Case: Mendoza v. City of Miami Civil Service Board

1:72-cv-01264 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida

Filed Date: Aug. 10, 1972

Closed Date: 1973

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

In 1972, plaintiff, a resident alien living in the City of Miami, Florida filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, challenging the validity of a Miami civil service rule which prevented the employment of aliens. Plaintiff alleged violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as class certification.On October 24, 1972,…

In 1972, plaintiff, a resident alien living in the City of Miami, Florida filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, challenging the validity of a Miami civil service rule which prevented the employment of aliens. Plaintiff alleged violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as class certification.

On October 24, 1972, the District Court (Judge Atkins) issued an order ruling on various pending motions. Judge Atkins (1) granted class certification, (2) dismissed the municipal entities from the lawsuit; (3) denied the individual defendants' request for a three-judge panel and (4) entered declaratory judgment in favor of plaintiff, finding that the Miami rule was unconstitutional. Mendoza v. City of Miami Civil Service Bd., 1972 WL 273 (Oct. 24, 1972 S.D. Fla.) The defendants appealed.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that the District Court properly found that the civil service rule excluding aliens from employment was unconstitutional, in light of the Supreme Court case. Sugarman v. Douglass, 413 U.S. 634, 93 S.Ct. 2842, 37 L.Ed.2d 853 (1973). The case was remanded for a determination of whether to award of attorney's fees for the prosecution of this appeal. Mendoza v. City of Miami, 483 F.2d 430 (5th Cir. 1973).

Summary Authors

Dan Dalton (11/12/2007)

People


Judge(s)

Goldberg, Irving Loeb (Louisiana)

Roney, Paul Hitch (Florida)

Thornberry, William Homer (Texas)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Carlisle , Russel E. (Florida)

Rothstein, Alan H. (Florida)

Salas, Luis P. (Florida)

Sterbenz, S. R. (Florida)

Tworoger, Kenneth F. (Florida)

Expert/Monitor/Master

Atkins, Carl Clyde (Florida)

Judge(s)

Goldberg, Irving Loeb (Louisiana)

Roney, Paul Hitch (Florida)

Thornberry, William Homer (Texas)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Carlisle , Russel E. (Florida)

Rothstein, Alan H. (Florida)

Salas, Luis P. (Florida)

Sterbenz, S. R. (Florida)

Tworoger, Kenneth F. (Florida)

Expert/Monitor/Master

Atkins, Carl Clyde (Florida)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

1:72-cv-01264

Opinion

1972 WL 273

Oct. 24, 1972

Oct. 24, 1972

Order/Opinion

73-01672

Per Curiam [USCA Opinion]

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

483 F.2d 430

Aug. 14, 1973

Aug. 14, 1973

Order/Opinion

Resources

Docket

Last updated Aug. 12, 2022, 3:05 a.m.

Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.

Case Details

State / Territory: Florida

Case Type(s):

Immigration and/or the Border

Key Dates

Filing Date: Aug. 10, 1972

Closing Date: 1973

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

A class to be all permanent resident aliens residing in the City of Miami who, but for the enforcement of Rule V, Section 3, would otherwise be eligible to compete for employment by the City of Miami.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: No

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

City of Miami Civil Service Board (Miami), City

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Ex Parte Young (Federal) or Bivens

42 U.S.C. § 1981

Constitutional Clause(s):

Equal Protection

Availably Documents:

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Litigation

Issues

General:

Public benefits (includes, e.g., in-state tuition, govt. jobs)

Immigration/Border:

Constitutional rights

Employment