Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_11-cv-04950/USCOURTS-cand-3_11-cv-04950-23/pdf.json

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

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AARON C. STEVENSON, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN

FRANCISCO, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C-11-4950 MMC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION

FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER; GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR

ISSUANCE OF ORDER TO SHOW

CAUSE RE: PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Before the Court is plaintiffs’ “Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to

Show Cause Re Preliminary Injunction,” filed February 4, 2016. Having read and

considered the motion, the Court rules as follows.

To the extent the motion seeks an order enjoining defendants from administering

the H-50 Assistant Chief Examination currently scheduled for February 19, 2016, and

February 20, 2016, the motion is hereby DENIED. There is no showing that such

examination will have a disparate impact on African-Americans, nor could there be given

the test results are not available, and any objection plaintiffs or anyone else may have

once the results are announced can be challenged in the appropriate forum at that time. 

See Guardians Ass’n v. Civil Service Comm’n, 490 F.2d 400, 404 (2nd Cir. 1973) (affirming

district court’s denial of motion to preliminarily enjoin employer from administering new

examination, where motion made in course of litigation challenging prior examination given

Case 3:11-cv-04950-MMC Document 172 Filed 02/05/16 Page 1 of 2
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

1

Indeed, as plaintiffs acknowledge, the first permanent appointments made based on

the eligibility list created after the administration of last H-50 examination was made more

than seven months after the date on which said examination was given. (See Pls.’ Mot. for

Temporary Restraining Order at 2:22-26.)

2

by same employer).

To the extent the motion seeks an order enjoining defendants from making any

permanent appointment to the rank of H-50 Assistant Chief based on the results of the

above-referenced examination scheduled to be given later this month, there is no showing

that any permanent appointment based on such new examination is anticipated to be made

in the near future.1 Accordingly, the request for a temporary restraining order is hereby

DENIED and the Court, by its Order to Show Cause filed concurrently herewith, has set a

briefing schedule and hearing on the request for a preliminary injunction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 5, 2016 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-04950-MMC Document 172 Filed 02/05/16 Page 2 of 2