April 3, 2004 – Ending a decade-long battle between the U.S. Department of Justice and the City of Garland, a federal court this week upheld written civil service examinations used by the City to hire police officers and firefighters, as well as other related hiring procedures. In a decision released late Friday, U.S. District Judge Sam A. Lindsay held that the United States failed to prove that any employment practices used by the City violated the federal Civil Rights Act.

The case began in 1993 when the Justice Department opened an investigation into the City’s hiring and employment practices. Attorneys for the Government had argued that the Police and Fire Departments discriminated against African American and Hispanic applicants and employees. The investigation dragged on for nearly five years as the Justice Department was unable to put together a coherent case.

Then, in February 1998, the Government filed suit in federal court in Dallas alleging that the City engaged in intentional discrimination in its Police and Fire Departments and that those departments’ hiring practices were unlawful. It became apparent in March 1999, when the Government was unable to point to any specific evidence to support its intentional discrimination claims and withdrew those baseless allegations that the primary focus of the Government’s case was on written tests of basic reading, writing and mathematical skills used at the first stage in the City’s comprehensive hiring process for entry-level police officers and firefighters. Justice Department lawyers alleged that the tests were not job-related, that the 70% passing score used on the tests was too high, and that the City should have replaced the exams with personality tests developed and marketed by some of the Government’s own experts.

Throughout the suit, which culminated in a two-week trial in August 2001, the City maintained that the written tests reliably measure skills that are essential in the training academies and on the job. For example, police officers must read, comprehend and apply a wide variety of written materials, including often complex legal codes and court decisions. Similarly, firefighters – which include emergency medical technicians and paramedics – are required to learn and apply appropriate fire suppression methods and to administer medical assistance. The City also defended the 70% cutoff score as necessary to ensure minimum qualifications. (State civil service law, adopted by the citizens of Garland in 1958, requires the use of a 70% passing score on such tests.)

The court found that the written tests – the ALERT entry-level police officer test, and the IPMA B-4 and the ALARM entry-level firefighter tests – are "job related and consistent with business necessity," the showing required by federal law to defend the use of certain employment practices. Judge Lindsay also agreed with City that the 70% cutoff was appropriate, and rejected the United State’s argument that the City should have lowered the cutoff to 60%.
 
Although the Government could nevertheless have won the case by showing that an alternative hiring procedure existed that would allow for the hiring of more minority applicants but still serve the City’s business needs, the court found that Justice Department attorneys failed to identify any such alternative.

The Government also argued that the City’s practice of hiring eligible applicants in rank order based on their test scores unfairly eliminated minority applicants and was not necessary to ensure the hiring of the best police officers and firefighters. The court disagreed, finding that the United States failed to make any showing that rank-order hiring had a discriminatory effect and that, even if the Government had made such a showing, the practice is nevertheless a legitimate, job-related hiring procedure.

Charles M. Hinton, Jr., Garland City Attorney, was elated at the news of the court’s decision. "The City Council, the Police and Fire Departments, the City Manager and the staff of this Office have dedicated more than 10 years to this case. Our goal was to show, based on all of the evidence, that the City’s hiring standards and practices serve the important need to protect the public, and that the Justice Department’s effort to lower those standards were unreasonable, unjustified and inconsistent with our duty to provide the best public safety services possible," Hinton said. Hinton has stated throughout the case that he believed the Justice Department’s case to be without merit. While he was elated that Judge Lindsay agreed, he stated he was not "surprised."

Wayne S. Flick, a Los Angeles attorney hired by the City to defend the case, shared Hinton’s sentiment. "We are very pleased that the court accepted each of our arguments and rejected all of the United States’. From the beginning, we have been confident that the City’s hiring practices – which are similar to those used by public safety agencies across the nation – were appropriate to ensure that Garland hired qualified police officers and firefighters, without regard to race."

Two weeks ago, a Delaware federal court also endorsed the use of the ALERT police officer examination. In resolving a 2001 Justice Department challenge to the Delaware State Police’s use of ALERT, United States District Judge Kent A. Jordan found that ALERT is a reliable measure of skills that are essential to performing the entry-level law enforcement job, and that a 70% cutoff score complies with federal law, even if it disproportionately excludes some minority applicants. In ruling on Garland’s use of ALERT, Judge Lindsay agreed with Judge Jordan’s conclusion.

The court’s decision directs that all of the United States’ claims be dismissed with prejudice, and awards the City its reasonable defense costs. Whether the City will seek reimbursement of its attorneys’ fees is under consideration.

For comment, please contact Garland City Attorney Charles M. Hinton, Jr. at 972-205-2385.