Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_01-cv-03969/USCOURTS-cand-4_01-cv-03969-2/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

DEFENDANTS'

MOTION FOR ENTRY

OF ORDER THAT

DEFENDANTS HAVE

DISCHARGED THEIR

OBLIGATIONS UNDER

THE SETTLEMENT

AGREEMENT, AND

GRANTING IN PART

AND DENYING IN

PART PLAINTIFFS'

MOTION FOR

CONTEMPT AND FOR

ENFORCEMENT OF

COURT-APPROVED

SETTLEMENT

AGREEMENT

Defendants move for entry of an order finding that they have

discharged their obligations under the Hispanic Settlement

Agreement (HSA or Agreement). Plaintiffs oppose that motion, and

have filed their own motion for contempt and enforcement of the

Agreement. Defendants oppose Plaintiffs' motion.

Case 4:01-cv-03969-CW Document 137 Filed 03/30/06 Page 1 of 39
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

The matters were heard on February 10, 2006. Having

considered all of the papers filed by the parties and oral argument

on the motions, the Court denies Defendants' motion and grants

Plaintiffs' motion in part and denies it in part.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs filed this action in October, 2001, alleging that

Hispanics were 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. According to Plaintiffs,

this under-representation was based on Region 5's process for

hiring and promotion, which unlawfully discriminated against

Plaintiffs and other class members in violation of Title VII. 

Less than a year later, in June, 2002, the parties entered

into the Agreement. In October, 2002, the Court, following notice

and fairness proceedings, approved the Agreement. The effective

date of the Agreement was December 22, 2002.

The Agreement required a Monitor, and, pursuant to the

Agreement, the parties selected Marcie Seville as the Monitor. The

Agreement provided that the parties had to attempt to resolve with

the Monitor disagreements regarding compliance, before seeking

relief from this Court. 

In May, 2005, Plaintiffs filed with the Monitor their Request

for Findings and Enforcement Recommendations. Defendants submitted

an opposition and Plaintiffs then submitted a reply. The Monitor

issued her Tentative Report in August, 2005. 

On October 29, 2005, after Defendants lodged their objections

Case 4:01-cv-03969-CW Document 137 Filed 03/30/06 Page 2 of 39
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

to the tentative report, the Monitor issued her Report and

Recommendations of Court-Appointed Monitor. The Monitor's Report

stated that:

Defendants have not substantially complied with all

provisions of HSA § IV.B-G., and § V, or with

alternative methods of implementation agreed upon by the

Parties. Defendants' efforts at HSA implementation have

been seriously hampered by continuing changes in key

personnel and proposals for implementation followed by

mid-stream changes in plans and strategies. There have

been ongoing delays in implementation -- or complete

abandonment -- of the very measures that Defendants

themselves have proposed to carry out their HSA

obligations. Defendants have not realized the stated

intent of the HSA -- to eliminate barriers to hiring,

promotion, and retention, and . . . they have not

substantially complied with their obligations under the

following HSA provisions:

§ IV.C (maintaining a full-time Region Recruitment

Coordinator ("RRC") position, with the primary

purpose of implementing the Recruitment Program,

funded at a level enabling the RRC to accomplish the

objectives of the HSA)

§ IV.D (making a good faith effort to maintain and

fill the Civil Rights ("CR") Director during the HSA

Term) 

§ V.A.1(1)&(2) (having a Regional Recruitment Program

designed to disseminate effective information

relating to employment opportunities and to increase

diversity of applicants by engaging in recruitment

activities consistent with § IV obligations)

§ V.A.2 (monitoring all recruitment and promotion

actions of Forest Supervisors and Regional Office

Directors and all recruitment and promotion actions

taken under their supervision)

§ V.A.3 (Employing alternatives agreed upon by the

parties in any action to fill a competitive vacancy)

§ V.B.1(a) (Having the RRC responsible for

coordinating outreach and recruitment)

§ V.B.2 (Giving the RRC access to specified data,

including RNO information)

The Monitor finds that Defendants are in substantial

Case 4:01-cv-03969-CW Document 137 Filed 03/30/06 Page 3 of 39
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

compliance with: § IV.B (issuance of policy

statement), § IV.E (Advertisement of Region 5

positions), § IV.F (retaining Monitor), § V.A.4 (as

to recruitment from the Student Career Employment

Program), and § V.C (Training).

As to § IV.G, which requires the Defendants to make a

good faith effort to provide sufficient resources to

meet the obligations under the HSA, the Monitor finds

that substantial resources have been directed toward

HSA efforts, but in some situations, the use of those

resources has been misguided and has not furthered

the Region's efforts to meet its HSA obligations.

The Monitor further finds that, in the more than two and

one-half years since the effective date of the HSA,

Defendants have failed to make substantial progress

toward the § IV workforce parity goal. Although Region

5 is at or above parity in several professional series

and program managers (GS 340), those series comprise a

relatively small percentage of the permanent workforce. 

Most of the Region's progress is in the hiring of

student trainees in firefighter apprenticeship

positions, under the SCEP or Student Career Experience

Program hiring authority. While successful in

recruiting and selecting Hispanic applicants for that

program, the Region has failed to take steps to address

retention of those new hires and there has been

significant attrition. Without consideration of the

SCEP hires, the Region has made almost no progress in

increasing Hispanic representation during the HSA term,

and the Monitor concludes that the SCEP employees are

not properly included in the permanent workforce. Based

upon existing shortfalls of permanent Hispanic

employees, and workforce projections, the Monitor finds

that there is little or no likelihood that Defendants

will achieve the HSA goal near the February 2006 HSA

expiration date, or within any reasonable time period

after expiration.

Monitor's Report, 17-19 (Summary of the Monitor's Findings). 

The Report concluded by urging the parties to resolve the noncompliance issues. But the parties could not. According to

Defendants, they presented a written offer to Plaintiffs indicating

that they were willing to accept, in whole or in part, eleven out

of the fourteen recommendations made by the Monitor. On

December 5, 2005, Plaintiffs responded that they could not accept

Case 4:01-cv-03969-CW Document 137 Filed 03/30/06 Page 4 of 39
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

Defendants' proposed terms and notified Defendants of their intent

"to pursue enforcement remedies in federal court." 

In response, Defendants filed their motion for entry of an

order that they have discharged their obligations under the

Agreement. Two weeks later, Plaintiffs filed their motion for

contempt and enforcement of the Agreement. In their motion,

Plaintiffs seek remedial enforcement measures, including a threeyear extension of the term of the Agreement, and declaratory relief

holding that voluntary race-conscious affirmative action is

warranted and legally justified.

The Agreement was set to expire on February 14, 2006. On

February 10, 2006, after the hearing, the Court issued an order

extending the Agreement for one year. 

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

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

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

DISCUSSION

I. Monitor's Report

Defendants argue that the Monitor's Report is not properly

before the Court; they contend that Plaintiffs treat the Monitor's

Report as if it were an initial ruling that is appealed to this

Court. It is not. 

Plaintiffs cite Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53, noting

Case 4:01-cv-03969-CW Document 137 Filed 03/30/06 Page 5 of 39
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

that it requires the Court to decide de novo all objections to the

Monitor's findings of fact and conclusions of law. Rule 53

provides that, unless a statute provides otherwise, a court may

appoint a master only to "perform duties consented to by the

parties." Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(a)(1)(A). The Agreement does not

provide that a Monitor's Report will be presented to the Court. 

Defendants contend that they did not agree that the Monitor would

present a Report and recommendation to the Court. Plaintiffs

respond that the Monitor's Statement of Work, prepared by the

parties, provides, "The Monitor may meet with and report to the

Court if directed by the Court." 

Although the Court did not "direct" the Monitor to report to

the Court, the Court finds her report useful and wishes to consider

it. Defendants have had the opportunity to counter her factual

statements and respond to her legal conclusions. The Court has

considered Defendants' positions, as well as the Monitor's Report,

and reached its own findings and conclusions. 

II. Agreement

The Agreement provides that any motion before this Court for

enforcement shall be limited to enforcement of the provisions

contained in Sections IV and VIII. The Agreement further states

that in a Court proceeding to enforce compliance with Section IV,

Defendants shall not be found in breach of the Agreement, and the

Court shall not order further relief, if the Court finds that

Defendants have substantially complied with Section IV.B through G

and Section V, or any alternative methods of implementation agreed

upon by the parties, and have nonetheless been unable to reach the

Case 4:01-cv-03969-CW Document 137 Filed 03/30/06 Page 6 of 39
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

goals of Section IV.A. If the Court finds that Defendants are in

breach, however, the Agreement provides that the Court may order

specific enforcement of the provisions contained in Section IV.B.

through IV.G., additional remedial measures to increase Hispanic

representation subject to the availability of Region 5 positions,

any alternative provisions agreed upon by the parties, and/or a

one-time, one-year extension of the Term of the Agreement.

A. Contempt/Breach of Agreement

Plaintiffs contend that Defendants have breached the Agreement

and thus are in civil contempt. For this Court to find contempt,

Plaintiffs must show by clear and convincing evidence that

Defendants violated a specific and definite order of the Court. 

Stone v. City and County of San Francisco, 968 F.2d 850, 856 n.9

(9th Cir. 1992). The burden then shifts to Defendants to

demonstrate why they were unable to comply, and to show they took

every reasonable step to comply. Id. While "there is no good

faith exception to the requirement of obedience to a court order,"

a party should not be held in contempt if its actions appear to be

based on a good faith and reasonable interpretation of the court's

order; substantial compliance with the court order is a defense to

civil contempt. In re Dual-Deck Video Cassette Recorder Antitrust

Litig., 10 F.3d 693, 695 (9th Cir. 1993).

Defendants argue that, not only are they not in contempt, the

Agreement does not allow Plaintiffs to move for contempt. They

note that the word "contempt" does not appear in the Agreement. 

Defendants point to language in the Agreement to argue that the

parties agreed to limit the Court's retained jurisdiction solely to

Case 4:01-cv-03969-CW Document 137 Filed 03/30/06 Page 7 of 39
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

1Defendants' argument that Plaintiffs cannot move for contempt

is based solely on the language in the Agreement. They do not

argue that Plaintiffs cannot move for contempt because the

Agreement is not a consent order. 

8

enforcing compliance of two sections: "The District Court will

retain jurisdiction during the term of this Agreement for the

purpose of enforcing compliance with Sections IV and VIII." HSA,

§ VII.A. Plaintiffs do not address this argument in their reply. 

But, as they note in their moving papers, the Final Judgment

Approving the Settlement Agreement is enforceable by this Court

both as a judicial decree and as a voluntary agreement between the

parties.1 And "courts have inherent power to enforce compliance

with their lawful orders through civil contempt." Spallone v.

United States, 493 U.S. 265, 276 (1990) (quoting Shillitani v.

United States, 384 U.S. 364, 370 (1966)). 

1. Section IV

As noted above, Section IV of the Agreement, entitled Duties

and Obligations, is enforceable. Plaintiffs contend that

Defendants are in violation of Sections IV.A.1, IV.C, IV.D and

IV.G. 

a. Section IV.A

According to this section, "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." Subsection One states 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. Subsection

Case 4:01-cv-03969-CW Document 137 Filed 03/30/06 Page 8 of 39
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

Two provides: "Nothing in this Agreement will obligate Region 5 to

create new positions, to fill any particular position, or to

promote, select, or assign any particular person to any particular

position. No provision of this Agreement is intended as, or may be

construed as imposing, a quota."

Defendants contend that this section contains merely

aspirational goals and thus it cannot be enforceable; they note

that, unlike other sections in Section IV, this section does not

contain the words "shall" or "will." This is incorrect. As

Plaintiffs note, the Agreement itself, in the section on

enforcement, expressly provides that the Court will be measuring

breach by whether Defendants have been "unable to reach the goals

of Section IV.A." The Agreement also expressly provides that

Section IV is enforceable; it does not divide Section IV into

subsections that are enforceable and subsections that are not. 

Furthermore, the goal falls within the Duties and Obligations

provision of the Agreement. And it is not an impermissible quota; 

as the Supreme Court explained, 

Properly understood, a quota is a program in which a

certain fixed number or proportion of opportunities are

reserved exclusively for certain minority groups. Quotas

impose a fixed number or percentage which must be

attained, or which cannot be exceeded, and insulate the

individual from comparison with all other candidates for

the available seats. In contrast, a permissible

goal . . . require[s] only a good-faith effort . . . to

come within a range demarcated by the goal itself.

Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 335 (2003)(inner citations and

quotations removed; alternations in original).

 Not only is this section enforceable, it provides the

benchmarks that Defendants claim are lacking in the Agreement,

Case 4:01-cv-03969-CW Document 137 Filed 03/30/06 Page 9 of 39
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

2Plaintiffs further note that Donnelly was a settlement of

hostile environment/sexual harassment litigation, and did not

involve hiring or increasing women's representation in the

workforce. 

10

making this case distinguishable from Donnelly v. Secretary of U.S.

Department of Agriculture, 95-C-4389-DLJ (N.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2005),

which involved the Women's Settlement Agreement.2

 The parties and

their experts dispute what these benchmarks currently are and what

information should be compared to the benchmarks. Defendants

contend that, based on statistics provided by their experts, all

benchmark goals have been surpassed, and that there is now a

surplus of Hispanic representation in the overall Region 5

workforce. But Plaintiffs claim, based on their experts' studies,

that Hispanics continue to be under-represented; they note that

there are only ten more Hispanic permanent employees in Region 5

than there were at the beginning of the Agreement. Two issues are

predominantly responsible for the parties' diverging views:

(1) whether to include Student Career Employment Program positions

in the GS-462 Forestry Technicians job series and (2) how to

determine the Recruitment CLF Data based on the 2000 Census. 

i. Inclusion of Student Career Employment

Program positions

 According to Defendants, the Hispanic representation in the

Region 5 workforce from October 1, 2002 (a few weeks before the

Court approved the Agreement) to December 3, 2005, increased from

8.9 percent to 12.5 percent. Plaintiffs contend this increase is

based on the inclusion of Student Career Employment Program

positions within the permanent workforce; not including those

Case 4:01-cv-03969-CW Document 137 Filed 03/30/06 Page 10 of 39
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 11

positions, the Hispanic workforce in Region 5 has remained

approximately nine percent throughout the three-year settlement

period.

The Student Career Employment Program provides a system

whereby students can train to become career Forest Service

Employees. These apprentices, or SCEPs, have the potential to

become permanent employees upon graduation, if SCEP requirements

are met and appropriate positions are available. Unlike permanent

employees, however, SCEPs generally have no procedural or appeal

rights. In May, 2004, Defendants hired 245 Hispanic SCEPs; by

October, 2005, only 143 remained.

Defendants do not dispute that the inclusion of SCEPs

substantially increases the percentage of Hispanic representation

in the Region 5 workforce overall and the GS-462 Forest Technician

job series specifically; nor do Defendants deny the SCEPs' high

attrition rate. Nonetheless, Defendants argue that SCEPs are

properly included in the data to analyze Hispanic representation

and to determine if their goals have been met. Defendants note

that they have always included SCEPs in their data, and that SCEPs

were included in their baseline data when the parties negotiated

the HSA, a fact Plaintiffs do not dispute. Defendants' expert

states that temporary or trainee employees, like SCEPs, are not

excluded from the CLF data, discussed below, which is based on all

types of employees, including those in jobs that will not lead to a

long-term career. Defendants further point to the language in the

Agreement that requires them to keep track of the number and

percentage of Hispanics admitted into the Region 5 SCEP and to

Case 4:01-cv-03969-CW Document 137 Filed 03/30/06 Page 11 of 39
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 12

recruit from that program. 

The Monitor, however, rejected Defendants' reasons for

including SCEPs in the permanent workforce statistics and did not

include SCEPs in determining the representation of Hispanics in

permanent jobs. Plaintiffs urge this Court to do the same. 

It is true that, as noted above, SCEPs were included as

permanent employees in the baseline percentages of the Agreement

and in the early monitoring reports. But, as the Monitor noted,

the data shows that the difference between the percentages of

Hispanic employees with and without SCEPs in the early monitoring

reports is de minimis. Furthermore, the Agreement makes clear that

permanent employees and SCEPs are not treated the same; they are

included in separate categories. The language in the Agreement

regarding what information needs to be in the monitoring report

demonstrates this: Defendants are required to collect information

regarding permanent employees, information regarding positions,

information regarding promotions, information regarding the average

grade of employees, and information regarding SCEPs. 

Although the Agreement makes clear that SCEPs are not

permanent employees, the goal in Section IV.A.1 is "to increase

Hispanic representation in the Region 5 workforce"; it does not

specify whether this goal applies only to permanent employees. 

Nonetheless, based on the language of the Agreement and the

dwindling numbers of SCEPs, the Court will not include the SCEPs in

the permanent workforce statistics. And Defendants' argument, that

even excluding the SCEPs there was a substantial increase in

Hispanic representation, is not persuasive: using Defendants'

Case 4:01-cv-03969-CW Document 137 Filed 03/30/06 Page 12 of 39
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 Monitor noted that the parties agree on the 2000 CLF

percentages in almost half of the thirty series listed and differed

by one percent or less in several others. 

13

numbers, on December 22, 2002, the Hispanic representation was 8.9

percent (466/5,252) and on December 31, 2005 it increased to 9.9

percent (476/4829). As Plaintiffs and the Monitor note, without

including the SCEPs, there has been little, if any, progress toward

the goal of Section IV.A.1 of the Agreement. 

 ii. 2000 CLF Data 

In Exhibit B to the Agreement, the parties agreed on the

percentages for each Civilian Labor Force job based on the 1990

Census; these percentages establish the series-specific CLF

workforce parity goals. The Agreement states that "Defendants

shall provide this information using the 1990 EEOC Civilian Labor

Force Data until the 2000 EEOC Civilian Labor Force Data is

available." HSA, § II.A.1(c). Now that the 2000 EEOC Civilian

Labor Force Data is available, the parties disagree over the

correct percentages based on the new information. As Plaintiffs

note, this disagreement arises because the Census Bureau made

numerous changes in the code numbers, labels and detailed contents

of its occupational categories in the 2000 Census. Although the

parties disagree as to how the 1990 percentages should be updated,

the parties agree that the GS-462 Forestry Technician job series is

the most important to analyze because employees in that series

account for approximately half of Region 5's workforce.3

 The

agreed-upon CLF percentage for this job series based on the 1990

Census was 21.3 percent. Plaintiffs contend that the updated CLF

Case 4:01-cv-03969-CW Document 137 Filed 03/30/06 Page 13 of 39
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 14

percentage is 33.8 percent; the Monitor agreed. Defendants,

however, contend that 15.1 percent is the correct updated

percentage.

Before addressing how the parties arrived at their differing

percentages, Defendants argue that the Agreement provides that

Defendants, not Plaintiffs, are to provide the relevant EEOC-CLF

data. The Agreement does state the "Defendants shall provide"

EEOC-CLF data. But nowhere does the Agreement provide, or even

suggest, that Defendants alone shall determine the appropriate 2000

Census revisions to Exhibit B. Although Plaintiffs do not address

this argument, the Monitor rejected it. The Court also rejects

Defendants' argument that they alone can provide the updated

percentages.

Plaintiffs hired an expert, Dr. Marc Bendick, to determine the

updated percentages based on the 2000 Census. To determine the

correct percentage for the Forestry Technician occupation group,

which was no longer used in the 2000 Census, Dr. Bendick used a

weighted average of the Hispanic representation in three occupation

codes: 196, Miscellaneous Life, Physical, and Social Science

Technicians; 612, Forest and Conversation Workers; and 21, Farmers

and Ranchers. 

Defendants, however, assert that the appropriate comparison,

or crosswalk, as the parties call it, for the missing Forestry

Technician occupation group is occupation code 196, and that the

updated percentage should be based on that code alone. Defendants

contend that the EEOC affirmed their analysis; though, as the

Monitor noted, the EEOC provided only "general guidance" that

Case 4:01-cv-03969-CW Document 137 Filed 03/30/06 Page 14 of 39
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 15

agreed with Defendants' results. After the Monitor issued her

report, Defendants hired an expert, Dr. Claudia A. González

Martínez, who agreed with Defendants that occupation code 196

provides the correct updated percentage. Dr. González then

adjusted occupation code 196 to account for citizenship and English

proficiency -- qualifications Defendants state are necessary to

work for Region 5 -- to reach Defendants' updated CLF percentage of

15.1 percent. 

But, as Plaintiffs and their experts note, there are problems

with using only code 196. For example, Dr. Bendick asserts that

code 196 corresponds to only twenty-seven percent of the 1990

Forestry Technician occupation. Dr. Bendick notes that, given the

increase in the Hispanic population in Region 5, it is highly

improbable that the CLF workforce parity goal for the Forestry

Technician job series would decrease over the decade; under

Defendants' calculations, however, the goal drops from 21.3 percent

to 15.1 percent. Furthermore, there is a wide range of positions

in the GS-462 job series, from "paper and pencil" jobs, requiring

supervisory skills and possibly a college degree, to "pick and

shovel" jobs, requiring a high school degree and the ability to

move dirt, suppress fires, chop brush and maintain hiking trails. 

Using only code 196 would ignore the diversity of GS-462 positions

and the fact that many position descriptions do not require

performing data analysis and report-writing.

Plaintiffs also contend that there are problems with

Defendants' use of English proficiency and U.S. citizenship. 

Plaintiffs note that the parties did not agree to adjust the data

Case 4:01-cv-03969-CW Document 137 Filed 03/30/06 Page 15 of 39
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 16

to account for those two factors and that it is not clear whether

adjustment for language ability is appropriate in all job series. 

They further note that SCEPs need only be lawfully admitted to the

United States; SCEPs need not be citizens before they convert to

permanent positions. Because the Court is not including SCEPs in

the permanent workforce statistics, however, citizenship

requirements for SCEPs are irrelevant; Plaintiffs point to no other

GS-462 position that does not require U.S. citizenship. 

The Court finds that Plaintiffs' updated percentage is

preferable to Defendants'. But the Court agrees with Defendants

that the applicable labor pool means those individuals representing

the relevant civilian labor force who possess the qualifications

corresponding to Region 5 job series and categories. Thus, these

percentages must take into account citizenship and language

ability. Plaintiffs state that the adjustments for language

ability and citizenship result in inconsequential differences for

the central issue of the level of under-representation of

Hispanics. For the updated percentage for GS-462, the Court will

use Plaintiffs' calculation that adopt Defendants' language ability

and citizenship adjustments: 31.5 percent.

iii. Under-representation in the Region 5

Workforce

The Court finds that Hispanics continue to be underrepresented in the Region 5 workforce. As noted by Plaintiffs'

expert, Dr. Louis R. Lanier, with or without SCEPs, with or without

the citizenship and language ability adjustments, and using

Defendants' most up-to-date workforce numbers, there remains a

Case 4:01-cv-03969-CW Document 137 Filed 03/30/06 Page 16 of 39
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 17

statistically significant difference between Defendants' Hispanic

workforce and the Hispanic workforce as a whole.

b. Section IV.C

This section requires that "Defendants will maintain a fulltime Regional Recruitment Coordinator position, with the primary

purpose of implementing the Recruitment Program set forth in

Section V" and that the position will be funded at a level enabling

the Coordinator to accomplish the objectives of this Agreement. In

their motion, Defendants state that the position of the Coordinator

has been filled, or the duties performed, since shortly after the

Monitor was hired. Defendants list the five individuals who have

filled the position, temporarily filled the position, performed the

position's duties or assisted in performing the position's duties. 

The Monitor, however, found that Defendants did not maintain a

full-time Coordinator, as required by the Agreement. The Monitor

described the multiple times she raised this issue with Defendants. 

The Monitor also noted that she had warned Defendants that, one and

a half years into the Agreement, there was not a clear plan for

what the full-time Coordinator would be doing. While others may

have been performing the Coordinator's duties in the absence of a

full-time Coordinator, those duties were not being performed on a

full-time basis. 

Defendants never state that they have had a full-time

Coordinator, who implemented the Recruitment Program, as required

by the Agreement. Instead, Defendants merely state, "There is no

dispute that Defendants have maintained the Regional Recruitment

Coordinator (RCC) Position." The Agreement, however, requires

Case 4:01-cv-03969-CW Document 137 Filed 03/30/06 Page 17 of 39
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 18

more, and the Court finds that Defendants are not in substantial

compliance with this section. 

c. Section IV.D 

This section requires that Defendants make a good faith effort

to maintain and fill the position of Region 5 Civil Rights

Director, during the term of the Agreement. To show their

compliance, Defendants list five individuals who have held that

position, one of whom was the Acting Director for less than two

months. Defendants contend that filling a position with acting

directors, while a permanent director is sought, is good faith

compliance. Plaintiffs disagree, as did the Monitor.

The Monitor noted that for eleven months in 2003 and 2004

there were either short-term detailers or an acting director in the

Civil Rights Director position. The Monitor acknowledged that

there may be situations when a Director's duties are effectively

performed by various acting or detailed personnel, but found that

was not the case in this situation. When the first Director

retired, she was replaced by an Acting Director, who was unfamiliar

with issues involving the Agreement and retired after few months. 

The next Acting Director left after two months. The position was

not filled with a permanent director until almost a year after the

first director retired, despite the urgent need, and repeated

requests by the Monitor, to fill the permanent position. 

Good faith requires more than merely filling the position with

several individuals serving as Acting Civil Rights Director. The

Court finds that Defendants did not exercise the requisite good

faith and thus are not in substantial compliance with this section.

Case 4:01-cv-03969-CW Document 137 Filed 03/30/06 Page 18 of 39
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 19

d. Section IV.G

This section requires that Defendants make a good faith effort

to provide sufficient resources to meet their obligations under the

Agreement. Defendants state that they have spent a substantial

amount of money implementing the Agreement. Plaintiffs do not

dispute that Defendants have provided sufficient resources; but

they argue that a good faith effort includes an obligation to

allocate the funding in a manner designed to meet the Agreement's

goals. Plaintiffs complain about the consulting firms that

Defendants hired to publish narrative reports not required by the

data-production requirements of the Agreement. But, as Defendants

note, the Agreement does not require Defendants to allocate

resources as prescribed by Plaintiffs. The Court finds that

Defendants are in substantial compliance with this section.

2. Section V

Although the Court determines that Defendants have not met

their stated goal in Section IV.A.1, the Court, as noted above,

cannot find Defendants in breach if they substantially complied

with the rest of Section IV and Section V.

As determined above, Defendants are not in substantial

compliance with Sections IV.C and IV.D; but they are in substantial

compliance with Sections IV.B, IV.E, IV.F and IV. G. The Court

will now examine whether Defendants are in substantial compliance

with Section V, entitled Methods of Implementation. Plaintiffs

contend that Defendants are not in substantial compliance with

Sections V.A and V.B. Plaintiffs do not dispute Defendants'

compliance with Section V.C.

Case 4:01-cv-03969-CW Document 137 Filed 03/30/06 Page 19 of 39
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 20

a. Section V.A.

Plaintiffs argue that Defendants are not in substantial

compliance with subsections 1, 2 and 3; they do not dispute

Defendants' compliance with subsections 4 and 5.

i. Section V.A.1

This subsection provides, "The Regional Program includes

components that are designed (1) to disseminate effectively

information related to employment opportunities and (2) to increase

the diversity of the applicant pool by engaging in recruitment

activities, both government-wide and externally." Defendants

contend that they are in substantial compliance with this provision

because they have developed and implemented a Regional Recruitment

Program, which includes an Outreach and Recruitment Strategy with

the goal of attracting, hiring and retaining "talented employees in

order to sustain a skilled and diverse Regional workforce." 

Defendants point to activities they have funded, such as hiring an

outside contractor to recruit for Region 5 positions and funding a

full-time Student Career Employment Program coordinator.

Plaintiffs, however, note that Section V.A.1 required

Defendants promptly to implement a recruitment and outreach program

and to ensure it is effective, but that, as the Monitor stated,

"That has not occurred." Monitor's Report, 37. The Outreach and

Recruitment Strategy was not effectively disseminated until early

2005. The Monitor acknowledged that Defendants were successful in

recruiting a diverse applicant pool for the fire apprentice hiring,

but found that "it was a one-time event -- not an effective

Regional Recruitment Program -- and it involved only entry level

Case 4:01-cv-03969-CW Document 137 Filed 03/30/06 Page 20 of 39
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 21

student trainee positions." Monitor's Report, 49. Except for

student apprentice hiring, Defendants' data does not show that

Region 5 is having any success in getting a more diverse applicant

pool. 

Nor do Defendants assert that their applicant pool has become

more diverse. Defendants again cite Donnelly, but, as noted above,

this case is distinguishable from Donnelly. Here, the Agreement,

specifically Exhibit B, provides measures to evaluate

effectiveness. Defendants accuse Plaintiffs of presenting no

evidence that information about employment opportunities is not

being effectively disseminated; yet, Defendants provide no evidence

that any of its programs are designed to, or have, increased the

diversity of the applicant pool. 

Furthermore, late compliance is not substantial compliance. 

While the Agreement did not provide a specific time table for

completion of tasks, Defendants cannot expect to be found in

substantial compliance when they have implemented measures only

recently and thus have been unable to determine the effectiveness

of these measures. Even in Donnelly, which Defendants urge this

Court to follow, the court extended the term of the settlement

agreement for an extra year due to "start-up delays." The Court

finds that Defendants are not in substantial compliance with this

provision.

ii. Section V.A.2

This subsection provides, "Region 5 will monitor all

recruitment and promotion actions of Forest Supervisors and

Regional Office Directors and all recruitment and promotion actions

Case 4:01-cv-03969-CW Document 137 Filed 03/30/06 Page 21 of 39
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 22

taken under their supervision." Defendants state that they are

monitoring all the recruitment and promotion actions as required by

this provision. But Plaintiffs note that the form used by

Defendants was not even disseminated to the field until

February, 2005. Plaintiffs also note the Monitor's finding that

Defendants' belated monitoring procedures do not constitute

substantial compliance with this section. 

As the Monitor found, 

having recently implemented a policy does not address the

fact that, for several years, Region 5 filled positions

without the required monitoring of recruitment and

promotions. While the RRC has reviewed a small number of

positions under the new oversight policy, according to

the HSA reports, Region 5 has filled more than 4,000

positions from October, 2002, to October, 2004, all of

which were filled well before the oversight policy was

put in place. Moreover, simply having a policy in place

does not mean that the oversight is occurring or is being

done effectively.

Monitor's Report, 35 (inner citation omitted). The Monitor further

found that, while Defendants made a commitment to do monthly

reviews and reports, they have been unable to carry that out. 

The Court finds that Defendants are not in substantial

compliance with this section. 

iii. Section V.A.3

This section provides, "Defendants shall employ the Outreach

and Recruitment Procedures using the Employment Outreach and

Recruitment Documentation, attached as Exhibit C . . . in any

action to fill a vacancy through competitive processes for a Region

5 Position. Prior to the final selection for a Region 5 Position,

the selection certificate and supporting paperwork will be reviewed

by the unit Human Resource Officer." Defendants state that the

Case 4:01-cv-03969-CW Document 137 Filed 03/30/06 Page 22 of 39
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 23

parties, with input from the Monitor, designed a new, more

effective Exhibit C. According to Defendants, they first used the

old Exhibit C and then used the new Exhibit C. 

Plaintiffs do not dispute Defendants' use of Exhibit C, either

in its old or new form. Instead, they note that the new form

contains "checkpoints," or specific times during the hiring process

when procedures must be reviewed to determine, for example, whether

the applicant pool is sufficiently diverse. The checkpoints

require access to race and national origin data. But, as the

Monitor noted, until late September, 2005, the only point at which

Defendants had access to that data was six days prior to the

closing of the vacancy announcement; data on applicants who applied

in the last six days of the opening was not available. Because

Defendants could not fully evaluate the checkpoint system or the

revised form due to the unavailability of data, the Monitor

determined that Defendants were not in substantial compliance with

Section V.A.2. The Court agrees; as noted above, last-minute

compliance is not substantial compliance. The Court finds that

Defendants are not in substantial compliance with this section.

b. Section V.B

This section describes the duties of the Regional Recruitment

Coordinator: (1) coordinating outreach and recruitment; (2) being

knowledgeable in Region 5's hiring practices; and (3) making

regular presentations. The section further describes the

information that the Coordinator needs to be able to access. 

Defendants state that the Coordinator is responsible for monitoring

Region 5's outreach and recruitment strategies and action plans and

Case 4:01-cv-03969-CW Document 137 Filed 03/30/06 Page 23 of 39
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 24

makes presentations at Regional Leadership Team meetings, which are

held at least three times a year. In addition, Defendants contend

that the Coordinator has access to all the data listed in this

section.

Plaintiffs disagree that the Coordinator has undertaken the

duties described in this section or has access to the required

information. They quote from the Monitor's Report that, after

concluding that Defendants were not in substantial compliance with

V.B.1, stated:

The RRC position has not been filled on a full time

basis throughout the HSA and has not been funded at a

level enabling the incumbent to accomplish the

objectives of the HSA. The various individuals in the

RRC position have not effectively been in the role of

coordinating the Region's outreach and recruitment or

otherwise in charge of the Regional Recruitment Program.

 Monitor's Report, 31 (emphasis in original). Plaintiffs further

note that some of the information required to be available to the

Coordinator was not accessible.

In response, Defendants contend that Plaintiffs failed to

counter their evidence that the Coordinator has carried out the

responsibilities outlined in this section. But Defendants did not

provide evidence that the Coordinator organized and oversaw

outreach or recruitment; nor did Defendants provide evidence that

the Coordinator was knowledgeable about hiring practices. Vicki

Johnson's declaration states, in a conclusory fashion, that the

Coordinator has carried out the responsibilities outlined in this

section, but the declaration does not specify anything that the

Coordinator organized, oversaw or coordinated. Instead, the

declaration states that the Coordinator monitored and performed a

Case 4:01-cv-03969-CW Document 137 Filed 03/30/06 Page 24 of 39
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 25

full range of internal and external recruitment and placement

duties. In addition, the declaration is silent as to the

Coordinator's knowledge of hiring practices. Defendants also

respond that the data issues now have been resolved, so that the

Coordinator has access to all the required information. This is

not sufficient to show that Defendants are in substantial

compliance with this section; the Court finds that they are not. 

B. Enforcement

Although Plaintiffs show that Defendants are not in

substantial compliance with various provisions of the Agreement,

Plaintiffs have not proven contempt by clear and convincing

evidence. The Court does not find that Defendants are in contempt,

but it does find that Defendants are not in substantial compliance

with Sections IV.B through IV.G and Section V as a whole and

specifically that Defendants are in breach of Sections IV.A, IV.C.

and IV.D. Accordingly, the Court will order further relief. As

noted above, the Agreement provides that if the Court finds that

Defendants are in breach, "the Court may order specific enforcement

of the provisions contained in Section IV.B. through G., additional

remedial measures to increase Hispanic representation subject to

the availability of Region 5 Positions, any alternative provision

agreed upon by the parties, and/or a one-time, one-year extension

of the Term of the Agreement." Even without this language, the

Court has the inherent power to enforce this Agreement. TNT

Marketing, Inc. v. Agresti, 796 F.2d 276, 278 (9th Cir. 1986)

("district court had inherent power to enforce the agreement in

settlement of litigation before it").

Case 4:01-cv-03969-CW Document 137 Filed 03/30/06 Page 25 of 39
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 26

The Court will enforce this Agreement; however, it will not

modify the Agreement. Plaintiffs argue that the Court can order

the relief sought through either enforcement or modification. But,

as both parties note, 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 Keith v. Volpe, 784 F.2d 1457, 1460 (9th Cir.

1986). Plaintiffs contend that the scope of Defendants' failure to

comply with the Agreement alone provides grounds for modification

as a changed circumstance. The two out-of-circuit cases they cite,

however, do not support that argument. As Defendants note, those

cases present egregious circumstances not present here. For

example, in Thompson v. U.S. Department Of Housing & Urban

Development, 404 F.3d 821, 828 (4th Cir. 2005), the court found

that the defendants had "done almost nothing that they were

required to do." (Emphasis in original.) Here, Plaintiffs do not

dispute that Defendants have complied with several provisions, such

as those dealing with training and retaining the Monitor. 

The only changed circumstance that Plaintiffs point to is the

National Forest Service's consolidation of all human resources

personnel in Albuquerque, New Mexico. While this could classify as

a significant changed circumstance, the Court, as discussed below,

without modifying the Agreement, can order that Defendants ensure

that there will be sufficient human resources personnel in Region 5

to implement the Agreement effectively. Thus, the Court finds that

Case 4:01-cv-03969-CW Document 137 Filed 03/30/06 Page 26 of 39
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 27

modification of the Agreement is inappropriate.

C. Relief

Pointing to the language in the Agreement that allows the

Court to order "additional remedial measures to increase Hispanic

representation," Plaintiffs request that Defendant be required to

implement the following measures recommended by the Monitor:

(1) extending the Agreement for three years; (2) contracting with

an effective outside recruiter; (3) establishing a fire apprentice

mentoring program; (4) advertising all positions as interdisciplinary and multi-grade; (5) expanding the Central California

Consortium; (6) creating a Selection Review position;

(7) establishing short-term benchmarks; (8) tracking previously

qualified Hispanic applicants for recruitment and outreach

purposes; (9) providing identifying race and national origin

information to hiring officials for voluntary use as a selectionplus factor in job series where Hispanics are under-represented;

(10) retaining and providing data on the race and national origin

of applicants for temporary fire-related positions; and

(11) notwithstanding the upcoming move of Human Resource staff to

Albuquerque, New Mexico, retaining local human resources personnel

sufficient to carry out all recruitment activities related to

effective implementation of the Agreement. Defendants argue that

Plaintiffs take the "additional remedial measures" language out of

context and that Plaintiffs ask this Court to put into place a new

settlement agreement, one not bargained for by the parties.

1. Three-year extension of the Agreement 

As noted above, the Agreement provides for a one-time, oneCase 4:01-cv-03969-CW Document 137 Filed 03/30/06 Page 27 of 39
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 28

year extension to the term of the Agreement. The Monitor

recommended that Defendants voluntarily agree to add another two

years to this provision, making a three-year extension to the

Agreement. Defendants contend that this relief contravenes the

agreed upon one-year extension in the Agreement. Plaintiffs

contend that a two-year extension is a permissible "additional

remedial measure" to increase Hispanic representation. Plaintiffs

also argue that the Court has the power to modify the Agreement. 

However, as noted above, the Court will not do. 

As the Ninth Circuit has instructed, "'[T]he scope of a

consent decree must be discerned within its four corners, and not

by reference to what might satisfy the purpose of one of the

parties' or by what 'might have been written had the plaintiff

established his factual claims and legal theories in litigation.'" 

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

412, 413 (9th Cir. 1990) (alteration in original) (quoting United

States v. Armour & Co., 402 U.S. 673, 682 (1971)). The parties

agreed to limit the extension of the Agreement to one year. Thus,

without modifying the Agreement, the Court can only order a oneyear extension of the term of the Agreement.

2. Contracting with an effective outside recruiter

Defendants argue that this request, which requires Defendants

to evaluate the effectiveness of their outside recruiter and allows

the Monitor to determine whether the recruitment services are

sufficient, contravenes the Agreement, which gives Region 5 control

over its Recruiting Program. But that control is found in Section

V.A, a section with which Defendants did not substantially comply. 

Case 4:01-cv-03969-CW Document 137 Filed 03/30/06 Page 28 of 39
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 29

The Court finds that granting this request is an appropriate

additional remedial measure to increase Hispanic representation.

3. Fire apprentice mentoring program 

The Monitor notes that Defendants stated that they accepted

the Monitor's recommendation to implement an effective mentoring

program. Defendants have done so, revising their existing formal

Mentoring Program to add a component for new employees with less

than one year of service. Plaintiffs do not dispute that a

mentoring program for fire apprentices is currently in place. The

Court orders Defendants to continue this program.

4. Advertising of all positions as inter-disciplinary

and multi-grade 

Plaintiffs request that Defendants be ordered to advertise all

positions as multi-grade, and to issue inter-disciplinary

announcements, in order to attract a broad applicant pool which

will effectuate the purposes of the Agreement. Defendants contend

that to do so would violate a United States Forest Service policy

(issued November 30, 2005), which provides that a single position

description can no longer be classified or advertised in broad

inter-disciplinary series, except in limited circumstances. Under

the policy, Defendants may classify and advertise a position in two

series if there is a logical pairing of series that directly

correlate to the work performed. Plaintiffs do not address this

policy change. The Court will not order Defendants to violate a

Forest Service policy: Defendants are ordered to advertise all

positions as multi-grade and to issue inter-disciplinary

announcements whenever consistent with this policy, i.e., if there

Case 4:01-cv-03969-CW Document 137 Filed 03/30/06 Page 29 of 39
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 30

is a logical pairing of series that directly correlate to the work

performed.

5. Expanding the Central California Consortium

The Central California Consortium is an environmental

education, outreach and recruitment program for students that is

sponsored by the Forest Service and Region 5. Based on the success

of this program, the Monitor recommended that Defendants expand the

activities of the Central California Consortium to at least two

additional locations. Defendants complain that this relief

contravenes their control over their own recruiting program and

that seeking this relief contradicts Plaintiffs' exclusion of SCEP

positions from their analysis of Hispanic representation in the

workforce; the CCC only recruits SCEPs and temporary student

employees. Given the success of this program, the Court grants

this request.

6. Creating a selection review position

Plaintiffs ask the Court to order Defendants to create and

fund an independent selection review position to be filled by a

person selected by and supervised directly by the Monitor. 

Defendants argue that this request contravenes the Agreement, which

provides that "Region 5 will monitor all recruitment and promotion

activities." HSA, § V.A.2. Region 5 may do so; this is not

inconsistent with additional monitoring. As the Monitor noted,

Defendants were backlogged on selection reviews and have determined

that the Coordinator does not have time to do the reviews. The

Monitor found that an individual responsible for independent

selection review will not result in Defendants ceding their hiring

Case 4:01-cv-03969-CW Document 137 Filed 03/30/06 Page 30 of 39
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 31

authority to someone outside the department, but it will ensure

that there is a consistent and timely review of Defendants'

established procedures so barriers to increased Hispanic

representation can be identified and addressed. The Court grants

this relief. 

7. Establishing short-term benchmarks

Plaintiffs request that the Court order the parties to meet

with the Monitor within thirty days of this order to establish

short-term benchmarks for progress toward the HSA goal of

increasing Hispanic representation in the Region 5 workforce. 

These benchmarks would chart the employment levels of Hispanic

employees. Defendants claim that this relief is unconstitutional

because it creates a race-based classification that does not pass

strict scrutiny. The Court denies this request. 

8. Tracking of previously qualified Hispanic

applicants for recruitment and outreach purposes 

Plaintiffs request that the Court order Defendants to create,

within thirty days from this order, a database that can identify

previously qualified Hispanic applicants for employment in Region 5

who were not selected for positions, for the purpose of outreach

and recruitment for future available positions. The Court denies

this request.

9. Providing identifying race and national origin

information to hiring officials for voluntary use as

a selection-plus factor in job series where

Hispanics are under-represented

Plaintiffs state in their reply that they are not asking the

Court to order Defendants to provide identifying race and national

origin information to hiring officials or to instruct their hiring

Case 4:01-cv-03969-CW Document 137 Filed 03/30/06 Page 31 of 39
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 32

officials that they may consider race and national information as a

"plus factor" in filling positions where Hispanics are underrepresented. Rather, Plaintiffs seek a determination from this

Court that the voluntarily use of race and national origin as a

"plus factor" to select among qualified applicants in underrepresented jobs series is constitutional. The Court will discuss

this below.

10. Retaining and providing data on the race and

national origin of applicants for temporary firerelated positions

Plaintiffs ask the Court to order Defendants to provide the

Monitor with data on the race and national origin of applicants for

temporary fire-related job positions. Defendants note that this

was not on the list of data which the Agreement required that

Region 5 provide; nor is a temporary fire-related position a

"Region 5 position," as that term is defined in the Agreement. 

Furthermore, Defendants again contend that this request is

inconsistent with Plaintiffs' exclusion of SCEPs from their

analysis of Region 5's progress on increasing Hispanic

representation in the permanent workforce. But, as the Monitor

noted, permanent entry-level fire-related positions have

traditionally been filled by employees with past experience as

temporary employees. Thus, the Court finds that this is also an

appropriate remedial measure and grants this request.

11. Retaining human resources personnel sufficient to

carry out all recruitment activities related to

effective implementation of the Agreement 

In response to the Forest Service's consolidation of all human

resource positions in Albuquerque, New Mexico, as discussed above,

Case 4:01-cv-03969-CW Document 137 Filed 03/30/06 Page 32 of 39
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 33

Plaintiffs request that the Court order that Defendants are to

ensure that Region 5 retains on each forest and in the Regional

Office of Region 5, human resources personnel sufficient to carry

out all recruitment activities related to the effective

implementation of the Agreement. Defendants contend that this

request is too broad; nonetheless, they note that Region 5 received

a waiver from the Forest Service and that the human resources

staffing and recruitment functions of Region 5 will only be moved

to Albuquerque when the Agreement ends or when the Human Resources

staff has demonstrated the capacity successfully to perform the

work required in meeting the duties and obligations of the

Agreement. The Court finds that Plaintiffs' request is an

appropriate remedial measure and that, because of the waiver,

Defendants will not be in violation of Forest Service directives

and policy on workforce planning if this request is granted. 

Therefore, the Court grants this request and orders that, until the

Agreement ends, Defendants are to retain, on each forest and in the

Regional Office of Region 5, human resources personnel sufficient

to carry out all recruitment activities related to implementing the

Agreement and this order.

III. Race as a Plus Factor

As noted above, Plaintiffs request that the Court declare that

the voluntary use of race and national origin as an optional plus

factor, to select among qualified applicants in job series in which

Hispanics are under-represented, is constitutionally permissible. 

Plaintiffs emphasize that Defendants' workforce has been

persistently imbalanced for over a decade; this is the second

Case 4:01-cv-03969-CW Document 137 Filed 03/30/06 Page 33 of 39
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 34

settlement agreement that has tried and failed to address the low

representation of Hispanics in Defendants' workforce. Plaintiffs

contend that, armed with such a determination from this Court,

Defendants could engage in voluntary, lawful and effective efforts

to remedy past discrimination which has resulted in long-standing

workforce disparities. But, Defendants have made clear that, even

if the Court were to make such a determination, they do not wish to

use race and national origin as a plus factor, and they do not

believe that there has been past discrimination. 

All racial classifications imposed by the government must be

analyzed by a reviewing court under strict scrutiny. Grutter, 539

U.S. at 326. Under the strict scrutiny standard, a race-based

classification is permissible only if it serves a compelling

government interest and is narrowly tailored to meet that interest. 

See, e.g., Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 235

(1995). The Supreme Court recently instructed, "Not every decision

influenced by race is equally objectionable and strict scrutiny is

designed to provide a framework for carefully examining the

importance and sincerity of the reasons advanced by the

governmental decision maker for the use of race in the particular

context." Grutter, 539 U.S. at 327. 

A. Compelling government interest

Both parties agree that a gross statistical disparity can

satisfy a prima facie standard for discrimination and form the

strong basis in evidence warranting affirmative action. See, e.g.,

City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469, 501 (1989).

Plaintiffs' statistics show a gross disparity in some of the job

Case 4:01-cv-03969-CW Document 137 Filed 03/30/06 Page 34 of 39
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 35

series and could justify Defendants finding that there was past

discrimination by the government. Cases involving affirmative

action contemplate a voluntary finding of past discrimination. See

Johnson v. Transportation Agency, 480 U.S. 616, 620 (1987)

(voluntary assumption by the State agency that an affirmative plan

was justified to "remedy the effects of past practices"). Thus, a

court finding of discrimination by the government is not required

to justify voluntary affirmative action; voluntary findings of past

discrimination by a government agency suffice. See id; Ho v. San

Francisco Unified Sch. Dist., 965 F. Supp. 1316, 1324 (N.D. Cal.

1997) (citing Wygant v. Jackson Board of Educ., 476 U.S. 267, 289

(1986) (O'Connor, J., concurring in part) (“a contemporaneous or

antecedent finding of past discrimination by a court or other

competent body is not a constitutional prerequisite to a public

employer's voluntary agreement to an affirmative action plan,”

because a constitutional violation “does not arise with the making

of a finding; it arises when the wrong is committed”). Even though

there is sufficient evidence to justify Defendants voluntarily

finding past discrimination in their former hiring practice,

Defendants, at the hearing and in their papers, deny any past

discriminatory practices. To support a compelling government

interest, there must be prior discrimination by the government;

findings of societal discrimination are not adequate. Id. at 490-

91. Plaintiffs have not attempted to prove past discrimination.

Because Defendants have made clear that they do not, and will not,

admit to past discrimination, it does not appear that the

government has a compelling interest in remedying it with

Case 4:01-cv-03969-CW Document 137 Filed 03/30/06 Page 35 of 39
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 36

affirmative action. 

B. Narrowly tailored

Defendants note the Supreme Court's instruction that, because

racial classifications "are simply too pernicious to permit any but

the most exact connection between justification and

classification," the Court must conduct “a most searching

examination.” Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244, 270 (2003). The

Monitor conducted such an examination and concluded that the

optional plus factor recommendation was narrowly tailored. In

reaching her conclusion, she examined the necessity for relief and

the efficacy of alternative methods, the flexibility and duration

of the relief, the relationship of the numerical goals to the

relevant labor market and the impact of the relief on the rights of

third parties. She noted that Defendants had tried race-neutral

measures for years, with only limited success: data from the Forest

Service shows that Region 5 has increased its Hispanic permanent

employee representation by less than three percent in the past

fifteen years. Furthermore, the proposed affirmative action

measure is flexible, of limited duration and takes into account the

impact on others.

Defendants argue that the use of race as a plus factor is a

quota and thus impermissible. They attempt to distinguish this

case from Grutter by arguing that the use of race and national

origin as a plus factor here would result in a workforce with a

defined racial make-up. This argument fails. In Grutter, the

Supreme Court found that race was a legitimate plus factor because

it was used as one factor among many that the law school admissions

Case 4:01-cv-03969-CW Document 137 Filed 03/30/06 Page 36 of 39
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 37

officers took into account; it was a factor that was not the

"defining feature" of any particular application and its use did

not guarantee a student body that bore a statistical relationship

to the make-up of the applicant pool. 

The proposed affirmative action here is like that allowed in

Grutter: it would allow race and national origin to be considered

"flexibly as a 'plus' factor in the context of individualized

consideration of each and every candidate." 539 U.S. at 335. All

qualified candidates would compete with other qualified candidates. 

There would be no Hispanic quota; Plaintiffs' envisioned

affirmative action provides only the option of considering race and

national origin as a plus factor, not the obligation. The Court

finds that the voluntary use of race and national origin as an

optional plus factor to select among qualified applicants in job

series where Hispanics are under-represented, for the limited time

that the Agreement remains in effect, like the use of race as a

plus factor in Grutter, would be narrowly tailored. 

C. Strict scrutiny

Because it appears that there is not a compelling government

interest, the Court denies Plaintiffs' request that it declare

that, in this situation, the voluntary use of race and national

origin as an optional plus factor, to select among qualified

applicants in job series in which Hispanics are under-represented,

is constitutionally permissible. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendants' Motion

For Entry of Order That Defendants Have Discharged Their

Case 4:01-cv-03969-CW Document 137 Filed 03/30/06 Page 37 of 39
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 38

Obligations Under the Settlement Agreement (Docket No. 94). The

Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiffs' Motion For Contempt and

Enforcement of Court-Approved Settlement Agreement (Docket No. 107)

and DENIES it IN PART. Specifically, the Court finds that, while

Defendants are not in contempt, they are in breach of Sections

IV.A.1, IV.C and IV.D of the Agreement. The Court will enforce the

Agreement. The Court extends the term of the Agreement by one

year. The Court further orders, as remedial measures to increase

the representation of Hispanics, that: 

Defendants contract with an effective outside recruiter; in

order to do this, Defendants and the Monitor shall evaluate the

effectiveness of Defendants' recently hired outside recruiter,

Baitz.com;

Defendants continue their fire apprentice mentoring program;

Defendants advertise all positions as multi-grade and issue

inter-disciplinary announcements whenever possible, i.e., if there

is a logical pairing of series that directly correlate to the work

performed;

Defendants expand the activities of the Central California

Consortium to at least two additional locations;

Defendants create and fund an independent selection review

position; the individual who fills that position will be selected

by and supervised directly by the Monitor;

Defendants retain and provide data on the race and national

origin of applicants for temporary fire-related positions; and

Defendants retain, until the Agreement ends, human resources

personnel, sufficient to carry out all recruitment activities

Case 4:01-cv-03969-CW Document 137 Filed 03/30/06 Page 38 of 39
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 39

related to implementing the Agreement and this order, on each

forest and in the Regional Office of Region 5.

 In addition, because the parties were unable to agree on a

reporting and enforcement procedure for the remainder of the

Agreement period, the Court directs the Monitor to propose a

reporting and enforcement procedure and submit it to the Court,

within twenty-one days from this order, for consideration.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 3/30/06

 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:01-cv-03969-CW Document 137 Filed 03/30/06 Page 39 of 39