are no other pending charges against the Union. The releases set forth in Paragraph 17 shall become effective on Final Entry of the Consent Decree. IV. FAIRNESS HEARING ON THE TERMS OF THE CONSENT DECREE AND
MOTION FOR DISTRIBUTION OF SETTLEMENT FUNDS A. Provisional Entry of the Consent Decree 18. Upon execution of this Consent Decree, the Plaintiffs shall promptly file a motion for the provisional approval and entry of the Consent Decree by the Court and request that the Court schedule a Fairness Hearing on the Terms of the Consent Decree to allow the Court to determine whether the terms of the Consent Decree are fair, adequate, reasonable, and consistent with federal law. In its motion, the Plaintiffs will also seek and Order approving the use of a Qualified Settlement Fund. Plaintiffs will also file an Unopposed Motion for Distribution. The Plaintiffs will request that the Court provide at least one hundred (100) days’ notice of the date and time set for any Fairness Hearing on the Terms of the Consent Decree and Unopposed Motion for Distribution. 19. At the time the Plaintiffs file the motion for the provisional approval and entry of the Consent Decree by the Court, they shall also provide the City with a list of potential Claimants. 20. The purpose of the Fairness Hearing on the Terms of the Consent Decree and the related notification provisions of the Consent Decree in Paragraphs 22-25 is to provide all persons who may be affected by the terms of the Consent Decree with notice and an opportunity to present objections prior to Final Entry of the Consent Decree, in accordance with Section 703(n) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(n).
13

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 14 of 109 PageID 10132
B. Notice of Settlement and Fairness Hearing to Potential Claimants 21. No later than ninety (90) days prior to the Fairness Hearing on the Terms of the Consent Decree, the City shall provide to the United States the last known email address and mailing address for each potential Claimant identified by Plaintiffs pursuant to Paragraph 19. 22. No later than seventy-five (75) days prior to the Fairness Hearing on the Terms of the Consent Decree, the United States shall send a letter informing each Claimant of the settlement (Appendix 1, Part 1), a copy of a Notice of Settlement and Fairness Hearing (Appendix 1, Part 2), Instructions for Filing an Objection Prior to the Fairness Hearing and a blank Objection to the Entry of the Consent Decree Form (Appendix 1, Part 3) (collectively, “Notice Documents”) in the formats set forth in Appendix 1 via e-mail to the last known e-mail address and via first-class U.S. mail to the last known mailing address of each potential Claimant. The Notice Documents will include instructions on how Claimants may access the Consent Decree through the City’s website. At the same time, the United States shall also send a copy of an Interest-in-Relief Form (Appendix 1, Part 4) to the last known e-mail address and via first-class U.S. mail to the last known mailing address of each potential Claimant. 23. The Interest-in-Relief Form will specify the types of relief available to Claimants, including the availability of Monetary Relief (with or without pension adjustment) and Settlement Promotions. C. Notice of Settlement and Fairness Hearing to Other Interested Parties and General
Public 24. No later than seventy-five (75) days prior to the Fairness Hearing on the Terms of the Consent Decree, the City shall publish the United States’ Notice Documents described in Paragraph 22 in the format set forth in Appendix 2, to each sworn employee of the JFRD, through the City’s Target Solutions system.
14

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 15 of 109 PageID 10133
25. No later than seventy-five (75) days prior to the Fairness Hearing on the Terms of the Consent Decree, the City shall publish on its website and on the JFRD’s website a publiclyaccessible link from which the Notice Documents in the format set forth in Appendix 2 and the Consent Decree can be accessed. This publicly-accessible link and notice shall be published and remain on the websites until the date of the Fairness Hearing on Individual Relief. D. Objections to Entry of the Consent Decree 26. A person who wishes to object to the terms of the Consent Decree may file a written objection in accordance with the requirements set forth in the Notice Documents; specifically, in the Instructions for Filing an Objection Prior to the Fairness Hearing and Objection to the Entry of the Consent Decree Form. 27. Objections shall state the objector’s name, mailing address, telephone number and e-mail address, if any; set forth a specific description of the objector’s basis for objecting; include copies of any documentation supporting the objection; state the name and contact information of the objector’s counsel, if any; and state whether the objector wishes the opportunity to be heard in Court at the Fairness Hearing on the Terms of the Consent Decree. 28. Objections submitted via mail must be postmarked no later than forty (40) days before the Fairness Hearing on the Terms of the Consent Decree. Objections submitted via e-mail must be transmitted electronically no later than forty (40) days before the Fairness Hearing on the Terms of the Consent Decree. Any person who fails to submit a timely objection shall be deemed to have waived any right to object to the terms of the Consent Decree, unless there is good cause, as determined by the Court, for the failure. Within four (4) days of receipt of each timely or untimely objection, the United States will forward a copy of such objection to all Parties.
15

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 16 of 109 PageID 10134
29. No later than seven (7) business days prior to the Fairness Hearing on the Terms of the Consent Decree, Plaintiffs’ counsel shall file with the Court copies of all objections received, and the Parties shall file their responses, if any, to timely objections. Any personally identifiable information other than name (i.e., objector’s address and telephone number) shall be redacted. E. Return of Interest in Relief Forms 30. In order to be eligible for Individual Relief, a Claimant must submit an interest-in-relief form by first class U.S. mail or by email no later than forty (40) days before the Fairness Hearing on the Terms of the Consent Decree. Any person who fails to submit a timely interest-in-relief form shall be deemed to have waived any claim to relief under the Consent Decree, unless there is good cause, as determined by the United States, for the failure. F. Final Entry of the Consent Decree 31. If the Court determines that the terms of this Consent Decree are fair, adequate, reasonable, and consistent with federal law, the Court shall enter the Consent Decree without material modification at or after the Fairness Hearing on the Terms of the Consent Decree. V. SETTLEMENT FUND 32. No later than fifteen (15) days after Final Entry of the Consent Decree, the City shall transfer Two Million, One Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($2,150,000) of the $4,900,000 Settlement Fund to the Qualified Settlement Fund, of which $1,400,000 shall be allocated for attorney’s fees. The remaining $750,000 shall be allocated in the manner designated solely by Plaintiffs as set out in Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Distribution. 33. The remainder of the Settlement Fund ($2,750,000.00) shall be held by the City pending assignment of Claimants to PAG and PNAG, to be dispersed no later than the first quarter of Fiscal Year 2019 pursuant to Paragraphs 60-75. VI. INDIVIDUAL MONETARY RELIEF, PENSION ADJUSTMENT, PROMOTION
RELIEF, AND FAIRNESS HEARING AS TO ALL 16

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 17 of 109 PageID 10135
A. Eligibility for Monetary Relief, Pension Adjustment, and Promotion Relief 34. A Claimant may be eligible for Settlement Promotion and/or Monetary Relief (from the $2,750,000) with or without pension adjustment. The United States shall determine each Claimant’s eligibility and share of the $2,750,000. In addition, named Smith Plaintiffs and Baker Intervenors may be eligible for additional specific settlement relief (from the remaining $750,000 of the Settlement Fund) as set forth in Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Distribution. 35. The $2,750,000 referenced in Paragraph 34 will be distributed in a reasonable and equitable manner among all eligible Claimants who submitted an Interest-in-Relief Form. The United States will take into account the date of the Relevant Promotion Examination which the Claimant took, the rank held at the time by the Claimant, and subsequent personnel action with respect to the Claimant (i.e., promotion, retirement, separation from service). A Claimant may be eligible for a share of the $2,750,000 even if not eligible for a Settlement Promotion. 36. A Claimant is eligible for pension adjustment only if the Claimant is African American and, by Final Entry of the Consent Decree, has entered the Deferred Retired Option Program (“DROP”) or retired (thereby establishing the Claimant’s bi-weekly pension benefit) while holding the same rank the Claimant had when the Claimant last took a challenged examination. 37. A Claimant will be eligible for a Settlement Promotion to Engineer, Lieutenant (Suppression), Captain (Suppression) or District Chief (Suppression) only if he or she is African American and: (a) between 2004 and 2011 the Claimant took an examination for the relevant position; (b) scored at least a 70 on that examination or on an examination for the same rank given after 2011 (provided that an eligibility list for that examination was certified by the City’s Human Resources Department prior to the date when the Court enters this Consent Decree as final); and (c) at the time the promotion is offered, the Claimant is not disqualified from being promoted because of a disciplinary issue as set forth in the City’s Civil Service Rules. A
17

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 18 of 109 PageID 10136
Claimant will be eligible for promotion to Lieutenant (Rescue) only if he or she is an AfricanAmerican Smith Plaintiff and: (a) between 2004 and 2011 the Claimant took an examination for Lieutenant (Rescue); (b) scored at least a 70 on that examination or on an examination for the same rank given after 2011 (provided that an eligibility list for that examination was certified by the City’s Human Resources Department prior to the date when the Court enters this Consent Decree as final); and (c) at the time the promotion is offered, the Claimant is not disqualified from being promoted because of a disciplinary issue as set forth in the City’s Civil Service Rules. Being eligible for a Settlement Promotion does not mean the Claimant will be offered a Settlement Promotion. B. Eligibility Determinations Filed with the Court and Provided to the Parties 38. No later than fifteen (15) days after Final Entry of the Consent Decree, the United States will file with the Court and serve upon the Parties the following Proposed Individual Relief Lists:
a. Proposed Monetary Relief List identifying who has been deemed eligible for Monetary Relief without pension adjustment, including each Claimant’s share of the $2,750,000;
b. Proposed Monetary Relief List identifying who has been deemed eligible for Monetary Relief with pension adjustment, including each Claimant’s share of the $2,750,000; and
c. Proposed Settlement Promotion List identifying who has been deemed eligible for a Settlement Promotion.
39. Upon the filing of the Proposed Individual Relief Lists, the United States shall move the Court to hold a Fairness Hearing on Individual Relief to allow the Court to determine whether the Proposed Individual Relief Lists should be approved or amended. The Court will provide the
18

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 19 of 109 PageID 10137
Parties at least seventy-five (75) days’ notice of the date and time set for the Fairness Hearing on Individual Relief. C. Notice of Relief Determinations to Claimants 40. No later than sixty (60) days before the date set for the Fairness Hearing on Individual Relief, the United States will send, to the last known mailing address by first class U.S. Mail and last known email address, a Notice of Individual Relief Fairness Hearing Documents to each person who submitted an interest in relief form. The notice will include:
a. A Letter to Claimants, in the format attached as Appendix 3 (Part 1), to PAG and PNAG Claimants, informing each Claimant of the Individual Relief for which the Claimant has been found eligible, as well as the reasons for which the Claimant was found ineligible for any particular Individual Relief sought. The letter shall also specify the type and amount of Monetary Relief for which the Claimant was found eligible;
b. Notice of the scheduled Fairness Hearing on Individual Relief, Instructions for Filing an Objection, and an Objection to Individual Relief Form, in the formats attached as Appendix 3 (Part 2);
c. Information regarding the share of the $2,750,000 that has been allocated to the Claimant; and
d. Notification that any relief must first be approved by the Court. 41. The Notice of Individual Relief Fairness Hearing Documents will include a document informing the Claimant of the group in which the Claimant has been placed (PAG or PNAG), and allowing PAG Claimants to reject the PAG designation and move to PNAG (PNAG Election). The document will provide each PAG Claimant with the estimated adjusted pension benefit calculated using the formula agreed to by the Parties.
19

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 20 of 109 PageID 10138
42. Claimant’s PNAG Election must be submitted via mail or email to the United States. PNAG Elections submitted by mail must be postmarked no later than thirty (30) days prior to the date set for the Fairness Hearing on Individual Relief. PNAG Elections submitted via email must be sent no later than thirty (30) days prior to the date set for the Fairness Hearing on Individual Relief. 43. The Notice of Individual Relief Fairness Hearing Documents will be provided by the United States to the individual Claimants. If a Claimant is known by the United States to be represented by counsel, the Claimant’s counsel will receive a copy as well. D. Objections to Proposed Individual Relief 44. A Claimant who wishes to object to any determination regarding Individual Relief as set out in his or her cover letter (Appendix 3 (Part 2)) must file a written objection in accordance with the requirements set forth in Appendix 3 (Part 2). Objections shall be submitted to the United States and shall state the Claimant’s name, mailing address, telephone number, and email address; set forth a specific description of the Claimant’s basis for disputing the relief determinations in the Proposed Individual Relief Lists; include copies of all documentation supporting the objection(s); state the name, mailing and e-mail addresses, and telephone number of the Claimant’s counsel, if any; and state whether the Claimant wishes the opportunity to be heard in Court at the Fairness Hearing on Individual Relief. 45. Objections submitted via U.S. Mail must be postmarked no later than thirty (30) days prior to the date set for the Fairness Hearing on Individual Relief, and objections submitted via email must be transmitted electronically no later than thirty (30) days prior to the date set for the Fairness Hearing on Individual Relief. Within four days of receipt of each timely or untimely objection, the United States will forward a copy of such objection to all Parties.
20

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 21 of 109 PageID 10139
46. Any Claimant who fails to submit a timely Objection to Individual Relief form shall be deemed to have waived any right to object to any determination on Individual Relief, unless there is good cause for the failure, as determined by the Court. 47. No later than seven (7) business days prior to the Fairness Hearing on Individual Relief, the United States’ counsel shall file with the Court copies of all objections received, and the Parties shall file their responses, if any, to timely objections, no later than seven (7) business days prior to the fairness hearing. 48. At or after the Fairness Hearing on Individual Relief, the Court shall determine which, if any, objections to the Proposed Individual Relief Lists are well-founded. The Court shall then approve the Lists as submitted or, if the Court finds that any objections are well-founded, shall amend the Lists consistent with such findings. 49. The Court will find that an objection to the Proposed Individual Relief Lists, including an objection to the amount of Monetary Relief to be given to a Claimant, is well-founded only if the Court finds that the determination reflected in such List was not fair, adequate, reasonable, and consistent with federal law and the provisions of this Consent Decree. 50. If the Court determines that the Proposed Individual Relief Lists (as submitted by the United States pursuant to Paragraph 38, or as amended by the Court pursuant to Paragraph 48, are fair, adequate, reasonable, and consistent with federal law and consistent with this Consent Decree, the Court shall approve the Individual Relief to Claimants at or after the Fairness Hearing on Individual Relief. This approved relief shall be the Final Individual Relief Lists, and include a:
a. Final Monetary Relief List identifying who has been deemed eligible for Monetary Relief without pension adjustment, including each Claimant’s share of the $2,750,000;
21

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 22 of 109 PageID 10140
b. Final Monetary Relief List identifying who has been deemed eligible for Monetary Relief with pension adjustment, including each Claimant’s share of the $2,750,000; and
c. Final Settlement Promotion List identifying who has been deemed eligible for a Settlement Promotion.
VII. EXECUTION OF INDIVIDUAL RELIEF A. Notice of Individual Relief and Release of Claims 51. Within fifteen (15) days after the Court approves the Final Individual Relief Lists pursuant to Paragraph 50, the United States shall send a notice of Individual Relief to each Claimant via e-mail to the last-known e-mail address and via first-class U.S. mail to the lastknown mailing address. The notice shall include a:
a. Notice of Individual Relief in the form set forth in Appendix 4; and an b. Acceptance of Individual Relief and Release of Claims Form in the form set forth
in Appendix 4. 52. To receive the Individual Relief approved by the Court, a Claimant must return to the United States an Acceptance of Individual Relief and Release of Claims Form as set forth in Appendix 4 of this Consent Decree no later than forty-five (45) days after the Court approves the Individual Relief to Claimants pursuant to Paragraph 50. 53. A Claimant’s failure to return an executed Acceptance of Individual Relief and Release of Claims Form by the deadline set forth in Paragraph 52 shall constitute a rejection and forfeit by the Claimant of the Individual Relief approved by the Court and shall release the Parties from any further obligation under the Consent Decree to provide Individual Relief to the Claimant. 54. No later than sixty (60) days after the Court approves the Final Individual Relief Lists, the United States shall provide to the City and Union copies of all executed Acceptance of
22

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 23 of 109 PageID 10141
Individual Relief and Release of Claims Forms that were returned. The United States shall also provide to all the Parties a list of all Claimants who submitted Acceptance of Individual Relief and Release of Claims Forms and a list of those Claimants who did not submit such forms. B. Amended Final Individual Relief List 55. No later than seventy-five (75) days after the Court approves the Individual Relief to Claimants pursuant to Paragraph 50, the United States shall amend the Final Individual Relief Lists. The Amended Final Individual Relief Lists created by the United States shall include an:
a. Amended Final Monetary Relief List identifying who has been deemed eligible for Monetary Relief without pension adjustment, including each Claimant’s share of the $2,750,000;
b. Amended Final Monetary Relief List identifying who has been deemed eligible for Monetary Relief with pension adjustment, including each Claimant’s share of the $2,750,000; and
c. Amended Final Settlement Promotion List identifying who has been deemed eligible for a Settlement Promotion.
The Amended Final Individual Relief Lists shall not include any Claimant who failed to execute and return the Acceptance of Individual Relief and Release of Claims Forms in a timely manner as required by Paragraph 52. 56. In establishing the Amended Final Monetary Relief Lists, the United States shall reallocate any Monetary Relief forfeited by Claimants who did not return Acceptance of Individual Relief and Release of Claims Forms among those who did in a manner keeping with the relative amounts given by the Court to those Claimants who returned an Acceptance of Individual Relief and Release of Claims Forms in a timely manner as required by Paragraph 52.
23

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 24 of 109 PageID 10142
57. No later than seventy-five (75) days after the Court approves the Individual Relief to Claimants pursuant to Paragraph 50, the United States shall provide the Parties the Amended Final Individual Relief Lists created pursuant to Paragraphs 55-56. 58. The Amended Final Settlement Promotion List shall identify, for each rank to which Settlement Promotions will be made, the order in which offers of Settlement Promotion are to be extended to Claimants by the City. The order will be determined solely by Plaintiffs. C. Transfer of PNAG Funds to Qualified Settlement Fund 59. No later than thirty (30) days after the United States provides the Parties with the Amended Final Individual Relief List created pursuant to Paragraphs 55-57, but no earlier than October 15, 2018, the City shall send to the Qualified Settlement Fund all money in the Settlement Fund allocated to PNAG Claimants. D. Distribution from Qualified Settlement Fund 60. No later than thirty (30) days after the Qualified Settlement Fund receives from the City the money described in Paragraph 59, the Qualified Settlement Fund shall make the following disbursements:
a. One Million Four Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,400,000) to resolve attorney’s fees and costs claimed by the NAACP, JBOF, the Baker Intervenors, and the Smith Plaintiffs up to, and including, the date when the Court enters this Consent Decree. This amount shall be paid to the following entities pursuant to instructions to be provided by such entities to the Qualified Settlement Fund: (1) The Law Office of Kirsten Doolittle, P.A.; (2) The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law; (3) Miner, Barnhill & Galland, P.C.; and (4) Elfvin, Klingshirn, Royer & Torch, LLC. This payment resolves claims by NAACP,
24

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 25 of 109 PageID 10143
JBOF, the Baker Class, and the Smith plaintiffs for attorney’s fees and costs for the period through the date of Final Entry of this Consent Decree. b. Funds pursuant to Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Distribution. 61. No later than thirty (30) days after the Qualified Settlement Fund receives from the City the money referenced in Paragraph 59, the Qualified Settlement Fund shall send Monetary Relief award checks to PNAG Claimants. The amount of the check shall be the amount shown for the Claimant on the Amended Final Monetary Awards List minus the amount of appropriately withheld taxes. 62. The Qualified Settlement Fund shall be solely responsible for withholding and remitting to the appropriate taxing authorities the appropriate portion on any Monetary Relief award paid to PNAG Claimants. The City will not be responsible for any taxes for Monetary Relief distributed to PNAG Claimants. 63. No later than fifteen (15) days after the Qualified Settlement Fund sends Monetary Relief award checks to PNAG Claimants, the Qualified Settlement Fund shall provide to the United States a statement indicating the amount of the payment made to each PNAG Claimant, the amount withheld for taxes and other amount required to be withheld by law, and the purpose of each such withholding. 64. No later than ninety days (90) days after the Qualified Settlement Fund sends Monetary Relief awards checks to PNAG Claimants, the Qualified Settlement Fund shall provide to the United States a list of all PNAG Claimants whose Monetary Relief payments are still outstanding. The list shall identify which PNAG Claimants’ checks appear to have been delivered (no returned check) but have not been cashed, and which PNAG Claimants’ checks have been returned to the Qualified Settlement Fund as undeliverable. The Qualified Settlement Fund shall also provide a statement of the amount of funds that remain with the Fund.
25

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 26 of 109 PageID 10144
65. No later than one hundred twenty (120) days after the Qualified Settlement Fund sends Monetary Relief awards checks to PNAG Claimants, the United States shall deliver by e-mail and first class U.S. mail a letter to all PNAG Claimants whose Monetary Relief payments are still outstanding to inform such PNAG Claimants that their Monetary Relief may be redistributed or otherwise reallocated if they do not accept payment by a specified date that is one hundred eighty (180) days after issuance of the check. The letter shall state that no further warnings regarding such distribution will be given. 66. No later than two hundred ten (210) days after the Qualified Settlement Fund sends Monetary Relief awards checks to PNAG Claimants, the Qualified Settlement Fund shall provide the United States with a list of all PNAG Claimants whose Monetary Relief award checks were returned as undeliverable and/or uncashed, as well as a statement of the amount of funds remaining in the Qualified Settlement Fund. 67. No later than two hundred forty (240) days after the Qualified Settlement Fund sends Monetary Relief awards checks to PNAG Claimants, the United States shall inform the Qualified Settlement Fund either that the remaining funds should be reallocated among the other PNAG Claimants who are listed on the Amended Final Monetary Relief List in a manner designed to preserve the relative proportions of the Claimants’ shares of the portion of the Monetary Relief, or, if the remaining funds are de minimis, that the remaining funds should not be reallocated among the Claimants but rather shall be distributed to the JBOF and NAACP in equal shares consistent with the purposes of the Consent Decree. E. Execution by the City 68. Within fifteen (15) days of the Parties submitting the Consent Decree for Final Entry, the City will provide the United States with all information in the City’s control necessary to calculate the estimates in Appendix 3 for Claimants who have retired or entered the DROP
26

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 27 of 109 PageID 10145
program as of that date. In the event that additional Claimants retire or enter the DROP program between this date and the date the Court enters the Consent Decree, the City will provide the United States with all information in the City’s control necessary to calculate the estimates in Appendix 3 for these Claimants within ten (10) days of Final Entry of the Consent Decree. 69. Only PAG Claimants’ Monetary Relief shall be treated as pensionable pursuant to this Consent Decree. 70. No later than ninety (90) days after receipt of the amended Final Individual Relief List, the City will distribute the appropriate paychecks (containing the net Monetary Relief after all pension contributions and tax withholdings) to PAG Claimants, and, following Board approval, the Pension Fund will adjust the biweekly pension benefit of each PAG Claimant. The amount of the pension adjustment and contributions for the individual PAG Claimants will be derived using the agreed-to formula. The net payment will be determined by the agreed-to formula subject to applicable tax withholding. 71. Following pension adjustment, PAG Claimants’ adjusted pension benefit will be treated as a regular pension benefit for all purposes going forward. 72. Fifteen (15) days after issuing the paychecks and adjusting the pension benefits for all PAG Claimants referenced in Paragraph 70, the City shall send confirmation to the United States that all such paychecks were sent and pension benefits were adjusted. 73. Ninety (90) days after the City sends the paychecks to the PAG Claimants, the City shall provide to the United States by email a list of any PAG Claimants whose checks have been returned or have not been cashed, if any. The United States will contact the PAG Claimants and ascertain the reason for the outstanding payment. The Parties will work cooperatively to address any issues and ensure payment to the PAG Claimants.
27

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 28 of 109 PageID 10146
74. The Office of General Counsel, as counsel for the City and the Pension Fund, confirms that the Police and Fire Pension Fund Board has the ability to and will carry out the obligations in Paragraphs 69-72 as directed by the ordinance approving the agreement to be passed by the City Council, and by the Court’s entry of the Consent Decree as contemplated by this agreement. 75. In the event that the obligations to make pension adjustments are not made within 120 days of the United States providing the Amended Final Individual Relief List to the City, the City will promptly confer with the United States and propose a remedy. If the City and the United States cannot agree on a remedy, or the City does not execute the remedy within the time agreed with the United States, the United States may move the Court to impose a remedy on the City. VIII. NEW PROMOTION EXAMINATIONS A. Introduction 76. The City will develop and use New Promotion Examinations for all Promotion Positions. 77. Following the Court’s Final Entry of the Consent Decree, the City will administer the first New Promotion Examination for each Promotion Position only upon agreement with the Reviewing Party(ies). Such agreement from the Parties will not be unreasonably withheld. If an agreement cannot be reached, the Parties will seek resolution from the Court. Where applicable, the Court will use Title VII disparate impact standards to resolve disputes regarding the New Promotion Examinations. B. Interim Selection Process 78. The Parties recognize that the proper development of New Promotion Examinations for the Promotion Positions will take time, and that the City has immediate operational needs that require the selection of candidates into the Promotion Positions prior to the implementation of New Promotion Examinations in accordance with Paragraphs 81-107 of this Consent Decree.
28

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 29 of 109 PageID 10147
79. If the City requires candidates be placed in Promotion Positions while the Parties are still developing New Promotion Examinations and there is no existing eligibility list for the position or the conditions set forth in Paragraph 95 exist, the City must administer the examination using the format used on the prior examination for that position. 80. Approval from the Reviewing Party(ies) is not required for the administration of the current promotion process during the Interim Selection Process in accordance with the terms of this Consent Decree. The Parties to this Consent Decree will not challenge an examination given pursuant to the Interim Selection Process provisions. C. Development of New Promotion Examinations 81. For purposes of developing New Promotion Examinations, the City will provide all relevant examination-development documents described in this section as follows:
a. For Engineer and Suppression examinations, to the United States and counsel for the NAACP, JBOF, Baker Plaintiffs, and Smith Plaintiffs;
b. For Rescue examinations, to the United States and counsel for the Smith Plaintiffs; and
c. For Prevention examinations, to the United States. 82. The City will select an outside test developer pursuant to the City’s procurement process in accordance with the Jacksonville Ordinance Code, to develop and administer New Promotion Examinations. 83. The City will reference this Consent Decree as it pertains to New Promotion Examination development in any Request for Proposals (“RFP”) for the retention of the test developer. 84. At the time it issues any RFP for the outside test developer, the City will provide a copy of the RFP to counsel for all parties.
29

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 30 of 109 PageID 10148
85. The City’s selected test developer will consult with the Reviewing Party’s(ies’) expert regarding his/her planned job analysis for each of the Promotion Positions. 86. The City will provide the final planned job analysis to the Reviewing Party(ies) and other Parties’ counsel in accordance with Paragraph 81. 87. Within ten (10) business days of receipt of the planned job analysis, the Reviewing Party(ies) will provide input to the City (including objections), if any, as to the planned job analysis, and the Reviewing Party(ies) will promptly confer with the City telephonically or in person about same. 88. If the Parties are unable to resolve the objections, such objections must be submitted to the Court within ten (10) business days of the conference. 89. After objections (if any) to the planned job analysis are resolved, the City’s test developer will conduct a new job analysis for each Promotion Position and provide a written report for each such Position to the City. The City will provide the written report to the Reviewing Party(ies) and other Parties’ counsel in accordance with Paragraph 81. 90. Within ten (10) business days of receipt of the written report(s) referenced in Paragraph 89 from the City’s test developer, the Reviewing Party(ies) will provide input to the City (including objections), if any, as to the job analysis(es), and the Reviewing Party(ies) will promptly confer with the City telephonically or in person regarding same. 91. If the Parties are unable to resolve the objections, such objections must be submitted to the Court within ten (10) business days of the conference. 92. One hundred fifty (150) days prior to the test administration of any New Promotion Examination, the City shall provide the Reviewing Party(ies) and other Parties’ counsel, in accordance with Paragraph 81, with its proposal for the New Promotion Examination and the underlying documents supporting its proposal, including the types of selection components the
30

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 31 of 109 PageID 10149
City plans to use, what knowledges, skills, abilities and other characteristics will be tested, linkages, the proposed weights, and the proposed use (e.g.; pass/fail, rank order) of the components. 93. Within thirty (30) days of receiving the information outlined in Paragraph 92 the Reviewing Party(ies) shall provide input to the City on the proposal. The Reviewing Party(ies) will provide notices of objection, if any, to the City regarding the City’s proposal for a New Promotion Examination. 94. The Reviewing Party(ies) will confer with the City regarding objections to the City’s proposal for a New Promotion Examination. If the Parties are unable to resolve the objections, such objections must be submitted to the Court within ten (10) business days of the conference. 95. If any objections submitted to the Court for resolution pursuant to Paragraph 94 are not resolved by the Court at least sixty-one (61) days before a promotion examination must be administered by the City, the City must administer the examination using the format used on the prior examination for that position. 96. After completion of the process for consultation and objection in Paragraph 94, including Court resolution, if necessary, the City may administer the New Promotion Examination and the Reviewing Party(ies) will not challenge validity. 97. The content of each New Promotion Examination will depend on the results of the relevant job analysis. The New Promotion Examination may include components such as: (a) job knowledge tests; (b) situational judgment tests; (c) video simulations; (d) in-basket exercises; and (e) tactical exercises that are given on paper or a computer but require a specific answer. The New Promotion Examination will not consist solely of a test that measures or purports to measure only job knowledge.
31

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 32 of 109 PageID 10150
98. Subject Matter Experts (“SMEs”) employed, previously employed, having a known affiliation with a person employed or previously employed by the JFRD, residing in Florida, or having resided in Florida within the last three (3) years prior to the test development process for which they are being consulted will not be involved in the development of test questions and/or scenarios. JFRD employees shall serve as SMEs only to assist in the development and update of each job analysis during the course of this Consent Decree. 99. The components and weights of the New Promotion Examinations, for pass-fail and rankorder use, will be based on the results of the relevant job analysis. 100. The New Promotion Examinations, in accordance with the Collective Bargaining Agreement in existence at the entry of the Consent Decree, will require objective (predetermined) answers and will not involve live assessors. 101. For New Promotion Examinations, in accordance with the Collective Bargaining Agreement in existence at the entry of the Consent Decree: (a) examination questions may be asked on paper or a computer, but the examination will require examination takers to select an answer that will be recorded either on paper or by computer or comparable electronic device; (b) answers will not be recorded by audio or video means; and (c) examinations will be scored onsite and candidates will receive their raw scores the day of the test, at the test site. 102. After the protest process concludes, in accordance with the Civil Service Rules and the relevant Collective Bargaining Agreement in existence at the time the examination is given, veterans’ preference points and seniority points will be added to the raw scores of passing Candidates to arrive at a “final examination score.” Candidates will be placed on an eligibility list in rank order based on final examination score and will be offered promotion in that order. 103. Within 30 days after the certification of the eligibility list following the first and the second regular administrations (e.g., not make-up examinations) of the New Promotion
32

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 33 of 109 PageID 10151
Examination for any Promotion Position, the City will provide to the Reviewing Party(ies) and other Parties’ counsel in accordance with Paragraph 81 the following information for each candidate: employee identification number, race, gender, ethnicity, overall score, score on any sub-part of the examination, answer selected for each question on the test, and whether that answer was correct. This information will be provided in machine-readable format. 104. If, after the administration of the first or second New Promotion Examination for any Promotion Position, the Reviewing Party(ies) choose to recommend alternatives, they must satisfy the third prong of Title VII’s disparate impact provision, and the proposed alternative must be in compliance with the New Promotion Examination requirements set forth in this Consent Decree. Any such recommended alternatives must be submitted to the City with a copy to the Union within one hundred eighty (180) days of the City providing the information required in Paragraph 103, and must include the justification for the recommended alternative(s), as well the data upon which the Reviewing Party(ies) rely in making the recommendation. The City will evaluate whether the alternative promotion examination recommended by the Reviewing Party(ies) will be adopted and inform the Reviewing Party(ies), the Union, and other Parties’ counsel in accordance with Paragraph 81 of its decision within ninety (90) days of receiving the Reviewing Party’s(ies’) recommendation, justification and data upon which the Reviewing Party(ies) rely in making the recommendation. The Union may object to the City’s notification on the grounds that the proposed alternative would not comply with the Collective Bargaining Agreement, the law or the terms of this Consent Decree. Objections by the Reviewing Party(ies) or the Union must be made within twenty (20) days of the City’s notification and must be submitted to the Court for resolution. 105. The process described in this Consent Decree will be used for the administration of any New Promotion Examination during the pendency of the Consent Decree. The City will consult
33

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 34 of 109 PageID 10152
with the Reviewing Party(ies), and provide information and documents to the Reviewing Party’s(ies) and other Parties’ counsel in accordance with Paragraph 81 only for the development and administration of the first two New Promotion Examinations for each Promotion Position. 106. Any additional test development materials created by the City and its experts and consultants related to the New Promotion Examinations will be made available to the Reviewing Party(ies) upon request. 107. All attorneys and experts in receipt of examination development materials pursuant to the provisions of this Consent Decree, recognize the highly sensitive nature of examination development materials, and will maintain their confidentiality and will not disclose the examination development materials to any other entity or person, including their respective clients. Should litigation ensue warranting the Court’s review of the examination development materials, the Parties will file such materials under seal. IX. SETTLEMENT PROMOTIONS 108. Within fifteen (15) days of receiving the Amended Final Settlement Promotion List from the United States, the City shall create up to forty (40) roving positions (26 Engineers, 7 Suppression Lieutenants, 4 Suppression Captains, 2 Suppression District Chiefs, 1 Rescue Lieutenant) which shall be labeled “Settlement Promotion Positions” and will be offered to the individuals listed in the Amended Final Settlement Promotion List created by the United States pursuant to Paragraph 55. Within twenty (20) days of receiving the Amended Final Settlement Promotion List from the United States, the City will contact the Claimants on the Amended Final Settlement Promotions List in the normal manner (i.e., by telephone) to extend the offer of promotion, and each Claimant will be expected to accept or decline the offer during the telephone conversation. The City will explain that the offer is for a Settlement Promotion pursuant to this Consent Decree. The City will also send a confirmatory written offer, by e-mail
34

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 35 of 109 PageID 10153
to the Claimant’s work e-mail address (@coj.net), prominently indicating: (i) that the offer is an offer of Settlement Promotion being made pursuant to the Consent Decree entered by the Court and (ii) that the Claimant must accept or reject the offer by replying to the e-mail containing the offer. During the telephone conversation, the City will ask the Claimant to confirm the acceptance/rejection of the offer by replying to the e-mailed offer. On the date that such an offer of Settlement Promotion is sent to a Claimant, the City shall also notify the United States and counsel for the Claimant, if the Claimant is represented. Claimants who accept Settlement Promotion offers will move into those positions the Saturday following acceptance of the offer. If, after the Fairness Hearing on Individual Relief, Claimants eligible for Settlement Promotions become ineligible prior to being offered a Settlement Promotion, they will be removed from the Amended Final Settlement Promotion List, and the positions that they would have occupied will be offered to other eligible Claimants on the Settlement Promotion Position List. 109. Offers of Settlement Promotion will be extended by the City to the Claimants on the Amended Final Settlement Promotion List in the order in which the names appear on the list compiled by the United States until either all roving assignments have been filled for each position, or the City exhausts the Amended Final Settlement Promotion List for each position. If any roving position created pursuant to Paragraph 108 remains unfilled after the City exhausts the Amended Final Settlement Promotion List for the applicable position, the roving position will be eliminated, and the number of Settlement Promotion Positions required under this Consent Decree will be reduced accordingly. 110. Nothing in this Consent Decree shall preclude any Claimant from applying for a promotion or being promoted under the City’s regular process (i.e. the promotion process used prior to the Court’s final entry of this Consent Decree), Interim Selection Process, or New Promotion Examination. However, promotion of a Claimant under the City’s regular process,
35

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 36 of 109 PageID 10154
Interim Selection Process or New Promotion Examination shall not count toward the fulfillment of the City’s Settlement Promotion obligations under this Consent Decree. The City also may not refuse to select a Claimant under its regular process, Interim Selection Process or New Promotion Examination on the basis that the Claimant is eligible for a Settlement Promotion or Monetary Relief under this Consent Decree. 111. A Claimant who holds a Settlement Promotion Position will be treated the same as other individuals in the same position or rank for all employment purposes. 112. Nothing in this Consent Decree shall be construed to mean that any Claimant who receives a Settlement Promotion is to receive or is entitled to retroactive seniority. 113. The Union agrees that none of its members has an expectation of receiving a Settlement Promotion position as these are newly created positions for this Consent Decree. Claimants who are Union members have a right to indicate interest in Settlement Promotion relief but are not guaranteed a Settlement Promotion Position. 114. In accordance with the JFRD regular policies and procedures, after serving for one (1) year in a Settlement Promotion Position, a Claimant who qualifies in all other respects to take the next rank promotion examination may sit for such examination and, if selected, will be promoted as any other candidate would be promoted. 115. If a Claimant in a roving assignment bids to transfer to a non-roving assignment, the Claimant’s bid will be treated as would a bid from a non-Claimant in that position. 116. To be awarded a Settlement Promotion under this Consent Decree, the Claimant must have met the qualifications set forth in the Professional Growth and Development Plan (“PGDP”), as they existed at the time the Claimant took the earliest promotion examination on which he/she relies for Settlement Promotion eligibility, assuming that any PGDP requirements
36

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 37 of 109 PageID 10155
were in effect at the time of that examination, and must have scored at least a 70 on that examination. 117. Settlement Promotion Positions will be new promotion positions created for purposes of complying with this Consent Decree. Once a Claimant who received a Settlement Promotion Position separates from JFRD, the Settlement Promotion Position created pursuant to this Consent Decree will revert to its original designation. X. DURATION OF THE CONSENT DECREE 118. Absent pending motions, this Consent Decree shall expire after the occurrence of the latter of the following:
a. The distribution of the Settlement Fund; b. Fulfillment of the Parties’ obligation to create and attempt to fill the 40 Settlement
Promotion positions addressed in Paragraph 108; and c. Completion of the second regular test administration of the New Promotion
Examination for each Promotion Position, the City’s response to the Reviewing Party’s (ies’) alternative promotion process recommendations as set forth in Paragraph 104-105, and any Court resolution, if necessary, if related to the second administration or alternative process recommendation thereto. XI. LEGAL PROVISIONS 119. The Court shall retain jurisdiction over this Consent Decree for the purpose of resolving any disputes or entering any orders that may be appropriate to implement the Consent Decree. 120. If there is any conflict between this Consent Decree and the requirements of any local law or regulation, the terms of this Consent Decree shall control. 121. This Consent Decree constitutes the entire agreement of the Parties, and supersedes all prior representations, negotiations, and undertakings not set forth or incorporated herein.
37

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 38 of 109 PageID 10156
122. Nothing in this Consent Decree is intended to contradict or alter, nor does it contradict or alter, the terms or conditions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, Article 13 “Promotions,” applicable to Firefighter, Engineer, Lieutenant and Captain, or the Collective Bargaining Agreement, Article 13 “Promotions,” applicable to District Chief, both of which are attached hereto as Appendix 5 and incorporated herein by reference. 123. The Plaintiffs and the City agree that they will defend the provisions of this Consent Decree if it or its implementation is challenged. 124. If the Court reallocates the distribution of monies under this Consent Decree, all redistributed monies will be distributed among eligible Claimants. 125. Any interest earned from the Qualified Settlement Fund established pursuant to this Consent Decree will be allocated by the United States among eligible PNAG claimants pursuant to Paragraph 34. 126. The City agrees that it will not retaliate, as defined by existing law at the time of any alleged act of retaliation, against any individual because he or she received a benefit under this Consent Decree. Should there be an allegation of such retaliation, the City will investigate and seek to resolve the matter pursuant to its already existing policies. During the life of the Consent Decree, the United States or private counsel may bring to the City’s attention in writing any allegation or claim of retaliation. The Parties agree that they shall work collaboratively to amicably resolve any such allegation or claim. Nothing in this Paragraph shall be construed to create an entitlement to attorney’s fees under this Consent Decree, for work done to address such claims of retaliation, or for non-economic damages. 127. In the event of a failure by a party to perform in a timely manner any act required by this Consent Decree or otherwise to act in conformance with any provisions thereof, the opposing
38

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 39 of 109 PageID 10157
party may move this Court to impose any remedy authorized by law or equity, except as limited in Paragraph 126. 128. Except as provided elsewhere in this Consent Decree (i.e., Paragraph 136-141) or ordered by the Court, the City is not obligated to pay any amounts on behalf or on account of this settlement to the Plaintiffs or Claimants in excess of the Settlement Fund provided for purposes of this Consent Decree. If the relief provided under this Consent Decree requires contributions to the Police and Fire Pension Fund, all contributions on behalf of the City and individual PAG Claimants will come out of the Settlement Fund and will be derived from the agreed-to formula. Similarly, all Medicare payments, on behalf of the City and individual Claimants, will come out of the Settlement Fund. XII. RECORD KEEPING 129. While this Consent Decree remains in effect the City and Plaintiffs shall maintain all of the following records:
a. All documents relating to the screening, evaluation, or selection of candidates to the Promotion Positions including all documents relating to the development and/or validation of New Promotion Procedures pursuant to Paragraphs 81-107 of this Consent Decree;
b. All documents relating to written or verbal complaints made by any person or entity regarding discrimination on the basis of race in the selection of candidates to the Promotion Positions; and
c. All other documents relating to the Parties’ compliance with the requirements of this Consent Decree.
39

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 40 of 109 PageID 10158
130. In addition to the items above, during the duration of the Consent Decree, the City shall maintain all documents relating to the promotion of Claimants who accept offers of Settlement Promotions under this Consent Decree. 131. Except as otherwise provided in this Consent Decree, any Party shall make available to a requesting Party, no later than thirty (30) days after the requests is presented in writing, any records maintained in accordance with this Consent Decree. 132. Any documents provided to another Party pursuant to the record-keeping provisions of this Consent Decree shall be redacted to protect personally identifiable information such as birthdate, social security number, and home address. XIII. MAILINGS AND NOTIFICATIONS 133. Unless otherwise stated, for all mailings by the Parties pursuant to this Consent Decree, the Parties shall keep records of all documents that are returned as undeliverable. If any documents are returned as undeliverable, the mailing Party shall promptly notify the other Parties and attempt to identify an updated email or mailing address as soon as practicable. If any Party identifies an alternate email or mailing address, that address shall be shared with all Parties. Within five (5) days of receipt of an alternate address, the mailing Party shall re-mail the document. 134. In the event that a Claimant is deceased, all notifications and applicable relief will be provided to the individual so designated by the Jacksonville Ordinance Code (PAG Claimants), or the individual required by law (PNAG Claimants). 135. All written information and documents required to be delivered under the Consent Decree to the United States by Claimants and Objectors shall be sent:
by email: Jacksonville.Settlement@usdoj.gov
40

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 41 of 109 PageID 10159
by United States Mail: U.S. Department of Justice Consolidated City of Jacksonville Litigation Team Civil Rights Division/ELS P.O. Box 14400 Washington, D.C. 20044-4400
XIV. ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS (INCLUDING EXPERT COSTS) FOR TEST DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND MONITORING
136. The United States and the City will not seek recovery of attorney’s fees or costs (including expert costs) from each other or any other party for any work incurred as part of test development review and monitoring. 137. In the event the United States is not a Reviewing Party but counsel for the NAACP, JBOF, or Smith plaintiffs become Reviewing Party(ies) for any examination(s) pursuant to Paragraph 11, the remaining plaintiff Reviewing Party(ies) will use a single expert to review the examinations at issue. The City agrees to pay such expert at the rate set forth below:
a. For review and consultation for the first New Promotion Examination for each rank pursuant to this Consent Decree, not more than $15,000 per examination with a maximum of 6 examinations (Engineer, Lieutenant Suppression, Captain Suppression, District Chief Suppression, Captain Rescue, and District Chief Rescue).
b. For review and consultation for the second New Promotion Examination for each rank, and for recommendations relating to the future development and administration of a third examination, for each rank , not more than $7,500 per examination with a maximum of 6 examinations (Engineer, Lieutenant Suppression, Captain Suppression, District Chief Suppression, Captain Rescue, and District Chief Rescue).
41

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 42 of 109 PageID 10160
138. If counsel for the NAACP, JBOF, or Smith plaintiffs become Reviewing Party(ies) for any examination(s) pursuant to Paragraph 11 of this Consent Decree, they shall be entitled to recover attorney’s fees and attorney’s costs for test development review and/or monitoring of the Consent Decree up to a collective monetary cap of $20,000 for the remaining duration of the Consent Decree. XV. ATTORNEY’S FEES FOR POST-CONSENT DECREE MOTIONS 139. The Parties shall endeavor in good faith to resolve informally any differences concerning compliance with this Consent Decree, test development, review, and/or monitoring, prior to bringing such matters to the Court for resolution. 140. If motion practice relating to any issue occurs after Final Entry of the Consent Decree, any party who prevails on a motion may petition the Court for an award of attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to applicable law. Parties are only entitled to attorney’s fees should they prevail as to the motion brought before the Court or by agreement. 141. No monetary cap shall apply to claims for attorney’s fees or costs stemming from motion practice following Final Entry of the Consent Decree, with the following exceptions:
a. Attorney’s fees shall not exceed $325 per hour per attorney, with a cap of twenty (20) hours per motion, and forty (40) total attorney hours per year; and
b. An award of costs shall not include travel time, travel expenses, meals, mileage, or lodging. 142. Other than this paragraph, neither this Consent Decree, nor any part thereof, becomes binding or enforceable in any manner against any party to the Consent Decree until the Final Entry of this Consent Decree. The NAACP, JBOF, Baker Intervenors, and Smith Plaintiffs agree that no other claims that fall within the scope of their respective releases set out in Paragraph 17 will be filed before the Court has ruled on the Final Entry of the Decree. If the NAACP, JBOF,
42

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 43 of 109 PageID 10161

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 44 of 109 PageID 10162

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 45 of 109 PageID 10163

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 46 of 109 PageID 10164

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 47 of 109 PageID 10165

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 48 of 109 PageID 10166

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 49 of 109 PageID 10167

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 50 of 109 PageID 10168

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 51 of 109 PageID 10169

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 52 of 109 PageID 10170

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 53 of 109 PageID 10171

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 54 of 109 PageID 10172

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 55 of 109 PageID 10173
APPENDIX 1 (PART 1)
[COVER LETTER TO CLAIMANTS]
Mr. XXXXXX XXXXXXXX Jacksonville, Florida XXXX
Re: United States et al. v. Consolidated City of Jacksonville et al., Civil Action 3:12-cv-451-J-32MCR (M.D. Fla.), Smith et al. v. Consolidated City of Jacksonville et al., Civil Action 3:11-cv-345-J-32MCR (M.D. Fla.), and EEOC v. Jacksonville Association of Fire Fighters Local 122, IAFF, Civil Action 3:12-cv-491-J32MCR (M.D. Fla.).
Dear:
Please read these documents carefully.
This letter is to notify you of the settlement of civil lawsuits among Plaintiffs United States of America, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Jacksonville Branch (“NAACP”), Jacksonville Brotherhood of Firefighters (“JBOF”), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), and two groups of private plaintiffs (the Smith Plaintiffs and Baker Intervenors), and Defendants Consolidated City of Jacksonville and Jacksonville Association of Fire Fighters, Local 122, IAFF (“Union”) that may affect you. You may be eligible for relief from this settlement.
Enclosed please find four documents:
1. NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AND FAIRNESS HEARING This document describes the basis of the lawsuit and a summary of the terms of the settlement. The settlement agreement itself is available at: www.______________.
In addition, the document provides the time and place of a Fairness Hearing regarding the settlement and tells you how to make an objection to the terms of the settlement if you choose to do so.
2. INSTRUCTIONS FOR FILING AN OBJECTION PRIOR TO THE FAIRNESS HEARING
3. OBJECTION FORM
If you do not return the form on time, you may lose your opportunity to object.

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 56 of 109 PageID 10174
4. INTEREST IN RELIEF FORM If the Court approves the settlement of this case after the Fairness Hearing, you may be eligible for relief. If you are interested in relief, you MUST return the enclosed form by [date]. If you do not return the form on time, you may lose your opportunity to get relief. If you have questions, you may contact the Employment Litigation Section of the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice at 1-833-341-4673. The Department of Justice can provide information on the settlement, however, it is not authorized to provide legal advice to individuals.
Sincerely,
Employment Litigation Section Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice
Enclosures

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 57 of 109 PageID 10175
APPENDIX 1 (PART 2)
NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AND FAIRNESS HEARING
On __________, 2018, the Parties (United States of America; the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Jacksonville Branch (“NAACP”), the Jacksonville Brotherhood of Firefighters (“JBOF”); the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), two groups of private individuals (Smith Plaintiffs and Baker Intervenors), the Consolidated City of Jacksonville (“City”), and the Jacksonville Association of Fire Fighters, Local 122, IAFF (“Union”) settled civil lawsuits.
What are these lawsuits about? The United States, the NAACP, the JBOF, the Smith Plaintiffs and Baker Intervenors brought lawsuits claiming that the City discriminated against African-American firefighters in promotions in the fire department because certain promotion tests that the City used violated the law (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act).
In their lawsuit, the United States, Baker Intervenors, the NAACP, and the JBOF allege that the City used promotional exams that had a disparate impact on African-American candidates, and that the exams were not sufficiently job related nor consistent with business necessity. The United States, Baker Intervenors, the NAACP, and the JBOF do not, however, allege that the City has intentionally discriminated against any person or group of persons.
The Smith Plaintiffs brought a separate lawsuit against the City and the Union claiming that the City used promotional exams that had a disparate impact on African-American and NativeAmerican candidates, and that the exams were not sufficiently job related nor consistent with business necessity. The Smith Plaintiffs also alleged disparate treatment claims.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) brought a lawsuit against the Union claiming that the Union negotiated and advocated for a discriminatory promotional process that resulted in disparate impact against African Americans.
The City and the Union dispute the Plaintiffs’ claims and allegations, and deny that they have violated Title VII. The Defendants contend that the promotional process and tests in use at JFRD did not have disparate impact against African Americans, and were content valid, jobrelated, and consistent with the City’s business necessity, or otherwise consistent with the requirements of Title VII. However, in the interest of resolving these matters, the Parties have voluntarily entered into a Consent Decree settling the lawsuits.
Why did I get this notice? You received this notice because you may be affected by the terms in the Consent Decree. This notice summarizes the terms of the Consent Decree. It also explains how you may object to it, if you wish. The Court will consider objections before approving the Consent Decree.
What are the terms of the Consent Decree? If the Court approves the Consent Decree, the City has agreed to:

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 58 of 109 PageID 10176
1. Develop new promotional examinations for the positions of Engineer, Lieutenant, Captain, and District Chief in all divisions.
2. Expend a total sum of $4,900,000.00 as set forth in this Decree to cover Monetary Relief to eligible individuals, other specific settlement relief to named plaintiffs, and attorneys’ fees.
3. Create up to 40 new Settlement Promotion positions. These newly-created positions will be roving assignments, and will result in an overall increase of up to 40 additional JFRD positions.
What will the new promotional examinations look like? Under the terms of the Decree, the content of the new promotion examinations for each position will depend on the results of a job analysis for that position. New promotion examinations will measure more than job knowledge. All new examinations must comply with requirements of the collective bargaining agreements currently in place for the positions of Engineer, Lieutenant, Captain, and District Chief.
Which individuals are eligible to receive Monetary Relief and/or Settlement Promotion Positions under the Consent Decree? Claimants are eligible for relief. Claimants are African Americans and private plaintiffs who took any of the Engineer, Lieutenant (Suppression), Captain (Suppression), and/or District Chief (Suppression) examinations between 2004 and 2011, and Smith plaintiffs who took the 2008 Captain (Rescue) and/or the 2008 District Chief (Rescue) examinations. Claimants must return the necessary forms within specific time periods to be eligible for relief. Claimants seeking Settlement Promotions must meet other requirements as well.
How will the $4.9 million Settlement Fund be distributed? The money in the Settlement Fund shall be distributed as follows: a. Two Million Seven Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($2,750,000) to be allocated among
eligible Claimants seeking Monetary Relief; b. Five Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($520,000) to be distributed equally among the
Smith Plaintiffs as specific settlement relief; c. One Hundred Thirty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) to be distributed equally among the
Baker Intervenors as specific settlement relief; d. Sixty Thousand Dollars ($60,000) to the JBOF organization as specific settlement relief; e. Forty Thousand Dollars ($40,000) to the NAACP organization as specific settlement
relief; and f. One Million Four Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,400,000) to resolve attorneys’ fees and
costs claimed by the NAACP, JBOF, Baker Intervenors, and Smith Plaintiffs.
How will the $2,750,000 in Monetary Relief be allocated among the Claimants eligible to receive Monetary Relief? The United States will initially determine each Claimant’s share of the amount available for Monetary Relief. Under the Decree, the United States will take into account the date of the promotion examination which the Claimant took and subsequent personnel action with respect to

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 59 of 109 PageID 10177
the Claimant (i.e., promotion, retirement, separation from service). The Court will make the final decision on each Claimant’s share of the $2,750,000 available for Monetary Relief.
What are the new Settlement Promotion positions? The City will create up to 26 Engineer positions, 7 Lieutenant (Suppression) positions, 4 Captain (Suppression) positions, 2 District Chief (Suppression) positions, and 1 Lieutenant (Rescue) position. All newly-created positions will be roving assignments. Once a Claimant vacates the roving assignment, that position will remain budgeted for regular promotions until the Claimant who initially filled the position separates from JFRD.
Who is eligible for the Settlement Promotions? African Americans who scored a 70 or above on an examination for a promotional position and were not promoted to that position, or to an equal (or higher) ranking position in another division, are eligible for a Settlement Promotion. Eligibility for Settlement Promotion depends on several other factors, including whether the Claimant is still employed at JFRD, the Claimant’s current rank, the Claimant’s disciplinary history, and whether the Claimant met the qualifications set forth in the Professional Growth and Development Plan at the time the Claimant took the examination.
Will the Settlement Promotions created by the Consent Decree mean fewer promotions for other people? No. The Settlement Promotions are newly-created positions that do not take positions away from individuals on the eligibility lists developed from promotion examinations.
Will the people who get Settlement Promotions have more seniority than people already in the rank? No. The Settlement Promotions do not come with retroactive seniority. The relief in the Decree does not affect the competitive seniority benefits of any JFRD employee. Seniority will accrue only for time actually spent in rank.
Is there any other type of relief provided? Yes. Claimants who receive Monetary Relief may also be eligible to have their pension benefits adjusted. Pension adjustment is available only to those Claimants who: (1) have entered the Deferred Retired Option Program (“DROP”) or retired (thereby establishing the Claimant’s biweekly pension benefit) by Final Entry of the Decree; (2) were not promoted after last taking a challenged exam; and (3) do not elect a lump-sum distribution. All employer-side and employee-side contributions to adjust pension benefits will come from the Claimant’s share of the $2,750,000 available for Monetary Relief and shall be based on a formula agreed to by the parties.
What happens next? The Court will hold a “Fairness Hearing” to determine whether the terms of the Consent Decree are fair, reasonable, adequate, and otherwise consistent with federal law. The hearing will be on [date]. If the Court approves the Decree, the parties will take the actions in the Decree and execute the relief.

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 60 of 109 PageID 10178
What if I object to the terms of the Consent Decree? You may submit an objection to any of the terms of the Decree. Any objections must be submitted in writing. Instructions for filing an objection are enclosed with this notice. Making an objection is voluntary, but if you do not object by [DATE] you may be prohibited from taking any action challenging this Decree in the future.
What if I agree with the terms of the Consent Decree? If you wish to receive relief, you must complete an interest in relief form.
How do I file an objection? Follow the instructions in the enclosed objection forms.
If I file an objection, will it affect my ability to receive relief under the Consent Decree if the Court approves the Decree? No.
Can I attend the Fairness Hearing? Yes. The Fairness Hearing will be held on ____________ at ___ a.m., at the Bryan Simpson United States Courthouse, 300 North Hogan Street, Jacksonville, Florida 32202.
Can I speak at the Fairness Hearing? The judge may allow individuals to speak at the hearing. If you are interested in doing so, please indicate that on your objection form.
Do I need a lawyer to object to the Consent Decree? No, you do not need a lawyer, but you may consult one or retain one at your own cost if you wish to do so.
Can I obtain a copy of the Consent Decree settling the lawsuit? Yes. A publicly-accessible link to a pdf version of the Consent Decree has been posted on the City’s website. You may also contact the Department of Justice at 1-833-341-4673 for a copy.

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 61 of 109 PageID 10179
APPENDIX 1 (PART 3)
INSTRUCTIONS FOR FILING AN OBJECTION PRIOR TO THE FAIRNESS HEARING
1. You may object to the terms of the Consent Decree. Making an objection is voluntary, but if you do not object by [DATE], you may be prohibited from taking any action challenging this Consent Decree in the future. If you decide to object, you must follow the instructions set out on this page. If you choose to object, the judge will consider your objection before deciding whether to approve the terms of the Consent Decree.
2. All objections must be submitted by [DATE]. You may submit your objection by mail or by email. If your objection is not submitted by this date, your objection may not be considered and you may be prohibited from objecting at a later time. The submission date of the objection will be the date of the postmark by United States Postal Service or the date on the email you send.
3. All objections must be made in writing. Your objection should be made on the attached form, showing the caption of the case. You must fill out this page completely. You must include a description of the basis of your objection. If you have retained an attorney to assist you in this matter, indicate with your objection the name, address and phone number of your attorney. You may attach additional pages to the caption page/form if necessary.
4. Objections must be sent to the following:
By EMAIL
If you submit an objection by email, it must be sent to:
Jacksonville.Settlement@usdoj.gov
By Mail
If you submit an objection by mail, submit your objection to the following address:
U.S. Department of Justice Consolidated City of Jacksonville Litigation Team Civil Rights Division/ELS P.O. Box 14400 Washington, D.C. 20044-4400
5. The court will hold the Fairness Hearing on ____________ at ___ a.m., at the Bryan Simpson United States Courthouse, 300 North Hogan Street, Jacksonville, Florida 32202.

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 62 of 109 PageID 10180
You may attend this hearing if you wish, but you need not attend to have the Court consider any written objections you have submitted.
6. If you have any questions concerning the procedure to submit an objection, you may consult with an attorney of your own choosing and at your own expense. You also may call the Employment Litigation Section of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice at 1-833-341-4673. If you do call this number, please leave your name, a brief explanation of the reason for your call, your telephone number, and a time when you can be reached. Your call will be returned as soon as possible. The Department of Justice can provide information on settlement, however, it is not authorized to provide legal advice to individuals.

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 63 of 109 PageID 10181

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

__________________________________________

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

) No. 3:12-cv-451-J-32MCR

)

) No. 3:11-cv-345-J-32MCR

v.

)

) No. 3:12-cv-491-J-32MCR

CONSOLIDATED CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, )

et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

OBJECTION TO THE ENTRY OF THE CONSENT DECREE

I am objecting to the terms of settlement of this case included in the Consent Decree agreed to by the United States of America, the EEOC, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Jacksonville Branch, Jacksonville Brotherhood of Firefighters, private plaintiffs, the Consolidated City of Jacksonville and the Jacksonville Association of Fire Fighters, Local 122.

Name:

Attorney’s name (if any): ____________________

Address:

Attorney’s address:

Email address: _____________________

_____________________ _____________________ _____________________

Telephone:

Attorney’s Telephone: _____________________

Basis of my objection:

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 64 of 109 PageID 10182
Are you requesting the opportunity for you (or your attorney if you have one) to state your objection in person at the Fairness Hearing? [ ] Yes [ ] No YOU MAY USE ADDITIONAL PAGES TO EXPLAIN THE BASIS OF YOUR OBJECTION IF NECESSARY. YOU MUST SEND YOUR OBJECTION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AT THE ADDRESS PROVIDED IN THE INSTRUCTIONS. YOUR OBJECTION MUST BE POSTMARKED BY [DATE] IF MAILED, AND TRANSMITTED BY [DATE] IF SUBMITTED BY EMAIL.

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 65 of 109 PageID 10183
APPENDIX 1 (PART 4)
Interest in Relief Notification and Form
On [insert date] , the Court will hold a Fairness Hearing regarding the Consent Decree resolving lawsuits brought by Plaintiffs United States of America, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (“NAACP”), Jacksonville Branch, Jacksonville Brotherhood of Firefighters (“JBOF”), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), and two groups of private individuals (Smith Plaintiffs and Baker Intervenors) against Defendants Consolidated City of Jacksonville (“City”) and Jacksonville Association of Fire Fighters, Local 122, IAFF (“Union”).
If the Court approves the Consent Decree, you may be eligible for relief.
Which individuals are eligible to receive Monetary Relief and Settlement Promotion Positions under the Consent Decree? Claimants are eligible for relief. Claimants are African Americans and private plaintiffs who took any of the Engineer, Lieutenant (Suppression), Captain (Suppression), and/or District Chief (Suppression) examinations between 2004 and 2011, and private plaintiffs who took the Captain (Rescue) and District Chief (Rescue) examinations between 2007 and 2011. Claimants must return the necessary forms within specific time periods to be eligible for relief. Claimants seeking Settlement Promotions must meet other requirements as well.
What types of relief does the Consent Decree provide? The Consent Decree provides for:
1. $4.9 million dollars to cover Monetary Relief to Claimants, other specific settlement relief to named plaintiffs, and attorneys’ fees. The money will be distributed as follows: a. Two Million Seven Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($2,750,000) to be allocated among eligible Claimants seeking Monetary Relief; b. Five Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($520,000) to be distributed equally among the Smith Plaintiffs as specific settlement relief; c. One Hundred Thirty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) to be distributed equally among the Baker Intervenors as a specific settlement relief; d. Sixty Thousand Dollars ($60,000) to the JBOF organization as specific settlement relief; e. Forty Thousand Dollars ($40,000) to the NAACP organization as specific settlement relief; and f. One Million Four Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,400,000) to resolve attorneys’ fees and costs claimed by the NAACP, JBOF, the Baker Intervenors, and the Smith Plaintiffs.
2. The City will create up to 26 Engineer positions, 7 Lieutenant (Suppression) positions, 4 Captain (Suppression) positions, 2 District Chief (Suppression) positions, and 1 Lieutenant (Rescue) position. All newly-created positions will be roving

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 66 of 109 PageID 10184
assignments. Once a Claimant vacates the roving assignment, that position will remain budgeted for regular promotions until the Claimant who initially filled the position separates from JFRD.
3. The ability, in some instances, for a Claimant’s pension benefits to be adjusted.
What type of relief am I eligible for? That depends on several factors, including whether you are a named plaintiff, whether you are currently employed by JFRD, whether you have retired, whether you are in the DROP program, and whether you were eventually promoted. The United States will make preliminary eligibility determinations. The Court will make the final decision on Claimant eligibility.
If the Consent Decree is approved, how much Monetary Relief will I get? The United States will initially determine each Claimant’s share of the amount available for Monetary Relief from the $2,750,000 million dollars for this purpose. Under the Decree, the United States will take into account the date of the promotion examination which the Claimant took and subsequent personnel action with respect to the Claimant (i.e., promotion, retirement, separation from service). The Court will make the final decision on each Claimant’s share of the $2,750,000 available for Monetary Relief.
If the Consent Decree is approved, will I get a Settlement Promotion? Eligibility for promotion relief depends on several factors. African Americans who scored a 70 or above on an examination for a promotional position and were not promoted to that position, or to an equal (or higher) ranking position in another division, are eligible for a Settlement Promotion. Eligibility for Settlement Promotion depends on several other factors, including whether the Claimant is still employed at JFRD, the Claimant’s current rank, the Claimant’s disciplinary history, and whether the Claimant met the qualifications set forth in the Professional Growth and Development Plan at the time the Claimant took the examination.
Does the Consent Decree provide for retroactive seniority for Claimants who receive a Settlement Promotion? No.
If the Consent Decree is approved, will I get the opportunity to adjust my pension benefit? Claimants who receive Monetary Relief may also be eligible to have their pension benefits adjusted. Pension adjustment is available only to those Claimants who: (1) have entered the Deferred Retired Option Program (“DROP”) or retired (thereby establishing the Claimant’s biweekly pension benefit) by Final Entry of the Decree; (2) were not promoted after last taking a challenged exam; and (3) do not elect a lump-sum distribution. All employer-side and employee-side contributions to adjust pension benefits will come from the Claimant’s share of the $2,750,000 available for Monetary Relief and shall be based on a formula agreed to by the parties.
How will I know what type(s) of relief I am eligible for, including how much Monetary Relief I may receive and what my pension adjustment will be?

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 67 of 109 PageID 10185
If the Court approves the Consent Decree and you submit an Interest-in-Relief form, you will receive a notification from the United States specifying the amount and type(s) of relief for which you are eligible.
Do I need a lawyer to get relief under the Consent Decree? No. You do not need a lawyer to ask for or obtain relief under the Consent Decree, but you may consult one or retain one at your own cost if you wish to do so.
If I am interested in relief, what is the next step? You MUST return the enclosed “Interest in Relief” Form by [date]. You may return it to:
By email:
Jacksonville.Settlement@usdoj.gov
By United States Mail:
U.S. Department of Justice Consolidated City of Jacksonville Litigation Team Civil Rights Division/ELS P.O. Box 14400 Washington, D.C. 20044-4400
If you have questions, you may call the Employment Litigation Section of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice at 1-833-341-4673. If you do call this number, please leave your name, a brief explanation of the reason for your call, your telephone number, and a time when you can be reached. Your call will be returned as soon as possible. The Department of Justice can provide information on the settlement, it is not authorized, however, to provide legal advice to individuals.
SUBMITTING THE CLAIM FORM BY [insert date] , DOES NOT GUARANTEE THAT YOU ARE ENTITLED TO OR WILL RECEIVE ANY RELIEF. HOWEVER, IF YOU FAIL TO SUBMIT A CLAIM FORM BY [insert date] YOU MAY BE BARRED FROM OBTAINING RELIEF.

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 68 of 109 PageID 10186

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

__________________________________________

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

) No. 3:12-cv-451-J-32MCR

)

) No. 3:11-cv-345-J-32MCR

v.

)

) No. 3:12-cv-491-J-32TEM

CONSOLIDATED CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, )

et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

INTEREST IN RELIEF FORM

I am interested in obtaining relief under the Consent Decree agreed to by the United States of America, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Jacksonville Branch, Jacksonville Brotherhood of Firefighters, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, private plaintiffs, Consolidated City of Jacksonville, and Jacksonville Association of Fire Fighters, Local 122, IAFF and entered by the Court in the above-captioned case.

Name: Other name(s) used: ________________ Telephone: _______________________

Email: ____________________________ Address:

I wish to be considered for the following forms of relief
SELECT ALL THAT APPLY [ ] Monetary Relief [ ] Settlement Promotion [ ] Pension Adjustment* [ ] None
I understand that my interest in relief does not guarantee me relief. I also understand that to obtain relief I will be asked to sign a release of claims.

Dated: _________________

Name: _____________________

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 69 of 109 PageID 10187
*Pension Adjustment is not available to all Claimants. Only Claimants who have retired or who have entered the Deferred Retirement Option Program (“DROP”) (thereby establishing the Claimant’s bi-weekly pension benefit) by Final Entry of the Decree will be eligible for this type of relief.
Any personally identifiable information other than name (i.e., address and telephone number) shall be redacted.

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 70 of 109 PageID 10188

APPENDIX 2 (PART 1)
(COVER LETTER TO NON-CLAIMANTS)
Re: United States et al. v. Consolidated City of Jacksonville et al., Civil Action 3:12-cv-451-J-32MCR (M.D. Fla.), Smith et al. v. Consolidated City of Jacksonville et al., Civil Action 3:11-cv-345-J-32MCR (M.D. Fla.), and EEOC v. Jacksonville Association of Fire Fighters Local 122, IAFF, Civil Action 3:12-cv-491-J32MCR (M.D. Fla.).

Please read these documents carefully.

This letter is to notify you of the settlement of civil lawsuits among Plaintiffs United States of America, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Jacksonville Branch (“NAACP”), Jacksonville Brotherhood of Firefighters (“JBOF”), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), and two groups of private plaintiffs (the Smith Plaintiffs and Baker Intervenors), and Defendants Consolidated City of Jacksonville and Jacksonville Association of Fire Fighters, Local 122, IAFF (“Union”) that may affect you.

Enclosed please find three documents:

1. NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AND FAIRNESS HEARING

This document describes the basis of the lawsuit and a summary of the terms of the

settlement. The settlement agreement itself is available at: www.

.

In addition, the document provides the time and place of a Fairness Hearing regarding the settlement and tells you how to make an objection to the terms of the settlement if you choose to do so.

2. INSTRUCTIONS FOR FILING AN OBJECTION PRIOR TO THE FAIRNESS HEARING

3. OBJECTION FORM

If you do not return the form on time, you may lose your opportunity to object.

Sincerely,

Enclosures

City of Jacksonville

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 71 of 109 PageID 10189
APPENDIX 2 (PART 2)
NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AND FAIRNESS HEARING
On __________, 2018, the Parties (United States of America; the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Jacksonville Branch (“NAACP”), the Jacksonville Brotherhood of Firefighters (“JBOF”); the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), two groups of private individuals (Smith Plaintiffs and Baker Intervenors), the Consolidated City of Jacksonville (“City”), and the Jacksonville Association of Fire Fighters, Local 122, JAFF (“Union”)) settled civil lawsuits.
What are these lawsuits about? The United States, the NAACP, the JBOF, the Smith Plaintiffs and Baker Intervenors brought lawsuits claiming that the City discriminated against African-American firefighters in promotions in the fire department because certain promotion tests that the City used violated the law (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act).
In their lawsuit, the United States, Baker Intervenors, the NAACP, and the JBOF allege that the City used promotional exams that had a disparate impact on African-American candidates, and that the exams were not sufficiently job related nor consistent with business necessity. The United States, Baker Intervenors, the NAACP, and the JBOF do not, however, allege that the City has intentionally discriminated against any person or group of persons.
The Smith Plaintiffs brought a separate lawsuit against the City and the Union claiming that the City used promotional exams that had a disparate impact on African-American and NativeAmerican candidates, and that the exams were not sufficiently job related nor consistent with business necessity. The Smith Plaintiffs also alleged disparate treatment claims.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) brought a lawsuit against the Union claiming that the Union negotiated and advocated for a discriminatory promotional process that resulted in disparate impact against African Americans.
The City and the Union dispute the Plaintiffs’ claims and allegations, and deny that they have violated Title VII. The Defendants contend that the promotional process and tests in use at JFRD did not have disparate impact against African Americans, and were content valid, jobrelated, and consistent with the City’s business necessity, or otherwise consistent with the requirements of Title VII. However, in the interest of resolving these matters, the Parties have voluntarily entered into a Consent Decree settling the lawsuits.
Why did I get this notice? You received this notice because you may be affected by the terms in the Consent Decree. This notice summarizes the terms of the Consent Decree. It also explains how you may object to it, if you wish. The Court will consider objections before approving the Consent Decree.
What are the terms of the Consent Decree? If the Court approves the Consent Decree, the City has agreed to:

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 72 of 109 PageID 10190
1. Develop new promotional examinations for the positions of Engineer, Lieutenant, Captain, and District Chief in all divisions.
2. Expend a total sum of $4,900,000.00 as set forth in this Decree to cover Monetary Relief to eligible individuals, other specific settlement relief to named plaintiffs, and attorneys’ fees.
3. Create up to 40 new Settlement Promotion positions. These newly-created positions will be roving assignments, and will result in an overall increase of up to 40 additional JFRD positions.
What will the new promotional examinations look like? Under the terms of the Decree, the content of the new promotion examinations for each position will depend on the results of a job analysis for that position. New promotion examinations will measure more than job knowledge. All new examinations must comply with requirements of the collective bargaining agreements currently in place for the positions of Engineer, Lieutenant, Captain, and District Chief.
Which individuals are eligible to receive Monetary Relief and/or Settlement Promotion Positions under the Consent Decree? Claimants are eligible for relief. Claimants are African Americans and private plaintiffs who took any of the Engineer, Lieutenant (Suppression), Captain (Suppression), and/or District Chief (Suppression) examinations between 2004 and 2011, and Smith plaintiffs who took the 2008 Captain (Rescue) and/or the 2008 District Chief (Rescue) examinations. Claimants must return the necessary forms within specific time periods to be eligible for relief. Claimants seeking Settlement Promotions must meet other requirements as well.
How will the $4.9 million Settlement Fund be distributed? The money in the Settlement Fund shall be distributed as follows: a. Two Million Seven Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($2,750,000) to be allocated among
eligible Claimants seeking Monetary Relief; b. Five Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($520,000) to be distributed equally among the
Smith Plaintiffs as specific settlement relief; c. One Hundred Thirty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) to be distributed equally among the
Baker Intervenors as specific settlement relief; d. Sixty Thousand Dollars ($60,000) to the JBOF organization as specific settlement relief; e. Forty Thousand Dollars ($40,000) to the NAACP organization as specific settlement
relief; and f. One Million Four Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,400,000) to resolve attorneys’ fees and
costs claimed by the NAACP, JBOF, Baker Intervenors, and Smith Plaintiffs.
How will the $2,750,000 in Monetary Relief be allocated among the Claimants eligible to receive Monetary Relief? The United States will initially determine each Claimant’s share of the amount available for Monetary Relief. Under the Decree, the United States will take into account the date of the promotion examination which the Claimant took and subsequent personnel action with respect to

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 73 of 109 PageID 10191
the Claimant (i.e., promotion, retirement, separation from service). The Court will make the final decision on each Claimant’s share of the $2,750,000 available for Monetary Relief.
What are the new Settlement Promotion positions? The City will create up to 26 Engineer positions, 7 Lieutenant (Suppression) positions, 4 Captain (Suppression) positions, 2 District Chief (Suppression) positions, and 1 Lieutenant (Rescue) position. All newly-created positions will be roving assignments. Once a Claimant vacates the roving assignment, that position will remain budgeted for regular promotions until the Claimant who initially filled the position separates from JFRD.
Who is eligible for the Settlement Promotions? African Americans who scored a 70 or above on an examination for a promotional position and were not promoted to that position, or to an equal (or higher) ranking position in another division, are eligible for a Settlement Promotion. Eligibility for Settlement Promotion depends on several other factors, including whether the Claimant is still employed at JFRD, the Claimant’s current rank, the Claimant’s disciplinary history, and whether the Claimant met the qualifications set forth in the Professional Growth and Development Plan at the time the Claimant took the examination.
Will the Settlement Promotions created by the Consent Decree mean fewer promotions for other people? No. The Settlement Promotions are newly-created positions that do not take positions away from individuals on the eligibility lists developed from promotion examinations.
Will the people who get Settlement Promotions have more seniority than people already in the rank? No. The Settlement Promotions do not come with retroactive seniority. The relief in the Decree does not affect the competitive seniority benefits of any JFRD employee. Seniority will accrue only for time actually spent in rank.
Is there any other type of relief provided? Yes. Claimants who receive Monetary Relief may also be eligible to have their pension benefits adjusted. Pension adjustment is available only to those Claimants who: (1) have entered the Deferred Retired Option Program (“DROP”) or retired (thereby establishing the Claimant’s biweekly pension benefit) by Final Entry of the Decree; (2) were not promoted after last taking a challenged exam; and (3) do not elect a lump-sum distribution. All employer-side and employee-side contributions to adjust pension benefits will come from the Claimant’s share of the $2,750,000 available for Monetary Relief and shall be based on a formula agreed to by the parties.
What happens next? The Court will hold a “Fairness Hearing” to determine whether the terms of the Consent Decree are fair, reasonable, adequate, and otherwise consistent with federal law. The hearing will be on [date]. If the Court approves the Decree, the parties will take the actions in the Decree and execute the relief.

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 74 of 109 PageID 10192
What if I object to the terms of the Consent Decree? You may submit an objection to any of the terms of the Decree. Any objections must be submitted in writing. Instructions for filing an objection are enclosed with this notice. Making an objection is voluntary, but if you do not object by [DATE] you may be prohibited from taking any action challenging this Decree in the future.
How do I file an objection? Follow the instructions in the enclosed objection forms.
Can I attend the Fairness Hearing? Yes. The Fairness Hearing will be held on ____________ at ___ a.m., at the Bryan Simpson United States Courthouse, 300 North Hogan Street, Jacksonville, Florida 32202.
Can I speak at the Fairness Hearing? The judge may allow individuals to speak at the hearing. If you are interested in doing so, please indicate that on your objection form.
Do I need a lawyer to object to the Consent Decree? No, you do not need a lawyer, but you may consult one or retain one at your own cost if you wish to do so.
Can I obtain a copy of the Consent Decree settling the lawsuit? Yes. A publicly-accessible link to a pdf version of the Consent Decree has been posted on the City’s website. You may also contact the Department of Justice at 1-833-341-4673 for a copy.

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 75 of 109 PageID 10193
APPENDIX 2 (PART 3)
INSTRUCTIONS FOR FILING AN OBJECTION PRIOR TO THE FAIRNESS HEARING
1. You may object to the terms of the Consent Decree. Making an objection is voluntary, but if you do not object at this time, you may be prohibited from taking any action challenging this Consent Decree in the future. If you decide to object, you must follow the instructions set out on this page. If you choose to object, the judge will consider your objection before deciding whether to approve the terms of the Consent Decree.
2. All objections must be submitted by [DATE]. You may submit your objection by mail or by email. If your objection is not submitted by this date, your objection may not be considered and you may be prohibited from objecting at a later time. The submission date of the objection will be the date of the postmark by United States Postal Service or the date on the email you send.
3. All objections must be made in writing. Your objection should be made on the attached form, showing the caption of the case. You must fill out this page completely. You must include a description of the basis of your objection. If you have retained an attorney to assist you in this matter, indicate with your objection the name, address and phone number of your attorney. You may attach additional pages to the caption page/form if necessary.
4. Objections must be sent to the following:
By EMAIL
If you submit an objection by email, it must be sent to:
Jacksonville.Settlement@usdoj.gov
By Mail
If you submit an objection by mail, submit your objection to the following address:
U.S. Department of Justice Consolidated City of Jacksonville Litigation Team Civil Rights Division/ELS P.O. Box 14400 Washington, D.C. 20044-4400
5. The court will hold the Fairness Hearing on ____________ at ____ a.m., at the Bryan Simpson United States Courthouse, 300 North Hogan Street, Jacksonville, Florida 32202.

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 76 of 109 PageID 10194
You may attend this hearing if you wish, but you need not attend to have the Court consider any written objections you submit.
6. If you have any questions concerning the procedure to submit an objection, you may consult with an attorney of your own choosing and at your own expense, or you may call the Employment Litigation Section of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice at 1-833-341-4673. If you do call this number, please leave your name, a brief explanation of the reason for your call, your telephone number, and a time when you can be reached. Your call will be returned as soon as possible. The Department of Justice can provide information on the settlement, it is not authorized, however, to provide legal advice to individuals.

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 77 of 109 PageID 10195

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

__________________________________________

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

) No. 3:12-cv-451-J-32MCR

)

) No. 3:11-cv-345-J-32MCR

v.

)

) No. 3:12-cv-491-J-32MCR

CONSOLIDATED CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, )

et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

OBJECTION TO THE ENTRY OF THE CONSENT DECREE

I am objecting to the terms of settlement of this case included in the Consent Decree agreed to by the United States of America, the EEOC, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Jacksonville Branch, Jacksonville Brotherhood of Firefighters, private plaintiffs, the Consolidated City of Jacksonville and the Jacksonville Association of Fire Fighters, Local 122.

Name:

Attorney’s name (if any): ____________________

Address:

Attorney’s address:

Email address: _____________________

_____________________ _____________________ _____________________

Telephone:

Attorney’s Telephone: _____________________

Basis of my objection:

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 78 of 109 PageID 10196
Are you requesting the opportunity for you (or your attorney if you have one) to state your objection in person at the Fairness Hearing? [ ] Yes [ ] No
YOU MAY USE ADDITIONAL PAGES TO EXPLAIN THE BASIS OF YOUR OBJECTION IF NECESSARY. YOU MUST SEND YOUR OBJECTION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AT THE ADDRESS PROVIDED IN THE INSTRUCTIONS. YOUR OBJECTION MUST BE POSTMARKED BY [DATE] IF MAILED, AND TRANSMITTED BY [DATE] IF SUBMITTED BY EMAIL.
Any personally identifiable information other than name (i.e., address and telephone number) shall be redacted.

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 79 of 109 PageID 10197
APPENDIX 3 (PART 1) LETTER TO CLAIMANTS
Mr. XXXXXXXX 1234 XXXXXXX Jacksonville, Florida XXXX
Re: United States et al. v. Consolidated City of Jacksonville et al., Civil Action 3:12-cv-451-J-32MCR (M.D. Fla.), Smith et al. v. Consolidated City of Jacksonville et al., Civil Action 3:11-cv-345-J-32MCR (M.D. Fla.), and EEOC v. Jacksonville Association of Fire Fighters Local 122, IAFF, Civil Action 3:12-cv-491-J32MCR (M.D. Fla.).
Dear Mr. or Ms. XXXXX:
You are receiving this notice because you submitted an Interest-in-Relief Form indicating your interest in relief in the above-referenced case. PLEASE READ THIS DOCUMENT VERY CAREFULLY.
On [DATE XX], after holding a Fairness Hearing on the Terms of the Consent Decree, the Court approved the Consent Decree in United States et al. v. Consolidated City of Jacksonville et al., Civil Action 3:12-cv-451-J-32MCR (M.D. Fla.), Smith et al. v. Consolidated City of Jacksonville et al., Civil Action 3:11-cv-345-J-32MCR (M.D. Fla.), and EEOC v. Jacksonville Association of Fire Fighters Local 122, IAFF, Civil Action 3:12-cv-491-J-32MCR (M.D. Fla.). Pursuant to the terms of the Consent Decree, the United States has reviewed the Interest-in-Relief Form you submitted, and made certain determinations concerning your eligibility for relief under the terms of the Consent Decree. This document:
1. Describes the type(s) of relief and amount of relief for which the United States has determined you are eligible, or explains the reason(s) why the United States determined you are ineligible for the relief you seek.
2. Explains what to do if you object to the United States’ Relief Determination. 3. Explains your options regarding using any Monetary Relief to adjust your pension
benefit.
The United States’ relief determinations are subject to the Court’s review and approval. On [DATE], the Court will hold a Fairness Hearing on Individual Relief to determine whether the United States’ individual relief determinations should be approved or amended. Prior to the hearing, you may submit a written objection to the United States’ individual relief determination for the Court to consider. Submitting a written objection is voluntary. However, if you do not submit an objection by [DATE], you may be prohibited from objecting in the future.
The United States has made the following determinations:
1. ELIGIBILITY FOR MONETARY RELIEF. The United States has made a preliminary determination that you [ ] are [ ] are not eligible to share in the amount of

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 80 of 109 PageID 10198
the settlement being distributed to Claimants seeking Monetary Relief under the Consent Decree.
[FOR NAMED PLAINTIFFS, ADD THE FOLLOWING SENTENCE]
Monetary Relief is separate and distinct from the Specific Settlement Relief the Court has already approved for you. You must still execute an Acceptance of Relief and Release of Claims to receive any relief approved by the Court.
2. SHARE OF MONETARY RELIEF. At this time, your estimated share of the Monetary Relief is $XX.XX. Your share of the Monetary Relief will ultimately be determined by the Court, following a Fairness Hearing on Individual Relief. All Monetary Relief will be subject to appropriate withholding for taxes.
[DO NOT INCLUDE NO. 2 IF CLAIMANT IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR A SHARE]
3. PENSION ADJUSTMENT. If, by the time the Court approves and enters the Consent Decree, you have retired or entered the Deferred Retirement Option Program (“DROP”) while still holding the rank directly below the rank you were seeking when you last took a challenged exam, your share of Monetary Relief WILL BE USED to adjust your pension benefit as described below UNLESS you request that your share of the Monetary Relief be distributed directly to you in a lump sum (which will be subject to appropriate withholding for taxes).
ADJUSTED PENSION BENEFIT ESTIMATE The accompanying document explains how your share of the Monetary Relief will be used to adjust your annual pension, including what amounts from your share will be applied to the costs associated with adjusting your pension benefit, and the effect on your bi-weekly pension benefit. The document also states what amount, if any, of your share of the Monetary Relief will be left over for distribution directly to you by the City. Any amount left over for direct distribution to you is subject to appropriate withholding for taxes. All costs associated with adjusting your pension benefit, including those costs paid by the City, will be deducted from your share of the Monetary Relief.
OPTIONAL LUMP SUM DISBURSEMENT You may request that the Monetary Relief be distributed directly to you in a lump sum (minus appropriate withholding for taxes), rather than being used to adjust your pension benefit. To have your Monetary Relief share distributed directly to you, sign the accompanying OPTIONAL REQUEST FOR DIRECT DISTRIBUTION OF MONETARY RELIEF form, and return the executed form no later than [DATE] to the following address:
U.S. Department of Justice Consolidated City of Jacksonville Litigation Team

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 81 of 109 PageID 10199
Civil Rights Division/ELS P.O. Box 14400 Washington, D.C. 20044-4400
or by EMAIL at:
Jacksonville.Settlement@usdoj.gov
IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING PENSION ADJUSTMENT If you do not file the form requesting the lump sum payment, your Monetary Relief will be used to adjust your pension benefit.
Requests that Monetary Relief be distributed directly in a lump sum (minus appropriate withholding for taxes), rather than being used to adjust pension benefits are FINAL, and cannot be changed.
[DO NOT INCLUDE NO. 3 IF CLAIMANT IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR A SHARE OF MONETARY RELIEF]
4. If, by the time the Court approves and enters the Consent Decree, you have NOT retired or NOT entered the Deferred Retirement Option Program (“DROP”) while still holding the rank directly below the rank you were seeking when you last took a challenged exam, your share of the Monetary Relief cannot be used to adjust your pension benefits. Your share will be distributed directly to you, minus appropriate withholdings.
[DO NOT INCLUDE NO. 4 IF CLAIMANT IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR A SHARE OF MONETARY RELIEF]
5. SETTLEMENT PROMOTION. The United States has made a preliminary determination that you [ ] are [ ] are not eligible for a settlement promotion to the position of ____________. If the United States has determined preliminarily that you are eligible for a promotion, this does not ensure that you will be promoted.
6. To the extent that the United States has determined that you are not eligible for Monetary Relief or has determined that you are not eligible for a settlement promotion, the reason(s) for this determination are: ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________
[INCLUDE NO. 6 ONLY IN INSTANCES IN WHICH A CLAIMANT IS DENIED RELIEF FOR WHICH HE/SHE APPLIED.]

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 82 of 109 PageID 10200

Next Steps:
The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing on Individual Relief which will be held on [insert date] , at the Bryan Simpson United States Courthouse, 300 North Hogan Street, Jacksonville, Florida 32202. You have the right to attend this Fairness Hearing.
What will happen at the hearing? The United States will ask the Court to approve all of the United States’ determinations regarding individual relief. The Court may approve them or may adjust them with respect to you and/or other Claimants under the procedures set forth in the Consent Decree.
What should I do if I object to the relief determination made by the United States? If you wish to object to the United States’ preliminary relief determinations in any respect, you must take action, as explained in the enclosed “INSTRUCTIONS FOR FILING AN OBJECTION TO INDIVIDUAL RELIEF” by no later than [DATE]. Submitting a written objection is voluntary. However, if you do not submit an objection by [DATE], you may be prohibited from objecting in the future. You may request an opportunity to be heard at the Fairness Hearing, but you do not need to appear at the Fairness Hearing for the Court to consider your objections.
What should I do if I agree with the determination made by the United States? You do not need to take any action at this time. You will be notified once the Court has made its determination.
What do I do if I do not want my share of the Monetary Relief to be used to adjust my pension benefit? You must sign and return the OPTIONAL REQUEST FOR DIRECT DISTRIBUTION OF MONETARY RELIEF form below no later than [DATE].
What should I do if I have questions? You can call the Employment Litigation Section of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice at 1-833-341-4673. If you do call this number, please leave your name, address, and telephone number and a time when you can be reached. Your call will be returned as soon as possible. The Department of Justice can provide information on the settlement, however, it is not authorized to provide legal advice to individuals.

Enclosures

Sincerely,
Employment Litigation Section Civil Rights Division United States Department of Justice

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 83 of 109 PageID 10201

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

) No. 3:12-cv-451-J-32MCR

)

) No. 3:11-cv-345-J-32MCR

v.

)

) No. 3:12-cv-491-J-32MCR

CONSOLIDATED CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, )

et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

ESTIMATED ADJUSTED PENSION BENEFIT

Dear Mr. or Ms. XXXXX:

You have been found eligible to share in the amount of the settlement being distributed to Claimants seeking Monetary Relief under the Consent Decree. Because you have retired or entered the Deferred Retirement Option Program (“DROP”) while holding the same rank you had when you last took a challenged exam, your share will automatically be used to adjust your pension benefit. This document describes how your share will be used to affect your pension benefit. If you do not want your Monetary Relief to be used to affect your pension benefit, you must return the OPTIONAL REQUEST FOR DIRECT DISTRIBUTION OF MONETARY RELIEF by [DATE].

Under the Consent Decree, all costs associated with adjusting your pension benefit, including those paid by City, will be deducted from your share of the Monetary Relief. The amount to be deducted from your share and the resulting pension benefit adjustment have been computed using a formula agreed to by the parties in this case.

In addition to the pension adjustment, you will receive a net cash payment. This amount is subject to appropriate withholding for taxes. Pursuant to the Consent Decree, both employerside and employee-side withholding for taxes will be deducted from your share of the Monetary Relief.

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 84 of 109 PageID 10202
PLEASE NOTE: THE NUMBERS INCLUDED IN THIS DOCUMENT ARE ESTIMATES. THEY MAY CHANGE.
Your estimated adjusted pension benefit amount will be:
Your estimated net payment (amount that you will receive as paycheck from the City) will be:
Your estimated adjusted pension benefit and net payment amount are based on an agreed-to formula using the following factors:
Pension Hire Date: Date entered DROP/Retirement Date: Current Pension benefit: Settlement/Benefit Calculation Effective Date: Total Monetary Relief Amount:
The agreed-to formula also takes into account the required pension contribution rates depending on the years at issue, interest, and estimated withholding for tax and medicare.
Based on the agreed-to formula, $___________ out of your total Monetary Relief will be considered Pensionable Earnings.
Based on the agreed-to formula, the following amounts would be deducted from your total Monetary Relief Amount $_________:
Estimated City Contributions (with interest): Estimated Employer Medicare Payroll Tax: Estimated Employee Contributions (with interest): Estimated Federal Income Tax (Estimated at 25% of Pensionable Earnings): Estimated Employee Medicare tax withholding:
If you have questions regarding the information above, you may contact the Employment Litigation Section of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice at 1-833-341-4673. If you do call this number, please leave your name, address, and telephone number and a time when you can be reached. Your call will be returned as soon as possible. The Department of Justice can provide information on the settlement, however, it is not authorized to provide legal advice to individuals.
Sincerely,
Employment Litigation Section Civil Rights Division United States Department of Justice

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 85 of 109 PageID 10203

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

__________________________________________

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

) No. 3:12-cv-451-J-32MCR

)

) No. 3:11-cv-345-J-32MCR

v.

)

) No. 3:12-cv-491-J-32MCR

CONSOLIDATED CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, )

et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

OPTIONAL REQUEST FOR DIRECT DISTRIBUTION OF MONETARY RELIEF
Instead of having your Monetary Relief used to affect your pension benefit, you may request that your entire share of the Monetary Relief be distributed directly to you (minus appropriate withholding of taxes). To do so, sign and return this form. If you do so, your pension benefit amount will remain unchanged.
IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING REQUESTS FOR LUMP SUM DISTRIBUTION. Requests that Monetary Relief be distributed directly in a lump sum (minus appropriate withholding for taxes), rather than being used to adjust pension benefits are FINAL, and cannot be changed.

I, _____________________________________, do not want my share of the Monetary Relief to be applied to adjusting my pension benefits. I request that my entire share of Monetary Relief be directly distributed to me. I understand that the distribution of my share directly to me is subject to appropriate withholding for taxes, and that the Consent Decree in this case specifies that both employee-side and employer-side deductions will be taken from the amount distributed to me. I understand that my pension benefit will not change. I understand that my decision is final and cannot be changed.

Dated: ___________

________________________________

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 86 of 109 PageID 10204
APPENDIX 3 (PART 2)
INSTRUCTIONS FOR FILING AN OBJECTION TO INDIVIDUAL RELIEF
1. If you wish to object in any respect to the United States’ preliminary determinations regarding the relief to which you are entitled under the Consent Decree, you must do so in the manner described below. Making an objection is voluntary, but if you do not object at this time, you may be prohibited from objecting in the future. If you choose to make an objection, the judge will consider your objection before deciding whether to approve the types and amounts of relief to be provided to you and other individuals under the Consent Decree.
2. All objections must be submitted by [insert date] . If your objection is not submitted by this date, your objection may not be considered and you may be prohibited from objecting at a later time. The submission date of the objection will be the date of the postmark by United States Postal Service or the date on the email you send.
3. All objections must be made in writing. Your objection should be made on the attached form, showing the caption of the case. You must fill out this form completely. You must include a description of the nature and basis of your objection. If you have retained an attorney to assist you in this matter, please indicate with your objection the name, address and phone number of your attorney. You may attach additional pages to the form if necessary.
4. Objections must be sent to the following:
By EMAIL
If you submit an objection by email, it must be sent to:
Jacksonville.Settlement@usdoj.gov
By Mail
If you submit an objection by mail, submit your objection to the following address:
U.S. Department of Justice Consolidated City of Jacksonville Litigation Team Civil Rights Division/ELS P.O. Box 14400 Washington, D.C. 20044-4400

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 87 of 109 PageID 10205
5. The court will hold the Fairness Hearing on Individual Relief on [insert date] at the Bryan Simpson United States Courthouse, 300 North Hogan Street, Jacksonville, Florida 32202. You may attend this hearing if you wish, but need not attend the hearing to have the Court consider any written objections you submit.
6. If you have any questions concerning the procedure for submitting an objection, you may consult with an attorney of your own choosing and at your own expense.
7. If you have questions concerning your objection, you also may call the Employment Litigation Section of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice at 1-833-3414673. If you do call this number, please leave your name, address, and telephone number and a time when you can be reached. Your call will be returned as soon as possible. The Department of Justice can provide information on the settlement, however, it is not authorized to provide legal advice to individuals.

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 88 of 109 PageID 10206

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

_________________________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

) No. 3:12-cv-451-J-32MCR

)

) No. 3:11-cv-345-J-32MCR

v.

)

) No. 3:12-cv-491-J-32MCR

CONSOLIDATED CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, )

et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

OBJECTION TO UNITED STATES’ DETERMINATION REGARDING INDIVIDUAL RELIEF TO BE AWARDED UNDER THE CONSENT DECREE
I am objecting to the United States’ determinations concerning my eligibility for relief.

Name: ________________________ Address:

Attorney’s name (if any): _____________________
Attorney’s address: _________________________ _____________________
_________________________

Telephone: Email:

Attorney’s Telephone: __________________________

Nature and basis of my objection:

YOU MUST ATTACH A COPY OF ANY DOCUMENTATION THAT YOU HAVE THAT SUPPORTS YOUR OBJECTIONS.

Are you requesting the opportunity for you (or your attorney if you have one) to state your objection in person at the Fairness Hearing on Individual Relief?

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 89 of 109 PageID 10207

[ ] Yes

[ ] No

YOU MAY USE ADDITIONAL PAGES TO EXPLAIN THE BASIS OF YOUR OBJECTION IF NECESSARY.
YOU MUST SEND YOUR OBJECTION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AT THE ADDRESS PROVIDED IN THE INSTRUCTIONS. YOUR OBJECTION MUST BE POSTMARKED BY [DATE] IF MAILED, AND TRANSMITTED BY [DATE] IF SUBMITTED BY EMAIL.
Any personally identifiable information other than name (i.e., address and telephone number) shall be redacted.

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 90 of 109 PageID 10208
APPENDIX 4
NOTICE OF INDIVIDUAL RELIEF DISTRIBUTION AS STATED IN THE FINAL INDIVIDUAL RELIEF LISTS
On [insert date] , the Court approved Final Individual Relief Lists pursuant to the Consent Decree entered by the Court in United States et al. v. Consolidated City of Jacksonville et al., Civil Action 3:12-cv-451-J-32MCR (M.D. Fla.), Smith et al. v. Consolidated City of Jacksonville et al., Civil Action 3:11-cv-345-J-32MCR (M.D. Fla.), and EEOC v. Jacksonville Association of Fire Fighters Local 122, IAFF, Civil Action 3:12-cv-491-J-32MCR (M.D. Fla.). You are being sent this Notice because you have been deemed eligible for either monetary relief, consideration for a settlement promotion, or both.
To receive this monetary relief, and/or consideration for a settlement promotion, if applicable, you must properly and completely fill out the attached Acceptance of Individual Relief and Release of Claims Form, initial the first page of this form where requested, sign the form and return it to the Department of Justice no later than [insert date] to:
By EMAIL
If you submit the form by email, it must be sent to:
Jacksonville.Settlement@usdoj.gov
By Mail
If you submit the form by mail, submit it to the following address:
U.S. Department of Justice Consolidated City of Jacksonville Litigation Team Civil Rights Division/ELS P.O. Box 14400 Washington, D.C. 20044-4400
You also must complete and return the enclosed federal tax form so that appropriate withholdings for taxes may be made from the monetary relief.
If you have any questions about how to submit your Acceptance of Individual Relief and Release of Claims Form, you may wish to consult with an attorney of your own choosing and at your own expense. You also may call the Employment Litigation Section of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice at 1-833-341-4673. If you do call this number, please leave your name, last four digits of your social security number, address and telephone number and a time when you can be reached. Your call will be returned as soon as possible. The Department of Justice can provide information on the settlement; it is, however, not authorized to provide legal advice to individuals.

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 91 of 109 PageID 10209

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

) No. 3:12-cv-451-J-32MCR

)

) No. 3:11-cv-345-J-32MCR

v.

)

) No. 3:12-cv-491-J-32MCR

CONSOLIDATED CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, )

et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

ACCEPTANCE OF INDIVIDUAL RELIEF AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS

I, [insert name]

, have received notice from the United States Department

of Justice of the relief offered to me pursuant to the provisions of the Consent Decree entered by

the Court on [insert date]

in the above-named lawsuit.

[Non-private plaintiff claimants receiving MR share from QSF only, use F1.]
[Non-private plaintiff claimants receiving MR share from QSF and Promotion Chance, use F1 and F5.]
[Non-private plaintiff claimants receiving Pension Adjustment only, use F3.]
[Non-private plaintiff claimants receiving Pension Adjustment and Promotion Chance, use F3 and F5.]

[Private plaintiff claimants receiving MR share from QSF and Specific Settlement Relief, use F2 only.]
[Private plaintiff claimant receiving MR share from QSF, Specific Settlement Relief, and promotion chance, use F2 and F5.]
[Private plaintiff claimant receiving Pension Adjustment and Specific Settlement Relief, use F4.]

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 92 of 109 PageID 10210

[Private plaintiff claimant receiving Pension Adjustment, Specific Settlement Relief and Promotion Chance, use F4 and F5.]
[Named Organization receiving Specific Settlement Relief, use F6.]

F1 – Monetary Relief only

The RELIEF I am being offered consists of Monetary Relief of

[insert amount]

dollars ($ ______.__). This amount is subject to appropriate withholdings for taxes.

I ACCEPT THIS RELIEF.

INITIAL HERE: ____

DATE:

F2 – Monetary Relief and Specific Settlement Relief

The RELIEF I am being offered consists of: (1) Monetary Relief of [insert amount] dollars ($ ______.__); and (2) and Specific Settlement Relief of [insert amount] dollars ($ ______.__). The Monetary Relief amount is subject to appropriate withholding for taxes.

I ACCEPT THIS RELIEF.

INITIAL HERE: ____

DATE:

F3 – Pension Adjustment Only

The RELIEF I am being offered consists of

[insert amount] dollars ($ ______.__),

which will be used to adjust my pension benefits. The costs associated with adjusting my

pension benefits will be taken from this amount. Any amount left over will be distributed

directly to me and is subject to appropriate withholdings for taxes.

My current bi-weekly pension benefit is: $XXXXXX

My estimated share of the Monetary Relief is: $XXXXX

Based on the agreed-to formula and the Consent Decree in this matter, my new estimated biweekly pension benefit is: XXXXXXXX

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 93 of 109 PageID 10211

The estimated amount of my share of Monetary Relief left over after costs to adjust my pension benefits have been satisfied, which will be distributed directly to me, subject to appropriate withholding for taxes: XXXXXXXXXX

I ACCEPT THIS RELIEF.

INITIAL HERE: ____

DATE:

F4 – Pension Adjustment and Specific Settlement Relief

The RELIEF I am being offered consists of

[insert amount] dollars ($ ______.__),

which will be used to adjust my pension benefits. The costs associated with adjusting my

pension benefits will be taken from this amount. Any amount left over will be distributed

directly to me and is subject to appropriate withholdings for taxes.

My current bi-weekly pension benefit is: $XXXXXX

My estimated share of the Monetary Relief is: $XXXXX

Based on the agreed-to formula and the Consent Decree in this matter, my new estimated biweekly pension benefit is: XXXXXXXX

The estimated amount of my share of Monetary Relief left over after costs to increase my pension benefits have been satisfied, which will be distributed directly to me, subject to appropriate withholding for taxes:

I am also being offered Specific Settlement Relief of [insert amount] dollars ($ ______.__).

I ACCEPT THIS RELIEF.

INITIAL HERE: ____ DATE:

F5 – Add to all receiving Promotion Consideration
I am also being offered CONSIDERATION FOR PROMOTION to the position of __________________. I understand that to receive the promotion for which I will be considered, I must have scored at least a 70 on an examination for the rank for which I am being considered for promotion, and I must have met the qualifications set forth in the Professional Growth and Development Plan (“PGDP”), as they existed at the time I took that promotion examination, assuming that any PGDP requirements were in effect at the time of that

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 94 of 109 PageID 10212

examination. I also understand that eligibility for promotion consideration under the Decree does not mean I will receive a promotion pursuant to the Decree.

I ACCEPT THIS RELIEF.

INITIAL HERE: ____

DATE:

F6 – Specific Settlement Relief Only

The RELIEF the [Name of Organization] is being offered consists of a Specific Settlement

Relief of

[insert amount] dollars ($ ______.__).

I ACCEPT THIS RELIEF.

INITIAL HERE: ____

DATE:

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 95 of 109 PageID 10213
In consideration for receipt of the individual relief stated above, ____________, for himself/herself and his/her successors, assigns, heirs, and beneficiaries (“Releasor”), hereby releases and discharges the Consolidated City of Jacksonville (“City”) and JAFF (the “Union”), and their employees, agents, attorneys, predecessors, successors, and assigns (the “Releasees”), from any and all legal or administrative claims filed or that could have been filed relating to JFRD promotions (including but not limited to eligibility for examination, promotion examinations, award of seniority and veterans’ preference and any discrimination or retaliation claims related thereto) through the date of this Release. This includes but is not limited to any charge of discrimination filed, or that could have been filed by Releasor with any entity authorized to receive, investigate, or act upon such charges, including, but not limited to, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Florida Commission on Human Relations, the Jacksonville Human Rights Commission, and any state or federal court of law, relating to discrimination in JFRD promotions (e.g., eligibility for examination, promotion examination, award of seniority points and veterans’ preference points) through the date of this Release.
Releasor further releases the Releasees from any and all claims of retaliation or hostile work environment because of participation in the lawsuits relating to the Consent Decree or expected receipt of moneys or other relief or participation in the settlement of the underlying lawsuits, through and including the date of this Release.
Releasor is not releasing the right to participate in the protest process allowed after each promotion examination, to the extent such protests are timely filed according to the established process applicable to all exam takers.
Releasor further releases the Union from all claims made or that could have been made in EEOC Charge No. XXX-XXXX-XXXXX through the date of this Release.
(The above statement will appear only in the releases of specific JFRD personnel who filed charges against the Union.)
Releasor further releases the Union from all claims made or that could have been made in Smith Complaints A and B (Civil Action No. 3:11-cv-345-J-32MCR) through the date of this Release.
(The above statement will appear only in the releases of former Smith Plaintiffs who are Claimants.)
Specifically excluded from this release are my claims in:
(The above statement will appear only in the release of Marcel White.)
Upon receipt of the relief described herein, Releasor shall notify all applicable administrative agencies or courts that all of Releasor’spending charges or claims relating to promotions may be dismissed with prejudice. Releasor further represents and warrants that this Release of Claims is given voluntarily and for good and valuable consideration.

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 96 of 109 PageID 10214

The Release of Claims contained herein is for the relief described in this Release. The release is not conditioned on the Releasor’s receipt of any other relief under the Consent Decree not described in this document.
Releasor understands that under paragraphs 78-80 and 95 of the Consent Decree, the City is permitted to administer promotion exams, under certain circumstances, using methods and the format employed by the City prior to the Final Entry of the Consent Decree.
Releasor understands that he/she must properly and completely fill out this Acceptance of Individual Relief and Release of Claims form, initial the first page of this form, sign the form and return it to the Department of Justice no later than [insert date] in order to receive the relief detailed herein.
I HAVE READ THIS ACCEPTANCE OF INDIVIDUAL RELIEF AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS FORM AND UNDERSTAND THE CONTENTS THEREOF. I SIGN THIS FORM OF MY OWN FREE ACT AND DEED.

Date Executed

Signature

(Street Address)

(City)

( ) __________ (Home Telephone)

_________________ (Email)

(State)

(Zip code)

( ) ___________ (Work Telephone)

Return this form to:

By EMAIL If you submit the form by email, it must be sent to:
Jacksonville.Settlement@usdoj.gov
By Mail If you submit the form by mail, submit it to the following address:
U.S. Department of Justice Consolidated City of Jacksonville Litigation Team Civil Rights Division/ELS P.O. Box 14400 Washington, D.C. 20044-4400
Any personally identifiable information other than name (i.e., address and telephone number) shall be redacted.

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 97 of 109 PageID 10215
APPENDIX 5

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 98 of 109 PageID 10216
AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF JACKSONVILLE AND THE
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS LOCAL 122
(FIRE DISTRICT CHIEFS) OCTOBER 1, 2012 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2015

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 99 of 109 PageID 10217
AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF JACKSONVILLE AND THE
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS LOCAL 122
(Fire District Chiefs) OCTOBER 1, 2012 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2015

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 100 of 109 PageID 10218

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ARTICLE

PAGE

PREAMBLE ....................................................................................................................... 1 ARTICLE 1: UNION RECOGNITION................................................................................ 3 ARTICLE 2: UNION SECURITY AND CHECK OFF ........................................................... 5 ARTICLE 3: UNION ACTIVITIES ...................................................................................... 7 ARTICLE 4: BULLETIN BOARDS ....................................................................................... 9 ARTICLE 5: MANAGEMENT SECURITY ......................................................................... 11 ARTICLE 6: SAVINGS CLAUSE ..................................................................................... 13 ARTICLE 7: MANAGEMENT RIGHTS............................................................................. 15 ARTICLE 8: STAFFING................................................................................................... 17 ARTICLE 9: WORK RULES.............................................................................................. 19 ARTICLE 10: SPECIAL MEETINGS ................................................................................. 21 ARTICLE 11: HOURS OF WORK AND OVERTIME PAYMENT ........................................ 23 ARTICLE 12: WAGES .................................................................................................... 25 ARTICLE 13: PROMOTIONS ......................................................................................... 29 ARTICLE 14: EMPLOYEE BENEFITS................................................................................ 33 ARTICLE 15: UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT.................................................................. 37 ARTICLE 16: SAFETY AND HEALTH............................................................................... 39 ARTICLE 17: INJURY IN LINE OF DUTY ......................................................................... 41 ARTICLE 18: HOLIDAYS ............................................................................................... 43 ARTICLE 19: PERSONAL LEAVE (PLAN E) .................................................................... 47 ARTICLE 20: PERSONAL LEAVE (PLAN P) .................................................................... 52 ARTICLE 21: MILITARY LEAVE ...................................................................................... 57 ARTICLE 22: DRUG ABUSE POLICY AND PROCEDURES ............................................. 59 ARTICLE 23: EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM ...................................................... 65 ARTICLE 24: DISCHARGE AND DISCIPLINE................................................................. 67 ARTICLE 25: GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE ....................................................................... 69 ARTICLE 26: SEVERABILITY........................................................................................... 75 ARTICLE 27: ENTIRE AGREEMENT ................................................................................ 77 ARTICLE 28: DURATION OF AGREEMENT.................................................................... 79 SCHEDULE A ................................................................................................................. 81 SCHEDULE B .................................................................................................................. 83 INDEX............................................................................................................................ 85

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 1I0A1FFofD1IS0T9RIPCaTgCeHIDIEF1S0219

ARTICLE 13: PROMOTIONS

13.1 All promotional examinations shall be assembled, written, and solely administered by an outside testing service.

13.2

The passing grade for all promotional examinations shall be seventy percent (70%), except that when the Director of Employee Services certifies that the seventy percent (70%) passing score results in an adverse impact (as defined by the Federal Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures) on any federally protected class, a new validated pass score shall be established using psychometrically sound procedures that are in accordance with the Federal Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures.

13.3 The following seniority credit shall be added to all passing scores for rank of District Chief:

A. One-half (1/2) point shall be added for each year of continuous service in the Fire and Rescue Department, up to a maximum of five (5) points.

B. An additional one-half (1/2) point shall be added for each continuous year in the class or position immediately below the class for which the promotional exam is given, up to a maximum of five (5) points.

(1) Provided, however, no such credit will be given when a promotional examination is held for any class of employment which is directly above the entrance level.

(2) The entrance level shall be construed as the lowest entrance level at which the employees or any portion thereof participating in such promotional examination entered the service of the Fire and Rescue Department.

13.4 All persons with a passing score shall be ranked by resulting numerical score, with the person attaining the highest score ranked first. The top name of the list shall be certified first.

13.5 The life of a promotional list shall be two (2) years.

13.6 Any person may be removed from the promotional list after three (3) offers of a probationary appointment have been declined.

13.7 In the absence of a certified promotional list, there shall be no more than six (6) months between the date of the first opening and the next examination for these positions.
29

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 1I0A2FFofD1IS0T9RIPCaTgCeHIDIEF1S0220

13.8 Line of Promotion is as follows: From Captain to District Chief.

13.9

Standard external reading lists for promotional examinations shall be established for all promotional classifications within the Jacksonville Fire and Rescue Department. JFRD will furnish all station/work location libraries with copies of reading list books and materials. These materials will be maintained by the station/work location head who will be responsible for establishing a check-out system to account for materials and provide for equal access to them. The Director/Fire Chief can amend the reading lists as necessary, with the understanding that such amendments will be announced at least ninety (90) days prior to any affected promotional examination. The ninety (90) day limitation will not apply to fine-tuning the contents of the list, e.g., updating edition numbers.

13.10 The City and the exam consultant will score standardized exam sheets at the exam administration site, and provide raw scores to examinees subject to the following:

A. Raw scores do not include points added for seniority or for military service where applicable and therefore may not accurately reflect an examinees’ ranking on the final list.

B. Raw scores do not include the result of exam protest committee determinations, if any, and therefore may not accurately reflect an examinee’s ranking on the final list.

C. Technology used to score standardized exam sheets is affected by the quality of markings made on the exam papers. Erasures, ambiguous markings, and extraneous marking on exam sheets may adversely affect the ability to provide immediate scores. In such cases, hand scoring may be required which can delay delivery of results to examinees.

D. The ability to score exam sheets at the exam site is dependent upon the availability of operational equipment. Delays in providing scores to examinees can result from equipment malfunctions or breakdowns.

13.11 The following shall apply for demotion or reversion in rank caused by a reduction-in-work-force or a shortage of funds:

A. The last candidate promoted from an internal eligibility list shall be the first to receive a demotion/reversion in rank. If there is more than one member that must be demoted/reversed in rank, the order shall continue from the last candidate promoted to the first candidate promoted.

30

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 1I0A3FFofD1IS0T9RIPCaTgCeHIDIEF1S0221 B. When a vacancy occurs in a position/rank from which members have been demoted/reversed in rank, promotion to said vacant position/rank shall be made from the list of members demoted/reversed in rank with the last member demoted/reversed in rank promoted first, regardless of the expiration date of the internal eligibility list from which said members were originally promoted.
31

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 104 of 109 PageID 10222
AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF JACKSONVILLE AND THE
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS LOCAL 122
(FIRE FIGHTERS, FIRE ENGINEERS, FIRE LIEUTENANTS & FIRE CAPTAINS)
OCTOBER 1, 2012 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2015

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 105 of 109 PageID 10223
AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF JACKSONVILLE AND THE
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS LOCAL 122
(FIRE FIGHTERS, FIRE ENGINEERS, FIRE LIEUTENANTS & FIRE CAPTAINS)
OCTOBER 1, 2012 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2015

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 Page 106 of 109 PageID 10224

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ARTICLE

PAGE

PREAMBLE ....................................................................................................................... 1 ARTICLE 1: UNION RECOGNITION................................................................................ 3 ARTICLE 2: UNION SECURITY AND CHECK OFF ........................................................... 5 ARTICLE 3: UNION ACTIVITIES ...................................................................................... 7 ARTICLE 4: BULLETIN BOARDS ....................................................................................... 9 ARTICLE 5: MANAGEMENT SECURITY ......................................................................... 11 ARTICLE 6: SAVINGS CLAUSE ..................................................................................... 13 ARTICLE 7: MANAGEMENT RIGHTS............................................................................. 15 ARTICLE 8: STAFFING................................................................................................... 17 ARTICLE 9: WORK RULES.............................................................................................. 19 ARTICLE 10: SPECIAL MEETINGS ................................................................................. 21 ARTICLE 11: HOURS OF WORK AND OVERTIME PAYMENT ........................................ 23 ARTICLE 12: WAGES .................................................................................................... 27 ARTICLE 13: PROMOTIONS ......................................................................................... 33 ARTICLE 14: EMPLOYEE BENEFITS................................................................................ 37 ARTICLE 15: UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT.................................................................. 41 ARTICLE 16: SAFETY AND HEALTH............................................................................... 43 ARTICLE 17: INJURY IN LINE OF DUTY ......................................................................... 45 ARTICLE 18: HOLIDAYS ............................................................................................... 47 ARTICLE 19: PERSONAL LEAVE (PLAN E) .................................................................... 51 ARTICLE 20: PERSONAL LEAVE (PLAN P) .................................................................... 57 ARTICLE 21: MILITARY LEAVE ...................................................................................... 61 ARTICLE 22: DRUG ABUSE POLICY AND PROCEDURES ............................................. 63 ARTICLE 23: EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM ...................................................... 69 ARTICLE 24: DISCHARGE AND DISCIPLINE................................................................. 71 ARTICLE 25: GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE ....................................................................... 73 ARTICLE 26: SEVERABILITY........................................................................................... 79 ARTICLE 27: ENTIRE AGREEMENT ................................................................................ 81 ARTICLE 28: DURATION OF AGREEMENT.................................................................... 83 SCHEDULE A ................................................................................................................. 85 SCHEDULE B .................................................................................................................. 87 SCHEDULE C ................................................................................................................. 89 SCHEDULE D ................................................................................................................. 91 INDEX............................................................................................................................ 93

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 PIAaFgFeFI1R0EF7IGoHf T1E0R9S -PCaAgPeTIADIN1S0225

ARTICLE 13: PROMOTIONS

13.1 All promotional examinations shall be assembled, written, and solely administered by an outside testing service.

13.2

The passing grade for all promotional examinations shall be seventy percent (70%), except that when the Director of Employee Services certifies that the seventy percent (70%) passing score results in an adverse impact (as defined by the Federal Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures) on any federally protected class, a new validated pass score shall be established using psychometrically sound procedures that are in accordance with the Federal Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures.

13.3 The following seniority credit shall be added to all passing scores for the ranks of Engineer, Lieutenant, and Captain:

A. One-half (1/2) point shall be added for each year of continuous service in the Fire and Rescue Department, up to a maximum of five (5) points.

B. An additional one-half (1/2) point shall be added for each continuous year in the class or position immediately below the class for which the promotional exam is given, up to a maximum of five (5) points.

(1) Provided, however, no such credit will be given when a promotional examination is held for any class of employment which is directly above the entrance level.

(2) The entrance level shall be construed as the lowest entrance level at which the employees or any portion thereof participating in such promotional examination entered the service of the Fire and Rescue Department.

(3) An officer in one occupational activity who takes a promotional examination for Lieutenant in a different occupational activity shall be credited with one-half point seniority credit for each year of continuous service as an engineer prior to his/her initial appointment as a Lieutenant in calculating his/her rank on the Lieutenant Eligibility List in the new occupational activity.

13.4 All persons with a passing score shall be ranked by resulting numerical score, with the person attaining the highest score ranked first. The top name of the list shall be certified first.

33

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 PIAaFgFeFI1R0EF8IGoHf T1E0R9S -PCaAgPeTIADIN1S0226

13.5 The life of a promotional list shall be two (2) years.

13.6 Any person may be removed from the promotional list after three (3) offers of a probationary appointment have been declined.

13.7 In the absence of a certified promotional list, there shall be no more than six (6) months between the date of the first opening and the next examination for these positions.

13.8 Line of Promotion is as follows: From Fire Fighter to Engineer to Lieutenant to Captain.

13.9

Standard external reading lists for promotional examinations shall be established for all promotional classifications within the Jacksonville Fire and Rescue Department. JFRD will furnish all station/work location libraries with copies of reading list books and materials. These materials will be maintained by the station/work location head who will be responsible for establishing a check-out system to account for materials and provide for equal access to them. The Director/Fire Chief can amend the reading lists as necessary, with the understanding that such amendments will be announced at least ninety (90) days prior to any affected promotional examination. The ninety (90) day limitation will not apply to fine-tuning the contents of the list, e.g., updating edition numbers.

13.10 The City and the exam consultant will score standardized exam sheets at the exam administration site, and provide raw scores to examinees subject to the following:

A. Raw scores do not include points added for seniority or for military service where applicable and therefore may not accurately reflect an examinees’ ranking on the final list.

B. Raw scores do not include the result of exam protest committee determinations, if any, and therefore may not accurately reflect an examinee’s ranking on the final list.

C. Technology used to score standardized exam sheets is affected by the quality of markings made on the exam papers. Erasures, ambiguous markings, and extraneous marking on exam sheets may adversely affect the ability to provide immediate scores. In such cases, hand scoring may be required which can delay delivery of results to examinees.

D. The ability to score exam sheets at the exam site is dependent upon the availability of operational equipment. Delays in providing scores to examinees can result from equipment malfunctions or breakdowns.

34

Case 3:12-cv-00451-TJC-MCR Document 393 Filed 02/05/19 PIAaFgFeFI1R0EF9IGoHf T1E0R9S -PCaAgPeTIADIN1S0227 13.11 The following shall apply for demotion or reversion in rank caused by a reduction-in-work-force or a shortage of funds: A. The last candidate promoted from an internal eligibility list shall be the first to receive a demotion/reversion in rank. If there is more than one member that must be demoted/reversed in rank, the order shall continue from the last candidate promoted to the first candidate promoted. B. When a vacancy occurs in a position/rank from which members have been demoted/reversed in rank, promotion to said vacant position/rank shall be made from the list of members demoted/reversed in rank with the last member demoted/reversed in rank promoted first, regardless of the expiration date of the internal eligibility list from which said members were originally promoted. 13.12 Employees laid off or demoted for non-disciplinary reasons on October 12, 2010, who are subsequently reinstated, will have their service time treated as continuous for the purposes of seniority and eligibility for promotional exams.
35

 
 Case: 3:12-cv-451 As of: 11/29/2019 04:50 PM EST 1 of 43
ADMCLOSED, SL DOC
U.S. District Court Middle District of Florida (Jacksonville) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:12−cv−00451−TJC−MCR

United States of America v. Consolidated City of Jacksonville et Date Filed: 04/23/2012

al

Date Terminated: 08/22/2018

Assigned to: Judge Timothy J. Corrigan

Jury Demand: Defendant

Referred to: Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson

Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs

Cause: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Race)

Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff

USA

represented by Brian Glen McEntire US Department of Justice − Civil Rights Division Room 4908 601 D St NW Washington, DC 20579 (202) 305−1470 Email: brian.mcentire@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Delora L. Kennebrew U.S. Department of Justice − Civil Rights Division Employment Litigation Section Room 4026 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 202/514−3749 Fax: 202/514−1005 TERMINATED: 11/14/2013 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Erik Kenneth Stegeby US Attorney's Office − FLM Suite 3200 400 N Tampa St Tampa, FL 33602−4798 813/274−6000 Fax: 813/274−6200 Email: Kenneth.Stegeby@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Hector Federico Ruiz , Jr US Department of Justice − Civil Rights Division Employment Litigation Section Room 4026 950 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20530 202/514−9694 Fax: 202/514−1005 Email: hector.ruiz@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jay David Adelstein US Department of Justice − Civil Rights Division

Case: 3:12-cv-451 As of: 11/29/2019 04:50 PM EST 2 of 43
950 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20530 202−514−3749 Fax: 202−514−1005 Email: jay.d.adelstein@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 12/19/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeremy Monteiro US Department of Justice 601 D St, NW Ste 4500 Washington, DC 20004 202/307−6230 Fax: 202/514−1005 Email: jeremy.monteiro@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sharyn A. Tejani U.S. Department of Justice − Civil Rights Division Employment Litigation Section Room 4026 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 202/514−3749 Fax: 202/514−1005 TERMINATED: 11/14/2013 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Woody Anglade US Department of Justice − Civil Rights Division 950 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20530 202−305−1205 Fax: 202−514−1005 Email: woodyanglade73@yahoo.com TERMINATED: 11/25/2013 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yohance Asim Pettis US Attorney's Office − FLM Suite 3200 400 N Tampa St Tampa, FL 33602−4798 813/274−6000 Fax: 813/274−6200 Email: yohance.pettis@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Intervenor Plaintiff NAACP

represented by Benjamin J. Blustein Miner, Barnhill & Galland, P.C. 325 N. LaSalle St., Suite 350 Chicago, IL 60654 312−751−1170 Fax: 312−751−0438

Case: 3:12-cv-451 As of: 11/29/2019 04:50 PM EST 3 of 43
Email: bblustein@lawmbg.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jane L. Dolkart Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law Suite 900 1500 K. St. NW Washington, DC 20005 214−562−5593 Fax: 202−783−0857 Email: jdolkart@lawyerscommittee.org LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
Kirsten L. Doolittle Law Office of Kirsten Doolittle, PA Suite 240 207 N Laura St Jacksonville, FL 32202 904−551−7775 Fax: 904/513−9254 Email: kd@kdlawoffice.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mateya Beth Kelley Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law Suite 900 1500 K. St. NW Washington, DC 20005 202/662−8321 Fax: 202/783−0857 Email: mkelley@lawyerscommittee.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ray McClain Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law Suite 900 1500 K. St. NW Washington, DC 20005 202/662−8342 Fax: 202/783−0857 Email: rmcclain@lawyerscommittee.org LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
Robert S. Libman Miner, Barnhill & Galland, P.C. 325 N. LaSalle St., Suite 350 Chicago, IL 60654 312−751−1170 Fax: 312−751−0438 Email: rlibman@lawmbg.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Intervenor Plaintiff

Case: 3:12-cv-451 As of: 11/29/2019 04:50 PM EST 4 of 43

Jacksonville Brotherhood of Firefighters

represented by Benjamin J. Blustein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jane L. Dolkart (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

Kirsten L. Doolittle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mateya Beth Kelley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff Dominique Bartley

represented by Benjamin J. Blustein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jane L. Dolkart (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

Kirsten L. Doolittle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mateya Beth Kelley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ray McClain (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

Intervenor Plaintiff Byron Jackson

represented by Benjamin J. Blustein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jane L. Dolkart (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

Kirsten L. Doolittle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mateya Beth Kelley (See above for address)

Case: 3:12-cv-451 As of: 11/29/2019 04:50 PM EST 5 of 43

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ray McClain (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

Intervenor Plaintiff Cory McKinney

represented by Benjamin J. Blustein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jane L. Dolkart (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

Kirsten L. Doolittle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mateya Beth Kelley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ray McClain (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

Intervenor Plaintiff Emanuel Porter

represented by Benjamin J. Blustein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jane L. Dolkart (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

Kirsten L. Doolittle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mateya Beth Kelley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ray McClain (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

Intervenor Plaintiff Ernest Glover, Jr.

represented by Benjamin J. Blustein (See above for address)

Case: 3:12-cv-451 As of: 11/29/2019 04:50 PM EST 6 of 43

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jane L. Dolkart (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

Kirsten L. Doolittle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mateya Beth Kelley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ray McClain (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

Intervenor Plaintiff Ervin Young, Jr.

represented by Benjamin J. Blustein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jane L. Dolkart (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

Kirsten L. Doolittle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mateya Beth Kelley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ray McClain (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

Intervenor Plaintiff Esley L. Baker, Jr.

represented by Benjamin J. Blustein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jane L. Dolkart (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

Kirsten L. Doolittle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:12-cv-451 As of: 11/29/2019 04:50 PM EST 7 of 43

Intervenor Plaintiff Gregory Neal, Sr.
Intervenor Plaintiff Howard Smothers, Jr.

Mateya Beth Kelley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ray McClain (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Benjamin J. Blustein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jane L. Dolkart (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
Kirsten L. Doolittle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mateya Beth Kelley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ray McClain (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
represented by Benjamin J. Blustein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jane L. Dolkart (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
Kirsten L. Doolittle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mateya Beth Kelley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ray McClain (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

Case: 3:12-cv-451 As of: 11/29/2019 04:50 PM EST 8 of 43

Intervenor Plaintiff King Rosevelt Davis, Jr.
Intervenor Plaintiff Michael Harris
Intervenor Plaintiff Roosevelt Prier, Jr.

represented by Benjamin J. Blustein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jane L. Dolkart (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
Kirsten L. Doolittle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mateya Beth Kelley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ray McClain (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
represented by Benjamin J. Blustein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jane L. Dolkart (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
Kirsten L. Doolittle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mateya Beth Kelley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ray McClain (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
represented by Benjamin J. Blustein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jane L. Dolkart (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

Case: 3:12-cv-451 As of: 11/29/2019 04:50 PM EST 9 of 43

Intervenor Plaintiff Sharon Gould

Kirsten L. Doolittle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mateya Beth Kelley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ray McClain (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
represented by Benjamin J. Blustein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jane L. Dolkart (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
Kirsten L. Doolittle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mateya Beth Kelley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ray McClain (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

V. Defendant Consolidated City of Jacksonville

represented by Adina Teodorescu Office of General Counsel Suite 480 117 W Duval St Jacksonville, FL 32202 904/255−5078 Fax: 904/255−5120 Email: Teodores@coj.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carol Mirando City of Jacksonville Office of General Counsel St James Bldg − Suite 480 117 W Duval St Jacksonville, FL 32202 Email: lcenac@coj.net

Case: 3:12-cv-451 As of: 11/29/2019 04:50 PM EST 10 of 43
LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cindy A. Laquidara Akerman LLP Suite 3100 50 N. Laura Street Jacksonville, FL 32202−3659 904−798−3700 Fax: 904−798−3730 Email: cindy.laquidara@akerman.com TERMINATED: 10/26/2015 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Craig D. Feiser City of Jacksonville Office of General Counsel St James Bldg − Suite 480 117 W Duval St Jacksonville, FL 32202 904−255−5052 Fax: 904−255−5120 Email: cfeiser@coj.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jon Robert Phillips City of Jacksonville Office of General Counsel St James Bldg − Suite 480 117 W Duval St Jacksonville, FL 32202 904/630−1700 Fax: 904/630−1316 Email: jphillips@coj.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rita Marie Mairs Office of General Counsel Suite 480 117 W Duval St Jacksonville, FL 32202 904/255−5063 Fax: 904/255−5120 Email: mairsr@coj.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen J. Powell City of Jacksonville Office of General Counsel St James Bldg − Suite 480 117 W Duval St Jacksonville, FL 32202 904/630−1847 Fax: 904/630−1316 Email: SPowell@coj.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tiffiny Douglas Pinkstaff Office of General Counsel 117 W Duval St Ste 480

Case: 3:12-cv-451 As of: 11/29/2019 04:50 PM EST 11 of 43

Jacksonville, FL 32202 904−255−5072 Fax: 904−630−1731 Email: tsafi@coj.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Jacksonville Associaton of Firefighters, Local 122, International Association of Firefighters

represented by James Haddon Sullivan , III Donnelly & Gross, PA Suite A−1 2421 NW 41st St Gainesville, FL 32606 352/374−4001 Fax: 352/374−4046 Email: sully@donnellygross.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jon Robert Phillips (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jung Yoon Donnelly & Gross, PA Suite A−1 2421 NW 41st St Gainesville, FL 32606 352/374−4001 Fax: 352/374−4046 Email: jung@donnellygross.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul Andrew Donnelly Donnelly & Gross, PA Suite A−1 2421 NW 41st St Gainesville, FL 32606 352/374−4001 Fax: 352/374−4046 Email: paul@donnellygross.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher B. Deem GrayRobinson, PA 401 E Jackson St Ste 2700 Tampa, FL 33601−3324 352/374−4001 Fax: 352/374−4046 Email: christopher.deem@gray−robinson.com TERMINATED: 06/03/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Industrial/Organizational Solutions, Inc.

represented by Emily Yandle Rottmann McGuireWoods, LLP−Jacksonville Suite 3300 50 N Laura St Jacksonville, FL 32202 904/798−3200 Fax: 904/798−3207

Case: 3:12-cv-451 As of: 11/29/2019 04:50 PM EST 12 of 43

Email: erottmann@mcguirewoods.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua Feinstein Hodgson Russ, LLP Suite 100 140 Pearl St Buffalo, NY 14202−4040 716/848−1318 Fax: 716/819−4715 Email: jfeinste@hodgsonruss.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Eric Bilik McGuireWoods, LLP−Jacksonville Suite 3300 50 N Laura St Jacksonville, FL 32202 904/798−3200 Fax: 904/360−6330 Email: ebilik@mcguirewoods.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Interested Party
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Miami, FL EEOC, Miami District Office Two South Biscayne Blvd. Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131 305−808−1803

represented by Kristen Marie Foslid US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Suite 2700 2 S Biscayne Blvd Miami, FL 33131 305−808−1803 Fax: 305−808−1835 Email: kristen.foslid@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert E. Weisberg US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Suite 2700 2 S Biscayne Blvd Miami, FL 33131 305/666−6095 Fax: 305/666−6296 Email: robert.weisberg@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Interested Party Smith Parties

represented by Benjamin J. Blustein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bruce B. Elfvin Elfvin, Klingshirn, Royer & Torch, LLC 4700 Rockside Road, Suite 530 Cleveland, OH 44131 216/382−2500 Fax: 216/381−0250

Case: 3:12-cv-451 As of: 11/29/2019 04:50 PM EST 13 of 43

Email: bruce@ekrtlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christy B. Bishop Thompson & Bishop 946 Kenmore Blvd Akron, OH 44314 330/753−6874 Fax: 330/753−7082 Email: law@thompsonbishop.com TERMINATED: 07/07/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dennis R. Thompson Thompson & Bishop 946 Kenmore Blvd. Akron, OH 44314 330/753−6874 Fax: 330/753−7082 Email: law@thompsonbishop.com TERMINATED: 07/07/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Neil L. Henrichsen Henrichsen Siegel, P.L.L.C. 301 W. Bay St. 14th Floor Jacksonville, FL 32202 904/381−8183 Fax: 904/212−2800 Email: nhenrichsen@hslawyers.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Interested Party City of Buffalo, New York

represented by Emily Yandle Rottmann (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua Feinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Eric Bilik (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Interested Party E.B. Jacobs, LLC

represented by Emily Yandle Rottmann (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua Feinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 3:12-cv-451 As of: 11/29/2019 04:50 PM EST 14 of 43
PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Eric Bilik (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 04/23/2012
04/24/2012 04/25/2012 04/26/2012 04/26/2012 04/30/2012 04/30/2012 04/30/2012 04/30/2012 05/02/2012
05/04/2012 05/08/2012 05/08/2012 05/08/2012
05/08/2012

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against Consolidated City of Jacksonville, Jacksonville Association of Firefighters, Local 122, International Association of Firefighters, filed by United States of America.(DTS) Modified to edit text on 4/25/2012 (DTS). (Entered: 04/24/2012)
2 AMENDED STANDING ORDER: Filing of documents that exceed twenty−five pages. Signed by all Jacksonville Judges on 5/25/2005. (DTS) (Entered: 04/24/2012)
3 ORDER reassigning this case to the Honorable Timothy J. Corrigan for all further proceedings. Signed by Judge Marcia Morales Howard on 4/25/2012. (JW) (Entered: 04/25/2012)
4 Case Reassigned to Judge Timothy J. Corrigan. New case number: 3:12CV451−J−32MCR. Judge Unassigned Judge MMH no longer assigned to the case. (DTS) (Entered: 04/26/2012)
SUMMONS issued as to Consolidated City of Jacksonville, Jacksonville Associaton of Firefighters, Local 122, International Association of Firefighters. (DSY) (Entered: 04/27/2012)
5 NOTICE of Appearance by Cindy A. Laquidara on behalf of Consolidated City of Jacksonville (Laquidara, Cindy) (Entered: 04/30/2012)
6 NOTICE of Appearance by Adina Teodorescu on behalf of Consolidated City of Jacksonville (Teodorescu, Adina) (Entered: 04/30/2012)
7 NOTICE of Appearance by Craig D. Feiser on behalf of Consolidated City of Jacksonville (Feiser, Craig) (Entered: 04/30/2012)
8 JOINT Motion for extension of time to answer re 1 Complaint by Consolidated City of Jacksonville. (Teodorescu, Adina) (Counsel notified regarding correct District Judge Code) (Modified on 5/2/2012 to edit text) (DSY). (Entered: 04/30/2012)
9 ENDORSED ORDER granting 8 Motion for extension of time to file response/reply. Defendant, Consolidated City of Jacksonville, shall file its response to the Complaint on or before 6/26/2012. Signed by Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson on 5/2/2012. (MOH) (Entered: 05/02/2012)
10 NOTICE of designation under Local Rule 3.05 − track 2. Signed by Deputy Clerk on 5/4/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Case Management Report form, # 2 Consent to US Magistrate letter)(MGG) (Entered: 05/04/2012)
11 NOTICE of Appearance by Paul Andrew Donnelly on behalf of Jacksonville Associaton of Firefighters, Local 122, International Association of Firefighters (Donnelly, Paul) (Entered: 05/08/2012)
12 NOTICE of Appearance by Jung Yoon on behalf of Jacksonville Associaton of Firefighters, Local 122, International Association of Firefighters (Yoon, Jung) (Modified on 5/10/2012 to edit text) (DSY). (Entered: 05/08/2012)
13 UNOPPOSED Motion for extension of time to file Responsive Pleading as to 1 Complaint by Jacksonville Associaton of Firefighters, Local 122, International Association of Firefighters. (Yoon, Jung) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson. (Modified on 5/10/2012 to edit text) (DSY). (Entered: 05/08/2012)
14 NOTICE of Appearance by Jung Yoon on behalf of Jacksonville Associaton of Firefighters, Local 122, International Association of Firefighters (Yoon, Jung) (Entered: 05/08/2012)

Case: 3:12-cv-451 As of: 11/29/2019 04:50 PM EST 15 of 43

05/08/2012
05/11/2012 05/11/2012 05/15/2012 05/15/2012 05/22/2012
06/26/2012 06/26/2012 07/11/2012 07/17/2012 07/17/2012 07/30/2012 07/31/2012 08/16/2012
08/20/2012
09/04/2012
09/05/2012

15 ENDORSED ORDER granting 13 Motion for extension of time to file response. Defendant, Jacksonville Association of Firefighters, shall file its response to the Complaint no later than 6/26/2012. Signed by Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson on 5/8/2012. (MOH) (Entered: 05/08/2012)
16 CERTIFICATE of interested persons and corporate disclosure statement by United States of America. (Adelstein, Jay) (Entered: 05/11/2012)
17 CERTIFICATE of interested persons and corporate disclosure statement re 10 Related case order and notice of designation of track 2 by Consolidated City of Jacksonville. (Teodorescu, Adina) (Entered: 05/11/2012)
18 RETURN of service executed on 4/27/2012 by United States of America as to Consolidated City of Jacksonville. (DSY) (Entered: 05/16/2012)
19 RETURN of service executed on 5/3/2012 by United States of America as to Jacksonville Associaton of Firefighters, Local 122, International Association of Firefighters. (DSY) (Entered: 05/16/2012)
20 CERTIFICATE of interested persons and corporate disclosure statement re 10 Related case order and notice of designation of track 2 by Jacksonville Associaton of Firefighters, Local 122, International Association of Firefighters. (Donnelly, Paul) (Entered: 05/22/2012)
21 ANSWER and affirmative defenses to 1 Complaint by Consolidated City of Jacksonville.(Laquidara, Cindy) (Entered: 06/26/2012)
22 ANSWER and affirmative defenses to 1 Complaint with Jury Demand by Jacksonville Associaton of Firefighters, Local 122, International Association of Firefighters.(Donnelly, Paul) (Entered: 06/26/2012)
23 CASE MANAGEMENT REPORT. (Ruiz, Hector) (Entered: 07/11/2012)
24 NOTICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Miami, FL of Filing Motion to Consolidate (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Motion to Consolidate)(Weisberg, Robert) (Entered: 07/17/2012)
25 NOTICE of Hearing: Preliminary Pretrial Conference set for 10/24/2012 at 2:00 PM in Jacksonville Courtroom 10 D before Judge Timothy J. Corrigan. (SRW) (Entered: 07/17/2012)
26 MEMORANDUM in opposition re 24 Notice (Other) of EEOC Motion to Consolidate filed by Consolidated City of Jacksonville. (Laquidara, Cindy) (Entered: 07/30/2012)
27 RESPONSE re 24 Notice (Other) of EEOC to Consolidate filed by USA. (Adelstein, Jay) (Entered: 07/31/2012)
28 MOTION to intervene by NAACP, Jacksonville Brotherhood of Firefighters, Dominique Bartley. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Complaint in Intervention)(Doolittle, Kirsten) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson. (Entered: 08/16/2012)
29 NOTICE advising parties that the Court will take up consideration of the 28 MOTION to intervene at the previously scheduled preliminary pretrial conference, set for 10/24/2012 at 2:00 PM in Jacksonville Courtroom 10D before Judge Timothy J. Corrigan. (SRW) (Entered: 08/20/2012)
30 UNOPPOSED Motion for extension of time to file response/reply as to 28 MOTION to intervene by Jacksonville Associaton of Firefighters, Local 122, International Association of Firefighters. (Donnelly, Paul) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson. (Modified on 9/5/2012 to edit text) (DSY). (Entered: 09/04/2012)
31 ENDORSED ORDER granting 30 Motion for extension of time to file response. Defendant, Jacksonville Association of Firefighters, shall file its response to 28 MOTION to intervene no later than 9/10/2012. Signed by Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson on 9/5/2012. (MOH) (Entered: 09/05/2012)

Case: 3:12-cv-451 As of: 11/29/2019 04:50 PM EST 16 of 43

09/05/2012 09/05/2012 09/06/2012 09/10/2012 09/10/2012 09/11/2012 09/11/2012 09/24/2012 10/05/2012
10/19/2012 11/05/2012
11/08/2012
11/08/2012

32 MOTION for Jane Dolkart to appear pro hac vice by Jacksonville Brotherhood of Firefighters, NAACP. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Doolittle, Kirsten) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson. (Entered: 09/05/2012)
***PRO HAC VICE FEES paid and Special Admission Attorney Certification Form filed by attorney Jane Dolkart appearing on behalf of NAACP (Filing fee $10 receipt number JAX006202.) Related document: 32 MOTION for Jane Dolkart to appear pro hac vice. (AET) (Entered: 09/06/2012)
33 ORDER granting 32 motion to appear pro hac vice upon payment of appropriate fees. Signed by Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson on 9/6/2012. (MOH) (Entered: 09/06/2012)
34 RESPONSE to motion re 28 MOTION to intervene filed by Jacksonville Associaton of Firefighters, Local 122, International Association of Firefighters. (Donnelly, Paul) (Entered: 09/10/2012)
35 EXHIBITS 1−2 re 34 Response to motion by Jacksonville Associaton of Firefighters, Local 122, International Association of Firefighters. (Donnelly, Paul) Modified on 9/12/2012 edit docket text(AMM). (Entered: 09/10/2012)
36 Unopposed MOTION for leave to file a Reply to doc 34 RESPONSE to motion re 28 MOTION to intervene by Dominique Bartley, Jacksonville Brotherhood of Firefighters, NAACP. (Doolittle, Kirsten) Modified on 9/12/2012 edit docket text (AMM). (Entered: 09/11/2012)
37 RESPONSE to motion re 36 Unopposed MOTION for leave to file a reply filed by Jacksonville Associaton of Firefighters, Local 122, International Association of Firefighters. (Donnelly, Paul) Modified on 9/12/2012 edit docket text(AMM). (Entered: 09/11/2012)
38 ENDORSED ORDER granting 36 Motion for leave to file reply: reply brief (limited to 5 pages) to be filed and served no later than 10/5/2012; JAFF may file a sur−reply (also limited to 5 pages) no later than 10/19/2012. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 9/24/2012.(SRW) (Entered: 09/24/2012)
39 REPLY to response to motion re 30 Unopposed MOTION for extension of time to file response/reply as to 28 MOTION to interveneUnopposed MOTION for extension of time to file response/reply as to 28 MOTION to intervene, 36 Unopposed MOTION for leave to file Leave to File a Reply, 28 MOTION to intervene filed by Dominique Bartley, Jacksonville Brotherhood of Firefighters, NAACP. (Dolkart, Jane) (Entered: 10/05/2012)
40 RESPONSE re 39 Reply to response to motion to Intervene filed by Jacksonville Associaton of Firefighters, Local 122, International Association of Firefighters. (Donnelly, Paul) (Entered: 10/19/2012)
41 Minute Entry. Preliminary pretrial conference and motion hearing in three cases held before Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 10/24/2012, (in 3:11−cv−345 finding as moot (81) Motion to dismiss; finding as moot (82) Motion to dismiss; finding as moot (86) Motion for extension of time to file response; granting (87) Motion for extension of time to file response re: consolidation); deadlines for various filings set for 11/16/2012 and 12/7/2012 (see minutes for details). Court Reporter: Shannon Bishop (SRW) Modified on 11/6/2012 (ASL). (Entered: 11/05/2012)
42 TRANSCRIPT of PRELIMINARY PRETRIAL CONFERENCE AND MOTIONS HEARING held on October 24, 2012 before Judge Timothy J. Corrigan. Court Reporter/Transcriber Shannon M. Bishop, RMR, CRR; dsmabishop@yahoo.com,Telephone number (904)549−1307. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER or purchased through the Court Reporter. Redaction Request due 11/29/2012, Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 12/10/2012, Release of Transcript Restriction set for 2/6/2013. (SB) (Entered: 11/08/2012)
43 NOTICE to counsel of filing of OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely

Case: 3:12-cv-451 As of: 11/29/2019 04:50 PM EST 17 of 43

11/15/2012 11/16/2012 11/16/2012 11/29/2012 12/06/2012 12/07/2012 12/07/2012
12/13/2012 03/30/2013
04/30/2013 05/01/2013 05/02/2013

electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. Any party needing a copy of the transcript to review for redaction purposes may purchase a copy from the court reporter or view the document at the clerk's office public terminal. Court Reporter: Shannon Bishop, RMR, CRR; dsmabishop@yahoo.com; (904)549−1307 (SB) (Entered: 11/08/2012)
44 RESPONSE re 41 Order on motion to dismissOrder on motion for extension of time to file response/replyMotion Hearing Supplemental Response regarding U.S. jurisdiciton filed by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Adelstein, Jay) (Entered: 11/15/2012)
45 MEMORANDUM in support re 41 Order on motion to dismissOrder on motion for extension of time to file response/replyMotion Hearing of Right to Jury Trial Under Disparate Impact filed by Jacksonville Associaton of Firefighters, Local 122, International Association of Firefighters. (Donnelly, Paul) (Entered: 11/16/2012)
46 NOTICE of Appearance by Christopher B. Deem on behalf of Jacksonville Associaton of Firefighters, Local 122, International Association of Firefighters (Deem, Christopher) (Entered: 11/16/2012)
47 MEMORANDUM in opposition re 24 Notice (Other) EEOC's Motion to Consolidate (Doc. 24−1) filed by Consolidated City of Jacksonville. (Feiser, Craig) (Entered: 11/29/2012)
48 Unopposed MOTION for extension of time to file response/reply as to 44 Response by Jacksonville Associaton of Firefighters, Local 122, International Association of Firefighters. (Deem, Christopher) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson. (Entered: 12/06/2012)
49 ENDORSED ORDER granting 48 Motion for extension of time to file response. Defendant, Jacksonville Association of Firefighters, shall file its response to 44 Supplemental Response no later than 12/13/2012. Signed by Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson on 12/7/2012. (MOH) (Entered: 12/07/2012)
50 NOTICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Miami, FL re 41 Order on motion to dismissOrder on motion for extension of time to file response/replyMotion Hearing, 44 Response OF FILING EEOC's RESPONSE TO DOJ's SUBMISSION REGARDING STATUTORY AUTHORITY (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit EEOC's Response to DOJ's Submission Regarding Statutory Authority and Attached Exhibits)(Foslid, Kristen) (Entered: 12/07/2012)
51 RESPONSE re 44 Response Regarding Statutory Authority filed by Jacksonville Associaton of Firefighters, Local 122, International Association of Firefighters. (Donnelly, Paul) (Entered: 12/13/2012)
52 ORDER AS TO 3:12−cv−451−J−32MCR, granting to extent stated (28) NAACP and related parties' Motion to Intervene in DOJ case (intervenors to file complaint in intervention by 5/2/2013); directing parties to file amended proposed case schedule by 5/2/2013;AS TO 3:12−cv−491−J−32TEM, denying (13) Union's motion to dismiss EEOC case; denying (19) EEOC's Motion to Consolidate Cases; staying EEOC case and directing Clerk to administratively close that file; AS TO 3:11−cv−345−J−32MCR, granting in part and denying in part (75) Smith plaintiffs' motion to Consolidate Cases; denying (95) City's motion to dismiss; denying (96) Union's motion to dismiss in case; granting (95) City's alternative motion to stay to extent stated. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 3/30/2013.(SRW) (Entered: 03/30/2013)
53 INTERVENOR COMPLAINT filed by Jacksonville Brotherhood of Firefighters, Dominique Bartley, NAACP.(Doolittle, Kirsten) (Entered: 04/30/2013)
54 MOTION to modify / Establish Case Schedule by Jacksonville Associaton of Firefighters, Local 122, International Association of Firefighters. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Case Schedule)(Deem, Christopher) (Entered: 05/01/2013)
55 PROPOSED CASE SCHEDULE agreed to by the Plaintiffs and the City of Jacksonville (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Stipulation ESI and Data Preservation)(Adelstein, Jay) Modified on 5/2/2013 edit docket text per counsel(AMM). (Entered: 05/02/2013)

Case: 3:12-cv-451 As of: 11/29/2019 04:50 PM EST 18 of 43

05/02/2013 05/13/2013 07/03/2013 07/08/2013
07/08/2013 07/29/2013
07/30/2013
07/31/2013 09/16/2013 10/01/2013 10/07/2013 10/08/2013
10/09/2013 10/17/2013 10/21/2013 10/28/2013

56 MEMORANDUM in support re 55 Case Management Report Proposed by Plainitffs and City of Jacksonville filed by USA. (Adelstein, Jay) (Entered: 05/02/2013)
57 NOTICE of Appearance by Woody Anglade on behalf of USA (Anglade, Woody) (Entered: 05/13/2013)
58 MOTION for Hearing on July 16, 2013 on Case Management Issues by All Plaintiffs. (Adelstein, Jay) (Entered: 07/03/2013)
59 ENDORSED ORDER denying 58 Motion for Hearing; the Court has the parties' proposed schedules under active advisement, as well as the pending motions in the related cases, and hopes to issue its rulings and schedule shortly; a status conference is therefore not necessary. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 7/8/2013.(SRW) (Entered: 07/08/2013)
60 NOTICE by Jacksonville Associaton of Firefighters, Local 122, International Association of Firefighters re 54 MOTION to modify / Establish Case Schedule (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Case Management Report)(Deem, Christopher) (Entered: 07/08/2013)
61 (FIRST PHASE) CASE MANAGEMENT AND SCHEDULING ORDER: see Order for full details regarding case deadlines and discovery protocols; Clerk to redesignate case as TRACK THREE; filings from the parties due as follows: proposal re: protocol for filing dispositive and Daubert motions due 5/1/2014; discovery on disparate impact to be complete 5/22/2014; dispositives and Daubert motions on disparate impact due 7/7/2014; status report due 10/20/2014; HEARING ON DISPOSITIVES, DAUBERT AND SCHEDULING CONFERENCE SET 10/30/2014, 10:00 a.m., Courtoom 10D). Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 7/29/2013. (SRW) (Entered: 07/29/2013)
62 ENDORSED ORDER advising parties that electronic filing is mandatory in the Middle District of Florida. Mr. McClain, Ms. Kennebrew and Ms. Tejani must immediately register for a CM/ECF password; after today, the Clerk will not be mailing paper copies. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 7/30/2013. (SRW) (Entered: 07/30/2013)
63 AMENDED NOTICE of designation under Local Rule 3.05 − Track 3. Signed by Deputy Clerk on 7/31/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Case Management Report Form, # 2 Consent Letter and Form)(EAM) (Entered: 07/31/2013)
64 NOTICE of Appearance by Brian Glen McEntire on behalf of USA (McEntire, Brian) (Entered: 09/16/2013)
65 MOTION to stay proceedings by USA. (Adelstein, Jay) (Entered: 10/01/2013)
66 FIRST Unopposed Motion for Extension to Submit Expert Report by Smith Parties. (Thompson, Dennis) (Modified on 10/8/2013 to edit text) (DSY). (Entered: 10/07/2013)
67 ENDORSED ORDER granting 65 motion for stay; counsel for the United States shall file a notice when the Department's funding has been restored; although the Court does not intend to vacate the entire schedule at this time, any intervening deadline while the stay is in place is vacated; Smith's motion for an extension of time 66, is therefore moot. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 10/8/2013.(SRW) (Entered: 10/08/2013)
68 NOTICE of Service of Expert Report by Smith Parties (Thompson, Dennis) (Modified on 10/11/2013 to edit text) (DSY). (Entered: 10/09/2013)
69 NOTICE by USA re 67 Order on motion to stayOrder on Motion for Extension of Time to File Notice of Renewed Funding (Adelstein, Jay) (Entered: 10/17/2013)
70 ENDORSED ORDER lifting stay in light of 69 Notice filed by USA; directing parties to resume litigation in accordance with previous schedule 61. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 10/21/2013. (SRW) (Entered: 10/21/2013)
71 MOTION for leave to file under seal an exhibit by All Plaintiffs. (McEntire, Brian) (Entered: 10/28/2013)

Case: 3:12-cv-451 As of: 11/29/2019 04:50 PM EST 19 of 43

10/28/2013 10/28/2013 10/28/2013
10/29/2013 10/30/2013
10/30/2013 10/30/2013 10/31/2013 11/05/2013 11/06/2013 11/07/2013 11/08/2013 11/08/2013 11/12/2013
11/12/2013
11/12/2013

72 NOTICE by USA re 71 MOTION for leave to file under seal an exhibit proposed order (McEntire, Brian) (Entered: 10/28/2013)
73 MOTION for temporary restraining order and certificate of compliance by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McEntire, Brian) (Entered: 10/28/2013)
74 MEMORANDUM in support re 73 Motion for temporary restraining order filed by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15, # 16 Exhibit 16, # 17 Exhibit 17, # 18 Exhibit 18, # 19 Exhibit 19)(McEntire, Brian) (Entered: 10/28/2013)
75 NOTICE by Consolidated City of Jacksonville re earliest date for certification of eligibility list (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Laquidara, Cindy) (Entered: 10/29/2013)
76 ORDER directing City to file response by 11/14/2013 to 73 MOTION for temporary restraining order, now converted to motion for preliminary injunction; setting motion for non−evidentiary hearing on 12/3/2013 at 10:00 AM in Jacksonville Courtroom 10D. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 10/30/2013. (SRW) (Entered: 10/30/2013)
77 ENDORSED ORDER granting 71 Motion to Seal Exhibit 4 to motion for temporary restraining Order; the Clerk shall place the exhibit under seal until further Order or the conclusion of the case, at which point it should be returned to plaintiff's counsel. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 10/30/2013.(SRW) (Entered: 10/30/2013)
78 SUPPLEMENT re 73 MOTION for temporary restraining order and certificate of compliance, 74 Memorandum in support by Smith Parties. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Order − Bazile v. City of Houston)(Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 10/30/2013)
Sealed Document S−79. (SJW) (Entered: 10/31/2013)
80 Joint MOTION to Continue the Case Management Deadlines (Doc. 61) and Rule 3.01(g) certification by All Defendants. (Laquidara, Cindy) (Entered: 11/05/2013)
81 MOTION to Withdraw Appearance of Woody Anglade by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Adelstein, Jay) (Entered: 11/06/2013)
82 MOTION to modify TRO hearing date by Smith Parties. (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 11/07/2013)
83 RESPONSE in Opposition re 80 Joint MOTION to Continue the Case Management Deadlines (Doc. 61) and Rule 3.01(g) certification filed by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4)(Adelstein, Jay) (Entered: 11/08/2013)
84 MEMORANDUM in opposition re 82 Motion to modify filed by Consolidated City of Jacksonville. (Laquidara, Cindy) (Entered: 11/08/2013)
85 NOTICE of filing Proposed Orders Regarding Captain−Suppression Promotional Examinations by Smith Parties re 73 MOTION for temporary restraining order and certificate of compliance, 74 Memorandum in support, 78 Supplement to motion for temporary restraining order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Order re Captain Suppression promotional examination, # 2 Exhibit Proposed order re delay of Captain Suppression promotional examination)(Thompson, Dennis) (Modified on 11/13/2013 to edit text) (DSY). (Entered: 11/12/2013)
86 UNOPPOSED MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Plaintiff's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order by Jacksonville Associaton of Firefighters, Local 122, International Association of Firefighters. (Donnelly, Paul) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson. (Modified on 11/13/2013 to edit text) (DSY). (Entered: 11/12/2013)
87 ORDER denying without prejudice 81 Motion to Withdraw. Signed by Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson on 11/12/2013. (MOH) (Entered: 11/12/2013)

Case: 3:12-cv-451 As of: 11/29/2019 04:50 PM EST 20 of 43

11/12/2013
11/12/2013
11/13/2013
11/13/2013 11/14/2013 11/20/2013
11/21/2013 11/22/2013 11/25/2013 11/25/2013 11/25/2013 11/27/2013 12/02/2013 12/03/2013 12/23/2013

88 AMENDED MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response re 86 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Plaintiff's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order by Jacksonville Associaton of Firefighters, Local 122, International Association of Firefighters. (Donnelly, Paul) (Modified on 11/13/2013 to edit text) (DSY). (Entered: 11/12/2013)
89 ORDER denying 82 Motion to modify hearing date and denying relief requested in supplement 78; granting 88 amended motion to extend JAFF's deadline for filing a responsive brief (JAFF's deadline extended to 11/20/2013 at 5:00 p.m.); hearing remains set for 12/3/2013 at 10:00 a.m. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 11/12/2013.(SRW) (Entered: 11/12/2013)
90 ORDER granting in part 80 Motion to Continue; see Order for limited modification of upcoming expert deadlines; other expert deadlines, fact discovery, dispositive motions, status and hearing dates remain as set in 61 First Phase CMSO (deadlines are restated in this Order for parties' convenience). Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 11/13/2013.(SRW) (Entered: 11/13/2013)
91 ENDORSED ORDER directing the Clerk to terminate counsel Delora Kennebrew, Sharyn Tejani, and Ray McClain as counsel in this case for failure to register with the Court's CM/ECF procedures as previously directed. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 11/13/2013. (SRW) (Entered: 11/13/2013)
92 MEMORANDUM in opposition re 73 Motion for temporary restraining order, 74 Memorandum in support, 76 Order Setting Hearing on Motion filed by Consolidated City of Jacksonville. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Laquidara, Cindy) (Entered: 11/14/2013)
93 MEMORANDUM in opposition re 73 MOTION for temporary restraining order and certificate of compliance filed by Jacksonville Associaton of Firefighters, Local 122, International Association of Firefighters. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Randy Wyse, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 1A to Declaration of Randy Wyse, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 1B to Declartation of Randy Wyse, # 4 Exhibit Declaration of Dr. Gerald V. Barrett)(Donnelly, Paul) (Modified on 11/22/2013 to edit text)(SJW). (Entered: 11/20/2013)
94 Unopposed MOTION for leave to file Reply by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Adelstein, Jay) (Entered: 11/21/2013)
95 ENDORSED ORDER granting 94 Motion for Leave to File Reply, limited to 10 pages, to be filed no later than 11/27/2013. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 11/22/2013. (SRW) (Entered: 11/22/2013)
96 Second MOTION for Anglade to withdraw as attorney for Plaintiff United States by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Adelstein, Jay) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson. (Entered: 11/25/2013)
Set/reset deadlines/hearings Reply due by 11/27/2013. (SJW) (Entered: 11/25/2013)
97 ORDER granting 96 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Signed by Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson on 11/25/2013. (MOH) (Entered: 11/25/2013)
98 REPLY in Support re 73 MOTION for temporary restraining order and certificate of compliance filed by USA. (McEntire, Brian) (Modified on 11/29/2013 to edit text) (DSY). (Entered: 11/27/2013)
99 ORDER regarding matters to discuss at 12/3/2013 hearing. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 12/2/2013. (SRW) (Entered: 12/02/2013)
100 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Judge Timothy J. Corrigan: MOTION HEARING held on 12/3/2013 re 73 MOTION for preliminary injunction. Court Reporter: Shannon Bishop (SRW) (Modified on 12/6/2013 to edit filed date) (DSY). (Entered: 12/04/2013)
101 TRANSCRIPT of Motion Hearing held on December 3, 2013 before Judge Timothy J. Corrigan. Court Reporter/Transcriber Shannon M. Bishop, RMR, CRR; dsmabishop@yahoo.com,Telephone number (904)549−1307. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After

Case: 3:12-cv-451 As of: 11/29/2019 04:50 PM EST 21 of 43

12/23/2013
12/27/2013 12/27/2013 01/02/2014 01/03/2014 01/06/2014 01/10/2014 01/16/2014 01/27/2014 01/28/2014 01/28/2014 01/31/2014 01/31/2014 02/19/2014

that date it may be obtained through PACER or purchased through the Court Reporter. Redaction Request due 1/13/2014, Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 1/23/2014, Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/24/2014. (SB) (Entered: 12/23/2013)
102 NOTICE to counsel of filing of OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. Any party needing a copy of the transcript to review for redaction purposes may purchase a copy from the court reporter or view the document at the clerk's office public terminal. Court Reporter: Shannon Bishop, RMR, CRR; dsmabishop@yahoo.com; (904)549−1307 (SB) (Entered: 12/23/2013)
103 ORDER denying 73 Motion for preliminary injunction. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 12/27/2013.(SRW) (Entered: 12/27/2013)
104 ORDER regarding further settlement discussions with Judge Schlesinger. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 12/27/2013. (SRW) (Entered: 12/27/2013)
***PRO HAC VICE Special Admission Attorney Certification Form filed by attorney Ray McClain, appearing on behalf of Jacksonville Brotherhood of Firefighters, NAACP Related document: 105 MOTION for Ray McClain to appear pro hac vice. (Pro hac fees not paid.) (MJT) (Entered: 01/13/2014)
105 UNOPPOSED MOTION for Ray McClain to appear pro hac vice by Jacksonville Brotherhood of Firefighters, NAACP. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing)(Doolittle, Kirsten) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson. (Modified on 1/6/2014 to edit text) (DSY). (Entered: 01/03/2014)
106 ORDER denying without prejudice 105 motion to appear pro hac vice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson on 1/6/2014. (MOH) (Entered: 01/06/2014)
107 NOTICE by Consolidated City of Jacksonville of Filing and Rule 3(g) Notification (Attachments: # 1 Errata "A" − Order in 4th Judicial Cir.)(Laquidara, Cindy) (Modified on 1/10/2014 to edit text)(SJW). (Entered: 01/10/2014)
108 ORDER re Notice, directing City (and others at their option) to file further response no later than 1/31/2014.Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 1/16/2014. (SRW) (Entered: 01/16/2014)
109 Second MOTION for Ray McClain to appear pro hac vice by Jacksonville Brotherhood of Firefighters, NAACP. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing)(Doolittle, Kirsten) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson. (Entered: 01/27/2014)
110 ENDORSED ORDER granting 109 motion to appear pro hac vice. If Ray McClain, Esq. has not already done so, he shall immediately register for a login and password for electronic filing at the Court's website at www.flmd.uscourts.gov. Signed by Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson on 1/28/2014. (ADM) (Entered: 01/28/2014)
***PRO HAC VICE FEES paid filed by attorney Ray McClain, appearing on behalf of Jacksonville Brotherhood of Firefighters (Filing fee $10 receipt number JAX011366.) Related document: 109 Second MOTION for Ray McClain to appear pro hac vice. (SJW) (Entered: 01/29/2014)
111 RESPONSE re 108 Order and MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically for an Order to Mediate filed by Consolidated City of Jacksonville. (Feiser, Craig) (Modified on 1/31/2014 to edit text) (DSY). (Entered: 01/31/2014)
112 RESPONSE re 108 Order and MOTION for Order to Mediate filed by Jacksonville Associaton of Firefighters, Local 122, International Association of Firefighters. (Donnelly, Paul) (Modified on 2/3/2014 to edit text) (DSY). (Entered: 01/31/2014)
113 ORDER advising that the Court has determined that the parties' confidential mediation discussions with Judge Schlesinger should continue as directed; granting motions requesting that parties continue with those efforts, pursuant to Local Rule 9. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 2/19/2014. (Attachments: #(1) Dec. 27, 2013 Order re: mediation) (SRW) (Entered: 02/19/2014)

Case: 3:12-cv-451 As of: 11/29/2019 04:50 PM EST 22 of 43

03/19/2014 03/26/2014
03/27/2014 04/30/2014 05/19/2014 05/27/2014
06/02/2014 06/03/2014
06/25/2014 06/26/2014 06/30/2014
07/14/2014 07/14/2014 07/14/2014

114 MOTION to quash subpoena by Consolidated City of Jacksonville. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Teodorescu, Adina) (Entered: 03/19/2014)
115 RESPONSE in Opposition re 114 MOTION to quash subpoena or in the Alternative, Motion to Compel the City to Produce Disclosures Required Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26, or Motion to Strike Expert Report filed by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F)(McEntire, Brian) (Entered: 03/26/2014)
116 Joint NOTICE of withdrawal of motion by USA and City of Jacksonville (Adelstein, Jay) (Modified on 3/28/2014 to edit text)(SJW). (Entered: 03/27/2014)
117 NOTICE by USA of Proposal for Briefing of Daubert and Dispositive Motions on Disparate Impact (McEntire, Brian) (Entered: 04/30/2014)
118 NOTICE of Appearance by James Haddon Sullivan, III on behalf of Jacksonville Associaton of Firefighters, Local 122, International Association of Firefighters (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 05/19/2014)
119 ORDER SETTING FULL BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND RESETTING HEARING DATE ON FIRST PHASE DISPARATE IMPACT: the following deadlines shall now apply: Daubert motions 7/7/2014, responses 7/28/2014, replies 8/11/2014; summary judgment by plaintiffs 7/7/2014, defendants' responses and cross−motions 7/28/2014, plaintiffs' responses and reply 8/18/2014, City's reply 9/2/2014, optional final filing on summary judgment by any party 9/15/2014; page limits and permitted filings as stated in Order; status report and next phase proposal due 12/3/2014; HEARING previously set for 10/30/2014 is RESET for 12/15/2014 at 9:30 a.m., Courtroom 10D. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 5/27/2014.(SRW) (Entered: 05/27/2014)
120 MOTION to Withdraw Christopher Deem by Jacksonville Associaton of Firefighters, Local 122, International Association of Firefighters. (Yoon, Jung) (Entered: 06/02/2014)
121 ENDORSED ORDER granting 120 Motion to Withdraw. Christopher Deem, Esq. is relieved of any further responsibility as counsel for Defendant in this matter. However, Mr. Deem shall comply with all applicable obligations on withdrawing counsel, including any applicable Bar rules. Signed by Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson on 6/3/2014. (ADM) (Entered: 06/03/2014)
122 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Daubert motions, summary judgment motions, responses, and replies by Consolidated City of Jacksonville. (Teodorescu, Adina) (Entered: 06/25/2014)
123 MEMORANDUM in opposition re 122 Motion for Extension of Time to File filed by USA. (Adelstein, Jay) (Entered: 06/26/2014)
124 ORDER granting to limited extent 122 Motion for Extension of Briefing Deadlines; the following deadlines shall now apply: Daubert motions 7/14/2014, responses 8/4/2014, replies 8/18/2014; summary judgment by plaintiffs 7/14/2014, defendants' responses and cross−motions 8/4/2014, plaintiffs' responses and reply 8/25/2014, City's reply 9/8/2014, optional final filing on summary judgment by any party 9/22/2014 (status report/proposal still due 12/3/2014, case remains set for hearing on 12/15/2014 at 9:30 a.m., Courtroom 10D), other terms of prior Order 119 continue to govern. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 6/30/2014. (SRW) (Entered: 06/30/2014)
125 MOTION for leave to file under seal exhibits by USA. (McEntire, Brian) (Entered: 07/14/2014)
126 MOTION in limine regarding report and testimony of David P. Jones by Consolidated City of Jacksonville. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Teodorescu, Adina) (Entered: 07/14/2014)
127 MOTION in limine regarding reports and testimony of Kyle Brink by Consolidated City of Jacksonville. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F)(Teodorescu, Adina) (Entered: 07/14/2014)

Case: 3:12-cv-451 As of: 11/29/2019 04:50 PM EST 23 of 43

07/14/2014 07/14/2014 07/14/2014 07/14/2014 07/14/2014 07/14/2014
07/14/2014 07/14/2014
07/14/2014 07/14/2014 07/15/2014
07/31/2014 08/01/2014 08/01/2014

128 MOTION in limine Exclude Report & Testimony of Bernard Siskin & Kyle Brink by Jacksonville Associaton of Firefighters, Local 122, International Association of Firefighters. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit)(Donnelly, Paul) (Entered: 07/14/2014)
129 MOTION in limine regarding reports and testimony of Bernard Siskin by Consolidated City of Jacksonville. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C−1, # 4 Exhibit C−2, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G)(Teodorescu, Adina) (Entered: 07/14/2014)
130 MOTION for summary judgment by Smith Parties. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Brink Expert Report, # 2 Exhibit Brink Rebuttal Expert Report)(Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 07/14/2014)
131 MOTION in limine and Memorandum regarding Opinons and Report of Union's Expert by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10)(Ruiz, Hector) (Entered: 07/14/2014)
132 MOTION in limine and Memorandum regarding Opinions and Report of City's Expert by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11)(McEntire, Brian) (Entered: 07/14/2014)
133 MOTION in limine regarding Dr. Morrell − Samuels As a Defense Expert for Defendant Consolidated City of Jacksonville by Smith Parties. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. 1_REPORT from PMS−US v COJ et al 04, # 2 Exhibit Ex. 2_3−4−14MorrelSamuelsFinal, # 3 Exhibit Ex. 2 A_3−14−14Morrel−Samuels final, # 4 Exhibit Ex. 3_Morrel−Samuels−and−Goldman−Docket−2007, # 5 Exhibit Ex. 4_Brink Rebuttal Report_4−7−2014_Jacksonville FD Rebuttal Report, # 6 Exhibit Ex. 5_PMS Resume 54 with legal exp and pubs of 2014−02, # 7 Exhibit Ex. 6_Goldman Resume, # 8 Exhibit Ex. 7_ &_Gerbert Depo Excerpt − McCue v. Jax, # 9 Exhibit Ex. 8_Brink Curriculum Vita)(Bishop, Christy) (Entered: 07/14/2014)
134 DECLARATION of Kyle Brink, Ph. D. re 133 MOTION in limine regarding Dr. Morrell − Samuels As a Defense Expert for Defendant Consolidated City of Jacksonville by Smith Parties. (Bishop, Christy) (Entered: 07/14/2014)
135 MOTION for summary judgment on Disparate Impact by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15)(Adelstein, Jay) (Entered: 07/14/2014)
136 MOTION in limine regarding Exclude Expert Report and Testimony of Dr. Palmer Morrel−Samuels by Jacksonville Brotherhood of Firefighters, NAACP. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(Doolittle, Kirsten) (Entered: 07/14/2014)
137 MOTION for summary judgment Disparate Impact by Jacksonville Brotherhood of Firefighters, NAACP. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4)(Doolittle, Kirsten) (Entered: 07/14/2014)
138 ENDORSED ORDER granting 125 Motion to Seal to the extent that, for good cause shown, counsel may submit the referenced documents for filing under seal until further Order of the Court. Counsel should contact Lenore Benoit, Court Operations Supervisor, at (904) 549−1313 for further instructions. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 7/15/2014.(SRW) (Entered: 07/15/2014)
140 MOTION for Extension of Time to File until August 7, 2014 by Smith Parties. (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 07/31/2014)
141 RESPONSE to Motion re 140 MOTION for Extension of Time to File until August 7, 2014 filed by Consolidated City of Jacksonville. (Teodorescu, Adina) (Entered: 08/01/2014)
142 ENDORSED ORDER granting 140 Motion for Extension of Time to File. All deadlines previously set for August 4, 2014, including for all parties' Daubert responses and Defendants' responses to summary judgment motions and

Case: 3:12-cv-451 As of: 11/29/2019 04:50 PM EST 24 of 43

08/05/2014 08/06/2014
08/06/2014 08/07/2014 08/07/2014 08/07/2014 08/07/2014 08/07/2014 08/07/2014 08/07/2014 08/07/2014 08/07/2014
08/07/2014
08/07/2014

cross−motions, are now set for August 7, 2014. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 8/1/2014. (WG) (Entered: 08/01/2014)
143 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Daubert and Dispositive Motion Filings by USA. (McEntire, Brian) (Entered: 08/05/2014)
144 ENDORSED ORDER granting 143 Motion for Extension of Time for Daubert and Dispositive Motion Filings (extending filing dates by 3 days); revised dates will now be as requested in motion 143; (Dec. 3 filing and Dec. 15 9:30 a.m. hearing settings are not affected by this revision). Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 8/6/2014.(SRW) (Entered: 08/06/2014)
145 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages not to exceed 35 a Combined Motion for Summary Judgement and Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment by Jacksonville Associaton of Firefighters, Local 122, International Association of Firefighters. (Donnelly, Paul) (Entered: 08/06/2014)
146 ENDORSED ORDER granting 145 JAFF's Motion for Leave to File A Combined Motion for Summary Judgment and Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment Not to Exceed 35 pages. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 8/7/2014.(SRW) (Entered: 08/07/2014)
147 Unopposed MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically File a Combined Response to Plaintiffs' Three Daubert Motions by Consolidated City of Jacksonville. (Laquidara, Cindy) (Entered: 08/07/2014)
148 Unopposed MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically Amended Motion to File a Combined Response to the Plaintiffs' Three Daubert Motions by Consolidated City of Jacksonville. (Laquidara, Cindy) (Entered: 08/07/2014)
149 RESPONSE in Opposition re 129 MOTION in limine regarding reports and testimony of Bernard Siskin, 128 MOTION in limine Exclude Report & Testimony of Bernard Siskin & Kyle Brink filed by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(McEntire, Brian) (Entered: 08/07/2014)
150 RESPONSE in Opposition re 126 MOTION in limine regarding report and testimony of David P. Jones filed by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(McEntire, Brian) (Entered: 08/07/2014)
151 RESPONSE in Opposition re 131 MOTION in limine and Memorandum regarding Opinons and Report of Union's Expert Dr. James McClave filed by Jacksonville Associaton of Firefighters, Local 122, International Association of Firefighters. (Donnelly, Paul) (Entered: 08/07/2014)
152 RESPONSE to Motion re 130 MOTION for summary judgment , 137 MOTION for summary judgment Disparate Impact filed by Consolidated City of Jacksonville. (Laquidara, Cindy) (Entered: 08/07/2014)
153 RESPONSE to Motion re 135 MOTION for summary judgment on Disparate Impact, 137 MOTION for summary judgment Disparate Impact filed by Consolidated City of Jacksonville. (Laquidara, Cindy) (Entered: 08/07/2014)
154 RESPONSE to Motion re 136 MOTION in limine regarding Exclude Expert Report and Testimony of Dr. Palmer Morrel−Samuels, 133 MOTION in limine regarding Dr. Morrell − Samuels As a Defense Expert for Defendant Consolidated City of Jacksonville, 132 MOTION in limine and Memorandum regarding Opinions and Report of City's Expert filed by Consolidated City of Jacksonville. (Laquidara, Cindy) (Entered: 08/07/2014)
155 Cross MOTION for summary judgment and Response to United State' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 135) and Notice of Adopting Response and Cross Motion filed in Response to the Motion for Summary Judgment by Plaintiff−Interveners NAACP/JBOF (Doc. 137) by Consolidated City of Jacksonville. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Laquidara, Cindy) (Entered: 08/07/2014)
156 RESPONSE in Opposition re 135 MOTION for summary judgment on Disparate Impact, 130 MOTION for summary judgment , 137 MOTION for summary judgment

Case: 3:12-cv-451 As of: 11/29/2019 04:50 PM EST 25 of 43

08/07/2014
08/07/2014 08/07/2014 08/07/2014 08/21/2014 08/21/2014 08/21/2014 08/21/2014 08/21/2014 08/21/2014 08/21/2014 08/21/2014 08/21/2014 08/21/2014

Disparate Impact & MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed by Jacksonville Associaton of Firefighters, Local 122, International Association of Firefighters. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Second Declaration of Randall W. Wyse)(Donnelly, Paul) (Entered: 08/07/2014)
157 RESPONSE in Opposition re 127 MOTION in limine regarding reports and testimony of Kyle Brink, 128 MOTION in limine Exclude Report & Testimony of Bernard Siskin & Kyle Brink filed by Smith Parties. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. 1_Guidelines for Statistical Analysis of Disparate Impact in EEO Litigation)(Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 08/07/2014)
158 ENDORSED ORDER granting 148 Amended Unopposed Motion to File a Combined Response to the Plaintiffs' Three Daubert Motions Not to Exceed 35 pages; the City's Combined Response 154 may remain as filed. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 8/7/2014.(SRW) (Entered: 08/07/2014)
159 RESPONSE in Opposition re 129 MOTION in limine regarding reports and testimony of Bernard Siskin, 128 MOTION in limine Exclude Report & Testimony of Bernard Siskin & Kyle Brink filed by Jacksonville Brotherhood of Firefighters, NAACP. (Doolittle, Kirsten) (Entered: 08/07/2014)
160 RESPONSE in Opposition re 127 MOTION in limine regarding reports and testimony of Kyle Brink, 128 MOTION in limine Exclude Report & Testimony of Bernard Siskin & Kyle Brink filed by Jacksonville Brotherhood of Firefighters, NAACP. (Doolittle, Kirsten) (Entered: 08/07/2014)
161 REPLY to Response to Motion re 132 MOTION in limine and Memorandum regarding Opinions and Report of City's Expert filed by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(McEntire, Brian) (Entered: 08/21/2014)
162 REPLY to Response to Motion re 131 MOTION in limine and Memorandum regarding Opinons and Report of Union's Expert filed by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(McEntire, Brian) (Entered: 08/21/2014)
163 REPLY to Response to Motion re 128 MOTION in limine Exclude Report & Testimony of Bernard Siskin & Kyle Brink filed by Jacksonville Associaton of Firefighters, Local 122, International Association of Firefighters. (Donnelly, Paul) (Entered: 08/21/2014)
164 REPLY to Response to Motion re 127 MOTION in limine regarding reports and testimony of Kyle Brink filed by Consolidated City of Jacksonville. (Laquidara, Cindy) (Entered: 08/21/2014)
165 NOTICE by Consolidated City of Jacksonville re 128 MOTION in limine Exclude Report & Testimony of Bernard Siskin & Kyle Brink, 151 Response in Opposition to Motion (Laquidara, Cindy) (Entered: 08/21/2014)
166 REPLY to Response to Motion re 129 MOTION in limine regarding reports and testimony of Bernard Siskin filed by Consolidated City of Jacksonville. (Laquidara, Cindy) (Entered: 08/21/2014)
167 REPLY to Response to Motion re 126 MOTION in limine regarding report and testimony of David P. Jones filed by Consolidated City of Jacksonville. (Laquidara, Cindy) (Entered: 08/21/2014)
168 REPLY to Response to Motion re 127 MOTION in limine regarding reports and testimony of Kyle Brink filed by Consolidated City of Jacksonville. (Laquidara, Cindy) (Entered: 08/21/2014)
169 REPLY to Response to Motion re 129 MOTION in limine regarding reports and testimony of Bernard Siskin filed by Consolidated City of Jacksonville. (Laquidara, Cindy) (Entered: 08/21/2014)
170 REPLY to Response to Motion re 147 Unopposed MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically File a Combined Response to Plaintiffs' Three Daubert Motions filed by Jacksonville Brotherhood of Firefighters, NAACP. (Doolittle, Kirsten) (Entered: 08/21/2014)

Case: 3:12-cv-451 As of: 11/29/2019 04:50 PM EST 26 of 43

08/28/2014 08/28/2014 08/28/2014 08/28/2014 09/04/2014 09/11/2014
09/18/2014 09/25/2014 09/25/2014 09/25/2014
10/27/2014 11/10/2014

171 NOTICE by NAACP re 137 MOTION for summary judgment Disparate Impact (Filing Corrected Exhibits) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Substitute for doc 137−2, # 2 Exhibit Substitute for doc 137−3)(Doolittle, Kirsten) (Entered: 08/28/2014)
172 REPLY to Response to Motion re 135 MOTION for summary judgment on Disparate Impact and Response to the City's and Union's Motions for Summary Judgment filed by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(McEntire, Brian) (Entered: 08/28/2014)
173 RESPONSE in Opposition re 155 Cross MOTION for summary judgment and Response to United State' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 135) and Notice of Adopting Response and Cross Motion filed in Response to the Motion for Summary Judgment by Plaintiff−Interveners NAACP/JBOF (Do filed by Smith Parties. (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 08/28/2014)
174 RESPONSE in Opposition re 155 Cross MOTION for summary judgment and Response to United State' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 135) and Notice of Adopting Response and Cross Motion filed in Response to the Motion for Summary Judgment by Plaintiff−Interveners NAACP/JBOF (Do c 153) in Response to Doc 137 filed by NAACP. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Doolittle, Kirsten) (Entered: 08/28/2014)
175 MOTION to Strike 136 MOTION in limine regarding Exclude Expert Report and Testimony of Dr. Palmer Morrel−Samuels (Document 136−3) by Consolidated City of Jacksonville. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Laquidara, Cindy) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson. (Entered: 09/04/2014)
176 REPLY to Response to Motion re 155 Cross MOTION for summary judgment and Response to United State' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 135) and Notice of Adopting Response and Cross Motion filed in Response to the Motion for Summary Judgment by Plaintiff−Interveners NAACP/JBOF (Do (Reply to U.S. Response Doc.172 filed by Consolidated City of Jacksonville. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Laquidara, Cindy) (Entered: 09/11/2014)
177 RESPONSE in Opposition re 175 MOTION to Strike 136 MOTION in limine regarding Exclude Expert Report and Testimony of Dr. Palmer Morrel−Samuels (Document 136−3) filed by Jacksonville Brotherhood of Firefighters. (Doolittle, Kirsten) (Entered: 09/18/2014)
178 FINAL STATEMENT re 135 MOTION for summary judgment on Disparate Impact filed by USA. (Adelstein, Jay) (Modified on 9/29/2014 to edit text) (DSY). (Entered: 09/25/2014)
179 FINAL SUBMITTAL re 144 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File, 143 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Daubert and Dispositive Motion Filings, 124 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File filed by Consolidated City of Jacksonville. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (Laquidara, Cindy) (Modified on 9/29/2014 to edit text) (DSY). (Entered: 09/25/2014)
180 FINAL BRIEF in opposition re 156 Response in Opposition to Motion, 172 Reply to Response to Motion, 155 Cross MOTION for summary judgment and Response to United State' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 135) and Notice of Adopting Response and Cross Motion filed in Response to the Motion for Summary Judgment by Plaintiff−Interveners NAACP/JBOF (Do, 171 Notice to Court, 173 Response in Opposition to Motion, 176 Reply to Response to Motion, 135 MOTION for summary judgment on Disparate Impact, 174 Response in Opposition to Motion, 130 MOTION for summary judgment, 152 Response to motion, 153 Response to motion, 137 MOTION for summary judgment Disparate Impact filed by Smith Parties. (Thompson, Dennis) (Modified on 9/29/2014 to edit text) (DSY). (Entered: 09/25/2014)
181 ORDER resetting hearing: the hearing on summary judgment and Daubert motions previously set for 12/15/2014 is now reset for 2/26/2015 at 9:30 a.m. (Courtroom 10D); the parties' status report is now due by 2/5/2015. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 10/27/2014. (SRW) (Entered: 10/27/2014)
182 MOTION for Discovery (Limited) on Next Liability Phase of Litigation by All Plaintiffs. (Adelstein, Jay) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson. (Entered: 11/10/2014)

Case: 3:12-cv-451 As of: 11/29/2019 04:50 PM EST 27 of 43

11/21/2014 11/21/2014 11/24/2014
12/02/2014 01/16/2015 02/02/2015 02/02/2015
02/02/2015
02/04/2015 02/05/2015 02/05/2015 02/05/2015 02/26/2015 02/27/2015
02/27/2015
03/03/2015

183 RESPONSE in Opposition re 182 MOTION for Discovery (Limited) on Next Liability Phase of Litigation filed by Jacksonville Associaton of Firefighters, Local 122, International Association of Firefighters. (Donnelly, Paul) (Entered: 11/21/2014)
184 RESPONSE in Opposition re 182 MOTION for Discovery (Limited) on Next Liability Phase of Litigation filed by Consolidated City of Jacksonville. (Laquidara, Cindy) (Entered: 11/21/2014)
185 NOTICE by Consolidated City of Jacksonville re 184 Response in Opposition to Motion Notice of Filing Exhibit A to the City's Response Objecting to the Motion for Limited Discovery by the United States (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Laquidara, Cindy) (Entered: 11/24/2014)
186 ORDER denying 182 motion for limited discovery. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 12/2/2014.(SRW) (Entered: 12/02/2014)
187 ORDER advising parties that the February 26, 2015 hearing on Daubert motions(see 181 Order) will be non−evidentiary. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 1/16/2015. (SRW) (Entered: 01/16/2015)
188 MOTION for Hearing Motion for Change of Hearing Date by Consolidated City of Jacksonville. (Laquidara, Cindy) (Entered: 02/02/2015)
189 ORDER resetting 2/26/2015 hearing on summary judgment & Daubert motions and case status conference: hearing is now reset for Friday, March 6, 2015 at 9:30 a.m. (Courtroom 10D). Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 2/2/2015.(SRW) (Entered: 02/02/2015)
190 ENDORSED ORDER advising the parties that the 188 MOTION for change of hearing date, which reflects that counsel for Smith objects, was filed while the Court's 189 Order granting the continuance was being docketed. Accordingly, no later than 2/4/2015, counsel for Smith may file her reasons for opposing the motion and the Court will decide whether to revisit the date.Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 2/2/2015.(SRW) (Entered: 02/02/2015)
191 OBJECTION re 190 Order, 188 MOTION for Hearing Motion for Change of Hearing Date, 189 Order . (Bishop, Christy) (Entered: 02/04/2015)
192 STATUS report by Consolidated City of Jacksonville, Jacksonville Associaton of Firefighters, Local 122, International Association of Firefighters. (Teodorescu, Adina) (Entered: 02/05/2015)
193 STATUS report and Proposed Schedule by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Miami, FL, Jacksonville Brotherhood of Firefighters, NAACP, Smith Parties, USA. (McEntire, Brian) (Entered: 02/05/2015)
194 ORDER granting 188 Motion to continue hearing; hearing is reset for March 6, 2015 at 9:30 a.m. (Courtroom 10D) (see Order for details). Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 2/5/2015.(SRW) (Entered: 02/05/2015)
195 MOTION to Continue Oral Argument scheduled for March 6, 2015 by Smith Parties. (Bishop, Christy) (Entered: 02/26/2015)
196 NOTICE of telephone hearing on 195 MOTION to Continue Oral Argument scheduled for March 6, 2015. Telephone conference set for today, 2/27/2015, at 2:00 PM before Judge Timothy J. Corrigan; parties to call 800−521−6079 or 202−353−0878, passcode 13363828.(SRW) (Entered: 02/27/2015)
197 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Judge Timothy J. Corrigan: MOTION HEARING held on 2/27/2015 re 195 MOTION to Continue Oral Argument scheduled for March 6, 2015 filed by Smith Parties. Court Reporter: Shannon Bishop (SRW) (Entered: 02/27/2015)
198 ORDER granting 195 Motion to Continue; hearing now re−set for May 13 & 14, 2015, beginning at 9:30 a.m. each day; directing Clerk to administratively close the file until further Order. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 3/3/2015.(SRW) (Entered: 03/03/2015)

Case: 3:12-cv-451 As of: 11/29/2019 04:50 PM EST 28 of 43

05/13/2015 05/22/2015
05/22/2015
06/09/2015
06/09/2015
07/27/2015 07/28/2015 10/01/2015 10/01/2015 10/08/2015 10/19/2015 10/21/2015 10/21/2015 10/23/2015

199 MINUTE ENTRY. Proceedings held before Judge Timothy J. Corrigan: summary judgment and Daubert hearing and case status conference held on 5/13/2015. Court Reporter: Shannon Bishop. (MD) (Entered: 05/15/2015)
200 TRANSCRIPT of Summary Judgment and Daubert Hearing held on May 13, 2015 before Judge Timothy J. Corrigan. Court Reporter/Transcriber Shannon M. Bishop, RDR, CRR; dsmabishop@yahoo.com,Telephone number (904)549−1307. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER or purchased through the Court Reporter.. Redaction Request due 6/12/2015, Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 6/22/2015, Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/20/2015. (SB) (NAS). (Entered: 05/22/2015)
201 NOTICE to counsel of filing of OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. Any party needing a copy of the transcript to review for redaction purposes may purchase a copy from the court reporter or view the document at the clerk's office public terminal. Court Reporter: Shannon Bishop, RDR, CRR; dsmabishop@yahoo.com; (904)549−1307. (SB) (Entered: 05/22/2015)
202 ORDER finding plaintiffs have established prima facie case (denying 128, 129, 155, 156, 175, granting 130, 135, 137, terminating as moot 126, 127, 131, 132, 133, 136]); case shall proceed to phases two and three (scheduling order to issue separately); Clerk to reopen the file. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 6/9/2015. (SRW) (Entered: 06/09/2015)
203 (SECOND & THIRD PHASE) CASE MANAGEMENT AND SCHEDULING ORDER: discovery begins immediately and closes 6/24/2016 (see order for complete schedule of discovery deadlines); parties to file proposal re: dispositive/Daubert motion practice/trial by 2/1/2016; parties to continue settlement discussions with Judge Schlesinger. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 6/9/2015. (SRW) (Entered: 06/09/2015)
204 NOTICE of Appearance by Jeremy Monteiro on behalf of USA (Monteiro, Jeremy) (Entered: 07/27/2015)
205 NOTICE of Appearance by Stephen J. Powell on behalf of Consolidated City of Jacksonville (Powell, Stephen) (Entered: 07/28/2015)
206 MOTION to Compel Discovery by USA. (Monteiro, Jeremy) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson. (Entered: 10/01/2015)
207 MEMORANDUM in support re 206 Motion to Compel Discovery filed by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits 1−4)(Monteiro, Jeremy) (Entered: 10/01/2015)
208 NOTICE of Appearance by Rita Marie Mairs on behalf of Consolidated City of Jacksonville (Mairs, Rita) (Entered: 10/08/2015)
209 RESPONSE to Motion re 206 MOTION to Compel Discovery filed by Consolidated City of Jacksonville. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits 1−3−Affidavits of A. Teodorescu; D. Moser and Excerpt of Dep of Dr. Anthony)(Feiser, Craig) (Entered: 10/19/2015)
210 Unopposed MOTION for leave to file Reply in Support of Motion to Compel by USA. (Monteiro, Jeremy) (Entered: 10/21/2015)
211 ENDORSED ORDER granting 210 Motion for Leave to File. Plaintiff's reply, limited to five pages, is due October 28, 2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson on 10/21/2015. (ADM) (Entered: 10/21/2015)
212 Unopposed MOTION to Substitute Attorney by Consolidated City of Jacksonville. (Phillips, Jon) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson. (Entered: 10/23/2015)

Case: 3:12-cv-451 As of: 11/29/2019 04:50 PM EST 29 of 43

10/26/2015
10/28/2015 11/13/2015 11/20/2015 11/23/2015
11/24/2015 11/30/2015 11/30/2015 12/03/2015 12/04/2015 12/31/2015 01/04/2016 01/05/2016 01/11/2016
01/14/2016
01/14/2016

213 ENDORSED ORDER granting 212 Motion to Substitute Attorney. Cindy A. Laquidara, Esq. is relieved of any further responsibility as counsel for Defendant City of Jacksonville in this matter, but she shall comply with all applicable obligations on withdrawing counsel, including any applicable Bar rules. Signed by Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson on 10/26/2015. (ADM) (Entered: 10/26/2015)
214 REPLY to Response to Motion re 206 MOTION to Compel Discovery filed by USA. (Monteiro, Jeremy) (Entered: 10/28/2015)
215 ORDER granting 206 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson on 11/13/2015. (ADM) (Entered: 11/13/2015)
216 OBJECTION re 215 Order on motion to compel . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Composite Exhibit A (Swander and Barrett deposition pages))(Feiser, Craig) (Entered: 11/20/2015)
217 ENDORSED ORDER granting [216−2] emergency motion for stay of Order to the extent that the City's production of "the Donnelly document" is stayed until further Order; no later than December 4, 2015 the United States shall respond to [216−1] the City's objections to the Order granting the motion to compel; also by December 4, 2015, the City shall file "the Donnelly document" under seal for the undersigned's review. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 11/23/2015.(SRW) (Entered: 11/23/2015)
218 Unopposed MOTION for protective order Entry by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Monteiro, Jeremy) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson. (Entered: 11/24/2015)
219 ORDER granting 218 Unopposed Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson on 11/30/2015. (MEH) (Entered: 11/30/2015)
220 Consent PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson on 11/30/2015. (MEH) (Entered: 11/30/2015)
Sealed Document S−221. (CKS) (Entered: 12/04/2015)
222 RESPONSE re 216 Objection filed by USA. (Monteiro, Jeremy) (Entered: 12/04/2015)
223 Joint MOTION to extend time to depose Plaintiff's Experts by Defendants, IAFF and by Consolidated City of Jacksonville. (Mairs, Rita) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson. (Entered: 12/31/2015)
224 MEMORANDUM in opposition re 223Joint MOTION to extend time to depose Plaintiff's Experts filed by USA. (Adelstein, Jay) Modified on 1/5/2016 to edit text (CKS). (Entered: 01/04/2016)
225 ORDER denying 223 Motion to extend time. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 1/5/2016.(SRW) (Entered: 01/05/2016)
226 ENDORSED ORDER: The Court has the City's objections 216 to the Order on the Motion to Compel under advisement. As part of that review, no later than January 19, 2016, the City is directed to file under seal (with a courtesy copy to chambers) a copy of "the Poppell document" (see Doc. 209−1 at par. 6). Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 1/11/2016. (SRW) (Entered: 01/11/2016)
***PRO HAC VICE FEES paid and Special Admission Attorney Certification Form filed by attorney Robert S. Libman, appearing on behalf of NAACP (Filing fee $150 receipt number JAX18884.) Related document: 230 MOTION for Robert Libman to appear pro hac vice. (AET) (Entered: 01/21/2016)
***PRO HAC VICE FEES paid and Special Admission Attorney Certification Form filed by attorney Benjamin J. Blustein, appearing on behalf of NAACP (Filing fee $150 receipt number JAX18883.) Related document: 231 MOTION for Benjamin Blustein to appear pro hac vice. (AET) (Entered: 01/21/2016)

Case: 3:12-cv-451 As of: 11/29/2019 04:50 PM EST 30 of 43

01/15/2016 01/15/2016 01/15/2016 01/20/2016 01/20/2016 01/21/2016
01/21/2016
02/01/2016 02/01/2016 02/01/2016
02/01/2016 02/01/2016 02/05/2016 02/11/2016 02/11/2016 02/15/2016 02/16/2016 02/16/2016 02/17/2016

Sealed Document S−227. (AMM) (Entered: 01/15/2016)
228 NOTICE of Filing by Consolidated City of Jacksonville. The Poppell document is included with sealed entry S−227. (AMM) (Entered: 01/15/2016)
229 NOTICE of unavailability of counsel by Jacksonville Associaton of Firefighters, Local 122, International Association of Firefighters. (Donnelly, Paul) (Entered: 01/15/2016)
230 MOTION for Robert Libman to appear pro hac vice by NAACP. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing)(Doolittle, Kirsten) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson. (Entered: 01/20/2016)
231 MOTION for Benjamin Blustein to appear pro hac vice by NAACP. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing)(Doolittle, Kirsten) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson. (Entered: 01/20/2016)
232 ENDORSED ORDER granting 230 motion to appear pro hac vice. If Robert S. Libman, Esq. has not already done so, he shall immediately register for a login and password for electronic filing at the Court's website at www.flmd.uscourts.gov. Signed by Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson on 1/21/2016. (ADM) (Entered: 01/21/2016)
233 ENDORSED ORDER granting 231 motion to appear pro hac vice. If Benjamin J. Blustein, Esq. has not already done so, he shall immediately register for a login and password for electronic filing at the Court's website at www.flmd.uscourts.gov. Signed by Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson on 1/21/2016. (ADM) (Entered: 01/21/2016)
234 MOTION to Strike Expert Designation, MOTION to Compel Discovery by USA. (Monteiro, Jeremy) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson. (Entered: 02/01/2016)
235 MEMORANDUM in support re 234 Motion to StrikeMotion to Compel filed by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits 1−8)(Monteiro, Jeremy) (Entered: 02/01/2016)
236 RESPONSE re 203 Case management and scheduling order (Defendants' Proposed Motion Schedule) filed by Consolidated City of Jacksonville, Jacksonville Associaton of Firefighters, Local 122, International Association of Firefighters. (Phillips, Jon) (Entered: 02/01/2016)
237 RESPONSE re 203 Case management and scheduling order Plaintiffs' Proposed Briefing Schedule and Request for Trial filed by USA. (Monteiro, Jeremy) (Entered: 02/01/2016)
238 NOTICE of Withdrawal of Demand for Jury Trial by Jacksonville Associaton of Firefighters, Local 122, International Association of Firefighters (Sullivan, James) Modified on 2/2/2016 to edit text (CKS). (Entered: 02/01/2016)
239 MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically MOTION TO JOIN PLAINTIFF USA'S MOTION TO STRIKE DESIGNATION AND COMPEL DOCUMENTS by NAACP. (Blustein, Benjamin) (Entered: 02/05/2016)
240 MOTION to Compel Discovery by USA. (Monteiro, Jeremy) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson. (Entered: 02/11/2016)
241 MEMORANDUM in support re 240 Motion to Compel Discovery filed by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits 1−14)(Monteiro, Jeremy) (Entered: 02/11/2016)
242 RESPONSE in Opposition re 234 MOTION to Strike Expert Designation MOTION to Compel Discovery filed by Jacksonville Associaton of Firefighters, Local 122, International Association of Firefighters. (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 02/15/2016)
243 NOTICE of change of address by Benjamin J. Blustein (Blustein, Benjamin) (Entered: 02/16/2016)
244 NOTICE of change of address by Robert S. Libman (Libman, Robert) (Entered: 02/16/2016)
245 MOTION for leave to file Reply in support of Motion to Strike and Motion to Compel by USA. (Monteiro, Jeremy) (Entered: 02/17/2016)

Case: 3:12-cv-451 As of: 11/29/2019 04:50 PM EST 31 of 43

02/18/2016 02/25/2016 02/25/2016 02/26/2016 03/15/2016 03/28/2016 04/13/2016 04/14/2016
04/26/2016 05/18/2016 05/24/2016 05/24/2016 05/24/2016
05/26/2016
05/27/2016

246 ENDORSED ORDER granting 245 Motion for Leave to File Reply; the government's reply, limited to 3 pages, shall be filed no later than 3/3/2016. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 2/18/2016.(SRW) (Entered: 02/18/2016)
247 REPLY to Response to Motion re 234 MOTION to Strike Expert Designation MOTION to Compel Discovery filed by USA. (Monteiro, Jeremy) (Entered: 02/25/2016)
248 RESPONSE to Motion re 240 MOTION to Compel Discovery and Supporting Memorandum 241 filed by Consolidated City of Jacksonville. (Mairs, Rita) (Entered: 02/25/2016)
249 MOTION for leave to file Reply in Support of Motion to Compel by USA. (Monteiro, Jeremy) (Entered: 02/26/2016)
250 ENDORSED ORDER granting 249 Motion for Leave to File Reply: the United States' reply, limited to 7 pages, shall be filed no later than 3/28/2016. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 3/15/2016.(SRW) (Entered: 03/15/2016)
251 REPLY to Response to Motion re 240 MOTION to Compel Discovery filed by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−2)(Monteiro, Jeremy) (Entered: 03/28/2016)
252 Unopposed MOTION to modify Scheduling Order (ECF No. 203) by USA. (Monteiro, Jeremy) (Entered: 04/13/2016)
253 ORDER granting 252 Motion to modify (see Order for new dates [all discovery closes 7/29/2016]); granting 239 Motion to Join; SETTING HEARING on Pending Motions 216, 234, 240 and to discuss proposals 236, 237 for MAY 19, 2016 at 3:30 p.m., Courtroom 10D. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 4/14/2016.(SRW) (Entered: 04/14/2016)
254 NOTICE permitting Bruce B. Elfvin, Esquire, to appear by telephone at the 5/19/16 at 3:30 p.m. hearing. Mr. Elfvin is directed to contact CourtCall no later than 5/16/16 to make the telephone conference call arrangements. See Notice for further details. (MD) (Entered: 04/26/2016)
255 MOTION to Continue for Leave to Continue Deposition by Consolidated City of Jacksonville. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit)(Phillips, Jon) (Entered: 05/18/2016)
***PRO HAC VICE FEES paid and Special Admission Attorney Certification Form filed by attorney Mateya Beth Kelley, appearing on behalf of Jacksonville Brotherhood of Firefighters, NAACP (Filing fee $150 receipt number JAX020380.). (DLC) (Entered: 05/24/2016)
256 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Judge Timothy J. Corrigan: MOTION HEARING held on 5/19/2016 re: pending motions and case status. Court Reporter: Shannon Bishop (SRW) (Entered: 05/24/2016)
257 ORDER sustaining 216 objection re: production of Donnelly document (City need not produce document); finding as moot 234 motion to strike/compel re: Dr. Greenwood (without prejudice to refiling if appropriate after counsel confer); denying without prejudice 240 motion to compel re: alternative testing; directing the government to file a response to 255 motion for leave to continue deposition by 6/10/2016; directing plaintiffs to advise re: Court's trial suggestion by 6/10/2016; defendants to respond by 6/24/2016. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 5/24/2016.(SRW) (Entered: 05/24/2016)
258 Unopposed MOTION for Mateya Beth Kelley to appear pro hac vice by Esley L. Baker, Jr., Dominique Bartley, King Rosevelt Davis, Jr., Ernest Glover, Jr., Sharon Gould, Michael Harris, Byron Jackson, Jacksonville Brotherhood of Firefighters, Cory McKinney, NAACP, Gregory Neal, Sr., Emanuel Porter, Roosevelt Prier, Jr., Howard Smothers, Jr., Ervin Young, Jr.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing)(Doolittle, Kirsten) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson. (Entered: 05/26/2016)
259 ENDORSED ORDER granting 258 motion to appear pro hac vice. If Mateya Beth Kelley, Esq. has not already done so, she shall immediately register for a login and password for electronic filing at the Court's website at

Case: 3:12-cv-451 As of: 11/29/2019 04:50 PM EST 32 of 43

05/31/2016
05/31/2016
06/10/2016 06/10/2016 06/13/2016 06/17/2016 06/17/2016 06/17/2016 06/21/2016 06/22/2016 06/27/2016 07/01/2016 07/07/2016 07/11/2016 07/11/2016

www.flmd.uscourts.gov. Signed by Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson on 5/27/2016. (ADM) (Entered: 05/27/2016)
260 TRANSCRIPT of Motion Hearing held on May 19, 2016 before Judge Timothy J. Corrigan. Court Reporter/Transcriber Shannon M. Bishop, RDR, CRR; dsmabishop@yahoo.com,Telephone number (904)549−1307. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER or purchased through the Court Reporter.. Redaction Request due 6/21/2016, Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/1/2016, Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/29/2016. (SB) (Entered: 05/31/2016)
261 NOTICE to counsel of filing of OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. Any party needing a copy of the transcript to review for redaction purposes may purchase a copy from the court reporter or view the document at the clerk's office public terminal. Court Reporter: Shannon Bishop, RDR, CRR; dsmabishop@yahoo.com; (904)549−1307. (SB) (Entered: 05/31/2016)
262 RESPONSE to Motion re 255 MOTION to Continue for Leave to Continue Deposition filed by Jacksonville Brotherhood of Firefighters, NAACP, Smith Parties, USA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(McEntire, Brian) (Entered: 06/10/2016)
263 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response to Order of May 24, 2016 by 1 week by Smith Parties. (Elfvin, Bruce) (Entered: 06/10/2016)
264 ENDORSED ORDER granting 263 Motion for Extension of Time: plaintiffs' response to Order 257 due 6/17/2016; defendants' response due 7/1/2016. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 6/13/2016.(SRW) (Entered: 06/13/2016)
265 RESPONSE re 257 Order on Motion to StrikeOrder on motion to compel Trial Plan Response filed by USA. (Monteiro, Jeremy) (Entered: 06/17/2016)
266 NOTICE by Jacksonville Brotherhood of Firefighters, NAACP and Plaintiff Intervenors of Trial Plan Statement (Doolittle, Kirsten) (Entered: 06/17/2016)
267 PLAINTIFF'S BRIEF re 257 Order on Motion to StrikeOrder on motion to compel, 263 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response to Order of May 24, 2016 by 1 week Trial Proceedings filed by Smith Parties. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Fifth Amended Complaint A)(Elfvin, Bruce) (Entered: 06/17/2016)
268 NOTICE of unavailability of counsel by Jacksonville Associaton of Firefighters, Local 122, International Association of Firefighters. (Donnelly, Paul) (Entered: 06/21/2016)
269 ORDER granting 255 City's Motion for Leave to Continue Deposition of Dr. Kiesha Anthony to extent stated in Order. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 6/22/2016.(SRW) (Entered: 06/22/2016)
270 ENTERED IN ERROR. Modified on 6/27/2016 to change docket text (SMS). (Entered: 06/27/2016)
271 RESPONSE re 257 Order on Motion to StrikeOrder on motion to compel Defendants' Joint Response filed by Consolidated City of Jacksonville, Jacksonville Associaton of Firefighters, Local 122, International Association of Firefighters. (Phillips, Jon) (Entered: 07/01/2016)
272 NOTICE of hearing: Status and Scheduling Conference set for 7/14/2016 at 3:30 PM in Jacksonville Courtroom 10D before Judge Timothy J. Corrigan (telephone appearances also permitted− see notice for details).(SRW) (Entered: 07/07/2016)
273 Second MOTION to Compel Discovery by USA. (Ruiz, Hector) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson. (Entered: 07/11/2016)
274 MEMORANDUM in support re 273 Motion to Compel Discovery filed by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Appx 1 Compliance with local rule 3.04, # 2 Exhibit Ex.1 2003 Barrett Proposal to RFP 86−03, # 3 Exhibit Ex. 2 Deposition testimony of Dr.

Case: 3:12-cv-451 As of: 11/29/2019 04:50 PM EST 33 of 43

07/14/2016 07/19/2016
07/20/2016
07/20/2016
07/25/2016 07/28/2016 07/29/2016

Swander, # 4 Exhibit Ex. 3 City Privilege Log Entries, # 5 Exhibit Ex. 4 E−mail from Dr. Anthony to Dr. Swander, Mar. 4, 2011, # 6 Exhibit Ex. 5 E−mail from A. Cullen to Dr. Swander et al., Apr. 29, 2011, # 7 Exhibit Ex. 6 E−mail from R. Sarli to Dr. Barrett, Sept. 15, 2009, # 8 Exhibit Ex. 7 E−mail from A. Cullen to M. Baker and Dr. Swander, Feb. 17, 2011, # 9 Exhibit Ex. 8 E−mail from Dr. Swander to A. Cullen, Mar. 12, 2010, # 10 Exhibit Ex. 9 Deposition testimony of Diane Moser, Nov. 17−19, 2015, # 11 Exhibit Ex. 10 Deposition testimony of Dr. Anthony (Wicks), Aug. 5, 2015, # 12 Exhibit Ex. 11 Deposition testimony of C. Poppell, May 24, 2016, # 13 Exhibit Ex. 12 Deposition testimony of A. Cullen, May 25, 2016, # 14 Exhibit Ex. 13 Deposition testimony of Fire Chief K. Wilson, June 27, 2016, # 15 Exhibit Ex. 14 Deposition testimony of B. Rigdon, Sept. 15, 2015, # 16 Exhibit Ex. 15 Expert Report of Dr. Jones and Dr. Hough, Dec. 15, 2015, # 17 Exhibit Ex. 16 Deposition testimony of Dr. Barrett, Sept. 24, 2015, # 18 Exhibit Ex. 17 2006 Barrett Proposal to RFP 95−06, # 19 Exhibit Ex. 18 Ergometrics Proposal to Provide Promotional Examinations for JFRD, 2009, # 20 Exhibit Ex. 19 Expert Report of Dr. Barrett for Captain 2004 Exam, August 28, 2015, # 21 Exhibit Ex. 20 Expert Report of Dr. Swander, Sept. 1, 2015, # 22 Exhibit Ex. 21 Expert Rebuttal Report of Dr. Swander, March 15, 2015, # 23 Exhibit Ex. 22 Hearing Transcript, May 19, 2016)(Ruiz, Hector) (Entered: 07/11/2016)
275 MINUTE ENTRY. Proceedings held before Judge Timothy J. Corrigan: Status and Scheduling Conference held on 7/14/2016. Order to enter. Court Reporter: Shannon Bishop. (MD) (Entered: 07/18/2016)
276 ORDER SCHEDULING NON−JURY TRIAL AND SETTING ADDITIONAL CASE DEADLINES: the City's response to the United States' Motion to Compel 273 is due 7/25/2016; Smith plaintiffs to file Amended Complaint A by 8/15/2016, defendants to answer by 9/14/2016; defendants' motion for partial summary judgment due 9/14/2016, plaintiffs' response due 10/19/2016; motions in limine (including Daubert) due 11/7/2016, responses due 12/7/2016; proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and joint pretrial statement due 1/9/2017; Final Pretrial Conference set 1/13/2017 at 10:00 a.m. (Courtroom 10D); three week non−jury trial set to commence 2/6/2017 at 9:00 a.m. (Courtroom 10D); see order for additional instructions and information. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 7/19/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Instructions Regarding Pre−Marking of Exhibits)(SRW) (Entered: 07/19/2016)
277 TRANSCRIPT of Motion Hearing held on July 14, 2016 before Judge Timothy J. Corrigan. Court Reporter/Transcriber Shannon M. Bishop, RDR, CRR; dsmabishop@yahoo.com,Telephone number (904)549−1307. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER or purchased through the Court Reporter.. Redaction Request due 8/10/2016, Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/22/2016, Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/18/2016. (SB) (Entered: 07/20/2016)
278 NOTICE to counsel of filing of OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. Any party needing a copy of the transcript to review for redaction purposes may purchase a copy from the court reporter or view the document at the clerk's office public terminal. Court Reporter: Shannon Bishop, RDR, CRR; dsmabishop@yahoo.com; (904)549−1307. (SB) (Entered: 07/20/2016)
279 RESPONSE in Opposition re 273 Second MOTION to Compel Discovery and Memorandum 274 filed by Consolidated City of Jacksonville. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G)(Mairs, Rita) (Entered: 07/25/2016)
280 Consent MOTION for leave to file Reply In support of Motion to Compel by USA. (Monteiro, Jeremy) (Entered: 07/28/2016)
281 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery Motion for Leave to File Motion to Compel Discovery Outside Deadline by Consolidated City of Jacksonville. (Mairs, Rita) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson.

Case: 3:12-cv-451 As of: 11/29/2019 04:50 PM EST 34 of 43

07/29/2016
07/31/2016 07/31/2016 08/08/2016
08/12/2016 08/12/2016 08/15/2016 08/15/2016 08/16/2016 08/16/2016 08/19/2016 08/22/2016 08/30/2016 09/01/2016 09/14/2016 09/14/2016

(Entered: 07/29/2016)
282 MOTION to Compel Discovery Response by Consolidated City of Jacksonville. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex A − US' Response to Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories, # 2 Exhibit Ex B − Depo Excerpts David Jones, # 3 Exhibit Ex C − Depo Excerpts Leaetta Hough)(Feiser, Craig) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson. (Entered: 07/29/2016)
283 ENDORSED ORDER granting 280 Motion for Leave to File Reply to the City's Response 279 to plaintiff's Motion to Compel 273; the reply brief, limited to 7 pages, shall be filed no later than 8/12/2016. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 7/31/2016.(SRW) (Entered: 07/31/2016)
284 ENDORSED ORDER granting 281 Motion for Leave to File Motion to Compel Discovery Outside Deadline: no later than 8/8/2016 the City may file a motion to compel as described in its motion 281. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 7/31/2016. (SRW) (Entered: 07/31/2016)
285 MOTION to Compel DISCOVERY by Consolidated City of Jacksonville. (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)(Mairs, Rita) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson. (Entered: 08/08/2016)
286 RESPONSE in Opposition re 282 MOTION to Compel Discovery Response filed by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4)(McEntire, Brian) (Entered: 08/12/2016)
287 REPLY to Response to Motion re 273 Second MOTION to Compel Discovery filed by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Monteiro, Jeremy) (Entered: 08/12/2016)
288 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File a response to the Consolidated City of Jacksonville's motion to compel discovery by USA. (McEntire, Brian) (Entered: 08/15/2016)
289 NOTICE by Smith Parties re 276 Order Complying by Filing 6th Amended Complaint A (Attachments: # 1 6th Amended Complaint A)(Elfvin, Bruce) (Entered: 08/15/2016)
290 ENDORSED ORDER granting 288 Motion for Extension of Time: the United States' response to the City's motion to compel 285 shall be filed no later than 8/30/2016. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 8/16/2016.(SRW) (Entered: 08/16/2016)
291 SIXTH AMENDED COMPLAINT A against Consolidated City of Jacksonville filed by Smith Parties.(CKS) (Entered: 08/16/2016)
292 Unopposed MOTION for leave to file Reply in Support of Motion to Compel by Consolidated City of Jacksonville. (Mairs, Rita) (Entered: 08/19/2016)
293 ENDORSED ORDER granting 292 the City's Motion for Leave to File a Reply re: 282 motion to compel: reply, limited to 7 pages, to be filed by 9/1/2016. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 8/22/2016.(SRW) (Entered: 08/22/2016)
294 RESPONSE in Opposition re 285 MOTION to Compel DISCOVERY filed by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13)(McEntire, Brian) (Entered: 08/30/2016)
295 REPLY to Response to Motion re 282 MOTION to Compel Discovery Response to USA's Response to City's Motion to Compel 286 filed by Consolidated City of Jacksonville. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Jones' Depo Pages, # 2 Exhibit Brink's Depo Pages, # 3 Exhibit Hough's Depo Pages)(Mairs, Rita) (Entered: 09/01/2016)
296 MOTION to Dismiss Sixth Amended Complaint A by Consolidated City of Jacksonville. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Teodorescu, Adina) (Entered: 09/14/2016)
297 Joint MOTION for partial summary judgment by Jacksonville Associaton of Firefighters, Local 122, International Association of Firefighters. (Attachments: # 1

Case: 3:12-cv-451 As of: 11/29/2019 04:50 PM EST 35 of 43

09/14/2016 09/20/2016 09/23/2016 09/26/2016 09/30/2016 09/30/2016 10/11/2016
10/11/2016
10/19/2016 10/19/2016 10/19/2016 10/19/2016 10/21/2016

Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit)(Donnelly, Paul) (Entered: 09/14/2016)
298 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Sixth Amended Complaint "A" by Jacksonville Associaton of Firefighters, Local 122, International Association of Firefighters. (Donnelly, Paul) (Entered: 09/14/2016)
299 NOTICE of hearing on motions to compel 273, 282, 285 (with possible discussion of 297 motion for partial summary judgment). Hearing set for 9/30/2016 at 10:00 AM in Jacksonville Courtroom 10 D before Judge Timothy J. Corrigan. (SRW) (Entered: 09/20/2016)
300 NOTICE permitting Bruce B. Elfvin, Esquire, to appear by telephone at the hearing scheduled for 9/30/2016 at 10:00 a.m. (see 299 Notice of hearing). Mr. Elfvin is directed to contact CourtCall at (866)582−6878 no later than 9/28/2016 to make the telephone conference call arrangements.(SRW) (Entered: 09/23/2016)
301 NOTICE permitting Mateya Beth Kelley, Esq., Benjamin J. Blustein, Esq., and Robert S. Libman, Esq. to appear by telephone at the hearing scheduled for 9/30/2016 at 10:00 a.m. (see 299 Notice of hearing). Counsel are directed to contact CourtCall at (866) 582−6878 no later than 9/28/2016 to make the telephone conference call arrangements.(SRW) (Entered: 09/26/2016)
302 ORDER directing plaintiffs to file brief by 10/19/2016 re: elements of Prongs II and III and anticipated evidentiary showing; defendants to respond by 11/4/2016; Setting Hearing for 11/17/2016 at 9:30 AM in Jacksonville Courtroom 10D. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 9/30/2016. (SRW) (Entered: 09/30/2016)
303 MINUTE ENTRY. Proceedings held before Judge Timothy J. Corrigan: HEARING on pending motions held on 9/30/2016. Court Reporter: Shannon Bishop. (MD) (Entered: 10/03/2016)
304 TRANSCRIPT of Motion Hearing held on September 30, 2016 before Judge Timothy J. Corrigan. Court Reporter/Transcriber Shannon M Bishop, RDR, CRR; dsmabishop@yahoo.com,Telephone number (904)549−1307. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER or purchased through the Court Reporter.. Redaction Request due 11/1/2016, Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/14/2016, Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/9/2017. (SB) (Entered: 10/11/2016)
305 NOTICE to counsel of filing of OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. Any party needing a copy of the transcript to review for redaction purposes may purchase a copy from the court reporter or view the document at the clerk's office public terminal. Court Reporter: Shannon Bishop, RDR, CRR; dsmabishop@yahoo.com; (904)549−1307. (SB) (Entered: 10/11/2016)
306 MOTION to extend time to October 21, 2016 to Oppose Motions to Dismiss by Smith Parties. (Elfvin, Bruce) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson. (Entered: 10/19/2016)
307 ENDORSED ORDER granting 306 Motion for 2 day extension to respond to motions to dismiss: the Smith plaintiffs' responses to 296 and 298 shall be filed no later than 10/21/2016. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 10/19/2016.(SRW) (Entered: 10/19/2016)
308 PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM re 302 Order Setting Hearing filed by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Monteiro, Jeremy) Modified on 10/20/2016 to edit text (CKS). (Entered: 10/19/2016)
309 RESPONSE in Opposition re 297 Joint MOTION for partial summary judgment filed by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Adelstein, Jay) (Entered: 10/19/2016)
310 NOTICE by Esley L. Baker, Jr., Dominique Bartley, King Rosevelt Davis, Jr., Ernest Glover, Jr., Sharon Gould, Michael Harris, Byron Jackson, Jacksonville Brotherhood

Case: 3:12-cv-451 As of: 11/29/2019 04:50 PM EST 36 of 43

10/21/2016
10/21/2016 10/21/2016
10/26/2016 10/26/2016 10/26/2016 10/26/2016 11/02/2016 11/03/2016
11/04/2016
11/04/2016 11/04/2016

of Firefighters, Cory McKinney, NAACP, Gregory Neal, Sr., Emanuel Porter, Roosevelt Prier, Jr., Howard Smothers, Jr., Ervin Young, Jr. re 308 Brief − Plaintiff −− NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF−INTERVENORS NAACP, JBOF, AND INDIVIDUAL AFRICAN−AMERICAN FIREFIGHTERS JOINING THE UNITED STATES' MEMORANDUM ON THE BURDENS OF PROOF FOR PRONGS TWO AND THREE, AND TYPES OF EVIDENCE TO BE OFFERED AT TRIAL (Blustein, Benjamin) (Entered: 10/21/2016)
311 NOTICE by Esley L. Baker, Jr., Dominique Bartley, King Rosevelt Davis, Jr., Ernest Glover, Jr., Sharon Gould, Michael Harris, Byron Jackson, Jacksonville Brotherhood of Firefighters, Cory McKinney, NAACP, Gregory Neal, Sr., Emanuel Porter, Roosevelt Prier, Jr., Howard Smothers, Jr., Ervin Young, Jr. re 309 Response in Opposition to Motion −− NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF−INTERVENORS NAACP, JBOF, AND INDIVIDUAL AFRICAN−AMERICAN FIREFIGHTERS JOINING IN THE UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Blustein, Benjamin) (Entered: 10/21/2016)
312 NOTICE by Smith Parties re 308 Brief − Plaintiff In agreement with Prong 2 and 3 by United States (Elfvin, Bruce) (Entered: 10/21/2016)
313 MEMORANDUM in opposition re 296 Motion to dismiss, 298 Motion to dismiss filed by Smith Parties. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Opposition Exhibit 1 Charge 2009 Hagans, # 2 Exhibit Opposition Exhibit 2 RTS 2009 Hagans, # 3 Exhibit Opposition Exhibit 3 Charge 2012 Buchanan, # 4 Exhibit Opposition Exhibit 4 RTS 2012 Buchanan)(Elfvin, Bruce) (Entered: 10/21/2016)
314 Unopposed MOTION for leave to file reply to Doc. 313 by Consolidated City of Jacksonville. (Teodorescu, Adina) (Entered: 10/26/2016)
315 MOTION for leave to file reply by Jacksonville Associaton of Firefighters, Local 122, International Association of Firefighters. (Donnelly, Paul) (Entered: 10/26/2016)
316 ENDORSED ORDER granting 314 Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Reply: the City may file a reply brief in response to 313 no later than 11/4/2016, limited to 5 pages. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 10/26/2016. (SRW) (Entered: 10/26/2016)
317 ENDORSED ORDER granting 315 Unopposed Joint Motion for Leave to File Reply: defendants may file a reply brief in response to 309 no later than 11/4/2016, limited to 9 pages. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 10/26/2016. (SRW) (Entered: 10/26/2016)
318 Unopposed MOTION for Joshua Feinstein to appear pro hac vice by City of Buffalo, New York, E.B. Jacobs, LLC, Industrial/Organizational Solutions, Inc.. (Rottmann, Emily) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson. (Entered: 11/02/2016)
***PRO HAC VICE FEES paid and Special Admission Attorney Certification Form filed by attorney Joshua Feinstein, appearing on behalf of City of Buffalo, New York, E.B. Jacobs, LLC, Industrial/Organizational Solutions, Inc. (Filing fee $150 receipt number JAX021991.) Related document: 318 Unopposed MOTION for Joshua Feinstein to appear pro hac vice. (AEJ) (Entered: 11/03/2016)
319 ENDORSED ORDER granting 318 motion to appear pro hac vice. If Joshua Feinstein, Esq. has not already done so, he shall immediately register for a login and password for electronic filing at the Court's website at www.flmd.uscourts.gov. Signed by Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson on 11/4/2016. (ADM) (Entered: 11/04/2016)
320 MOTION for leave to file Non−Joint Response by Jacksonville Associaton of Firefighters, Local 122, International Association of Firefighters. (Donnelly, Paul) (Entered: 11/04/2016)
321 REPLY to Response to Motion re 296 MOTION to Dismiss Sixth Amended Complaint A filed by Consolidated City of Jacksonville. (Teodorescu, Adina) (Entered: 11/04/2016)

Case: 3:12-cv-451 As of: 11/29/2019 04:50 PM EST 37 of 43

11/04/2016 11/07/2016 11/07/2016 11/07/2016 11/07/2016 11/07/2016 11/07/2016
11/07/2016 11/10/2016 11/14/2016
11/15/2016
11/15/2016

322 RESPONSE re 302 Order Setting Hearing DEFENDANTS' JOINT TRIAL BRIEF PURSUANT TO COURT ORDER [Doc. 302] filed by Consolidated City of Jacksonville. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit)(Mairs, Rita) (Entered: 11/04/2016)
323 NOTICE permitting Bruce B. Elfvin, Esquire, to appear by telephone at the hearing scheduled for 11/17/2016 at 9:30 a.m. (see 302 Order Setting Hearing). Mr. Elfvin is directed to contact CourtCall at (866)582−6878 no later than 11/15/2016 to make the telephone conference call arrangements.(SRW) (Entered: 11/07/2016)
324 MOTION in limine regarding Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Adelstein, Jay) (Entered: 11/07/2016)
325 MOTION in limine with certificate of conference regarding Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Adelstein, Jay) (Entered: 11/07/2016)
326 REPLY to Response to Motion re 297 Joint MOTION for partial summary judgment filed by Jacksonville Associaton of Firefighters, Local 122, International Association of Firefighters. (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 11/07/2016)
327 MOTION in limine regarding Defendants' Use of Evidence From Job Analysis Questionnaires by USA. (Ruiz, Hector) (Entered: 11/07/2016)
328 MEMORANDUM in support re 327 Motion in Limine Regarding Defendants' Use of Evidence From Job Analysis Questionnaires filed by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Jones−Hough Supplemental Report, # 2 Exhibit US Firsts Requests for Production, # 3 Exhibit City's Partial Response to US First Requests for Production, # 4 Exhibit US Fifth Requests for Production, # 5 Exhibit City's Response to US Fifth Requests for Production, # 6 Exhibit Keisha Phillips (Anthony) Deposition Testimony August 2015, # 7 Exhibit August 25, 2015 Letter from City to US, # 8 Exhibit October 6, 2015 Letter from City to US, # 9 Exhibit Email re Job Analysis Questionnaires, # 10 Exhibit email, # 11 Exhibit email, # 12 Exhibit email, # 13 Exhibit City's Supplemental Answers to Requests for Production, # 14 Exhibit Captain Job Analysis Questionnaire, # 15 Exhibit Keisha Phillips (Anthony) Deposition Testimony September 2016, # 16 Exhibit Gardner Purchase Order, # 17 Exhibit October 20, 2016 Letter from City to US, # 18 Exhibit Chief Kurtis Wilson Deposition Testimony 6 27 2016)(Ruiz, Hector) (Entered: 11/07/2016)
329 MOTION in limine regarding K. Phillips by Consolidated City of Jacksonville. (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)(Mairs, Rita) (Entered: 11/07/2016)
330 RESPONSE in Opposition re 285 MOTION to Compel DISCOVERY (Supplementary) filed by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6)(McEntire, Brian) (Entered: 11/10/2016)
331 MOTION to intervene for the Limited Purposes of a Protective Order and for Protective Order by City of Buffalo, New York, E.B. Jacobs, LLC, Industrial/Organizational Solutions, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Rick Jacobs, Ph.D., # 2 Affidavit Declaration of Brian O'Sullivan, # 3 Affidavit Declaration of Joshua Feinstein, Esq.)(Rottmann, Emily) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson. (Entered: 11/14/2016)
332 NOTICE by Esley L. Baker, Jr., Dominique Bartley, King Rosevelt Davis, Jr., Ernest Glover, Jr., Sharon Gould, Michael Harris, Byron Jackson, Jacksonville Brotherhood of Firefighters, Cory McKinney, NAACP, Gregory Neal, Sr., Emanuel Porter, Roosevelt Prier, Jr., Howard Smothers, Jr., Ervin Young, Jr. re 327 MOTION in limine regarding Defendants' Use of Evidence From Job Analysis Questionnaires, 328 Memorandum in support (Doolittle, Kirsten) (Entered: 11/15/2016)
333 NOTICE by Esley L. Baker, Jr., Dominique Bartley, King Rosevelt Davis, Jr., Ernest Glover, Jr., Sharon Gould, Michael Harris, Byron Jackson, Jacksonville Brotherhood of Firefighters, Cory McKinney, NAACP, Gregory Neal, Sr., Emanuel Porter, Roosevelt Prier, Jr., Howard Smothers, Jr., Ervin Young, Jr. re 325 MOTION in limine with certificate of conference regarding Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures (Doolittle, Kirsten) (Entered: 11/15/2016)

Case: 3:12-cv-451 As of: 11/29/2019 04:50 PM EST 38 of 43

11/15/2016 11/15/2016 11/16/2016 11/16/2016 11/17/2016 11/21/2016
11/28/2016 11/29/2016
11/29/2016
11/30/2016 12/06/2016

334 MOTION to Appear Telephonically at hearing on Motions In Limine by City of Buffalo, New York, E.B. Jacobs, LLC, Industrial/Organizational Solutions, Inc.. (Feinstein, Joshua) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson. (Entered: 11/15/2016)
335 ENDORSED ORDER granting 334 Motion to Appear Telephonically at hearing scheduled for November 17, 2016 at 9:30 a.m. Mr. Feinstein is directed to contact CourtCall at (866) 582−6878 to make the arrangements to appear by telephone. There is a fee for using this service. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 11/15/2016.(SRW) (Entered: 11/15/2016)
336 NOTICE by Smith Parties re 327 MOTION in limine regarding Defendants' Use of Evidence From Job Analysis Questionnaires, 328 Memorandum in support Notice of Smith Plaintiffs Joining the United States' Motion in Limine Regarding Defendants' Use of Evidence from Job Analysis Questionnaires (Elfvin, Bruce) (Entered: 11/16/2016)
337 NOTICE by Smith Parties re 325 MOTION in limine with certificate of conference regarding Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures supporting DOJ (Elfvin, Bruce) (Entered: 11/16/2016)
338 MINUTE ENTRY. Proceedings held before Judge Timothy J. Corrigan: Hearing on pending motions held on 11/17/2016. Order to enter. Court Reporter: Shannon Bishop. (MD) (Entered: 11/17/2016)
339 ORDER denying 273 Motion to Compel; granting 282 Motion to Compel (United States to provide response to City by 12/7/2016); denying 285 Motion to Compel; granting 331 Motion to Intervene but denying request for protective order; granting 325 Motion in Limine (witness lists to be filed by 12/7/2016); denying 327 Motion in Limine (City's supplemental expert rebuttal report to be served by 12/2/2016; additional expert depositions to be completed by 12/20/2016); denying 329 Motion in Limine (but permitting parties to depose Dr. Phillips for 4.5 hours); carrying with the case 297 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; granting 296 and 298 motions to dismiss Smith Complaint A (7th Amended Complaint A to be filed by 11/28/2016; response due 12/12/2016; if response is a motion, response due 1/4/2017); see Order for full details. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 11/21/2016.(SRW) (Entered: 11/21/2016)
340 AMENDED COMPLAINT 7th Consolidated Claims Only against Consolidated City of Jacksonville filed by Smith Parties.(Elfvin, Bruce) (Entered: 11/28/2016)
341 TRANSCRIPT of Motion Hearing held on November 17, 2016 before Judge Timothy J. Corrigan. Court Reporter/Transcriber Shannon M. Bishop, RDR, CRR; dsmabishop@yahoo.com,Telephone number (904)549−1307. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER or purchased through the Court Reporter.. Redaction Request due 12/20/2016, Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 12/30/2016, Release of Transcript Restriction set for 2/27/2017. (SB) (Entered: 11/29/2016)
342 NOTICE to counsel of filing of OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. Any party needing a copy of the transcript to review for redaction purposes may purchase a copy from the court reporter or view the document at the clerk's office public terminal. Court Reporter: Shannon Bishop, RDR, CRR; dsmabishop@yahoo.com; (904)549−1307. (SB) (Entered: 11/29/2016)
343 NOTICE of supplemental authority Howe v. Akron 6th Circuit Decisions by Smith Parties. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 Howe v. Akron decision, # 2 Exhibit 2 Howe v. Akron decision)(Elfvin, Bruce) (Entered: 11/30/2016)
344 MINUTE ENTRY. Proceedings held before Judge Timothy J. Corrigan: Telephone Conference held on 12/6/2016. See minutes to details. Court Reporter: Shannon Bishop. (MD) (Entered: 12/07/2016)

Case: 3:12-cv-451 As of: 11/29/2019 04:50 PM EST 39 of 43

12/07/2016 12/07/2016
12/12/2016 12/12/2016 12/13/2016 12/14/2016 12/14/2016 12/14/2016 12/16/2016
12/20/2016 12/29/2016 12/29/2016 12/29/2016
12/30/2016

345 Witness List by Consolidated City of Jacksonville, Jacksonville Associaton of Firefighters, Local 122, International Association of Firefighters. (Mairs, Rita) (Entered: 12/07/2016)
346 Witness List by Esley L. Baker, Jr., Dominique Bartley, King Rosevelt Davis, Jr., Ernest Glover, Jr., Sharon Gould, Michael Harris, Byron Jackson, Jacksonville Brotherhood of Firefighters, Cory McKinney, NAACP, Gregory Neal, Sr., Emanuel Porter, Roosevelt Prier, Jr., Smith Parties, Howard Smothers, Jr., USA, Ervin Young, Jr.. (Ruiz, Hector) (Entered: 12/07/2016)
347 ANSWER and affirmative defenses to 340 Amended Complaint "A" of Smith Plaintiffs by Jacksonville Associaton of Firefighters, Local 122, International Association of Firefighters.(Sullivan, James) (Entered: 12/12/2016)
348 ANSWER and affirmative defenses to 340 Amended Complaint by Consolidated City of Jacksonville.(Teodorescu, Adina) (Entered: 12/12/2016)
349 MOTION to Substitute Party for Plaintiff Douglas Abdul−Haqq by Smith Parties. (Elfvin, Bruce) (Entered: 12/13/2016)
350 MOTION to Strike Defendant City of Jacksonville's Supplemental Expert Report (except for Section 3) by USA. (Ruiz, Hector) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson. (Entered: 12/14/2016)
351 MEMORANDUM in support re 350 Motion to Strike Defendant City of Jacksonville's Supplemental Expert Report (except for Section 3) filed by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exh. 1 Dr. Jones Supplemental Expert Report, # 2 Exhibit Exh. 2 Dr. Barrett's Supplemental Rebuttal Report)(Ruiz, Hector) (Entered: 12/14/2016)
352 ORDER directing the City to respond to 350 MOTION to Strike no later than 12/20/2016; directing parties to proceed with Dr. Barrett's deposition (see Order for details). Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 12/14/2016. (SRW) (Entered: 12/14/2016)
353 ENDORSED ORDER granting 349 Motion of Plaintiff Douglas Abdul−Haqq to Substitute His Personal Representative as the Proper Party Due to Death; the Clerk shall terminate Douglas Abdul−Haqq as a party, to be replaced by Sari Nelson, as personal representative of the Estate of Douglas Abdul−Haqq. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 12/16/2016. (MD) (Entered: 12/16/2016)
354 RESPONSE in Opposition re 350 MOTION to Strike Defendant City of Jacksonville's Supplemental Expert Report (except for Section 3) filed by Consolidated City of Jacksonville. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Feiser, Craig) (Entered: 12/20/2016)
355 Emergency MOTION to Continue Trial and Extension of Related Deadlines, or in the Alternative, Motion for Extension of Current Pretrial Deadlines by Consolidated City of Jacksonville. (Mairs, Rita) (Entered: 12/29/2016)
356 RESPONSE in Opposition re 355 Emergency MOTION to Continue Trial and Extension of Related Deadlines, or in the Alternative, Motion for Extension of Current Pretrial Deadlines Opposition of All Plaintiffs filed by USA. (Adelstein, Jay) (Entered: 12/29/2016)
357 NOTICE of telephone hearing on 355 Emergency MOTION to Continue Trial and Extension of Related Deadlines, or in the Alternative, Motion for Extension of Current Pretrial Deadlines. Telephone Hearing set for Friday, 12/30/2016 at 2:00 PM in Jacksonville Courtroom 10D before Judge Timothy J. Corrigan. The Court will provide a supplemental notice in the morning with instructions for connecting to the conference call. (SRW) (Entered: 12/29/2016)
358 NOTICE re 357 telephone hearing on City's emergency motion to continue: The toll−free conference call number for today's 2:00 telephone hearing is (800) 521−6079 (those in the (202) area code may dial 353−0881); for all callers, the passcode is 76499305, followed by the # key. If at all possible, please do not use cell phones to connect to the conference call and do not leave the phone on speaker or hands−free mode. Please remember to identify yourself when you are speaking and leave your line on mute when you are not speaking. All callers should be on the line by 1:55 p.m. so

Case: 3:12-cv-451 As of: 11/29/2019 04:50 PM EST 40 of 43

12/30/2016
12/30/2016
01/11/2017 01/11/2017 01/13/2017 01/13/2017 08/16/2017 12/18/2017 12/19/2017
06/04/2018 07/26/2018 07/26/2018 07/26/2018
08/07/2018

the hearing can begin promptly at 2:00 p.m.(SRW) (Entered: 12/30/2016)
359 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Judge Timothy J. Corrigan: TELEPHONE MOTION HEARING held on 12/30/2016 re 355 Emergency MOTION to Continue Trial and Extension of Related Deadlines, or in the Alternative, Motion for Extension of Current Pretrial Deadlines filed by Consolidated City of Jacksonville. Court Reporter: Shannon Bishop(SRW) (Entered: 12/30/2016)
360 ORDER granting 355 Emergency Motion to Continue to the extent that the parties shall meet with Judge Schlesinger to continue their settlement discussions on 1/13/2017; the final pretrial statement and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law are due 2/9/2017; the final pretrial conference will be on 2/14/2017 at 10:00 a.m. (Courtroom 10D); this case is set for a non−jury trial beginning on 2/22/2017 at 9:00 a.m. (Courtroom 10D). Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 12/30/2016. (SRW) (Entered: 12/30/2016)
361 MOTION to Strike 345 Witness List Nine Witnesses from Defendants' Tentative Witness List by USA. (Ruiz, Hector) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson. (Entered: 01/11/2017)
362 MEMORANDUM in support re 361 Motion to Strike Nine Witnesses from Defendants' Tentative Witness List filed by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit)(Ruiz, Hector) (Entered: 01/11/2017)
363 NOTICE advising that the parties have reached a tentative settlement and requesting that the case be removed from the trial calendar. See notice for further details. Signed by Judge Harvey E. Schlesinger on 1/13/2017(SRW) (Entered: 01/13/2017)
364 ORDER vacating all pretrial and trial deadlines based on 363 Notice of tentative settlement. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 1/13/2017.(SRW) (Entered: 01/13/2017)
365 NOTICE of unavailability of counsel by Jacksonville Associaton of Firefighters, Local 122, International Association of Firefighters. (Donnelly, Paul) (Entered: 08/16/2017)
366 MOTION for Adelstein to withdraw as attorney by USA. (Adelstein, Jay) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson. (Entered: 12/18/2017)
367 ENDORSED ORDER granting 366 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Jay David Adelstein is relieved of any further responsibility as counsel for Plaintiff in this matter, but he shall comply with all applicable obligations on withdrawing counsel, including any applicable Bar rules. Signed by Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson on 12/19/2017. (ADM) (Entered: 12/19/2017)
368 NOTICE advising that the necessary prerequisites for finally settling these matters have been taken care of, and the Court should be hearing from the parties sometime around the middle of June. Signed by Judge Harvey E. Schlesinger on 5/31/2018. (MGG) (Entered: 06/04/2018)
369 Joint MOTION for Provisional Entry of Consent Decree and Scheduling of Fairness Hearing, by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Monteiro, Jeremy) Modified on 7/27/2018 to edit text. (TMC) (Entered: 07/26/2018)
370 MOTION to Approve Use of Qualified Settlement Fund and Appointment of Administrator, by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Monteiro, Jeremy) Modified on 7/27/2018 to edit text.(TMC) (Entered: 07/26/2018)
371 Unopposed MOTION of Private Plaintiffs (NAACP, JBOF, Baker Intervenors, and Smith Plaintiffs) for Distribution of Specific Settlement Relief and for Preliminary Approval of Attorney's Fees and Costs, by Esley L. Baker, Jr., Dominique Bartley, King Rosevelt Davis, Jr., Ernest Glover, Jr., Sharon Gould, Michael Harris, Byron Jackson, Jacksonville Brotherhood of Firefighters, Cory McKinney, NAACP, Gregory Neal, Sr., Emanuel Porter, Roosevelt Prier, Jr., Smith Parties, Howard Smothers, Jr., Ervin Young, Jr.. (Blustein, Benjamin) Modified on 7/27/2018 to edit text.(TMC) (Entered: 07/26/2018)
372 ORDER requesting parties to submit proposed orders no later than 8/21/2018 regarding their recently filed pending motions 369, 370, 371; see order for details.

Case: 3:12-cv-451 As of: 11/29/2019 04:50 PM EST 41 of 43

08/21/2018
08/21/2018
08/22/2018
08/29/2018 11/02/2018 11/05/2018
12/10/2018 12/14/2018 12/14/2018 12/19/2018 12/21/2018 12/28/2018 12/31/2018 12/31/2018
01/02/2019

Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 8/7/2018. (SRW) (Entered: 08/07/2018)
373 NOTICE by USA of Filing of Proposed Orders (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order Granting the Joint Motion for Provisional Entry of the Consent Decree and Scheduling of Fairness Hearing on the Terms of the Consent Decree, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order Approving Use of a Qualified Settlement Fund and Appointing JND Legal Administration as Administrator)(Ruiz, Hector) (Entered: 08/21/2018)
374 NOTICE by Jacksonville Brotherhood of Firefighters, NAACP, Smith Parties of Filing Proposed Orders (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Granting Private Plaintiffs' Motion for Approval of Distribution of Specific Settlement Relief, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Granting Private Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Attorney's Fees and Costs)(Doolittle, Kirsten) (Entered: 08/21/2018)
375 ORDER granting 369 Joint Motion for Provisional Entry of the Consent Decree and Scheduling of Fairness Hearing: the Consent Decree is provisionally approved and entered and a Fairness Hearing is SET for Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 2:00 p.m., Courtroom 10D. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 8/22/2018. (SRW) (Entered: 08/22/2018)
376 NOTICE of change of address by Mateya Beth Kelley (Kelley, Mateya) (Entered: 08/29/2018)
377 NOTICE, titled 'Objection to the Entry of the Consent Decree' filed by Dr. Harry Kemp. (JSG) (Entered: 11/02/2018)
378 ENDORSED ORDER directing the United States to accept Dr. Harry Kemp's pro se filing 377 as both a timely objection to the entry of the consent decree and as a timely interest−in−relief form, pursuant to paragraphs 28 and 30 of the provisionally approved Consent Decree (Doc. 369, Ex. 1). Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 11/5/2018. (SRW) (Entered: 11/05/2018)
379 Joint MOTION for Final Entry of Consent Decree, Supporting Memorandum of Law, and Responses to Objections, by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(McEntire, Brian) Modified on 12/11/2018 to edit text. (TMC) (Entered: 12/10/2018)
380 Unopposed MOTION of Private Plaintiffs for Final Approval of Attorney's Fees and Costs, by NAACP. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Blustein, Benjamin) Modified on 12/17/2018 to edit text. (TMC) (Entered: 12/14/2018)
381 DECLARATION of Bruce B. Elfvin re 380 Unopposed MOTION of Private Plaintiffs for Final Approval of Attorney's Fees and Costs, by NAACP. (Blustein, Benjamin) Modified on 12/17/2018 to edit text. (TMC) (Entered: 12/14/2018)
382 MINUTE ENTRY. Proceedings held before Judge Timothy J. Corrigan: Fairness hearing held on 12/19/2018. Court Reporter: Cindy Packevicz. (MD) Modified on 12/24/2018 to edit date and text (JSG). (Entered: 12/21/2018)
384 (Untitled) NOTICE to the Court by Harry Kemp (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(BD) (Entered: 12/28/2018)
383 NOTICE of Filing by Harry Kemp (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(BD) (Entered: 12/28/2018)
385 Unopposed MOTION to stay Deadline by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Ruiz, Hector) (Entered: 12/31/2018)
386 NOTICE of Filing Opposing Objection or Relief, re 384 Notice (Other), 383 Notice (Other) by Smith Parties. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Letter to Kemp 2015, # 2 Exhibit Email remove from case, # 3 Exhibit Email with Notice filed, # 4 Exhibit Acknowledge Thanks, # 5 Exhibit Emails post settlement)(Elfvin, Bruce) Modified on 1/2/2019 to edit text. (TMC) (Entered: 12/31/2018)
387 ORDER granting 385 motion to stay deadline in light of lapse of appropriations (papers now due within 3 business days of the restoration of appropriations to the Department of Justice). Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 1/2/2019.

Case: 3:12-cv-451 As of: 11/29/2019 04:50 PM EST 42 of 43

01/08/2019 01/10/2019 01/30/2019 02/05/2019 02/05/2019 02/05/2019 02/05/2019 02/05/2019
02/20/2019 02/21/2019 03/22/2019 05/14/2019 05/14/2019
05/23/2019

(SRW) (Entered: 01/02/2019)
388 ORDER directing private plaintiffs to file their agreed proposed order regarding distribution of funds to named plaintiffs and private plaintiffs' attorneys no later than 1/17/2019. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 1/8/2019. (SRW) (Entered: 01/08/2019)
389 NOTICE by NAACP −− Notice of Filing of Proposed Order (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Blustein, Benjamin) (Entered: 01/10/2019)
390 NOTICE by USA Submission of Papers Requested by Court During December 19, 2018 Fairness Hearing (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Approving and Entering Consent Decree as Final, # 2 Appendix Presentation from December 19, 2018 Fairness Hearing)(Ruiz, Hector) (Entered: 01/30/2019)
391 ORDER APPROVING AND ENTERING CONSENT DECREE AS FINAL (granting 379 Joint Motion for Final Entry of Consent Decree). Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 2/5/2019. (SRW) (Entered: 02/05/2019)
392 ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS TO CONSENT DECREE. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 2/5/2019. (SRW) (Entered: 02/05/2019)
393 CONSENT DECREE. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 2/5/2019. (SRW) (Entered: 02/05/2019)
394 ORDER APPROVING USE OF A QUALIFIED SETTLEMENT FUND AND APPOINTING JND LEGAL ADMINISTRATION AS ADMINISTRATOR (granting 370 Motion). Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 2/5/2019. (SRW) (Entered: 02/05/2019)
395 ORDER REGARDING DISTRIBUTION OF SPECIFIC SETTLEMENT RELIEF AND ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS (granting 371 Unopposed Motion of Private Plaintiffs for Distribution of Specific Settlement Relief, and 380 Unopposed Motion of Private Plaintiffs for Final Approval of Attorney's Fees and Costs, directing distribution of attorney's fees as agreed to per 389, counsel to provide notice that these payments have been made within 30 days of JND's receipt of settlement funds). Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 2/5/2019. (SRW) (Entered: 02/05/2019)
396 MOTION for Hearing on Individual Relief by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Main Document Memorandum in Support of Motion to Schedule Fairness Hearing on Individual Relief, # 2 Exhibit Proposed Individual Relief Lists, # 3 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Ruiz, Hector) (Entered: 02/20/2019)
397 ORDER granting 396 Motion to Schedule Fairness Hearing on Individual Relief: FAIRNESS HEARING on Individual Relief SET for 5/23/2019 at 10:30 a.m., Courtroom 10D. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 2/21/2019.(SRW) (Entered: 02/21/2019)
398 SUPPLEMENT United States' Submission of First Amended Proposed Individual Relief Lists by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit First Amended Proposed Individual Relief Lists)(Ruiz, Hector) (Entered: 03/22/2019)
399 MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically Approval of First Amended Proposed Individual Relief Lists by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Motion for Approval of First Amended Proposed Individual Relief Lists)(Ruiz, Hector) (Entered: 05/14/2019)
400 MEMORANDUM in support re 398 Supplement, 399 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief Approval of First Amended Proposed Individual Relief Lists filed by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1 Notice Material, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2 Mallard Objection, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 3 Johnson Objection, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 4 Young Objection, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit 5 Norris Objection, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit 6 Brantley Objection)(Ruiz, Hector) (Entered: 05/14/2019)
401 MINUTE ENTRY. Proceedings held before Judge Timothy J. Corrigan: Fairness hearing held on 5/23/2019. Court Reporter: Shannon Bishop. (MD) (Entered: 05/23/2019)

Case: 3:12-cv-451 As of: 11/29/2019 04:50 PM EST 43 of 43

06/06/2019 06/10/2019
07/11/2019 08/22/2019

402 SUPPLEMENT re 401 Miscellaneous Hearing, 399 MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically Approval of First Amended Proposed Individual Relief Lists by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Final Individual Relief Lists, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Approving Motion for Approval of Amended Proposed Individual Relief Lists)(Ruiz, Hector) (Entered: 06/06/2019)
403 ORDER APPROVING FINAL INDIVIDUAL RELIEF LISTS, granting 399 Motion for Approval of Lists, as Supplemented 402; directing the parties to proceed with execution of individual relief and settlement promotions in accordance with the Consent Decree 393; directing the United States to file a list of eligible claimants from whom the United States has not yet received an acceptance form by 7/11/2019. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 6/10/2019. (SRW) (Entered: 06/10/2019)
404 STATUS report by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Monteiro, Jeremy) (Entered: 07/11/2019)
405 STATUS report Submission of Amended Final Individual Relief Lists by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Amended Final Individual Relief Lists)(Ruiz, Hector) (Entered: 08/22/2019)