Bratton v. City of Detroit Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

    No.

IN THE

Suprem e Court of tfje U m teb
OCTOBER TERM, 1983

HANSON BRATTON, GALE BOGENN, WILLIAM 
SHELL, PATRICK JORDAN, CHARLES MAHO­
NEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly 
situated; and THE DETROIT POLICE LIEUTEN­
ANTS & SERGEANTS ASSOCIATION,

Petitioners,
vs.

CITY OF DETROIT, a Michigan Municipal Corporation; 
COLEMAN A. YOUNG, Mayor; WILLIAM L. HART, 
Chief of Police; DETROIT BOARD OF POLICE COM­
MISSIONERS; and GUARDIANS OF MICHIGAN, 
DAVID L. SIMMONS, ARNOLD D. PAYNE, JAMES 
E. CRAWFORD, CLINTON DONALDSON, WILLIE 
JOHNSON, KENNETH M. JOHNSON, ALFRED 
BROOKS,

Respondents.

AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR 
WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES 
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

KAMPMEYER & KRONSCHNABEL 
By: Michael A. Kampmeyer 

Counsel for Amicus Curiae 
Saint Paul Police Federation 

660 Northern Federal Building 
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 
(612) 227-9337

1983— Northwest Brief Printing Co., 3010 2nd St. No., Minneapolis 55411-588-7506



IN THE

Suprem e Court of tf)e Mmteb is>tate£
OCTOBER TERM, 1983

No.

HANSON BRATTON, GALE BOGENN, WILLIAM 
SHELL, PATRICK JORDAN, CHARLES MAHO­
NEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly 
situated; and THE DETROIT POLICE LIEUTEN­
ANTS & SERGEANTS ASSOCIATION,

Petitioners,
vs.

CITY OF DETROIT, a Michigan Municipal Corporation; 
COLEMAN A. YOUNG, Mayor; WILLIAM L. HART, 
Chief of Police; DETROIT BOARD OF POLICE COM­
MISSIONERS; and GUARDIANS OF MICHIGAN, 
DAVID L. SIMMONS, ARNOLD D. PAYNE, JAMES 
E. CRAWFORD, CLINTON DONALDSON, WILLIE 
JOHNSON, KENNETH M. JOHNSON, ALFRED 
BROOKS,

Respondents.

AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR 
WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES 
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

This brief as an amicus curiae is submitted on behalf of 
the Saint Paul Police Federation in support of the Petition 
for Writ of Certiorari with the written consent of all the 
parties. The letters consenting to the filing of the brief 
have been filed in the office of the Clerk.



2

The Saint Paul Police Federation is the exclusive bar­
gaining agent for the sworn members of the police depart­
ment for the City of Saint Paul, Minnesota. The Federation 
collectively represents 490 officer members holding the 
ranks of Patrol Officer, Sergeant, Lieutenant and Captain. 
The hiring and promotion of these officers is regulated 
through the auspices of the City of Saint Paul’s personnel 
department under the structure of a meritorious civil serv­
ice system.

In Saint Paul, Minnesota, as elsewhere across the nation, 
public employers are seeking guidance in adopting affirma­
tive action programs created to remedy past discriminatory 
practices in the hiring and promoting of their employees. 
The issues presented in Bratton, et al vs. City of Detroit, 
et al grant to this Court a unique opportunity to address 
this concern and to provide definitive guidelines and direc­
tion to an area, which to date, has been riddled with over­
riding confusion and ambiguity. In order that such con­
cerns may be adequately and equitably addressed by the 
lower courts of this nation, guidance and direction which 
is available only through this Court must be provided.

The impact of this Court’s decision to grant certiorari in 
this case or to not grant certiorari will have a profound 
influence on affirmative action programs adopted in com­
munities all across the United States for years to come. The 
Court’s decision will determine whether the state of con­
fusion presently existing shall continue or whether a clear 
direction will be established.

Specific issues which this Court will have a clear oppor­
tunity to address are:

1. to what extent should the existence of past discrim­
ination be established prior to the implementation of a ra­
cially preferenced affirmative action program;



3

2. in promotional advancements as well as initial hir­
ings by governmental agencies, is it proper to base prefer­
ential quotas on the proportion of minorities in the com­
munity as a whole or should preferential treatment be based 
on the qualified applicants who realistically meet the de­
mands of the relevant labor market;

3. is it proper to consider factors outside the specific 
harms caused by past discrimination in attempting to cor­
rect the injuries to specific individuals, i.e., should consid­
eration be given to the discrimination effectuated against 
the community as a whole by the governmental agency in­
volved in addition to the specific direct injury to individ­
uals;

4. to what extent is it proper to grant racial preference 
to individuals not specifically injured and to likewise im­
pose reverse discrimination and stigmatization upon mem­
bers of the labor force who have not actively discriminated 
against the minority population as a whole, or directly 
against the specifically injured minority members of the 
relevant labor force;

5. prior to the implementation of rigid racially based 
quotas, should a governmental employer attempt to remedy 
past injustices through the implementation of less restric­
tive means;

6. what basis should the imposing governmental entity 
use in determining the length of time during which a ra­
cially based preference should be granted to minorities as 
a remedial measure.

The instant case offers many significant and controversial 
issues which remain unresolved since the adoption of af­



4

firmative action programs by public employees throughout 
the United States. Therefore, it is respectfully urged that 
this Court grant certiorari to this case, ultimately resolve 
the issues presented and provide the needed definitive 
guidelines for the establishment and maintenance of affir­
mative action programs by public employers.

Dated: October 25,1983.
Respectfully submitted,

KAMPMEYER & KRONSCHNABEL 
By Michael A. Kampmeyer 

Counsel for Amicus Curiae 
Saint Paul Police Federation 

660 Northern Federal Building 
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 
(612) 227-9337