• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT------------------------------------------------------------xFRANK RICCI, ET AL. :plaintiffs ::v. : NO: 3:04-CV-1109 (JBA):JOHN DESTEFANO, JR, ET AL. :defendants : November 20, 2009-----------------------------------------------------------x
DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’REQUEST FOR STATUS CONFERENCE
On November 13, 2009, both parties submitted proposed orders regarding thepromotion of certain plaintiffs. On November 17, 2009, the plaintiffs requested a statusconference regarding the proposed orders. The City of New Haven (“the City”) herebyresponds to that request.The City is willing to attend another status conference if the Court so orders, to theextent one is necessary. However, there is no confusion as to how many or which plaintiffswill be promoted pursuant to the City’s proposed order. In its November 6
th
letter toplaintiff’s counsel, the City listed those 14 plaintiffs who would have been promoted withinthe two-year life of the eligible lists and thus will be promoted, once the eligible lists arecertified.
 
 - 2 -Eligible lists, displaying the names and ranks of all passing candidates on theseexams, have not been prepared by the City. In fact, the City has never publicly released theidentities or ranks of the passing candidates. While the parties to the litigation haveinformation regarding candidates’ scores and ranks, this information has been sealed fromthe public out of a concern for the interests of the non-party candidates. Consistent with theSupreme Court’s opinion in this case, it is important that the eligible lists be prepared andcertified in order to avoid confusion, remove any notion of secrecy and ensure that onlythose who would have been promoted based on their performance on the 2003 exams havean opportunity for promotion now. See
 
Ricci v. DeStefano, et al.
 , ---
U.S. ---, 129 S.Ct.2658, 2681 (2009) (“If 
after it certifies the test results
the City faces a disparate-impactsuit, then in light of our holding today it should be clear that the City would avoid disparate-impact liability based on the strong basis in evidence that, had it not certified the results, itwould have been subject to disparate-treatment liability.”) (emphasis added). Once the listsare certified, the Board of Fire Commissioners would then promote, in rank order, thoseplaintiffs who would have been promoted during the two-year life of the lists. Additionally,the City would have the discretion to promote non-plaintiffs, but only those non-plaintiffswho would have been promoted if the City had certified the lists in 2004.
 
 - 3 -In short, the City’s proposed order ensures that what the Supreme Court consideredto violate Title VII of the Civil Rights of 1964 -- the City’s failure to certify the results of the 2003 exams and promote consistent with those results -- is remedied and nothing more.THE DEFENDANTCITY OF NEW HAVENBy /s/ Richard A. Roberts (ct 07665)Stacey L. Pitcher (ct27111)Todd J. Richardson (ct26699)NUZZO & ROBERTS, L.L.C.One Town CenterP.O. Box 747Cheshire, Connecticut 06410Tel: (203) 250-2000Fax: (203) 250-3131rroberts@nuzzo-roberts.com spitcher@nuzzo-roberts.com trichardson@nuzzo-roberts.com 
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...