Case: The Port Authority Police Asian Jade Society of New York & New Jersey v. Port Authority of New York

1:05-cv-03835 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Filed Date: April 15, 2005

Closed Date: 2015

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On April 15, 2005, a fraternal organization of police officers of Asian or Pacific Islander descent and all officers filed this federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, on the grounds that they were passed over for promotion because of their race. The suit alleged violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as 42 U.S.C. §1981 and 42 U.S.C. §1983. The plaintiff, represented by private counsel, asked the court for compensatory damages…

On April 15, 2005, a fraternal organization of police officers of Asian or Pacific Islander descent and all officers filed this federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, on the grounds that they were passed over for promotion because of their race. The suit alleged violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as 42 U.S.C. §1981 and 42 U.S.C. §1983. The plaintiff, represented by private counsel, asked the court for compensatory damages, declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and attorney's fees.

The eleven individual plaintiffs in this action are Asian American police officers employed by the defendant (Port Authority of New York and New Jersey) who claimed they were denied promotion because of their race. All eleven of the plaintiffs are members of the Port Authority Police Asian Jade Society of New York and New Jersey Inc. ("Asian Jade Society"), a nonprofit organization whose purpose is to promote good relations among the members of the Port Authority police department.

During the relevant period, the Port Authority utilized a promotion process where entry-level police officers could be promoted to the rank of Sergeant, the first level in the hierarchy of supervisory positions. Periodically, each facility's commanding officer would make a recommendation for officers for promotion, at their discretion, and after the applicant had passed an exam. Recommended officers would then be evaluated by the Chiefs' Board, each board member would vote for or against each officer and those who received a majority would be recommended to the superintendent; the board did not use any written guidelines. The ultimate decision to promote an officer belonged solely to the Superintendent and promotions occurred outside of this hiring process. As of January 31, 2001, no Asian American had been promoted to Sergeant.

The Asian Jade Society filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on behalf of the eleven members on January 31, 2001. The EEOC determined there was reasonable cause to believe race discrimination had occurred under Title VII. The plaintiffs filed suit on April 15, 2005, alleging that the Port Authority had discriminated against Asian Americans in making promotions to Sergeant.

On March 11, 2009, a nine-day trial commenced in the Southern District of New York, before Judge Miriam Cedarbaum. The jury found that the Port Authority's promotion practice had a disparate impact on Asian-American police officers and that the defendant had utilized a pattern or practice of intentional discrimination with respect to seven of the eleven plaintiffs. On April 14, 2010, Port Authority was ordered to pay the seven plaintiffs $1,637,622 in back pay and compensatory damages. Additionally, Port Authority was ordered to pay $2,357,659 in attorneys' fees and costs.

The Port Authority appealed the judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on the grounds that the evidence was insufficient to support each plaintiffs' theories, that evidence barred by the statute of limitations was admitted, and that damages were awarded on time-barred claims. The four plaintiffs who did not prevail at trial cross-appealed and argued that the district court erred by excluding expert testimony.

On July 10, 2012, the Court of Appeals (Judge Dennis Jacobs) found the district court erred in impliedly instructing the jury that a common pattern of discrimination is an element of liability. The circuit court declined to extend the pattern-or-practice method of proof outside of the class action context (federal Courts of Appeals have consistently held that the pattern-or-practice method of proof is not available to private non class plaintiffs). The court affirmed the lower court's judgment with respect to the disparate impact and the individual disparate treatment claims. Where the plaintiffs relied on the continuing violations doctrine to prove disparate impact, the back pay and compensatory damages were reversed since the continuing violation doctrine does not apply to disparate impact proof. Failures to promote are considered discrete acts and the continuing violations doctrine requires conduct to be a part of an ongoing discriminatory policy.

The Second Circuit court easily affirmed the district court's judgment regarding the four plaintiffs who did not prevail at trial, finding no abuse of discretion. Ultimately, the court remanded for new trial all compensatory damages and equitable relief remedies and affirmed the back pay only for conduct that occurred within the requisite time period.

On remand, there is a notice that the parties were required to submit proposed verdict forms to the District Court by the end of June 2013. The parties entered mediation with Magistrate Judge Debra C. Freeman. A settlement agreement was reached on February 19, 2015 and the case was dismissed with prejudice. The settlement agreement is not publicly available, and the case is now closed.

Summary Authors

Silke Watson (12/30/2013)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5144440/parties/the-port-authority-police-asian-jade-society-of-new-york-new-jersey-inc/


Judge(s)

Cabranes, José Alberto (Connecticut)

Cedarbaum, Miriam Goldman (New York)

Jacobs, Dennis G. (New York)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Baron, Robert H (New York)

Buergel, Susanna M. (New York)

Attorney for Defendant
Judge(s)

Cabranes, José Alberto (Connecticut)

Cedarbaum, Miriam Goldman (New York)

Jacobs, Dennis G. (New York)

Livingston, Debra Ann (New York)

McLaughlin, Joseph Michael (New York)

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

1:05-cv-03835

Docket [SDNY]

The Port Authority Police Asian Jade Society of New York and New Jersey Inc. v. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

Feb. 19, 2015

Feb. 19, 2015

Docket
1

1:05-cv-03835

Complaint

The Port Authority Police Asian Jade Society of New York and New Jersey Inc., v. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

April 15, 2005

April 15, 2005

Complaint
119

1:05-cv-03835

Opinion [SDNY]

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

Jan. 13, 2010

Jan. 13, 2010

Order/Opinion
120

1:05-cv-03835

District Court Judgment [Attorneys Fees]

The Port Authority Police Asian Jade Society of New York and New Jersey, Inc. v. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

April 15, 2010

April 15, 2010

Order/Opinion
122

1:05-cv-03835

Judgment [SDNY]

The Port Authority Police Asian Jade Society of New York and New Jersey Inc. v. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

April 20, 2010

April 20, 2010

Order/Opinion
133

10-01904

10-02031

Opinion [USCA 2nd Circuit]

Chin v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

July 10, 2012

July 10, 2012

Order/Opinion
168-1

10-01904

10-02031

Opinion [Second Circuit ]

The Port Authority Police Asian Jade Society of New York and New Jersey, Inc. v. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

July 10, 2012

July 10, 2012

Order/Opinion

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5144440/the-port-authority-police-asian-jade-society-of-new-york-new-jersey-inc/

Last updated Feb. 18, 2024, 3:06 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
53

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER #97177: For the reasons set forth in this order, plaintiffs motion is denied. (Signed by Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum on 3/4/09) (mme) Modified on 3/6/2009 (mro).

March 5, 2009

March 5, 2009

RECAP
119

OPINION re: #98453 75 AMENDED MOTION to Set Aside Verdict or Granting New Trial filed by The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. The Port Authority now moves for judgment as a matter of law, or in the alternative, for a new trial or for a re mittitur of the jurys compensatory damages award. For the reasons further set forth in this Opinion, the Port Authoritys motion is denied in its entirety. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum on 1/13/2010) (tve) Modified on 1/19/2010 (ajc).

Jan. 14, 2010

Jan. 14, 2010

RECAP
120

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER #98832 re: 88 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Alan Lew, Nicholas Yum, Christian Eng, Stanley Chin, George Martinez, The Port Authority Police Asian Jade Society of New York & New Jersey Inc., Michael Chung, Milton Fon g, David Lim, Richard Wong, Howard Chin, Sanrit Booncome. For the reasons set forth in this Memorandum Opinion and Order, plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and costs is granted as detailed in this Order. The Clerk of the Court is dire cted to enter judgment in accordance with the Jury Verdict of March 26, 2009, my Order Granting Equitable Relief dated 1/13/2010, and this Memorandum Opinion and Order. (Signed by Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum on 4/14/2010) (tro) Modified on 4/16/2010 (ajc). Modified on 4/16/2010 (ajc).

April 15, 2010

April 15, 2010

RECAP

Case Details

State / Territory: New York

Case Type(s):

Equal Employment

Special Collection(s):

Multi-LexSum (in sample)

Key Dates

Filing Date: April 15, 2005

Closing Date: 2015

Case Ongoing: No reason to think so

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Fraternal organization of police officers of Asian or Pacific Islander descent brought action on behalf of certain members who were denied promotions because of their race.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

Asian American Legal Defense & Educ. Fund (AALDEF)

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (New York City , New York), State

Defendant Type(s):

Law-enforcement

Transportation

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

Available Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Monetary Relief

Non-settlement Outcome

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Mixed

Nature of Relief:

Attorneys fees

Damages

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Litigation

Form of Settlement:

Private Settlement Agreement

Issues

General:

Pattern or Practice

Discrimination-area:

Disparate Impact

Disparate Treatment

Promotion

Discrimination-basis:

Race discrimination

Race:

Asian/Pacific Islander