Saris, Judge Patti B.

English

DigitalCommons@ILR

Cornell University ILR School 
DigitalCommons@ILR 
Consent Decrees Labor and Employment Law Program 
8-23-2007 
Bradley et al. v. City of Lynn 
Judge Patti B. Saris 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/condec 
Thank you for downloading this resource, provided by the ILR School's Labor and Employment 
Law Program. Please help support our student research fellowship program with a gift to the 
Legal Repositories! 
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Labor and Employment Law Program at 
DigitalCommons@ILR. It has been accepted for inclusion in Consent Decrees by an authorized administrator of 
DigitalCommons@ILR. For more information, please contact catherwood-dig@cornell.edu. 
If you have a disability and are having trouble accessing information on this website or need materials in an 
alternate format, contact web-accessibility@cornell.edu for assistance. 
Bradley et al. v. City of Lynn 
Keywords 
Bradley, City of Lynn, 05-10213-PBS, Consent Decree, Disparate Impact, Hiring, Compensation, Race, 
African American or Black, Homeland Security, Employment Law, Title VII 
This article is available at DigitalCommons@ILR: https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/condec/103 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS 
JACOB BRADLEY, et al., 
Plaintiffs 
v. 
CITY OF LYNN, et al., 
Defendants 
CIVIL ACTION NO. 05-10213-PBS 
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 
All parties to this action, excluding the City of Lynn and Edward J. Clancy, Jr., 
hereby enter into this comprehensive settlement agreement, subject to the court’s 
approval, resolving all issues pending in the above-titled case except the claims specific 
to the City of Lynn. This agreement and the terms contained herein are intended to 
effectuate and further this court’s memorandum and order of August 8, 2006 (Document 
127) and remedial order dated December 6, 2006, as amended February 8, 2007 
(Document 154, hereinafter “remedy order”), and to apply the remedy order to the 2003 
and 2005 police officer examinations. 
A. HIRING. 
1 . Future hirings of fire fighters from the 2002 and 2004 examinations, and of 
police officers from the 2003 and 2005 examinations, shall be conducted in accordance 
with the methodology and procedures specified in ¶¶A(1)-A(5) of the remedy order. 
Utilizing the court’s shortfall methodology set forth in the remedy order, the 
1 
municipalities and numbers of shortfall minorities thereby identified for police officer or 
fire fighter positions are as follows: 
Ashland 
Bedford 
Belmont 
Beverly 
Boston 
Brookline 
Cambridge 
Everett 
Fall River 
Leominster 
Lynn 
New Bedford 
North Adams 
North Andover 
Quincy 
Revere 
Sharon 
Southbridge 
Taunton 
Waltham 
TOTAL 
Fire Shortfall 
1 
8 
4 
1 
1 
2 
1 
1 
2 
21 
Police Shortfall 
1 
1 
1 
18 
4 
6 
1 
4 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
3 
45 
2. With respect to the shortfall number of 18 shown above for the City of 
Boston Police Department based on hirings to date from the 2003 and 2005 
examinations, in light of the City’s significant use of so-called PAR8 lists, the 
Commonwealth’s Human Resources Division (HRD) will certify the names of Black 
candidates to the City for the so-called shortfall hiring until six Black candidates in each 
2 
of the next three recruit classes are hired, or the list of eligible candidates is exhausted. 
HRD will certify names to the City first from the Boston residents on the 2003 list who 
were not reached, then from Boston residents on the 2003 and 2005 lists who were 
reached but did not sign the certification, and finally, if necessary, from the 2005 list, 
non-Boston residents who had selected Boston as an employment location as of May 
21, 2007. However, any candidate hired pursuant to this paragraph shall not be entitled 
to back pay under Section B of this agreement. 
3. With respect to the City of Boston and any future hiring of police officers 
from the 2005 exam after April 1 , 2007, should the City (1) hire non-resident veterans, 
but fail to exhaust the list of non-resident veterans; or (2) hire non-resident, non-
veterans (having exhausted the list of non-resident veterans), then upon completion of 
such hiring, the parties will conduct a shortfall analysis in the same manner as provided 
in paragraph 1 or paragraph 2 above, and if such shortfalls are found, subsequent hiring 
for the Boston Police Department will include the consideration of additional shortfall 
candidates from the 2003 and 2005 lists, in addition to the number of 18 shown above. 
However, any candidate hired pursuant to this paragraph shall not be entitled to back 
pay under Section B of this agreement. 
B. BACK PAY AND CREDITABLE SERVICE. 
4. The Commonwealth shall pay back pay, including retirement contributions, 
to or on behalf of those class members who were (1) hired later than would otherwise 
have occurred under the parties’ “delay” analysis; or (2) hired as a result of the court’s 
remedy order on shortfall hiring, subject to the following procedures and limitations: 
3 
a. The Commonwealth shall pay a total amount not to exceed 
$1,450,000 in full satisfaction of all claims for back pay, other compensation, and 
lost retirement contributions. The breakdown by category for such payment shall 
be as follows: 
(1.) Firefighters hired as a result of shortfall hiring - $400,000; 
(2.) Firefighters whose hiring was delayed - $250,000; 
(3.) Police Officers hired as a result of shortfall hiring - $500,000; 
(4.) Police Officers whose hiring was delayed - $300,000. 
5. All eligible class members described above in paragraphs 4(a)(1)-(4) shall 
receive a pro rata share of the amounts set forth in paragraphs 4(a)(1)-(4) for their 
respective sub-groups utilizing the following procedure and formula: 
a. For shortfall hires for both police and fire (excluding those hired 
pursuant to paragraphs 2 and 3), each candidate shall, upon his or her hiring, 
receive the same gross payment (which the parties approximate will be $18,750). 
b. Minority candidates already hired, who have been identified by the 
parties as delay candidates, shall be paid a pro rata share of the amount set 
aside to compensate their sub-group, which sum shall be based upon the relative 
lengths of their respective hiring delays. Compensation under paragraph (a) 
above and this paragraph (b) shall be subject to the claims procedure set forth in 
the following paragraphs. It is estimated that there are approximately 22 police 
delay candidates and 19 fire delay candidates, which would yield an average 
payment of approximately $13,415. The estimated distribution of delay 
candidates is as follows: 
4 
Police Delay Fire Delay 
Barnstable 
Boston 
Brockton 
Brookline 
E. Bridgewater 
Fitchburg 
Gardner 
Lynn 
New Bedford 
Revere 
Taunton 
Waltham 
Wareham 
TOTAL 
1 
15 
1 
3 
1 
1 
2 2 
11 
1 
1 
2 
1 
1 
2 
19 
c. Upon submission of required documentation to make payment and 
subject to appropriation, the Commonwealth shall pay to the current or former 
municipal employer of each class member who is entitled to a payment 
hereunder, for the benefit of such class member, the gross amount to which she 
or he is entitled. As required by law, the employer shall deduct from the gross 
amount the applicable state, federal and Medicare tax withholdings, and the 
employer and employee shares of retirement contributions, and shall pay the net 
benefit to such employee. 
d. The employer shall transmit the employer and employee shares of 
retirement contributions to the appropriate retirement board. Upon request, this 
court will issue an appropriate order directed to such municipality and applicable 
retirement board, if necessary, to effectuate this settlement agreement and in 
furtherance of section B of the remedy order. 
5 
6. Plaintiffs’ and Intervenors’ counsel, working cooperatively with HRD and 
its counsel, will attempt to identify and locate every individual who may be entitled to (1) 
be considered for shortfall hiring under Section A of this settlement agreement; and/or 
(2) a payment under Section B of this settlement agreement. Each individual so 
identified and located shall be sent a notice in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A, A1 
(in the case of Boston Police candidates), or B which shall notify said individual of his or 
her rights under this settlement agreement. In addition, HRD will post a copy of this 
notice to class members on its website and the Plaintiffs’ counsel and Intervenors may 
take whatever additional steps they deem appropriate to contact potential class 
members entitled to relief under this settlement agreement. In addition to informing said 
class members of their rights under this settlement agreement, the notice will also 
enclose a claim form to be agreed upon by the parties. 
7. After waiting 45 days from the time notices are first sent out with claim 
forms, and after taking reasonable efforts to contact all potential class members, 
plaintiffs’ counsel shall identify all firefighters and police officers entitled to a so-called 
“delay” payment and shall tentatively calculate the pro rata shares to be distributed to 
such class members. Plaintiffs’ counsel shall then present to the Commonwealth, the 
Intervenors, and this court a proposed distribution of said funds, and the 
Commonwealth shall distribute such funds upon approval by the court. 
8. For those class members who are hired as police officers or firefighters 
under the shortfall procedures set forth herein, payment of their shares of 
compensation/back pay shall be made upon HRD’s confirmation to Plaintiffs’ counsel 
that such minority candidate has been hired, and such payment can be made without 
6 
further approval by the court. Once all shortfall hiring is completed for all of the 
towns/cities described in paragraph A(1) of this settlement agreement, and in the event, 
after a period of 90 days thereafter, that the maximum obligation set forth in paragraph 
B(4)(a) is not exhausted, the Commonwealth shall have no obligation to pay any 
remaining balance. Thereafter, HRD shall file with the court, with copies to all parties, 
an accounting of all sums paid out under this agreement. Once filed, no further amounts 
will be payable under this settlement agreement and the Commonwealth shall be 
released of all further liability. 
C. ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS. 
9. Upon approval of this settlement agreement by the court, the 
Commonwealth shall, subject to appropriation, pay the following amounts to Plaintiffs’ 
counsel and Intervenors’ counsel in full satisfaction of all claims for attorneys’ fees and 
costs: 
1 . To the law firm of Pyle, Rome, Lichten, Ehrenberg & Liss-Riordan, 
P.C., expenses in the amount of $350,000, which sum shall include all future 
expenses connected with this case and the disbursements set forth herein; 
2. To the law firm of Pyle, Rome, Lichten, Ehrenberg & Liss-Riordan, 
P.C., attorneys’ fees in the amount of $310,000 which shall include all further 
work necessary to supervise the distribution of compensation to class members 
and to carry out the provisions of this settlement agreement and the remedy 
order; and 
3. To the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights attorneys’ fees and 
expenses in the amount of $40,000, which shall include all further work 
7 
necessary to carry out the provisions of this settlement agreement and the 
remedy order. 
D. MISCELLANEOUS. 
10. To the extent permitted by law, HRD will record each shortfall candidate 
identified by this agreement – with the exception of Boston shortfall police candidates -
with civil service seniority under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 31, retroactive to 
the last date that the relevant city or town appointed a class from the examination taken 
by that particular candidate. For example, if a shortfall candidate took the 2002 
firefighter exam, and is hired from the 2002 list, he or she will be given seniority back to 
the appointment date of the last class hired from the 2002 list in the relevant city or 
town. Each delay candidate will be given seniority retroactive to the appointment date 
of the previous recruit class from the examination taken by that particular candidate in 
the relevant city or town. For example, if a delay candidate took the 2004 fire exam and 
is hired in the second class appointed from the 2004 list, he or she will be given 
seniority back to the appointment date of the first class hired from the 2004 list in the 
relevant city or town. 
11 . The Plaintiffs and Intervenors shall dismiss without prejudice any claims 
relating to the 2006 fire fighter examination or the 2007 police officer examination. HRD 
shall still be responsible for compliance with Section C of the remedy order and such 
terms shall be extended to the 2007 police officer examination. 
12. The Plaintiffs shall dismiss with prejudice the pending state court action 
known as “Jacob Bradley et al v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts et al,” Suffolk 
County (Mass.) Superior Court Civil Action No. 2005-05275-H. 
8 
13. The parties agree to conduct a shortfall analysis of the MBTA police and, if 
one or more shortfalls are found, HRD will require the MBTA to consider shortfall 
candidates for hiring as provided above for other police. If the parties are not able to 
agree on this provision, they will bring it to the Court for decision. 
Agreed to: 
For the Commonwealth: 
__/s/ Paul Dietl 
Paul Dietl 
Acting Chief Human Resources Officer 
__/s/ Sally McNeely 
Sally McNeely 
Director, Organizational Development Group 
Human Resources Division 
__/s/ Sookyoung Shin 
Ronald F. Kehoe, BBO #264260 
Sookyoung Shin, BBO #643713 
Attorney General’s Office 
One Ashburton Place 
Boston, MA 02108 
Tel: (617) 727-2200 x 2619 
For the Plaintiffs: 
_/s/ Shannon Liss-Riordan 
Harold L. Lichten, BBO # 549689 
Shannon Liss-Riordan, BBO # 640716 
Pyle, Rome, Lichten, Ehrenberg & Liss-Riordan, P.C. 
18 Tremont Street, Suite 500 
Boston, MA 02108 
(617) 367-7200 
9 
For the Intervenors: 
__/s/ Nadine Cohen 
Nadine Cohen, BBO #090040 
Lawyers Committee for Civil RightsUnder Law 
294 Washington Street 
Boston, Massachusetts 02108 
(617) 482-1145 
July 30, 2007 
10 


Bradley et al. v. City of Lynn

https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1102&amp;context=condec

Bradley et al. v. City of Lynn

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

DigitalCommons@ILR