96-043 - 03-06 Approve Damages Starks VS Police Recruitment System LawsuitResolution 96-43
March 6, 1996
40 Member Johnson introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION APPROVING ALLOCATION OF DAMAGES AND
AUTHORIZING PAYMENT THEREOF IN STARKS VS
MINNEAPOLIS POLICE RECRUITMENT SYSTEM (MPRS) LAWSUIT
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota, as
follows:
Section 1. Background
1.1 The City of Golden Valley (hereinafter referred to as the "City") is a defendant in
the cases of Starks vs. Minneapolis Police Recruitment System, ell., Hennepin County
District Court File No. EM93-219, and Fields vs. Minnesota Police Recruitment System, et
all.; 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' entry level police
officers employment screening and that defendants are obligated to pay certain damages
and penalties.
1.3 In its order dated November 6 1995 the Court determined that the defendant
cities are obligated to pay $156,688 in damages for lost wages and emotional distress.
1.4 The Court has also determined that the MPRS, a joint powers organization of
which the City is a member, or was a member at the time the actions were commenced, is
obligated to pay each of the two plaintiffs punitive damage in the amount of $8,500.
1.5 The Court has not yet made a determination as to the award of plaintiffs' costs,
disbursements, and attorneys' fees.
1.6 The Court also determined that the unlawful discrimination by the defendants
can reasonably be remedied in part by paying a statutory penalty in the amount of
$300,000 to the State of Minnesota, or in lieu of such penalty establishing a reasonable
minority race hiring commitment satisfactory to the Court. In the event a hiring commitment
is submitted to the Court which is found to be satisfactory, it may be that the payment of a
statutory penalty will not be required.
1.7 The MPRS has proposed that the payment of monetary damages to the
plaintiffs described above in paragraph 1.3, punitive damages described above in
paragraph 1.4 and plaintiffs' costs, disbursements and attorneys' fees be allocated among
the parties on the following basis:
Resolution 96-43 - Continued March 6, 1996
40 20% of such costs would be divided equally among the 36 city defendants. 80% of
such damages would be divided pro rata on the basis of the population served by the cities
police departments as of the time the actions were commenced in January of 1993. Such
population would be determined on the basis of Metropolitan Council estimates for cities in
the metropolitan area. For communities outside of the metropolitan area the population
would be determined by the State Demographer's estimates. For communities with service
contracts under which police service is provided to other municipalities, the populations of
such other municipalities would be included in the computation of population served.
Section 2. Findinas.
2.1 It is in the best interest of the City to reach mutual agreement on the allocation
of damages.
2.2 The allocation proposed by the MPRS is found to be fair and reasonable, and
consent thereto is in the best interest of the City.
Section 3. Approvals and Authorizations.
3.1 The allocation for payment of damages, penalties, costs, disbursements and
attorneys' fees described above is hereby approved.
• 3.2 The City consents and agrees to payment of its share of such damages,
s,
penalties, costs, disbursements and attorneys' fees in accordance with the allocation
formula described above.
3.3 The Mayor and City Manager are authorized and directed to make payment for
the City's share of final judgment of such expenses in accordance with the agreed upon
allocation.
3.4 This resolution does not amend any previous agreement among the defendant
cities for allocation of defense costs and defendants' attorneys fees; and nothing herein
shall be deemed to be in agreement as to allocation of any statutory penalties which may
be awarded in the future.
3.5 This resolution constitutes only an agreement between and among all cities
which are defendants in the above -referenced actions which consent and agree to be
allocation formula described above by adoption of substantially similar resolutions. Nothing
herein shall be deemed an admission of responsibility or a liability' in any action for
contribution by any city which has not consented to such allocation or al waiver by the City
of any rights, claims, demands, or causes of action for contribution by the City against any
city which has not agreed to such allocation.
Resolution 96-43 - Continued
•
ATTEST:
son, Clerk
March 6, 1996
J=17d-ersoni, Mayor
The
motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member Russell
and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Anderson,
Johnson, LeSuer, Micks and Russell; and the following voted against the same: none,
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor
and her signature attested by the City Clerk.
•
C�j