Opinion ID: 169352
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Post-Degree Efforts

Text: 15 Plaintiffs seek reimbursement for their attorneys' post-Degree efforts. It is therefore essential to describe those efforts as best we can on the record before us.
16 The record indicates that Plaintiffs' counsel wrote a number of letters expressing concerns about possible violations of the Decree. For example, apparently between September 25, 2003, and March 24, 2004, they sent seven letters to the City alleging violations of the assignments provisions of the Consent Decree, with regard to [Debra] Dickens and [Ron] Clark. Pl.'s Reply to Resp. of City of Tulsa to Notice of Noncompliance at 2, Johnson v. City of Tulsa, No. 94-C-39-H (M) (N.D.Okla. May 28, 2004). The record, however, does not contain these letters, so we must infer their content (and hence the efforts by Plaintiffs' counsel) by descriptions of them in other documents discussed below.
17 On October 29, 2003, Plaintiffs' counsel sent the Independent Auditor a letter alleging that the City had violated certain provisions of the Decree. Although the letter is not in the record, its contents are referenced in the Auditor's responses in his First Report to the Dispute Resolution Committee, dated December 16, 2003, and his Second Report, dated April 21, 2004. We summarize each allegation in the letter, as described by the Auditor, and his response: 18 (1) Counsel alleged that the City had violated § 5 of the Decree (relating to specialty assignments) with respect to two officers, Debra Dickens (a named Plaintiff) and Ron Clark. The First Report does not specify the claimed violations and responds only by stating that the Plaintiffs' concerns and allegations would be more appropriately addressed to the Internal Affairs Section and the Dispute Resolution Committee. The Auditor added that he would consider any reports issued by these two entities in his next status report. After reviewing additional information submitted by the Plaintiffs and the City, he concluded in his Second Report that the City was in compliance with regard to Officer Dickens but had violated § 5.2 with regard to Corporal Clark. The Auditor did not specify how the City had failed to comply with § 5.2, but noted that when both the Dickens and Clark matters occurred, the Decree was less than a month old and the City had not yet incorporated the required protections mandated by the Decree. Indep. Auditor's Second Report to the Dispute Avoidance & Resolution Comm. (Second Report) at 3-4, id. (Apr. 21, 2004). 19 (2) Counsel alleged that the City had violated § 5.6 requirements regarding vacancy announcements for specialty assignments. The First Report responded that the City was in compliance because it was in the process of conducting the required review of such announcements. After receiving additional information from the City, the Auditor concluded in his Second Report that the City was in compliance with § 5.6. 20 (3) Counsel alleged that the City had not fully complied with the § 6 mandate to establish a recruiting task force. The First Report found the City in compliance, noting that Plaintiffs' concerns regarding composition of the task force were more properly addressed to the Dispute Resolution Committee. In the Auditor's Second Report he again found the City in compliance. 21 (4) Counsel alleged that the City had failed to offer temporary assignments to those accepted to the Tulsa Police Academy, in violation of § 6. Because no temporary-assignment positions had yet become available, the First Report stated that the Independent Auditor was unable to determine whether the City had complied with this provision. When he submitted his Second Report, no temporary positions had yet been identified, so he still was unable to determine compliance. 22 (5) Counsel alleged that the City had failed to enforce § 9 because `insubordination towards black supervisors has been, and continues to be, a serious problem in the Department' and the department had failed to take corrective action. Indep. Auditor's First Report to the Dispute Avoidance & Resolution Comm. (First Report) at 7 n. 9, id. (Dec. 16, 2003) (quoting one of Plaintiffs' letters to the Indep. Auditor (which are not in the record)). The First Report responded that these concerns should be addressed to the Internal Affairs Section and the Dispute Resolution Committee, and that the Auditor would consider any report issued by either entity in his next status report. The Second Report stated only that § 9 requires no determination from the Independent Auditor. Second Report at 6. 23 (6) Counsel alleged that the City had failed to recognize publicly the Black Officer's Coalition, in violation of § 10. The First Report stated that although public recognition would be good, it was not required under the terms of the Decree. The Second Report stated that this section required no determination from the Independent Auditor. 24 (7) Counsel alleged that the City had violated the § 11.3 requirement that the disciplinary process be free from discrimination. The First Report responded that this concern should initially be addressed to the Internal Affairs Section and the Dispute Resolution Committee. The Second Report stated that after reviewing the information submitted by the City in its first Progress Report and Supplement, the Independent Auditor had determined that the City had complied with § 11.3 by providing a draft disciplinary policy to the Dispute Resolution Committee for its review. 25 (8) Counsel alleged that the City had failed to submit a report required under § 12 detailing its findings on how current officer training supported the Decree's objective of unifying the TPD and the community. The First Report agreed that the City had failed to submit the report. The Second Report found the City in compliance because it had begun a review of Academy training and in-service curriculum, Second Report at 7, though it did not mention whether the required report had been provided. 26 (9) Counsel alleged that the City had failed to comply with § 17 regarding partnership in policing. Both the First and Second Reports found that the City had complied with this section because it had adopted and begun implementing CALEA standards.
27 After the Independent Auditor's Second Report on April 21, 2004, Plaintiffs' counsel filed in district court on May 10, 2004, a Notice of Noncompliance. The Notice reasserted a number of allegations in the October 29, 2003, letter to the Auditor, because counsel believed that the Auditor had ignored evidence of violations when he found the City in substantial compliance with the Decree in his First and Second Reports. The following summarizes the specifications of noncompliance: 28 The Notice alleged several violations with respect to Corporal Ron Clark. The Second Report had found the City in violation of § 5.2 (without specifying the nature of the violation), although it commented that the violation had occurred less than a month after the effective date of the Decree. The Notice alleged that the City also (1) had violated § 5.1, which requires that all specialty assignments be made on the basis of merit and fitness, because it had awarded the Motorcycle Squad Corporal position to an officer who was less experienced than Corporal Clark, was in worse physical condition, and had performed worse on the motorcycle-riding exam; and (2) had violated § 5.4, which requires that the assignment decision be made by the Major, because the less-qualified officer had been selected by the Motorcycle Squad Sergeant and was based in part upon an informal survey of the entire Motorcycle Squad. R. Vol. IV at 439. The Notice did not state whether Corporal Clark had filed a grievance with the Internal Affairs Section or whether the matter had been presented to the Dispute Resolution Committee. 29 The Notice alleged similar violations with respect to Officer Dickens, a named Plaintiff. It alleged that she had been denied two specialty assignments, one as Detective Division Investigator and one as Traffic Safety Coordinator, despite being more qualified than the white officers who received the assignments. The Notice asserted that Officer Dickens was qualified for the Detective Investigator position because of her 16 years' experience as a police officer and her prior experience as a Hit & Run and Fatality Investigator. It claimed that the City had justified its hiring of two white officers for the Detective Division positions after the fact by noting that one was good at serving warrants and was a former auto mechanic and that the other had prior knowledge of street crimes. According to the Notice of Noncompliance, because these qualifications were not listed in the posted job notices, the City had violated § 5.2, and because the appointments were not based on merit and fitness, the City had violated § 5.1. The Notice also alleged that despite having substantial experience directly relevant to the position, Officer Dickens had been passed over for a Traffic Safety Coordinator position that was instead given to an officer who had not even applied for the job, in violation of § 5.5. The Notice contained no information about whether Officer Dickens had brought her concerns to the Internal Affairs Section or the Dispute Resolution Committee. 30 Another alleged violation relating to Officer Dickens was the failure to provide her with requested back-up support on several occasions, in violation of § 14, which requires that officers back other officers in need. Moreover, the Internal Affairs Section had allegedly responded to the reported incidents by investigating Captain Busby, also a named Plaintiff, rather than the radio dispatcher, an incident of retaliation in violation of § 13. 31 The Notice further complained that the TPD's April 2004 decision to transfer officers from the Detective Division back into the field had violated § 5.1 of the Decree, which requires that assignments be made on the basis of merit and fitness. Sixteen officers, four of whom were black, had been transferred out of the Division. Of the four black officers, three were named Plaintiffs in the class-action suit. The City had given three different reasons why those particular officers had been transferred, none of which related to merit and fitness. The Notice also suggested that the transfers of these three officers were in retaliation for their role in the class action, in violation of § 13. Again, the Notice failed to state whether any of these concerns had been addressed to either the Internal Affairs Section or the Dispute Resolution Committee. 32 Officer Matt Wicks was also alleged to have suffered retaliation in violation of § 13. Officer Wicks had filed in district court, under the Decree provisions that authorized filing individual claims, a statement of claim alleging that in 1998 he had been denied a specialty assignment in the Mounted Patrol Unit because of his involvement in the TBOC. The Notice alleged that in retaliation for this claim, the City had begun a disciplinary investigation of Wicks, charging that his claims made false allegations against a fellow officer. When Wicks requested that the disciplinary investigation be halted, Police Chief Been declined, saying that the Decree required that he complete the investigation. 33 The final violation alleged by the Notice was the appointment of Bob Jackson, a former president of the FOP, to the Gang Unit. According to the Notice, not only was the position not posted, a violation of § 5.2, but the assignment was not made on the basis of merit and fitness as required by § 5.1, and he was recruited directly for the position, a violation of § 5.5. 34 In a May 18, 2004, response to the Notice of Noncompliance, the City pointed out that the Decree required Plaintiffs to submit any disputes to the Dispute Resolution Committee before initiating a court proceeding. Plaintiffs replied that they had provided the City with repeated notice of the alleged violations, including seven letters between September 25, 2003, and March 24, 2004, regarding Dickens and Clark, and that the City had merely denied that any violations had occurred. Moreover, they said, because the Auditor had found the City in compliance with the Decree, they felt that they had to respond to that finding in some way. 35 Plaintiffs took an additional step with respect to one alleged violation of the Decree. On June 8, 2004, they filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to halt retaliatory conduct against Officer Wicks. On June 21 the district court referred this dispute to another judge for a settlement conference on June 23. On June 25 the court granted a motion to withdraw Plaintiffs' motion for injunctive relief, although the record does not indicate the terms of settlement. 36 The Notice of Noncompliance was referred to the Dispute Resolution Committee by the district court on June 21, 2004. Before the Committee acted, the Independent Auditor filed his Third Report on July 1, 2004. It recited the City's assertions that (1) the transfers out of the Detective Division had not been retaliatory, had been necessary because more officers were needed in the field, had been made under the FOP's Collective Bargaining Agreement with the TPD, and had not been the subject of a grievance or complaint by any of the transferred officers who were named Plaintiffs; (2) the assignment of Bob Jackson to the Gang Unit `was not a normal special assignment' but a response to an `immediate need' for an officer with a `day shift weekends off' work schedule, and was a temporary assignment made under the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Indep. Auditor's Third Report to the Dispute Avoidance & Resolution Comm. (Third Report) at 4 n. 3, Johnson v. City of Tulsa, No. 94-C-39-H (M) (July 1, 2004). The report found that the City had complied with § 5 regarding specialty assignments and § 13's prohibition on retaliation, although its only mention of a retaliation allegation was to note the settlement of the Wicks claim. It further found that the City had complied with § 14, regarding backing, because the City had ordered a full investigation into Officer Dickens's complaint that she had not received backing. Overall, the Report found no violation of the Decree. 37 At a meeting on July 30, 2004, the Dispute Resolution Committee decided that the issues identified in the Notice of Noncompliance should be referred to the adjunct settlement process. The district court adopted the recommendation on August 16, 2004, referring the Notice's allegations regarding (1) the failure to select Dickens as an investigator in the Detective Division; (2) the failure to assign Clark to the Motorcycle Squad; (3) the reassignment of three named Plaintiffs from the Detective Division to the field; and (4) the assignment of Jackson to the Gang Unit. Two weeks later it entered an order stating that the parties had settled the claims set forth in the Notice. Under the settlement Officer Dickens was offered a position with the Detective Division's Diversified Crimes Unit and Corporal Clark was assigned to the motorcycle unit. One of the named Plaintiffs previously transferred from the Detective Division was allowed to remain, while the other two named Plaintiffs who had been transferred selected other assignments. Also, the TPD agreed to draft and implement a new policy clarifying criteria for transfers. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claim with regard to Bob Jackson's assignment to the Gang Unit. In return the City agreed to draft, enact and implement policy language which clarifies that, in the future, when a temporary or interim assignment is made to a position which is intended to be a permanent position, the City will announce the permanent assignment as open ... and proceed to fill the position on the basis of merit and fitness. R. Vol. VII at 929.
38 After the Auditor filed on October 27, 2004, his Fourth Report, in which he found no instances of noncompliance, Plaintiffs' counsel filed another Notice of Noncompliance in district court on November 4. It addressed only one claim, an alleged retaliatory and discriminatory disciplinary action against Captain Greg Poindexter, in violation of §§ 11.3 and 13 of the Decree. Captain Poindexter, an African-American, had applied to take a promotional exam to become a major. When he learned that a new component had been added to the exam, an oral resume, he criticized the innovation. He finished fourth on the exam, complained to one of the examiners about the unfairness of the new exam, and sought advice from the examiner on how he could improve his candidacy. Police Chief Been learned of the conversation and ordered an investigation into whether Poindexter had violated TPD Rule 8, which provides that `[o]fficers and employees shall not commit any act or indulge in any behavior, on or off duty, which tends to bring reproach or discredit upon the Department,' and TPD Rule 10, which states that officers may not publicly criticize the TPD in a `defamatory, obscene,' or `unlawful' manner. Id. at 960 (emphasis omitted). As a result of the investigation, Poindexter was suspended for 20 days and demoted three ranks from captain to officer. Plaintiffs' counsel gave the Dispute Resolution Committee written notice of these allegations on August 6, 2004, but the City failed to respond within the 45-day period allowed by the Decree. Counsel then contacted the City on September 22 and 29, 2004, to discuss settlement of these claims. The City responded: The actions taken against Officer Poindexter were justified, and did not violate the Consent Decree. Nothing in the Consent Decree deprives the City from disciplining members of the Department who have violated Department policies and procedures. Id. at 988 (City's Resp. to Pls.' Sept. 22 Letter). It does not appear that Poindexter ever sought an investigation by the Internal Affairs Section. 39 On January 24, 2005, more than two months after filing the Notice, Plaintiffs' counsel filed a pleading that combined a motion for a temporary restraining order, a motion for a preliminary injunction, and a motion to supplement the notice of noncompliance. On January 14, 2005, Chief Been had notified Poindexter of a pretermination hearing arising from his alleged attempt to obtain improper reimbursement of medical expenses through his Flex Plan account, a violation of TPD Rule 6 requiring officers to be truthful. The pleading contended that (1) the investigation into the reimbursement issue, coming only seven days after the August 6 letter to the Dispute Resolution Committee alleging retaliation against Poindexter, was further retaliation, and (2) this degree of discipline violated the Decree's prohibition against racially motivated disparate discipline because it was harsher than that faced by white officers who had been accused of dishonest acts. The pleading therefore sought to enjoin the pretermination hearing and any subsequent termination of Officer Poindexter until the district court had ruled on the retaliation violations alleged in the November 4 Notice of Noncompliance. The pleadings relating to Poindexter were eventually dismissed on February 28, 2005, at the request of Plaintiffs' counsel. The record contains no explanation.
40 Attorney fees in civil-rights litigation may be awarded under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b), which states that a court in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs. On February 4, 2005, Plaintiffs' counsel filed in district court an amended motion seeking reimbursement under § 1988 for attorney fees and expenses incurred in two activities: (1) pursuit of the original fee request, and (2) post-Degree monitoring and compliance efforts. The district court's award with respect to the first activity is not challenged on appeal. 41 With respect to the monitoring and enforcement activities, counsel sought approximately $96,000. At a March 1, 2005, hearing before the magistrate judge on the fee request, Plaintiffs' lead attorney Louis Bullock testified that his firm had mostly . . . been responding to specific events which have been raised by officers where we believe there was a clear violation of the Consent Decree and that it was clear that the plaintiffs have a role in monitoring and enforcing the Decree. Aplee. Supp. App. at 135. Plaintiffs should get attorney fees, he said, because [t]he law in this circuit is that plaintiffs counsel in class actions have an obligation to monitor and enforce consent decrees. Id. He continued, [T]here's a clear legal obligation . . . to respond to the claims of individual class members who were treated in violation of the decree. Id. at 135-36. When asked whether these individual claims related to the original decree, he replied, You're only there because you won. Id. at 136. In response to the City's argument that it was inappropriate to seek compensation for raising individual compliance claims, Mr. Bullock testified that many of the things in the Consent Decree . . . are only demonstrated . . . in the treatment of an individual officer. Id. at 143. He noted in particular that retaliation and discrimination in specialty assignments were actions directed against individuals. In his view the existence of the Independent Auditor did not alter this duty, because even where there is a monitoring or some type of a court process, . . . plaintiffs' counsel will continue to have their independent obligation to enforce the decree. Id. at 145. On cross-examination he conceded that he could have negotiated in the Decree a provision for payment of attorney fees incurred in monitoring compliance, and that the Decree lacked such a provision, but he reiterated that even without it Plaintiffs had a monitoring role. He pointed out that there was no reason for Plaintiffs to be given copies of reports and documents if they were not in some way to be involved in monitoring the Decree. 42 The magistrate judge recommended that the request be denied under the Supreme Court's decision in Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc., v. West Virginia Department of Health & Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598, 121 S.Ct. 1835, 149 L.Ed.2d 855 (2001). He stated, [H]owever useful the actions taken by Plaintiffs' counsel in monitoring and seeking compliance with the Consent Decree may have been, since those activities did not produce an order or other decree in Plaintiff's [sic] favor, applying Buckhannon, the Court sees those activities as falling outside the terms of [42 U.S.C.] § 1988. R. Vol. VI at 646. Although acknowledging that this result might seem unfair because the Consent Decree set up a procedure whereby Plaintiffs are required to present disputes concerning compliance to a Committee established by the Decree, the Decree did not place Plaintiffs in charge of assuring compliance, and no provision provide[d] for the payment of any fees related to Plaintiffs' monitoring activities. Id. at 647, 121 S.Ct. 1835. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation regarding post-Degree monitoring and Plaintiffs timely appealed.