Case: Davis v. City and County of San Francisco

3:84-cv-01100 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Filed Date: March 9, 1984

Closed Date: 1995

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On March 9, 1984, several employees filed a lawsuit against the City and County of San Francisco in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972, 31 U.S.C. § 6701 et seq. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, alleged racial and gender discrimination and asked the court for injunctive and declaratory relief. Specifically, the pl…

On March 9, 1984, several employees filed a lawsuit against the City and County of San Francisco in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972, 31 U.S.C. § 6701 et seq. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, alleged racial and gender discrimination and asked the court for injunctive and declaratory relief. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that the city had used invalid hiring procedures concerning and physical and written examinations that had an adverse impact on women and minorities, as well as that the city's fire department had racially harassed minority firefighters.

On June 23, 1986, the court (Judge Marilyn H. Patel) granted in part the plaintiff's motion to certify sub-classes. The court (Judge Patel) held that there were adequate class representatives for women who passed the written exam and took the agility test; blacks who took the entire exam, whether they passed or not; black women who took the exam, whether they passed or not; and all black candidates who were eligible to take the 1978 and 1984 lieutenant's exam. Additionally, the court (Judge Patel) granted the plaintiffs' motion of partial summary judgment as to the adverse impact cause of action, but denied summary judgment as to the unequal treatment and racially hostile environment claims. Davis v. City and County of San Francisco, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23787 (N.D. Cal. 1986).

On November 12, 1987, both parties signed a consent agreement and filed it on May 20, 1988. On June 10, 1988, the court (Judge Patel) approved the agreement. The agreement stipulated several requirements for the San Francisco Fire Department, including injunctive relief and back pay for the plaintiffs. Requirements consisted of an implementation of cadet and officer programs to incorporate greater minority and female representation, to use its best efforts to attain a workplace reflecting the percentages of racial minorities in the municipality, not to unlawfully discriminate against employees, to consider language ability for certain positions, and to make employees aware of procedures for filing discrimination claims. The agreement was effective for seven years. Davis v. City and County of San Francisco, 696 F. Supp. 1287 (N.D. Cal 1988). On July 6, 1995, the court extended the consent agreement. Davis v. City and County of San Francisco, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21514, 5 (N.D. Cal. 1997).

On April 17, 1989, the court (Judge Patel) granted the defendant's motion to dismiss discrimination claims before March 9, 1981, and held that employees were required to specify the dates of all alleged "continuing" violations. Davis v. City and County of San Francisco, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17032 (N.D. Cal. 1989)

On September 25, 1990, the court (Judge Patel) granted in part the plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees. Davis v. City and County of San Francisco, 748 F. Supp. 1416 (N.D. Cal. 1990).

On March 2, 1993, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded the judgment of the District Court. Furthermore, on June 8, 1994, the court (Judge Patel) denied a motion to intervene by Hispanic and Asian members of the San Francisco Fire Department.

On November 15, 1995, the court (Judge Patel) issued an order consolidating the case with USA v. City and County of San Francisco, 3:84-7089, which began November 13, 1984, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and dismissed the case. It was also consolidated with cases 3:84-cv-7964 and 3:91-cv-667.

Following the production of several semi-annual status reports and monthly billing statements, on June 13, 1997, the defendant filed a joint motion with memorandum for preliminary approval of a stipulated order terminating a consent decree. On July 9, 1997, the court (Judge Patel) terminated the consent decree. Summarily, on August 25, 1997, the court (Judge Edward A. Infante) issued an order adopting the expert's report and recommendations.

On December 1, 1997, the court (Judge Patel) terminated the consent decree and dismissed the case. Accordingly, the court entered the final stipulated order whereby the San Francisco Fire Department was required to implement policies necessary to eradicate effects of past discriminatory employment practices concerning minorities and women. Davis v. City and County of San Francisco, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21514 (N.D. Cal. 1997). The order was set to expire one year from its entry date. On December 30, 1998, the court (Judge Patel) issued a final judgment of dismissal, dismissing the case with prejudice.

Summary Authors

Emily Kuznick (5/1/2008)

People


Judge(s)

Patel, Marilyn Hall (California)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Baldwin, Katherine A. (District of Columbia)

Dunne, John R. (District of Columbia)

Harris, Michael (California)

Hayashi, Dennis W. (California)

Mendez, John A. (California)

Norris, Henri E. (California)

Pearl, Richard M (California)

Schirle, Stephen L. (California)

Ugelow, Richard S (District of Columbia)

Judge(s)

Patel, Marilyn Hall (California)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Baldwin, Katherine A. (District of Columbia)

Dunne, John R. (District of Columbia)

Harris, Michael (California)

Hayashi, Dennis W. (California)

Mendez, John A. (California)

Norris, Henri E. (California)

Pearl, Richard M (California)

Schirle, Stephen L. (California)

Ugelow, Richard S (District of Columbia)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Agnost, George (California)

Arthur, Greenberg R. (California)

Cooper, John D. (California)

Giorgi, Lorette (California)

Lynch, Judy (California)

Mahoney, Patrick J. (California)

Renne, Louise H. (California)

Riley, George A. (California)

Siegel, Daniel Mark (California)

Warden, Philip S. (California)

Other Attorney(s)

Blanco, Maria (California)

Clerc, Susanne L. (California)

Dunlap, Mary (California)

Galloway, Russell Wood Jr. (California)

Harris [inactive], Michael (California)

Hays, Christopher (California)

Higaki, Paul Fumio Jr. (California)

Hulett, Denise M. (California)

Lee, Jack W. (California)

Marshall, Shauna Iris (California)

Mayeda, Mari (California)

McNeill, William Clarence III (California)

Moore, Robert T. (District of Columbia)

O'Hara-Varela, Cindy (California)

Paterson, Eva Jefferson (California)

Reno, Duane Westlee (California)

Tamayo, William Robert (California)

Wong, Michael J. (California)

Expert/Monitor/Master

Burdick, Christopher D. (California)

Clisham, David (California)

Phillips, Barbara Y. (California)

Swanson, Joann M. (California)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

3:84-cv-01100

Docket

Davis v. San Francisco

Nov. 15, 1995

Nov. 15, 1995

Docket

3:84-cv-07089

Docket

USA v. San Francisco City

June 16, 2004

June 16, 2004

Docket

3:84-cv-01100

3:84-cv-07089

Order (Regarding plaintiffs' motions for sub-class certification and summary judgment)

1986 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 23787

June 23, 1986

June 23, 1986

Order/Opinion

3:84-cv-01100

3:84-cv-07089

Opinion (Granting plaintiffs' motions for partial summary judgment and injunctive relief)

656 F.Supp. 276, 1987 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 1846

Feb. 26, 1987

Feb. 26, 1987

Order/Opinion

3:84-cv-01100

3:84-cv-07089

Order

1988 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 17366

Feb. 5, 1988

Feb. 5, 1988

Order/Opinion

3:84-cv-01100

3:84-cv-07089

Opinion [Approving Consent Decree]

USA v. City and County of San Francisco

696 F.Supp. 1287

June 10, 1988

June 10, 1988

Order/Opinion

3:84-cv-01100

3:84-cv-07089

Opinion

699 F.Supp. 762, 1988 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 12630

Aug. 25, 1988

Aug. 25, 1988

Order/Opinion

3:84-cv-01100

3:84-cv-07089

Order (granting defendant's motion to dismiss claims for instances of discrimination occurring before March 9, 1981)

1989 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 17032

April 17, 1989

April 17, 1989

Order/Opinion

3:84-cv-01100

3:84-cv-07089

Opinion (Denial of Defendants' Motion for Sanctions)

132 F.R.D. 533, 1990 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 13624

Sept. 25, 1990

Sept. 25, 1990

Order/Opinion

3:84-cv-01100

3:84-cv-07089

Opinion

747 F.Supp. 1370, 1990 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 13627

Sept. 25, 1990

Sept. 25, 1990

Order/Opinion

Resources

Docket

Last updated June 9, 2022, 3:20 a.m.

Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.

Case Details

State / Territory: California

Case Type(s):

Equal Employment

Key Dates

Filing Date: March 9, 1984

Closing Date: 1995

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Women and blacks who took and/or passed the written exam and took the agility test; and all black candidates who were eligible to take the 1978 and 1984 lieutenant's exam.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

MALDEF

Public Interest Lawyer: No

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

City of San Francisco, City

San Francisco County, County

Defendant Type(s):

Fire

Case Details

Causes of Action:

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

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Order Duration: 1988 - 1995

Issues

General:

Pattern or Practice

Discrimination-area:

Harassment / Hostile Work Environment

Hiring

Other Conditions of Employment (including assignment, transfer, hours, working conditions, etc)

Promotion

Testing

Discrimination-basis:

Race discrimination

Sex discrimination

Race:

Black

Affected Gender:

Female