HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.j. Allocation of Damages and Payment for Starks and Fields Lawsuit CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: FEBRUARY 20, 1996
AGENDA ITEM: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ALLOCATION AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT
OF DAMAGES &PAYMENT - STARKS &FIELDS V. MPRS, ET
AL
PREPARED BY: SUSAN M. WALSH AGENDA rg4n a ,J�
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 'V' T1' 116 j
ATTACHMENTS: RESOLUTION APPROVED BY:
On November 6, 1995, Judge Solum issued his order regarding damages the 36 defendant cities are obligated to
pay as a result of the law suit filed by plaintiffs Starks and Fields. Since the damages were ordered by the judge,
there have been several meetings with the MPRS members, the MPRS executive committee and the defendant
cities for the purpose of determining how the damages should be allocated among the cities. The MPRS
executive committee proposed the following formula for allocation of damages:
(1) 20% of the damages would be divided equally among the defendants; and
(2) 80% of the damages would be divided based upon each city's population served at the time of the
lawsuit(1993 Metropolitan Council estimate).
Total damages for lost wages and emotional distress are $156 688 and total punitive damages 7 0
g g p ge are $1 ,0 0. The
Court has not issued its order for plaintiffs' attorneys fees and costs, but it is estimated the total will be
approximately $600,000. A fairly safe estimate of the total damages and costs the defendant cities will be
obligated to pay is approximately$800,000. Based on the above formula, it is estimated that the city of
Rosemount's obligation will be approximately$11,356.
The attached resolution for City Council consideration would approve the 20/80 percent allocation among the
defendant cities and authorize payment once the final costs for plaintiffs' attorneys fees are ordered by the judge.
In closed session,Attorney LeFevere will discuss with the City Council the status of the joint affirmative
action program.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: MOTION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING ALLOCATION
OF DAMAGES AND AUTHORIZING PAYMENT THEREOF
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 1996-
A RESOLUTION APPROVING ALLOCATION OF DAMAGES
AND AUTHORIZING PAYMENT THEREOF
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rosemount, Minnesota as follows:
Section 1. Background.
1.1. The City of Rosemount (hereinafter referred to as "City") is a defendant in the cases
of Starks v. Minneapolis Police Recruitment System, et al.; Hennepin County District Court File
No. EM93-219, and Fields v. Minnesota Police Recruitment System, et al.; 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 damages 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 a remedied in part by paying a statutory penalty in the amount of 300 000 to the
be $ o
P Y P Y1 g rY p Y
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 1996-
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. Findings.
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, penalties,
costs, disbursements and attorneys' fees in accordance with the allocation formula described
above.
3.3. The City Administrator and Finance Director are authorized and directed to make
payment for the City's share of final judgement 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 an 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 the 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 a 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.
2
RESOLUTION 1996-
Approved by the City Council of the City of Rosemount and ADOPTED this sixth day of
February, 1996.
Cathy Busho, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan M. Walsh, City Clerk
Motion by: Seconded by:
Voted in favor:
Voted against:
Members Absent:
3