## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### June14,200 7 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT RO Y C . J OHNS ON; M AR K A. M OOR E ; DWI GHT E . J AC KS ON; S T E V E N L . G IB B S ; D E B O R A H J. DAN I EL S - F LE AK; DEBBI E R. CR I SP; D EB RA D . D I CK EN S; T AM M AR A M CK I NNE Y- OL DE N; RU F US E . NE WS OM E ; T YR ONE D. LY N N ; M A RV I N BL A D ES; W ALTER E. BU SBY, J R. ; DER REK L . L E WI S ; RA Y D. NE L S ON; CO RN ELI US D . FI NLEY ; GA RY L. P I T T S ; AL BE RT L . YOUNG ,

P l ai nti ffs - A pp el l ants , v. N o. 05- 5064 CI T Y OF T UL S A, OKL AHOMA; L ODGE 9 3 F RA T E RN AL OR DE R O F PO L I C E , L O D G E #93,

D efen dan t s - A pp el l ees. AP P EA L F ROM THE UNI TE D S TA TE S DI S TR I CT COURT F O R T H E N O R T H E R N D I S T R I C T O F O K L A H O M A

( D . C . N O . 9 4 - C V - 3 9 - T C K - F H M ) L oui s W . B ul l ock ( R ober tM . B l akemor e w i th hi m on the br i ef) , of M i l l er , K effer & B ull ock , P . C . , T uls a, O klahom a, for Plai nti ffs - A pp el l ants . J oel L . W ohl gemut h ( D avi d R . R os s w i th hi m on the br i ef) , of N or m an W oh l gem uth C han dler& D ow dell , T uls a, O klahom a, (LarryV . S i m m on s, T uls a C i t yA t t orney ’s O ffi ce, T uls a, O klahom a, w i th h i m on t he b ri ef), for D efen dan t s --2-

A pp el l ees. B efo re HA RTZ , EBEL , and O’ BRI EN , C i rcui tJudg es. HA RTZ , C i r cui tJ udge. T he q uest i on present ed o n ap peal i s w hethera prevail i ng partyi n a clas sact i on ci vi l - r i ght s l aw s ui ti s ent i t l ed t o att or neyfee s forpos t - cons ent - decr ee effor t s t hatr es ul t ed i n no cour tor derorj udgm ent . T he di s tr i ctcourthel d that su c h a p a rtyis n o t. W e h o ld th a t atto rn e yfe e s m a yb e a w a rd e d fo r e ffo rts to pr es erve the frui t s of the dec r ee. W hen, as i n thi s cas e, t he cons entdecr ee es t abl i s hes m echa ni s m s forens ur i ng pr opert r eatm entof cl as s m ember s , att or ney fe es a re c o m p en sab le fo r reaso n ab le effo rt s to e n su re tha t th o se m ec h an ism s are properl yfun ct i on i ng . W e t herefore r everse and rem and for further proceedings. I . BA CKGROUND I n 1994 R oyJ ohns on, a Tul s a pol i ce offi cer , fi l ed a c om pl ai ntagai ns tt he C ityo f T u lsa (C ity ) a lleg in g th a t ith a d d isc rim in a ted o n th e b a sis o f ra c e in em ploym ent pr act i ces. In 199 8 the di stri ctcou rtcert i fi ed the case as a cl ass act i on w i t h a numberof named pl ai nt i ffs . T he cl as s , cons i s t i ng of al l curr entand futur e A fr i can- A m er i can offi cer s of the Tul s a Pol i ce D epart m ent( T PD ) , as s ert ed t h a tt h e Ci t yh a d e n g a g e d i n v a r i o u s c i v i l - r i g h t s v i o l a t i o n s u n d e r4 2 U. S . C. §§ 1981, 1983, and Ti t l e V I I , 42 U . S. C . § 2000e ets eq. T he Fr at ernal O r derof-3-

P o lic e (F O P ) w a s g ra n te d le a v e to in te rv e n e a s a d e fe n d a n t. A ft erext ens i ve l i t i gat i on the part i es ent er ed i nt o a cons entdecr ee ( the D ecr ee) t hatw as appr oved byt he courton M ay12, 2003. T he D ecr ee i s a l engthy d o c u m e n t w ith a n u m b e r o f p ro v is io n s . A . T he D ecr ee 1. C omm uni t y R e l at i ons Som e pr ovi s i ons of the D ecr ee appeardes i gned more t o hel p the comm uni t yt han the mem ber s of the pl ai nt i ff c l as s . Sect i on 2 of the D ecr ee r equi r es t he C i t yt o appl yforacc r edi t at i on byt he C om m i s s i on on A ccr edi t at i on forL aw E nfor cementA genci es , I nc. ( C A L E A ) , w hos e purpos e i s “t o devel op a s etof l aw enfor cements t andar ds ; and t o es t abl i s h and admi ni s t eran ac cr edi t at i on p ro c e ss th ro u g h w h ich law e n fo rc e m e n t ag e n c ies c o u ld d e m o n stra te v o lu n tar ily t hatt heym eetpr ofes s i onal l y - r ecogni zed c r i t er i a forexce l l ence i n m anage m ent and s ervi ce de l i very . ” R . V ol . I I I at328. T he C i tym us tcont i nue t o m eet C A L E A s ta n d a rd s a n d re a p p ly fo r a c c re d ita tio n e v e ry th re e y e a rs . L ikew ise, § 1 2 req u ir es th e C ityto rev iew it s tr ainin g cu rri cu lum to en su re t hatt he “tr ai ni ng s uppor t s t he obj ect i ves of the C our t ’ s D ecr ee t o uni fyt he D epart m entand the C om m uni t y , ” i d. a t 3 3 7

– 3 8 , an d to p re p a re a re p o rt o f its fi ndi ngs and “the s t eps t aken t o i m pl ementt hem, ” id . at338. Sect i on 16 pr ohi bi t s r aci al bi as i n pol i ci ng and r equi r es t he C i tyt o adoptand i m pl ementT he fu l l t ext of t he rel evan tprovis i on s of § 5 i s: 1 5 .1 F o r th e p u rp o se s o f th is C o n se n t D e c re e , sp e c ialtya ss ig n m e n ts s h a ll be def i ned as al l as s i gnm ent s othert han thos e thatar e bi d undert he c u rre n t b id p ro c e ss , an d th e p o sitio n o f F O P p re sid e n t. A ll sp e c ialty assi gn m ents shal l be m ade o n the basi s of m eri tand fi tness. 5 .2 T h e D e p a rtm e n t h a s a d o p ted a p ro c e ss fo r m a k in g sp e c ialty as s i gnm ent s w hi ch pr ovi des fort he pos t i ng i n eac h di vi s i on and upon t he C i t y ’s i ntr anet al l op enings i n special tyassi gn m ents . T hese p o s tin g s a re to in c lu d e b u t a re n o t lim ite d to th e s p e c ific a s s ig n m e n t, t he j ob des cr i pt i on, m i ni m um qual i fi cat i ons of thatas s i gnm entand pr efe r r ed qual i fi cat i ons . T hi s pr oces s s hal l cont i nue. 5 .4 . In e a c h d iv isio n , the M ajo r sh a ll b e c h a rg e d w ith a c c e p tin g a ll appl i cat i ons fors peci al tyas s i gnm ent s and form aki ng re c o m m e n d a tio n s to th e D e p u tyC h ief. T h e D e p u tyC h ief sh a ll fo rw a rd th e M ajo r’s re c o m m e n d a tio n to th e C h ief, w ith th e D e p u ty C h ief’s o w n rec o m m en d ati o n to ap p rov e o r reject th e M ajor’s r ecomm endat i on. A l l appl i cant s s hal l be not i fi ed of the fi nal deci s i on. 5. 5 A pol i cys hal l be adopt ed and i m pl ement ed pr ohi bi t i ng thos e i n t he c h a in o f c o m m a n d o f

p o sitio n s b e in g fill e d f ro m d ire c tlyo r in d ire c tly r ecrui t i ng per s ons t o appl yfora s peci al tyas s i gnm entothert han t hr ough t he announc ementpr ovi ded i n Par agr aph 5. 2. Shoul d no one w ho i s qual i fi ed appl yforan as s i gnm entdur i ng the per i od open for -4- pol i ci es pr om ot i ng cooper at i on betw een pol i ce offi cer s and ci t i zens . A nd § 17 r e qu i r e s t he Ci t yt o i mpl e mentpo l i c i e s t o c r e a t e a pa r tne r s hi p b e tw e e n the TPD a n d m e m b e rs o f

th e c o m m u n ity. 2. A nt i di s c r i m i nat i on Pr ov i s i ons O t herD ecr ee pr ovi s i ons forbi d di s cr i m i nat i on i n hi r i ng, pr om ot i on, and p o lice o p e ra tio n s, a n d re q u ire sp e c ific p ro c e d u re s to g iv e o ffice rs a fa ir oppor tuni t yforadvanc ement . Sect i on 5 s et s outt he pr oces s form aki ng 1s ubm i t t i ng appl i cat i ons , a per i od w hi ch s hal l be no l es s than thr ee w ee k s, the c h ain o f c o m m an d o r oth ers m aythen take step s to se cu re q u a lifie d p e rso n s to se rv e in th e o p e n p o sitio n , inc lu d in g a c tiv e ly re c ru itin g q u a lifie d p e rs o n s w ith in th e D e p a rt m e n t. 5. 6 T he es t abl i s hed mi ni m al r equi r ement s foral l pos i t i ons s hal l be re v iew e d b yth e D e p a rtm e n t to a ss u re th a t th o se re q u ire m e n ts di r ect l yr el at e t o t he r equi r ement s of the pos i t i on. 5. 7 W i t h t he fol l ow i ng exce pt i on, the es t abl i s hed mi ni m um q u a lific a tio n s fo r p o sitio n s s h a ll n o t b e w a iv e d . If n o o n e w h o m e e ts t he mi ni m um qual i fi cat i ons foran open s peci al tyas s i gnm entappl i es fo r th a t as sig n m e n t, th e D e p a rtm e n t m a yo p e n th e p o sitio n to a ll appl i cant s and s el ectthe mostqual i fi ed appl i cantforthe pos i t i on. R . V ol . I I I at331–33. -5- speci al t yassi gn m ents (as si gn m ents that ar e no tbid und er the regu l ar bi d p rocess ) w i t hi n t he TP D . Subse ct i on 5. 1 r equi r es that“[a ] l l s peci al tyas s i gnm ent s . . . be m a d e o n th e b a s is o f

m e ri t a n d fitn e s s ,” a n d § 5 .2 requi res t hat the T P D po st s peci al t y - as s i gnm entvaca nci es and thatthe pos t i ng i ncl ude i nform at i on aboutt he pos i t i on s uch as t he “a s s i gnm ent , t he j ob des cr i pt i on, m i ni m um qual i fi cat i ons of t hatas s i gnm entand pr efe r r ed qual i fi cat i ons . ” Id. a t 3 3 1

– 3 2 . S u b s e c tio n 5 .4 s peci fi es t hatt he M aj ors hal l acc eptappl i cat i ons and make a r ecomm endat i on for eac h pos i t i on t o t he D eputyC hi ef, w ho w i l l t hen forw ar d thatr ecomm endat i on and hi s orherow n r ecomm endat i on t o the C hi ef of Pol i ce fora fi nal deci s i on. A l l appl i cant s m us tbe not i fi ed of the fi nal deci s i on. Subse ct i on 5. 5 r equi r es t he T PD t o adoptand i m pl ementa pol i cy“pr ohi bi t i ng thos e i n the cha i n of comm and of pos i t i ons bei ng fi l l ed fr om di r ect l yori ndi r ect l yr ecrui t i ng per s ons t o appl yforT he fu l l t ext of t he rel evan tpart s of § 1 3 is : 2 13 . 1 T he C i t yshal l ado pt and i m plem ent a pol i cycon si st ent w i th F i rs t A m endmentl aw w hi ch forbi ds al l form s of r et al i at i on di r ect ed atany offi cerorci vi l i an r ai s i ng m at t er s of publ i c conc ern, i ncl udi ng butnot lim ited to , cla im s o f

ra c ial, g e n d e r, re lig io u s, o r n a tio n a l o rig in d i s c r i mi n a t i o n o ro t h e rr i g h t s c o n fe rr e d b yt h e Co n s t i tu t i o n a n d l a ws of the U ni t ed St at es , t he C ons t i tut i on and l aw s of the St at e of -6- a s peci al t yas s i gnm entot hert han thr ough” the new announce m entpr ocedur e, unl es s no qual i fi ed per s on appl i es forthe pos i t i on dur i ng the thr ee w eeks fo llo w in g th e p o s tin g . Id . at332. Subse ct i on 5. 6 s t at es thatthe mi ni m um r equi r ement s foreac h s peci al t yas s i gnm entm us tdi r ect l yr el at e t o the r equi r ement s of the pos i t i on, and § 5. 7 pr ovi des thatthe TP D m aynotopen the p o s itio n to a ll a p p lic a n ts u n le s s n o o n e m e e ts th o s e m in im u m q u a lific a tio n s . Sect i on 6, w hi ch addr es s es r ecrui t i ng, pr ovi des that“al l hi r i ng s hal l be bas ed on mer i tand fi t nes s . ” Id . at33 4. T he T P D m ustest abli sh a recruit i ng t ask for ce t o eval uat e and de vel op s t r at egi es forr ecrui t i ng, i ncl udi ng the r ecrui t m ent of w om en and mi nor i t i es . T o “attr actand r et ai n appl i cant s , ” id . , the T P D m ust offe rt empora r yempl oym entoppor tuni t i es t o thos e ac cept ed t o the pol i ce a c a d e m y . S e c tio n 7 s ta te s th a t p ro m o tio n s m u s t b e b a s e d o n m e ri t a n d fitn e s s . S e c tio n 9 re q u ire s th e C ityto e n su re “ th a t all su p e rv iso rs e njo ya ll o f th e rig h ts a n d p ri v ile g e s w h ic h n o rm a lly a c c o m p a n y ” th e irra n k , i d. at336. ( T hi s pr ovi s i on i s appar ent l ya r es pons e t o al l egat i ons thatA fr i can- A m er i can s upervi s or s di d not re c e iv e p ro p e r d e fe re n c e f ro m su b o rd in a tes ). S e c tio n 1 3 re q u ire s th e C ityto 2O k lah o m a , o r th is D e c re e . T h e rig h t to b e f re e f ro m re talia tio n sh a ll in c lu d e th o se w h o a ss e rt su c h m a tters o n b e h a lf o f o th e rs. It sh a ll n o t in c lu d e p ro te c tio n fo r t h o s e w h o ra is e is s u e s o f p e rs o n a l in te re s t. T he pol i cys hal l fur therforbi d anyform of r et al i at i on agai ns tany offi cerorci vi l i an w ho part i ci pat es i n anyfas hi on i n as s i s t i ng a per s on br i ngi ng a compl ai ntal l egi ng thatthei rr i ght s have be en vi ol at ed. 1 3 . 3 T h i s p o l i c y s h a l l d e fi n e r e t a l i a t i o n a s b e i n g a n a c t i o n m o t i v a t e d b y a d e sire to p u n ish a p e rso n fo r th e e x e rc ise o f F irst A m e n d m e n t rig h ts w hi ch al t er s t he t erm s and condi t i ons of empl oym ent , i ncl udi ng but n o t l im it ed to, giving u n fa irev alua ti o n s; i n it iat ing a d isci p li n ary act i on; gi vi ng exce s s i ve puni s hm entfora di s ci pl i naryi nfr act i on; fa ili n g to b a c k o r a ss ist a n o th e r o ffice r; o r g iv in g u n fa v o ra b le assi gn m ents . R . V ol . I I I at339–40. -7- “adoptand i m pl ementa pol i cy ” forbi ddi ng r et al i at i on “di r ect ed atanyoffi ceror ci vi l i an r ai s i ng m at t er s of publ i c conc ern, i ncl udi ng butnotl i m i t ed t o, cl ai m s of r aci al , gender , r el i gi ous , ornat i onal or i gi n di s cr i m i nat i on. ” Id. at339. A nd § 14 r equi r es t he C i t yt o adopta pol i cydes cr i bi ng the obl i gat i on of off i cer s t o pr ovi de back- up s uppor tforot heroffi cer s and t o i nves t i gat e compl ai nt s of bac ki ng fa ilu re s . 3. D at a- C ol l e c t i on Pr ov i s i ons T w o D e c re e p ro v isio n s re late to d a ta n e c e ss a ryto m o n ito r c o m p lian c e w ith t he D ecr ee’ s r equi r ement s . Sect i on 3 r equi r es t he TP D t o m ai nt ai n a dat aco ll ec ti o n sy stem that tr ac k s info rm ati o n o n ea ch o fficer, inclu d ing rac e, ge n d er, a ss ig n m e n ts, train in g , p e rfo rm a n c e ra tin g s, c o m p lain ts, d isc ip lin e , trafficT he fu l l t ext of t he rel evan tpart s of § 1 1 is : 3 11. 1 T he C i t ys hal l r eor gani ze I nt ernal A ffa i r s i nt o tw o s quads . T he curr enti nt ernal affai r s funct i on s hal l be as s i gned t o a new I nves t i gat i ons Squad char ged w i th conduct i ng i nves t i gat i ons of c o m p lain ts. A se c o n d sq u a d , the A u d it an d In sp e c tio n s S q u a d , sh a ll be cha r ged w i t h as s ur i ng thatt he D epart m enti s oper at i ng cons i s t ent w i t h t he D epart m ent ’ s pol i ci es . I ts hal l conducts uch i nves t i gat i ons a n d a u d its o f

th e D e p a rt m e n t’ s d a ta a s n e c e s s a ry to m e e t th is c h a rg e . T he A ud i tand Invest i gati on s Sq uad shal l be st affed byt w o sergeants , -8- ci t at i ons , arr es t s , and ci vi l compl ai nt s . Sect i on 27 adds t o thes e obl i gat i ons t he re q u ire m e n t th a t th e C itym a in tain th e “ re c o rd s n e c e ss a ryto d o c u m e n t it s compl i ance w i t h t he t erm s of th[e] D ecr ee. ” Id . at 3 5 1 . S u b se c tio n 2 7 .3 g ra n ts acc es s byt he I ndepende ntA udi t or( a moni t or i ng pos i t i on cr eat ed byt he D ecr ee, to b e d is c u s s e d la te r) to a w id e v a ri e ty o f T P D d a ta a n d re p o rt s . U n d e r § 2 7 .4

“ C o u n s e l fo r P la in tiffs s h a ll b e p ro v id e d a c c e s s to th e [ s e ] d o c u m e n ts a n d d a ta . . . upon r eas onabl e r eques tt o t he C i ty . ” Id . at 3 5 3 . S u b se c tio n s 2 7 .4 a n d 2 7 .5 sta te t hatPl ai nt i ffs m ayal s o r eques totheropen r ecor ds r el evantt o compl i ance and

“ sh a ll h a v e th e rig h t to sh a re w ith P lain tiffs’ C o u n se l in fo rm a tio n re lev a n t to compl i ance w i t h t hi s D ecr ee a vai l abl e t o them overt he D epart m ent ’ s i ntr anet . ” Id . I n addi t i on, under§ 27. 8 “[t ] he C i tys hal l pr ovi de Pl ai nt i ffs ’ couns el quar t er l yacc es s t o t he C hi ef of Pol i ce. ” Id . a t 3 5 4 . 4 . Co mp l i a n c e M e c h a n i s ms T h e D e c re e a lso e sta b lish e s m e c h a n ism s fo r o v e rse e in g c o m p lian c e w ith ant i di s cr i m i nat i on and otherr equi r ement s . Sect i on 11, w hi ch addr es s es 3w hich shal l be n ew l ycreat ed p osi t i on s.

1 1 . 3 T h e C itysh all ad o p t and im p lem en t po li cies a n d p roc ed u res to a ssu re t hatal l s t ages of the di s ci pl i narypr oces s ar e fr ee f r om r aci al and or genderdi s cr i m i nat i on, i ncl udi ng: a. t he i ni t i at i on of a di s ci pl i naryi nves t i gat i on; b. t he d eci si on t o b ri ng dis ci pli narycharges; c. t he r es ol ut i on of a di s ci pl i naryact i on; and d. t he puni s hm entgi ven t o an off i cerfound t o have vi ol at ed a D e p a r t m e n tr e g u l a t i o n /p o l i c y. 1 1 . 5 T h e initi ati o n o f a d isci p li n aryac ti o n , a d ec isi o n to b ri n g d isci p li n ary char ges , oranyot herdeci s i on t o di s ci pl i ne an e m pl oy ee of the D epart m enti s nots uffi ci ent , byi t s el f, t o evi dence di s cr i m i nat i on ( i ncl udi ng butnotl i m i t ed t o r aci al orgenderdi s cr i m i nat i on) , w i thout t he pr es ence of otheri ndi ci a of s uch di s cr i m i nat i on. R . V ol . I I I at336–37. -9- d i s c i p l i n e wi t h i n t h e T P D, r e o r g a n i z e s th e I n t e rn a l Affa i r s S e c t i o n i n t o two s quads : t he I nves t i gat i ons Squad, char ged w i th i nves t i gat i ng compl ai nt s , and the A udi tand I ns pect i ons Squad, w hi ch mustens ur e thatthe TP D i s “oper at i ng cons i s t ent [l y ] w i t h t he D epart m ent ’ s pol i ci es ” by“conduc t [i ng] s uch i nves t i gat i ons and audi t s of the D epart m ent ’ s dat a as nece s s ary . ” Id . a t 3 3 6

– 3 7 . Subse ct i on 11. 3 r equi r es t he C i t yt o “adoptand i m pl ementpol i ci es and pr ocedur es ” t o ens ur e thateverys t age of the di s ci pl i narypr oces s , fr om the i ni t i at i on of an i nves t i gat i on t o t he puni s hm entgi ven t o an off i cer , i s “fr ee f

r om r aci al and orgenderdi s cr i m i nat i on. ” Id . a t 3 3 7 . Sect i on 21 cr eat es a ni ne- m embercomm i t t ee of the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ct C our tfort he N ort hern D i s t r i ctof O kl ahoma nam ed the D i s put e A voi dance andT he fu l l t ext of § 2 2 reads: 4 22. 1 T he pr i m aryobj ect i ve of the C om m i t t ee s hal l be t o col l ectand r evi ew i nform at i on r egar di ng compl i ance fr om t he I ndepende nt A u d ito r a n d th e C itya n d th e n p ro v id e th e P a rties a n o p p o rtu n ityto d isc u ss iss u e s c o n c e rn in g th e re q u ire m e n ts o f th is D e c re e , as sis t in re so lu tio n o f

iss u e s re lev a n t to th is D e c re e , an d a ss ist th e P a rties in a v o id in g f

u tu re lit ig a tio n o v e r th e se m a tters . T h e C o m m itt e e sh a ll h a v e o n lyth e d u ties , res p o n sib ili ties , an d a u th o rityc o n fe rre d b yth is D e c re e . T h e C o m m itt e e is n o t au th o riz e d to m a k e p o licya n d sh a ll n o t issu e o rd e rs o r d ire c tio n s to a n yP a rtyo r a n ya g e n t, repr esent at i ve o r em ploy ee of t he C i ty . T his C om m i t t ee shal l assi st t he Part i es i n m aki ng t he cha nges and r es ol vi ng i s s ues r el at ed t o t he p o licie s a n d p ra c tice s re q u ire d b yth is D e c re e . W h e n c a lled u p o n to do s o, t he C om m i t t ee s hal l addr es s di s put es overcompl i ance act i ng as an al t ernat i ve di s put e r es ol ut i on t ool pur s uantt o the l ocal rul es of t he U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC ourtfort he N orthern D i s tr i ctof O k lah o m a . C o m m itt e e m e m b e rs s h a ll b e re q u ire d to p a rticip a te in pr ocee di ngs of the C om m i t t ee i n good fai th, openl ydi s cus s i ng i s s ues a n d se e k in g w a y s in w h ich a n yd iffe re n c e s c a n b e re so lv e d . A ll pr oces s es of the C om m i t t ee s hal l be non- bi ndi ng and notbas ed upon vo t i ng m aj ori t i es. -10- R es ol ut i on C om m i t t ee ( D i s put e R es ol ut i on C om m i t t ee) . T he mem ber s ar e t o be t h r e e c i t i z e n s p r o p o s e d b yt h e p a r t i e s a n d s e l e c t e d b yth e d i s tr i c tc o u r t , two m ember s s el ect ed byt he Pl ai nt i ffs , tw o s eni orm ember s of the TP D s el ect ed by the C ity , an d tw o selec ted b ythe F O P . S ec ti o n 2 2 d esc ri b es th e C o m m ittee’s “pr i m aryobj ect i ve” a s “t o col l ectand r evi ew i nform at i on r egar di ng compl i ance fr om t he I ndepende ntA udi t or[cr eat ed i n § 26] and the C i tyand then pr ovi de the P a rties a n o p p o rtu n ityto d isc u ss iss u e s c o n c e rn in g th e re q u ire m e n ts o f th is D ecr ee, as s i s ti n t he r es ol ut i on of i s s ues r el evantt o thi s D ecr ee, and as s i s tthe P a rt ie s in a v o id in g f

u tu re litig a tio n o v e r th e s e m a tte rs .” Id. at346. Sect i on 23 4R . V ol . I I I at346–47.

T he r el evantpart s of § 26 ar e: 5 2 6 . I NDE P E NDE NT AUDI T OR 26. 1 W i t hi n thi r t y( 30) day s of the entryof thi s D ecr ee, t he C i tyand the Pl ai nt i ffs ’ cl as s s hal l s el ectan I ndepende ntA udi t orforappoi nt m ent b yth e C o u rt, w ith a n yd isp u tes a s to se lec tio n to b e re fe rre d to Set t l ementJ udge Eagan foratt empt ed r es ol ut i on. T he C i tys hal l bear t he cos tof the I ndepende ntA udi t orw hi ch s hal l notexce ed $36, 000 p er a n n u m , w h ich m ayb e inc rea sed o n lyb ya sh o w ing to the C o u rt of cl earand convi nci ng evi dence t hatfai l ur e t o i ncr eas e the per a n n u m c o st w o u ld im p e d e th e a c h iev e m e n t o f th e o bjec tiv e s o f

th is D ecr ee a nd w oul d notvi ol at e the O kl ahoma M uni ci pal B udget A c t. . . . 26. 2 T he I ndepende ntA udi t ors hal l have s eni orm anage m entexper i ence and s uch otherexper i ence as t he C our tfi nds appr opr i at e, butm aynot b e a p r e s e n to rfo r m e re m p l o ye e o rfa m i l y m e m b e ro f t h e C i ty. 26. 3 O nce a ppoi nt ed, t he I ndepende ntA udi t ors hal l be dee m ed an offi cer o f t h e C o u r t . T h e I n d e p e n d e n tA u d i t o ri s n o ta s t a t e o rl o c a l a g e n c y, oran age ntt her eof. T he I ndepende ntA udi t ors hal l notacc ept e m p lo ym e n t o r p ro v id e c o n su lti n g se rv ice s th a t w o u ld p re se n t a confl i ctof i nt er es tw i th the I ndepende ntA udi t or ’ s r es pons i bi l i t i es u n d e r th is D e c re e , inc lu d in g b e in g re tain e d (o n a p a id o r u n p a id -11- gi ves t he C om m i tt ee the author i t yt o actas an adj uncts et t l ementj udge under L ocal R ul e 16. 2 of the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe N or thern D i s tr i ctof O kl ahoma i n anys et t l ementconfe r ence betw een the part i es . I f the Pl ai nt i ffs bel i eve thatt he C i t yhas fai l ed t o ful fi l l anyof i t s obl i gat i ons underthe D ecr ee, § 25. 2 r equi r es t hatt heygi ve w r i t t en not i ce of the al l eged fai l ur e t o the C i tyand th e C o m m itte e 4 5 d a y s b e fo re in itia tin g a n yc o u rt p ro c e e d in g . Sect i on 26 cr eat es an I ndepende ntA udi t or , appoi nt ed byt he courtand pai d

5b asis) byan ycu rren t or fu ture li ti g an t or claim an t, o r suc h li ti g an t’ s orcl ai m ant ’ s att or ney , i n connec t i on w i th a cl ai m ors ui tagai ns tt he C ityo r th e F O P , o r th e ir o ffice rs, a g e n ts o r e m p lo y e e s, o r o n b e h a lf of the C i t yor the F O P , or theiroffi cers , agen t s or em ploy ees. 26. 4 T he I ndepende ntA udi t ors hal l noti s s ue s t at ement s orm ake f i ndi ngs w i t h regard t o an yactor om i ssi on of the C i tyor i t s agents , re p re se n tativ e s o r e m p lo y e e s e x c e p t as re q u ire d b yth e ter m s o f th is D ecr ee, dur i ng a pr ocee di ng i n thi s cas e oras m i ghtotherw i s e be r equi r ed byt he C our t . T he I ndepende ntA udi t orm ayt es t i fyi n an act i on br oughtbyone of the Part i es t o enfor ce thi s D ecr ee r egar di ng anym at t err el at i ng t o the i m pl ement at i on, enfor cementordi s s ol ut i on of the D ecr ee. T he I ndepende ntA udi t ors hal l nott es t i fyi n anyot her lit ig a tio n o r p ro c e e d in g w ith re g a rd to a n ya c t o r o m iss io n o f th e C ity o r a n yo f

its a g e n ts, re p re se n tativ e s o r e m p lo y e e s re late d to th is D ecr ee orr egar di ng anym at t erors ubj ectthatthe I ndepende nt A u d ito r m a yh a v e re c e iv e d k n o w led g e o f a s a re su lt o f

h is o r h e r ro le undert hi s D ecr ee. 2 6 . 5 T h e In d ep en d en t A u d it o r sha ll p erfo rm a re v iew o f th e C ity ’s compl i ance w i t h t he t erm s of thi s D ecr ee a nd s hal l r eportt o the C om m i t t ee thr ee ( 3) t i m es a y earas t o the C i ty ’ s compl i ance . T he C itysh a ll p ro v id e th e In d e p e n d e n t A u d ito r w ith a c c e ss to th e d a ta col l ect ed pur s uantt o t he pr ovi s i ons of Par agr aph 3 of thi s D ecr ee, and anyexi s t i ng compl et ed ana l y s i s ther eof. I n addi t i on, the I ndepende ntA udi t ors hal l have a cce s s t o C i tys t aff r es pons i bl e for c re a tin g o r c o m p ili n g th is d a ta. . . . T h e In d e p e n d e n t A u d ito r sh a ll have a cce s s . . . t o t he r eas on forr ej ect i on of appl i cant s t o the A c a d e m yin o rd e r t o d e te rm in e c o m p lia n c e w ith th is D e c re e . N ot w i t hs t andi ng anyotherpr ovi s i on of thi s D ecr ee, couns el for Pl ai nt i ffs s hal l nothave a cce s s t o s uch r eas on. A nydi s put e over r eques t s foraddi t i onal i nform at i on s hal l be r efe rr ed t o the C om m i t t ee forr es ol ut i on. I f the C om m i t t ee i s unabl e t o r es ol ve anys uch di s put e, t he I ndepende ntA udi t orm ayr eques tthe C our tgr ant appr opr i at e ac ces s t o the r eques t ed document s , dat a, ors t aff. 2 6 .6 T h e In d e p e n d e n t A u d ito r’s ro le is lim ited to c o m p lian c e w ith th is D ecr ee; t he I ndepende ntA udi t ori s nota s ubs t i tut e forI nt ernal -12-A ffa ir s o r c ri m in a l in v e s tig a tio n s .

R . V ol . I I I at348–50. -13- byt he C i t y( no m or e than $36, 000 pery ear , unl es s es s ent i al t o effectuat e the D ecr ee) , w ho “s hal l per form a r evi ew of the C i ty ’ s compl i ance w i th the t erm s of t h[e] D ecr ee a nd s hal l r eportt o t he C om m i t t ee thr ee ( 3) t i m es a y earas t o the C i t y ’ s compl i ance . ” Id. at350. T he C i tyi s t o pr ovi de the I ndepende ntA udi t or w ith n ec essa ryac ce ss to p erso n s an d info rm ati o n . “T h e In d ep en d en t A u d it o r’s ro le is lim ited to c o m p lian c e w ith th [ e ] D e c re e ; th e In d e p e n d e n t A u d ito r is n o t a s ubs t i tut e forI nt ernal A ffa i r s orcr i m i nal i nves t i gat i ons . ” Id .

5. P re- D ecr ee D i s cri m i nat i on

Sect i ons 28 t o 31 of the D ecr ee a ddr es s i ndi vi dual gr i evanc es ar i s i ng fr om pr e- D ecr ee di s cr i m i nat i on. T hos e w i th cl ai m s of r ace di s cr i m i nat i on, r et al i at i on, w r ongful di s char ge, orhar as s m enti n empl oym entt hatar os e befor e A ugus t1, 2 0 0 1 , c o u l d fi l e i n d i s t r i c tc o u r ta s w o rn s t a t e m e n to f t h e i rc l a i m w i th i n 6 0 d a ys of entr yof the D ecr ee ( w hi ch w as on M ay12, 2003) . T hos e found t o have be en w r ongful l ydeni ed a pr om ot i on coul d r ecove ral l avai l abl e Ti t l e V I I r el i ef, fr ont pay , and bac k pay( up t o $200, 000) , butno puni t i ve damages . T hos e w ho es t abl i s hed w r ongful t erm i nat i on befor e A ugus t1, 2001, coul d r ece i ve bac k and f r o n tp a yu p t o $ 1 5 0 , 0 0 0 a n d a l l o th e ra v a i l a b l e Ti t l e VI I r e l i e f. F o ro th e rc l a i ms-14-

that ac cru ed b efo re A u g u st 1, 20 0 1 , claim an ts co u ld rec o v er c o m p en sato ry dam ages (i ncludi ng l ostw ages up t o $ 10 , 00 0). W i th respectt o all cl ai m s, su c c e ss f u l in d iv id u a l cla im a n ts c o u ld re c o v e r a tto rn e yfe e s a n d e x p e n se s u p to $3, 000 and a one - t i m e addi t i onal $10, 000 i n at t or neyfee s and expe ns es for l i t i gat i ng t he s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons , di s cr i m i nat i on i n the pr om ot i on pr oces s , or d is c ri m in a tio n a n d re ta lia tio n in d is c ip lin e .

6. M i s c e l l ane ous U n d e r t h e D e c re e , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt re ta in s ju ri s d ic tio n o f th e a c tio n . Sect i on 32 pr ovi des t hataft erfi ve y ear s t he C i tym aym ove fordi s s ol ut i on of the D e c re e u p o n a s h o w in g th a t it h a s b e e n in s u b s ta n tia l c o m p lia n c e fo r t w o y e a rs . Shoul d t he C i t ym ove fordi s s ol ut i on, t he Pl ai nt i ffs m ayobj ectand pr es ent evidence at a courtheari ng . B oth Part i es agreed t o d efen d the D ecree agai nst t hi r d- par t yat t acks . Fi nal l y , t he D ecr ee s t at es t hatPl ai nt i ffs i nt ended t o m ove for a tto rn e yfe e s . M anyof the D ecr ee’ s pr ovi s i ons w er e expl ai ned i n a N ot i ce of Pr opos ed Set t l ementof C l as s A ct i on, Fai r nes s H ear i ng and R i ghtt o O bj ectt hatt he part i es su b m itt e d to th e c o u rt in D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 2 . T h e p u rp o se o f th e N o tice w a s to i nform cl as s m ember s of the pr ovi s i ons of the pr opos ed D ecr ee, and i tcont ai ned m uch of the l anguage i ncl uded i n the fi nal D ecr ee. A tl eas tone pr ovi s i on i n t he N o tic e d iffe re d f

ro m th e D e c re e . U n d e r t h e h e a d in g “ M o n ito ri n g b yP la in tiffs ,”-15-

t he N ot i ce s t at ed, “The D ecr ee pr ovi des oppor tuni t i es forPl ai nt i ffs t o m oni t or compl i ance byr equi r i ng t he C i t yt o pr ovi de thei rcouns el w i th a numberof document s , r eport s , and dat a. ” R . V ol . I I at175. A l though the fi nal D ecr ee doe s gi ve Pl ai nt i ffs ’ couns el acc es s t o cert ai n document s , i tcont ai ns no us e of the w or d m oni t or . B . P o st-D ec re e E ffor ts P lain tiffs s e e k re im b u rse m e n t fo r th e ir a tto rn e y s’ p o st-D e c re e e ffo rts. It is there fo re e ssen ti al t o d esc ri b e tho se e ffo rt s as b est w e c an o n the re co rd b efo re us. 1 . L etter s to th e C it y T h e re co rd in d icates tha t Plainti ffs’ co u n sel w rote a n u m b er o f lett ers expr es s i ng conce r ns aboutpos s i bl e vi ol at i ons of the D ecr ee. Forexampl e, appar ent l ybetw een Sept ember25, 2003, and M ar ch 24, 2004, t heys ents even l et t er s t o t he C i t yal l egi ng vi ol at i ons of the “a s s i gnm ent s pr ovi s i ons of the C o n se n t D e c re e , w ith re g a rd to [ D e b ra ] D ick e n s a n d [ R o n ] C lar k .” P l.’s R e p lyto R e s p . o f C ity o f T u ls a to N o tic e o f

N o n c o m p lia n c e a t 2 , Joh nson v. C i t y of Tuls a , N o. 94- C - 39- H ( M ) ( N . D . O kl a. M ay28, 2004) . T he r ecor d, how ever , does not cont ai n t hes e l et t er s , s o w e musti nfert hei rcont ent( and henc e the effor t s by P l a i n t i ffs ’ c o u n s e l ) b yd e s c r i p t i o n s o f t h e m i n o th e rd o c u me n t s d i s c u s s e d b e l o w. 2. L et t er t o t he I ndepend ent A udi t or-16-

O n O ctob er 2 9 , 2 0 0 3 , P lai n ti ffs’ co u n sel sen t th e In d ep en d en t A u d it o r a le tte r a lle g in g th a t th e C ity h a d v io la te d c e rt a in p ro v is io n s o f th e D e c re e . A l t hough t he l et t eri s noti n t he r ecor d, i t s cont ent s ar e r efe r ence d i n the A udi t or ’ s r es pons es i n hi s Fi r s tR eportt o the D i s put e R es ol ut i on C om m i t t ee, d a t e d D e c e m b e r1 6 , 2 0 0 3 , a n d h i s S e c o n d R e p o r t , d a t e d A p r i l 2 1 , 2 0 0 4 . We su m m a riz e e a c h a lleg a tio n in th e lette r, as d e sc rib e d b yth e A u d ito r, an d h is r es pons e: (1 ) C o u n se l alle g e d th a t th e C ityh a d v io late d § 5 o f th e D e c re e (re latin g to s peci al t yas s i gnm ent s ) w i t h r es pectt o tw o offi cer s , D ebr a D i ckens ( a named Pl ai nt i ff) and R on C l ark. T he Fi r s tR eportdoes nots peci fyt he cl ai m ed vi ol at i ons and r es ponds onl ybys t at i ng t hatt he Pl ai nt i ffs ’ conce rns and al l egat i ons w oul d be m o re a p p ro p ria telya d d re ss e d to th e In ter n a l A ffa irs S e c tio n a n d th e D isp u te R e so lu tio n C o m m itt e e . T h e A u d ito r a d d e d th a t h e w o u ld c o n sid e r a n yre p o rts is s u e d b yth e s e tw o e n titie s in h is n e x t s ta tu s re p o rt . A ft err evi ew i ng addi t i onal i nform at i on s ubm i t t ed byt he Pl ai nt i ffs and the C i ty , he conc l uded i n hi s Second R epor tt hatt he C i t yw as i n compl i ance w i th r egar d t o O ffi cerD i ckens buthad vi ol at ed § 5. 2 w i t h r egar d t o C orpor al C l ark. T he A udi t ordi d nots peci fyhow t he C i t yhad fa i l ed t o compl yw i t h § 5. 2, butnot ed that“w hen both the D i ckens and C l ark m at t er s occurr ed, t he D ecr ee w as l es s t han a mont h ol d and the C i tyhad not y eti ncorpor at ed the r equi r ed pr ot ect i ons m andat ed byt he D ecr ee. ” I ndep.-17-

A udi t or ’ s Second R eportt o t he D i s put e A voi dance & R es ol ut i on C om m . ( Second R e p o rt ) a t 3

– 4 , id . (A p r. 2 1 , 2 0 0 4 ). ( 2) C ouns el al l eged thatt he C i tyhad vi ol at ed § 5. 6 r equi r ement s r egar di ng vaca ncyannounce m ent s fors peci al tyas s i gnm ent s . T he Fi r s tR eportr es ponded t hatt he C i t yw as i n compl i ance beca us e i tw as i n the pr oces s of conduc t i ng the r equi r ed r evi ew of s uch announc ement s . A ft err ece i vi ng addi t i onal i nform at i on fr om t he C i t y , t he A udi t orconcl uded i n hi s Second R eportt hatt he C i tyw as i n c o m p lia n c e w ith § 5 .6 . ( 3) C ouns el al l eged thatt he C i tyhad notful l ycompl i ed w i th the § 6 m a n d a te to e s ta b lis h a re c ru itin g ta s k fo rc e . T h e F irst R e p o rt fo u n d th e C ityin com pli ance, not i ng t hat Pl ai nti ffs’ concerns r egardi ng com po si t i on of the t ask for ce w er e more pr oper l yaddr es s ed t o the D i s put e R es ol ut i on C om m i t t ee. I n t he A u d ito r’ s S e c o n d R e p o rt h e a g a in fo u n d th e C ity in c o m p lia n c e . (4 ) C o u n se l alle g e d th a t th e C ityh a d fa iled to o ffe r te m p o ra rya ss ig n m e n ts t o t hos e ac cept ed t o t he Tul s a Pol i ce A cade m y , i n vi ol at i on of § 6. B eca us e no t empora r y - as s i gnm entpos i t i ons had y etbecome avai l abl e, t he Fi r s tR eports t at ed t hatt he I ndepende ntA udi t orw as unabl e t o det erm i ne w hethert he C i tyhad compl i ed w i t h t hi s pr ovi s i on. W hen he s ubm i t t ed hi s Second R eport , no t empora r ypos i t i ons had y etbeen i dent i fi ed, s o he s t i l l w as unabl e t o det erm i ne c o m p lia n c e .-18-

(5) C ou nsel al l eged t hat the C i tyhad fai l ed to enfo rce § 9 b ecause

“ ‘i n s u b o rd in a tio n to w a rd s b la c k s u p e rv is o rs h a s b e e n , a n d c o n tin u e s to b e , a s er i ous pr obl em i n t he D epart m ent ’ ” and the depa r t m enthad fa i l ed t o t ake corr ect i ve ac t i on. I ndep. A udi t or ’ s Fi r s tR eportt o the D i s put e A voi dance & R e s o lu tio n C o m m . (F ir s t R e p o rt ) a t 7 n .9 , id . ( D ec. 16, 2003) ( quot i ng one of P l ai nti ffs’ l et t ers t o the I nd ep. A ud i t or ( w hich ar e no ti n the r ecord)) . T he F i rs t R ep o rtresp o n d ed that thes e c o n ce rns s h o u ld b e a d d resse d to the Intern al A ffairs S e c tio n a n d th e D isp u te R e so lu tio n C o m m itt e e , an d th a t th e A u d ito r w o u ld c o n s id e r a n yre p o rt is s u e d b ye ith e r e n tity in h is n e x t s ta tu s re p o rt . T he Second R epor ts t at ed onl yt hat§ 9 “r equi r es no det erm i nat i on fr om t he I ndepende nt A u d ito r.” S e c o n d R e p o rt a t 6 . ( 6) C ouns el al l eged thatt he C i tyhad fa i l ed t o r ecogni ze publ i cl yt he B l ack O ffi cer ’ s C oal i t i on, i n vi ol at i on of § 10. T he Fi r s tR eports t at ed thatal though publ i c r ecogni t i on w oul d be good, i tw as notr equi r ed undert he t erm s of the D ecr ee. T he Second Repor ts t at ed thatt hi s s ect i on r equi r ed no det erm i nat i on f ro m th e In d e p e n d e n t A u d ito r. ( 7) C ouns el al l eged thatt he C i tyhad vi ol at ed the § 11. 3 r equi r ementt hat t he di s ci pl i narypr oces s be fr ee f r om di s cr i m i nat i on. T he Fi r s tR eportr es ponded t hatt hi s conce r n s houl d i ni t i al l ybe addr es s ed t o the I nt ernal A ffa i r s Sect i on and t he D i s put e R es ol ut i on C om m i t t ee. T he Second Repor ts t at ed thataft err evi ew i ng-19-

th e in fo rm a tio n su b m itt e d b yth e C ityin its first P ro g re ss R e p o rt a n d S u p p lem e n t, th e In d e p e n d e n t A u d ito r h a d d e te rm in e d th a t th e C ity h a d c o m p lie d w ith § 1 1 .3 bypr ovi di ng a dr aftdi s ci pl i narypol i cyt o the D i s put e R es ol ut i on C om m i t t ee for its re v ie w . ( 8) C ouns el al l eged thatt he C i tyhad fa i l ed t o s ubm i ta r eportr equi r ed under§ 12 det ai l i ng i t s fi ndi ngs on how curr entoffi cert r ai ni ng s uppor t ed the D ec ree ’s objecti v e o f u n ify ing the T P D an d the c o m m u n ity . T h e F ir st R ep o rt agr eed thatt he C i t yhad fa i l ed t o s ubm i tt he r eport . T he Second Repor tfound the C i t yi n compl i ance beca us e i thad “be gun a r evi ew of A cade m yt r ai ni ng and i ns ervi ce c ur r i cul um , ” Second Repor tat7, t hough i tdi d notm ent i on w hethert he r equi r ed r epor thad bee n pr ovi ded. ( 9) C ouns el al l eged thatt he C i tyhad fa i l ed t o compl yw i th § 17 r egar di ng par t ner s hi p i n pol i ci ng. B o th th e F irst a n d S e c o n d R e p o rts fo u n d th a t th e C ity had compl i ed w i t h t hi s s ect i on beca us e i thad adopt ed and be gun i m pl ement i ng C A L E A st and ards.

3. N ot i ce of

N oncom pl i ance A ft ert he I ndepende ntA udi t or ’ s Second R eporton A pr i l 21, 2004, Pl ai nt i ffs ’ couns el fi l ed i n di s t r i ctcourton M ay10, 2004, a N ot i ce of N o n c o m p lia n c e . T he N ot i ce r eas s er t ed a numberof al l egat i ons i n the O ct ober29, 2003, l et t ert o t he A udi t or , beca us e couns el bel i eved thatt he A udi t orhad i gnor ed-20-

evi dence of vi ol at i ons w hen he found t he C i tyi n s ubs t ant i al compl i ance w i th t he D ecr ee i n hi s Fi r s tand Second Repor t s . T he fol l ow i ng s um m ar i zes the s peci fi cat i ons of noncompl i ance : T he N ot i ce a l l eged s ever al vi ol at i ons w i th r es pectt o C orpor al R on C l ark. T he Second Repor thad found the C i tyi n vi ol at i on of § 5. 2 ( w i thouts peci fy i ng t he natur e of the vi ol at i on) , al t hough i tcomm ent ed thatthe vi ol at i on had occ ur r ed l es s t han a mont h aft ert he effec t i ve dat e of the D ecr ee. T he N ot i ce a l l eged that th e C itya lso (1 ) h a d v io late d § 5 .1 , w h ich re q u ire s th a t all sp e c ialtya ss ig n m e n ts b e m a d e o n th e b a sis o f m e rit an d fitn e ss , b e c a u se it h a d a w a rd e d th e M o to rc y c le Squad C orpor al pos i t i on t o an off i cerw ho w as l es s exper i ence d than C orpor al C l ark, w as i n w or s e phy s i cal condi t i on, and had pe r form ed w or s e on the m ot or cy cl e- r i di ng exam; and ( 2) had vi ol at ed § 5. 4, w hi ch r equi r es thatthe as s i gnm entdeci s i on be made bythe M aj or , beca us e the l es s - qual i fi ed off i cerhad been s el ect ed byt he M ot or cy cl e Squad Ser geantand w as “bas ed i n par tupon an i nform al s ur veyof the ent i r e M ot or cy cl e Squad. ” R . V ol . I V at439. T he N ot i ce di d nots t at e w hetherC orpor al C l ark had fi l ed a gr i evanc e w i th the I nt ernal A ffa irs S e c tio n o r w h e th e r th e m a tter h a d b e e n p re se n ted to th e D isp u te R es ol ut i on C om m i t t ee. T h e N o tic e a lle g e d s im ila r v io la tio n s w ith re s p e c t to O ffic e r D ic k e n s , a nam ed P l ai nti ff. Ital l eged t hat s he h ad b een d enied tw o special tyassi gn m ents ,-21-

o n e as D etec ti v e D ivisi o n Inv esti g ator an d o n e a s T raffic S afetyC o o rdin ator, des pi t e bei ng m or e qual i fi ed than the w hi t e off i cer s w ho r ece i ved the as s i gnm ent s . T he N ot i ce a s s ert ed thatO ffi cerD i ckens w as qual i fi ed fort he D et ect i ve I nves t i gat or pos i t i on beca us e of he r16 y ear s ’ exper i ence as a pol i ce o fficer an d h er p ri o r ex p erien ce as a H it& R u n an d F atali tyInv esti g ator. It cl ai m ed thatt he C i t yhad j us t i fi ed i t s hi r i ng of tw o w hi t e off i cer s fort he D et ect i ve D i vi s i on pos i t i ons aft ert he fa ctbynot i ng thatone w as good ats ervi ng w arr ant s and w as a form eraut o m echa ni c and thatt he otherhad pr i orknow l edge of st reetcri m es. A ccordi ng t o the N oti ce of N on com pli ance, because t hese qual i fi cat i ons w er e notl i s t ed i n the pos t ed j ob not i ces , t he C i tyhad vi ol at ed § 5 .2 , an d b e c a u se th e a p p o in tm e n ts w e re n o t b a se d o n m e rit an d fitn e ss , the C ity had vi ol at ed § 5. 1. T he N ot i ce a l s o al l eged thatdes pi t e havi ng s ubs t ant i al exper i ence di r ect l yr el evantt o t he pos i t i on, O ffi cerD i ckens had bee n pas s ed over fora Tra ffi c Safe t yC oor di nat orpos i t i on thatw as i ns t ead gi ven t o an off i cerw ho had noteven a ppl i ed fort he j ob, i n vi ol at i on of § 5. 5. T he N ot i ce c ont ai ned no i nform at i on aboutw hetherO ffi cerD i ckens had br oughtherconce rns t o the I nt ernal A ffa i r s Sect i on ort he D i s put e R es ol ut i on C om m i t t ee. A n o th e r a lleg e d v io latio n re latin g to O ffice r D ick e n s w a s th e fa ilu re to pr ovi de herw i t h r eques t ed bac k- up s uppor ton s ever al occa s i ons , i n vi ol at i on of § 14, w hi ch r equi r es t hatoffi cer s back otheroffi cer s i n need. M or eover , t he-22-

I nt ernal A ffa i r s Sect i on had al l egedl yr es ponded t o the r eport ed i nci dent s by in v e stig a tin g C a p tain B u sb y , als o a n a m e d P lain tiff, rath e r th a n th e ra d io d is p a tc h e r, a n in c id e n t o f re ta lia tio n in v io la tio n o f § 1 3 . T h e N o tice f

u rth e r c o m p lain e d th a t th e T P D ’s A p ril 2 0 0 4 d e c isio n to tr a n s fe r o ffic e rs f

ro m th e D e te c tiv e D iv is io n b a c k in to th e fie ld h a d v io la te d § 5 .1 of the D ecr ee, w hi ch r equi r es t hatas s i gnm ent s be made on the bas i s of m er i tand fi t nes s . Si xt een offi cer s , fourof w hom w er e bl ack, had bee n tr ans ferr ed outof t he D i vis i on . O f t he fo ur bl ack o ffi cers , three w ere nam ed P l ai nti ffs i n the cl assact i on s ui t . T he C i t yhad gi ven thr ee di ffe r entr eas ons w hythos e part i cul ar offi cer s had been t r ans ferr ed, none of w hi ch r el at ed t o m er i tand fi tnes s . T he N ot i ce a l s o s ugges t ed thatt he tr ans fer s of thes e thr ee offi cer s w er e i n r et al i at i on fo r t h e irro le in th e c la s s a c tio n , in v io la tio n o f § 1 3 . A g a in , the N o tice fa iled to s t at e w hetheranyof thes e conc erns had bee n addr es s ed t o ei thert he I nt ernal A ffa i r s Sect i on ort he D i s put e R es ol ut i on C om m i t t ee. O ffice r M a tt W ick s w a s a lso a lleg e d to h a v e su ffe re d re talia tio n in vi ol at i on of § 13. O ffi cerW i cks had fi l ed i n di s tr i ctcourt , undert he D ecr ee pr ovi s i ons t hatauthor i zed f i l i ng i ndi vi dual cl ai m s , a s t at ementof cl ai m al l egi ng th a t in 1 9 9 8 h e h a d b e e n d e n ied a sp e c ialtya ss ig n m e n t in th e M o u n ted P a tro l U n it b e c a u s e o f

h i s i n v o l v e me n ti n t h e TBOC. T he N ot i ce a l l eged thati n r et al i at i on fort hi s cl ai m , t he C i t yhad begun a di s ci pl i naryi nves t i gat i on of W i cks , char gi ng-23-

t hathi s cl ai m s m ade fal s e al l egat i ons agai ns ta fe l l ow offi cer . W hen W i cks r eques t ed thatt he di s ci pl i naryi nves t i gat i on be hal t ed, Pol i ce Chi ef Been decl i ned, s ay i ng t hatt he D ecr ee r equi r ed thathe compl et e the i nves t i gat i on. T he fi nal vi ol at i on al l eged byt he N ot i ce w as t he appoi nt m entof B ob J acks on, a form erpr es i dentof the FO P, t o the G ang U ni t . A ccor di ng t o the N ot i ce, notonl yw as t he pos i t i on notpos t ed, a vi ol at i on of § 5. 2, butt he as s i gnm entw as notm ade on the bas i s of m er i tand fi tnes s as r equi r ed by§ 5. 1, a n d h e w a s re c ru ite d d ir e c tly fo r t h e p o s itio n , a v io la tio n o f § 5 .5 . In a M a y1 8 , 2 0 0 4 , res p o n se to th e N o tice o f N o n c o m p lian c e , the C ity poi nt ed outt hatt he D ecr ee r equi r ed Pl ai nt i ffs t o s ubm i tanydi s put es t o the D i s put e R es ol ut i on C om m i t t ee be for e i ni t i at i ng a courtpr ocee di ng. Pl ai nt i ffs r epl i ed thatt heyhad pr ovi ded the C i tyw i th r epea t ed not i ce of t he al l eged vi ol at i ons , i ncl udi ng s even l et t er s betw een Sept ember25, 2003, and M ar ch 24, 2004, r egar di ng D i ckens and C l ark, and thatt he C i tyhad mer el ydeni ed thatany vi ol at i ons had occ ur r ed. M or eover , t heys ai d, beca us e the A udi t orhad found the C i t yi n compl i ance w i t h t he D ecr ee, t heyfel tt hatt heyhad t o r es pond t o that fi n d i n g i n s o m e w a y. Pl ai nt i ffs t ook an addi t i onal s t ep w i th r es pectt o one al l eged vi ol at i on of th e D e c re e . O n Ju n e 8 , 2 0 0 4 , the yfiled a m o tio n fo r a p re lim in a ryinju n c tio n to h altretali atoryco n d u ct ag ains t O fficer W icks . O n Ju n e 2 1 the d istri ct co u rt-24-

r e fe r r e d t h i s d i s p u t e t o a n o t h e rj u d g e fo ra s e t t l e me n tc o n fe r e n c e o n J u n e 2 3 . On J une 25 the courtgr ant ed a mot i on t o w i thdr aw Pl ai nt i ffs ’ m ot i on fori nj unct i ve re lief, alth o u g h th e re c o rd d o e s n o t in d ica te th e ter m s o f se ttl e m e n t. T he N ot i ce of

N oncompl i ance w as r efe rr ed t o the D i s put e R es ol ut i on C om m i t t ee byt he di s t r i ctcour ton J une 21, 2004. B efor e the C om m i t t ee a ct ed, t he I ndepende ntA udi t orfi l ed hi s T hi r d R eporton J ul y1, 2004. I tr eci t ed the C i t y ’ s as s er t i ons t hat( 1) t he tr ans fer s outof the D et ect i ve D i vi s i on had notbeen re ta lia to ry, h a d b e e n n e c e s s a ry b e c a u s e m o re o ffic e rs w e re n e e d e d in th e fie ld , h a d b e e n ma d e u n d e rt h e F OP ’ s Co l l e c t i v e Ba r g a i n i n g Ag r e e me n twi th t h e T P D, and had notbeen the s ubj ectof a gr i evanc e orcompl ai ntbyanyof the tr ans ferr ed offi cer s w ho w er e named Pl ai nt i ffs ; ( 2) t he as s i gnm entof B ob J acks on t o the G ang U ni t“‘ w as nota norm al s peci al as s i gnm ent ’ ” buta r es pons e t o an

“ ‘i m m e d ia te n e e d ’ fo r a n o ffic e r w ith a ‘d a ys h if t w e e k e n d s o ff ’ w o rk s c h e d u le ,” and w as a t empora r yas s i gnm entm ade unde rt he C ol l ect i ve B ar gai ni ng A gr eement . I ndep. A udi t or ’ s T hi r d R eportt o the D i s put e A voi dance & R e s o lu tio n C o m m . (T h ir d R e p o rt ) a t 4 n .3 , Joh nson v. C i t y of Tuls a , N o. 94- C - 39- H ( M ) ( J ul y1, 2004) . T he r eportfound thatt he C i tyhad compl i ed w i t h § 5 r egar di ng s peci al t yas s i gnm ent s and § 13’ s pr ohi bi t i on on r et al i at i on, al t hough i t s onl ym ent i on of a r et al i at i on al l egat i on w as t o not e the s et t l ementof t he W i cks cl ai m . I tfur t herfound thatt he C i tyhad compl i ed w i th § 14, r egar di ng-25-

b ac k ing , b ec au se th e C ityh ad o rde red a f u ll inv esti g ati o n into O fficer D icke n s’s compl ai ntt hats he had notr ece i ved bac ki ng. O ver al l , the R eportfound no v io la tio n o f

th e D e c re e . A ta meet i ng on J ul y30, 2004, the D i s put e R es ol ut i on C om m i t t ee de ci ded t hatt he i s s ues i dent i fi ed i n t he N ot i ce of N oncompl i ance s houl d be r efe rr ed t o t he adj uncts et t l ementpr oces s . T he di s tr i ctcourtadopt ed the r ecomm endat i on on A u g u st 1 6 , 2 0 0 4 , refe rrin g th e N o tice ’s a lleg a tio n s re g a rd in g (1 ) th e fa ilu re to se lec t D ick e n s a s a n in v e stig a to r in th e D e tec tiv e D iv isio n ; (2 ) th e fa ilu re to as s i gn C l ark t o t he M ot or cy cl e Squad; ( 3) the r eas s i gnm entof thr ee na m ed Pl ai nt i ffs fr om t he D et ect i ve D i vi s i on t o the fi el d; and ( 4) the as s i gnm entof J acks on t o t he G ang U ni t . T w o w eeks l at eri tent er ed an or ders t at i ng thatthe par t i es had s et t l ed the cl ai m s s etfor th i n the N ot i ce. U nderthe s et t l ementO ffi cer D i ckens w as offe r ed a pos i t i on w i th the D et ect i ve D i vi s i on’ s D i ver s i fi ed C r i m es U ni tand C orpor al C l ark w as as s i gned t o the mot or cy cl e uni t . O ne of the named P lain tiffs p re v io u slytra n sfe rre d f ro m th e D e tec tiv e D iv isio n w a s a llo w e d to r emai n, w hi l e the othert w o named Pl ai nt i ffs w ho had bee n tr ans ferr ed s el ect ed ot heras s i gnm ent s . A l s o, t he TP D agr eed t o dr aftand i m pl ementa new pol i cy c lar if y in g c riter ia fo r tra n sfe rs. P lain tiffs v o lu n tar ilyd ism iss e d th e ir c laim w ith re g a rd to B o b Ja c k so n ’s a ss ig n m e n t to th e G a n g U n it. In re tu rn th e C itya g re e d to “dr aft , enac tand i m pl ementpol i cyl anguage w hi ch cl ar i fi es that , i n the futur e,-26-

w hen a t empora r yori nt er i m as s i gnm enti s m ade t o a pos i t i on w hi ch i s i nt ended t o be a pe r m anentpos i t i on, t he C i tyw i l l announce the perm anentas s i gnm entas o p e n . . . a n d p r o c e e d t o fi l l t h e p o s i t i o n o n th e b a s i s o f me r i ta n d fi tn e s s . ” R. V ol . V I I at929.

4. C apt ai n Poi nde xt e r I nc i de nt A ft ert he A udi t orfi l ed on O ct ober27, 2004, hi s Four th R eport , i n w hi ch he found no i ns t ance s of noncompl i ance , Pl ai nt i ffs ’ couns el fi l ed anotherN ot i ce of N oncompl i ance i n di s t r i ctcour ton N ovember4. I taddr es s ed onl yone cl ai m , an al l eged r et al i at or yand di s cr i m i nat orydi s ci pl i naryact i on agai ns tC apt ai n G r eg Poi ndext er , i n vi ol at i on of §§ 11. 3 and 13 of the D ecr ee. C apt ai n Poi ndext er , an A f ri c a n -A m e ri c a n , h a d a p p lie d to ta k e a p ro m o tio n a l e x a m to b e c o m e a m ajo r. W hen he l earned thata new componenthad bee n added t o the exa m , an or al r es um e, he cr i t i ci zed the i nnovat i on. H e fi ni s hed fourth on the exa m , compl ai ned t o one of the exa m i ner s aboutt he unfa i rnes s of the new exam, and s oughtadvi ce fr om t he exa m i neron how he coul d i m pr ove hi s candi dacy . Pol i ce Chi ef Been l earned of the conve r s at i on and or der ed an i nves t i gat i on i nt o w hetherPoi ndext er had vi ol at ed TP D R ul e 8, w hi ch pr ovi des t hat“‘ [o] ffi cer s and empl oy ees s hal l not comm i tanyactori ndul ge i n anybehavi or , on oroff duty , w hi ch t ends t o br i ng r epr oach ordi s cr edi tupon t he D epart m ent , ’ ” and TPD R ul e 10, w hi ch s t at es t hat “off i cer s m aynotpubl i cl ycr i t i ci ze the TP D i n a ‘ defa m at ory , obs cene , ’ or-27-

‘ unl aw ful ’ m anner . ” Id . at960 ( emphasi s om i t t ed) . A s a r es ul tof the i nves t i gat i on, Poi ndext erw as s us pended for20 day s and demot ed thr ee r anks fr om capt ai n t o offi cer . Pl ai nt i ffs ’ couns el gave the D i s put e R es ol ut i on C o m m itt e e w ritten n o tice o f th e se a lleg a tio n s o n A u g u st 6 , 2 0 0 4 , b u t th e C ity fai l ed t o r es pond w i t hi n t he 45- dayper i od al l ow ed bythe D ecr ee. C ouns el then con t act ed t he C i t y on S eptem ber 22 and 29 , 20 04 , t o d i scuss s et t l em ent of t hese claim s. T h e C ityresp o n d ed : “T h e a cti o n s tak en ag ains t O fficer P o ind ex ter w ere j us t i fi ed, and di d notvi ol at e the C ons entD ecr ee. N othi ng i n the C ons entD ecr ee depr i ves t he C i t yfr om di s ci pl i ni ng m ember s of the D epart m entw ho have vi ol at ed D epart m entpol i ci es and pr ocedur es . ” Id . at988 ( C i ty ’ s R es p. t o Pl s . ’ Sept . 22 L et t er ) . I tdoes notappea rt hatPoi ndext erevers oughtan i nves t i gat i on byt he In te rn a l A ffa ir s S e c tio n . O n J anuary24, 2005, m or e than tw o m onths aft erfi l i ng the N ot i ce, P lai n ti ffs’ co u n sel fil ed a p lead ing that co m b ined a m o ti o n fo r a tem p o rary re stra in in g o rd e r, a m o tio n fo r a p re lim in a ryinju n c tio n , an d a m o tio n to s uppl ementt he not i ce of noncompl i ance . O n J anuary14, 2005, C hi ef Been had n o tifie d P o in d e x ter o f a p re ter m in a tio n h e a rin g a risin g f ro m h is a lleg e d a ttem p t to obt ai n i m pr operr ei m bur s ementof m edi cal expens es t hr ough hi s Fl ex Pl an acc ount , a vi ol at i on of TP D R ul e 6 r equi r i ng offi cer s t o be truthful . T he pl eadi ng c o n ten d e d th a t (1 ) th e in v e stig a tio n in to th e re im b u rse m e n t issu e , co m in g o n ly-28-

s even da y s aft ert he A ugus t6 l et t ert o the D i s put e R es ol ut i on C om m i t t ee a l l egi ng r et al i at i on agai ns tPoi ndext er , w as fur therr et al i at i on, and ( 2) thi s degr ee of d isc ip lin e v io late d th e D e c re e ’s p ro h ib iti o n a g a in st ra c iallym o tiv a ted d isp a ra te di s ci pl i ne bec aus e i tw as har s herthan thatfac ed byw hi t e off i cer s w ho had bee n acc us ed of di s hones tact s . T he pl eadi ng ther efor e s oughtt o enj oi n the p re ter m in a tio n h e a rin g a n d a n ysu b se q u e n t term in a tio n o f O ff ice r P o in d e x ter u n til the d istri ct co u rth ad ruled o n the re tal iat ion v iolati o n s all eg ed in the N o v em b er 4 N o tice o f

N o n c o m p lian c e . T h e p lea d in g s re latin g to P o in d e x ter w e re e v e n tu a lly d ism issed o n F eb rua ry2 8 , 2 0 0 5 , at th e re q u est o f P lai n ti ffs’ co u n sel. T h e re co rd c o n ta in s n o e x p la n a tio n .

5. A tt orn ey -Fee R eq u est At t o r n e yfe e s i n c i v i l - r i g h t s l i t i g a t i o n ma yb e a wa r d e d u n d e r4 2 U. S . C. § 1988( b) , w hi ch s t at es t hata court“i n i t s di s cr et i on, m ayal l ow t he pr evai l i ng par t y , ot hert han the U ni t ed St at es , a r eas onabl e att or ney ’ s fee as partof the cos t s . ” O n February4, 2005, Pl ai nt i ffs ’ couns el fi l ed i n di s tr i ctcourtan amended m ot i on s eeki ng r ei m bur s ementunder§ 1988 foratt orneyfee s and expe ns es in c u rre d in tw o a c tiv iti e s: (1 ) p u rsu it o f th e o rig in a l fe e re q u e st, a n d (2 ) p o stD e c re e m o n ito rin g a n d c o m p lian c e e ffo rts. T h e d istric t co u rt’s a w a rd w ith re s p e c t to th e fir s t a c tiv ity is n o t c h a lle n g e d o n a p p e a l. W i t h r es pectt o t he moni t or i ng and enfor cementact i vi t i es , couns el s ought-29-

appr oxi m at el y$96, 000. A ta M ar ch 1, 2005, hear i ng befor e the magi s tr at e j udge o n the fee req u est, P lai n ti ffs’ l ea d att o rne yL o u is B u ll o ck test ifi ed that h is firm had “most l y. . . been r es pondi ng t o s peci fi c eve nt s w hi ch have been r ai s ed by offi cer s w her e w e bel i eve ther e w as a cl earvi ol at i on of the C ons entD ecr ee” and t hati tw as “cl eart hatt he pl ai nt i ffs have a r ol e” i n m oni t or i ng and enfor ci ng the D ecr ee. A pl ee. Supp. A pp. at135. Pl ai nt i ffs s houl d getatt or neyfee s , he s ai d, beca us e “[ t ] he l aw i n t hi s ci r cui ti s thatpl ai nt i ffs couns el i n cl as s act i ons have a n o b lig a tio n to m o n ito r a n d e n fo rc e ” c o n s e n t d e c re e s . Id. H e c o n ti n u ed , “[ T ]he re’s a c lear leg al ob li g ati o n . . . to resp o n d to the claim s o f in d ividu al class m em b ers w ho w er e tr eat ed i n vi ol at i on of the dec r ee. ” Id. at135–36. W hen as ked w hether th e se in d iv id u a l cla im s re late d to th e o rig in a l d e c re e , h e re p lied , “Y o u ’re o n ly t her e bec aus e y ou w on. ” Id . at 1 3 6 . In re sp o n se to th e C ity ’s a rg u m e n t th a t it w a s in a p p ro p ri a te to s e e k c o m p e n s a tio n fo r r a is in g in d iv id u a l c o m p lia n c e c la im s , M r. B u llo c k tes tifie d th a t “m a n yo f th e th in g s in th e C o n se n t D e c re e . . . are o n ly demonstr at ed . . . i n t he tr eatm entof an i ndi vi dual offi cer . ” Id. at143. H e not ed in p arti cu lar th at retal iat ion an d d iscri m ination in sp ec ial tyassig n m en ts w ere act i ons di r ect ed aga i ns ti ndi vi dual s . I n hi s vi ew the exi s t ence of the I ndepende nt Au d i t o rd i d n o ta l t e rt h i s d u t y , b e c a u s e “ e v e n wh e r e th e r e i s a mo n i t o r i n g o rs o me typ e o f a c o u rt p ro c e ss , . . . p lain tiffs’ c o u n se l w ill c o n tin u e to h a v e th e ir i ndepende ntobl i gat i on t o enfor ce the dec r ee. ” Id. at145. O n cr os s - exami nat i on-30-

he conc eded thathe coul d have ne got i at ed i n the D ecr ee a pr ovi s i on forpaym ent of att or neyfee s i ncurr ed i n m oni t or i ng compl i ance , and thatthe D ecr ee l acke d s uch a pr ovi s i on, buthe r ei t er at ed thateven w i thouti tPl ai nt i ffs had a moni t or i ng r ol e. H e poi nt ed outt hatt her e w as no r eas on forPl ai nt i ffs t o be gi ven copi es of r epor t s and document s i f theyw er e noti n s om e w ayt o be i nvol ved i n m oni t or i ng t he D ecr ee. T he magi s t r at e j udge r ecomm ended thatt he r eques tbe deni ed undert he Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on i n B uckh an no n B oa rd & C are Hom e, Inc. , v. West Vi rgi ni a D epar tm entof Heal th & Hum an R es our ces , 5 3 2 U. S . 5 9 8 ( 2 0 0 1 ) . He s t at ed, “[H ] ow everus eful t he ac t i ons t aken byPl ai nt i ffs ’ couns el i n m oni t or i ng and seeki ng com pli ance w i t h the C on sentD ecree m ayhav e been , si nce those ac ti v it ies d id n o t pro d u ce an o rde r or o ther d ec ree in P lai n ti ff ’s [sic] fa v o r, appl y i ng B uckhannon , t h e Co u r ts e e s t h o s e a c t i v i t i e s a s fa l l i n g o u t s i d e t h e t e r ms o f [ 4 2 U .S .C .] § 1 9 8 8 .” R . V o l. V I a t 6 4 6 . A lth o u g h a c k n o w led g in g th a t th is r es ul tm i ghts eem unfai rbeca us e “the C ons entD ecr ee s etup a pr ocedur e w her eby Pl ai nt i ffs ar e r equi r ed t o pr es entdi s put es conce rni ng compl i ance t o a C om m i t t ee es t abl i s hed byt he D ecr ee, ” the D ecr ee di d not“pl ace Pl ai nt i ffs i n char ge of as s ur i ng compl i ance , ” and “ no pr ovi s i on pr ovi de[d] fort he paym entof anyfee s r el at ed t o Pl ai nt i ffs ’ m oni t or i ng act i vi t i es . ” Id. at647. T he di s tr i ctcourtadopt ed t he magi s t r at e j udge’ s r ecomm endat i on r egar di ng pos t - D ecr ee moni t or i ng and-31-

Pl ai nt i ffs t i m el yappea l ed. I I . DI S CU S S I ON W e r evi ew a di s t r i ctcour t ’ s aw ar d of att orneyfee s foran abus e of di s cr et i on, r evi ew i ng i t s fi ndi ngs of fa ctforcl earerr orand i t s l egal concl us i ons d e n o v o . See Browder v . C i t y of Moab , 4 2 7 F .3 d 7 1 7 , 7 1 9 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). P lai n ti ffs co n tend that u n d er P enn sylvan i a v. D el aw are Valley C i t izens’ C o u n c il f

o r C lea n A ir , 4 7 8 U .S . 5 4 6 (1 9 8 6 ), th e ya re e n tit led to re a so n a b le a tto rn e yfe e s fo r m o n ito rin g th e D e c re e . T h e C ityc o n v in c e d th e d istric t co u rt, and ar gues agai n on appea l , t hatt he Supr eme C our thel d i n B uckhannon , 53 2 U. S. 598, t hatonl yw or k t hatr es ul t s i n a courtor derordecr ee c onvey s “pr evai l i ng party ” st atus for pu rposes of at t orney -fee aw ards und er § 198 8, and t hat because none of the pos t - D ecr ee w or k of Pl ai nt i ffs ’ couns el r es ul t ed i n a courtor deror decr ee, i ti s notcompensa bl e. W e r eac h an i nt erm edi at e pos i t i on. T o expl ai n our con cl usi on w e beg i n w i t h an analy si s of t he leadi ng cases r el i ed o n b yt he p art i es. U n d e r th e tra d iti o n a l “A m e ric a n R u le,” th e “ p re v a ili n g lit ig a n t is o rd in a rily notent i t l ed t o col l ecta r eas onabl e att or ney s ’ fee fr om t he l os er . ” A l yes ka P ipeline S erv . C o . v. Wild ern ess S o c’y , 4 2 1 U. S . 2 4 0 , 2 4 7 ( 1 9 7 5 ) . Bu t4 2 U. S . C. § 1988( b) and otherfee - s hi ft i ng s t atut es overr i de the tr adi t i onal rul e and a u th o riz e a tto rn e yfe e s in c e rta in c irc u m sta n c e s. C o n g re ss e n a c ted § 1 9 8 8 to

“ e n su re e ffe c tiv e a c c e ss to th e ju d icia l p ro c e ss fo r p e rso n s w ith c iv il righ ts-32-

gr i evanc es , ” Hens l ey v. E ckerha rt , 461 U . S. 424, 429 ( 1983) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed), t he rat i on al e being t hat i nd i vidual s ar e m ore l i kelyt o seek redress if th e yh a v e th e p o ss ib ili tyo f re c o v e rin g th e ir a tto rn e yfe e s. C o u rts s h o u ld t her efor e aw ar d fee s t o t he pr evai l i ng partyunder§ 1988 “unl es s s peci al ci r cumst ance s w oul d r enders uch an a w ar d unj us t . ” Id . T he ques t i on w e mustr es ol ve on thi s appea l i s the ext ent , i f any , t o w hi ch pr evai l i ng- par t ys t atus att ache s t o the pos t decr ee e ffort s of couns el fora cl as s of pl ai nt i ffs w ho have obt ai ned a c ons entdecr ee. W e begi n bydi s cus s i ng pr ece dent fr om t he Supr eme C our tand ourci r cui ts ugges t i ng thatpos t decr ee e ffort s m aybe c o m p e n s a b le e v e n in th e a b s e n c e o f a ffir m a tiv e ju d ic ia l r e lie f. A. D elaw ar e Valley T he rel evan tS up rem e C ou rtdecis i on i s D elaw ar e Val l ey . T h e D elaw are V al l eyC i t i zens ’ C ounci l forC l ean A i r( D el aw ar e V al l ey ) had fi l ed s ui tundert he C lea n A ir A c t, 42 U .S .C . § 7 4 1 0 , to c o m p e l th e C o m m o n w e a lth o f P e n n sy lv a n ia to e n a c t a v e h ic le -e m is s io n s re g u la tio n p ro g ra m . See 478 U . S. at549. T he p a rties e n ter e d in to a c o n se n t d e c re e , u n d e r th e ter m s o f w h ich P e n n sy lv a n ia agr eed t o enac tan emi s s i ons pr ogr am for s ever al count i es i n the Pi t t s bur gh and Phi l adel phi a ar eas byA ugus t1, 1980. I n addi t i on, t he Penns y l vani a D epart m ent o f T ra n sp o rta tio n (P e n n D O T ) w o u ld se e k leg isla tio n to e sta b lish p riv a te em issi o n -i n sp ec ti o n fra n ch ises to im p lem en t th e n ew em issi o n s req u ir em en ts. If-33-

th e leg isla tu re d id n o t ap p ro v e th e f ra n c h ise sy ste m , P e n n D O T w a s to p ro m u lg a te re g u la tio n s c e rt if

y in g p ri v a te g a ra g e s to p e rfo rm th e e m is s io n s te s ts . T he pl ai nt i ffs ’ couns el w as qui t e ac t i ve af t erentryof the cons entdecr ee and s oughtat t or neyfee s fort hos e effor t s . A l though the s peci fi c i s s ue befor e the S u p re m e C o u rt w a s w h e th e r a tto rn e ye ffo rts b e fo re a d m in istra tiv e a g e n c ies c o u ld be compens abl e, t he C our t ’ s opi ni on pl ai nl ys i gnal s appr oval of compensa t i on for a ll th e d e sc rib e d e ffo rts b yc o u n se l, so it i s in stru c tiv e to in c lu d e a ra th e r f u ll d e s c ri p tio n . T h e C o u rt d iv id e d th e a c tiv iti e s fo llo w in g e n tryo f th e c o n se n t d e c re e in to ni ne phas es . I n Phas e I D el aw ar e V al l eym oved t o hol d Penns y l vani a i n cont empt beca us e the Penns y l vani a l egi s l atur e had r efus ed t o author i ze the fr anchi s e s y s t em and PennD O T had fa i l ed t o pr om ul gat e the r equi r ed r egul at i ons . B utbefor e the d is tr ic t c o u rt c o u ld ru le o n th e m o tio n , P e n n D O T p u b lis h e d th e re g u la tio n s . See id . at 5 4 9

– 5 0 . T h e d istric t co u rt th e re fo re d id n o t h o ld th e C o m m o n w e a lth in cont empt butor der ed the part i es t o es t abl i s h a r evi s ed s chedul e for im p lem en tat ion o f th e re g u lat ion s. P h ase II co n sist ed o f D elaw are V all ey ’s effor t s t o m oni t orPenns y l vani a’ s per form ance and i t s s ubm i s s i on of comm ent s on t he pr opos ed r egul at i ons . I n Phas e I I I D el aw ar e V al l eyr evi ew ed and appr oved Penns y l vani a’ s r eques tfora t en- m onth ext ens i on of the A ugus t1, 1980, deadl i ne, w hi ch the di s t r i ctcour tgr ant ed. Phas e I V conce rned furthereffor t s r egar di ng-34-

ext ens i ons . B ym ont h s i x of the ext ens i on, Penns y l vani a r eques t ed an a ddi t i onal tw o y e a rs. W h e n th e p a rties w e re u n a b le to re a c h a n a g re e m e n t, P e n n sy lv a n ia as ked the di s t r i ctcourtt o appr ove i t s r eques t . D el aw ar e V al l eyr es ponded by s eeki ng an or derfi ndi ng Penns y l vani a i n cont empt and modi fy i ng the t erm s of the c o n se n t d e c re e . T h e d istric t co u rt h e ld P e n n sy lv a n ia in c o n tem p t, ref u se d to m odi fyt he dec r ee, and deni ed Penns y l vani a’ s r eques t ed ext ens i on, al though a fe w m ont hs l at eri tappr oved a one - y earext ens i on. Penns y l vani a appe al ed both the d istric t co u rt’s fin d in g o f c o n tem p t an d its o n e -y e a r e x ten sio n , an d lo st b o th a p p e a ls . S e e id . at550–51. Phas e V i nvol ved a ba t t l e of w i l l s betw een the fe der al j udi ci aryand the Penns y l vani a l egi s l atur e. T he l egi s l atur e ena ct ed a l aw pr ohi bi t i ng the e x p e n d itu re o f

s ta te f u n d s fo r i m p le m e n ta tio n o f th e e m is s io n s p ro g ra m . S e e id . at551. PennD O T t her efor e ce as ed al l emi s s i ons - pr ogr am act i vi t i es aft er p u b lis h in g fin a l r e g u la tio n s fo r g a ra g e o w n e rs to c o n d u c t e m is s io n s in s p e c tio n s . P en n sy lvan ia th en so u g h t t o stayim p lem en tat ion o f th e d ec ree , an d D elaw are V a lleyso u g h t a fin d in g o f c o n tem p t an d sa n c tio n s. T h e d istric t co u rt h e ld P enn sy l van i a i n co ntem pt, den i ed a st ay , and l i m i t ed the C om m on w eal th’s access t o fed eral fun ds byorderi ng t he U nit ed S t at es Secret aryof T ransport at i on t o cease appr oval of hi ghw aypr oj ect s and gr ant s i n the Pi t t s bur gh and Phi l adel phi a ar eas unl es s t heym etcert ai n cr i t er i a. T he C om m onw eal th’ s appea l of thi s or derw as-35-

d e n ie d . In P h a se V I th e C ityo f P itt sb u rg h a n d se v e ra l leg isla to rs a ttem p ted to in te rv e n e in th e litig a tio n . S e e id . at552. D el aw ar e V al l eys ucce s s ful l yr es i s t ed t hes e att empt s . I n Phas e V I I t he di s tr i ctcourtr evi ew ed s even pr oj ect s thatthe Un i t e d S t a t e s S e c r e t a r yo f T r a n s p o r t a t i o n h a d f

u n d e d a n d fo u n d th a to n l ytwo w e re a llo w a b le u n d e r th e c o u rt’s p rio r o rd e r. In P h a se V III th e P e n n sy lv a n ia l egi s l atur e fi nal l ypas s ed the l egi s l at i on r equi r ed t o i m pl ementthe emi s s i ons pr ogr am and negot i at ed w i t h D el aw ar e V al l eyfora new i m pl ement at i on s chedul e, w hi ch the courtappr oved. I n Phas e I X D el aw ar e V al l eys ucce s s ful l yoppos ed Penns y l vani a’ s effor t s befor e the Envi r onm ent al Pr ot ect i on A gencyt o r educe t he s i ze of t he ar ea i n w hi ch the emi s s i ons pl an w as t o be i m pl ement ed. D el aw ar e V al l eyt hen s oughtatt orneyfee s i thad i ncurr ed s i nce the cons ent decr ee ha d been e nt er ed. M uch of the w or k forw hi ch i ts oughtcompensa t i on inv o lved p o stde cre e li ti g ati o n , b u t i t al so inv o lved w o rk in P h ase s II an d IX befor e s t at e and feder al admi ni s t r at i ve age nci es . T he di s tr i ctcourtaw ar ded fe es fo r t h a t w o rk , a n d th e T h ir d C ir c u it a ffir m e d . Penns y l vani a ar gued befor e the Supr eme C our tthatthe l anguage of the at t or ney - fee pr ovi s i on of the C l ean A i rA ctal l ow ed r ecove ryonl yfor“cos t s of li ti g ati o n , ” a n d that there fo re D elaw are V all ey ’s ad m inistrati v e w o rk in P h ase s II a n d IX w a s n o t c o m p e n s a b le . S e e id . at557–58. T he C our tdi s agr eed, expl ai ni ng-36-

th a t c o u n s e l’ s w o rk in th o s e p h a s e s , a lth o u g h n o t tr a d itio n a l le g a l w o rk , w as as nece s s ar

y t o the at tai nm entof adequat e r el i ef

f orthei rcl i ent as w as al lof

thei rear l i erw ork i n the cour tr oom w hi ch s ecur ed D e la w a r e Va lley ’s in itia l s u c c e s s in o b ta in in gth e c o n s e n t d e c r e e . T h is c a se d id n o t in v o lv e a sin g le to rtio u s a c t b yth e C o m m o n w e a lth t hatr es ul t ed i n a di s cr et e i nj ur yt o D el aw ar e V al l ey , norw as the harm al l eged the ki nd t hatcoul d be r emedi ed bya mer e aw ar d of damages ort he entr yof dec l ar at oryr el i ef. I ns t ead, D el aw ar e V al l ey fi l ed s ui tt o for ce the C om m onw eal th t o compl yw i th i t s obl i gat i ons undert he C l ean A i rA ctt o devel op and i m pl ementan emi s s i ons i ns pect i on and mai nt enanc e pr ogr am cover i ng 10 count i es s ur r oundi ng t w o m aj orm etr opol i t an ar eas . T o thi s end, the cons ent d e c re e p ro v id e d d e taile d in stru c tio n s a s to h o w th e p ro g ra m w a s to be deve l oped and the s peci fi c dat es byw hi ch thes e t as ks w er e t o be a c c o m p lis h e d . P r ot ect i on of

the f ul ls cope of

r el i ef af f or ded by the cons ent decr ee was thus cr uci alt o s af eguar d the i nt er es ts as s er t ed by D elaw ar e Val l ey; and enf or cem entof

the dec r ee, w hetheri n the c o u rtr o o m b e

fo re a ju dg e , o r in fro n t o f a re g u la to ry a g e n cy w ith p o w e r to m o d ify th e su b sta n c e o f th e p ro g ra m o rd e re dby th e c o u rt, i nvolved the t

ype of w ork w hi ch is pr oper l y compens abl e as a cos tof litig a tio n u n d e r§ 3 0 4 . In a c a s e o f th is k in d , m e a su re s n e c e ss a ry to enf or ce the r em edy order ed by the D is tr i ctC our tcannotbe di vor ced f r om the m at t ers upon w hi ch D elaw ar e Val l ey pr evai l ed i n s ecur i ng the cons entdecr ee. Id. at558–59 ( emphasi s added) . T he C our tther efor e hel d thatthe pos t decr ee m oni t or i ng w or k i n eac h phas e w as compensa bl e. A l t hough t he ca s e ar os e underthe C l ean A i rA ct , the C our ts t at ed thatthe A c t’s fe e p ro v isio n w a s in ten d e d to se rv e th e sa m e p u rp o se a s th e fe e p ro v isio n in 42 U . S. C . § 1988— t o encour age pr i vat e ci t i zens t o enfor ce r i ght s cr eat ed under fede r al l aw . T he C our tci t ed w i t h appr oval s ever al § 1988 cas es thathad aw ar ded at t or neyfee s forpos t

j udgm entm oni t or i ng of cons entdecr ees , and s t at ed thatthe-37-

fe e p ro v is io n s o f

th e tw o s ta tu te s s h o u ld b e in te rp re te d in th e s a m e m a n n e r. See id . at559–60. B. Tent h C i r c ui t Pre c e de nt W i t houtr el y i ng on D elaw ar e Val l ey , we h a v e l i k e wi s e h e l d t h a ts o me pos t decr ee moni t or i ng act i vi t ybypl ai nt i ffs ’ couns el i s compensa bl e. I n D ur an v. C arruthers , 885 F. 2d 1492 ( 10t h C i r . 1989) , t he pl ai nt i ff c l as s , i nm at es i n a N ew M exi co peni t ent i ary , had br oughts ui tagai ns ts t at e off i ci al s al l egi ng vi ol at i ons of t hei rci vi l r i ght s . I n 1980 t he part i es ent er ed i nt o a compr ehens i ve cons entdecr ee th a t s e t o u t d e ta ile d ru le s a n d re g u la tio n s g o v e rn in g th e o p e ra tio n o f th e p ri s o n . S e e id . A m o n g o th e r t h in g s th e d e c re e e s ta b lis h e d a n in te rn a l m o n ito ri n g b o d y . B utt he compl i ance m oni t orfi l ed tw o r eport s hi ghl ycr i t i cal of the defendant s and w as fi r ed. T he di s t r i ctcour tt hen appoi nt ed a s peci al m as t ert o m oni t ort he d e fe n d a n ts ’ c o m p lia n c e . S e e id . at1495. T he pl ai nt i ffs al s o m oni t or ed compl i ance and s ever al t i m es s ought c o n tem p t cita tio n s. In a d d iti o n , the yo p p o se d se v e ra l effo rts b yth e d e fe n d a n ts to m o d if yth e d e c re e . See i d. a t 1 4 9 3 . A lth o u g h th e c o n se n t d e c re e re m a in e d in effect , m anyof the pos t decr ee di s agr eement s betw een the pl ai nt i ffs and the d e fe n d a n ts w e re s e ttle d b ym u tu a l a g re e m e n t. S e e id . T he pl ai nt i ffs s oughtat t orneyfee s fort hei rpos t decr ee w or k. I n aw ar di ng at t or neyfee s , t he di s t r i ctcour thel d thatt he pl ai nt i ffs ’ “pos t -j udgm ents ervi ces-38-

nece s s aryt o r eas onabl e moni t or i ng of the cons entdecr ee w er e compens abl e under 42 U . S. C . § 1988. ” Id . T he defendant s chal l enged the fe e aw ar d, ar gui ng that beca us e theyconduct ed thei row n m oni t or i ng and a Spec i al M as t erhad bee n a p p o in ted to e n su re c o m p lian c e , the p lain tiffs’ m o n ito rin g w a s “ e ss e n tially gr atui t ous , s el f- i ni t i at ed and r edundant , as w el l as bei ng unnece s s ary , dupl i cat i ve, and s uper fl uous . ” Id . at1495 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . R ej ect i ng that arg u m en t, w e stated that to h o ld tha t plainti ffs’ m o n it o ri n g w o rk w as u n n ec essa ry “w oul d m ean thatt he pl ai nt i ffs m us tacc eptr eport s of the Speci al M as t erand the d e fe n d a n ts’ o w n c o m p lian c e o ffice r a t fa c e v a lu e a n d th e yw o u ld b e u n a b le to m ake a nyr eal chal l enge . . . t o s uch r eport s . ” Id . W e no t ed thatplai nti ffs’ at t or ney s w er e cha r ged w i t h cont i nui ng dut i es underthe dec r ee; i n par t i cul ar , t hey had the r i ghtt o chal l enge i n cour tanydecl ar at i on of an e m er gencyorany im p le m e n ta tio n o f

th e d e c re e . S e e id . “I n s hor t , the 1980 cons entdecr ee w as onl yt he begi nni ng, and couns el forthe pl ai nt i ffs has a cont i nui ng dutyand r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o m a k e s u r e t h a tt h e d e fe n d a n t s c o m p l y, a n d c o n t i n u e t o c o m p l y, w i t h t he dec r ee. ” Id . See als o D i azv. R om er , 9 6 1 F . 2 d 1 5 0 8 , 1 5 1 1 (10 th C ir . 1992) ( s ubcl as s t hatw as “partof the pr i s onercl as s thatpr evai l ed i n the or i gi nal lit ig a tio n , w h ich sp a w n e d su b se q u e n t stip u latio n s a n d c o n se n t o rd e rs[ ,] . . . d id notl os e thei rpr evai l i ng- par t ys t atus w hen theyw er e named a s ubcl as s . ”) T he defendant s al s o ar gued thatthe pl ai nt i ffs had notpr evai l ed on a mot i on-39-

t o hol d t hem i n cont empt beca us e the pl ai nt i ffs had w i thdr aw n i tunderan a g re e m e n t w ith th e d e fe n d a n ts , a n d th u s s h o u ld n o t g e t fe e s re la te d to th e m o tio n . B u t w e n o ted th a t th is a g re e m e n t als o re q u ire d th e d e fe n d a n ts to w ith d ra w th e ir r eques tt o t he courtt o m odi fyt he dec r ee. C i t i ng Maherv. G agne , 448 U . S. 122 ( 1980) , w e s ai d t hatpl ai nt i ffs w er e a pr evai l i ng partybeca us e “§ 1988 cont empl at es t hatt her e w i l l be an a w ar d of att or ney s ’ fee s and cos t s i f the pl ai nt i ff vi ndi cat es hi s orherr i ght s thr ough s et t l ement . ” Id . a t1 4 9 6 . We affirm ed the di stri ctcou rt ’s aw ard of att orneyfees. W e al s o r ecogni zed a par t y ’ s ongoi ng pr evai l i ng- partys t atus i n the pos t decr ee pha s e i n Jos eph A. v. New Mexi co D epar tm entof Hum an Ser vi ces , 28 F. 3d 1056 ( 10t h C i r . 1994) . T he pl ai nt i ffs , fos t erchi l dr en i n N ew M exi co, had ent er ed i nt o a cons entdecr ee w i th the N ew M exi co D epart m entof H um an Ser vi ces . T he dec r ee s peci fi cal l yauthor i zed a t t or neyfee s fordecr ee- m oni t or i ng w o rk . S e e id . at 1 0 5 8 . T h e d e fe n d a n ts a p p e a led a n a w a rd o n th e g ro u n d th a t it in c lu d e d c o m p e n s a tio n fo r a fa ile d a tte m p t to o b ta in a c o n te m p t o rd e r. S e e id . at 1059. W e s t at ed thatal t hough t he degr ee of s ucce s s w as a cons i der at i on i n the over al l anal y s i s of w hatfee s t o aw ar d, l ack of s ucce s s dur i ng the moni t or i ng phas e di d notdepr i ve them of pre vai l i ng- partys t atus . W e s ai d: “[T] he fa ctthat pl ai nt i ffs ul t i m at el ydi d notpr evai l i n thei reffor t s t o s ecur e a c ont empt or der d[i d] notdi ves tt hem of t hei rs t atus as pr evai l i ng part i es s o l ong as the w or k done-40-

w as nece s s aryt o t he over al l effor t . ” Id. at1060. W e not ed that“i tm aybe that th e lit ig a tio n o f

th e c o n tem p t m o tio n re su lted in a u x ili a ryo r o v e ra ll b e n e fits to pl ai nt i ffs . ” Id . a t 1 0 6 1 . B u t m o re th a n p re v a ilin g -p a rt ys ta tu s w a s n e c e s s a ry to s a n c tio n th e a w a rd . Fees coul d be aw ar ded onl yi f “the effor texpende d w as nece s s aryand the fe es r eques t ed . . . r eas onabl e. ” Id . at1060. B eca us e “[ f] ees ar e compens abl e onl yfor w o rk th a t is u se f

u l an d o f

a typ e o rd in a rilyn e c e ss a ryto se c u re th e fin a l re su lt obt ai ned, ” i d. ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) , on r emand t he di s tr i ctcourtw as t o det erm i ne w hethert he defendant s had i n fac tbeen fai l i ng t o compl yw i th the cons entdecr ee a nd w hethert he pl ai nt i ffs ’ fai l ed mot i on forcont empt had bee n “a nece s s aryr es pons e, ” i d. a t 1 0 6 1 . C. B uckhann on In th e C ity’s v ie w , h o w e v e r, D ur an , Jo s e p h A. , and perhaps even D el aw are Va lley , h a v e b e e n o v e r ru l e d , o ra tl e a s tl i m i t e d , b y B uckhannon , 5 3 2 U .S . 5 9 8 . T he i s s ue befor e the Supr eme C our ti n B uckhannon w as t he meani ng of pr evai l i ng p a rty . B uckhannon ha d br oughts ui tagai ns tt he St at e of W es tV i r gi ni a, s eeki ng decl ar at or yand i nj unct i ve r el i ef, al l egi ng thata s t atut e r equi r i ng thatr es i dent s of boar di ng hom es be ca pabl e of “ s el f- pr es ervat i on” vi ol at ed the Fai rH ous i ng A m e n d m e n ts A c t o f

1 9 8 8 . Id . a t 6 0 0

– 0 1 (i n te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ). W i t hi n a y earof the s ui t ’ s bei ng fi l ed, t he W es tV i r gi ni a l egi s l atur e el i m i nat ed-41-

th e re q u ir e m e n t, a n d th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d is m is s e d th e c a s e a s m o o t. S e e id . a t 6 0 1 . B u c k h a n n o n th e n re q u e ste d a tto rn e yfe e s, a rg u in g th a t itw a s a p re v a ili n g p a rty beca us e i t s l aw s ui thad bee n t he i m petus forthe l egi s l atur e’ s vol unt aryenac t m ent o f th e s ta tu to ry c h a n g e . S e e id . (T h e v iew th a t atto rn e yfe e s a re c o m p e n sa b le in s uch ci r cumst ance s has been c al l ed the “c at al y s ttheory ” of fee s hi ft i ng. ) T he d is tr ic t c o u rt d e n ie d a tto rn e yfe e s , a n d th e F o u rt h C ir c u it a ffir m e d . S e e id . at 6 0 2 . T h e S u p re m e C o u rt a g re e d . It state d , “A d e fe n d a n t’s v o lu n tar yc h a n g e in conduct , al t hough perhaps acc om pl i s hi ng w hatthe pl ai nt i ff s oughtt o achi eve by th e law su it, lac k s th e n e c e ss a ryju d icia l i mpr i m at ur ” to m a k e a p a rt yp re v a ilin g . Id . at605. B eca us e ther e w as no “j udi ci al l ys anct i oned cha nge i n the l egal r el at i ons hi p of the part i es , ” i d. , B u c k h a n n o n h a d n o tb e e n a p r e v a i l i n g p a r ty. T o su p p o rt its v iew th a t B uckhannon pr ecl udes the cl ai m foratt orneyfee s i n t hi s cas e, t he C i t ypoi nt s t o A llia n c e to E n dR e p r e s s io n v . C ity o

f C h ic a g o , 356 F. 3d 767 ( 7t h C i r . 2004) . I n 1981 the A l l i ance pl ai nt i ffs had obt ai ned a c ons ent decr ee thatr es t r i ct ed the ci t y ’ s author i tyt o i nves t i gat e al l eged s ubver s i ve act i vi t i es . T he dec r ee di d notgr antthe pl ai nt i ffs orthei rl aw y er s anym oni t or i ng o r o th e r r e s p o n s ib iliti e s . S e e id . at768. N onethel es s , overa per i od of s even y ear s pl ai nt i ffs had br oughtt w o fai l ed cont empt pr ocee di ngs and a fai l ed op po si t i on t o the ci t y ’s requestt o m od i fythe d ecree, and had eng aged i n “effort s, w h ich a lso b o re n o fru itso fa r as a n y o n e c an say , to m o n it o r th e c ity ’s-42-

compl i ance w i t h the dec r ee— no frui t , thati s , exce ptthe fa i l ed cont empt pr ocee di ngs . ” Id . at769. D es pi t e thi s l ack of s ucce s s the di s tr i ctcour thad aw ar ded pl ai nt i ffs $1 m i l l i on i n at t orneyfee s forthes e moni t or i ng act i vi t i es . T he defe ndant s appea l ed the aw ar d, and the courtof appe al s r ever s ed. T he p l ai nti ffs had argued that theyw ere ent i t l ed to at t orneyfees becau se t he cons entdecr ee made them pre vai l i ng part i es forthe ent i r e l i fe of the dec r ee, w h ich c o n tain e d n o e n d d a te. T h e ya lso a rg u e d th a t th e yw e re “ d u ty -b o u n d to oppos e the modi fi cat i on of the dec r ee, t o m oni t orcompl i ance w i th the dec r ee befo re and afteri tw as m od i fi ed, and t o b ri ng con t em pt pr oceed i ng s agai nst any one w ho t heyt houghtm i ghtbe vi ol at i ng i t . ” Id . T he courtdi s agr eed. T he pl ai nt i ffs had r el i ed on D elaw ar e Val l ey to su p p o rttheir fe e c lai m , b u t th e c o u rt d istin g u ish e d it b e c a u se “ th o se p o stju d g m e n t p ro c e e d in g s w e re a t lea st p a rtly s ucce s s ful , ” w hi l e “[ t ] hes e pl ai nt i ffs ’ pos t j udgm entpr ocee di ngs w er e not . ” Id . R ecogni zi ng t hatot hercourt s had aw ar ded fe es t o pl ai nt i ffs w ho obt ai ned n o p o s td e c re e re lie f, A l l i ance di s t i ngui s hed s om e on the gr ound thatthe cons ent d e c re e h a d sp e c ifica llya u th o riz e d a tto rn e yfe e s fo r p lain tiffs’ p o std e c re e e ffo rts and eve n t hen the pl ai nt i ffs ’ effor t s had atl eas tcontr i but ed t o i nduci ng com pli ance w i t h the decree. T he rem ai ning cases aw ardi ng fees are best e x p lain e d , sa id th e c o u rt, as a d o p tin g th e v iew th a t ca re f u l m o n ito rin g w o u ld det ervi ol at i ons of the dec r ee. B ut“the r at i onal e i s att enuat ed i n a ca s e s uch as-43-

t hi s i n w hi ch s om eone e l s e— notthe pl ai nt i ff— i s the appoi nt ed moni t or . ” Id . at 7 7 1 . An d , mo r e i mp o r t a n t l y , t h a tr a t i o n a l e i s “ i n c o n s i s t e n twi th th e S u p r e me C our t ’ s r ej ect i on i n B uckhannon of the ‘ cat al y s t ’ theoryof fe e- s hi ft i ng. ” Id . T he pl ai nt i ffs ’ fai l ur e t o s ecur e a s ucce s s ful out come i n the pos t j udgm entphas e made th e ire ffo rt s n o n c o m p e n s a b le . S e e id . A l l i ance acknow l edged the vi ew of s om e court s thatcompensa t i on m i ghtbe appr opr i at e i f the fa i l ed effor tw as cons i der ed an offs hootof a s ucce s s ful pendi ng cas e. B uti tr ej ect ed thatvi ew and, i n anyevent , thoughti ti nappl i cabl e on the fact s befo re i t . “[T ]he post j ud gm ent pr oceed i ng s here, com i ng as theydid so m anyy ear s aft ert he cons entdecr ee w enti nt o effect , ar e cl ear l ys epar abl e fr om t he pr ocee di ng t hatl ed up t o t he entryof the dec r ee. ” Id . “W e do notthi nk that ourpl ai nt i ffs w oul d ar gue thati f a mem berof the cl as s w entt o a l aw y erw ho d o e s n o t re p re se n t th e c las s, a n d th a t law y e r filed a m o tio n fo r c o n tem p t o n b e h a lf of hi s cl i entand l os t , t he l aw y erw oul d be ent i t l ed t o a fe e, on the gr ound thatt he cl as s m emberw as a pr evai l i ng partybyvi r tue of the cons entdecr ee. ” Id . a t 7 7 2 . Fi nal l y , t he courtr ej ect ed the not i on thatthe pl ai nt i ffs ’ att or ney s had an ethi cal dut yt o oppos e modi fi cat i on of and moni t orthe dec r ee. N ei therthe or i gi nal nort he modi fi ed dec r ee i m pos ed anydut i es on them. “Theycoul d have w al ked aw ayfr om t he ca s e as s oon as the cons entdecr ee w as appr oved conf i dent t hata compl i ance m achi neryi n w hi ch theyhad bee n gi ven no r ol e had be en-44-

es t abl i s hed. T heyw oul d nothave be en l et t i ng dow n the cl as s had theydone s o. ” Id . A lth o u g h th e c o u rt re c o g n ize d th a t o th e r c o u rts, in c lu d in g th is c o u rt in D ur an , h a d a w a rd e d fe e s to p lain tiffs d e sp ite th e e x iste n c e o f a se p a ra te e n tityto m oni t ordefe ndant s ’ compl i ance w i th a cons entdecr ee, i ts t at ed thatthos e ca s es “do nots ur vi ve B uckhannon . ” Id. D . A n a ly sis W e a r e n o tp e r s u a d e d b y A l l i ance , atl eas tas t hatopi ni on i s i nt erpr et ed by th e C ity . It ca n n o t b e d isp u ted th a t P lain tiffs h a v e b e e n p re v a ili n g p a rties in th is l i t i gat i on. T he Supr eme C our thas hel d thata partyt hatobt ai ns a cons entdecr ee is a p re v a ilin g p a rt y . See Maher , 4 4 8 U .S . a t 1 2 9 . B uckhannon do es not cast d o u b t o n th a t p ro p o s itio n . M o re o v e r, B uckhannon does notpurpor tt o over tur n, o r e v e n lim it, D elaw ar e Val l ey ; the B uckhannon opi ni on does noteven ment i on D elaw ar e Val l ey . I n l i ghtof D elaw ar e Val l ey a n d t h i s c i r c u i t ’ s p r e c e d e n t s , we ca n n o t acc ep t th e p rop o sit ion that att o rne yfe es fo r po stde cre e e ffo rt s are com pen sabl e on l yi f t heyres ulti n a judi ci al l ysanct i on ed ch ang e i n the part i es’ l egal r el at i ons hi p. T he D ecr ee i t s el f w as s uch a c hange, and att orneyfee s in c u rre d fo r re a so n a b le e ffo rts to e n fo rc e th a t ch a n g e — th a t is, p ro tec t th e f ru its of the D ecr ee— ar e compens abl e. O n th e o th e r h a n d , w e a lso d e p a rt f ro m th e P lain tiffs’ v iew . T h e ir v iew is an overbr oad cha r act er i zat i on of w hatcons t i tut es pr ot ect i ng the frui t s of the-45-

decr ee. A l aw y er ’ s w or k s houl d notbe cha r act er i zed a s pr ot ect i ng the frui t s of a decr ee j us tbeca us e i ti s di r ect ed atthe s ame pr obl em t hatthe dec r ee w as di r ect ed at . W hen a de cr ee e s t abl i s hes a part i cul arm echa ni s m foraddr es s i ng the pr obl em th a t m o tiv a ted th e in iti a l law su it, th e “ f ru it o f th e d e c re e ” is a p ro p e rly funct i oni ng m echa ni s m , nott he el i m i nat i on of the pr obl em addr es s ed bythe m echa ni s m . Forexampl e, t he dec r ee i n D elaw ar e Val l ey r equi r ed i m pl ement at i on of an a ut om obi l e- i ns pect i on pr ogr am. So l ong as the pr ogr am i s funct i oni ng pr oper l y , t he pl ai nt i ffs ar e enj oy i ng the “f rui t s ” of the dec r ee. T her e maybe o w n e rs w h o fa il t o b rin g th e ir v e h icle s in fo r in sp e c tio n . B u t atto rn e ye ffo rts to i dent i fyand pur s ue thos e per s ons s houl d notbe compens abl e as l ong as the Co mm o n we a l t h ’ s p r o g r a m i s p e r fo r mi n g th i s t a s k

— s a y , b yr e f u s i n g t o r e n e w a vehi cl e’ s r egi s t r at i on unl es s t he vehi cl e has an i ns pect i on cert i fi cat e. I n other w o rd s, th e ro le o f

th e p lain tiffs’ a tto rn e yin p ro tec tin g th e f ru its o f v icto ryis to e n s u r e t h a tt h e d e c r e e i s b e i n g h o n o r e d , n o tt o e n s u r e th a tth e p r o b l e ms m ot i vat i ng t he dec r ee ha ve bee n el i m i nat ed. T hi s w as cert ai nl yt he ci r cumst ance i n D elaw ar e Val l ey . T he ac t i ons of couns el t hr ough eac h phas e of thatcas e w er e di r ect ed ates t abl i s hi ng and cont i nui ng t he vehi cl e- m oni t or i ng pr ogr am, as r equi r ed bythe dec r ee. T he Supr eme C our tdecl ar ed that“meas ur es nece s s aryt o enfor ce the r emedyor der ed b ythe D istri ct C o u rtca n n o t be d ivo rce d fro m the m att ers u p o n w h ich D elaw areC ert ai n s t at ement s i n D ur an and Jo s e p h A. m i ghtbe r ead t o s uppor tt he 6 “ c a taly st th e o ry ,” a n d w e re c o g n ize th a t su c h a re a d in g is n o lo n g e r d e fe n sib le in l i ghtof B uckhannon . In o u r v ie w , h o w e v e r, D ur an and Jo s e p h A. are m o re pr oper l yr ead t o have pr edi cat ed pos t decr ee a t t or neyfee s on the nec es s i tyof the act i ons t o pr es erve the pl ai nt i ffs ’ pr i ors ucce s s i n achi evi ng a cons entdecr ee, and i n t hi s r es pectt hes e opi ni ons s ur vi ve B uckhannon . See D ur an , 8 8 5 F .2 d a t 1 4 9 6 . (“[T ]he ent ryof the C ou rt ’s j ud gm ent has not t erm i nated the rol e of the plai nti ffs’ couns el . . . . W i t houtdet erm i ned, compet entand dedi cat ed r epr es ent at i on, t he pr ovi s i ons of thi s C ons entD ecr ee mi ghthave ha d l i t t l e pr act i cal s i gni fi canc e for th e c las s m e m b e rs.” (in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d )); Jo s e p h A. , 28 F. 3d at 1059 ( “W hi l e the degr ee of s ucce s s pl ay s a parti n the over al l anal y s i s [of p o stde cre e a tt o rne yfe es], w e thin k a m o re im p o rt an t i n q u iryis w h ethe r th e w o rk d o n e w a s n e c e s s a ry to a c h ie v e th e fin a l r e s u lt.” ). -46- V al l eypr evai l ed i n s ecur i ng t he cons entdecr ee. ” D elaw ar e Val l ey , 478 U . S. at 559. I n D ur an and Jo s e p h A. the p arti cu lar effo rt s b ythe p lai n ti ffs’ att o rne y s are uncl ear , butw e cha r act er i zed them as moni t or i ng per form ance of the dec r ee. 6 O f cour s e, t he dec r ee i t s el f ca n s pel l outw hateffor t s bypl ai nt i ffs ’ couns el a re to b e c o m p e n sa ted . In d e e d , the a m o u n t o f lit ig a tio n o n th e su bjec t su g g e sts t hatexpl i ci tpr ovi s i ons i n cons entdecr ees w oul d be a boon foral l conce rned ( cert ai nl yt he court s ) . B utw hen, as her e, t he mat t erw as notr es ol ved i n the decr ee i t s el f, w e mustappl yt he above gener al pr i nci pl es , as i nform ed by re a s o n a b le in fe re n c e s f ro m th e d e c re e ’s p ro v is io n s . R e so lv in g th e m a tter in th is c a se is n o t an e a sytas k . A s w e p ro c e e d to e x p l a i n , we d o n o tt h i n k t h a tr e s o l u t i o n i s p o s s i b l e o n t h e r e c o r d b e fo r e u s , s o we m us tr ever s e and r emand forfur therpr ocee di ngs . T he di ffi cul tyi n char act er i zi ng t h e e ffo r t s o f

P l a i n t i ffs ’ c o u n s e l a r i s e s f r o m th e De c r e e ’ s i n c l u s i o n o f s o me-47-

pr ovi s i ons t hats ets t andar ds and otherpr ovi s i ons thates t abl i s h enfor cement m e c h a n ism s. T h e sta n d a rd s in c lu d e § 5 , w h ich re q u ire s th a t sp e c ialty as s i gnm ent s “be made on the bas i s of m er i tand fi tnes s ”; § 6, w hi ch r equi r es hi r i ng “on the bas i s of m er i tand fi tnes s ”; § 7, w hi ch r equi r es thatpr om ot i ons l i kew i se be ba sed on m eri tand fi tness; and § 1 3, w hich forbi ds ret al i at i on against any one w ho r ai s es “mat t er s of publ i c conc ern, ” i ncl udi ng compl ai nt s of d isc rim in a tio n . T h e e n fo rc e m e n t m e c h a n ism s in c lu d e c re a tio n o f th e D isp u te R es ol ut i on C om m i t t ee i n § 21, t he cr eat i on of an I ndepende ntA udi t ori n § 26, and the r eor gani zat i on of the I nt ernal A ffa i r s Sect i on i n § 11 t o i ncl ude an In v e s tig a tio n s S q u a d a n d a n A u d it a n d In s p e c tio n s S q u a d . O ne coul d ar gue thata vi ol at i on of anys t andar d orenfor cementpr ovi s i on cons t i tut es a vi ol at i on of the D ecr ee, and thatPl ai nt i ffs ’ couns el s houl d be r ei m bur s ed foral l effor t s t o “enfor ce” the D ecr ee byi dent i fy i ng and corr ect i ng s uch a vi ol at i on. I n ourvi ew , how ever , the D ecr ee i s bes tr ead a s es t abl i s hi ng enfor cementm echa ni s m s t o pr event , det ect , and r emedyvi ol at i ons of the s ta n d a rd s . T h e f

ru it o f th e D e c re e is th e p ro p e r f u n c tio n in g o f

th o s e m e c h a n is m s . A s i n anyl ar ge bur eauc r acy , vi ol at i ons of the s t andar ds w i l l occur ; buti f the enfor cementm echa ni s m s funct i on pr oper l yt o pr event , det ect , and r emedy“Pr oper ” func t i oni ng does notm ean “ per fec t ” func t i oni ng. N o s y s t em 7 w or ks per fec t l y . M i s t akes ar e i nevi t abl e and, i nevi t abl y , s om e i ndi vi dual cas es of m i s t r eatm entw i l l notbe ade quat el yr edr es s ed. O cca s i onal err or s do not nece s s ar i l yes t abl i s h s y s t emi c fa i l ur e ordepr i ve the cl as s of the frui t s of the decr ee. -48- v io latio n s, th e D e c re e is se rv in g its p u rp o se . A f ter a ll, th e sta n d a rd s a re , in 7 i nt entand es s ence , r es t at ement s of the r equi r ement s of ant i di s cr i m i nat i on l aw upon w hi ch the or i gi nal s ui tw as bas ed. T o s ay , forexampl e, t hatpr om ot i on s houl d be bas ed on mer i tand fi t nes s i s t o s ayt hatpr om ot i on s houl d notbe on the b a s is o f ra c e , re lig io n , e tc . T h u s , th e s ta n d a rd s a re n o t th e f ru it o f th e D e c re e . T h e f ru it i s th e e sta b lish m e n t o f th e m e c h a n ism s to e n su re c o m p lian c e w ith ant i di s cr i m i nat i on l aw ; t he purpos e of the pr ovi s i ons s et t i ng s t andar ds i s t o s ett he g o a ls fo r e n fo rc e m e n t m e c h a n ism s a n d th e c riter ia fo r m e a su rin g th e ir per form ance . I f thos e w ho have be en tr eat ed i m pr oper l y— beca us e, forexampl e, t heyar e the s ubj ectof r et al i at i on orbeca us e pr om ot i on w as notbas ed on m er i t

— gener al l yobt ai n r el i ef f r om t he mechani s m s es t abl i s hed byt he D ecr ee, th e n th e m is tr e a te d p e rs o n s h a v e e njo y e d th e f ru it o f th e d e c re e . O ne mi ghtar gue thatanotherfrui tof the D ecr ee i s t o pr ovi de fr ee l egal s e r v i c e s d u r i n g t h e l i fe o f t h e De c r e e t o a n y o n e wh o c l a i ms i nj u ryf r o m a viol at i on of a st and ard setou ti n the D ecree. B ut w e decli ne to i nfer that purpose of the D ecr ee i n t he abs ence of expl i ci tl anguage , part i cul ar l yw hen the D ecr ee se ts a m o d e st u p p e r lim it o n c o m p e n sa tio n o f th e In d e p e n d e n t A u d ito r a n d its-49-

expl i ci tpr ovi s i ons on at t or neyfee s addr es s onl ycl ai m s bas ed on pr e- D ecr ee m i s conduct . A l t hough w e r ej ectthe Seventh C i r cui t ’ s s ugges t i on i n A l l i ance that t he s t r i ctur es of B uckhannon govern al l pos t decr ee e ffort s bythe att orney s w ho o b ta in e d th e d e c re e , s ee Al l i ance , 3 5 6 F . 3 d at 77 1 , w e sh are that co u rt ’s r e l u c t a n c e t o t r e a ta c l a s s - a c t i o n d e c r e e a s a “ g r a v y tr a i n ” th a tp r o v i d e s a t t o rn e ys a “gua r ant eed l i fet i m e i ncome, ” id . a t 7 7 3 . T o c o n sid e r th e m a tter f ro m a so m e w h a t d iffe re n t p e rsp e c tiv e , itis w o rth n o t i n g t h e s p e c i a l s t a tu s o f c l a s s c o u n s e l a n d th e l i m i t s o n th a ts t a tu s . O r d i n a r i l y, a ll m a tte rs re la tin g to th e c la s s a c tio n m u s t b e h a n d le d b yc la s s c o u n s e l. See Fed. R . C iv . P . 2 3 (g ); Mc Ne il v. G u th rie , 94 5 F . 2d 11 63 (10t h C i r. 19 93 ). T he clas s act i on can be unm anage abl e i f the cl as s cannots peak w i th one voi ce. O n the ot herhand, one w ho i s an i nt ended be nefi ci aryof a c ons entdecr ee maypur s ue p e rs o n a l r e lie f

in a n a c tio n to e n fo rc e th e d e c re e . Cf . B e c ke tt v. A ir L in e P ilo ts A ss’n , 995 F. 2d 280 ( D . C . C i r . 1993) ( pi l ot s w ho w er e nonpart i es coul d s eek enfor cementof cl as s - act i on cons entdecr ee t o r ece i ve ful l paym entof m oneydue t h e m) . ( W e n o t e t h a tt h e De c r e e ’ s p r o v i s i o n fo ra t t o rn e yfe e s a r i s i n g f r o m c l a i ms forpr e- D ecr ee di s cr i m i nat i on does notappea rt o r equi r e s uch cl ai m s t o be broug ht onl ybycl ass coun sel . ) A pp l y i ng these prop osi t i on s t o the case befo re us, onl ycl as s couns el s houl d be abl e t o enfor ce the D ecr ee’ s r equi r ement s r egar di ng t he pr operfunct i oni ng of the D ecr ee’ s enfor cementm echa ni s m s . B utan att or ney-50-

r et ai ned bya part i cul aroffi cercoul d s eek r el i ef ba s ed on the TP D ’ s pos t - D ecr ee fai l ur e t o, s ay , pr om ot e hi m bas ed on mer i tand fi tnes s . Such a per s onal att or ney cou l d h ave n o clai m for r ei m bu rs em ent of fees un der the D ecree. W hen cl ass c o u n se l is p e rfo rm in g a tas k th a t ca n b e p e rfo rm e d o n lyb yc las s c o u n se l— nam el y , add res si ng sy st em i c fai l ure of the D ecree’ s enfo rcem ent m echan i sm s— com pen sat i on un der the D ecree m aybe ap propri at e. W hen , ho w ever, cl ass c o u n s e l i s p e r fo r mi n g a t a s k t h a ta n o ffi c e r ’ s p e r s o n a l c o u n s e l c o u l d p e r fo r m, cl as s couns el s houl d be no more ent i t l ed t o fee s underthe D ecr ee than w oul d the p e rs o n a l a tto rn e y . H ow , t hen , t o ch aract eri ze t he effort s byP l ai nti ffs’ counsel, w ho are cl ass cou nsel ? F rom w hat w e can tel l , m uch , or even m ost , of the effo rt s w ere t o assi st var i ous cl i ent s i n pur s ui ng compl ai nt s w i thi n the mechani s m s es t abl i s hed or m o d ified b yth e D e c re e . U til izin g th e D e c re e ’s e n fo rc e m e n t m e c h a n ism s is n o t in itse lf p ro tec tin g th e f

ru its o f th e D e c re e ; ra th e r, itis ta k in g a d v a n tag e (q u ite p ro p e rly ) o f

th e D e c re e . O n th e o th e r h a n d , if P lain tiffs’ c o u n se l ca n p o in t to effor t s des i gned t o ens ur e thatt he I ndepende ntA udi t or , the D i s put e R es ol ut i on C om m i t t ee, or the Int ernal A ffair s Secti on i s properl yperform i ng i t s duti es, com pen sat i on for tho se effort s m aybe ap propri at e. S om e effo rt s byP l ai nti ffs’ couns el m ayi nvol ve el ement s of both ut i l i zi ng the enfor cementm echa ni s m s and ens ur i ng t hei rpr operfunct i oni ng; i n thatevent , apport i onm entof fe es m aybe-51-

cal l ed for . W e l eave t o t he di s t r i ctcour ti n the fi r s ti ns t ance t o det erm i ne w hat p a rt o f th o se e ffo rts w e re in fa c t m o n ito rin g th e e n fo rc e m e n t m e c h a n ism s to ens ur e aga i ns ts y s t emi c fa i l ur es . W e not e, how ever , thati n as s es s i ng w hat compensa t i on i s due form oni t or i ng effor t s , the courtm us tt ake i nt o acc ountthat the D ec ree it self p rov ides fo r ne u tr al m o n it o ri n g b ythe In d ep en d en t A u d it o r; at t or neyeffor t s ar e compens abl e onl yi f theyar e r eas onabl e. M or eover , though couns el ’ s effor t s m aybe compens abl e des pi t e the abs ence of a c our tor der , the e ffo rt m u st s til l b e e ffe c tiv e — fo r e x a m p le, b yc o n v in c in g th e C ityto c o m p ly w i t houtobt ai ni ng a courtor der . I n par t i cul ar , fai l ed effor t s coul d r ar el yj us t i fy at t orneyfees. Fi nal l y , w e obs erve thatourappr oach i s noti ncons i s t entw i th the ethi cal obl i gat i ons i m pos ed on cl as s couns el byouropi ni on i n D ur an , 8 8 5 F .2 d a t 1 4 9 5 . P lain tiffs c o n ten d th a t D ur an r equi r ed thei ratt or ney s t o engage i n the ac t i ons for w hi ch w e w oul d denythem com pens at i on. T heyquot e D ur an forthe pr opos i t i on t hat“couns el fort he pl ai nt i ffs has a cont i nui ng dutyand r es pons i bi l i tyt o m ake s ur e thatt he defendant s compl y , and cont i nue t o compl y , w i th the dec r ee. ” 885 F. 2d at1495. B utt hatdecl ar at i on w as founded on l anguage i n s peci fi c pr ovi s i ons of the cons entdecr ee i n t hatcas e. I n anyevent , ourhol di ng i s notcontr aryt o t he q u o ted p ro p o sitio n . P lain tiffs’ c o u n se l is e n tit led to c o m p e n sa tio n fo r re a so n a b leT here i s consi derabl e un cert ai ntyregar ding t he ethi cal du t i es of clas s 8 c o u n s e l. See N a n c yJ . M o o re , E thi cs Mat t ers , Too: The Signi f i cance of P r o f e s s i o n a lR eg u l a t i o n o f A t t o r n ey Fe e s a n dC o s ts i n Ma s s To r tL i t ig a t i o n —A R es pons e t o Judi th R es ni ck , 14 8 U . P a. L . R ev. 22 09 , 22 21 (2000 ); N ancyJ. M o o re , Who Sh ou ld R egu l ate C l ass A ct i on L awyers? , 744 PL I / L i t701, 704–05, PL I O r derN o. 8588 ( J ul y2006) ( not i ng thatnei thert he M odel C ode of Pr ofes s i onal R es pons i bi l i t ynorthe M odel R ul es of Pr ofes s i onal C onduct s p e c ific a lly a d d re s s e s th e e th ic a l o b lig a tio n s o f c la s s -a c tio n la w y e rs ). -52- effor t s t o pr es erve the frui t s of the dec r ee. 8 I I I . CO NC L US I ON W e R E V E R S E th e d istric t co u rt’s h o ld in g th a t B uckhannon pr ecl udes an a w a rd o f

a tto rn e yfe e s to P lain tiffs fo r th e p o st-D e c re e e ffo rts o f th e ir c o u n se l, and R E M A N D fora det erm i nat i on of w hetherPl ai nt i ffs ar e ent i t l ed t o att orney fe e s fo rt h o s e e ffo r t s , a n d i f s o , t h e a mo u n tt o b e a wa r d e d . We GR ANT P lain tiffs-A p p e llan ts’ U n o p p o se d M o tio n fo r L e a v e o f C o u rt to F ile D o c u m e n ts U n d e r S e a l.05- 5064 Joh nson v. C i t y of Tuls a O’ BRI EN , J . , concurr i ng

I t ake ourdeci s i on t o pr ecl ude att or neyfee s forcl as s couns el t o the ext ent t heyar e i ncurr ed i n dupl i cat i ng, oratt empt i ng t o es t abl i s h an al t ernat i ve t o, t he D ec ree ’s en fo rce m en t m ec h an ism s. F o r ex am p le, a c lai m o f sy stem ic fa il u re b ro u g h t b yc las s c o u n se l m ig h t b e little m o re th a n a th in lyd isg u ise d a ttem p t to h a v e th e d istric t co u rt re v iew a d e c isio n (e v e n a n e rro n e o u s o n e ) re n d e re d in acc or dance w i t h t he D ecr ee’ s enfor cementm echa ni s m s . W i th thatunder s t andi ng, I j oi n t he opi ni on.