Case: Paige v. State of California

2:94-cv-00083 | U.S. District Court for the Central District of California

Filed Date: Jan. 15, 1994

Closed Date: May 16, 2007

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This lawsuit was filed on January 15, 1994, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, by a black California Highway Patrol (CHP) lieutenant. He brought this class action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 on behalf of all current and future non-white CHP officers. Represented by public interest attorneys and private counsel, he alleged that the promotion process of the CHP had a discriminatory impact on non-white officers in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.…

This lawsuit was filed on January 15, 1994, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, by a black California Highway Patrol (CHP) lieutenant. He brought this class action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 on behalf of all current and future non-white CHP officers. Represented by public interest attorneys and private counsel, he alleged that the promotion process of the CHP had a discriminatory impact on non-white officers in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. He further claimed that the CHP engaged in disparate treatment and retaliation.

On July 13, 1994, the District Court (Judge Consuelo B. Marshall) certified the plaintiff class. After a lengthy discovery period and a great number of submissions, the District Court found that the CHP's promotional process resulted in a disparate impact on the plaintiff class and, accordingly, granted partial summary judgment for the plaintiffs in March, 1995. On November 3, 1995, the District Court entered a preliminary injunction for the plaintiff. The CHP appealed.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the class certification, but reversed the summary judgment ruling, vacated the preliminary injunction, and remanded for further factual findings. Paige v. State of California, 102 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir.1996). The Court also issued a table opinion in which addressed the jurisdiction issues. Paige v. State of California, No. 95-56669, 105 F.3d 666 (9th Cir. Dec. 20, 1996).

On remand, the District Court ordered additional discovery, and again granted partial summary judgment in the plaintiffs favor, on Aug. 13, 1998. After the state moved for reconsideration, the Court issued another opinion affirming its own prior ruling. On Jan. 19, 2001, the Court issued a preliminary injunction for the plaintiffs. Paige v. State of California, 2001 WL 128439 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 19, 2001). The CHP appealed. On May 31, 2002, the 9th Circuit reversed the summary judgment ruling, vacated the preliminary injunction, and again remanded the case, finding that material issues of fact meant that the employees' disparate impact claim should be resolved at trial, not before. The opinion was by Judge Stephen Reinhardt. Paige v. California, 291 F.3d 1141 (9th Cir. 2002), cert. denied 537 U.S. 1189 (2003).

The case proceeded to trial. At trial, a jury found in favor of the State on a claim of disparate treatment and the District Court (Judge Marshall) entered judgment in favor of the CHP on that claim on July 29, 2005. The Court further ruled in favor of the plaintiff on his retaliation claim but awarded no damages to the plaintiff. The Court ruled in favor of the defendants on the claim of disparate impact on November 7, 2004. The employees appealed. On May 16, 2007, the Circuit Court affirmed in an opinion by Judge Reinhardt, rejecting the plaintiffs' evidentiary arguments. Paige v. California, 233 F. App'x 646, 647 (9th Cir. 2007). This ended the case.

Summary Authors

Emma Bao (7/11/2013)

People


Judge(s)

Bybee, Jay S. (Nevada)

Hawkins, Michael Daly (Arizona)

Kozinski, Alex (California)

Marshall, Consuelo Bland (California)

Reinhardt, Stephen Roy (California)

Silverman, Barry G. (Arizona)

Turchin, Carolyn (California)

Wardlaw, Kim McLane (California)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Bibring, Peter (California)

Dunlevy, Patrick Mark (California)

Judge(s)

Bybee, Jay S. (Nevada)

Hawkins, Michael Daly (Arizona)

Kozinski, Alex (California)

Marshall, Consuelo Bland (California)

Reinhardt, Stephen Roy (California)

Silverman, Barry G. (Arizona)

Turchin, Carolyn (California)

Wardlaw, Kim McLane (California)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Bibring, Peter (California)

Dunlevy, Patrick Mark (California)

Harley, Dennis Michael (California)

Piovia-Scott, Joshua (California)

Renick, Randall R. (California)

Stormer, Dan Lewis (California)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Casey, Patricia A. (District of Columbia)

Cohn, Joel M. (District of Columbia)

Cooper, Celine M. (California)

Diaz, Silvia Maria (California)

Hong, Elizabeth (California)

Livingston, Donald R. (District of Columbia)

Milas, Martin H. (California)

Remy, John M. (District of Columbia)

Teslik, W. Randolph (District of Columbia)

Other Attorney(s)

Romanski, Richard J. (California)

Willson, Jacqueline A. (California)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

05-56064

Docket

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

July 22, 2005

July 22, 2005

Docket

2:94-cv-00083

Docket

June 19, 2007

June 19, 2007

Docket

95-56669

Opinion

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

102 F.3d 1035

Dec. 20, 1996

Dec. 20, 1996

Order/Opinion

95-56669

Opinion

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

105 F.3d 666, 1996 WL 740839

Dec. 20, 1996

Dec. 20, 1996

Order/Opinion
515

2:94-cv-00083

Order Granting Preliminary Injunction

2001 WL 128439

Jan. 19, 2001

Jan. 19, 2001

Order/Opinion

01-55312

Opinion

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

291 F.3d 1141

May 31, 2002

May 31, 2002

Order/Opinion
543

01-55312

Order from Court of Appeals (Reversing and Remanding Circuit Court's Decision)

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Aug. 2, 2002

Aug. 2, 2002

Order/Opinion
776

2:94-cv-00083

Verdict Form

Nov. 30, 2003

Nov. 30, 2003

Other
821

2:94-cv-00083

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

Nov. 1, 2004

Nov. 1, 2004

Findings Letter/Report
822

2:94-cv-00083

Judgment (In Favor of Defendants on Claims of Disparate Impact)

Nov. 17, 2004

Nov. 17, 2004

Order/Opinion

Resources

Docket

Last updated Aug. 6, 2022, 3:09 a.m.

Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.

Case Details

State / Territory: California

Case Type(s):

Equal Employment

Key Dates

Filing Date: Jan. 15, 1994

Closing Date: May 16, 2007

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

A black California Highway Patrol (CHP) lieutenant unsatisfied with the promotion process on behalf of all current and future non-white CHP officers.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

ACLU of Southern California

Hadsell, Stormer & Renick

ACLU Affiliates (any)

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

State of California, State

Defendant Type(s):

Law-enforcement

Jurisdiction-wide

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

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

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Non-settlement Outcome

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Defendant

Nature of Relief:

None

Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order

Source of Relief:

None

Content of Injunction:

Reporting

Preliminary relief granted

Monitor/Master

Discrimination Prohibition

Issues

General:

Disparate Impact

Disparate Treatment

Retaliation

Discrimination-area:

Pay / Benefits

Promotion

Discrimination-basis:

Race discrimination

Race:

Black

National Origin/Ethnicity:

Hispanic