Lopez, et al. v. City of Lawrence, et al. Amicus Brief

Penn State Law’sCivil Rights Appellate Clinicrecently filed an amicuscuriaebrief on behalf of the National Urban League and the NAACP with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit arguing in favor of the employees in the matter ofLopez, et al. v. City of Lawrence, et al.

The case addresses how to achieve equal employment opportunity for racial minorities in local law enforcement, which is an extremely important and divisive issue, as recent events involving police departments across the country have demonstrated. The U.S. Department of Justice and a number of local civil rights organizations have also filedamicusbriefs on behalf of the plaintiffs in the case.

InLopez, the plaintiffs are black and Hispanic police officers who took the Massachusetts police sergeant’s promotional exam in their local municipalities between 2005 and 2008 and were not promoted. The plaintiffs have demonstrated that the promotional exams used during those years had a disparate impact on racial minorities, meaning that, although there was no evidence of intentional discrimination, the tests selected applicants for promotion in a discriminatory pattern. In short, the tests promoted significantly more whites than blacks or Hispanics. The defendants are local municipalities, including the City of Boston and surrounding towns, that utilized the tests created by the Massachusetts Human Resources Division and made promotions based on the tests’ results.

The First Circuit will decide whether the trial court used the proper standard to analyze the burden of proof associated with disparate impact claims. Advocating for the black and Hispanic police officers, the clinic took the following positions:

• the trial court’s analysis of the disparate impact claim was hyper-technical and contrary to Congress’ intent in enacting Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin;
• the trial court’s decision fundamentally departs from the intended purpose of disparate impact theory and its application to state and local municipalities under the law; and
• an affirmance by the First Circuit would severely limit the use of disparate impact as a means to achieve equal opportunity on a systemic level in the workplace generally and in state and local law enforcement specifically.

The amicus brief is available here: