The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1998-10-07 PACKET 04.O.REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL AGTION COUNCIL AGENDA MEETING ITENI # DATE 1017/98 �� PREPARED BY Administration Michelle Wolfe ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT STAFF AUTHOR <.,��.��.�<«<.��.��><��.��.�< COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST Approve resolution for settlement and payment—Starks and Fields v. MPRS BUDGET IMPLICATION $445.50 BUDGETED AMOUNT ACTUAL AMOUNT SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS � MEMO/LETTER: Memo from Micheile Wolfe dated October 2, 1998 � RESO�UTION: Draft ❑ ORDINANCE: ❑ ENGINEERING RECOfv1MENDATION: ❑ LEGAL RECOMMENDATION: � OTHER: Attachment One ADMINISTRATORS COMfV1ENTS: - �,�L�C��.�J� /c� �� Administrator ate .,...��«.,<..�.��.>.,.,��.<<.�.�.��.�.«.�.�g.< COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ OTHER F:\GROUPS\PER ECON\M�1MGC Items\MPRS Ca✓er-Oct 98.doc • � To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Michelle A. Wolfe, Assistant City Administrator Date: 10/02/98 Re: Resolution Approving Settlement and Payment Thereof for Starks and Fields v. MPRS. et al. BACKGROUND This is a several-years-old case involving two police officer candidates who challenged the testing process used by the Minnesota Police Recruitment System (MPRS). At the time these two candidates began the process, the City of Cottage Grove was stili a member of the MPRS, Therefore, we are one of the defendant cities in this case. The plaintiffs prevailed and as a result, the defendant cities are obligated to pay certain damages and penalties. The cities approved a formula for the allocation of costs and damages. However, the court also required compliance with minority race hiring requirements, and the undertaking of additional hiring practices. A large penalty vaould be paid if the municipalities failed to comply v��ith fhese affirmative action orders. The case was appealed, and the cities were represented by the �MCIT. On February 4, 1998, the appeals court ruled in favor of the cities in three significant areas: (1) The race-conscious hiring requirements of the lower court were struck down; (2) The $300,000 civil penalty was eliminated; and (3) A punitive damage award of $8,500 was eliminated. The plaintiff's damage awards were upheld (about $80,000 for each of the two plaintiffs), but the attorney's fees were sent back to the trial court to be revisited. The court made a substantial reduction to the award of attorney's fees to plaintiffs, but took the opportunity to amend its order relating to police officer selection. The trial court ordered on-going reporting of information about all written tests used by the cities for police o�cer selection until January 1, 2004. This means that defenda�t cities would continue to be under the court's jurisdiction for the next five years. F:\GROUPS\PER ECON\MAIMMPRS\Settlemencdoc DISCUSSION This is a new aspect to the court's order which is of enough concern that the LMCIT has agreed to chalienge it. However, although we believe we have a good chance for successful appeal, nothing is guaranteed, and there are costs involved in the appeal. Therefore, attorney's for 4he cities haVE discussed a possible settlement with the plaintiffs attorney. The settlement would be $15,000, plus the damages and attorney's fees which were already awarded by the court. The anticipated cost of this settlement for the City of Cottage Grove is $445.50. If this settlement is approved by all the defendant cities, it will be contingent upon final dismissal of the case. Then, the case could be put to rest, and the court would have no further jurisdiction over our hiring practices. RECOMMENDATION Attached is a Resolution approving settlement and authorizing payment thereof. Staff recommends approval of the Resolution. As stated in the document, we believe it is in the public interest to settle the case to avoid the administrative burden, commitment of staff resources, attorney's fees and costs associated with ongoing reporting to the court. Attachment MAW F:\GROUPS\PER ECON\MA�NMPRS\Settlement.doc CITY OF COL7N'I'Y OF STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING SETTL,EMENT AND ALJTHORIZING PAYMENT TI IEREOF BE IT RESOLUED by the City Council of the Ciry of , Mmnesota (City) as follows: Section 1. Background. 1.L The City of (hereinafter refened to as the "City") is a defendant in the cases of Starks v. Minneapolis Police Recruitment System, et al.; Hennepin Counry District Court FIle No. EM93-219, and Fields v. Minnesota Police Recruitment System, et al.; District Court File No. EM93-218. 1.2. The Court has concluded in said actions that the defendants violated Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 363, the Minnesota Human Rights Act, in the administration of the Minnesota Police Recruitment System (MPRS) testing process for enUy level police officers employment screening and that defendants aze obligated to pay certain damages and penalaes. 1.3. The City has previously approved a formula for the allocation of costs and damages among the de[endants. 1.4. The order of the Court also requires ongoing reporting to the Court of information about all cvritten tests used by the City for police officer selection until January 1, 2004. 1.5. The Councii has been presented with a proposal for setflement of these cases under which the defendant cities would collectively pay the sum of Fifteen Thousand Dollazs ($15,000) in addiuon to damages, costs and fees previously awarded by the Court if counsel for plaintiffs and defendant are successful in securing a complete dismissai of the cases. 1.6. The Council has determined that it is in the public interest to settle the cases to avoid the administrative burden, commitment of staff resources, attorneys' fees and costs associated with ongoing reporting to the Court. 1.7. The MPRS has proposed ehat payment of the setflement be allocated among the defendant cides in accordance with Attachment One to this Resolution, which allocation is the same as that used for costs and damages previously awarded by the Court, and which allocation the Council finds to be fair and reasonable. t CLL-150279 1 t�110-2 Sec. 2. Anorovals and Authorizations. 2.1. Settlement of the cases for the total payment of Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000) plus damages, costs and fees previously awarded by the Court is approved, contingent upon first securing from the Court a total dismissal of the case with prejudice. 2.2. The Ciry consents and agrees To payment of its share of such settlement in accordance with the allocation set forth in Attachment One. 2.3. °The City and are authorized and directed to make payment for the City's share of such settlement upon notification from legal counseLthat final settlement has been reached and dismissal has been secured. 2.4. This resoluuon does not amend any previous agreement among the defendant cities for allocation of damages, costs, disbursements, plaintiffs' attorneys fees, defense costs and defendants' attorneys fees. Adopted by the City Council of the City of > this _ day of , 1996. ATTEST: CLL-150279 2 MP110-2 A��OI2'Z'IONMEIVT OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT , �� . Anoka Apple Valley Blaine Bloomington Brooklyn Center Srooklyn Park Chaska Columbia Heights (inc. H'illtop) Coon Rapids Cattage Grove Crystal Faribault Fridley Golden Valley Fiastings Inver C3rove Haights Mendota Heights (inc. Lilydale and Mendota) New Brighton New Hope New Lllm North St. Paul Oakdale Orono (ine. Long Lake, Mtka. Beach and Spring Park) Plymouth Prior Lake R.amsey Rcdwood Falls Robbinsdale Roaemount Roseville (inc. Falcon Heights and Lauderdale) St. Anthony St, James Savage Shakopee wayZata Woadbury ; 2.20a/o 4,15 4.36 8.71 3.23 6, O 1 1,78 2.41 6,07 2:97 2,79 a.z9 3.21 2.53 2.0? 2.84 1.61 2.66 2.60 1.82 r.�s 2.64 I.bS 5,73. 1.69 I.RR 1.02 1.51 1.54 4.37 7.31 0.97 a .77 1.75 0.92 2.9.8 , . �� S 330,00 622.50 657.00 1,306.50 484.50 901.50 267.00 361.50 910.50 AA5,50 418.50 343.50 481,50 399.50 310.50 426,00 241,50 399.00 390.00 273.00 262.50 396.00 247.50 659.50 253.50 282.00 153.00 286, 50 231,00 646.50 196.50 145.50 265.50 262.50 138.00 447.00 ATTACHMENT 4NE