Opinion ID: 149872
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The City's Hiring in 2004 and 2005, and the Present Claims

Text: In 2002, OCPD administered a new civil service examination for entry-level firefighter positions. Vivenzio and Wilkinson took the examination, and each scored 95. The maximum possible was 110 points, comprising 100 points for a perfect test score and additional points for the applicant's status as a veteran (five points) or a disabled veteran (10 points). The City hired no firefighters in 2003. In April 2004, the City asked OCPD for a certified list of eligible persons for entry-level firefighter positions, and OCPD provided, from the 2002 examination, a general list and a black list of certified eligible candidates. From these lists, the City in 2004 hired 24 firefighters; 10 were African Americans, nine of whom were selected from the black list; one of the nine had a score of 85. Vivenzio and Wilkinson were not hired; their scores on the civil service examination were higher than the scores of three candidates hired from the black list. In 2005, the City again requested a certified list of eligible candidates from the 2002 examination. After again receiving two lists from OCPD, the City hired a total of 25 firefighters, six of whom were selected from the black list. Vivenzio and Wilkinson were not hired; their civil service test scores were higher than those of at least five candidates hired from the black list. Vivenzio, Wilkinson, and several others commenced the present action in 2005 against the City, Mayor Matthew J. Driscoll, and SFD Chief John T. Cowin (collectively the City defendants), and against OCPD and its Commissioner Elaine L. Walter (collectively the County defendants). Plaintiffs alleged that the City's hiring of black list applicants who scored lower than plaintiffs violated plaintiffs' rights under the Equal Protection Clause, Title VII, § 1981, and state law. They contended that the Consent Decree had expired or should be deemed to have expired because its goals had been met prior to 2004. Plaintiff John A. Finocchio, Jr., asserted, in addition, a claim of age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. (ADEA). Eventually, most of the plaintiffs withdrew or were dismissed from the case, leaving only Vivenzio, Wilkinson, and Finocchio (the remaining plaintiffs). After completion of discovery, Vivenzio and Wilkinson moved for summary judgment in their favor; both groups of defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing all of the claims of the remaining plaintiffs. Defendants, in support of their motions to dismiss, argued, inter alia, (1) that the remaining plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the City's hiring decisions because, principally in light of their test scores, they would not have been hired even had there been no Consent Decree, and (2) that the City's reliance on the Consent Decree constituted a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for its hiring decisions because the goals of the Consent Decree had not been achieved. Vivenzio and Wilkinson, in support of their motion for summary judgment in their favor andjoined by Finocchioin opposition to defendants' motion, cited principally to deposition testimony of SFD Chief Cowin and Mayor Driscoll and to a 2002 letter from Cowin to Driscoll. Cowin had been SFD's first deputy chief from 2000 until he was appointed chief in mid-2001. Cowin testified that he believed the Consent Decree required that at least 25% of each hiring class had to be African American ( see Deposition of John T. Cowin (Cowin Dep.) at 13), or at least that SFD should average 25 percent [African Americans] overall in combined classes, hiring more than 25% African Americans in one year to compensate for hiring fewer than that percentage in a prior year ( id. at 35). He testified that when he was involved in hiring as first deputy chief, he had believed that the goal under the Consent Decree was that African Americans employed by SFD should approximate the [African American] population of the city, not the work force. ( Id. at 40.) Cowin had not been aware that the appropriate frame of reference was the labor force until the present action was commenced and he reviewed the Consent Decree. ( See id. at 41.) Since gaining that awareness, he had not sought to learn the percentage of African Americans in the City's labor pool. ( See id.; id. at 38 (as chief, Cowin had not ever ... made an effort to determine what the labor pool was for black males in the City of Syracuse).) And aside from hearing a statement by a City attorney on the day before his deposition, Cowin was not aware of any effort by the mayor's office or any other City office to ascertain the percentage of African Americans in the City's labor pool. ( See id. at 43-44.) Driscoll, who had been the City's mayor since July 2001, testified that he had never reviewed the Consent Decree (Deposition of Matthew J. Driscoll at 4, 15), was not familiar with its specific goals ( see id. at 16), and did not know the current racial makeup of the fire department ( see id. ). He testified that his goal was [t]o have a fire department that reflects the diversity of the City in which we serve. ( Id. ) Vivenzio and Wilkinson also presented a letter from Chief Cowin to Mayor Driscoll dated May 17, 2002 (2002 Cowin Letter or Letter), which stated that [a]pproximately 15% of the sworn members of the Syracuse Fire Department are black males. We have met and exceeded the goals of the consent decree in every way.