Case: Bishop v. Gainer (Koski v. Gainer)

1:92-cv-03293 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

Filed Date: May 19, 1992

Closed Date: 2002

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On May 19, 1992, white male police officers filed a lawsuit against the Illinois State Police (ISP) and Illinois in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, and the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, contending that racial quotas and different qualifications for the same jobs constituted reverse discrimination. The plaintiffs sou…

On May 19, 1992, white male police officers filed a lawsuit against the Illinois State Police (ISP) and Illinois in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, and the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, contending that racial quotas and different qualifications for the same jobs constituted reverse discrimination. The plaintiffs sought an injunction allowing white males who had had the same or higher scores as minorities but been not been hired to continue with the application process.

Under the affirmative action program which the plaintiffs sought to change, job applicants were divided into categories and recorded separately, with different lists for white males, black males, other male minorities, and females. White male applicants had to achieve a higher score on their qualification tests in order to be hired.

On May 6, 1993, the court (Judge Harry D. Leinenweber) granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The class consisted of all white male applicants for hire with the Illinois State Police from 1975 to 1993 who were eliminated from contention or whose hire date was delayed.

On September 30, 1997, the court (Judge Leinenweber) found in favor of the class on the Title VII hiring claim and in favor of some of the plaintiffs on their individual promotional claims. Between that ruling and April 23, 1998 the court issued various remedies. The class was awarded injunctive relief requiring the ISP to notify all members that they did not have to take the entrance exam but would be considered to have passed. Injunctive relief was granted to individual officers in the form of promotions. Finally, monetary damages for back pay and emotional distress were awarded to various plaintiffs totaling roughly $200,000.

A number of individual plaintiffs appealed to the Seventh Circuit and the case proceeded as Bishop v. Gainer. On December 5, 2001 the Court of Appeals (Judge Coffey, Judge Kanne, and Judge Evans) affirmed the district court with minor modifications. The case ended on May 20, 2002 when the Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari.

Summary Authors

Michael Perry (7/11/2010)

People


Judge(s)

Coffey, John Louis (Wisconsin)

Evans, Terence Thomas (Wisconsin)

Kanne, Michael Stephen (Indiana)

Leinenweber, Harry Daniel (Illinois)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Jones, Lance T. (Illinois)

Sutherland, Kimberly Ann (Illinois)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Giroux, Paula J. (Illinois)

Light, Erik G (Illinois)

Judge(s)

Coffey, John Louis (Wisconsin)

Evans, Terence Thomas (Wisconsin)

Kanne, Michael Stephen (Indiana)

Leinenweber, Harry Daniel (Illinois)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Jones, Lance T. (Illinois)

Sutherland, Kimberly Ann (Illinois)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Giroux, Paula J. (Illinois)

Light, Erik G (Illinois)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

Court of Appeals Docket #: 98-2172

Bishop v. Gainer

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

May 20, 2002 Docket

Docket

Sept. 5, 2002 Docket
43

Opinion (Granting class certification)

1993 WL 153828

May 6, 1993 Order/Opinion
77

Opinion (Granting in part and denying in part defendant's motion to dismiss)

1993 WL 488409

Nov. 22, 1993 Order/Opinion
189

Opinion (Granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in part and granting defendant's motion for summary judgment in part)

1995 WL 599052

Oct. 5, 1995 Order/Opinion
259

Opinion (Denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granting in part and denying in part defendant's motion for summary judgment)

1997 WL 159530

March 27, 1997 Order/Opinion
281

Opinion (Finding in favor of one plaintiff on his promotion claim)

1997 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 16511

Sept. 29, 1997 Order/Opinion
281

Opinion (Finding in favor of the class on the Title VII claim and entering judgments for individual plaintiffs)

1997 WL 619858

Sept. 29, 1997 Order/Opinion
300

Opinion (Denying damages on a lost chance theory)

1998 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 299

Jan. 15, 1998 Order/Opinion
324

Opinion (Determing the correct interest rate for damages)

1998 WL 154706

March 18, 1998 Order/Opinion

Docket

Last updated May 13, 2022

Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.

State / Territory: Illinois

Case Type(s):

Equal Employment

Special Collection(s):

Private Employment Class Actions

Key Dates

Filing Date: May 19, 1992

Closing Date: 2002

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

All white male applicants to the Illinois State Police, from 1975 to 1993, who were eliminated from contention, or whose hire date was delayed, by the imposition of a higher cut-off score them and white male officers who were denied promotions.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: No

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

State of Illinois, State

Illinois State Police (Springfield, Sangamon), State

Defendant Type(s):

Law-enforcement

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

42 U.S.C. § 1981

Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e

Constitutional Clause(s):

Equal Protection

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Monetary Relief

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Mixed

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Damages

Source of Relief:

Litigation

Amount Defendant Pays: $200,000

Content of Injunction:

Promotion

Other requirements regarding hiring, promotion, retention

Issues

General:

Disparate Treatment

Discrimination-area:

Hiring

Promotion

Discrimination-basis:

Sex discrimination

Affected Gender:

Male