HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 1996-114•
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
RESOLUTION NO. 96. 114
RESOLUTION APPROVING ALLOCATION OF DAMAGES
AND AUTHORIZING PAYMENT THEREOF
WHEREAS, the City of Plymouth (hereinafter referred to as the "City") is a defendant in
the cases of Starks v. Minneapolis Police Recruitment System, CW.; Hennepin County District
Court File No. EM93-219, and Fields v. Minneapolis Police Recruitment System, cW.; District
Court File No. EM93-218; and
WHEREAS, 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;
and
WHEREAS, in its order dated November 6, 1995, the Court determined that the
Jefendant cities are obligated to pay $156,688 in damages for lost wages and emotional distress;
and
WHEREAS, 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; and
WHEREAS, the Court has not yet made a determination as to the award of plaintiffs'
costs, disbJirsements, and attorneys' fees; and
WHEREAT,, the Court also determined that the unlawful discrimination by the
defendants can reasonably be remedied in part by paying a statutory penalty in the amount of
$300,000 to the 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 sa, sfactory, it may be that the payment of a statutory penalty
will not be required; and
WHEREAS, the MPRS has proposed that the payment of monetary damages to the
plaintiffs, punitive damages, and plaintiffs' costs, disbursements, and attorneys' fees be allocated
amour the parties on the hollowing basis;
20% of su..h costs wrnild be divided equally among the 36 city defendants. 80% of such
damages would be divided po rain or. the basis of the population served by the cities' police
departments as of the time the actions wer, commenced in January of 1993. Such population
would be determined on the basis A Nletropolitan Counci! estimates for cities in the metropolitan
area. For communitics outside of the metropolitur. area the population would be determined by
the State Demographer's cstimutcs. For communities with scivice, 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,
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of th,. C ty to reach mutual agreement on the
allocation of damages; and
WHEREAS, the allocation proposed by the MPRS is found to be fair and reasonable, and
consent thereto is in the best interest of the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, the allocation for payment of damages, penalties, costs,
disbursements, and attorneys' fees described above is hereby approved; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the City consents and agrees to payment of its share of
such damages, penalties, costs, disbursements, and attomeys' fees in accordance with the
allocation formula described above; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the City Finance Director is authorized and directed to
make payment for the City's share of final judgment of such expenses in accordance with the
agreed upon allocation; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED 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; and
BE IT' FURTHER RESOLVED 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.
Adopted by the City Council on February 21,, 1996,