Case: United States v. City of Torrance

On July 14th, 1993, the United States Department of Justice ("DOJ") filed an employment discrimination lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the City of Torrance. We don't have the complaint, but the lawsuit seems to have alleged discrimination under three different theories: disparate treatment (apparently relating to background checks); disparate impact (claiming that Torrance used employment tests that had the effect of discriminating against blacks, Hispanics, and Asians seeking to become police officers and firefighters) and hostile working environment.

After numerous discovery disputes, see 163 F.R.D. 590, (Jul. 25, 1995); 164 F.R.D. 493 (Jul. 25, 1995), Torrance moved to dismiss at least the disparate impact claim (and possibly the suit--it's difficult to tell without more documentation) on the grounds that the United States had failed to demonstrate a prima facie case--that is, that it failed to show disparate impact. The district court denied the motion, explaining that since the case "was not a jury trial," it "thought it advisable to hear all of the evidence before resolving a matter involving such serious allegations." The case proceeded to trial. It seems that some small portion of the matter may have settled, but on December 9th, 1996, the Court (Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer) issued a judgment for the defendant on the remainder, which included at least the disparate impact claim, and imposed costs against the United States.

On February 6th, 1997, DOJ filed a Notice of Appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. On May 20th, 1998, the judgment of the District Court was affirmed in an unpublished opinion. On September 4th, 1998, the District Court (Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer) issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, which sanctioned the DOJ and directed it to pay Torrance's attorneys' fees plus interest.

The district court determined that the attorneys fee sanction was appropriate because the Government had an insufficient factual basis for bringing the adverse impact claim" and "that the Government continued to pursue the claim ... long after it became apparent that the case lacked merit." As described by the Court of Appeals, when it affirmed the order,

For example, the district court found that the United States 'approved' one of the challenged police-officer examinations for use 'in other municipalities in Southern California.' It also found that the United States took 'substantial discovery' on, and challenged up until trial, seven examination for which it 'offered no evidence' of adverse impact at all. The district court further determined that the United States 'fall[ed] to provide meaningful discovery regarding its allegations or the bases of those allegations' and '[t]his unnecessarily and substantially increased the cost of defending the action.' Finally, the court found that 'the United States ... offered no alternative selection device that would equally serve Torrance's legitimate hiring objectives' while repeatedly assuring the district court it would do so.