Court Opinion

ID: 9662518
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:11:51.773734+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:57.626683
License: Public Domain

JOHNSTONE, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent because the majority opinion is based on a factual premise that has absolutely no evidentiary support. The majority opinion states that it “is undisputed that the purpose in amending Regulation 7.2(3) was to substitute ‘banding’ for the ‘rule of three’ in order to end the manifest imbalance in the number of women and racial minorities in the ranks of sergeant, lieutenant and captain and to facilitate the promotion of these historically underrepresented classes.” Slip op. at 593 (emphasis added). The first part of this statement presupposes the existence of “manifest imbalance” in the number of women and minorities holding the rank of sergeant and above. But the record is completely devoid of proof that there existed any imbalance in the number of minorities in general, or African-Americans in particular, holding the rank of lieutenant at the time that the promotions in question were made. Such proof was absolutely necessary to defend the decision made by Chief Jones to promote two candidates to the rank of lieutenant solely on the basis of race.
“Racial discrimination even of the ‘affirmative action’ sort, when practiced by a public agency and thus subject to the equal protection clause, requires proof, and not merely argument, that the agency had a compelling need to discriminate .... ” Reynolds v. City of Chicago, 296 F.3d 524, 526 (7th Cir.2002) (citing cases). The only proof in the record that there was compelling need to discriminate on the basis of race in this case is Chief Jones’s testimony that, during his first three-and-a-half years as chief, he had not been presented with any African-American candidates for promotion out of thirty-five names presented to him for promotion. This 0 for 35 testimony was apropos of nothing in connection with the existence of manifest racial imbalance within the ranks of the JCPD.
Where a job requires special training, such as a police lieutenant, proof of the existence of manifest imbalance requires a *596comparison “with those in the labor force who possess the relevant qualifications.” Johnson v. Transportation Agency, Santa Clara County, Calif., 480 U.S. 616, 632, 107 S.Ct. 1442, 1452, 94 L.Ed.2d 615, 631 (1987). In this case, the proof showed that the JCPD promoted its lieutenants from the ranks of sergeants within the JCPD. Thus, the ranks of sergeants and lieutenants are the labor pools that need to be compared in order to determine whether there was a manifest imbalance in the number of African-American lieutenants. In other words, an imbalance in the number of African-Americans must be established by statistical proof that the number of African-American sergeants is disproportionately greater than the number of African-American lieutenants. See Boston Police Superior Officers Fed’n v. City of Boston, 147 F.3d 13, 21 (1st Cir.1998) (concluding that the lingering effects of historical discrimination in the Boston Police Department were established in part by statistical proof of a racial imbalance between the ranks of lieutenants, of which roughly 6 percent were comprised of African-Americans, and sergeants, of which over 17 percent were comprised of African-Americans). There is no proof in this record as to either the number or the percentage of African-American lieutenants and African-American sergeants within the JCPD. There is only the 0 for 35 testimony, which fails even to establish how many candidates for promotion to the rank lieutenant were presented to Chief Jones during the relevant period. For all we know from the record, the promotions at issue in this case represent the first time in Chief Jones’s tenure that he had the opportunity to promote a lieutenant. Thus, in reality, the applicable ratio might well be 2 for 14 — the number of African-American candidates in the 1994 “A Band” relative to the total number of candidates for lieutenant in the 1994 “A Band” — rather than 0 for 35.
While there may have been in fact a “manifest imbalance” between the number of African-American lieutenants and the number of African-American sergeants in the JCPD when the promotions at issue in this case were made, the record is silent on the question. Thus, the JCPD utterly failed to meet its burden of showing that there was “strong basis in evidence” that remedial action was necessary, i.e., that the race-based promotion was necessary because there was a manifest racial imbalance in the number of lieutenants in its ranks. See City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469, 500, 109 S.Ct. 706, 724, 102 L.Ed.2d 854, 886 (1989). Therefore, the majority is simply wrong in-affirming Chief Jones’s decision without any evidence to support a conclusion that it was necessary.
Of course, the majority might well respond by arguing that the equal protection analysis of Croson is not applicable here because the obligations of a public employer under the Kentucky Civil Rights Act and the Constitution are not identical. See Johnson, 480 U.S. at 632, 107 S.Ct. at 1452, 94 L.Ed.2d. at 631. (“[W]e do not regard as identical the constraints of Title VII and the Federal Constitution on voluntarily adopted affirmative action plans.”) While I strongly disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the implementation of “banding” constitutes a valid, affirmative action plan in this case, the distinction between Title VII litigation and equal-protection litigation offers no salvation to the majority’s holding.
Under Johnson, while the defendant-employer does not have the burden of proving that its affirmative action is valid (the burden falls on the plaintiffs to prove that the plan is invalid), the defendant-employer still has the burden of showing *597that it was justified in implementing the plan in the first place. Johnson, 480 U.S. at 630, 107 S.Ct. at 1451, 94 L.Ed.2d. at 630. To do this, it must be able to show the existence of a “conspicuous imbalance in traditionally segregated job categories.” Id. Other cases appear to equate “conspicuous imbalance” with a “manifest imbalance.” See, e.g., In re Birmingham Reverse Discrimination Employment Litigation, 20 F.3d 1525, 1537 (11th Cir.1994) (Defendant employer must show that “consideration of the race of promotional candidates was justified by a manifest racial imbalance that reflected under-representation of blacks in traditionally segregated job categories.”) But in this case, there is no proof that any racial imbalance existed in the ranks of the JCPD when the promotions in question were made. And, thus, there is no proof that the JCPD was justified in implementing an affirmative action plan. Nor was the JCPD justified in making a one time, ad hoc decision to promote solely on the basis of race. See Boston Police Superior Officers Fed’n, 147 F.3d at 25 (existing statistical disparity between the number of African-American lieutenants and sergeants coupled with a past history of discrimination provided “a strong basis in evidence” that there was a compelling need to make a one time, ad hoc decision to promote an African-American candidate who would not have been eligible for promotion according to strict rank order). At best, the 0 for 35 testimony is inferential proof of the JCPD’s efforts to maintain the racial balance that had already been achieved under the 1980 consent decree.
As noted in the majority opinion, when the JCPD entered into a consent decree with the United States, minorities comprised only 2.7 percent of the total JCPD force. Slip op. at 586-87. At the expiration of the decree, the numerical goals of the decree had been reached or exceeded and the percentage of minorities on the force had risen to 18 percent. Id. at 587. The decree required not only the hiring of minorities to meet numerical-percentage goals, but also to promote minorities to achieve equivalent numerical-percentage goals in the ranks of sergeant and above. The testimony at trial was that these goals had been met by the time the consent decree expired. Thus, the only conclusion supported by the record in this case is that there was no racial imbalance within the JCPD force or between its ranks when the consent decree expired, which is when the 0 for 35 run of no African-American candidates being forwarded for promotion began. Further, the 0 for 35 testimony, in and of itself, offers no support for the majority opinion’s assertion that banding was introduced to end a manifest racial imbalance in the ranks of sergeant and above within the JCPD, which, presumably, had arisen in the short tune after the expiration of the consent decree.
Again, as noted in the majority opinion, “[bjecause of the seniority factor, it was impossible for minority members hired after 1980 to achieve final evaluated ratings (FERs) competitive with those achieved by majority members who had been in grade for at least five years prior to 1980.” Slip op. at 587. Thus, when the 0 for 35 run began, most, if not all, of the African-Americans holding the rank of sergeant and above had less seniority than whites holding the rank of sergeant and above. And this would be even more true for the African-American lieutenants, who had first to be promoted to sergeant before rising to the rank lieutenant. Thus, the 35 vacancies that led to the 35 promotions during the 0 for 35 run most likely were the result of the retirement of whites, because whites were more likely than blacks to have their retirement benefits fully *598vested during the 0 for 35 period. Therefore, it is at least probable that there was no change in the racial balance of the JCPD during the 0 for 35 run, because during this period white retirees were being replaced by white promotees. This leads back to the conclusion that the race-based promotions were made not to correct any racial imbalance, but rather, only to prevent an imbalance from recurring in the future.
The majority readily embraces this conclusion when it states, “a continuation of that trend [0 for 35] would have ultimately resulted in a misrepresentation of minorities ... in those ranks [sergeant and above] similar to that which existed prior to the consent decree.” Slip op. at 588. But this is fatal to the majority’s conclusion that the banding process constitutes a valid, voluntary affirmative action plan. Maintaining a racial balance is not a proper use of affirmative action. This is made clear in Johnson, which, in large part, upheld as valid the affirmative action plan under consideration in that case because the plan’s goal was to “attain a balanced work force, not to maintain one.” Johnson, 480 U.S. at 639, 107 S.Ct. at 1455, 94 L.Ed.2d at 635 (emphasis in original). As the Johnson Court explained, this “is necessary both to minimize the effect of the program on other employees, and to ensure that the plan’s goals [are] not being used simply to achieve and maintain ... balance, but rather as a benchmark against which the employer may measure its progress in eliminating the underrepre-sentation of minorities and women.” Id. at 640, 107 S.Ct. at 1456, 94 L.Ed.2d. at 636 (internal quotation marks omitted), quoting Sheet Metal Workers’ v. EEOC, 478 U.S. 421, 477-78, 106 S.Ct. 3019, 3051, 92 L.Ed.2d 344, 389. Thus, the majority’s position that banding can be used as a valid, affirmative action tool to maintain a racial balance in the JCPD is without support or precedent. Moreover, it misconceives the purpose served by banding in this case.
The change in promotion procedure in the JCPD from the “rule of three” to the banding process appears to be a permanent rather than a temporary measure. Thus under Johnson, the JCPD’s banding process cannot be maintained as a valid, affirmative action plan because its “goal” of maintaining a balanced work force is not a permissible goal of an affirmative action plan. But this does not mean that banding is an invalid means of promotion. For example, in Bridgeport Guardians, Inc. v. Bridgeport, 933 F.2d 1140 (2nd Cir.1991), court-ordered banding was upheld as a valid means of avoiding a disparate impact on minorities that would have resulted from promoting according to “strict rank order.” Id. at 1149. In Bridgeport, banding was ordered by the district court to “enhanc[e] the promotion opportunities of Blacks and Hispanics.” Bridgeport Guardians, Inc. v. Bridgeport, 735 F.Supp. 1126, 1136 (D.Conn.1990). And so too in this case, banding appears to have lessened or removed any disparate impact on minorities seeking promotion within the JCPD by expanding their opportunities to compete for promotions. Removing a disparate impact to increase the opportunity for promotion is very different than the conscious, race-based decision making of affirmative action. The difference between the two is akin to teaching a hungry man to fish and simply giving a fish to him.
The ultimate goal of affirmative action is to create equal opportunity for all without regard to race or gender. Under affirmative action, the means to reach this goal is the deliberate discrimination on the basis of race, which is deemed necessary in order to place minorities in a position where they can compete freely and equally. But the means should endure no longer than *599necessary. The implementation of promotion through banding in this case simply put minorities within the JCPD on a more equal footing with other white officers. Banding created a close enough approximation of equal opportunity to mark the end of any need for further affirmative action. The majority’s holding needlessly and erroneously perpetuates race-based decision making and, in the process, sows the seeds of discontent and litigation.
Based on its conclusion that banding is a valid, affirmative action plan, the majority opinion holds that the promotion of minority candidates under the banding process is direct evidence of discrimination. Slip op. at 591. Because of this holding, any promotion of a minority under the JCPD’s banding process will be subject to legal challenge. Further, the “affirmative action” label taints the achievements of any minority candidate promoted under banding by creating the inference that the promotion was due to the candidate’s minority status rather than based solely on the merits of a candidate’s qualifications. This is legally wrong, and wrong as a matter of policy.
The discrimination in this case had nothing to do with the banding process itself. Rather, the discrimination flows directly from Chief Jones’s testimony that he promoted Dreher and Smith solely on the basis of their race. Because of their race, Dreher and Smith were removed from the roundtable discussion in which Chief Jones met with his staff to discuss the merits of each candidate in order to determine which of the candidates most deserved to be promoted. Dreher’s and Smith’s qualifications were not discussed because Chief Jones had already made the conscious decision to promote them ahead of everyone else because they were the only African-American candidates in the “A Band.” Had Chief Jones treated Dreher and Smith the same as the other candidates in the “A Band” and still promoted them, those promotions should not constitute direct evidence of discrimination as mandated by the majority opinion’s holding. Banding should be and can be used to create equal opportunity for promotion for all JCPD officers. If allowed to undertake this positive role, banding should result in a natural, racial balance without any need to resort to the sort of deliberate, race-based decisions sanctioned by the majority’s holding in this case. But, alas, this is not to be for the majority prefers its result over logic, reason, and precedent.
I have no doubt that Dreher and Smith have many fine qualities and deserved their promotions. It is a shame that Chief Jones singled them out for promotion solely on the basis of their race. It is a disgrace that the majority chooses to sanction Chief Jones’s race-based decision without any evidentiary foundation to support it.
Therefore, I dissent.