Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

SCHAEFER v. TANNIAN

September 26, 1995

GRACE SCHAEFER, et al, Plaintiffs,
v.
PHILIP G. TANNIAN, et al, Defendants.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: GADOLA

 At a session of said Court held in the Theodore Levin U.S. Courthouse on SEPT. 26, 1995

 PRESENT: HONORABLE PAUL V. GADOLA, United States District Judge

 This matter having come before the Court upon the stipulation of the parties to the entry of a Consent Judgment finally and fully resolving all of the remaining claims in this action; and

 It appearing to the Court that this action, initially commenced some twenty-two years ago, involves claims of discrimination based upon gender in hiring, compensation and promotion within the Detroit Police Department; and

 The Court having previously determined by Order dated May 29, 1974, that this action could proceed upon behalf of a plaintiff class composed of all women who since April 10, 1970 had applied for employment or who had been employed by the Detroit Police Department; and

 The Court having further determined that the Detroit Police Department's discriminatory practices having ended by June 30, 1978 and that only those class members employed prior to June 30, 1978 were entitled to individual retroactive relief; and

 The Court having previously found that the hiring, compensation and promotion practices challenged by the plaintiffs violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 USC § 2000e, et seq, as well as the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and having previously granted both class-wide and individual injunctive relief, including preliminary injunctions ordering certain members of the plaintiff class hired and others promoted; awarding seniority for purposes of layoff, recall and all other purposes for which seniority is a factor in the Detroit Police Department retroactive to the date each officer would have been hired in the absence of discrimination; and pension adjustments reflecting the additional seniority awarded each officer; and

 The parties to this action being desirous of avoiding further litigation and delay and having reached a settlement of all remaining claims and issues in this action, after protracted arms-length negotiations; and

 It appearing to the Court that notice of the terms of the proposed settlement has previously been provided by publication and first class mail to the last known address of each member of the certified subclasses of plaintiffs; and

 It further appearing that a hearing required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) was held by United States Magistrate Judge Virginia Morgan on February 21, 1995, at which members of the plaintiff class were afforded an opportunity to state inter alia their objections to the terms of the proposed Consent Judgment; and that following the hearing on April 17, 1995, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommended order that the settlement negotiated by the parties be approved; and

 This Court having entered an order dated August 7, 1995 accepting and adopting Magistrate Judge Morgan's April 17, 1995 Report and Recommendation; now therefore

 IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that a Consent Judgment be, and the same hereby is, entered in this action, resolving all of the remaining claims of the plaintiff class, including each of the sub-classes, as follows:

 I. HIRING SUBCLASS

 1. The City of Detroit agrees to pay to the hiring subclass damages in the amount of Five Million Eight Hundred Thousand and no/100 ($ 5,800,000.00) Dollars, inclusive of any and all costs and interest.

 2. Each eligible member of the hiring subclass will be paid damages for lost earnings (back pay), less interim earnings as reported by the Social Security Administration, for the period she was unlawfully denied hire, according to the formula developed in consultation with the City, which reflects not only the base wage rate, but contractual and COLA adjustments, shift premium, holiday premium and average overtime (subject to applicable withholding).

 3. In addition, each eligible member of the hiring subclass will be paid an additional twenty-five (25%) percent of the back pay referred to in paragraph I-3 above representing interest on the back pay.

 4. The total amount of economic damages representing back pay and interest due to each eligible member of the hiring subclass is subject to applicable withholding for federal, state and local income taxes but not social ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.