Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

UNITED STATES v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTH.

April 21, 1995

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, against NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant.

Eugene H. Nickerson, U.S.D.J.


The opinion of the court was delivered by: EUGENE H. NICKERSON

NICKERSON, District Judge:

 The United States (the government) brings this action against the New York City Transit Authority (the Authority) alleging that the Authority has engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. (Title VII).

 The government seeks an order enjoining the Authority from maintaining or reinstating a policy that discriminates against employees who file charges of employment discrimination with federal, state, or city fair employment practices agencies.

 The government moves for summary judgment, and the Authority cross-moves for an order dismissing the complaint on the ground that the case is moot or, alternatively, granting summary judgment.

 I

 The following facts are undisputed.

 Under the Authority's challenged policy, if an employee who had filed a complaint with the Authority thereafter filed an employment discrimination charge with a federal, state or city fair employment practices agency, the Authority would transfer the complaint from the Division to its Law Department. Moreover, the Division would refuse to accept a discrimination complaint filed by an employee who had already filed a charge of discrimination with such an agency.

 The Law Department also handles for the Authority matters pertaining to discrimination charges filed with outside fair employment agencies.

 In October 1991, while investigating an employment discrimination claim, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the Commission) found reasonable cause to believe that the Authority's practice under its policy was unlawful under Title VII. The Commission concluded that "an employer cannot deny to an employee a forum for redress that would have been available to him had he not filed a charge of employment discrimination." See Pl.'s Rule 3(g) Statement, Royster Decl., Exh. A ("Determination on Review of Title VII Charge").

 In May 1992, after the Authority declined an offer to conciliate, see Royster Decl., Exh. B, the Commission transferred the matter to the Department of Justice. See Royster Decl., Exh. C.

 On April 2, 1993, after some investigation, the Department of Justice notified the Authority that it deemed the Authority's procedure a practice of employment discrimination and explained that it was authorized to bring suit.

 After the Authority said it was willing to modify the policy, the Department of Justice said it wished to have a consent decree requiring the Authority to comply with Title VII and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.