Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_01-cv-03969/USCOURTS-cand-4_01-cv-03969-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL BRIONEZ, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

AGRICULTURE, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 01-3969 CW

ORDER DENYING

PLAINTIFFS'

MOTION FOR

ENFORCEMENT OF

COURT-APPROVED

SETTLEMENT

Plaintiffs move for enforcement of the Hispanic Settlement

Agreement (HSA or Agreement) and request that the Court extend the

Agreement, scheduled to expire on February 14, 2007, an additional

two years. Defendants oppose the motion, arguing that there is no

basis for a two-year extension. This matter was heard on

January 12, 2007. Having considered the parties' papers, the

evidence cited therein, the Monitor's October, 2006 Report and oral

argument, the Court denies Plaintiffs' motion for enforcement of

the Agreement.

BACKGROUND

This is the second time that Plaintiffs have appeared before

this Court arguing that Defendants are not in substantial

compliance with the Agreement and requesting relief. 

Case 4:01-cv-03969-CW Document 174 Filed 01/26/07 Page 1 of 10
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1According to Section IV.A, "It is the intention of Defendants

to undertake and continue specific measures designed to eliminate

barriers to hiring, promotion, and retention of Hispanics in the

Region 5 workforce"; it is Defendants' goal to increase Hispanic

representation in the Region 5 workforce to a percentage equivalent

to the percentage of Hispanics in the applicable labor pool in the

relevant geographic area. 

2

Previously, the Court ruled that Defendants failed to

discharge their obligations under the Agreement and granted in part

and denied in part Plaintiffs' motion for contempt and for

enforcement of the Agreement. See March 30, 2006 Order. The Court

concluded that, although Defendants were not in contempt, they were

not in substantial compliance with Sections IV.B through IV.G and

Section V as a whole and were in breach of Sections IV.A,1 IV.C.

and IV.D. Hispanics continued to be under-represented in the

workforce of the Pacific Southwest Region of the Forest Service of

the United States Department of Agriculture (Region 5), as compared

to applicable Civilian Labor Force (CLF) statistics. The Court

ordered the Agreement extended one year and ordered Defendants to

comply with seven remedial measures designed to increase the

representation of Hispanics. These additional measures required,

in part, that Defendants contract with an effective outside

recruiter, continue their fire apprentice mentoring program and

expand the activities of the Central California Consortium to at

least two additional locations.

In a later order, concerning reporting and enforcement

procedures, the Court ordered Defendants to provide to the Court,

Plaintiffs and the Monitor semi-annual reports. See May 15, 2006

Order. That same order required the Monitor to provide to the

Case 4:01-cv-03969-CW Document 174 Filed 01/26/07 Page 2 of 10
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Defendants argue that the Monitor's Report is not evidence

and thus should not be considered by the Court in determining

whether Defendants are in compliance with the HSA and the remedial

measures prescribed by the Court. When opposing Plaintiffs' first

motion for enforcement, Defendants similarly argued that the

Monitor's previous report was not properly before the Court, an

argument the Court rejected. The Court again finds the Monitor's

report useful and wishes to consider it. The Court will consider

the parties' positions, as well as the Monitor's report, in

reaching its own findings and conclusions.

3

Court and the parties a report on Defendants' progress in

compliance with the Agreement and the additional remedial measures

required by the Court's order.

In her report to the Court, the Monitor found that, after the

Court issued its March 30, 2006 order, Defendants, also referred to

as the Region, have taken more seriously their obligations under

the Agreement and have moved more expeditiously in their compliance

than during the prior three years of the Agreement: "The Region has

taken steps to comply with the additional remedial measures ordered

by the Court, and has now complied with many of the requirements of

the HSA." October 9, 2006 Monitor's Report, p.1. Nonetheless, the

Monitor concluded that Defendants remain out of compliance with the

HSA provisions in several areas: "Most significantly, the Region

has made little progress in compliance with the HSA § IV.A goal of

increased Hispanic representation in the Region 5 workforce. The

Region has also failed to comply substantially with its monitoring

obligations under §§ V.A.2 and V.A.3, and delayed its compliance

with the Court's remedial measure of having an effective mentoring

program in place." Id.2 The Monitor recognized that, while the

Region has in place the Court's remedial measures, these measures

will require time in order to produce results. She noted the

Case 4:01-cv-03969-CW Document 174 Filed 01/26/07 Page 3 of 10
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 4

enormous resources Defendants have expended under the HSA, but with

limited success in increasing Hispanic employment levels. The

Monitor recommended that, given the minimal progress that

Defendants have made over the past years, the Region should

voluntarily agree to modify the HSA to continue the Agreement. She

stated, "An extension, under Court supervision, with time to

institutionalize measures under the new Human Resources structure,

will help ensure that the Region sees results from the resources

expended." Id. at 30. 

Defendants have not followed the Monitor's recommendation;

they will not voluntarily continue the Agreement. But they state

that they will voluntarily continue programs of the HSA and the

Court's additional measures that they believe have been effective. 

For example, the Region plans to continue its mentoring program,

including funding the position of a Mentoring Program Manager, and

also plans to continue to have an effective outreach and

recruitment program and has extended its contract with an outside

recruiter for an additional year. Although Defendants list twelve

actions that they plan to continue voluntarily, they note that they

are not obliged to continue to implement any provision of the HSA

or the Court-ordered additional measures.

The HSA is scheduled to expire on February 14, 2007.

LEGAL STANDARD

This Court has the inherent power summarily to enforce a

settlement agreement involving an action pending before it. In re

Suchy, 786 F.2d 900, 902-03 (9th Cir. 1985). The interpretation

and enforcement of a settlement agreement is governed by the legal

Case 4:01-cv-03969-CW Document 174 Filed 01/26/07 Page 4 of 10
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 5

principles applicable to contracts. United Commercial Ins. Serv.,

Inc. v. Paymaster Corp., 962 F.2d 853, 856 (9th Cir. 1992).

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs concede that Defendants have made progress since

the Court found that Defendants were in breach of provisions of the

HSA and ordered Defendants to undertake additional remedial

measures. But they contend that Defendants continue to fall short

of their obligations under both the HSA and the Court's order. 

Specifically, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants have failed to make

adequate progress toward the goals of section IV.A.1 and have not

substantially complied with sections V.A.1, V.A.2, V.A.3, V.B.2 and

the Court's remedial order on the apprentice mentoring program and,

therefore, they ask the Court to extend the HSA an additional two

years. 

Many of Plaintiffs' arguments concerning compliance are welltaken, in particular Plaintiffs' argument that Defendants have not

made sufficient progress toward the goals of section IV.A.1. The

percentage of Hispanics Region 5 employs continues to be small: in

2002, 8.9% of Region 5 employees were Hispanic; four years later,

eleven percent of Region 5 employees were Hispanic. 

To determine whether Defendants are in compliance with the

goals set in Section IV.A, however, the parties focus on the GS-462

series position, Forestry Technician, discussed in the Court's

prior order. According to Defendants' most recent report to the

Court, as of November 4, 2006, 13.2% of the employees in the GS-462

series were Hispanic. The Court previously found, relying on

Plaintiffs' expert, that the correct percentage of Hispanics in the

Case 4:01-cv-03969-CW Document 174 Filed 01/26/07 Page 5 of 10
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 6

CLF was 31.5%. Defendants' expert states that this percentage was

miscalculated. Plaintiffs' expert now states that, adjusting for

citizenship and English proficiency, as the Court did in the prior

order, the correct percentage of Hispanics in the CLF is 18.4%. 

Defendants' expert argues that the correct percentage is much

lower: 11.9%. Under Defendants' expert's calculation, Defendants

would have reached parity in the GS-462 series, achieving the goal

of Section IV.A. Defendants' proposed CLF percentage, however, is

not correct. 

Although the Court, as noted above, permitted an adjustment

for citizenship and English proficiency, Defendants' expert

includes adjustments for education and experience and geography. 

He divides the GS-462 series into two separate groups, with

separate CLF goals: one group consists of grade six and below; the

other group consists of grade seven and above. These are new

adjustments to the CLF percentage that the parties did not agree

would be considered. And Defendants fail to convince the Court

that these adjustments are necessary, or correct. The Court finds

that Defendants have fallen short of achieving the goals of

Section IV.A.

The HSA, however, provides that, even if Defendants fail to

meet the goals of Section IV.A, they are not in breach of the

Agreement, and the Court cannot order relief, if they demonstrate

substantial compliance with Sections IV.B through IV.G and V. 

Defendants contend that they are in substantial compliance with the

Agreement. This contention is based largely on Defendants' last

minute efforts in the few remaining months of the one-year

Case 4:01-cv-03969-CW Document 174 Filed 01/26/07 Page 6 of 10
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 7

extension. Plaintiffs respond that last minute compliance is not

substantial compliance, noting that as a whole, Defendants have not

been in substantial compliance during the term of the Agreement.

However, even if Defendants were not in substantial compliance,

there is little, if anything, for this Court to do. 

Plaintiffs ask the Court to extend the HSA for two more years. 

They argue that the Court has authority under the Agreement to do

so, pointing to the language stating that the Court can order

"additional remedial measures." The Court rejected that argument

in its prior order. The Agreement provides for a "a one-time, oneyear extension of the Term of the Agreement." The Court has

ordered a one-year extension and, under the Agreement, cannot

extend the Agreement any additional length of time. 

Plaintiffs argue that, if the Court does not have authority

pursuant to the Agreement, the Court has inherent authority to

enforce the Agreement. That is true. See, e.g., Spallone v.

United States, 493 U.S. 265, 276 (1990) (courts have inherent power

to enforce compliance with their consent decrees). But Plaintiffs'

argument that the Court's inherent authority to enforce the

Agreement includes the power to extend the Agreement is not

supported by the out-of-circuit cases Plaintiffs cite. The

agreement at issue in United States v. Local 359, 55 F.3d 64, 69

(2d Cir. 1995), expressly authorized the court to extend the

Administrator's term, and thus the agreement, “as it sees fit.” 

The Third Circuit, in Holland v. New Jersey Department of

Corrections, 246 F.3d 267, 270-71 (3d Cir. 2001), found a court's

broad remedial power can be used to extend the effective time

Case 4:01-cv-03969-CW Document 174 Filed 01/26/07 Page 7 of 10
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 8

period of a consent decree when enforcing compliance with a decree

aimed at remedying past discrimination. Although Plaintiffs

alleged discrimination, they have not attempted to prove past

discrimination, and Defendants state that there has been no past

discrimination. See March 30, 2006 Order, p. 34-35.

Here, the Court's authority is limited to enforcing the

Agreement, and the Agreement, as discussed above and in the Court's

prior order, does not allow an additional two-year extension. See

San Francisco NAACP v. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist., 896 F.2d

412, 413 (9th Cir. 1990) (noting that the scope of a consent degree

must be discerned within the agreement's four corners, and not by

reference to what might satisfy the purpose of one of the parties). 

Therefore, to order a two-year extension, the Court would have to

modify the Agreement. 

The Court explained in its prior order that, for the Court to

modify this Agreement, Plaintiffs must first establish a

significant change, in either factual conditions or in the law,

requiring modification. Then, the Court must determine whether the

requested modification is "suitably tailored" to resolve the issues

created by the changed circumstances. See, e.g., Rufo v. Inmates

of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367 (1992); Keith v. Volpe, 784

F.2d 1457, 1460 (9th Cir. 1986). 

Relying on Holland, however, Plaintiffs argue that the Court

should apply a "somewhat more relaxed standard" than the standard

provided in Rufo, which requires that a change in factual

conditions usually must “make compliance with the decree

substantially more onerous." See Rufo, 502 U.S. at 384-85. In

Case 4:01-cv-03969-CW Document 174 Filed 01/26/07 Page 8 of 10
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 9

Holland, the court noted that Rufo "set the standard for cases in

which the defendant seeks to have a decree modified, while in the

case at bar it is the plaintiffs seeking modification." 246 F.3d

at 284, n.16. The Third Circuit held that, when the plaintiff is

seeking to modify the consent degree, the district court may modify

the decree upon making a finding that conditions have changed so

that the basic purpose of the decree has been thwarted. Id. at

283. Plaintiffs concede, however, that this relaxed standard has

not been adopted by the Ninth Circuit and that the Ninth Circuit

has applied the Rufo standard to a plaintiff's proposed

modification of a consent decree. See, e.g., Hook v. Arizona, 120

F.3d 921, 925 (9th Cir. 1997). Because the Court must follow Ninth

Circuit law, the Court finds that the Rufo standard applies to

Plaintiffs' modification request.

Plaintiffs contend that, since the Court's prior order,

Defendants have significantly changed their hiring processes and

instituted new and completely unproven systems. Although they take

no position as to whether the changes will be efficacious, they

argue that these changes warrant the Court to modify the HSA,

extending it two additional years. But Plaintiffs fail to show

that Defendants' changes in their hiring processes are a

significant change in circumstances that makes compliance with the

Agreement "substantially more onerous." Rufo, 502 U.S. at 384. 

Nor do Plaintiffs point to any significant changes that make the

Agreement itself unworkable. Id. As the Monitor noted, the many

changes in Defendants' Human Resources processes "raise serious

concerns about whether any hiring processes will be

Case 4:01-cv-03969-CW Document 174 Filed 01/26/07 Page 9 of 10
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

The Court also DENIES Defendants' Administrative Motion for

Leave to File Rebuttal Declaration (Docket No. 169).

10

institutionalized in Region 5 that will continue progress toward

the § IV.A goal after the end of the HSA." Monitor's Report, p.38. 

However, because Plaintiffs do not meet their burden under Rufo,

the Court cannot modify the Agreement and extend it another two

years.

It is unfortunate that the goals of the Agreement were not

achieved. The Court notes that this failure is due, not to a lack

of resources, but rather to late compliance. Defendants represent

that they will continue to diversify their workforce, even after

the Agreement has expired. Although restrained under the Agreement

from extending its jurisdiction and the Agreement, the Court hopes

that Defendants do continue to diversify their workforce and that

the goals of the Agreement will be achieved in the future.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion

for Enforcement of Court-Approved Settlement (Docket No. 154).3

The Agreement shall expire on February 14, 2007.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 1/26/07 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:01-cv-03969-CW Document 174 Filed 01/26/07 Page 10 of 10