White San Francisco Police Officers Sue Claiming Discrimination
The officers claim lower-scoring black and female officers get promoted over white and male contenders because of the department's race and gender quota system, creating a “pernicious atmosphere of confusion, obfuscation and blatant discrimination.”
June 11, 2019 at 10:54 PM
3 minute read
White police officers who say the San Francisco Police Department uses a biased promotional system that favors black and female candidates named the city, county, police department, the police commission, Police Chief William Scott, Mayor London Breed and several others in a lawsuit filed in federal court Tuesday.
A dozen SFPD employees claim they were overlooked for promotions to sergeant, lieutenant and captain because they are white and male, save for one retired officer who says that her status as a white lesbian is why she was passed over for a lieutenant's post.
The officers, represented by M. Greg Mullanax of the Law Office of M. Greg Mullanax in Fresno, California, claim lower-scoring black and female officers get promoted over white and male contenders because of the department's race and gender quota system, creating a “pernicious atmosphere of confusion, obfuscation and blatant discrimination.”
The complaint claims the foundation for SFPD's promotional system has been shaped by a class action filed on behalf of black officers facing discrimination in the 1970s. After Officers for Justice v. Civil Service Comm'n in 1973, the police department began using a “banding” procedure to comply with a consent decree to hire a greater number of minority and female employees, according to the complaint.
Instead of a strict ranking order, a statistically derived band was used to advantage minority officers, and all the officers that fell within the band's range were considered to be on the same footing in regards to knowledge, skills and abilities for promotional purposes. Although the consent decree ended in 1998, the complaint alleges that the banding system remains intact.
The officers allege that the SFPD has a history of discrimination against white males, and the complaint cites a handful of additional examples dating from 1983 to 2019. In August 2017, the city created a list of potential sergeants. The city used the “Rule of 10” when making its appointments, “which allows the city to move 10 ranks down the list from the last person selected” to increase the number of black and women sergeants, according to the complaint.
“The selections from the Sergeant's promotional list reveal that white officers were passed over at a rate of nearly 3 to 1, as compared to black officers,” Mullanax writes in the complaint. “Put in its most stark terms, white officers comprised 63.5% of the total candidate pool (combining both promotional rounds) but accounted for only 46% of candidates selected in total, as compared to the 100% success rate for black officers.”
Mullanax did not respond to a request for comment at the time of publication.
The SFPD uses lawful, merit-based, competitive civil service examinations in making promotions, said John Coté, communications director for the Office of City Attorney Dennis Herrera, whom the SFPD referred to for comment. “This system is enshrined in the City's Charter and Civil Service Rules,” Coté said in a statement. “It's designed to provide qualified individuals with the chance for advancement while ensuring fair treatment without regard to race, gender, religion, age or other status. We will review this lawsuit and address it in court.”
The officers claim they “have and continue to suffer serious injury, including but not limited to, extreme mental anguish, extreme embarrassment, extreme humiliation, anxiety and emotional distress” as a result of the discrimination. They demand a jury trial to seek damages, injunctive and equitable relief and attorney fees.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSanta Clara County Superior Court Authorizes Electronic Recording of Proceedings
4 minute readRegulatory Upheaval Is Coming. How Businesses Prepare and Respond Will Separate Winners and Losers
California-Based Portal Crypto Exchange Faces Delaware Investor Class Action
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: School District's Probe Was a 'Sham'; Title IX Administrator Showed Sex-Based Bias
- 2US Magistrate Judge Embry Kidd Confirmed to 11th Circuit
- 3Shaq Signs $11 Million Settlement to Resolve Astrals Investor Claims
- 4McCormick Consolidates Two Tesla Chancery Cases
- 5Amazon, SpaceX Press Constitutional Challenges to NLRB at 5th Circuit
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250