Case: Lewis v. City of Chicago

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 1995 written examination in the application process discriminated against and had a disparate impact on African American applicants and could not be justified as a business necessity.

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.