Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. Los Angeles Police Department Consent Decree and Agreement

    CONSENT DECREE AND AGREEMENT

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS

I. Existence o f Parallel State Administrative Actions. Claims arising from 

the same allegations at issue in the present federal judicial proceedings are also pending 

before the California Office of Administrative Hearings ("OAH") as a result of two 

accusations filed by the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing 

("DFEH") against the City of Los Angeles ("City") pursuant to the California Fair 

Employment and Housing Act, California Government Code §§ 12900, ct scq. ("FEHA"):

(a) DFEH t». Los Angeles Police Department, et a i, Complainant John W.

Hunter ("Hunter"), OAH No. L-52608, FEP No. 88-89 B6-0609e, DFEH

Accusation filed January 18,1991;

(b) DFEH v. Los Angeles Police Department, et al., Complainant Latin

American Law Enforcement Association ("La L r; "), C A .v I i ' > L-5260C, FEP No.

88-89 B6-0950, DFEH Accusation filed December 17,1990.

2. Withdrawal o f Complaints and Dismissal o f Accusations. Jn exchange for

the undertakings of the City contained in this Consent Decree and Agreement, 

complainants Hunter and La Ley ("complainants") agree to withdraw their complaints 

of discrimination and other claims relating to illegal discrimination referenced in the 

above-described complaints and accusations, and the DFEH agrees to dismiss the 

above-described accusations, upon approval by the Court of this Consent Decree and 

Agreement. Further, complainants and the DFEH agree not to institute or cause to be 

instituted any action in any federal or state court or before any federal, state, or local 

government entity arising out of or attributable to any alleged unlawful practice of

rcinsed: 10/15/91



respondent City, its officers, agents or employees arising from or attributable to the 

facts alleged in the above-described complaints and accusations.

3. No Admission o f Liability in Connection with -vComplaints and 

Accusations. Tins Consent Decree and Agreement does not constitute an admission by
4

the City either of any charge contained in the above-describeci complaints and 

accusations, or of any violation of the FEHA, or of any violation of federal, state, or local 

law.

4. No DFEH Determination on Merits o f Complaints and Accusations. The 

withdrawal of the DFEH accusations and the dismissal of the DFEH complaints does 

not reflect any determination by the California Fair Employment and Housing 

Commission of the merits of the charges contained in the above-described complaints 

and accusations. The participation of the DFEH is limited to the charges contained in 

the above-described complaints and accusations and to the application of the FEHA to 

those charges. The DFEH does not join in any provision in this Consent Decree a:.-’ 

Agreement outside of the scope of the charges contained in the above-described 

complaints and accusations.

5. Annual DFEH Compliance Reviews. In addition to the monitoring 

responsibilities undertaken by the DFEH, as specified in Paragraphs 41 and 42 below, 

the City agrees that the DFEH shall have the right under this Consent Decree and 

Agreement to conduct annual reviews of compliance in order to determine whether this 

Consent Decree and Agreement has been fully implemented.



6. DFEH Rights Not Waived. The DFEH does not waive its rights to process 

any complaint against the City other than one arising from or attributable to any of the 

facts alleged in the above-described complaints and accusations.

JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
4

4

7. Parties; Relevant Classifications, Paygrades, and Assignments; DFEH  

Status. Plaintiffs John W. Hunter, La Ley, and the Korean American Law Enforcement 

Association ("KALEA") filed their judicial complaint in this action alleging that the City 

had violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e, et 

set]. ("Title VII"), the Civil Rights Act of 1866,42 U.S.C. § 1981 ("§ 1981"), and the FEHA 

by discriminating against Hispanic, African American, and Asian American sworn 

police officers employed by the Los Angeles Police Department ("Department"), such 

discrimination allegedly occurring on the basis of race, color and national origin in 

promotion to the civil service classifications of Police Detective ("Detective"), Police 

Sergeant ("Sergeant"), and Police Lieutenant ("Lieutenant"), in paygrade advancements 

to the Police Officer III, Detective II, Detective III, Sergeant II, and Lieutenant II 

paygrades, and in assignment to "coveted positions," as defined in Paragraph 25(c) 

below. The parties to this action are plaintiffs Hunter, La Ley, KALEA, and the 

defendant City. The DFEH is a party to this Consent Decree and Agreement as specified 

in Paragraphs 1-6 above, but is not a party to this action.

8. Plaintiff Class Defined. By separate order, the Court has certified under 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23, a plaintiff class composed of:

(a) All African American, Hispanic, arid Asian American Los Angeles 

Police Department sworn officers who are past, present or future applicants for



promotion to the Detective, Sergeant or Lieutenant classifications, applicants for 

paygrade advancement to the Police Officer III, Detective II, Detective III, 

Sergeant II, or Lieutenant II paygrades, or applicants for assignment to "coveted 

positions," as defined in Paragraph 25(c) below, and

(b) All African American, Hispanic, and Asian American sworn 

officers who would have been or would be applicants for such promotions, 

advancements, or assignments but for allegedly illegal promotion, advancement, 

or assignment practices by the City.

9. Plaintiffs Familiar with Relevant City Practices. Through the 

examination of DFEH investigative files, documents relating to Los Angeles Board of 

Police Commissioners proceedings on the hiring and promotion of Hispanics, African 

Americans, and Asian Americans, and through additional investigation and 

information supplied by the City, plaintiffs are familiar with the City's promotion, 

advancement and assignment practices within the above-described classifications and 

paygrades.

10. Notice to Class Members. Notice of the proposed settlement set forth in 

this Consent Decree and Agreement has been given to members of the represented class 

by methods and procedures previously approved in writing and ordered by this Court.

11. Ability o f Class M embers to "Opt Out" o f Class Membership. The 

aforementioned notice stated that each member of the class described in Paragraph 8 

will be included in and bound by this Consent Decree and Agreement unless such class 

member affirmatively elects in writing to "opt out* of the class, to forego the benefits of 

this Consent Decree and Agreement, and to pursue any legal remedies which such class 

member might hold against the City. The persons listed in Attachment A hereto have

4



elected to opt out of the class, and are hereby excluded from the class and from the 

benefits of this Consent Decree and Agreement.

12. Objection by Class Members to Fairness o f Consent Decree and 

Agreement. The aforementioned notice set forth procedures by which any member of 

the class described in Paragraph 8 could object to the fairness of this Consent Decree 

and Agreement, either in person or in writing.

13. Fairness Hearing; Determination o f Reasonableness o f Settlement. 

Pursuant to the aforementioned notice, a fairness hearing was held before this Court, at 

which all members of the class were given an opportunity to object to the settlement set 

forth herein. The Court has reviewed all objections to this Consent Decree and 

Agreement, and has determined that the settlement set forth herein is fair, adequate and 

reasonable.

14. Wa iver o f Hearing; Waiver o f Entry o f Findings and Conclusions; Entry o f 

Consent Decree and Agreement. The parties have waived hearing and the entry of 

findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the parties have agreed to the entry of this 

Consent Decree and Agreement without admission by the City of a violation of Title 

VH, of § 1981, of the FEHA, or of any violation of federal, state, or local law.

15. Jurisdiction. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties and over the 

subject matter of this action.

16. No Admission o f Violation o f Law. The negotiation and entry of this 

Consent Decree and Agreement and the undertakings made by the City hereunder are 

in settlement and compromise of disputed allegations of discrimination in employment



alleged by plaintiffs Hunter, La Ley and KALEA. Neither the negotiation nor the entry 

of this Consent Decree and Agreement shall constitute an admission by the City that it 

or its officials or employees have violated Title VII, § 1981, FEHA, or any federal, state, 

or local law, and the City specifically denies that any such violation has ever occurred. 

Plaintiffs Hunter, La Ley, and KALEA, and defendant City hereby approve and agree to 

the entry of this Consent Decree and Agreement on the condition* that this Consent 

Decree and Agreement does not constitute any admission by the City or by any of its 

officials or employees as to the truth or merit of plaintiffs' allegations. The parties have 

consented to the entry of this Consent Decree and Agreement to avoid the burdens of 

further litigation. This Consent Decree and Agreement is final and binding on all 

parties, on all class members, and on their employees, officials, successors, and assigns, 

as to all of the legal and factual issues which were raised, or like and related claims 

which could have been raised, in this litigation.

17. Extinguishment o f A ll Prior or Contemporaneous Claims. This Consent

Decree and Agreement resolves all issues between all members of the plaintiff class and 

the defendant City relating to alleged practices, acts, and omissions of the City raised by 

the complaint herein, as well as to any future effects of such alleged practices, acts, and 

omissions. With respect to such practices, acts, and omissions, compliance with this 

Consent Decree and Agreement shall be deemed to be compliance with Title VII, with 

§ 1981, with FEHA, and with all federal, state, and local statutes which could have been 

claimed as violated under the facts alleged in the complaint, and such compliance shall 

be deemed to satisfy any and all requirements for affirmative action by the City. The 

doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel shall apply to all members of the plaintiff 

class with respect to all issues of law and fact and matters of relief within the scope of 

the complaint filed herein. No class member bound by this Consent Decree and 

Agreement shall seek or obtain, in a separate action or proceeding, relief which would



add to or be inconsistent with the relief incorporated in this Consent Decree and 

Agreement. The entry of this Consent Decree and Agreement and the undertakings of 

the City set forth herein shall extinguish all claims for relief within the scope of the 

compliant filed herein, except actions taken to enforce the provisions of this Consent 

Decree and Agreement.
4

4

18. Denial o f R elief to Class M embers Who *Opt O ut"  Notwithstanding 

anything to the contrary contained elsewhere in this Consent Decree and Agreement, 

the persons who have opted out of this Consent Decree and Agreement, as specified in

Paragraph 11 above, shall not be entitled to any of the rights or benefits hereinafter set 

forth.

19. Consent Decree and Agreement Constitutes a Court Order; Effect o f Good-

Faith Reliance on EEOC Guidelines. 29 C.F.R. §1608, the EEOC's guidelines on 

affirmative action, and particularly § 1608.8 (adherence to court order), state in relevant 

part, among other things, that "parties are entitled to rely on orders of courts of 

competent jurisdiction," that such orders can include consent decrees, and that "the 

[Equal Employment Opportunity] Commission interprets Title VII to mean that actions 

taken pursuant to the direction of a Court Order cannot give rise to liability under Title 

' v u *" All actions taken pursuant to the requirements of this Consent Decree and 

Agreement are taken "pursuant to the direction of a Court Order" within the meaning 

of § 1608.8, and the parties to this Consent Decree and Agreement are entitled to the 

protection of the EEOC's guidelines on affirmative action in general and of § 1608.8 in 

particular. In addition, with respect to any actions taken pursuant to this Consent 

Decree and Agreement, the parties hereto are entitled to the protection of § 713 (b) (1) of 

Title VII, which provides in relevant part as follows:

—7—



"In any action or proceeding based on any alleged unlawful 

employment practice, no person shall be subject to any 

liability or punishment for or on account of ... the 

commission by such person of any unlawful employment 

practice if he pleads and proves that the act or omission 

complained of was in good faith, in conformity with, and in 

reliance on any written interpretation or opinion of the 

[Equal Employment Opportunity] Commission."

If any actions taken by any party pursuant to this Consent Decree and 

Agreement are held to be unlawful, then under the EEOC's guidelines on affirmative 

action, 29 C.ER. § 1608, such actions will have been taken "in good faith ... reliance 

upon ... written interpretation^] and opinionfs] of the [Equal Employment 

Opportunity] Commission," within the meaning of § 713 (b) (1) of Title VII.

GENERAL PROVISIONS

20. Affirmative Action Platt Because of the continuing desire and efforts of 

the City to provide equal employment opportunities for all City and Department 

employees, because of the expenditure of time and resources which would be required 

from all parties if the allegations in the complaint were to be fully litigated, and because 

of the prospect of delay and uncertainty in achieving their goals in adversary litigation, 

the parties have formulated an affirmative action plan which is embodied in this 

Consent Decree and Agreement, and which will promote and effectuate the purposes of 

Title VII, §1981 and FEHA. The affirmative action plan provides for, among other 

things, goals and special programs designed to address the underrepresentation of 

African American, Hispanic, and Asian American sworn officers in promotions to the



civil service classifications of Detective, Sergeant, and Lieutenant, in paygrade 

advancements to the paygrades of Police Officer III, Detective II, Detective III, Sergeant 

II, and Lieutenant II, and in assignments to "coveted positions," as defined in Paragraph 

25(c) below. These goals and special programs are narrowly tailored to reduce African 

American, Hispanic, and Asian American underrepresentation without affecting the 

legitimate rights and privileges of other Department employees.

21. City M ay Use Any Selection Device Not Expressly Barred. Except for the
ft

requirements of this Consent Decree and Agreement, the City shall be entitled to utilize 

any selection standard, device, practice, or procedure whatsoever in Department 

promotion, paygrade advancement and assignment to "coveted positions," provided 

that if the City is not in substantial compliance with the terms of this Consent Decree 

and Agreement, the Court may, in its discretion, issue such orders as it deems necessary 

to assure compliance with the terms of this Consent Decree and Agreement.

22. No Unqualified Candidate Need Be Selected. The procedures set forth in 

this Consent Decree and Agreement are intended and have been devised by the DFEH 

and by the parties to produce the best qualified candidates for selection to the 

promotions, advancements, and assignments at issue in this litigation. Nothing in this 

Consent Decree and Agreement shall be construed in any way to require the City to 

promote, to advance, or to assign persons unqualified under then current selection 

standards, devices, practices, or procedures. All provisions in this Consent Decree and 

Agreement are subject to the availability of qualified African American, Hispanic, and 

Asian American candidates. However, the City shall in good faith conduct such 

programs as are necessary to satisfy the promotion, advancement, and assignment 

requirements of this Consent Decree and Agreement. Nothing in this Consent Decree

—9—



and Agreement shall require the City to grant a preference to any particular individual 

who is African American, Hispanic, or Asian American.

23. Bona Fide Seniority Systems Preserved. Nothing in this Consent Decree
•v

and Agreement shall be construed to require the City to violate the terms, conditions, or 

privileges of employment pursuant to a bona fide seniority system embodied in a 

collective bargaining agreement, provided such terms, conditions, or privileges of 

employment are not the result of an intention to discriminate on the bases of race, color,
%

or national origin.

24. Consent Decree and Agreement Represents Best Efforts o f DFEH and 

Parties. The relief set forth in this Consent Decree and Agreement represents the best 

efforts of the DFEH and of the parties to formulate relief for purported victims of the 

discrimination alleged in the complaint in light of various factors, including the 

complex nature of personnel selection procedures, limited records, and the great time 

and expense required to identify specific purported victims of alleged discrimination.

—10—



COVERAGE

25. Relevant Employment Opportunities. Coverage of this Consent Decree 

shall be limited to the following employment opportunities for sworn Department

police officers:

4
4

(a) Promotion. Promotion through civil service procedures to the 

classifications of Detective/ Sergeant and Lieutenant ("relevant classifications");

(b) Paygrade Advancement. Advancement to the Detective II, Detective 

III, Sergeant II, Lieutenant II, and Police Officer III paygrades ("relevant

paygrades"); and

(c) Assignment to "Coveted P o s it io n s "Coveted Positions" Defined. 

Assignment, advancement or promotion to "coveted positions." "Coveted 

positions" are those Department sworn police officer assignments likely to assist 

an officer in developing the insight and skills necessary to enhance a career path 

of promotability toward the command and staff ranks. For purposes of this 

Consent Decree and Agreement only, "coveted positions" shall include: (i) all 

Lieutenant 1 and Lieutenant II staff positions at the Office or Bureau level; (ii) all 

Lieutenant II unit officer-in-charge positions; (iii) all Lieutenant II division 

commanding officer positions; (iv) all Sergeant I and Sergeant II staff positions at 

the Office or Bureau level; (v) all Sergeant II Geographic Area vice unit positions; 

(vi) all Sergeant II Geographic Area assistant watch commander positions; (vii) 

all Sergeant II Internal Affairs Division positions; (viii) all Sergeant II Planning 

and Research Division positions; (be) all Sergeant II unit officer-in-charge 

positions; (x) all Sergeant I patrol adjutant positions; (xi) all Police Officer III and 

Police Officer III+l staff positions at the Office or Bureau level; (xii) all Police 

Officer III+l Internal Affairs Division positions; (xiii) all Police Officer III+l

— 11—



Geographic Area positions; (xiv) all Police Officer III staff researcher and writer 

positions; (xv) all Detective II and Detective III positions assigned to the Office of 

the Chief of Police; and (xvi) all Detective II and Detective III positions assigned 

to the front and back offices at a Bureau or Office level.

GOALS

26. Annual Promotion Goals. In each calendar year during the period this 

Consent Decree is in effect, the City shall engage in vigorous good faith efforts to 

promote African American, Hispanic, and Asian American ("enumerated ethnic 

group") sworn police officers into position openings in the Detective, Sergeant and 

Lieutenant classifications at or above the following annual promotion goals. For each 

such enumerated ethnic group and for each classification, at or before the beginning of 

each calendar year an annual goal shall be established which is eighty percent (80%) of 

the ethnic group's percentage representation among sworn police officers who are in 

feeder paygrades and who meet then-established minimum requirements for 

promotion. The feeder paygrades for the Lieutenant classification shall be Sergeant I, 

Sergeant II, Detective II, and Detective III. The feeder paygrades for the Detective and 

Sergeant classifications shall be Police Officer II, Pblice Officer III+l, and Police Officer

III. If an enumerated ethnic group's percentage representation among sworn police 

officers actually applying for promotion to a classification during the preceding 

calendar year is higher than the same ethnic group's percentage representation within 

the combined feeder paygrades for the same classification, then the percentage 

representation of actual applicants shall be used to establish the ethnic group's annual 

promotion goal. If an applicant for promotion to one of the relevant classifications meets 

then-established minimum requirements for promotion, is a member of one of the 

above-enumerated ethnic groups, and has received a passing grade on two or more

— 12—



written examinations for the same classification taken before the effective date of this 

Consent Decree and Agreement, such applicant shall be entitled to a selection 

preference over another member of one of the above-enumerated ethnic groups if the 

two are substantially equally qualified for promotion.

27* Interim Promotion Goals. In addition to the annual promotion goals 

described in Paragraph 26 above, the City shall also have a three-year interim goal to 

engage in vigorous good faith efforts to promote African American, Hispanic, and 

Asian American sworn police officers into position openings in the Detective, Sergeant 

and Lieutenant classifications at a rate equal to or above the mean percentage 

representation of each enumerated ethnic group within the combined feeder paygrades 

for each classification during the immediately preceding three-year period.

28. Annual Paygrade Advancement Goals. In each calendar year during the 

period this Consent Decree is in effect, the City shall engage in vigorous good faith 

efforts to advance African American, Hispanic, and Asian American sworn police 

officers into position openings in the Police Officer III, Detective II, Detective III, 

Sergeant II and Lieutenant II paygrades ("target paygrades") at or above the following 

annual paygrade advancement goals. For each enumerated ethnic group and for each 

target paygrade, at or before the beginning of each calendar year an annual goal shall be 

established which is eighty percent (80%) of the ethnic group's percentage 

representation among sworn police officers who are in feeder paygrades and who meet 

then-established minimum requirements for paygrade advancement. The feeder 

paygrade for the Lieutenant II target paygrade shall be Lieutenant I. The feeder 

paygrade for the Sergeant II target paygrade shall be Sergeant I. The feeder paygrade 

for the Detective III target paygrade shall be Detective II. The feeder paygrade for the 

Detective II target paygrade shall be Detective I. The feeder paygrade for the Police



Officer III target paygrade shall be Police Officer II. If an enumerated ethnic group's 

percentage representation among sworn police officers actually applying for 

advancement to a target paygrade during the preceding calendar year is higher than the 

same ethnic group's percentage representation within the combined feeder paygrades 

for the same target paygrade, then the percentage representation of actual applicants 

shall be used to establish the ethnic group's annual paygrade advancement goal. If an 

applicant for advancement to one of the relevant target paygrades meets then- 

established minimum requirements for advancement, is a member of one of the above-
%

enumerated ethnic groups, and has taken three or more oral interviews for the same 

paygrade assignment before the effective date of this Consent Decree and Agreement, 

such applicant shall be entitled to a selection preference over another member of one of 

the above-enumerated ethnic groups if the two are substantially equally qualified for 

advancement. As used in this Paragraph, the term "same paygrade assignment" refers 

to the unique category of position opening applied for, as illustrated in the list in 

Paragraph 25(c) above, and does not refer to other position openings seeking applicants 

of the same paygrade.

29. Interim Paygrade Advancement Goals. In addition to the annual paygrade 

advancement goals described in Paragraph 28 above, the City shall also have a three- 

year interim goal to engage in vigorous good faith efforts to advance African American, 

Hispanic, and Asian American sworn police officers into position openings in the Police 

Officer III, Detective II, Detective III, Sergeant II and Lieutenant II target paygrades at a 

rate equal to or above the mean percentage representation of each enumerated ethnic 

group within the combined feeder paygrades for each target paygrade during the 

immediately preceding three-year period.

— 14—



30. Annual "Coveted Position" Assignment Goals. In each calendar year 

during the period this Consent Decree is in effect, the City shall engage in vigorous 

good faith efforts to assign, advance, promote, or otherwise place African American, 

Hispanic, and Asian American sworn police officers into position openings within 

coveted positions, as defined in Paragraph 25(c) above, at or above the following 

annual coveted position" assignment goals. For each enumerated ̂ ethnic group, at or 

before the beginning of each calendar year an annual goal shall be established which is

eighty percent (80%) of the ethnic group's percentage representation among police '
%

officers within all paygrades between Police Officer III and Lieutenant II, inclusive, who 

are not assigned to "coveted positions." If an enumerated ethnic group's percentage 

representation among sworn police officers actually applying for advancement to all 

"coveted positions" during the preceding calendar year is higher than the same ethnic 

group's percentage representation among police officers within all paygrades between 

Police Officer III and Lieutenant II, inclusive, who are not assigned to "coveted 

positions," then the percentage representation of actual applicants shall be used to 

establish the ethnic group's annual "coveted position" assignment goal. If an applicant 

for assignment to a coveted position" meets then-established minimum requirements 

for the assignment, is a member of one of the above-enumerated ethnic groups, and has 

taken an oral interview for the same "coveted position" opening three or more times 

before the effective date of this Consent Decree and Agreement, such applicant shall be 

entitled to a selection preference over another member of one of the above-enumerated 

ethnic groups if the two are substantially equally qualified for the assignment.

— 15—



31. Interim "Coveted Position" Assignment Goals. In addition to the annual 

"coveted position" assignment goals described in Paragraph 30 above, the City shall 

also have a three-year interim goal to engage in vigorous good faith efforts to assign 

African American, Hispanic, and Asian American sworn police officers into "coveted 

position" openings at rates equal to or above the mean percentage representation of 

each enumerated ethnic group among police officers within all paygrades between 

Police Officer III and Lieutenant II, inclusive, who are not assigned to "coveted 

positions" during the immediately preceding three-year period.

32. Use o f Written M ultiple-choice Tests. For a civil service promotion 

examination for any of the classifications of Police Detective, Police Sergeant, and Police 

Lieutenant, the City may utilize a written multiple-choice test, weighted at thirty 

percent (30%) of a candidate's combined score, with the remaining portions of each 

promotion examination weighted at seventy percent (70%). However, if the use of such 

a weighted multiple-choice test causes African American, Hispanic, and Asian 

American applicants to promote—during the two years in which the roster of eligible 

candidates produced by the written multiple-choice test is active—at a rate which is 

statistically significantly lower than Caucasian applicants, then future written multiple- 

choice promotion tests for the same classification will be evaluated on an "unweighted," 

"qualifying," or "pass-fail" basis. No written multiple-choice test shall be used to rank 

applicants for paygrade advancement or for assignment to "coveted positions."

— 16—



33. Use o f Oral Interviews. The City may only use oral interviews for 

paygrade advancement or for assignment to "coveted positions" if the following 

procedures are followed:

(a) Use standardized written interview questions, but with unwritten 

follow-up questions permitted where appropriate;

(b) Use uniform rating criteria;

(c) Quantify and score interviews;

(d) Utilize procedures to assure consistency of rating by different raters 

on the same interview panel;

(e) Utilize oral interview review procedures and inform interviewees 

of the existence and substance of such procedures;

(f) Use bilingualism as a selection criteria, where appropriate; and

(g) Maintain records of all proceedings for at least three (3) years.

34. Goal Attainment Procedures. If any of the above annual goals is not met, 

the City is obliged to perform the following tasks in order to enhance its ability to meet 

the annual goal in the following yean

(a) Analyze its employment practices;

(b) Identify areas for improvement or practices for adjustment;

(c) Consider utilization of alternative selection devices to eliminate 

adverse impact, including, but not limited to, alternatives to written multiple- 

choice tests, use of "pass-fail" written multiple-choice tests, reweighting of 

selection criteria, and use of bonus points;

(d) Make improvements or adjustments as required; and

—17—



(e) Meet periodically each year with representatives of the DFEH and 

plaintiffs' counsel to accomplish these tasks.

35. Workplace Diversity. It shall continue to be the City's policy that all Police 

Department workplaces staffed by sworn officers reflect the Department's racial and 

ethnic diversity. If the annual monitoring reports required by Paragraphs 41 and 42 of 

this Consent Decree and Agreement reveal a substantial underrepresentation of African 

American, Hispanic, or Asian American sworn officers in a unit, section, division,
%

geographic area, bureau, or office, then the City shall use vigorous good faith efforts to 

promote, advance, or assign police officers from each underrepresented ethnic group 

into the identified workplace. These efforts may include consideration of a numerical 

selection goal for the identified unit. The methodology for determining any goal will be 

agreed upon by the parties as part of their periodic meetings, as described in Paragraph 

34(e) of this Consent Decree and Agreement.

36. Revision o f "Rule o f Three Whole Scores." The City shall use its best 

efforts to secure the consent of the recognized bargaining representative of the Police 

Officers Lieutenant and Below Bargaining Unit to a modification of the Department's 

present application of the "Rule of Three Whole Scores." This modification will require 

the Chief of Police— during the last six months of the two-year life of a roster of eligible 

candidates for promotion to any of the civil service classifications of Police Detective, 

Police Sergeant, or Police Lieutenant—to treat as equally eligible for promotion all 

applicants certified by the City Personnel Department. During the first eighteen months 

of the life of such rosters of eligible candidates, the Chief of Police will select promotion 

candidates as he does at present—in order of combined whole score bands, exhausting 

the candidates in each combined whole score band before selecting candidates from the 

next lower combined whole score band.

—18—



37. Use o f Quotas Prohibited. Neither the above annual goals, interim goals, 

nor goal attainment procedures shall be utilized as quotas. This Consent Decree and 

Agreement shall not be construed to require or to permit the use of quota relief.

38. Term o f Consent Decree. The City may petition to be Relieved of all of its 

obligations under the terms of this Consent Decree and Agreement fifteen (15) years

after the date of entry thereof. At that time, the City shall be entitled to a rebuttable -
' f t

presumption that it has substantially complied with the provisions of the Consent 

Decree and Agreement. However, the City may petition to be relieved of its obligations 

under the terms of this Consent Decree and Agreement in less than fifteen (15) years 

upon a showing of substantial compliance with the provisions of the Consent Decree 

and Agreement twelve (12) years after the date of the entry thereof. This Court retains 

jurisdiction over this Consent Decree until such time as the City's petition for relief has 

been granted.

SPECIAL PROGRAMS

39. Special Programs Enumerated. In order to effectuate this Consent Decree 

and Agreement, the City will initiate the following programs:

(a) Training Fund. The City shall deposit into an account designated by 

the plaintiffs the sum of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) during the 

month of January in each of the first five (5) years following the entry of this 

Consent Decree and Agreement. Such funds shall be used to establish tutoring 

programs devised and administered by the Hispanic and African American 

plaintiffs. Such tutoring programs shall be designed to develop in police officers

— 19—



the knowledges, skills, and abilities required for successful performance on 

written and oral police promotion and paygrade advancement examinations and 

interviews, and shall be open to all Department police officer applicants without 

regard to race or ethnicity. Plaintiffs annually shall supply the City with a budget 

and supporting documentation for any expenditures from the fund established 

by this Paragraph 39(a). Documentation for any expenditures shall be maintained 

for a period of five (5) years and supplied to the City upon reasonable notice.

(b) Scholarship, Promotion Incentive, and Retirement Benefits Fund.
%

The City shall within thirty (30) days of the entry of this Consent Decree and 

Agreement deposit into an account designated by the plaintiffs the sum of five 

hundred thousand dollars ($ 500,000). Such account shall be administered by the 

Hispanic, African American, and Asian American plaintiffs to provide monies (i) 

to currently employed Hispanic, African American, and Asian American Los 

Angeles police officers who have been adversely affected by City promotional or 

paygrade advancement practices or procedures, to enable such officers to pursue 

training, educational, and developmental programs, and for other purposes, and

(ii) to retired Hispanic, African American, and Asian American Los Angeles 

police officers who have been adversely affected by City promotional or 

paygrade advancement practices or procedures, who retired on or after 

September 12, 1988, and who are unable to participate in future training, 

educational, and developmental programs.

Plaintiffs shall determine the criteria upon which any payments will be 

based, shall establish maximum and minimum limits of payments, and shall 

decide individual eligibility for receipt of payments.

Plaintiffs shall maintain appropriate documentation sufficient to enable 

the City to verify upon audit that each recipient is eligible for his or her payment.

—20—



At a minimum, such documentation shall include the name of each recipient, and 

a brief statement of the basis for each recipient's eligibility.

When the initial five hundred thousand dollars ($ 500,000) account 

established by this Paragraph 39(b) has been fully distributed by the plaintiffs to 

appropriate recipients pursuant to the above terms and conditions, the plaintiffs 

shall so notify the City, accompanying such notice with* a report of all 

expenditures from the account. Within thirty (30) days of such notice, the City 

shall deposit into an account designated by the plaintiffs a second and final sum „ 

of five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) to be expended for the same 

purposes and under the same terms and conditions as specified above.

Reports of all expenditures from the fund established by this Paragraph 

39(b) shall be maintained until five (5) years after the fund is exhausted. Such 

reports shall be supplied to the City at the end of each calendar month until the 

fund is exhausted.

The plaintiffs may, if they wish, appoint a Special Master to assist them in 

the performance of their obligations under this Paragraph 39(b). Any 

compensation fee for such Special Master may be included as an allowable 

expenditure from the fund. The City shall reimburse the first ten thousand 

dollars ($ 10,000) of any compensation fee for such Special Master, and the fund 

itself shall reimburse all subsequent compensation fees.

(c) Job Counseling. The City shall employ job counselors within the 

Police Department to provide counseling for employees seeking civil service 

promotions, paygrade advancement, assignment to "coveted positions," and 

overall career enhancement. During the first calendar year following the entry of 

this Consent Decree and Agreeement, the City shall employ at least one such job 

counselor on a full-time basis. In performing their duties, job counselors may

—21 —



have access to a counselee's personnel record if the counselee gives his or her 

permission.

(d) Affirtnative Action Training. The City shall develop a training 

program for all management and supervisory Department police officers within 

ninety (90) days of the effective date of the Court's approval of this Consent 

Decree and Agreement The training shall focus on non-discrimination programs 

and work force utilization. Such training program shall be reviewed and 

approved by a representative of the DFEH, and then implemented immediately.

(e) Accountability. The Department shall include as a mandatory 

element of semi-annual performance evaluations the efforts made by its 

supervisors and managers in the attainment of the goals and implementation of 

the programs contained in this Consent Decree and Agreement.

(f) Supervisory Cross-Training Program. The City shall institute a 

Supervisory Cross-Training Program ("SCTP") in order to enhance the 

promotability of Sergeants and Detectives. The SCTP will be open to persons 

assigned to the paygrades of Detective II and Detective III and to non- 

probationary Sergeants. In selecting persons for participation in the SCIT> the 

City shall consider each applicant's future ability to promote, based upon such 

applicant's past work performance, as well as the goals enumerated in this 

Consent Decree and Agreement.

The number of employees allowed to participate in the SCTP at any given 

time may be limited, at the City's discretion, to an equal number of Sergeants and 

Detectives.

The SCTP is expected to provide Sergeants the opportunity to work a 

Detective assignment, and Detectives the opportunity to work a field supervisory 

assignment. All personnel loans under the SCTP will be for a minimum of six 

and a maximum of twelve months. The loans will be on a voluntary basis, and



each participant will be allowed to revert back to his or her regular assignment 

before expiration of the six months minimum if the participant so desires and if 

the deployment needs of the Police Department so permit.

INDIVIDUAL RELIEF

4
. 4

40. John W. Hunter. Plaintiff John W. Hunter shall receive from the City a 

monetary sum to be agreed upon by counsel for Hunter and the City. Upon entry of this 

Consent Decree and Agreement, Hunter shall waive any right to press claims of 

discrimination arising under Title VII, §1981, FEHA or any other federal, state, or local 

law prior to the date of entry of this Consent Decree and Agreement. By agreeing to this 

payment, the City does not admit any wrongdoing, but seeks to avoid the expense of 

litigation and to resolve amicably plaintiff Hunter's claims.

MONITORING

41. Monitoring. The City shall provide the monitoring reports set forth in 

Paragraph 42 below to the DFEH and to counsel for plaintiffs at the beginning of each 

calendar year during the period this Consent Decree and Agreement remains in effect. 

The Honorable Ralph B. Dash, Presiding Administrative Law Judge, State of California 

Office of Administrative Hearings, Los Angeles, California, shall serve as the Court's 

monitor for the implementation of this Consent Decree and Agreement, and shall hold 

periodic hearings at the request of the parties and make recommendations to the Court 

as to any dispute among the parties and the DFEH.

—23—



42. Required Annual Reports.

(a) Determination o f First and Subsequent Calendar Years. For purposes of 

this Consent Decree and Agreement, the first calendar year shall be determined as 

beginning with the entry of this Consent Decree and Agreement and ending December 

31,1992. Subsequent calendar years shall begin on January 1 and end on December 31 of 

each year.

(b) Annual Status R eport On or about April 1, 1993, and on or about each 

April 1 thereafter while this Consent Decree and Agreement is in effect, the City shall
%

submit a status report for the prior calendar year to DFEH and plaintiffs' counsel. The 

status report shall consist of a summary which sets forth for each relevant classification, 

each relevant paygrade, and each category of "coveted position," as set forth in 

Paragraph 25, the following:

(i) the annual goals for each enumerated ethnic group;

(ii) any interim goal for each enumerated ethnic group;

(iii) the total number of persons entering the classification, paygrade, or 

category of "coveted position;"

(iv) the number and percentage of each enumerated ethnic group 

appointed on an annual and interim basis; and

(v) the total number of each enumerated ethnic group and of all others 

in the classification, paygrade, or category of "coveted position."

—24—



The status report also shall include:

(i) how annual and interim goals were determined, including the 

underlying data used;

(ii) an analysis, for each written multiple-choice test, of the promotions 

of each enumerated ethnic group and all others pursuant to the written multiple- 

choice test;

(iii) an analysis, for each relevant paygrade or category of "coveted 

position," of the advancement or assignment of each enumerated ethnic group 

and others pursuant to an oral interview;

(iv) an analysis of the race or ethnicity of each participant on an oral 

interview or review panel;

(v) an analysis of the composition of each oral interview or review 

panel by departmental, outside law enforcement or community affiliation of the 

panelists;

(vi) the number of each enumerated ethnic group and of all others in 

each unit, section, division, geographic area, bureau, and office of the 

Department, and the assignment rates of each enumerated ethnic group and of 

all others to each such entity during the preceding year;

(vii) the number of bilingual officers, by language, assigned to each unit, 

section, division, geographic area, bureau, and office of the Department, and the 

number of bilingual assignment vacancies, by language, which exist in each such 

entity;

(viii) an analysis, by race or ethnicity of the counselee, of any job 

counseling provided to Department employees; and

— 25—



(ix) an analysis, by race or ethnicity of the participant, of participation 

in the Supervisory Cross-Training Program established by Paragraph 39(f) of this 

Consent Decree and Agreement.

(c) Additional Reports. DFEH and plaintiffs' representative may also request 

such additional compilations and analyses of data as may be necessary to perform their 

responsibilities under Paragraphs 5 and 34 of this Consent Decree and Agreement.

RETENTION OF JURISDICTION
T

43. Retention o f Jurisdiction. The Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce this

Consent Decree and Agreement.

ATTORNEYS FEES

44. Attorneys Fees.

(a) Prevailing Party. Plaintiffs shall be considered the prevailing party for 

purposes of awards of attorneys fees and costs pursuant to Title VII and FEHA. 

Plaintiffs may apply for awards for monitoring and implementation of this Consent 

Decree and Agreement, and any other proceedings which may be required, as well as 

legal work performed by their counsel as of the date of the entry of this Consent Decree 

and Agreement.

(b) Negotiation o f Attorneys Fee Claims. After entry of this Consent Decree 

and Agreement, the parties shall attempt to negotiate a settlement of plaintiffs' claims 

for attorneys fees and costs. If these negotiations are unsuccessful, the matter shall be 

submitted to a practicing attorney of recognized reputation specializing in litigation and 

familiar with current billing rates and practices in the Los Angeles area, serving as

—26—



Special Master. The parties shall attempt to agree on the person to serve as a Special 

Master. If the parties are unable to agree on a Special Master, the Court shall appoint a 

practicing attorney of recognized reputation specializing in litigation and familiar with 

current billing rates and practices in the Los Angeles area to serve as Special Master.

(c) No Delay o f Payment o f Attorneys Fees. The determination and award of 

attorneys fees and costs, including the payment of such fees and costs, shall not be 

delayed because of any appeal. If for any reason this Consent Decree and Agreement is 

disapproved as a final matter such that plaintiffs no longer would be considered the 

prevailing party, plaintiffs' counsel are obliged to repay all attorneys fees and costs 

received from the City.

(d) Subsequent Attorneys Fee Claims. If any subsequent claims for an award 

of attorneys fees and costs are made by plaintiffs, the procedures set forth in Paragraphs 

44(b) and 44(c) above shall be utilized.

MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

45. Use o f Headings. Paragraph headings are supplied for ease in identifying 

the various provisions. The headings are not intended to be used in the construction or 

interpretation of the provisions themselves.

46. Ethnic Designations. The term "African American" shall refer to the 

persons categorized as "black" in the Police Department's "Sworn Personnel by Rank, 

Sex and Ethnicity" report as of the date of the submission of this Consent Decree and 

Agreement. The term "Hispanic" shall refer to the persons categorized as "Hispanic" in 

the same document. The term "Asian American" shall refer to the persons categorized 

as "Asian American" or "Filipino" in the same document.

—27—