Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Plaintiff,
Case No.8:80-cv-00849-T-23TGW
Defendants.
/
Sheriff) hereby files this Motion for Dissolution of Consent Agreement Doc. # 13 as
the basic purpose of the Agreement has been achieved. The grounds in support are set
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
1. The Consent Agreement, which forms the basis of this Motion, was
approved by the Court on December 10, 1980. Doc. #12. Notably, this Order expressly
2. On May 29, 2014, the United States and all Parties except the Sheriff
entered a stipulation to dissolve the Agreement as to all parties except the Sheriff. Doc. #
17, # 18. The United States refused to allow Sheriff to join the stipulation; instead, over
1
At the time of the commencement of this case, William T. Roberts was the
Sheriff of Pinellas County, Florida. The current Sheriff of Pinellas County is Bob
Gualtieri. Throughout this response, the respondent is referred to simply as Sheriff.
See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(d) (permitting a public officer sued in his official capacity to
be referred to by his official title).
1
Case 8:80-cv-00849-SDM-TGW Document 34 Filed 06/09/17 Page 2 of 21 PageID 264
Sheriffs objection, the United States represented to this Court that in its opinion the
Sheriff was not in compliance with Consent Agreement. Doc. # 18. On July 16, 2014,
this Court entered its Order dissolving the Agreement to all parties except Sheriff. Doc. #
27.
3. On November 9, 2016, the United States filed a motion to reopen the case
and a motion for order to show cause. Doc. # 28, # 29. Pursuant to this Courts Order,
Sheriff filed its Response to the United States motions. Doc. # 30, # 32.
4. On May 18, 2017, this Court denied the United States Motion for Order to
Show Cause and Granted the United States Motion to re-open the case for the limited
purpose of Sheriff moving to dissolve the Consent Agreement no later than June 9, 2017.
Doc. # 33.
Sheriff and others, there was no judicial determination of discrimination. Doc. # 17-2; #
13, p 2. The Consent Agreement states [i]t is understood that this agreement does not
approval of the negotiated Consent Agreement, this Court questioned the constitutionality
Doc. #29-3, pg. 8. Ultimately, the Court approved the Consent Agreement in its Order
dated December 10, 1980 and addressed the concerns of constitutionality as follows:
A conference was held on October 21, 1980 and the parties have since
filed a joint motion and have modified the consent agreement to delete all
provisions concerning promotions of existing employees, reserving those
issues for later resolution.
2
Case 8:80-cv-00849-SDM-TGW Document 34 Filed 06/09/17 Page 3 of 21 PageID 265
(emphasis added) Doc. # 17-1. As such, all promotional provisions have been deleted
The basic objective is set forth expressly in the Consent Agreement.3 The
Doc. #13, 4.
As applicable to Sheriff, the only goals are contained in paragraphs 4 and 6 of the
noted (emphasis added) Doc. # 13, 4. Paragraph 6 states Sheriff shall seek to
achieve the interim goalin the entry level job classifications ofDeputy and
2
Interpreting a consent decree is a matter of strict construction: A consent decree
cannot be construed to impose additional prohibitions not mentioned in the decree itself.
United States v. Armour & Co., 402 U.S. 673, 682 (1971). As the Supreme Court
explained in Armour, the rationale for this interpretive rule is that a consent decree is the
product of negotiation and compromise in which the parties give up the right to litigate
the issues in the case and, therefore, the instrument must be construed as it is written,
and not as it might have been written had the plaintiff established his factual claims and
legal theories in litigation. Id.
3
Because, in interpreting a consent decree, courts enforce the parties bargain
rather than the purposes of the legislation that gave rise to the underlying action, ITT
Continental Baking Co., 420 U.S. 223, 233, 237-38 (1975), a consent decree is a form of
contract [and] the rules [used] to interpret a consent decree are the same ones [used] to
interpret a contract . . . . Reynolds v. Roberts, 202 F.3d 1303, 1312 (11th Cir. 2000).
With a consent decree as with a contract, the first place we look and often the last as
well is to the document itself. Sierra Club v. Meiburg, 296 F.3d 1021, 1029 (11th Cir.
2002).
3
Case 8:80-cv-00849-SDM-TGW Document 34 Filed 06/09/17 Page 4 of 21 PageID 266
Corrections Officer4 relative to each groups representation in the relevant long range
goals set forth in this paragraph 6. (emphasis added). Paragraph 6 sets forth the goals as
As such, the numeric goals contained in the Consent Agreement are as follows:
Doc. # 13, 4, 6.
The Consent Agreement contemplates that these goals are subject to the
Consent Agreement or under Florida law permitting Sheriff to hire a person who does not
The only other goal reflected in the Consent Agreement is the directive that
Sheriff shall engage in affirmative recruitment activities consistent with the goals of the
mass media primarily directed to Black, Hispanic and female audiences Doc. # 18, 13.
Further, Sheriff shall announce all job openings to the general public and give equal
4
The Consent Agreement utilizes the terms Civil Deputy, Deputy, Corrections
officer and Bailiff. However, Sheriff no longer has these four job classifications.
Sheriffs sworn workforce contains only deputies and detention deputies. Exh. # 4.
4
Case 8:80-cv-00849-SDM-TGW Document 34 Filed 06/09/17 Page 5 of 21 PageID 267
As noted, the Consent Agreement was entered in 1980. In the thirty-seven years
During the prior Sheriffs relevant tenure, each Sheriff was the ultimate
policymaker and bore final responsibility for the creation, revision and implementation of
Sheriffs Office policies; including those relating to recruitment, selection and hiring. In
addition to evolving as laws changed and the various accreditation standards changed,
each Sheriffs policies and procedures reflected the visions of that Sheriff as an elected
Constitutional Officer. Furthermore, personnel has changed over the life of the Consent
Agreement. As such, unless documented, any prior procedure used by any prior Sheriff
in the recruitment, selection and hiring is largely unknown to the current Sheriff.
Until recently, the County Attorneys office represented all Defendants in this
action. As such, the United States communicated with all Defendants through the County
Attorneys office. See e.g. Exh. 1. The County Attorneys office submitted all
documentation on behalf of all Defendants and the County retained the records of the
submissions. Combining all Defendants went deeper than just legal representation; the
United States treated all matters under the Consent Agreement as pertaining to the
County and even reported its findings as to the Sheriff as though the County was
5
Case 8:80-cv-00849-SDM-TGW Document 34 Filed 06/09/17 Page 6 of 21 PageID 268
responsible.5 See e.g. Exh. 2. The Defendants, as a group, sought many times to obtain
Although the Consent Agreement was not dissolved, the progress made by the
former administrations is undeniable and the figures clearly indicate that any possible
disadvantage that may have occurred to minorities and women 28 years prior had been
AGENCY TOTAL
Exh. 4.
Initially Sheriff was a member of the Unified Personnel Services created in Chpt.
5
75-488 Florida Law; however, the Sheriff was not a member for long and ultimately the
Civil Service System was created for Sheriffs personnel. Chpt. 89-404 Florida Law.
6
Case 8:80-cv-00849-SDM-TGW Document 34 Filed 06/09/17 Page 7 of 21 PageID 269
Exh. 4.
In 2008, the economy significantly changed and the Sheriffs Office budget was
cut by 100 million and over 600 positions were eliminated agency wide resulting in lay-
offs. Doc. # 29-20, p. 16. By 2011, the economic conditions were improving to the
extent that hiring had resumed; however, the economic conditions did not affect police
departments in the same manner as the Sheriffs Office. Id. As such, in November,
2011, upon Sheriff Gualtieri taking office he was presented with significant challenges.
follows:
7
Case 8:80-cv-00849-SDM-TGW Document 34 Filed 06/09/17 Page 8 of 21 PageID 270
AGENCY TOTAL
Exh. 4.
Exh. 4.
8
Case 8:80-cv-00849-SDM-TGW Document 34 Filed 06/09/17 Page 9 of 21 PageID 271
Exh. 4.
NON-SWORN POSITIONS
Exh. 4.
These figures show that the numeric goals for the non-sworn workforce (11%
Black, 2% Hispanic, 25% female) have been met. These figures also show that the
numeric goals for the sworn workforce (10% Black, 2% Hispanic, 8% Female) have been
met as to detention positions and as to Hispanics and females in law enforcement; but
9
Case 8:80-cv-00849-SDM-TGW Document 34 Filed 06/09/17 Page 10 of 21 PageID 272
have not been met as to as to Black in the sworn law enforcement positions. That
numeric goal calls for 10%; however, Sheriffs sworn law enforcement work force is
between 6-7%.
Although Sheriff has not achieved the ratio of 10% for Black in the deputy law
enforcement position; the failure to reach that goal is based on the lack of qualified
applicants. Exh. # 4. The legal requirements to become a sworn law enforcement officer
in Florida are set forth in 943.13 Fla. Stat. and also 11B-27.0011 F.A.C. These
requirements include, but are not limited to, the applicant must be a U.S. citizen, must
have a high school diploma or equivalent, must have a lack of significant criminal
background, must pass a physical examination and must have good moral character;
21 years of age and have a valid drivers license, among other requirements. Exh. # 29-
20, p. 10. All requirements are fully set forth in Doc. # 29-20 and all applicants must
reason for the disqualification is noted in the applicants file. Exh. # 4. A chart
containing all applicants for the sworn law enforcement position, the ultimate outcome of
The Sheriffs selection process for a law enforcement deputy can be summarized
as every qualified candidate that has not been excluded or disqualified is hired. Exh. # 4.
Candidates are excluded upon failure to meet the qualifications imposed by law or
imposed by policy as to the Pinellas County Sheriffs Office (i.e. smoking). Id.
Although a handful of applicants that were not disqualified were not immediately hired;
6
Although Doc. # 29-20 was created in March, 2015; the process has not had any
significant changes.
10
Case 8:80-cv-00849-SDM-TGW Document 34 Filed 06/09/17 Page 11 of 21 PageID 273
all qualified applicants were eventually hired. Exh. # 4. The attached chart lists every
applicant for the sworn law enforcement position as well as the ultimate outcome for each
applicant. Id. No applicant or candidate has ever been disqualified on the basis of race
or gender. Id.
sets forth his ultimate goal of recruiting and retaining talented individuals while
achieving a diverse workforce. Ex. # 4. Sheriff personnel also announce all positions to
the general public and advertise through traditional mass media and social media. Id.
roles, utilize bilingual personnel and attend local community events to attract local
applicants. Id. Sheriffs personnel also actively recruit at job fairs and colleges,
The date and location of the recruitment events are documented in the Recruitment Log.
Id.
Sheriffs recruitment efforts ensure available positions within the Sheriffs office
are exposed to minorities and women. Sheriffs hiring and selection process ensure that
all qualified candidates are hired. Sheriffs efforts at obtaining a diverse workforce are
evidenced by viewing the entry level deputy positions since Sheriffs tenure which are
much closer to the numeric goals set forth in the Consent Agreement. These figures are
as follows:
11
Case 8:80-cv-00849-SDM-TGW Document 34 Filed 06/09/17 Page 12 of 21 PageID 274
Exh. # 4.
Although these numbers reflect that the Sheriff still has not attained the long-term
goal as set forth in the Consent Agreement for Black sworn law enforcement; Sheriff has
actively recruited and has hired every qualified candidate. As such, the failure to achieve
the numeric goal is for neutral non-discriminatory reasons. Moreover, any discriminatory
practices or effect from 37 years ago has long since been remedied.
The United States refuses to acknowledge the numeric goals of the Consent
Agreement although it concedes that these goals have not been modified.7 Doc. #18, 4.
Even though Sheriff repeatedly points to this Courts Order deleting all promotional
provisions within the Consent Agreement, the United States claims certain promotional
provisions remain. Doc. # 12. Without citing any authority, the United States
7
See Hughes v. United States, 342 U.S. 353, 356-57 (1952) (rejecting invitation
to advance asserted purpose of consent decree through interpretation not justified by
decrees four corners).
12
Case 8:80-cv-00849-SDM-TGW Document 34 Filed 06/09/17 Page 13 of 21 PageID 275
persistently asserts the Order deleting all promotional provisions does not apply to all
promotional provisions, but applies only to two specific paragraphs identifying interim
goals. Exh. # 5.
The United States acknowledges that the Civilian Labor Force in Pinellas County
is inherently less precise than a robust applicant flow data reflecting who is actually
applying to work for PCSO; nevertheless, relies solely on the CLF for not joining in a
motion to dissolve. 8 Exh. # 6. Although Sheriff supplied applicant flow data consistent
with the requirements of the Consent Agreement, the United States indicated that it could
not assess Sheriffs compliance due to the manner in which Sheriff sent the data. Id.
The United States has also repeatedly and consistently claimed that it requires
assess compliance with the Consent Agreement. Doc. # 29, p. 17. However, the
Consent Agreement does not provide for interviews or depositions. Doc. # 13.
Unfortunately, the United States has made it clear that it is not limiting itself to
the plain language of the Consent Agreement or the terms contained in the Consent
Agreement. Exh. # 7. The United States is not evaluating the progress made over the
course of the past 37 years or evaluating whether the effects of past discrimination have
been remedied to the extent practicable. The ONLY thing the United States has been
request, to make a determination whether the United States believes the current practices
8
In the most recent discussions the United States is taking the position that Sheriff
is required to achieve 18% for Black in sworn law enforcement. For the reasons set forth
herein, that position has no basis in fact or law and is therefore, not presented herein.
13
Case 8:80-cv-00849-SDM-TGW Document 34 Filed 06/09/17 Page 14 of 21 PageID 276
of the current Sheriff have a disparate impact on minorities or women.9 Id. Yet, the
United States does not need a Consent Agreement to enforce the provisions of Title VII.
Even if the Consent Agreement were dissolved, the United States would still be tasked
with enforcing Title VII as to all employers, not just Sheriff. As such, the sole issue
before this Court is whether the Sheriff has met the objective of the 37 year old Consent
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
the basic purpose of the decree. United States v. City of Miami, 2 F.3d 1497, 1505 (11th
Cir. 1993). With the underlying purpose of the decree in mind, the Court next looks to
the degree of progress made toward the decrees long-term goals. Id. at 1508. The
purpose of an employment-related decree such as the one in issue in this case is not to
create or maintain a quota, but rather to remedy the effects of past discrimination. Id.
the decree is appropriate. Id. In this case, the Court should find that the Sheriff has
complied with the decades-old decree in good-faith, that the Sheriffs progress toward the
quotas in the decree has been substantial, that the Sheriff ameliorated the effects of past
discrimination to the extent practicable, and that where those quotas have not been met it
9
The scope of a consent decree must be discerned within its four corners, and
not by reference to what might satisfy the purposes of one of the parties to it. United
States v. Armour & Co., 402 U.S. 673, 682 (1971).
14
Case 8:80-cv-00849-SDM-TGW Document 34 Filed 06/09/17 Page 15 of 21 PageID 277
The basic objective of the Agreement is expressly set forth in paragraph 4 of the
Consent Agreement. The purpose of the Consent Agreement is to ensure that minorities
and women are not placed at a disadvantage by the hiring policies of Sheriff and that any
disadvantage to minorities and women which may have resulted from past discrimination
is remedied. Although the Consent Agreement enjoins Sheriff from engaging in any
required to comply with Title VII; neither of these are the basic purpose of the Consent
Agreement. See City of Jacksonville v. Wilson, 27 So.2d 108 (Fla. 1946) (an injunction
employee has filed a complaint, lawsuit or claim during Sheriff Gualtieris tenure
alleging discrimination arising from recruitment, selection or hiring for any position. Nor
is Sheriff aware of any other claim or lawsuit alleging discrimination arising from
As the records show, at the inception of the Consent Agreement, the Sheriffs
workforce was - 1.8% Black; 0.7% Hispanic; 25% Female. Now, the Sheriffs workforce
is 11.8% Black; 5.6 % Hispanic; 44.3% Female. This can be only be described as
significant progress. The progress in the sworn work force is equally significant. In
1980, the records reflect the Sheriffs sworn law enforcement workforce was 2.4%
Black; 1.8% Hispanic; 1.8% Female. Now, the Sheriffs sworn law enforcement
workforce is 6.6% Black; 4.9% Hispanic; 13.6% Female. In 1980, the records reflect that
the Sheriffs sworn detention workforce was 2.8% Black; 2.8% Hispanic; 12.7%
Female. Now, the Sheriffs sworn detention workforce is 19.7% Black; 6.6% Hispanic;
33.8% Female.
15
Case 8:80-cv-00849-SDM-TGW Document 34 Filed 06/09/17 Page 16 of 21 PageID 278
Although Sheriff still has not achieved the ratio of 10% for Black in the deputy
law enforcement position; as fully explained herein, that failure is based on neutral,
for a sworn deputy positon can be divided into two categories - those imposed by law and
examination, criminal background check, no prior drug use and many other criteria.
943.13 Fla. Stat; Doc. # 29-20. The FDLE Commissioner is responsible for establishing
uniform minimum employment standards for the various criminal justice disciplines.
943.12 Fla. Stat. FDLE also interprets these employment standards on behalf of all law
enforcement agencies. See 11B-27.0011 F.A.C. et seq. As such, Sheriff does not have
The criteria imposed by policy is also objective and job-related. Sheriff requires
an applicant to be 21 years old, whereas the statutory minimum age of 19. Doc. # 29-20,
p. 10. Sheriff also requires an applicant to have had no tobacco use for at least 6 months.
Id. Sheriff also requires all applicants to have a valid drivers license. Id. These
requirements are imposed on all applicants, the requirements are objective and the
preference. 295.09 Fla. Stat. If a veteran qualifies for the veteran preference, Florida
16
Case 8:80-cv-00849-SDM-TGW Document 34 Filed 06/09/17 Page 17 of 21 PageID 279
Typically, candidates applying for a sworn deputy position with the Pinellas
County Sheriffs Office also apply for sworn law enforcement positions with other law
enforcement agencies. Doc. # 29-20. As such, factors such as rate of pay and benefits
conditions affecting the Pinellas County Sheriffs Office from 2011-2014 drove qualified
candidates to choose other agencies. Doc. # 29-20. As such, Sheriff Gualtieri faced
significant challenges obtaining qualified applicants to fill the sworn deputy positions.
Undeniably Sheriff has met the goals for the sworn detention workforce in all
categories. The ultimate composition of the black sworn detention workforce is 19.7%;
nearly double the numeric goal set forth in the Consent Agreement. But, the
requirements for becoming a sworn detention deputy are not the same as the requirements
for becoming a sworn law enforcement deputy. These differences result in many
applicants choosing to begin their career in law enforcement as a detention deputy. Doc.
# 29-20.
However, when combining all sworn employees in the Sheriffs office both
deputy and detention deputy - the ultimate composition far exceeds the numeric goals set
forth in the Consent Agreement. This is further proof that Sheriff complied with the
decades-old decree in good-faith, that the Sheriffs progress toward the goals in the
decree has been substantial, that the Sheriff ameliorated the effects of past discrimination
to the extent practicable, and that the failure to reach 10% for Blacks is due to neutral,
follows:
17
Case 8:80-cv-00849-SDM-TGW Document 34 Filed 06/09/17 Page 18 of 21 PageID 280
Exh. # 4.
nationwide issue. Similar to the Sheriff, the federal sworn workforce is also
On May 25, 2016, Former FBI Director James Comey admitted the FBI is 83%
white and he further stated that the percentage of white agents has been growing slowly
but steadily for 10 to 12 years.10 The latest data available shows that approximately 8
years prior to Former Director Comeys announcement, the FBI had the following
ultimate composition:11
African
total American Hispanic Female
% % %
FederalBureauInvestigation 12,925 5.4% 8.1% 18.8%
10
https://www.fbi.gov/news/speeches/strength-through-diversity-building-a-
better-fbi
11
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fleo08.pdf
18
Case 8:80-cv-00849-SDM-TGW Document 34 Filed 06/09/17 Page 19 of 21 PageID 281
The federal sworn workforce also consists of the same two distinct categories of
corrections and law enforcement. The United States corrections component, the Federal
African
total American Hispanic Female
% % %
FBI 12,925 5.4% 8.1% 18.8%
FederalBureauofPrisons 16,993 24.1% 12.9% 13.6%
Additionally, in October, 2016, the Plaintiffs in this action the U.S. Department
to address the lack of diversity in law enforcement.12 In that publication, the United
States identifies the barriers to achieving diversity in law enforcement. Id. The barriers
prohibition of illegal drug use and credit checks. Id. The United States even announces
diversity. Id. p. 21. Surprisingly, the United States includes U.S. citizenship as a
barrier. Id. p. 22. The United States does point out that state law may require law
enforcement agencies to apply these barriers when hiring a law enforcement deputy.
Id.
12
https://www.justice.gov/crt/case-document/file/900761/download
19
Case 8:80-cv-00849-SDM-TGW Document 34 Filed 06/09/17 Page 20 of 21 PageID 282
As indicated herein, over the course of the last 37 years, including this Sheriffs
tenure, the Sheriff has complied with the decades-old decree in good-faith. The Sheriff
has achieved the numeric goals, except for Black in law enforcement. There is absolutely
no evidence that any effects of discrimination from 37 years ago is present today.
CONCLUSION
Since Sheriff has demonstrated that he has fulfilled the basic objective of the
Respectfully submitted,
20
Case 8:80-cv-00849-SDM-TGW Document 34 Filed 06/09/17 Page 21 of 21 PageID 283
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
21