Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

PENNSYLVANIA v. FLAHERTY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA


December 5, 1975

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania et al., Plaintiffs
v.
Peter F. Flaherty et al., Defendants, and Fraternal Order of Police, Fort Pitt Lodge No. 1, Intervening Defendant

Weber, D.J.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: WEBER

WEBER, D.J.:

This action has been instituted by a congeries of parties plaintiff, both individuals and organizations, and defendants have moved to dismiss as to many of them. Also the plaintiffs bring the action as a class action as to certain enumerated classes. We find it unnecessary to determine these matters at the present stage because we believe that we have one proper party plaintiff sufficient to all these purposes, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

 The Commonwealth brings this action on behalf of all citizens of the Commonwealth, including the named plaintiffs. We find that the Commonwealth is a proper party plaintiff and has standing to bring this action on behalf of all citizens of the Commonwealth to redress racially discriminatory employment practices. Hawaii v. Standard Oil Co., 405 U.S. 251, 31 L. Ed. 2d 184, 92 S. Ct. 885; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania et al. v. Glickman, 370 F. Supp. 724 [W.D.Pa., 1974].

 Defendants are the Mayor of the City of Pittsburgh, the Police Superintendent, the members of the Civil Service Commission, its Secretary and Chief Examiner, all of whom are alleged to be responsible in their official capacities for the recruitment, qualification, selection, appointment and supervision of police officers and the Bureau of Police of the City of Pittsburgh. These individual defendants are charged, in their respective official capacities, as acting under color of law. The City of Pittsburgh as a municipal corporation is also named defendant.

 Jurisdiction is claimed under 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1343(3) and (4). We find that the court has jurisdiction over the matter.

 The complaint alleged discrimination in the hiring, appointment, promotion, and working conditions of black and female applicants and officers in the Bureau of Police of the City of Pittsburgh.

 At this stage of the proceedings we are only concerned with the hiring procedure for applicants for appointment as police officers. The City of Pittsburgh and the defendant officers have administered a written examination and now propose to proceed to the appointment of 44 officers utilizing the usual civil service procedures including the "Rule of 3" as set forth in the Pennsylvania Civil Service Code, 53 P.S. ยง 23446, which provides for the submission in order of rank on the written examination (including Veterans' Preference). A preliminary injunction has been sought to enjoin this procedure and seek such other equitable relief solely with respect to the issue of the hiring and appointment practice. An extensive stipulation of facts has been filed and the court has heard additional evidence with respect to this issue.

 Findings with Respect to Representation by Race and Sex 1. The proportion of black persons in the population of the City of Pittsburgh in recent years is as follows: 1970 20% 1960 17% 1950 12%

19751205

© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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