Louisville Black Police Officers Organization Inc. v. City of Louisville Brief for Plaintiffs Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order and Judgement

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY 

AT LOUISVILLE
CIVIL ACTION No. C 74-106 L (A)

LOUISVILLE BLACK POLICE OFFICERS 
ORGANIZATION, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,
- vs -

CITY OF LOUISVILLE, et al.,
Defendants.

PLAINTIFFS' PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT, 
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER AND 

JUDGMENT

WILLIAM H. ALLISON, JR.
PAUL SOREFF

3208 West Broadway 
Louisville, Kentucky 40211

JUANITA LOGAN CHRISTIAN
Suite 240, Hart Block Building 
730 West Main Street 
Louisville, Kentucky 40202

FREDERIC J. COWDEN
1300 West Broadway 
Louisville, Kentucky 40203

JACK GREENBERG 
KRISTINE S. KNAPLUND 
PATRICK O. PATTERSON

10 Columbus Circle 
Suite 2030
New York, New York 10019 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY 

AT LOUISVILLE

LOUISVILLE BLACK POLICE OFFICERS 
ORGANIZATION, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,
vs. CIVIL ACTION NO.

CITY OF LOUISVILLE, et al., C 74-106 L (A)
Defendants.

PLAINTIFFS' PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT, 
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER AND 

JUDGMENT

Plaintiffs, by their counsel, submit the following pro­
posed findings of fact, proposed conclusions of law, and proposed 
order and judgment for consideration together with plaintiffs' 
post-trial brief and supplemental post-trial brief.

Respectfully submitted,
--- -— __

WILLIAM H. ALLISON, JR.
PAUL SOREFF

3208 West Broadway 
Louisville, Kentucky 40211

JUANITA LOGAN CHRISTIAN
Suite 240, Hart Block Building 
730 West Main Street 
Louisville1, Kentucky 40202

FREDERIC J. COWDEN
1300 West Broadway 
Louisville, Kentucky 40203

JACK GREENBERG
KRISTINE S. KNAPLUND
PATRICK O. PATTERSON

10 Columbus Circle, Suite 2030 
New York, New York 10019

Dated: September 13, 1978 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
New York, New York



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY 

AT LOUISVILLE

LOUISVILLE BLACK POLICE OFFICERS 
ORGANIZATION, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,
vs.

CITY OF LOUISVILLE, et al.,
Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 
C 74-106 L (A)

PLAINTIFFS' PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT I. 2

I. The Action and the Parties

1. This is a class action brought under Title VII of the 
Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., 
the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and 
42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 for declaratory, injunctive, and other 
relief from racial discrimination in recruitment, testing, selec­
tion, hiring, assignment, promotion, discipline, and other 
employment practices concerning positions in the City of Louisville 
Division of Police.

2. The named plaintiffs are the Louisville Black Police 
Officers Organization, Inc., a nonprofit organization composed of



black police officers; Shelby Lanier, Jr., the president of the 
organization, and Gary Hearn, both of whom are black citizens of 
the United States and residents of Kentucky, and both of whom are 
employed as police officers in the Louisville Division of Police; 
and Ronald Jackson, James Steptoe, and Len Holt, black citizens 
of the United States and residents of Kentucky who have applied 
for jobs as police officers in the Louisville Division of Police. 
Pursuant to Rule 23, Fed. R. Civ. P., the named plaintiffs have 
been certified as representatives of the classes defined in the 
order entered by the Court on June 27, 1975, as amended on April 
22, 1977.

3. The defendants are the City of Louisville, the Mayor 
of Louisville, the Chief of the Louisville Division of Police, 
the Louisville Civil Service Board and its members, and the 
Personnel Director of Louisville. The Louisville Civil Service 
Board and the Personnel Director are responsible for selection 
and certification of persons for positions in the Louisville 
Division of Police and other civil service positions. Priebe,

JL/Vol. I, 6/20/77 at 31. The Louisville Division of Police is 
engaged in crime prevention and detection, apprehension of 
alleged criminals, and the provision of social services and 
counseling. Nevin, Vol. IV, 6/23/77 at 480. The primary opera­
tions of the Division'are within the Louisville city limits. Id. 
at 488.

1/ Citations in this form refer to the transcript of the trial 
in this action.

- 2 -



II. Population Statistics

4. The following chart shows the percentage of black 
persons in the total population for each geographic area in 
each year indicated. The geographic boundaries of the areas 
included in the "Metropolitan Area" column varied somewhat during 
the period under review, as indicated in the census data cited 
as sources.

Metropolitan Jefferson City of
_________________Area_________________ County____________Louisville

1940 12.4%* 13.3%* 14.8%*

1950 11.5%* 12.9%* 15.6%*

1960 11.5%* 12.8%* 17.9%*

1970 12 .2%** 13.8%*** 23.8%***

1975
estimate 14.2%****

Sources: * Appendix A
** PX 113

*** DX 2 7
**** PX 114; Weir, Vol. V, 9/30/77 at 869-70

- 3-



5 .
The following chart provides a more detailed breakdown 

of the percentage of blacks in various population subgroups in 
each of the geographic areas indicated for the year 1970.

Geographic 
Area______

Black % 
of Total 
Popula­
tion____

Black % of
Population
25 Years of
Age & Older
With 4 Years
of High Black % of
School and population
No Further 18-24 Years
Education of Age______

Black % of 
Population 
18-24 Years 
of Age Not 
Enrolled in 
School Who 
Have Com­
pleted 4 
Years of 
High School

Black % of 
Population 
18-24 Years 
of Age En­
rolled in 
their 4th 
Year of 
High School

SMSA* 12.2 8 . 9%** 11 . 88% 11.3% 14.1%

Jefferson***County 13.8% 10.3% 13.3%

City of****Louisville 23.8% 19.0% 21.4% 2 3 .5% 2 3 .4%

Source: * PX 113
■k k PX 116, Table 83 at 258, Table 91 at 298.

k k k PX 112
k k k k PX 111

- 4 -



III. History of Racial Discrimination

6. From 1940 to 1960, the total number of officers 
in the Louisville Division of Police was approximately 
400-500. Hughes, Vol. I, 3/9/77 at 126; Taylor, Vol. I,
3/9/77 at 198; Thornberry, Vol. Ill, 6/22/77 at 404;
Haendiges, Vol. II, 9/27/77 at 284. In the 1940s, there 
were 20-25 black officers. Taylor, Vol. I 3/9/77 at 198.
In 1951-1953, when James Thornberry was Director of Safety,
30-40 blacks were recruited, and a number of black officers 
were hired and remained on the force. Thornberry, Vol. Ill, 
6/22/77 at 406. Thereafter in the 1950s, there were 30-40 
black officers on the force. Haendiges, Vol. II, 9/27/77 at 
287; Ponder, Vol. I, 3/8/77 at 8. The total number of officers, 
and the percentage of black officers in each year from 1964 
until the time of trial are set forth in the following table 
(from PX 38) :

Date
Total Number 
Of Officers

Number Of Black 
Officers

Percentag 
Black Off

1/1/64 524 32 6.1%
1/1/65 528 33 6.3%
1/1/66 532 34 6.4%
1/1/67 537 34 6.3%
1/1/68 557 37 6.6%
1/1/69 604 38 6.3%
1/1/70 621 39 6.3%

- 5-



Date
Total Number 
Of Officers

Number Of Black 
Officers ______

Percentage Of 
Black Officers

1/1/71 624
1/1/72 664
1/1/73 692
1/1/74 765
1/1/75 789
3/1/77 714

38 6.1%
37 5.6%
39 5.6%
43 5.6%
55 7.0%
53 7.4%

7. From at least 1944, the defendants and their predecessors 
maintained a pattern and practice of hiring and promoting blacks for 
a limited number of "black only" jobs, and they maintained a strict 
limit on the number and percentage of blacks on the police force at 
any given time. PX 7, 38; Fraction, Vol. I, 3/8/77 at 78-/9, 119; 
Tay]or, Vcl. I, 3/8/77 at 195, and Vol. II, 3/10/77 at 216.
There have never been more than 55 black officers on the force 
at any one time in the past 26 years. Fraction, Vol. I, 3/8/77 
at 78; PX 38.

8. In 1944, 11 black officers were hired specifically 
to form three black platoons, each headed by the city's first 
three black Sergeants. Taylor, Vol. I, 3/9/77 at 195. Seven 
years later, in 1951, 6 black officers, including Robert Fraction, 
were hired to replace officers who had left the three black pla­
toons. These new officers were all assigned to the three black 
platoons. Fraction, Vol. I, 3/8/77 at 119. Although between
15 and 82 new white officers were accepted into police recruit 
school classes which graduated in each year from 1964 through 
1973, no more than 2 new black officers were ever accepted into

- 6-



recruit school classes which graduated in any of those years, 
as set forth in the following table (from PX 7): 9

Number of Whites Number of Blacks
Accepted Into Accepted Into

Graduation Year Classes Classes
1964 25 2
1965 15 0
1966 38 2
1967 29 2
1968 16 0
1969 24 1
1970 24 0
1971 36 0
1972 28 2
1973 82 2

9. The defendants maintained a longstanding policy of 
segregated assignments of black officers. Until approximately 
1970, the areas patrolled by the Division of Police consisted 
of four districts within the Louisville city limits. Between 
1970 and 1974, the district boundaries were redefined and new 
fifth and sixth districts were created. Lanier, Vol. IV,
4/28/77 at 710-711; Haendiges, Vol. II, 9/27/77 at 293. Until 
the early 1960s, all black uniformed patrol officers were assign­
ed to work in the predominately black area of the second district 
which was bounded by 6th Street on the east, 14th Street on the 
west, Jefferson Street on the north, and Esquire Alley or Broad­
way on the south. Ponder, Vol. I, 3/8/77 at 7-8; Thornberry,

- 7-



Vol. Ill, 6/22/77 at 404-405; Nevin, Vol. IV, 6/23/77 at 490; 
Haendiges, Vol. II, 9/27/77 at 281, 290-292. Although as late 
as 1964 most black officers were still assigned to the second 
district, more blacks were assigned to the West End area of the 
fourth district as the black population grew in that area. 
Haendiges, Vol. II, 9/27/77 at 281, 292-93. When blacks were 
assigned to the fourth district, they were only allowed to 
patrol in the black sections of the district. Lanier, Vol. IV, 
4/28/77 at 709-710.

10. At least until the late 1960s, black recruits were 
assigned to a "black" district irrespective of their desires.
All white graduates of recruit school were given the opportunity 
to request both the district and the type of work they desired. 
Brown, Vol. IV, 4/28/77 at 562; Lanier, Vol. IV, 4/28/77 at 
699-701. Black recruit school graduates were told not to bother 
filling out the assignment request forms which were normally 
supplied because they would be assigned to the black areas re­
gardless of their request. Brown, Vol. IV, 4/28/77 at 562; 
Lanier, Vol. IV, 4/28/77 at 699-701. When black graduates 
filled out the assignment request froms, they were consistently 
sent to the black areas regardless of their request. Fraction, 
Vol. I, 3/8/77 at 80; Brown, Vol. IV, 4/28/77 at 562; Lanier, 
Vol. IV, 4/28/77 at 699-701.

- 8 -



11. By 1969, no black officers had ever been assigned to 
the first or third district. Fraction, Vol. I, 3/8/77 at 91.
At the time of trial, the great majority of black officers were 
assigned to the second, fourth, and sixth districts, v/ith only 
one to three black officers assigned to each of the three re­
maining districts. Lanier, Vol. IV, 4/28/77 at 720-21.

12. Until approximately 1964, the regular assignments of
all black uniformed patrol officers in the Division were restricted 
exclusively to walking beats in the second district regardless 
of the area or assignment which they requested. Fraction, Vol.
I, 3/8/77 at 80; Brown, Vol. IV, 4/28/77 at 562-63; Lanier, Vol. IV, 
4/28/77 at 699-701. White uniformed patrol officers were given 
regular assignments throughout the second district and in all 
other districts throughout the city. Lanier, Vol. V, 4/29/77 
at 843. Until approximately 1964, black uniformed patrol officers 
were not assigned or allowed to ride in patrol cars, while white 
uniformed patrol officers were assigned and allowed to ride in 
patrol cars. Throughout the 1950s, the same beats that blacks 
were forced to patrol on foot were also patrolled by police cars 
staffed only by whites. These assignments were made without 
reference to length of service on the force. Hughes, Vol. I,
3/9/77 at 155-56, 166-168; Taylor, Vol. I, 3/9/77 at 202; Lanier, 
Vol. IV, 4/28/77 at 701.

- 9-



13. Although until approximately 1964 the regular assign­
ments of black uniformed officers were always walking beats in 
the second district, if there was a specific job or detail to be 
performed which white officers did not want, blacks would be 
assigned to it regardless of the district. Blacks were taken
off their beats to work details in other districts such as strikes, 
fires, and other assignments considered undesirable by white 
officers. Ponder, Vol. I, 3/8/77 at 14; Fraction, Vol. I, 3/8/77 
at 85-86; Lanier, Vol. IV, 4/28/77 at 712. The practice of 
giving blacks details rejected by white officers or otherwise 
giving blacks undesirable assignments continued until the time 
of trial. Lanier, Vol. IV, 4/28/77 at 713-15.

14. In the 1940s and 1950s, black officers were totally 
excluded from the Division's special squads. Taylor, Vol. I, 
3/9/77 at 204, 211. Blacks were restricted to walking beats in 
the second district (Thornberry, Vol. Ill, 6/22/77 at 404-405), 
except for a few blacks who were on general assignment in the 
detective bureau (Nevin, Vol. IV, 6/23/77 at 490; Taylor, Vol.
I, 3/9/77 at 204) to be sent into black neighborhoods to deal 
with crimes committed there (Ponder, Vol. I, 3/8/77 at 18).

Throughout the 1960s and early 1970s, black police officers 
continued to be largely excluded from the Division's prestigious 
special squads. No black officers were members of the pawn shop 
squad, the burgulary squad, or the personnel department. Ponder, 
Vol. I, 3/8/77 at 17-19; Fraction, Vol. I, 3/8/77 at 97. These

- 10-



special squads were desirable because they frequently involved 
straight day work and week-ends off. Ponder, Vol. I, 3/8/77 
at 17. Although the personnel department no longer exists (Lan­
ier, Vol. V, 4/29/77 at 773) and the burglary squad was recently 
decentralized (Nunn, Vol. II, 9/27/77 at 353), no black officers 
were ever assigned to these squads while they operated. Taylor,
Vol. I, 3/9/77 at 211. No black officer was ever given a 
regular assignment on the highly prestigious homicide squad 
until the appointment of Officer Jesse Taylor in 1963. Taylor,
Vol. I, 3/9/77 at 205. Although blacks sometimes were temporarily 
assigned to the homicide squad to investigate specific cases, 
there were no other black police officers in the homicide squad 
when Officer Taylor retired in 1974. Id_. at 209-210; Fraction,
Vol. I, 3/8/77 at 110-12. Only since the commencement of this 
lawsuit have blacks been given regular assignments on the pawn 
shop and robbery squads. Lanier, Vol. V, 4/29/77 at 771; Fraction, 
Vol. I, 3/8/77 at 88. As of the time of trial, no black officers 
were regularly assigned to the auto theft squad or the homicide 
squad. Id. at 91.

15. Activities at the Division of Police, were racially 
segregated as a matter of routine. Black officers were required 
to attend the regular daily roll call with all officers in the 
assembly room on the main floor of City Hall. Only white officers 
were allowed to conduct this daily roll call. On occasion, white 
patrolmen would be promoted to acting sergeants, rather than 
allowing a black sergeant to conduct the roll call. Ponder, Vol. I,

- 11-



3/8/77 at 8, 13; Taylor, Vol. I, 3/9/77 at 202-203. Immediately 
after the daily roll call, black officers were required to attend 
a separate, racially segregated meeting in a basement office of 
City Hall. There they received their orders from the black 
commanding officers. This practice continued at least through 
the 1950s. Ponder, Vol. I, 3/8/77 at 9; Fraction, Vol. I,
3/8/77 at 86.

16. Until 1965, no black officer had ever been appointed 
to the position of major. Hughes, Vol. I, 3/9/77 at 152. There 
has never been more than one black major at any time since 1965. 
Nunn, Vol. II, 9/27/77 at 339. No black officer has ever held 
the position of captain, the highest ranking civil service 
position in the Division of Police. Id_. at 338. There have 
never been more than two black lieutenants at any one time; as 
of September 1977, there were no black lieutenants out of 
approximately 48 positions. Hughes, Vol. I, 3/9/77 at 154-55;
Nunn, Vol. II, 9/27/77 at 339. In approximately 1944, three black 
sergeants' positions were created. There have never been more 
than three black sergeants since that time. Id_. at 339-40; Frac­
tion, Vol. I, 3/8/77 at 89—90; Taylor, Vol. I, 3/9/77 at 202 . As of 
September 1977, there was only one black sergeant out of approxi­
mately 64 positions. Nunn, Vol. II, 9/27/77 at 339. At least 
until the 1960s, the only way a black officer could become a 
sergeant or a lieutenant was for one of the three black sergeants 
or a black lieutenant to die, retire, or be fired. Fraction, Vol.
I, 3/8/77 at 116.

- 12-



17. Defendants maintained a policy of providing different 
training to black and white officers. Until at least 1955, the 
Division used separate, racially segregated facilities for the 
physical training of police recruit^ and black recruits were 
given less self-defense training at these facilities than white 
recruits. Ponder, Vol. I, 3/8/77 at 5; Fraction, Vol. I, 3/8/77 
at 84. Until at least 1975, there were no black instructors 
regularly assigned to the recruit school; there were no such 
instructors at the time of trial. Lanier, Vol. IV, 4/28/77 at 
698-99.

18. Defendants restricted the availability of special 
training for black officers. No black officers attended the 
Southern Police Institute until 1952. The next blacks allowed
to attend the Institute were Officers Lyons and Coatley, in 1959.
DX 88; Ponder, Vol. I, 3/8/77 at 16-17; Hughes, Vol. I, 3/8/77 
at 184-85; Coatley, Vol. II, 3/9-10/77 at 346-48; Brown, Vol.
IV, 4/28/77 at 572-73. Until at least 1971, black officers were 
not allowed or assigned to attend these long-term special training 
programs or schools such as the F.B.I. Academy and the Southern 
Police Institute on the same basis as white officers. Blacks 
were allowed to attend seminars lasting one day or less, but 
not on the same basis as whites. Hughes,-Vol. I, 3/8/77 at 184-85.

19. A working environment of racial prejudice against black 
officers was prevalent in the Division of Police in the 1950s, 
Thornberry, Vol. Ill, 6/22/77 at 404, and it continues in the

- 13-



1970s in such forms as racial slurs on bathroom walls (Lanier, 
Vol. IV, 4/28/77 at 731), frequent use of the term "nigger" 
by both patrol officers and commanding officers in the Division 
(Nunn, Vol. II, 9/27/77 at 371-73 ; Nevin, Vol. II, 9/27/77 
at 392-93), and membership of white officers in the Ku Klux Klan 
(id. at 398-404).

IV. Reputation and Recruitment
20. The Division of Police and the Civil Service Board have 

a longstanding negative reputation in the black community for 
engaging in discriminatory employment practices against black 
applicants and black police officers. It is widely known in the 
black community that black officers were restricted to walking 
beats until the 1960s (Lanier, Vol. IV, 4/28/77 at 693), that 
black officers were allowed to patrol only certain sections of 
certain districts (_id. at 557, 565-67), that black officers were 
not allowed in many of the squads within the Division of Police 
(Taylor, Vol- II, 3/9/77 at 241; Lanier, Vol.iv, 4/28/77 at 705- 
706), that black officers were assigned to undesirable details 
(id. at 712), and that black sergeants and lieutenants were only 
permitted to command black officers (id_. at 703-704) . Because 
black officers were not allowed to drive patrol cars and therefore 
had to call for cars driven by white officers to transport suspects, 
the reputation in the black community was that black officers were 
not permitted to arrest whites. Lanier, Vol. IV, 4/28/77 at 693,702 ; 
Brown, Vol. IV, 4/28/77 at 557.

- 14-



21. The reputation in the black community is that there is 
discrimination in hiring against black applicants for jobs as 
police officers (Hughes, Vol. I, 3/9/77 at 159-60; Coatley,
Vol. II, 3/9/77 at 315; Brown, Vol. IV, 4/28/77 at 557; Lanier,
Vol. IV, 4/28/77 at 693), and that the Division of Police has a 
negative view of blacks which limits their promotional oppor­
tunities (Hughes, Vol. I, 3/9/77 at 159-60; Lanier, Vol. IV,
4/28/77 at 693). The black community's perception is that black 
officers are treated as second class police officers withrn the 
Division (Lanier, Vol. IV, 4/28/77 at 693; Taylor, Vol. I, 3/8/77 
at 213-14), and that there is a general pattern of discrimination 
against blacks in the Division's employment practices (Brown,
Vol. IV, 4/28/77 at 608-609). This negative reputation in the 
black community has deterred many blacks from applying for jobs 
as police officers. Taylor, Vol. II, 3/10/77 at 271; Fraction,
Vol. I, 3/8/77 at 98-99, 113-15; Ponder, Vol. I, 3/8/77 at 39.

22. With the exception of two short-range efforts to hire 
blacks to be police officers, one in approximately 1944 to fill 
all-black platoons (Taylor, Vol. I, 3/9/77 at 195-97) and the other 
in the early 1950s (Thornberry, Vol. Ill, 6/22/77 at 404-405), the 
defendants did not become actively involved in any efforts to re­
cruit black applicants for jobs as police officers until after this 
lawsuit was filed in 1974. PX 3, 5513-14; Nevin, Vol. IV, 6/23/77 
at 517-19; Coleman, Vol. IV, 9/29/77 at 623; Taylor, Vol. II, 
3/10/77 at 279. Prior to that time, the Louisville Urban League 
and the plaintiff Louisville Black Police Officers Organization

- 15-



attempted to recruit black applicants (Coleman, Vol. IV, 9/29/77 
at 614-15, 623; Brown, Vol. IV, 4/28/77 at 614-15; Ponder, Vol. I, 
3/8/77 at 25-26) but the defendants interfered with these efforts 
(Ponder, Vol. I, 3/8/77 at 30-34; Arnold, Vol. IV, 9/29/77 at 771). 
In 1975, after Jack Richmond had left his position as head of Civil 
Service, the Civil Service Board began its first active efforts to 
recruit black applicants for jobs as police officers. Thornberry, 
Vol. Ill, 6/22/77 at 409-11; Bryan, Vol. Ill, 6/22/77 at 418-19.

V. Pre-1974 Selection Practices
23. The procedures used by the defendants to select police 

officers prior to the commencement of this action in 1974 had a 
susbstantial adverse impact on black applicants and potential 
applicants. See proposed findings 6-8, supra. The Civil Service 
Board and the Division of Police had a negative reputation in the 
black community for discriminating against black applicants, black 
recruits, and black officers, and many blacks did not apply because 
of this reputation. See proposed findings 20-21, supra. Despite 
this negative reputation, black persons applied for jobs as police 
officers even before the defendants became involved in any active 
minority recruitment program. For example, between July and 
December of 1973, out of a total of 413 applicants for jobs as 
police officers, 330 (80%) were white and 83 (20%) were black.
PX 71, Books 6-7. But of the 84 officers appointed in 1973, 82 
(98%) were white and only 2 (2%) were black. PX 7. Many blacks

- 16-



applied or attempted to apply but were not hired as police officers 
in the years preceding the filing of this lawsuit. Coleman, Vol.
IV, 9/29/77 at 614-24; Boyd, Vol. I, 4/25/77 at 37-47; Tutson, Vol.
IV, 4/28/77 at 544-51; Brown, Vol. IV, 4/28/77 at 580-85, 625.

24. From some time prior to 1965 through November 1974, appli­
cants for jobs as Louisville police officers were required to com­
plete the following selection procedures, generally in the following 
order (Lee, Vol. II, 6/21/77 at 257-59; Richmond Dep., 5/11/77 at 
43-44, 70):

(a) Satisfy the "necessary qualifications" stated on the 
job description as to height, weight, "speech defect," "marked de­
formity," vision, education, age, military discharge and Selective 
Service status, "moral character," and arrest and conviction records 
(see PX 63-67);

(b) Obtain an application from the Civil Service office 
receptionist, and complete and file the application;

(c) Take a pass-fail physical fitness test which con­
sisted of push-ups and similar exercises (see PX 63-67) and which 
was administered by representatives of Civil Service and the Division 
of Police;

(d) Take the scored written examination administered by 
Civil Service (PX 19-20 from prior to 1965 until 1971, PX 18 from 
1971 until mid-1975; see proposed findings 26-27, infra);

(e) Take a pass/fail medical examination administered by 
a physician under contract with Civil Service;

(f) Undergo a background investigation conducted by the 
Division of Police;

(g) Take a pass/fail oral interview conducted by Civil 
Service (Richmond Dep. Ex. 10); and

- 17-



(h) Receive a rating from Civil Service for "training 
and experience."

25. In January 1975, the Civil Service Board reviewed its 
selection procedures for police officers and other positions and 
made the following findings: the receptionist was making all
decisions as to the right of an applicant to fill out an applica­
tion, without even conducting an initial interview to determine 
whether the applicant met the minimum qualifications; agency 
requisitions were not being process in accordance with Civil 
Service rules and regulations; applicants who were certified by 
Civil Service for employment were sometimes disqualified by the 
agencies without any written reasons; proper eligibility lists 
were not maintained; a backlog of vacancies had developed, and 
open-continuous testing had to be used for several months to 
eliminate the backlog; proper job analysis procedures were not 
followed; the written test (PX 18) was not validated and was 
deficient in many respects (see proposed finding 27, infra); 
the oral interviews for police officer were unstructured and 
subjective, and they were not validated; test weights were set 
in an arbitrary manner; the physical fitness standards were not 
valid and they did not necessarily measure physical stamina or 
physiological ability to tolerate stress; the Division of Police 
conducted the background investigation and made recommendations 
to disqualify applicants which usually were accepted by the Civil 
Service Director without information as to whether the reason for

- 18-



disqualification was job-related; and the practice of giving a 
"training and experience" rating gave an extra advantage to 
persons with "inappropriate" training and experience which was 
not required to do the job and also benefited applicants who 
received high scores on the unvalidated written test. DX 75, 
"Narrative " at 2-14; "Louisville Civil Service Board Selection 
Procedures and Recruitment Program, Book I" -- "Written Entrance 
Test " at 1-2; "Oral Interview " at 1, 3-4; "Background Investiga­
tion " at 1; "Physical Agility Test " at 1.

26. From some time prior to 1965 until 1971, the defendants 
used the Public Personnel Association's written "Test for Policeman 
(10-D)," PX 19-20, as a device for selecting among applicants
for the job of police officer. PX 17; Richmond Dep., 5/23/77 
at 149-51, 198-99; Olges, Vol. II, 7/12/77 at 190-91. Defendant 
Jack Richmond, Director of Civil Service from 1965 through late 
1974, was aware in 1965 of serious problems of test security and 
of allegations that some tests had been "compromised," Richmond 
Dep., 5/11/77 at 19, but the defendants continued to use Test 
10-D until 1971. Id., at 198-99; Olges, Vol. II, 7/12/77 at 
190-91. The defendant Civil Service Board determined that parts 
of this test were not job-related or did not apply to the job of 
a Louisville police officer, and the Board decided in 1971 to stop 
using this test and to use another written test in its place. 
Richmond Dep., 5/23/77 at 149; Olges, Vol. II, 7/12/77 at 190-91.

27. From 1971 to 1975, the defendants used "Examination 
for Police Patrolman No. 0044," PX 18, as the written test for

- 19-



entry-level police officer jobs. PX 17; Olges, Vol. II, 7/12/77 
at 190-91. This test had a substantial adverse impact on black 
applicants; in 1975, only 12 of 342 white applicants (3.5%) failed 
this test, but 14 of 93 black applicants (15.1%) failed it. DX 75, 
"Statistical Data, Book Three" —  "General Statistical Summary,
Sworn Personal," at 1(6; Priebe, Vol. I, 9/26/77 at 127-29. This 
test was not job related. Thornberry, Vol. Ill, 6/22/77 at 411, 413; 
Olges, Vol. II, 7/12/77 at 182-85, 188-200. The defendant Civil 
Service Board found in 1975 that all of its written tests were 
defective in certain respects and that most were defective in 
certain additional respects. DX 75, "Narrative" at 8, 12, 14.
The Board further found that Police Patrolman Examination No.
0044 had been scored and assigned a weight of 65% in the total 
examination process without any available rationale for the 
cut-off score of 52, and that the test was not validated. DX 75, 
"Louisville Civil Service Board Selection Procedures and Recruit­
ment Program, Book I" —  "Written Entrance Test" at 1-2. The 
written test also had been administered in a manner which permitted 
candidates to memorize the items; many of the items did not adequately 
differentiate between candidates; and the test placed too much 
emphasis on reading and mathemacics skills and was "approximately 80- 
90% invalid." Olges, Vol. I, 7/11/77 at 155, Vol. II, 7/12/77 at 182-
85, 188-200; DX 38. As a result of these findings, the Board in 
1975 decided to end its use of Police Patrolman Examination No.
0044 for selecting police officers, and it directed the development 
of a new examination. Olges, Vol. II, 7/12/77 at 199-200; Priebe 
Dep., 2/17/77 at 74.

- 20 -



28. During the period that Jack Richmond was the Civil 
Service Director, 1965 through late 1974, applicants were not 
certified or appointed in rank order from eligibility lists; 
instead, whenever the Division of Police notified Richmond 
that it had vacancies to fill, applicants were put through the 
selection procedures set forth in proposed finding 24, supra, and 
those applicants who successfully completed the procedures were then 
referred by Richmond to the Division for appointment. Richmond Dep., 
5/11/77 at 43-44, 84-85; Lee, Vol. II, 6/21/77 at 260-61; Arnold, Vol. 
IV, 9/29/77 at 767, 780-82; Coleman, Vol. IV, 9/29/77 at 658; DX 75 
narrative at 4. Richmond had broad discretionary authority over the 
operation of the entire civil service selection and referral 
process throughout this period (Coleman, Vol. IV, 9/29/77 at 
629-30, 658; Richmond Dep., 5/11/77 at 43-99), including the 
sole authority until 1972, and substantial authority thereafter 
until his departure in 1974, to determine who passed and who 
failed the subjective and unstructured oral interview examination 
for police officer. Id., 5/11/77 at 79, and 5/23/77 at 247-48;
Olges, Vol. II, 7/12/77 at 182-85; Arnold, Vol. IV, 9/29/77 at 
768; Coleman, Vol. IV, 9/29/77 at 630; DX 75, "Narrative" at 8-9 
and "Louisville Civil Service Board Selection Procedures and Re­
cruitment Program Book I" -- "Oral Interview," at 1. While 
Richmond was the Civil Service Director, black applicants were 
subjected to differential treatment on the basis of their race, and 
it was substantially more difficult for blacks than whites to 
become police officers. Thornberry, Vol. Ill, 6/22/77 at 409-410;

- 21 -



Coleman, Vol. IV, 9/29/77 at 634-35; Arnold, Vol. IV, 9/29/77 at 
771.

29. During this period, blacks who attempted to apply were
arbitrarily denied applications, black applicants were subjected 
to unexplained delays in the processing of their applications, 
and black applicants were disqualified on the basis of inaccurate 
information which defendants refused to correct. See Boyd, Vol. I, 
4/25/77 at 39, 43-44, 48; Lyons, Vol. IV, 4/28/77 at 657-60, 670; 
Jackson, Vol. II, 4/26/77 at 255-62; Hearn, In Camera Tr., 3/10/77 
at 4-23, 109. For many black applicants, only their perseverance
in investigating delays and correcting defendants' misinformation 
led to their eventual appointment, with little or no assistance 
from defendants. See Lyons, Vol. IV, 4/28/77 at 661-62; Jackson,
Vol. II, 4/26/77 at 262; Hearn, In Camera Tr., 3/10/77 at 13-21.

30. During this period, many black applicants encountered 
subjective criteria in the oral interview and background inves­
tigation which were not job-related. See Richmond Dep., 5/23/77
at 240-42; Hearn, In Camera Tr., 3/10/77 at 9; Holt, Vol. II, 3/10/77 
at 406; Thomas, Vol. Ill, 4/27/77 at 479; Lyons, Vol. IV, 4/28/77 at 
662. Defendants also rejected applicants on the basis of criteria 
which had a disparate impact on blacks and were not job-related, 
such as juvenile and adult arrest records, see PX 63-67, 79, 85, 
and Richmond Dep., 5/23/77 at 312; maximum weight standards, see PX 
63-67 and VonderHaar, Vol. Ill, 9/28/77 at 431; and financial con­
dition, see Richmond Dep., 5/11/77 at 76.

VI. 1974-1976 Selection Practices
31. From 1974 to 1977, the following numbers of blacks and 

whites were appointed as police officers in each year:

- 22 -



Year Number of
Whites
Appointed

Number of
Blacks
Appointed

1974 78 21
1975 31 11

1976 11 0
1977 28 1

Source in Record

PX 54
PX 53; Priebe Dep. 2/11/11,
Ex. 3 5 5
Preibe, Vol. I, 9/26/77 at 116 
PX 15; PX 52

As of December 1976, 15 of the 32 blacks appointed as police 
officers in 1974 and 1975 (46.9%) were no longer employed by 
the Division, but only 18 of the 109 whites appointed in 1974

yand 1975 (16.5%) were no longer employed. Id_; PX 39.
32. After this action was filed in March 1974 and Richmond 

left the position of Civil Service Director in late 1974, the 
defendants continued until August 1975 to use essentially the 
same procedures for selecting police officers as those set forth 
in proposed finding 24, supra, except that the oral interview 
was graded and assigned a weight of 20% of the total score, the 
training and experience rating was assigned a weight of 15%, 
and the written test was assigned a weight of 65%. DX 75, 
"Statistical Data, Book Three," at "Police officer —  Procedure

2/ PX 39 lists the names of all officers employed as of 
December 1976. A few of these names are not clearly legible 
on the exhibit. The above calculation interprets this exhibit 
as indicating that William Baker, Douglas W. Johnson, and Kevin 
L. Richardson were still employed as police officers, while 
Brain Hackley and Charles T. Smith were no longer employed as 
of December 1976.

- 23 -



Used from January 1, 1975 to August 1, 1975." During this period, 
the Civil Service Board began to take some steps to improve the 
defective procedures identified in its January 1975 review 
(see proposed findings 25, 27, supra). DX 75, "Narrative" at 2-16.

33. From August 1975 until November 1976, applicants for 
jobs as Louisville police officers were required to complete the 
following selection procedures in the following order (DX 75, 
"Statistical Data, Book Three," at "Police Officer —  Procedures 
Used from August 1, 1975 to October 31, 1975"; Priebe Dep.,
2/17/77 at 15-24):

(a) Obtain an application from the Civil Service 
office and complete and file the application (Priebe Dep. Ex 2);

(b) Undergo an "intake interview" conducted by a 
Civil Service interviewer who determined whether the applicant 
satisfied the "necessary qualifications" stated on the job des­
cription (PX 68-69);

(c) Take a scored Civil Service oral interview
(DX 42) which was assigned a weight of 35% of the applicant's 
overall score;

(d) Take a scored Civil Service written test (DX 39) 
which was assigned a weight of 65% of the applicant's overall 
score;

(e) Undergo a "character investigation" in which 
an applicant was disqualified if he or she had been convicted 
of any felony or of more than two misdemeanors, or if there 
was any criminal action pending;

- 24 -



(f) Take a pass/fail medical examination (DX 90) 
administered by a physician under contract with Civil Service;

(g) Take a "stress test" (DX 72) administered by a 
physiologist under contract with Civil Service; the results of this 
test were not used to pass or fail applicants prior to November 1976 
(DX 75, "Louisville Civil Service Board Selection Procedures and 
Recruitment Program, Book I" —  "Physical Agility Test," at 2);

(h) Be assigned a place on a ranked eligibility list
on the basis of the written test score and the oral interview score;

(i) Be certified by Civil Service to the Division of 
Police as eligible for appointment;

(j) Undergo a background investigation conducted by the 
Division of Police (Casper Dep., 3/2/77, at 21-22, 42-44);

(k) Take an oral interview conducted by the Division 
of Police (Casper Dep., 3/2/77, at 22-23).

34. From August 1975 until November 1976, applicants were 
certified and appointed in rank order from eligibility lists com­
piled as stated in finding 33, supra. When the Division of Police 
requested a certain number of applicants, Civil Service certified 
as eligible for appointment a number of applicants from the top of 
the eligibility list equal to the number requested plus two. Priebe 
Dep., 2/17/77 at 19-21, 22, 24. The Division of Police then con­
ducted a background investigation and an oral interview (see finding 33, 
supra) and selected the applicants to be appointed. Id.* at 21, 22, 24.

- 25 -



35. The written test which was used between August 1975 and 
November 1976 (DX 39) did not have a substantial adverse impact on 
black applicants as it was used during that period. Stipulation of 
Counsel, Vol. II, 6/21/77 at 273-74; Stipulation of Counsel, Vol. I, 
7/11/77 at 157; Olges, Vol. II, 7/12/77 at 226; Stipulation of 
Counsel, Vol. I, 9/26/77 at 130-32.

36. During this period, some black applicants were subjected to 
unexplained delays in the processing of their applications and others 
were rejected on the basis of vague and variable medical disqualifica­
tions. See Jackson, Vol. II, 4/26/77 at 268-73; Gaines, Vol. II,
4/26/77 at 160-84; Richardson, Vol. II, 4/26/77 at 197-98,210-14;Priebe, 
Vol. I, 9/26/77 at 91; VonderHaar, Vol. Ill, 9/28/77 at 454-56, 493. 
Defendants also rejected applicants on the basis of criteria which
had a disparate impact on blacks and were not job-related, such as
maximum weight standards which discriminated against black females,
PX 81, Table 45; VonderHaar, Vol. Ill, 9/28/77 at 431.VII. 1976-1977 Selection Practices

37. From November 1976 until the time of trial, applicants 
for jobs as Louisville police officers were required to complete 
the following selection procedures in the following order (PX 23;
Priebe Dep., 2/17/77 at 15-21; Casper Dep., 3/2/77 at 21-23, 42-44):

(a) Obtain an application from the Civil Service office 
and complete and file the application (Priebe Dep., Ex.2);

(b) Undergo an "intake interview" conducted by a Civil 
Service interviewer who determined whether the applicant satisfied 
the "necessary qualifications" stated on the job description 
(Priebe Dep. Ex. 1);

- 26 -



(c) Take a scored Civil Service written test (PX 93) 
which was assigned a weight of 75% of the applicant's total score 
(Priebe, Vol. II, 9/27/77 at 248-49);

(d) Take a scored Civil Service oral interview (DX 57) 
which was assigned a weight of 25% of the applicant's total score 
(Priebe, Vol. II, 9/27/77 at 248-49);

(e) Be assigned a place on a ranked eligibility list on 
the basis of the oral interview score and the written test score;

(f) Take a pass/fail medical examination (DX 91-94) 
administered by a physician under contract with Civil Service;

(g) Take a pass/fail "stress test" (DX 72) administered 
by a physiologist under contract with Civil Service;

(h) Be certified by Civil Service to the Division of 
Police as eligible for appointment;

(i) Undergo a background investigation conducted by the 
Division of Police;

(j) Take an oral interview conducted by the Division of
Police.

38. In March 1977, 31 applicants were certified in rank order 
from an eligibility list compiled as stated in finding 37, supra.
PX 52. Civil Service certified as eligible for appointment a number 
of applicants from the top of the eligibility list equal to the 
number requested by the Division of Police plus two. Priebe Dep. 
2/17/77 at 19-21; PX 52. Following this process, 1 black applicant 
and 28 white applicants were appointed in March 1977. PX 15; PX 52.

-2 7-



39. In April 1977, 25 applicants were certified by Civil 
Service in rank order from the eligibility list compiled as stated 
in finding 37, supra. for appointment as police officers in a 
recruit class which was scheduled to begin in May 1977. PX 52;
Priebe, Vol. I, 9/25/77 at 104-106. All of these applicants were 
white. Id_. Following the filing in April 1977 of plaintiffs' 
motion for a preliminary injunction concerning that recruit class, 
the defendants agreed to postpone the class indefinitely. The Court 
subsequently reserved decision on the plaintiffs' motion for a 
preliminary injunction until completion of this portion of the trial 
on the merits. Order, 6/17/77. The defendants have not certified 
or appointed any police officer applicants since April 1977.

40. In May 1977, the defendant Civil Service Board changed 
its practices regarding certification so that in the future the 
number of candidates certified from an eligibility list for appoint­
ment as police officers would be determined as follows: for one 
opening,three names would be certified; for two through ten openings, 
the names of two times the number of openings would be certified; 
and for more than ten openings, the names of three times the number 
of openings, would be certified. Priebe, Vol. I, 6/20/77 at 121-27; 
Priebe, Vol. I, 9/26/77 at 5-6. The result of this change would be 
the certification of names of applicants appearing substantially 
lower on the ranked eligibility lists than occurred with prior 
certification practices. Id.

41. As used by the defendants, the written test which was used 
for selecting police officers between November 1976 and the time of

- 28 -



trial (PX 93) had a substantial adverse impact on black applicants. 
Approximately 23.5% (222/944) of all applicants during this period 
were black. PX 35. The written test, which was developed by the 
Educational Testing Service, Inc., and is entitled "Multijurisdic­
tional Police Officer Examination, Test No. 165.1" (hereinafter 
"Test 165.1"), was administered to 480 white applicants and 135 
black applicants on January 28, 1977. PX 33. The defendants set 
the passing point at 128 correct answers out of the 150 items on 
Test 165.1 (Gavin-Wagner, Vol. Ill, 7/13/77 at 361-62), and the 
defendants assigned the score on Test 165.1 a weight of 75% in 
determining rank on the eligibility list (id_. at 366-67; Priebe,
Vol. II, 9/27/77 at 248-49). Whites passed at more than twice the 
rate of blacks: 78% of the whites passed (374/480), but only 36.3% 
of the blacks passed (49/135). PX 33. Only 5 of the 135 black 
applicants, or 3.7%,scored high enough to be among the top 100 on 
the eligibility list, while 95 of the 480 white applicants, or 19.8%, 
ranked among the top 100. PX 35. No more than 100 new police 
officers have ever been appointed in any one year (see proposed 
findings 8, 31, supra), and the eligibility list then in effect 
was scheduled to expire in one year (PX 52). Only 50 to 60 vacancies 
were projected for that year. Gavin-Wagner, Vol. Ill, 7/13/77 at 
362. The results of defendants' use of Test 165.1 are summarized 
in the following table showing the initial number and percentage 
of black applicants and the number and percentage of black appli­
cants remaining after each stage of the selection process leading 
to compilation of the eligibility list (from PX 35):

-2 9-



Stage of Selection 
Process

Number 
of Black 
Applicants

Total 
Number of 
Applicants

Percentage 
of Black 
Applicants

Application 222 944 2 3.5%
After
Disqualification 207 883 2 3.4%
After
Written Test 49 427 11.5%
After
Oral Interview 48 401 12.0%
On Eligibility List 48 401 12.0%
In Top 100 of 
Eligibility List 5 100 5.0%

42. Test 165.1 purports to measure "intellectual abilities" 
which are traits or constructs. These traits or constructs —  
verbal comprehension, paired associate memory, memory for rela­
tionships, memory for ideas, semantic ordering, induction, problem 
sensitivity, spatial orientation, spatial scanning, visualization 
are not operationally defined in terms of observable aspects of 
work behavior of the job of a police officer. See plaintiffs' 
post-trial brief at 56-62.

43. Test 165.1 does not consist of a representative sample 
or close approximation of the work behaviors of police officers.
It contains items which place a premium on reading and verbal 
skills and which do not adequately represent the highly physical 
and personal job of a police officer. See plaintiffs' post-trial 
brief at 62-66.

44. Test 165.1 involves knowledge, skills, and abilities 
which police officers learn in recruit school and on the job.
See plaintiffs' post-trial brief at 66-69, 76-79.

- 30 -



45. Test 165.1 does not represent a critical work behavior 
or work behaviors which constitute most of the important parts of 
the job. See plaintiffs' post-trial brief at 69-74.

46. The sample subjects used in the concurrent criterion- 
related validity study which is reported in DX 31 (hereinafter
the "ETS study") were not representative of the candidates normally 
available in the relevent labor market for the job of police 
officer in Louisville. See plaintiffs' post-trial brief at 76-82.

47. The supervisory ratings used as criterion measures in 
the ETS study were contaminated by rater bias. See plaintiffs' 
post-trial brief at 83-84.

48. A study of test fairness was technically feasible but 
was not performed as part of the ETS study. See plaintiffs' 
post-trial brief at 85-88.

49. The results of the ETS study showed that total test 
score had significant positive correlations with 2 of 15 rating 
dimensions in site 1, no significant correlations with any 
rating dimensions in site 2, significant positive correlations 
with 11 rating dimensions in site 3, and a significant negative 
correlation with one rating dimension in site 4. Across the four 
sites as a whole, there were no significant correlations between 
total test score and 46 of the 60 rating dimensions. See plain­
tiffs' post-trial brief at 88-91.

50. The ETS study does not demonstrate that Test 165.1 is valid for 
use in the selection of Louisville police officers. Police officers in 
Louisville have not been shown to perform the same work behaviors as the sample

- 31 -



subjects in the ETS study. An internal predictive study of the 
validity of Test 165.1 in selecting Louisville police officers is 
feasible. See plaintiffs' post-trial brief at 91-95.

51. The cut-off score set by defendants on Test 165.1, their 
use of the test as a ranking device, and their use of the test as 
an initial screening device were arbitrary and did not result in 
the selection of persons better qualified to be police officers.
These uses of Test 165.1 were contrary to the findings of the 
validity study reported in DX 32 (hereinafter the "Delaware study"). 
See plaintiffs' post-trial brief at 95-100.

52. The test administered by defendants to police applicants 
in August 1975 (DX 39) had less adverse impact on blacks as used 
at that time than Test 165.1 as used by defendants in 1977, and
it equally served defendants' interest in the selection of
capable police officers. Using Test 165.1 in accordance with the 
findings of the Delaware study would also reduce the adverse impact 
on blacks while serving defendants' interest in,the selection of 
capable police officers. See plaintiffs' post-trial brief at 100-103.

VIII. Achieving a Representative Police Force
53. The residents of the City of Louisville have a substan­

tial interest in being served by a police force which is repre­
sentative of the community as a whole. The fairness and effec­
tiveness of the police force would be enhanced and police-com­
munity relations would be improved by the appointment of a 
representative number of black officers. See plaintiffs' post­
trial brief at 109-114.

- 32-



54. From 1964 to 1975, the number of officers in the Division 
of Police increased by an average of approximately 24 officers each 
year. See PX 38. In the same period, an average of approximately 
39 new officers were hired each year. See PX 7, PX 54. Assuming 
that both the increase in the size of the force and the hiring of 
new officers continue at the same rate, and that no current or 
future black officers leave the force, it would take more than 34 
years for the percentage of black officers on the force to increase 
from the current 7.4% to 25% if one out of every four new officers 
hired is black, and it would take more than 9 years for the per­
centage of black officers on the force to increase to 25% if one 
out of every two new officers hired is black. See plaintiffs' 
post-trial brief at 114-16.

IX. Administrative Procedures
55. On March 28, 1973, plaintiff Shelby Lanier, Jr. lodged 

a charge of employment discrimination (PX 48) with the U.S. Equal 
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against the City of 
Louisville - Division of Police. The charge alleged racial dis­
crimination against Lanier personally and blacks as a class, and
it was filed by Lanier in his capacity as president of the plaintiff 
Louisville Black Police Officers Organization, Inc. Lanier, Vol.
V, 4/29/77 at 846-48. The EEOC assumed jurisdiction over the charge 
on June 8, 1973, and it served the charge on the Division of Police 
on June 25, 1973, and on the Civil Service Board on July 9, 1973 .

- 33 -



PX 49 at 1. The EEOC conducted an investigation of the charge
and, on November 14, 1974, issued a decision containing the
following findings (PX 49):

There is reasonable cause to believe that Respondent 
has violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 
1964 by failing to hire blacks because of their race.
There is reasonable cause to believe that both Re­
spondents violated Title VII by failing to promote 
Blacks because of their race.
There is reasonable cause to believe that Respondent 
No. 1 has violated Title VII by retaliating against 
Charging Party Lanier for opposing alleged unlawful 
employment practices of Respondent. There is no 
reasonable cause to believe that Respondent retalia­
ted against Charging Party Brown because of his 
opposition to certain of Respondent's employment 
practices.
There is reasonable cause to believe that Respondent 
discriminates against blacks in terms and conditions 
of employment by subjecting them to more severe dis­
ciplinary actions than similarly situated whites, 
because of their race.
There is reasonable cause to believe that the Re­
spondent is maintaining racially segregated job 
classification in violation of Title VII.
There is no reasonable cause to believe that Re­
spondent discriminated against Blacks in violation 
of Title VII with respect to training opportunities, 
and with respect to the allegation regarding perform­
ance evaluation, there is insufficient evidence to 
enable the Commission to make a determination. We, 
therefore, withhold decision on this issue at this time.

56. On or about October 2, 1975, plaintiff Lanier received 
from the U.S. Department of Justice a "Notice of Right To Sue" 
entitling him to institute a civil action under Title VII within 
90 days of the date of receipt of the notice. See plaintiffs' 
motion for leave to amend complaint and to drop and add parties 
plaintiff, 3/1/77, Ex. 3. Within 90 days of that date, plaintiffs

- 34 -



moved to amend their complaint to allege jurisdiction under Title 
VII. The Court sustained this motion, Order, 1/28/76, and the 
Court determined that plaintiff Lanier is a proper class represents 
tive, Order, 4/22/77.

57. On April 4, 1973, plaintiff Gary Hearn lodged a charge 
of discrimination in hiring (PX 1) with the EEOC against the City 
of Louisville - Louisville Division of Police and the City of 
Louisville Civil Service Board. On or about February 16, 1977, 
plaintiff Hearn received from the U.S. Department of Justice a 
"Notice of Right To Sue," entitling him to institute a civil action 
under Title VII within 90 days of the date of receipt of the notice 
See plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend complaint and to drop and 
add parties plaintiff, 3/1/77, Ex. 5. Within 90 days of that date, 
plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint to add Gary Hearn as a 
named plaintiff and class representative and to assert his claims 
under Title VII. The Court sustained this motion and determined 
that plaintiff Hearn is a proper class representative. Order, 
4/22/77.

- 35-



APPENDIX A

1940-1960 Population Statistics

Metropolitan Jefferson City of
Area_________  County____ _ Louisville

Blacks Total Blacks Total Blacks Total
1940 54,060 434,408 51,166 385,392 47,158 319,077

1950 66,265 576,900 62,620 484,615 57,657 369,129

1960 83,181 725,139 78,350 610,947 70,075 390,639

Source: 1960: U.S. Bureau of the Census
U.S. Census of the population: 1960
Volume I : Characteristics of the Population
Part 19: Kentucky at Table 21, Page 44 and

Table 28, Page 107.

1950: U.S. Census of the Population: 1950
Volume II: Characteristics of the Population
Part 19: Kentucky at Table 24, Page 47 and

Table 42, Page 90.

1940 : 16th Census of the United States
Volume II: Characteristics of the Population
Part 3: Kansas - Michigan

Kentucky at Table 36, Page 313; Table 
45, Page 321 and Table 21, Page 207.



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY 

AT LOUISVILLE

LOUISVILLE BLACK POLICE OFFICERS 
ORGANIZATION, INC., et al,,

Plaintiffs,
vs.

CITY OF LOUISVILLE, et al.,
Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 
C 74-106 L (A)

PLAINTIFFS' PROPOSED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1 2

1. The defendants are "employers" and the interven­
ing defendant Fraternal Order of Police, Louisville Lodge No. 6, 
is a "labor organization" within the meaning of sections 701(b) 
and 701(d) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as 
amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b), (d). The Court has jurisdiction
over the parties and jurisdiction over the subject matter of 
this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3) and 42 U.S.C.
§ 1343(3), (4).

2. The Court has determined that this action is 
maintainable as a class action under Rule 23, Fed. R. Civ. P., 
in accordance with the order of June 27, 1975, as amended 
April 22, 1977:

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the 
plaintiff Louisville Black Police Officers 
Organization, Incorporated, and the plain-



tiff Shelby Lanier, Jr., be and they are hereby 
designated as representatives of a class which 
is composed of all persons who are black and who 
are now or have been police officers employed by 
the City of Louisville and who allege that the 
rules, regulations and practices of the defen­
dants have discriminated against black police 
officers on the basis of their race with regards 
to assignment, promotion and discipline of 
personnel.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the 
plaintiffs Ronald Jackson, James Steptoe, Len 
Holt, and Gary Hearn be and they are hereby 
designated as representatives of a class which is 
composed of black persons who have sought to 
obtain employment with the Louisville Police 
Department and who allegedly have been denied 
such employment on the basis of arbitrary, ca­
pricious and racially discriminatory practices 
on the part of the defendants. Said class also 
consists of all black applicants for positions 
with the Louisville Police Department who will 
in the future seek jobs with the Police Department, 
and who may be denied employment because of the 
allegedly racially discriminatory and arbitrary 
practices complained of in the complaint. 3

3. The statistical evidence, the defendants' use of 
arbitrary and subjective selection procedures and criteria which 
are not job related, their long history of racial segregation 
and overt employment discrimination, their negative reputation 
for such discrimination in the black community,, their failure to 
engage in any active effort to recruit black applicants until 
after the filing of this lawsuit, and the testimony of individual 
victims of discrimination establish that defendants (a) have en­
gaged in intentional discrimination against blacks in recruit­
ment, testing, selection, and hiring for positions as police 
officers, and (b) have used selection procedures and criteria—  
including written tests, juvenile and adult arrest records, fin­
ancial condition, and maximum weight standards-— which have a

2



disparate impact on blacks and have not been shown to be signi­
ficantly related to job performance. Therefore, defendants 
have violated Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and 42 U.S.C, § 1983 
and the Fourteenth Amendment.

4. The improvement in the defendants' minority 
recruitment practices and the temporary increase in the defen­
dants' hiring of black police officers following the commence­
ment of this action do not constitute a defense to plaintiffs' 
claims of discrimination, nor do they provide any basis for 
withholding affirmative hiring relief.

5. The defendants used the Multijurisdictional Police 
Officer Examination, Test 165,1, in a manner which had an extreme 
adverse impact on black applicants, and defendants did not demon­
strate that Test 165.1 was manifestly related to performance of 
the job of a Louisville police officer. Defendants did not es­
tablish that Test 165.1 had been validated in accordance with the 
Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (1978), 43 Fed.
Reg. 38290 (Aug. 25, 1978), or in accordance with other appropriate 
legal and professional standards; defendants did not establish that 
such evidence of validity as existed was applicable to the selection 
of police officers in Louisville; and defendants substantially 
increased the adverse impact of Test 165.1 by setting an arbitrarily 
high passing point and by improperly using the test to rank applicants. 
Therefore, the defendants' use of Test 165,1 violated Title VII and
42 U.S.C. § 1981.

3



6. In granting relief from unconstitutional and un­
lawful discrimination, it is the Court's duty not only to prohibit 
the continuation of discriminatory practices and to require the 
development of nondiscriminatory procedures, but also to grant 
effective affirmative relief from the effects of past dis­
crimination. Numerical, race-conscious, affirmative hiring 
relief is authorized, and in this case is required, by Title VII, 
42 U.S.C. § 1981, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourteenth 
Amendment.

7. The Court has a duty to require that qualified 
blacks be appointed as police officers on an accelerated basis, 
and the Court has discretion to require that such appointments 
continue until the proportion of black officers on the Louisville 
police force approximates the proportion of blacks in the 
population of the City of Louisville. In view of the defendants' 
extensive past discrimination and exclusion of blacks from the 
police force, and in view of the resulting serious impairment of 
the ability of the police force to provide fair and effective 
law enforcement and other police services to the residents of 
the City of Louisville, the Court will exercise its discretion
to require such relief in this case.

8. Plaintiffs' attorneys are entitled to an interim 
award of reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to § 706(k) of 
Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(kl, and pursuant to the Civil 
Rights Attorneys' Fees Awards Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

4



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY 

AT LOUISVILLE

LOUISVILLE BLACK POLICE OFFICERS 
ORGANIZATION, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,
v s .

CITY OF LOUISVILLE, et al.,
Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 
C 74-106 L (A)

PLAINTIFFSr PROPOSED ORDER AND JUDGMENT

In accordance with and based upon the foregoing 
findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby ORDERED, 
ADJUDGED, and DECREED that:

I. Declaratory Judgment
1. The defendants have engaged in discrimination 

in recruitment, testing, selection, and hiring against the 
named plaintiffs and members of their class because of their 
race or color in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Ac 
of 1964, as amended by'the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 
1972, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. ; 42 U.S.C. § 1981; 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983; and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution.



II. General Injunctive Relief
2. The defendants and their officers, agents, 

employees, successors in office, and all those acting in 
concert or cooperation with them or at their direction or 
under their control (hereinafter collectively referred to as 
"the defendants") are permanently enjoined from engaging in 
any act, practice, or policy with respect to recruitment, 
testing, selection, or hiring which has the purpose or effect 
of unlawfully discriminating on the basis of race or color 
against any future employee or any applicant or potential 
applicant for employment as a police officer in the Louisville 
Division of Police.

3. The defendants are permanently enjoined from
(a) making any appointments to the position of police officer 
based in whole or in part upon the scores of applicants on the 
Multijurisdictional Police Officer Examination, Test 165.1, as 
used by the defendants in 1977, or upon any eligible list based 
in whole or in part upon the scores of applicants on that 
examination; and (b) administering, promulgating eligible lists 
based upon, making appointments based upon, or in any way acting 
upon the results of any unlawful discriminatory examination or 
other selection procedure for the position of police officer.

Ill. New Selection Procedures

4. The defendants are mandatorily enjoined to 
develop lawful, nondiscriminatory selection procedures for the 
position of police officer. In so doing, the defendants shall

2



comply with the following requirements:
(a) The new selection procedures shall be 

developed within the shortest practicable period.
(b) The new selection procedures shall 

be developed and, before they are used to select 
police officers, validated in accordance with the 
Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures 
(1978), 43 Fed. Reg. 38290 (Aug. 25, 1978).

(c) The new selection procedures shall 
be submitted to counsel for plaintiffs and to the
Court before they are used to select police officers. Plain­

tiffs Attorneys shall have a reasonable opportunity to 
review defendants' submissions and to present their 
objections, if any, to the Court, and the Court may 
thereafter approve, disapprove, or modify the new selec­
tion procedures proposed by defendants. The new pro­
cedures shall not be used to select, certify, or appoint 
police officers until such procedures have been approved 
by the Court.

(d) After the Court has approved the new 
selection procedures, and until such time as the per­
centage of black officers in the Louisville Division 
of Police approximates the percentage of black persons 
in the population of the City of Louisville, the de­
fendants shall select, certify, and appoint persons as 
police officers in accordance with the following 
provisions:

3



(i) For every two vacancies which occur 
in such positions, one qualified black person shall
be appointed as a police officer.

(ii) If there is only one vacancy at any 
given time, a qualified black person shall be 
appointed to fill the vacancy. The next vacant 
position may be filled by any qualified person.

(iii) If the number of black persons 
eligible for certification or appointment at any 
time is not sufficient to satisfy this requirement, 
the defendants shall make no appointments to the 
position of police officer until such time as this 
requirement will be satisfied.

(iv) Any black person who is appointed as 
a police officer, and who does not successfully 
complete either the police recruit school or the 
probationary period, shall not be counted toward 
satisfaction of this requirement.

(e) Nothing contained herein shall re­
quire or be construed to require the defendants to hire 
any unqualified employee.

IV. Interim Selection Procedures
5. During the period required for the development of 

lawful, nondiscriminatory selection procedures, the Court will 
entertain requests by the defendants for permission to select, 
certify, and appoint police officers under interim selection 
procedures subject to the following provisions:

(a) Any such request shall "be submitted to coun-
4



sel for plaintiffs and to the Court, and it shall 
state the circumstances which render such appoint­
ments necessary or desirable.

(b) The request shall state the number
of appointments to be made and the desired effective 
date(s) of such appointments.

(c) The request shall set forth the nature 
of the interim procedures which the defendants propose 
to use, the reasons for proposing those particular 
procedures, and the grounds for believing that uhe 
procedures will be based upon merit and fitness and
will be nondiscriminatory in purpose and effect. Plaintiffs' 
attorneys shall have a reasonable opportunity to 
review defendants' submissions and to present their 
objections, if any, to the Court, and the Court may 
thereafter approve, disapprove, or modify the proposed 
interim procedures. The defendants shall not use any 
interim procedure to select, certify, or appoint 
police officers until such procedure has been approved 
by the Court.

(d) After the Court has approved interim 
selection procedures, and until such time as the per­
centage. of black officers in the Louisville Division 
of Police approximates the percentage of black persons 
in the population of the City of Louisville, the de­
fendants shall select, certify, and appoint persons
as police officers in accordance with the following 
provisions:

(i) For every two vacancies which.

5



occur in such positions, one qualified black 
person shall be appointed as a police officer.

(ii) If there is only one vacancy at 
any given time, a qualified black person shall 
be appointed to fill the vacancy. The next 
vacant position may be filled by any qualified 
person.

(iii) If the number of black persons 
eligible for certification or appointment at 
any time is not sufficient to satisfy this 
requirement, the defendants shall make no 
appointments to the position of police officer 
until such time as this requirement will be 
satisfied.

(iv) Any black person who is appointed 
as a police officer, and who does not successfully 
complete either the police recruit school or the 
probationary period, shall not be counted toward 
satisfaction of this requirement.

(e) Nothing contained herein shall re­
quire or be construed to require the defendants to hire any 
unqualified employee.

V. Recruitment
6. , The defendants are enjoined to continue or upgrade

minority recruitment programs which they utilized from November 
1976 through January 1977. The defendants may increase or 
otherwise improve such programs but may not reduce such programs

6



in any way without the prior approval of the Court. The defen­
dants shall consult with the plaintiff Louisville Black Police 
Officers Organization in developing, implementing, and main­
taining effective programs for recruiting qualified black appli­
cants for positions as police officers.

VI. Individual Relief
7. Each named plaintiff and each class member may file

a claim for individual hiring relief, back pay, retroactive seniori­
ty, and other individual relief for discrimination based on race or 
color in recruitment, testing, selection, or hiring for any entry- 
level position as a police officer. All potential claimants shall 
be given adequate notice of their right to file such claims. The 
form and manner of such notice and the method of resolving such indi­
vidual claims shall be determined by further order of the Court.

VII. Record-Keeping and Reporting
8. Until further order of the Court, the defendants shall 

retain the records listed below. These records shall be made avail­
able to counsel for plaintiffs for inspection and/or copying upon 
written request.

(a) A list of all minority organizations and 
schools contacted for recruiting purposes, showing the 
date of each contact, persons contacted, name and position 
of defendants' employee who made the contact, and nature 
of the contact.

(b) A summary of all minority recruitment 
efforts together with the date of such efforts and the 
names and positions of defendants1 employee or agent who 
made the contact and nature of the contact.

(c) All applications for positions as police 
officers, and separate records which identify each 
applicant by race.

7



(d) All test scores, whether written, oral, 
or other, on tests used for selecting among applicants 
for police officer positions, with identification of 
the race of each tested applicant.

(e) The name, address, and race of each 
person disqualified for any reason from being selected 
as a police officer or police applicant, and the rea­
son (s) for such disqualification.

(f) All form letters, with a list of addressees, 
and copies of any individual correspondence used by
the defendants in connection with application, selec­
tion, certification, or appointment of police officers.

(g) All eligible lists utilized for certi­
fication or appointment of police officers, with an 
identification of the race of each person on each 
such list.

9. The defendants shall submit to counsel for plain­
tiffs the following reports:

(a) Annually: A photostatic copy of the
EEO-4 form filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission for the Division of Police, within 10 days 
of the filing of such form.

(b) Within 60 days of the entry of this order, 
and every six months following the entry of this order 
until further order of the Court, a report showing:

(i) Total number of sworn personnel 
employed in the Division of Police by race,

_ within each rank (up to and including the
highest rank below the rank of chief) for the

8



first report; and thereafter the total number 
of new sworn personnel employed by the Division 
of police by race within each rank during the 
intervening period since the last report, and 
the total number of sworn personnel within each 
rank by race who have retired, resigned, or other­
wise been terminated during the intervening 
period since the last report.

(ii) Statistical breakdown of the 
applications made during the intervening period 
since the last report by race, together with a 
statistical breakdown of the acceptance or re­
jection of such applicants by race by each stage 
of the selection process.

(iii) The name, address, and telephone 
number of any black police recruit or officer in­
voluntarily terminated prior to completion of either 
the recruit school or the probationary period, and 
the reason for such termination.

(iv) The date on which each recruit class 
commenced during the intervening period since the 
last report and the numbers and percentages of 
black persons and white persons in each such class.

(v) A cumulative report showing the 
numbers of black persons and white persons appointed 
since the entry of this order who resigned or were 
terminated prior to completion of police recruit

9



school or the probationary period, and the 
cumulative numbers and percentages of black 
persons and white persons who have been 
appointed since the entry of this order and 
who are counted for purposes of determining 
compliance with the requirements set forth 
herein.

VIII. Interim Attorneys' Fees

10. Pursuant to § 706(k) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000e-5(k), and pursuant to the Civil Rights Attorneys' Fees 
Awards Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 1988, the attorneys for plain­
tiffs are entitled to an interim award of reasonable attorneys' 
fees in an amount to be determined by further order of the Court.

IX. Jurisdiction
11. The Court retains jurisdiction of this action to 

supervise this order and judgment; to grant such additional 
relief as may be necessary or appropriate with respect to dis­
crimination in recruitment, testing, selection, or hiring; to 
determine individual claims for relief hereunder; and to determine 
all remaining issues in this action.

Dated:
United States District Judge



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing Plaintiffs' 
Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order 
and Judgment were served by depositing same in the United 
States mail, postage prepaid, this 13th day of September, 
1978, addressed as follows:

Sallie S. Haynes, Esq. 
Laurence J. Zielke, Esq. 
City Law Department 
200 City Hall
Louisville, Kentucky 40202
Richard Frockt, Esq.
1417 Citizens Plaza 
Louisville, Kentucky 40202

Patrick 0. Patterson