Loading...
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,