United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUnited States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Uploaded by
Scribd Government Docs473 F.
2d 1029
5 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 713, 5 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 8448
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA et al. (Intervenors
Plaintiffs), Guardian Civic League (Intervenor Plaintiff),
v.
Joseph F. O'NEILL et al., Appellants in No. 72-1614. Appeal
of FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE et al.,
Defendants-Intervenors, in No. 72-1613.
Nos. 72-1613, 72-1614.
United States Court of Appeals,
Third Circuit.
Argued Aug. 28, 1972.
Submitted for Rehearing before the Court En Banc Jan. 3, 1973.
Decided Feb. 8, 1973.
A. Charles Peruto, James M. Penny, Jr., Sheldon L. Albert, Martin
Weinberg, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellants in Nos. 72-1613 and 72-1614.
Henry W. Sawyer, III, Andrew S. Price, Harold I. Goodman, Robert J.
Reinstein, F. John Hagele, Robert P. Vogel, Stephen C. Miller,
Philadelphia, Pa., for appellees in Nos. 72-1613 and 72-1614.
George H. Weiler, III, Washington, D. C., for amicus curiae, Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission in Nos. 72-1613 and 72-1614.
Before SEITZ, Chief Judge, and ALDISERT, ADAMS, GIBBONS, MAX
ROSENN and HUNTER, Circuit Judges.
OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM:
The defendants appeal from an order dated July 7, 1972 granting a preliminary
injunction pending final hearing. 348 F.Supp. 1084 (E.D.Pa.1972). The
complaint challenges the hiring and promotion procedures of the Police
Department of the City of Philadelphia as violative of the Civil Rights Acts. 42
U.S.C. Secs. 1981-1983. The alleged violations involve discrimination in hiring
black applicants and in promoting black police officers. After a hearing the
district court entered the order appealed from, which granted interim injunctive
relief both with respect to hiring procedures and with respect to promotion
procedures.
2
The court being equally divided with respect to the provisions of the order
dealing with hiring procedures, the order will in those respects be affirmed.
With respect to the promotion procedures, the district court directed that no
promotions be made pursuant to the existing procedure unless the Police
Department promoted at least one black officer for every two white officers. It
found that the "written examination for promotion . . . plays a significant role in
determinations of eligibility and eliminates a disproportionate number of
blacks." 348 F.Supp. at 1101 (emphasis omitted). In reviewing the evidence,
however, the district court revealed that its finding of disproportionate
disqualification was based upon the following unrebutted statistical evidence
concerning passing rates on three promotion examinations:
"Test
4
Sergeant
Detective
Corporal
White Pass Rate
18.4%
27.2%
36.2%
Black Pass Rate
11.7%
17.7%
23.8%"
Id. Immediately following the reproduction of this table upon which the district
court apparently based its finding of disproportionate disqualifications, the trial
judge stated: "There is no evidence as to the statistical significance of these
figures, nor as to the passing rates for the other promotion examinations." Id.
Thus, although he made a finding that the promotional tests disqualify a
disproportionate number of black policemen seeking promotion, the judge
pointed to the absence of evidence concerning the statistical significance of the
data on which his finding was based. Perhaps this apparent incongruence
between the statistics, the finding of fact, and the statement made by the trial
judge was caused by a simple mistake. Speculation about its nature is,
however, just that, speculation. In view of the critical nature of the matter, we
unanimously decline, on this record, to uphold that part of the district court's
order requiring a one-for-two quota system in the Police Department's
promotion procedure pending final hearing. Our ruling, is, of course, without
prejudice to any other or further relief which may be ordered by the district
court with respect to Philadelphia Police Department promotion procedures in
proceedings not before us on this appeal.
Those portions of the district court's order of July 7, 1972 dealing with the
hiring procedures of the Philadelphia Police Department pending final hearing
will be affirmed. Those portions of the district court's order of July 7, 1972
dealing with promotion procedures of the Philadelphia Police Department
pending final hearing will be vacated and the cause remanded for further
proceedings.
You might also like
- No ratings yetJoseph Biehunik v. Frank N. Felicetta, Commissioner of Buffalo Police Department, Thomas R. Blair, Deputy Commissioner of Buffalo Police Department, Howard R. Wheeler, Inspector, Buffalo Police Department, Charles Devoe and Karl Muehlbauer, Both Captains of the Buffalo Police Department, 441 F.2d 228, 2d Cir. (1971)7 pages
