Court Opinion

ID: 9493530
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 15:10:44.567463+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:55:53.405410
License: Public Domain

MOORE, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I concur because under our precedents and those of the Supreme Court it is clear that plaintiffs present claims of continuing effects of past discriminatory acts and do not claim discriminatory acts within the statutory time period. Plaintiffs’ complaint consists of claims based entirely on the testing process utilized by the Memphis Police Department to compile an eligibility list for promotion to major. That testing process was complete and the eligibility list issued on May 29, 1996, listing .eligible candidates in order of rank based on the test and assessment process. After that point plaintiffs do not claim that any further discriminatory acts occurred, apart from the Memphis Police Department’s utilization of the eligibility list to promote candidates in their rank order from the list. Plaintiffs do not claim that the promotions from the eligibility list were discriminatory in any way apart from the reliance on the initial allegedly discriminatory testing process. Given these circumstances, our precedents in Anderson v. City of Bristol, 6 F.3d 1168 (6th Cir.1993), and Dixon v. Anderson, 928 F.2d 212 (6th Cir.1991), as well as the Supreme Court’s decisions discussed in the majority opinion, lead inevitably to the conclusion that plain- - tiffs have not satisfied the requirements to show applicability of the continuing violations exception.