Case: Lewis v. City of Chicago

1:98-cv-05596 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

Filed Date: Sept. 9, 1998

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On September 9, 1998, a group of African American firefighter applicants in Chicago filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Illinois, proceeding under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 against the City of Chicago. Represented by several lawyers, including the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund and the Chicago Lawyer's Committee for Civil Rights, the plaintiffs sought injunctive, compensatory and declaratory relief, alleging that a 199…

The lawsuit was brought after the City publicized results of the 1995 test in a press release. The written test was scored out of 100 and set a threshold of 89 and above as "well qualified,” which would allow applicants to advance to the next stage of the hiring process. Those who scored 65-88 were considered "qualified" and those with a 64 or below failed the exam. On January 26, 1996, Mayor Richard Daly announced the results of the test; those who were within the "well qualified" group were 75.8% white and 11.5% were African American. On November 6, 1996, the plaintiffs' attorney received a copy of the exam and results from the City. The attorney then gave the data to a consultant, who submitted a preliminary report on March 15, 1997, indicating that the test had a substantial adverse impact. Over the next year, six plaintiffs filed complaints with the EEOC, and on July 28, 1998, the EEOC issued letters of the right to sue. The plaintiffs filed suit on September 9, 1998.

On December 15, 1999, the court (Judge Gottschall) granted class certification. Though the original opinion is unavailable, future court orders describe the class as "approximately 6,000 African-Americans who applied for entry-level firefighter jobs with the City and scored from 65 to 88 (inclusive) on the 1995 firefighter written examination." 2007 WL 869559.

The City moved for summary judgment on the basis that the plaintiffs did not file with the EEOC within 300 days. The court (Judge Gottschall) denied this motion on the grounds that the City's ongoing refusal to process the plaintiff's applications constituted a continuing violation. 2000 WL 690313.

Litigation and discovery continued for the next several years.

On March 22, 2005, Judge Gottschall found the City liable for race discrimination. In the opinion, the court stated that there was no statistical relevance to the cutoff score of 89, that the correct threshold was actually a score of 87, and that this administrative decision had an adverse impact on African American applicants. Further, the court stated that the ability to take notes during the movie was not a skill necessary for firefighters’ jobs or training. As such, the test was invalid. 2005 WL 693618.

For the next two years, the parties litigated the plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief. On April 19, 2007, the Court ordered injunctive relief for the plaintiffs, requiring the City to place all class members in a database and give them the opportunity to go through the hiring process again. The court mandated that the City select new employees from this database until 132 class members went through the process, accepted their employment offers, and received training in the firefighter academy. Once through the academy, the class members would be eligible for senior positions, back-pay, and compensation for lost benefits. Further, the Court mandated that the plaintiffs’ attorney's fees be paid by the City. 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24378. The City appealed on May 4, 2007.

On June 7, 2007, the court granted City’s motion for stay pending appeal. The court recognized the harm the order had on the plaintiffs, who still had not been given their rights to employment. However, the court justified the stay based on the possible irreparable harm to the City and the public if the plaintiffs' training was to proceed and then the court’s decision was later overturned. 2007 WL 1686975.

On September 2, 2008, the Seventh Circuit (Chief Judge Easterbrook) found that the plaintiffs’ suit was untimely and a “fatal mistake,” since the 300 day limit for filing such claim began when the plaintiffs learned that they had been placed in the “qualified” category and that the City would be hiring those in the “well qualified” category. Thus, the time for filing a Title VII claim began when the discriminatory decision was made and not when it was executed. The Seventh Circuit reversed the District Court’s judgment with directions to enter judgment for the City. On remand, Judge Gottschall vacated the earlier order that entered injunctive relief and judgment for plaintiffs and instead entered a judgment for the City on October 9, 2008.

On January 21, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court, which was granted on Sept. 30, 2009.

On May 24, 2010, the Supreme Court reversed the Seventh Circuit’s judgment. It found that plaintiffs could file Title VII disparate impact claims within 300 days after the employer executed the allegedly unlawful practice as long as the plaintiffs alleged each of the elements of a disparate impact claim. The Supreme Court found that the case turned on whether the firefighters’ claims stated a Title VII violation, and concluded that the firefighters successfully stated a Title VII violation within the claim-filing period when they alleged that the City caused a disparate impact on African Americans each time it used its hiring list. In other words, the City’s application of the practice did not give rise to a new claim or a new violation, but rather, comprised the same disparate impact claim. Additionally, the time to file renewed whenever the City used a test to make hiring decisions. The Supreme Court remanded the case for further proceedings. 130 S. Ct. 2191.

On June 6, 2011, the Seventh Circuit (Chief Judge Easterbrook) affirmed the district court’s April 2007 judgment ordering injunctive relief for the plaintiffs, except with respect to the remedy based on the first batch of hires. The Seventh Circuit remanded with instructions to modify the remedy to eliminate any relief based on the hires of May 1996 because that charge came too late to contest these employment decisions as the Supreme Court stated. The Seventh Circuit concluded that the plaintiffs demonstrated that the City’s use of a cutoff score had a disparate impact. 643 F.3d 201.

Back in the district court, on August 17, 2011, Judge Gottshall issued an injunctive order favoring 111 class members. The order provided rightful place hiring and retroactive seniority credit dating back to June 1999. Additionally, the order provided back pay that consisted of attrition, lost wages and non-pension fringe benefits, mitigating earnings from interim employment, prejudgment interest, funding of pension and other applicable benefit plans and programs back to June 1999. The court was to henceforth retain jurisdiction solely with regard to the enforcement of the order for 24 months.

Over the subsequent years, individuals occasionally filed motions to intervene, but were motions all denied on the basis of untimeliness.

On August 12, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a motion to enforce the seniority provisions of the injunctive relief order. Specifically, the firefighters who filed the motion argued that the court’s injunctive order required the City to award them two service bars (a stripe pin awarded when firefighters served in the department for ten years). On February 13, 2014, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion, arguing they would have been awarded the service bars had the City not unlawfully discriminated against them. As such, the firefighters hired pursuant to the court’s judgment were permitted to wear two service bars on their dress uniforms. 2014 WL 562527.

Regarding attorneys’ fees, the court awarded the plaintiffs $137,194.83 for costs accrued since September 2011 and an additional $1.39 million on December 27, 2013 and March 21, 2014, respectively.

On March 22, 2016, an individual plaintiff filed a motion to enforce the employment provisions of the injunctive order, which the court denied without prejudice on August 8, 2016. The individual had also filed a disability discrimination case against the City pending before Judge Tharp (Gray Jr v. City of Chicago) and the summary judgment filings in that case showed substantial overlap with the issues raised in this case. The case remains closed.

	Document
08-00974	Docket (U.S. Supreme Court) Lewis v. Chicago Supreme Court of the United States	Feb. 22, 2010	Feb. 22, 2010 Docket
1:98-cv-05596	Docket [PACER]	Aug. 8, 2016	Aug. 8, 2016 Docket
94 1:98-cv-05596	Order denying summary judgment Lewis v. Chicago	May 25, 2000	May 25, 2000 Order/Opinion 2000 WL 690313
274 1:98-cv-05596	Memorandum Opinion and Order Judgment of Liability Against City Lewis v. Chicago	March 22, 2005	March 22, 2005 Order/Opinion 2005 WL 693618
405 1:98-cv-05596	Injunctive Relief Order (Approved) Lewis v. Chicago	April 19, 2007	April 19, 2007 Order/Opinion 2007 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 24378
425 1:98-cv-05596	Memorandum Opinion and Order Granting Stay	June 7, 2007	June 7, 2007 Order/Opinion 2007 WL 1686975
447 1:98-cv-05596	[Opinion] U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit	Sept. 2, 2008	Sept. 2, 2008 Order/Opinion
	Press Release No Court	Feb. 22, 2010	Feb. 22, 2010 Press Release
1:98-cv-05596 08-00974	Transcript of Supreme Court Argument Lewis v. Chicago Supreme Court of the United States	Feb. 22, 2010	Feb. 22, 2010 Transcript
08-00974	Opinion Supreme Court of the United States	May 24, 2010	May 24, 2010 Order/Opinion 130 S.Ct. 2191

Title	Description		External URL Date / External URL
Black Farmers FAQ: The history of discrimination against Black farmers and policy initiatives to remedy these inequities. Legal Defense Fund	Black farmers have long faced systemic discrimination by public and private institutions and barriers to economic mobility. Inequities in the administration of government farm programs and discrimina…		https://www.naacpldf.org/...
Lewis v. City of Chicago: "The Chicago Firefighters Case" NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund	In 1995, Chicago administered an entry-level firefighter exam to more than 26,000 applicants. The passing score was 65 out of 100, but against the advice of its own expert the City arbitrarily divid…	Feb. 14, 2014	Feb. 14, 2014 http://www.naacpldf.org/...
Lewis v. Chicago Oyez Project	African-American applicants for firefighter jobs in Chicago, IL sued the city under Title VII alleging the written test used for hiring had a disparate impact. After administering the test, the city …	May 24, 2010	May 24, 2010 https://www.oyez.org/...

ECF Number	Description	Date	Link Date / Link
1	COMPLAINT - Civil cover sheet - Appearance(s) of Marni J. Willenson, Cynthia A. Wilson, Bridget Arimond, Jeffrey Irvine Cummings, Judson H. Miner as attorney(s) for plaintiffs ( original and one copy summons(es) issued.) ( Documents: 1-1 through 1-5) (dmkf) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (mma, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/29/2018: # 2 Civil Cover Sheet) (mma, ). (Entered: 09/10/1998)	Sept. 9, 1998	Sept. 9, 1998 PACER
2	RETURN OF SERVICE of summons and complaint executed upon defendant Chgo, Cty of on 9/9/98 (dmkf) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (mma, ) (Entered: 09/10/1998)	Sept. 9, 1998	Sept. 9, 1998 PACER
	fee information sheet	Sept. 9, 1998	Sept. 9, 1998 PACER
	RECEIPT regarding payment of filing fee paid; on 9/9/98 in the amount of $ 150.00, receipt # 519831. (dmkf)	Sept. 9, 1998	Sept. 9, 1998 PACER
	minutes - miscellaneous	Sept. 21, 1998	Sept. 21, 1998 PACER
	SCHEDULE set on 9/21/98 by Hon. Joan B. Gottschall : Status hearing set to 10:00 11/17/98 . Plaintiff is directed to advise the defendants of the 11/17/98 status hearing forthwith. Parties are directed to discuss settlement of case, consent to proceed before the Magistrate Judge and a proposed discovery plan. Mailed notice (jlj)	Sept. 21, 1998	Sept. 21, 1998 PACER
3	ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant Chgo, Cty of by Naomi Ann Avendano, Valerie Depies Harper, Patrick J. Rocks Jr., Tracey Renee Ladner (dmkf) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (mma, ) (Entered: 09/24/1998)	Sept. 23, 1998	Sept. 23, 1998 PACER
4	ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant Chgo, Cty of by Brian L. Crowe (dmkf) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (mma, ) (Entered: 09/24/1998)	Sept. 23, 1998	Sept. 23, 1998 PACER
14	ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for plaintiffs by Deborah N. Archer (eav) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (mma, ). (Entered: 12/29/1998)	Dec. 15, 1998	Dec. 15, 1998 PACER
	minutes - miscellaneous	Dec. 28, 1998	Dec. 28, 1998 PACER
	SCHEDULE set on 12/28/98 by Hon. Joan B. Gottschall : Status hearing reset to 10:00 1/12/99 . Status hearing set for 1/5/99 stricken. Telephoned notice (jlj)	Dec. 28, 1998	Dec. 28, 1998 PACER
31	MINUTE ORDER of 3/17/99 by Hon. Joan B. Gottschall : By agreement of the parties, oral arguments set for 04/02/99 stricken and reser to 4/5/99 at 2:00p.m. Mailed notice (dmkf) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (mma, ) (Entered: 03/18/1999)	March 17, 1999	March 17, 1999 PACER
40	MINUTE ORDER of 4/27/99 by Hon. Joan B. Gottschall : Status hearing held. Response to plaintiffs' supplemental memorandum concerning proof of dverse impact hiring cases due by 05/11/99; reply due by 05/18/99. Mailed notice (dmkf) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (mma, ) (Entered: 05/03/1999)	April 27, 1999	April 27, 1999 PACER
	minutes - miscellaneous	Aug. 6, 1999	Aug. 6, 1999 PACER
	SCHEDULE set on 8/6/99 by Hon. Joan B. Gottschall : Noticed motion for leave to cite Supplemental Authority set for 9:30 8/11/99 No notice (rj)	Aug. 6, 1999	Aug. 6, 1999 PACER
	minutes - miscellaneous	Aug. 25, 1999	Aug. 25, 1999 PACER
	SCHEDULE set on 8/25/99 by Hon. Joan B. Gottschall : Noticed motion set for 9:30 9/1/99 No notice (rj)	Aug. 25, 1999	Aug. 25, 1999 PACER
	minutes - miscellaneous	Oct. 26, 1999	Oct. 26, 1999 PACER
	SCHEDULE set on 10/26/99 by Hon. Joan B. Gottschall : Status hearing held and continued to 9:30 11/23/99 . Defendant has leave to file motion for summary judgment. Parties are to present an Agreed Discovery Plan with depositions scheduled. Mailed notice (rj)	Oct. 26, 1999	Oct. 26, 1999 PACER
	minutes - miscellaneous	Nov. 23, 1999	Nov. 23, 1999 PACER
	SCHEDULE set on 11/23/99 by Hon. Joan B. Gottschall : Status hearing held and continued to 9:30 5/9/00 . All written discovery and depositions, including that of defendant's expert, Dr. Outtz to be completed by 4/23/00. Plaintiffs are provide defendant with their expert report on or before 5/23/00. Defendant will depose plaintiffs' expert on or before 6/23/00. Defendant will provide a rebuttal report on or before 8/23/00. All discovery, including the deposition of defendant's rebuttal expert witness will be concluded by 9/23/00. In court notice (rj)	Nov. 23, 1999	Nov. 23, 1999 PACER
57	ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of receipt of short record on appeal USCA 99-3983 (dmkf) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (mma, ) (Entered: 11/29/1999)	Nov. 26, 1999	Nov. 26, 1999 PACER
	minutes - miscellaneous	Dec. 10, 1999	Dec. 10, 1999 PACER
	SCHEDULE set on 12/10/99 by Hon. Joan B. Gottschall : Noticed motion set for 9:30 12/15/99 No notice (rj)	Dec. 10, 1999	Dec. 10, 1999 PACER
	minutes - miscellaneous	Jan. 3, 2000	Jan. 3, 2000 PACER
	SCHEDULE set on 1/3/00 by Hon. Joan B. Gottschall : Noticed motion set for 9:30 1/14/00 No notice (rj)	Jan. 3, 2000	Jan. 3, 2000 PACER
62	ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant by Diane S. Cohen (dmkf) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (mma, ) (Entered: 01/20/2000)	Jan. 19, 2000	Jan. 19, 2000 PACER
63	CERTIFIED copy of Order from the 7th Circuit: It is ordered that this case be set down for oral argument on Tuesday, 03/28/00, in the courtroom of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, 219 South Dearborn, Room 2721, Chicago, Illinois at 9:30a.m. (99-3983) (dmkf) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (mma, ) (Entered: 02/08/2000)	Feb. 7, 2000	Feb. 7, 2000 PACER
65	MINUTE ORDER of 2/18/00 by Hon. Joan B. Gottschall : Answer brief to motion for summary judgment due 3/15/00. [64-1] Reply to answer brief due 3/30/00. Ruling on defendant's motion for summary judgment will be by mail. Mailed notice (mbw) (Entered: 02/23/2000)	Feb. 18, 2000	Feb. 18, 2000 PACER
66	APPLICATION for leave to appear pro hac vice by Clyde E. Murphy for plaintiffs; Order entered granting leave by Hon. Joan B. Gottschall (dmkf) (Entered: 02/24/2000)	Feb. 23, 2000	Feb. 23, 2000 PACER
75	MINUTE ORDER of 4/3/00 by Hon. Ian H. Levin : Status hearing set for 9:30 am on 04/21/00. Agreed motion for extension of time for defendant to serve its objection and responses to plaintiffs' requests to admit is granted. Plaintiff's first request to admit is due by 04/13/00. Plaintiff's second request to admit is due by 04/06/00. Mailed notice (ar) (Entered: 04/05/2000)	April 3, 2000	April 3, 2000 PACER
77	MINUTE ORDER of 4/7/00 by Hon. Joan B. Gottschall : Defendant's motion for an extension of time to file its reply brief by 4/7/00 is granted [76-1] to motion for summary judgment [64-1]. Telephoned notice (rmm) Modified on 04/10/2000 (Entered: 04/10/2000)	April 7, 2000	April 7, 2000 PACER
80	MINUTE ORDER of 4/12/00 by Hon. Joan B. Gottschall : Defendant's motion for an extension of time [79-1] to file its reply brief [64-1] is granted to and including 04/14/00 is granted. No notice (ar) (Entered: 04/13/2000)	April 12, 2000	April 12, 2000 PACER
82	MINUTE ORDER of 4/18/00 by Hon. Ian H. Levin : Plaintiffs' agreed motion for an extension of time to complete discovery is granted [81-1]. Defendant shall provide plaintiff with its expert report by 05/01/00. All written discovey and depositions (other than the deposition of plaintiffs' expert and defendant's rebuttal expert), including the deposition of defendant's expert, Dr. James Outzz, to be completed by 06/01/00. Plaintiffs shall provide defendant with their expert report by 07/04/00. Defendant to depose plaintiffs' expert by 08/07/00. Defendant shall provide a rebuttal report by 10/06/00. All discovery, including the deposition of defendant's rebuttal witness, to be completed by 11/06/00. Status hearing set for 9:30 am on 06/09/00. Mailed notice (ar) (Entered: 04/20/2000)	April 18, 2000	April 18, 2000 PACER
85	MINUTE ORDER of 4/21/00 by Hon. Joan B. Gottschall : Plantiffs' motion to strike and to deem certain facts admitted [84-1] [84-2] will be considered with the defendant's motion for summary judgment. Mailed notice (ar) (Entered: 04/24/2000)	April 21, 2000	April 21, 2000 PACER
87	MINUTE ORDER of 4/28/00 by Hon. Joan B. Gottschall : Motion by City of Chicago for leave to file defendant's response in opposition to plaintiffs' motion to strike and to deem certain facts admitted is granted [86-1]. Telephoned notice (ar) (Entered: 05/02/2000)	April 28, 2000	April 28, 2000 PACER
91	MINUTE ORDER of 5/3/00 by Hon. Ian H. Levin : Defendant's motion to compel plaintiffs' response to written discovery is granted in part for the reasons stated and on terms of record [90-1]. Mailed notice (ar) (Entered: 05/09/2000)	May 3, 2000	May 3, 2000 PACER
89	MINUTE ORDER of 5/5/00 by Hon. Joan B. Gottschall : Motion by defendant to expedite the court's ruling on summary judgment is granted for the reasons stated in open court [88-1]. Oral discovery is stayed pending ruling [88-2] [88-3]. No notice (ar) (Entered: 05/08/2000)	May 5, 2000	May 5, 2000 PACER
	minutes - miscellaneous	May 6, 2000	May 6, 2000 PACER
	SCHEDULE set on 5/6/00 by Hon. Joan B. Gottschall : Status hearing stricken. (Pending ruling on summary judgment motion). Telephone notice (rj)	May 6, 2000	May 6, 2000 PACER

Case: Lewis v. City of Chicago

1:98-cv-05596 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

Case Summary

People

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Resources

Docket

Case Details