Appendix — Richard W. Velde v. National Black Police Association, Inc.

Supreme Court brief1982

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

OCTOBER TERM, 1980

RICHARD W. VELDE, ET AL., PETITIONERS,

Vv.

NATIONAL BLACK POLICE ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

JOINT APPENDIX

Volume I

Petition for writ of certiorari filed December 29, 1980

Certiorari granted May 4, 1981.

Index to Appendix

District Court Docket Entries .................0005:

Court of Appeals Docket Entries ................65:

Second Amended Complaint (January 2, 1976)........

Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and

Writ of Mandamus (January 16, 1976) ...........

Affidavit of E. Richard Larson and Exhibits.....

Affidavit of Penelope Brace and Exhibits........

Affidavit of Ollie Glover and Exhibits ...........

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judg-

ment (February 9, 1976) .............0eeeeeeees

Affidavit of Richard W. Velde and Attachment 1.

Affidavit of Edward H. Levi and Attachment 8 ..

Affidavit of Charles W. Work and Attachments ..

Affidavit of Herbert C. Rice .................5.

Statement of Reasons (excluding attachments and

EN EEO nd dics oc cdk d's vontedasbbcesoion

Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

or for Summary Judgment (March 24, 1976) .....

Statement of Genuine Issues ...................

EP aS cREUUERK 6 0.9 cco deessehnebiavs tion

Affidavit of Bruce Bailey and Exhibits ..........

Affidavit of Kristen Heemstra and Exhibits .....

Affidavit of Kent McKinney and Exhibit A ......

Affidavit of Penny Orazetti and Exhibit .........

Affidavit of Roberta Ledyard ...............06.

Affidavit of Robert Booth and Exhibits .........

Affidavit of Jennie McAllister and Exhibits......

Affidavit of E. Richard Larson Pursuant to Rule

Order granting the petition for a writ of certiorari ...

493

495

Relevant Docket Entries

United States District Court for the District of

Nov

Columbia

Civil Action No. 75-1444

PROCEEDINGS

COMPLAINT;.

REQUEST by pltffs’ for admissions and in-

terrogatories; c/m 9-11-75.

SECOND interrogatories by pltffs; ¢c/m

9-11-75.

REQUEST by pltffs. for production of docu-

ments; c/m 9-11-75.

SECOND Request by pltffs. for admissions;

Exhibit; ¢/m 9-11-75.

MOTION by pltffs’ to drop a party pltff. and

to amend the complaint; Memorandum; c/s

10-29-75.

AMENDED COMPLAINT; Notice; ¢/s

10-29-75.

MOTION by defts. for protective order

staying discovery; P&A; c/m.

OPPOSITION by pltffs’ to defts’ motion for a

protective order staying all discovery;

P&A; ¢/m 11-13-75.

REPLY by defts. to pltffs’ opposition to

defts’ motion for a protective order staying

discovery; Affidavit of Winifred A.

Dunton; Exhibit A & B; c/m.

REQUEST by defts. for hearing on all out-

standing motions; ¢/m 11-19-75.

SUGGESTION by defts. that the court sua

sponte strike the complaint alternative

motion to strike complaint and Larson affi-

davit; P&A; c/m 11-19-75.

Dec

1976

Jan

Dec

Jan

1 MEMORANDUM by pitffs. of points and au-

thorities in opposition to defts’ suggestion

and alternative motion to strike complaint

and Larson affidavit; c/m 11-26-75.

4 MOTION by plitffs. for certification as a class

action; P&A; c/m 12-3-75.

16 STATUS CALL. Motion of pltffs. to drop a

party and amend the complaint granted;

suggestion of defts. and alternative motion

to strike the complaint argued and granted

without prejudice to pltff. to amend com-

plaint within 20 days; Defts. have 30 days

thereafter to answer amended complaint;

all other proceedings held in abeyance

pending filing of amended complaint.

(OTBP) (Rep. Eva M. Sanche) Corcoran,

2 AMENDED complaint; c/m 1-2-76.

22 ORDER dropping The International Associa-

tion of Women Police, Inc. as a party pltff.

Pitff's shall have until 1-5-76 to replead.

Defts shal] have until 30 days from the

date of service of pltff's new complaint to

answer; All proceedings stayed. (N)

Corcoran, J.

16 MOTION by pltffs’ for a Preliminary Injunc-

tion and a Writ of Mandamus Affidavit of

E. Richard Larson w/exhibit A, B, C, D,

E, F, G & H; Affidavit of Penelope Brace

w/exhibit A; Affidavit of Ollie S. Glover w/

exhibit A & B; Exhibit (Vol. VI report of

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights); ¢/s

1-14-76; P&A w/ Appendix A.

16 NOTICE by pltffs. to take deposition of

Herbert C. Rice; c/m 1-14-76.

™‘

Jan

Feb

Mar

May

16 MOTION by pltffs’ to vacate the stay on an-

swering previous discovery in this action;

P&A; c/s 1-14-76.

9 MOTION by defts. to dismiss or for summa-

ry judgment; Statement; P&A w/attach-

ment; Statement of Reasons; Appendix;

Exhibit; Affidavit of Edward H. Levi

w/attachments 1, 2 & 3; Affidavit of

Richard W. Velde w/attachments 1, 2 & 3;

Affidavit of Charles R. Work

w/attachments A, B, C & D; Affidavit of

Herbert C. Rice; w/attachments 1 thru 5;

c/m 2-9-76.

18 MEMORANDUM of points and authorities

by defts. in opposition to pltffs’ motion to

vacate stay; c/m 2-18-76.

18 MEMORANDUM of points and authorities

by defts. in opposition to pltffs’ motion for

Preliminary Injunction; c/m 2-18-76.

18 MEMORANDUM of points and authorities

by defts. in opposition to motion by pitffs’

for certification as a class action; ¢c/m

2-18-7.

24 OPPOSITION of pltffs’ to defts’ motion to

dismiss or for summary judgment; state-

ment of genuine issues; Affidavit of E.

Richard Larson w/exhibit A; Affidavit of

Bruce Bailey w/exhibit A; & B; Affidavit

of Kristen Heemstra w/exhibits A, B, C &

D; Affidavit of Kent G. McKinney

w/exhibits A & B; Affidavit of Penny

Orazetti w/exhibit A; Affidavit of Roberta

Ledyard w/exhibit A; Affidavit of Robert

Booth w/exhibits A, B & C; Affidavit of

Jennie McAllister w/exhibits A, B & C; Af-

fidavit of E. Richard Larson; P&A; Exhib-

it; ce/m 3-24-76.

17 REPLY by defts’ to pltffs’ opposition to

defts’ motion to dismiss or for summary

May

June

Jun

Mar

judgment; Exhibit 1, 1A, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7;

e/m 5-17-76.

RESPONSE by defts’ to pltffs’ “statement of

genuine issues;” c/m 5-17-76.

RESPONSE by pltfs. to the six new de-

fenses belatedly raised in def reply to

pltfs. opposition to defts. motion to dismiss

or for summary judgment; table of con-

tents; table of cases; attachment Appen-

dix; Exhibit 1 and 2; c/m 6/7/76.

SUPPLEMENTARY memorandum of defts’

on motion to dismiss or for summary judg-

ment; Attachment 1; c/m 6-23-76.

MOTION of deft. to dismiss or for summary

judgment argued and take under advise-

ment. (Rep. Eva M. Sanche) Corcoran, J.

POST-HEARING memorandum by defts.;

e/m 7/2/76.

ALTERNATIVE Motion by defts’ to dismiss

as moot; P&A; Attachment ¢/m 11-9-76.

MEMORANDUM by pltffs’ of points and au-

thorities in opposition to defts’ alternative

motion to dismiss as moot; c/m 11-22-76.

ORDER filed Dec. 8, 1976 dismissing cause.

(see order for details (N) Corcoran, J.

NOTICE of Appeal by pltffs’ from order dis-

missing action entered Dec. 8, 1976; $5.00

paid and credited to U.S.; copy sent to Na-

than Dodell.

DEPOSIT by pltffs’ in the amount of $250.00

in lieu of Cost Bond on Appeal.

RECORD on Appeal delivered to USCA; Re-

ceipt acknowledged. (USCA No. 77-1273)

RELEVANT DOCKET ENTRIES

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

3--15-77

4-26-77

4-27-77

5-6-77

10-6-77

10-13-77

10-19-77

10-20-77

2-9-78

2-15-78

2-16-78

FOR THE

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Certified Original Record (3 volumes)

including 1 brown binder, 1 brown

expandable folder, 1 manila envelope

and 2 volumes transcript under sepa-

rate cover (n-2)

15-Appellants’ brief (m-22)

15-Appellants’ statutes and Regulations

(m-22)

4-Appellants’ motion to proceed under

Rule 30(c), deferred appendix (m-22)

Clerk’s order granting appellants’ motion

to proceed under Rule 30(c) and the

parties are granted leave to proceed

under Rule 30(c). In lieu of submitting

one copy of the \ypewritten or page

proof brief provided under Rule 30(c),

counsel shall submit 7 copies thereof

for filing

7-Joint Appendix Vol. I, II & III (m-5)

15-Appellants’ reply brief (m-11)

15-Appellees’ brief (m-19)

15-Appellants’ brief (m-18)

4-Appellees’ motion to postpone oral ar-

gument (m-9)

Clerk’s order granting appellees’ motion

to postpone oral argument and the oral

argument schedule is postponed pend-

ing further order of the Court

4-Appellants’ opposition to appellees’

motion to postpone oral argument

(m-14) (See above order)

2-21-78

8-8-78

1-71-78

7-18-78

8-4-78

9-15-78

12-19-78

1-5-79

10-15-79

11-30-79

2-1-80

3-6-80

5-14-80

4~Appellants’ motion for reconsideration

of this Court's order of 2/15/78 (m-16)

Per Curiam order denying appellants’

motion for reconsideration of the

Court’s order postponing oral argu-

a CJ Bazelon, Wright and Wilkey,

4-Notification from counsel for appellee

(Dept. of Justice) advising of decision

in SC No. 76-709 (Butz v. Enonomou)

Order per CJ Wright, sua sponte, that

appellants file a supplemental memo-

randum within 16 days of this order,

and appellees respond 15 days after on

the impact of the decision in Butz v.

Economou.

15-Appellants’ supplemental brief (m-2)

15-Appellees’ supplemental memoran-

dum (m~15)

4-Letter from counsel for appellee advis-

ing of additional authorities pursuant

to Local Rule 8(g) (m-19)

Argued before Bazelon*, Tamm, CJ's and

Parker, US District Court Judge for

4-Letter from counsel for federal appel-

lee advising of additional authorities

pursuant to FRAP 28(j) (m-15)

4-Transcripts of oral argument

4-Letter from counsel for appellant ad-

vising of additional authorities pursu-

ant to Rule 28(j), FRAP (m-29)

4-Letter from counsel for appellee advis-

ing of additional authorities pursuant

to Rule 28(j), FRAP (m-6)

Opinion for the Court filed by Senior Cir-

cuit Judge Bazelon.

5-14-80

5-19-80

5-27-80

6-3-80

6-16-80

06-25-80

7-11-80

08-01-80

Opinion concurring in part, concurring in

result in part, and dissenting in part

filed by Circuit Judge Tamm.

Ordered and adjudged by this Court that

the judgment of the District Court ap-

pealed from in this cause is hereby re-

versed and the case is remanded to the

District Court for further proceedings,

not inconsistent with the opinion of this

Court filed here this date.

4~Appellees’ motion to extend time to file

petition for rehearing to 6/27/80 (m~19)

1~Appellant’s bill of costs (m-23)

Per Curiam order granting appellees’

motion to extend time to file petition

for rehearing to 6/27/80; SCJ Bazelon;

Tamm, CJ and Parker, USDC Judge

for DC

4-Appellee’s motion to extend time to file

petition for rehearing to 7-11-80

(m~1)

Per Curiam order granting appellees’

motion to extend time to file petition

for rehearing to 7-11-80; SCJ Bazelon;

Tamm, CJ and Parker, USDC Judge

for DC

15-Appellees’ petition for rehearing and

suggestion for rehearing en banc

(m~11)

Per Curiam order that appellees’ petition

for rehearing is denied; SCJ Bazelon,

Tamm CJ; and Parker, USDC Judge

Per Curiam order, en banc, that appel-

lees’ suggestion for rehearing, en banc,

is denied; CJ Wright, Tamm, Robin-

son, MacKinnon, Robb, Wilkey, Wald,

Mikva and Edward CJ's

08-12-80

08-25-80

09-03-80

09-25-80

10-02-80

10-22-80

10-30-80

11-26-80

12-12-80

4-Appellees’ motion for a stay of man-

date (M~12)

Per Curiam order that appellee’s motion

for a stay of mandate is granted and

the Clerk is directed not to issue the

mandate in this case prior to 9-9-80:

SCJ Bazelon, Tamm, CJ, and Parker,

USDC Judge

4-Appellees’ motion for 30 day extension

of stay of mandate (m-3)

Per Curiam order granting appellee's

(FED.) motion for a further extension

of the stay of mandate and the Clerk is

directed not to issue the mandate here-

in prior to October 10, 1980’ SCJ

Bazelon, Tamm, CJ, and USDC Judge

Parker

4—Appellees’ motion to extend stay of

mandate to 10/31/80 (m-2)

Per Curiam order that appellees’ motion

for an extension of stay of mandate is

granted and Clerk is directed not to is-

sue mandate prior to 11/3/80; SC!

Bazelon, Tamm, CJ and Parker, USDC

Judge for DC

Copy of letter from Clerk, Supreme

Court extending the time for filing a

petition for writ of certiorari to and

including December 29, 1980 in SC No.

A-338

4-Appellees’ motion for further stay of

mandate (m-30)

Per Curiam order that appellees’ motion

for further stay of mandate is denied;

SCJ Bazelon, Tamm, CJ; and USDC

Judge Parker

Copy of opinion and certified copy of

judgment and bill of costs in the

2-11-81

03-27-81

03-31-81

04-01-81

04-07-81

amount of $206.00 issued to District

Court.

Receipt dated 12/28/80 from the Clerk,

District Court for the certified original

record (3 vols.) including 1 brown bind-

er, 1 brown expandable folder and one

manila envelope and two volumes of

transcript

Clerk's order that the Clerk of the Dis-

trict Court shall transmit the Certified

Original Record to the Clerk of this

Court as promptly as the business of

his office permits; and that the Clerk of

this Court is directed to certify and

transmit to the Supreme Court of the

United States the entire record herein

forthwith. Upon receipt of the Certi-

fied Original Record, from the Clerk of

the District Court, the Clerk of this

Court shall transmit same to the Su-

preme Court of the United States.

Notification from Clerk, District Court

that jacket is in Federal Record Center

and has been ordered on 3/30/81. Dis-

trict Court will transmit record as soon

as received

Volume of Original Clerk's File and 1

copy of this Court’s opinion trans-

mitted to Clerk, Supreme Court by

messenger

Receipt dated 4/1/81 from SC for above

material listed in 4/1/81 entry

Certified Original Record (3 vols.); 2 vols

transcript under separate cover; 1 ma-

nila envelope of exhibits; 1 brown

expandable folder; 1 exhibit in brown

binder returned from District Court

pursuant to order of 3/27/81

04-07-81

04-08-81

05-06-81

Above listed record transmitted to Su-

preme Court by messenger

Receipt dated 4/1/81 from Supreme Court

for above record

Certified copy of order from Clerk, Su-

preme Court granting the petition for

writ of certiorari in SC No. 80-1074 on

May 4, 1981

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Civ. No. 75-1444

Judge Corcoran

NATIONAL BLACK POLICE ASSOCIATION, INC.

7126 South Jeffrey Boulevard

Chicago, Illinois 60649,

PENELOPE BRACE

5004 F Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19124,

BRUCE BAILEY

2115 West 10th Place

Gary, Indiana 46404,

KRISTEN HEEMSTRA

200 Second Avenue, SE

Altoona, Iowa 50009,

OLLIE S. GLOVER

4846 State Street

Richmond, California 94804,

JOEL MICHELLE SCHU“&ACHER

751 Conrad Street

New Orleans, Louisiana 70124,

RAYMOND CLARK

1551 Madison Street

Oakland, California 94612,

KENT G. MCKINNEY

1054 7ist Avenue

Oakiand, California 94621,

PENNY ORAZETTI

5132 S. W. Erickson

Beaverton, Oregon 97005,

ROBERTA LEDYARD

1105 S. W. 66th Street

Portland, Oregon 97225,

ROBERT BOOTH

24290 Norfolk

Detroit, Michigan 48219,

WILLIAM HARRIS ¢

18952 Santa Barbara

Detroit, Michigan 48221,

JENNIE MCALLISTER

739 A-1 Judd Street

Honolulu, Hawaii 96871,

PLAINTIFFS,

-against-

RICHARD W. VELDE

Administrator

Law Enforcement Assistance

Administration

633 Indiana N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20530,

CHARLES R. WORK

Deputy Administrator for Administration

Law Enforcement Assistance Administration

633 Indiana, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20530,

HERBERT C. RICE

Director

Office of Civil Rights Compliance

Law Enforcement Assistance Administration

1016 16th Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20530,

EDWARD H. LEVI

Attorney General of the United States

United States Department of Justice

Constitution and 10th Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20530,

LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATION

633 Indiana Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20530,

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Constitution and 10th Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20530,

DEFENDANTS,

AMENDED COMPLAINT

CLASS ACTION

CIVIL RIGHTS

I, NATURE OF THE CLAIM

1. By this action, plaintiffs seek to redress the violation

of their constitutional and statutory rights to nondiscrimi-

nation in federally funded law enforcement programs.

Plaintiffs allege that the defendants have awarded in excess

of one and a quarter billion dollars to law enforcement

agencies—federal funding which has been used to discrimi-

nate on grounds of race and sex against the plaintiffs and

members of their class. Plaintiffs seek inter alia to compel

the defendants to terminate all funding to discriminatory

law enforcement agencies, and in all other ways to enforce

their constitutional and statutory civil rights obligations.

II, JURISDICTION

2. This action is brought by the plaintiffs on behalf of

themselves and all others similarly situated for declaratory

relief, injunctive re'ief, a writ of mandamus and damages

against the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration

{hereinafter sometimes “LEAA”], the United States De-

partment of Justice (hereinafter sometimes “Justice”), and

their executive officers Richard Velde, Charles Work,

Herbert Rice and Edward Levi, who have acted unconsti-

tutionally and in excess of their authority, to redress the vi-

olation of rights secured to the plaintiffs by, and to require

the enforcement of, the nondiscrimination obligations of

§ 518(c) and § 509 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe

Streets Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 3766(c) and

§ 3757; of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42

U.S.C. $§ 2000d et seq.; of Executive Orders 11246 and

11375; of the regulations promulgated pursuant to the fore-

going, 28 C.F.R. Part 42, and Equal Rights Guidelines, 38

Fed. Reg. 6415 (1973), reissued (1974); of the Due Process

Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Con-

stitution; of 42 U.S.C. § 1981; of 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (3); of

the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

to the United States Constitution; and of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

8. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court by 28 U.S.C.

§ 1331, § 1887, § 1243(3) and (4), § 1361; by 5 U.S.C.

§§ 701 et seq.; and by 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-2. The amount in

controversy as to each plaintiff exceeds $10,000 exclusive of

interest and costs. This Court is authorized to issue a de-

claratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and

§ 2202.

Ill, PLAINTIFFS

4. Plaintiff National Black Police Association, Inc. [here-

inafter sometimes “NBPA”], is incorpurated in the State of

Illinois and maintains i\s administrative offices in Chicago,

Illinois. Plaintiff NBPA and its members have been dis-

criminated against by the defendants through their refusal

to terminate LEAA funding to discriminatory law enforce-

ment agencies.

5. Plaintiff Penelope Brace is a female citizen of the

United States and a resident of Philadelphia, Pennsyivania.

Plaintiff Brace has been discriminated against by the de-

fendants through their refusal to terminate LEAA funding

to the Philadelphia Police Department.

6. Plaintiff Bruce Bailey is a black citizen of the United

States and a resident of Gary, Indiana. Plaintiff Bailey has

been discriminated against by the defendants through their

refusal to terminate LEAA funding to the Indiana State

Police Department.

7. Plaintiff Kristen Heemstra is a female citizen of the

United States and a resident of Altoona, Iowa. Plaintiff

Heemstra has been discriminated against by the defendants

through their refusal to terminate LEAA funding to the

Des Moines, Ames, and Newton Police Departments.

8. Plaintiff Ollie S. Glover is a black citizen of the United

States and a resident of Richmond, Califorria. Plaintiff

Glover has been discriminated against by the defendants

through their refusal to terminate LEAA funding to the

Richmond Police Department.

9. Plaintiff Joel Michelle Schumacher is a female citizen

of the United States and a resident of New Orleans,

Louisiana. Plaintiff Schumacher has been discriminated

against by the defendants through their refusal to termi-

nate LEAA funding to the New Orleans Police Depart-

ment.

10. Plaintiffs Raymond Clark and Kent G. McKinney are

black citizens of the United States and residents of

Oakland, California. Plaintiffs Clark and McKinney have

been discriminated against by the defendants through their

refusal to terminate LEAA funding to the Oakland Police

Department.

11. Plaintiff Penny Orazetti is a female citizen of the

United States and a resident of Beaverton, Oregon, and

Plaintiff Roberta Ledyard is a female citizen of the United

States and a resident of Portland, Oregon. Plaintiffs

Orazetti and Ledyard have been discriminated against by

the defendants through their refusal to terminate LEAA

funding to the Portland Police Bureau.

12. Plaintiffs Robert Booth and William Harris are black

citizens of the United States and residents of Detroit,

Michigan. Plaintiffs Booth and Harris have been discrimi-

nated against by the defendants through their refusal to

terminate LEAA tunding to the Wayne County Sheriff's

Department.

13. Plaintiff Jennie McAllister is a temale citizen of the

United States (of Chinese descent) and a resident of

Honolulu, Hawaii. Plaintiff McAllister has been discrimi-

nated against by the defendants through their refusal to

terminate LEAA funding to the Honolulu Police Depart-

ment.

IV. DEFENDANTS

14. Defendant Richard Velde is a white male citizen of

the United States and the Administrator of the Law En-

forcement Assistance Administration of the United States

Department of Justice. In conjunction with the other de-

fendants, he is responsible for insuring that LEAA funds

are not used in a racially or sexually discriminatory manner

by recipients of LEAA funding and for enforcing LEAA’s

constitutional and statutory civil rights obligations. De-

fendant Velde is sued in his individual and official

capacities.

15. Defendant Charles R. Work is a white male citizen of

the United States and the Deputy Administrator for Ad-

ministration of the Law Enforcement Assistance Adminis-

tration of the United States Department of Justice. In con-

junction with the other defendants, he is responsible for

insuring that LEAA funds are not used in a racially or sex-

ually discriminatory manner by recipients of LEAA fund-

ing and for enforcing LEAA’s constitutional and statutory

civil rights obligations. Defendant Work is sued in his indi-

vidual and official capacities.

16. Defendant Herbert C. Rice is a white male citizen of

the United States and the Director of the Office of Civil

Rights Compliance of the Law Enforcement Assistance Ad-

ministration of the Uniited States Department of Justice. In

conjunction with the other defendants, he is responsible for

insuring that LEAA funds are not used in a racially or sex-

ually discriminatory manner by recipients of LEAA fund-

ing and for enforcing LEAA’s constitutional and statutory

civil rights obligations. Defendant Rice is sued in his indi-

vidual and official capacities.

17. Defendant Edward H. Levi is a white male citizen of

the United States and the Attorney General of the United

States. In conjunction with the other defendants, he is re-

sponsible for insuring that LEAA funds are not used in a

racially or sexually discriminatory manner by recipients of

LEAA funding and for enforcing LEAA’s constitutional

and statutory civil rights obligations. Defendant Levi is

sued in his individual and official capacities.

18. Defendant Law Enforcement Assistance Administra-

tion of the United States Department of Justice was estab-

lished by Congress through its enactment of the Omnibus

Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended,

42 U.S.C. §§ 3701 et seg., to channel and direct the dis-

bursement of federal monies to nondiscriminatory state,

county and municipal governments and to private organiza-

tions for law enforcement purposes. LEAA, in conjunction

with the other defendants, has distributed more than four

billion dollars in LEAA federal funding to various govern-

ments and organizations, of which more than one and a

quarter billion dollars has been distributed to state, county

and municipal law enforcement agencies.

19. Defendant United States Department of Justice, an

executive agency of the United States, is responsible for

the operation and administration of LEAA, and in conjunc-

tion with the other defendants is responsible for insuring

that the LEAA funding to state, county and municipal gov-

ernments is not used in a racially or sexually discriminatory

manner.

V. CLASS ACTION

20. Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf and,

pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure, on behalf of all others similarly situated.

The class is composed of all black and female persons who

have been discrimi: ited against in employment on grounds

of race or sex by iaw enforcement agencies which have re-

ceived or currently receive LEAA funding.

21. The class is divided into two subclasses:

a. Plaintiffs NBPA, Bailey, Glover, Clark, McKinney,

Booth and Harris represent all black persons who have

been discriminated against in employment on grounds of

race by law enforcement agencies which have received or

currently receive LEAA funding.

b. Plaintiffs Brace, Heemstra, Schumacher, Ledyard,

Orazetti and McAllister represent all female persons who

have been discriminated against in employment on grounds

of sex by law enforcement agencies which have received or

currently receive LEAA funding.

22. The subclasses, whose members number in the thou-

sands, are so numerous as to render joinder of all members

impracticable. The questions of law and fact, as to the de-

fendants’ failure to insure that LEAA funds are not used in

a racially or sexually discriminatory manner by recipients

of LEAA funding and as to the defendants’ failure to en-

force their constitutional and statutory civil rights obliga-

tions, are common to all members of the subclasses. The

plaintiffs, black and female persons and the NBPA repre-

senting such persons, will fairly and adequately represent

the interests of the subclasses, and their claims are typical

of other members of the subclasses. The defendants have

acted and more frequently refused to act on grounds gener-

ally applicable to the members of the subclasses, thereby

making appropriate declaratory, injunctive and mandamus

relief with respect to the subclasses and to the class as a

whole.

VI. STATEMENT OF THE CLAIM

A. All Plaintiffs and Members of Their Class

23. Since 1970, more than fifty law enforcement agencies

(and/or their executive officers), which have been sued in

the United States District Courts for employment discrimi-

nation on grounds of race or sex, have had judgments en-

tered against them or have entered into settlements or

consent decrees whereby the police department defendants

agreed to cease using discriminatory and non-job-related

employment practices. The defendants have provided

LEAA funding to each of these law enforcement agencies;

they have never terminated that funding for civil rights

noncompliance; and they have not sought to recover the

unlawfully spent LEAA funding.

24. Of the fifty largest law enforcement agencies which

receive LEAA funding from the defendants, at least

twenty-six have been sued in employment discrimination

lawsuits. The defendants have never terminated their

LEAA funding to those agencies for civil rights noncompli-

ance nor have they sought to recover unlawfully spent

LEAA funding.

25. As recently as October, 1975, the Department of Jus-

tice filed employment discrimination lawsuits against the

New Jersey State Police, the Michigan State Police, and

the South Carolina Highway Patrol. The defendants have

provided more than five million dollars in LEAA funding to

each of these state law enforcement agencies; they have

never terminated their LEAA funding to those agencies for

civil rights noncompliance; and their current LEAA fund-

ing continues to finance the same discriminatory practices

challenged by the Department of Justice.

26. The defendants also provide LEAA funding to prima

facie discriminatory law enforcement agencies which have

not yet been sued. On information and belief, the defend-

ants provide LEAA funding to more than 2000 law enforce-

ment agencies each fiscal year. Yet, a survey undertaken in

1973 by the International Association of Chiefs of Police

and the Police Foundation, conducted upon the employment

practices of the approximately 700 state, county and munic-

ipal law enforcement agencies which employ more than 50

sworn police officers, revealed: (a) that 2% of all sworn po-

lice officers were female; (b) that (excluding three police de-

partments in Hawaii and the Metropolitan Washington,

D.C. Police Department) approximately 4% of all sworn po-

lice officers were minority persons; (c) that 97% of the po-

lice departments maintained minimum height require-

ments; (d) that background investigations were conducted

on male applicants by 97% of the police departments, and

on female applicants by 77% of the police departments; (e)

that nearly all of the police departments used written tests

as employment selection criteria and that 31% of the police

departments used the Public Personnel Association

(I.P.M.A.) Policeman Test; and (f) that 72% of the police

departments rejected applicants with a juvenile arrest re-

cord without a subsequent conviction.

27. In 1974, another survey, undertaken by the Race Re-

lations Information Center, was conducted on the racial and

sexual composition of the 49 state police departments

(Hawaii has no state police force). Responses from the 42

answering state police departments revealed that of all

sworn state police officers, 96.6% are white males, 1.5% are

blacks, and 0.3% are females. Despite prima facie cases of

discrimination, the defendants provide LEAA funding to all

state law enforcement agencies and have never terminated

their LEAA funding for civil rights noncompliance.

28. Although the defendants are authorized to conduct

onsite compliance reviews of law enforcement aguncies

receiving LEAA funding, they have conducted no more

than twenty such compliance reviews. Among the sixteen

police departments which have been the subjects of such

compliance reviews are Cleveland [see 4 39 infra.], New

Orleans [see 4 72-76 infra.], and Portland [see 4 84-91 in-

fra.). Since 1974, only one on-site compliance review has

been conducted—that upon the Norfolk (Virginia) Police

Department. As a result of their reviews, the defendants

have determined that only several of the reviewed police

departments were not in civil rights compliance, but even

then the defendants refused to terminate their LEAA fund-

ing; instead, funding has continued.

29. Prior to 1974, the defendants had a policy of not con-

ducting any pre-award compliance reviews of law enforce-

ment agencies which applied for LEAA funding. Sometime

thereafter, defendants adopted a policy indicating that they

would conduct pre-award compliance reviews, but only on

potential recipients of LEAA discretionary grants in o” 2ess

of $750,000. In the spring of 1975, this figure was reduced

to $250,000. This policy limits pre-award reviews to fewer

than one hundred law enforcement agencies.

30. Although the defendants, pursuant to their regula-

tions, have required each LEAA recipient to prepare 4

written Equal Employment Opportunity Program,

(“EEOP”), the defendants have not systematically re-

viewed the substance of those EEOPs, nor have they ever

required that the EEOPs be submitted to the defendants

by the recipients. The defendants routinely award LEAA

funding without substantive knowledge of the contents of

recipients’ EEOPs.

31. Although the defendants, pursuant to their Equal

Rights Guidelines, prohibit the use of minimum height re-

quirements as employment selection criteria, unless proven

to be of “operational necessity,” the defendants have never

conducted a survey or review to determine the continued

use of, operational necessity of, or elimination of such mini-

mum height requirements by LEAA recipients. The de-

fendants routinely award LEAA funding without knowl-

edge of the recipients’ continued use of minimum height

requirements.

32. Despite the defendants’ regulations to the contrary,

defendant Velde has maintained that the utilization of wom-

en in police service is a “novel question” and “is in need of

resolution in a court of law.” Pursuant to this policy, the

defendants will not terminate LEAA funding to any law en-

forcement agency which denies sworn police officer employ-

ment to women.

33. As of the spring of 1975, the defendants had received

more than 300 administrative charges of discrimination, of

which more than 90% alleged employment discrimination.

The defendants classify the charges of discrimination as ac-

tive or inactive: charges which indicate that federal litiga-

tion has been filed are classified as inactive and are not in-

vestigated; of the 133 charges considered by defendants to

be active, 25 date back to 1972 or 1973. Several of the po-

lice departments named in administrative charges have

been determined by the defendants not to be in civil rights

compliance, but defendants have not terminated their

LEAA funding; instead, LEAA funding has continued.

34. Defendants have never denied or terminated LEAA

funding to a law enforcement agency as a potential recipi-

ent or recipient of LEAA funding on the grounds that the

law enforcement agency was engaged in race or sex dis-

crimination or was otherwise in civil rights noncompliance.

35. Defendants have never conducted an administrative

hearing to determine whether a law enforcement agency

receiving LEAA funding was in noncompliance with federal

nondiscrimination requirements and whether LEAA fund-

ing should be suspended or terminated.

B. Plaintiff National Black Police Association, Inc.

36. Plaintiff National Black Police Association, Inc. is a

national organization whose membership is comprised of lo-

cal and regional black police organizations (the member or-

ganizations, in turn, have memberships comprised of sworn

and unsworn black police personnel). Currently the NBPA

membership numbers more than fifty incorporated and

unincorporated black police organizations.

87. Plaintiff NBPA, directly and through its officers and

member organizations, has undertaken vast efforts in pur-

suit of its objectives of achieving federal enforcement of

civil rights laws requiring equal employment opportunity

for blacks and women in law enforcement, and of eliminat-

ing race and sex discrimination in law enforcement agencies

receiving LEAA funding.

38. Primary among these efforts have been plaintiff

NBPA’s efforts to achieve federal enforcement of civil

rights laws:

a. From 1972 to the present, plaintiff NBPA and Renault

Robinson, the Executive Director of plaintiff NBPA,

sought to disengage the Office of Revenue Sharing from its

participation in the discriminatory employment practices of

the Chicago Police Department. The results of those efforts

are reported in Robinson v. Shultz, 7 E.P.D. 4 9270

(D.D.C. 1974), supplemental order, 8 E.P.D. 4 9832

(D.D.C, 1974), stay denied, 9 E.P.D. 4 9861 (D.D.C. 1975),

order confirmed, 395 F.Supp. 329 (N.D. Ill. 1975).

b. In February, 1975, plaintiff NBPA sought to partici-

pate in a conference hosted by the defendants in Rochester,

Michigan for the alleged purpose of reviewing their LEAA

civil rights enforcement activities. Although a lawyer for

plaintiff NBPA urged defendant Rice to invite Renault

Robinson or another official representative of plaintiff

NBPA to that conference, he and the other defendants re-

fused to do so.

c. In March, 1975, defendant Velde convened a meeting

with defendant Levi and defendant Rice, among others, to

discuss the defendants’ civil rights enforcement obligations.

At that- meeting, George Thomas, President of plaintiff

NBPA, urged the defendants to begin to enforce their civil

rights compliance obligations. Defendants responded by in-

dicating that they would establish an LEAA advisory coun-

cil (composed primarily of minority persons); no such coun-

cil has been formed by defendants.

d. By a letter to defendant Rice, in August, 1975, Presi-

dent Thomas on behalf of plaintiff NBPA again urged the

defendants to enforce their civil rights obligations, and in

particular to suspend immediately all LEAA funding to the

Indiana State Police Department and to the Wayne County

Sheriffs Department both of which had been judicially de-

termined in preceding weeks to have been engaged in un-

lawful employment discrimination. In a reply letter, dated

September 3, 1975, defendant Rice indicated that the de-

fendants would not terminate the LEAA funding to the

Indiana State Police Department or to the Wayne County

Sheriff's Department. President Thomas’ responsive letter

has not been answered by the defendants.

39. Also primary among plaintiff NBPA’s efforts have

been the efforts of plaintiff NBPA and its members to elim-

inate race and sex discrimination in law enforcement

agencies receiving LEAA funding:

a. In 1972, the Shield Club, a member of plaintiff NBPA,

sought to eliminate the racially discriminatory employment

practices of the Cleveland Police Department by filing a

federal court lawsuit, the results of which are partially re-

ported in Shield Club v. Cleveland, 370 F.Supp. 251 (N.D.

Ohio 1973). In 1973, Jean Clayton, a police officer with the

Cleveland Police Department and a member of the Shield

Club, sought to eliminate the sexually discriminatory em-

ployment practices of the Cleveland Police Department by

filing a federal court lawsuit, Clayton v. Cleveland,

C-73-784 (N.D. Ohio, filed July 23, 1973); Clayton and

three other sex discrimination lawsuits against the

Cleveland Police Department have not yet been set for

trial.

b. In 1972, the Bridgeport Guardians, a member of plain-

tiff NBPA, sought to eliminate the discriminatory employ-

ment practices of the Bridgeport Police Department by fil-

ing a federal court lawsuit, the results of which are

partially reported in Bridgeport Guardians v. Bridgeport

Civil Service Commission, 354 F.Supp. 778 (D. Conn.),

modified, 482 F.2d 1333 (2d Cir. 1973) and 497 F.2d 1113

(2d Cir. 1974).

c. In 1972, the Afro American Patrolmen’s League, a

member of plaintiff NBPA, sought to eliminate the discrim-

inatory promotion practices of the Toledo Police Depart-

ment by filing a federal court lawsuit, the results of which

are partially reported in Afro American Patrolmen’s

League v. Duck, 366 F.Supp. 1095 (N.D. Ohio 1973), affd,

503 F.2d 294 (6th Cir. 1974).

d. In 1973, the Society of Afro American Police, a mem-

ber of plaintiff NBPA, sought to eliminate the discriminato-

ry employment practices of the Flint Police Department,

by intervening in a lawsuit against the Flint Police Depart-

ment, the results of which are partially reported in

Holliman v. Price, 7 E.P.D. 4 9069 (E.D. Mich. 1973).

e. In 1973 the Officers for Justice, a member of plaintiff

NBPA, sought to eliminate the discriminatory employment

practices of the San Francisco Police Department by filing

a federal court lawsuit, the results of which are partially re-

ported in Officers for Justice v. Civil Service Com’n. of

San Francisco, 371 F.Supp. 1328 (N.D.Cal. 1973) and 395

F.Supp. 378 (N.D.Cal. 1975).

f. In August, 1974, the Magnolia State Peace Officers

Association of Louisiana, a member of plaintiff NBPA,

sought to eliminate the discriminatory employment prac.

tices of the Louisiana State Police by filing a charge of dis-

crimination with defendant United States Department of

Justice, which in turn referred that charge to defendant

LEAA.

g. In 1974, the Guardians of Michigan, a member of plain-

tiff NBPA, sought to eliminate the discriminatory employ-

ment practices of the Wayne County Sheriff's Department

by filing a state court lawsuit, by filing a federal court law-

suit, and by filing LEAA charges. In 1975, the Guardians of

also sought to eliminate the discriminatory senior-

ity layoff practices of the Detroit Police Department by fil-

ing a federal court lawsuit, a suit which has resulted in a

preliminary injunction against the discriminatory layoffs.

h. In 1975, the Guardians of Justice, a member of plain-

tiff NBPA, sought to eliminate the discriminatory employ-

ment practices of the Richmond Police Department by fil-

ing LEAA charges and by filing a federal court lawsuit.

Seven years earlier, similar efforts by the Guardians re-

sulted in the Richmond Police Department placing letters

of reprimand in the personnel files of each Guardian mem-

ber.

i. During the past three years, the Guardians of Greater

Pittsburgh, a member of plaintiff NBPA, has sought to

eliminate the discriminatory employment practices of the

Pittsburgh Police Department by filing administrative com-

plaints with the Attorney General of the State of Pennsyl-

vania and with the EEOC, and by filing a federal court law-

suit.

j. Also during the past three years, the Louisville Black

Police Officers Organization, a member of plaintiff NBPA,

has sought to eliminate the discriminatory employment

practices of the Louisville Police Department by filing

administrative complaints with the Louisville Human Rela-

tions Commission, the Kentucky Human Rights Commis-

sion, and the EEOC; by filing a revenue sharing complaint

with the United States Department of the Treasury; by fil-

ing an LEAA complaint with the defendants; and by filing a

federal court lawsuit.

40. Despite the efforts of plaintiff NBPA, of its officers

and of its members, the defendants have provided LEAA

funding to each of the aforementioned discriminatory law

enforcement agencies and have refused to terminate that

funding.

41. Defendants’ refusal to enforce their civil rights obli-

gations, as alleged throughout this Complaint, has caused

direct harm and injury to plaintiff NBPA, and to its mem-

bers:

a. Defendants’ refusal to enforce their constitutional and

statutory civil rights obligations has wholly frustrated the

primary objectives and efforts of plaintiff NBPA.

b. Defendants refusal to enforce their constitutional and

statutory civil rights obligations has served to finance and

thus to perpetuate the discriminatory and exclusionary em-

ployment practices of LEAA recipients, thereby denying

equal employment rights to blacks and women.

c. Defendants’ refusal to enforce their constitutional and

statutory civil rights obligations has served to limit the al-

ready limited pool of potential members of plaintiff NBPA

and of its member organizations.

d. Defendants’ refusal to enforce their constitutional and

statutory civil rights obligations has required NBPA mem-

ber organizations and their members to file administrative

complaints and costly lawsuits to obtain their civil rights, to

deplete their own financial resources through such com-

plaints and lawsuits, to expose themselves to extra-legal

sanctions and harassment for asserting, their civil rights,

and to jeopardize the member organizations’ existence and

the individuals’ employment by asserting their civil rights.

C. Plaintiff Brace

42. Plaintiff Penelope Brace has been discriminated

against by the defendants through their provisions of more

than eight million dollars in LEAA funding to the

Philadelphia Police Department and through their refusal

to terminate that funding, despite the defendants’ determi-

nation nearly two years ago that the Department was not in

civil rights compliance.

43. As of November, 1974: the Philadelphia Police De-

partment employed 8,245 sworn police officers, of whom

only 74 (or .9%) were female; the Philadelphia Police De-

partment had authorized the employment of 8,276 “police-

man” positions open only to males, but had authorized the

employment of only 86 “policewoman” positions open to fe-

males; thus only 1.0% of all sworn officers could be female.

44. All female officers were and are permanently as-

signed to the Juvenile Aid Division. No female sworn offi-

cer, regardless of rank, is permitted to supervise any male

sworn officer on a permanent basis, whether within or

without the Juvenile Aid Division.

45. In July, 1973, plaintiff Brace, a “policewoman” em-

ployed by the Department since 1965, filed a sex discrimi-

nation charge with the defendants against the Philadelphia

Police Department. In that charge she requested the de-

fendants to “consider holding up funding for the Police De-

partment in Philadelphia, until such time as my complaint

is resolved.”

46. In the six months after plaintiff Brace filed her char-

ge of discrimination, the Philadelphia Police Department

reassigned her, placed her under surveillance, requested

her to report for a special psychiatric examination, denied

her promotions to corporal and detective on the grounds

that she was not a “policeman”; and initiated dismissal pro-

ceedings against her. The defendants were apprised of all

of these actions but refused to terminate or even to sus-

pend their LEAA funding to the Philadelphia Police De-

partment.

47. In January, 1974, after several months of investiga-

tion and unsuccessful efforts to achieve voluntary civil

rights compliance from the Philadelphia Police Department,

the defendants formally determined that the Philadelphia

Police Department was not in civil rights compliance. In a

confirmation mailgram, dated February 1, 1974, to Police

Commissioner Joseph O'Neill, defendant Rice stated:

‘“*LEAA HAS DETERMINED THAT THE

PHILADELPHIA POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS

FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE LEAA EQUAL

EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY REGULATIONS,

28 C.F.R. 42.201 ET. 7 ta SUBPART D. THE

LEAA HAS FURTHER DETERMINED THAT

COMPLIANCE WITH THESE REGULATIONS

CANNOT BE ACHIEVED BY VOLUNATRY

MEANS. ACCORDINGLY THIS MATTER HAS

BEEN REFERRED TO THE CIVIL RIGHTS DIVI-

SION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FOR

CONSIDERATION OF THE INSTITUTION OF AP-

PROPRIATE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IN AC-

CORDANCE WITH THE LAW AND REGULA-

TIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND

THE LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE AD-

MINISTRATION.”

By a letter dated February 4, 1974, defendant Rice similar-

ly advised plaintiff Brace of the defendants’ formal determi-

nation of noncompliance. The defendants however did not

terminate their LEAA funding to the Philadelphia Police

Department.

48. On February 12, 1974, plaintiff Brace filed a com-

plaint in the United States District Court alleging unlawful

sex discrimination against the City of Philadelphia and its

officials, Brace v. O'Neill, No. 74-839 (E.D. Pa., filed

Feb. 12, 1974). Three days later, on February 15, 1974,

plaintiff Brace was fired from her employment by the

Philadelphia Police Department. She subsequently was re-

instated by the Civil Service Commission, and currently

continues to be employed as a “policewoman.”

49. Throughout these various proceedings, and despite

their referral of the matter to the Department of Justice for

consideration of litigation, the defendants refused to initi-

ate the procedures mandated by § 518(c) and § 509 of the

Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act to terminate

the LEAA funding to the Philadelphia Police Department.

Instead, in the nearly two years since the defendants’ de-

termination of noncompliance, the defendants have

awarded nearly four million dollars in additional LEAA

funding to the Philadelphia Police Department.

50. In a letter to Representative Charles Rangel dated

January 10, 1975, defendant Velde attempted to justify the

defendants continued LEAA funding, in violation of the de-

fendants’ regulations, to the Philadelphia Police Depart-

ment by stating that “of more immediate consequence”

than enforcing civil rights was the “impact upon all citizens

of Philadelphia” of providing the LEAA funding, and there-

fore that “institution of proceedings to defer, suspend, or

terminate funding seems inappropriate in this case.”

D. Plaintiff Bailey

51. Plaintiff Bruce Bailey has been discriminated against

by the defendants through their provision of more than

three million dollars in LEAA funding to the Indiana State

Police Department and through their refusal to terminate

that funding, despite a court ordered declaratory judgment

finding the Department’s employment practices unlawful

under the defendants’ regulations.

52. In the history of the Indiana State Police Depart-

ment, only four blacks have been employed as state troop-

ers. As of August, 1974, the Indiana State Police Depart-

ment employed 937 uniformed state troopers and higher

ranking officers, of whom only three (or .8%) were black.

Currently, there are still only three black state troopers.

According to the 1970 census, the population of the State of

Indiana was 6.9% black.

53. The Indiana State Police Department has engaged in

discriminatory recruiting which has preserved its pre-

dominately white work force. The Department also has lim-

ited the breadth of experience of the few black troopers

through discriminatory assignments, thereby limiting the

promotion opportunities of the black troopers. Additionally,

the Department has used a discriminatory and unvalidated

written test which has had the effect of denying employ-

ment to a disproportionate number of black applicants. For

example, in 1974, the test screened out 100% of the black

applicants but only 43% of the white applicants; in 1973, the

test screened out 71% of the black applicants but only 43%

of the whites. Plaintiff Bailey was one of the victims of the

Department’s discrimination, having been twice denied em-

ployment as a state trooper by the Department.

54. On August 29, 1974, plaintiff Bailey and the Indiana

State Conference of Branches of the NAACP filed an em-

ployment discrimination complaint in the United States

District Court against the Indiana State Police Department

and various of its officials, Bailey v. DeBard, No. IP

74-458-C (S.D. Ind., filed Aug. 26, 1974). Less than two

months after the filing of the complaint in Bailey v. De-

Bard, supra, the Indiana State Police Department com-

menced a training school for a new class of state troopers to

fill 52 newly authorized state trooper positions; the entire

class of new state troopers was white.

55. During the fall of 1974, the defendants were aware of

the discriminatory employment practices of the Indiana

State Police Department, but they declined to initiate their

mandated procedures to terminate their LEAA funding to

the Department.

56. On July 31, 1975, the Court in Bailey v. DeBard, au-

pra, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Judgment declar-

ing unlawful the Department’s use of its written tests and

promotion procedures, and the Department’s failure to re-

cruit black troopers. The Court specifically held the De-

partment and its officials to be in violation of 42 U.S.C.

$§ “2000d et seg. . . . and 3766(c) and the regulations pro-

mulgated thereunder as Title 28 C.F.R. Sections 42.201-

42.206 and 42.301-42.308.” The Court also noted that the

Superintendent of the State Police Department, on July 1,

1974, had certified that the Department intended to formu-

late an Equal Employment Opportunity Program in accord-

ance with the LEAA regulations, 28 C.F.R. §§ 42.301 et

seq., but that the EEOP had never been financed much less

implemented.

57. In August, 1975, plaintiff Bailey filed a charge of dis-

crimination with the defendants and enclosed a copy of the

Court’s Memorandum Opinion and Judgment in Bailey v.

DeBard, supra. In that charge, plaintiff Bailey noted that

the Court had not yet entered any injunctive relief, that

the provision of LEAA funding to a discriminatory law en-

forcement agency was unlawful, and that the defendants

were thus required to “suspend all LEAA funding to the

Indiana State Police Department and [to] initiate adminis-

trative proceedings to recover all LEAA monies already

unlawfully spent by the Indiana State Police Department.”

The defendants refused [see 138, supra.) and instead have

continued to finance the discriminatory employment prac-

tices of the Indiana State Police Department.

E. Plaintiff Heemstra

58. Plaintiff Kristen Heemstra has been discriminated

against by the defendants through their provision of and re-

fusal to terminate their LEAA funding to the Des Moines,

Ames, and Newton (Iowa) Police Departments, despite the

defendants’ knowledge that each of those Departments has

discriminatorily denied employment as a police officer to

plaintiff Heemstra in violation of the defendants’ Equal

Rights Guidelines.

59. Plaintiff Heemstra received an AA degree from Des

Moines Area Community College in May, 1974. Her major

was law enforcement, and she graduated with a cumulative

grade point average of 3.98 (on a scale of 0.00-4.00;

4.00=straight A). Plaintiff Heemstra, a former high school

Tr tball player, stands 5’8-%” in height and weighs 130

60. In January, 1974, plaintiff Heemstra was denied em-

ployment by the Des Moines Police Department on the

grounds that she did not meet the Department’s unvali-

dated 5’9’ minimum height requirement and 150 lb. mini-

mum weight requirement. The Des Moines Police Depart-

ment employs approximately three-hundred and sixty

sworn patrol officers, only one (or approximately .3%) of

whom is a female.

61. Several years earlier, an Iowa Assistant Attorney

General and attorney for the Iowa Civil Rights Commission

spoke by phone with Stephen Glassman, a representative of

defendant LEAA’s Office of Civil Rights Compliance,

urged him to investigate the Des Moines Police Depart-

ment’s minimum height and weight requirements, but was

advised by Mr. Glassman that no such investigation would

be undertaken as Iowa was too low a priority for defendant

LEAA’s Office of Civil Rights Compliance.

62. In April 1974, plaintiff Heemstra was denied employ-

ment as a police officer by the Ames Police Department on

the grounds that she did not meet the Department’s

unvalidated 5'9” minimum height requirement and 160 lb.

minimum weight requirement. The Ames Police Depart-

ment employs approximately 27 sworn patrol officers, of

whom none is a female.

63. On four separate occasions, most recently in Septem-

ber, 1974, plaintiff Heemstra has been denied employment

as a police officer with the Newton Police Department on

the grounds that she did not meet the Department’s

unvalidated 5'9” minimum height requirement and 150 lb.

minimum weight requirement. The Newton Police Depart-

ment employs approximately 25 sworn police officers, of

whom none is a female.

64. On May 2, 1975, plaintiff Heemstra filed with the de-

fendants a charge of discrimination against the Des Moines

Police Department, the Ames Police Department and the

Newton Police Department. Plaintiff Heemstra also

charged discrimination against the Pella Police Department

and the Urbandale Police Department both of which also

denied her employment as a police officer. In her charge,

plaintiff Heemstra noted that the receipt of LEAA funding

by the respective police departments was unlawful and she

urged the defendants to enforce their civil rights obliga-

tions immediately.

65. In response to plaintiff Heemstra’s charge of discrim-

ination, the defendants have refused to initiate procedures

to terminate LEAA funding and have refused even to in-

vestigate the discrimination charges. LEAA funding con-

tinues.

F. Plaintiff Glover

66. Plaintiff Ollie S. Glover has been discriminated

against by the defendants through their provision of and re-

fusal to terminate their LEAA funding to the Richmond

(California) Police Department. Plaintiff Glover, a ten-year

veteran of the Richmond Police Department currently hold-

ing the rank of sergeant, has been discriminatorily denied

promotion to the rank of lieutenant.

67. The Richmond Police Department employs approxi-

mately 178 sworn police officers, of whom only 24 (or ap-

proximately 11.3%) are black. According to the 1970 cen-

sus, the population of the City of Richmond was 36.2%

black. Upon information and belief, the current population

of the City of Richmond is 40% black. All but three of the

black officers hold the entry-level rank of patrolman. Of

those black officers above the rank of patrolman, all three

are sergeants (of a total of twenty-six sergeants). There are

no black captains or lieutenants. It was not until 1967 that

any black officer was promoted above the rank of patrol-

man.

68. The Richmond Police Department has assigned du-

ties and shifts on a racial basis. The Department also has

used a discriminatory and unvalidated written test which

has had the effect of denying employment to a dispropor-

tionate number of black applicants. For example, in No-

vember, 1974, the test screened out 70% of the black appli-

cants but only 21% of the white applicants. Other selection

criteria include discriminatory and unvalidated height re-

quirements and background investigations. Additionally,

the Department uses discriminatory and invalidated promo-

tion examinations for the rank of sergeant and lieutenant

which in the fall of 1974 screened out all black applicants,

including plaintiff Glover.

69. In April, 1973, a coalition of seven civil rights organi-

zations filed a charge of discrimination with the defendants

against the Richmond Police Department at eighteen other

California Police Departments. That charge detailed the

discriminatory employment practices of the Richmond Po-

lice Department, noted that Richmond had received

$272,894 in LEAA funding in 1971 and 1972, and sought the

“termination or suspension” of LEAA funding. On informa-

tion and belief, the defendants in response requested infor-

mation from the Department, but declined to conduct an

on-site field investigation. The defendants did not initiate

fund termination procedures

70. Since there was no change in the Department’s fed-

erally funded discriminatory practices, plaintiff Glover,

other black officers, and the Guardians of Justice, a mem-

ber of plaintiff NBPA, filed an employment discrimination

complaint in the United States District Court on March 5,

1975, against the City of Richmond and various of its offi-

cials, The Guardians of Justice v. Richmond, C-T5-

0439-SW (N.D. Cal., filed March 5, 1975).

71. In July, 1975, plaintiff Glover mailed a charge of dis-

crimination, enclosing a copy of the Guardians complaint,

to the defendants. In August, 1975, defendant Rice re-

sponded to plaintiff Glover by acknowledging the pendency

of Guardians in the federal court and stating that LEAA

“will defer asserting of jurisdiction over the similar subject

matter until there has been a judicial resolution of that

matter.” In the meantime, the defendants have continued

to provide uninterrupted LEAA funding to the Richmond

Police Department.

G. Plaintiff Schumacher

72. Plaintiff Joel Michelle Schumacher has been discrimi-

nated against by the defendants through their provision of

and refusal to terminate their LEAA funding to the New

Orleans Police Department, despite the defendants knowl-

edge that the Department has discriminatorily denied em-

ployment to plaintiff Schumacher in violation of the defend-

ants’ Equal Rights Guidelines.

73. Plaintiff Schumacher received an AA degree in Law

Enforcement from Delgado Junior College in December,

1974. Plaintiff Schumacher stands 5’5” in height.

74. In the spring of 1974, plaintiff Schumacher applied

for employment as a police officer with the New Orleans

Police Department; she took and passed the written test,

and thereafter was placed on the police eligible list. Plain-

tiff Schumacher was denied employment, however, on the

grounds that she did not meet the Department’s unvali-

dated 5'8” minimum height requirement. The New Orleans

Police Department employs approximately 1,139 sworn po-

lice officers, only 19 (or approximately 1.7%) of whom are

women.

75. In January, 1975, plaintiff Schumacher filed with the

defendants a charge of employment discrimination based

upon sex against the New Orleans Police Department. Also

in January, 1975, plaintiff Schumacher filed a complaint for

Intervention in the United States District Court alleging

unlawful sex discrimination against the City of New Orle-

ans and its officials, Williams v. New Orleans, No. 73-629

(E.D. La., Intervention filed Jan. 3, 1975).

76. Several years earlier, in March of 1973, defendants

conducted a compliance review of the New Orleans Police

Department. On information and belief, the defendants de-

termined that the Department’s 5’8” height requirements

was sexually discriminatory and not job related, and that

the Department was not in civil rights compliance. Defend-

ants, however, never terminated their LEAA funding to

the Department; instead, they continued to fund the De-

partment’s discriminatory practices.

H. Plaintiffs Clark and McKinney

77. Plaintiffs Raymond Clark and Kent %. McKinney

have been discriminated against by the defendants through

their provision of more than one million dollars in LEAA

funding to the Oakland Police Department and their refusal

to terminate that funding. Plaintiff Clark has been denied

promotion and otherwise harassed and plaintiff McKinney

has been discharged, all on grounds of race, by the Oakland

Police Department.

78. The Oakland Police Department employs approxi-

mately 708 sworn police officers, of whom only 91 (or

12.8%) are black. Only one police officer is a woman. Ac-

cording to the 1970 census, the population of the City of

Oakland was 34.7% black. On information and belief, the

current population of the City of Oakland is approximately

45% black. All but six of the black officers hold the entry-

level rank of police officer. Of approximately 125 sergeants,

only five (or approximately 4.0%) are black. Of the 32 lieu-

tenants only one (or 3.1%) is black. Of the 12 captains, none

is black.

79. The Oakland Police Department uses a discriminato-

ry and unvalidated written test which screens out a dispro-

portionate number of black officers during training and pro-

bation for reasons unrelated to successful job performance.

And the Department uses discriminatory and unvalidated

promotion criteria which screen out a disproportionate

number of black officers from promotion.

80. In April, 1973, a coalition of seven civil rights organi-

zations filed a charge of discrimination with the defendants

against the Oakland Police Department and eighteen other

California Police Departments. That charge detailed the

discriminatory employment practices of the Oakland Police

Department, noted that Oakland had received $738,672 in

LEAA funding in 1971 and 1972, and sought the “termina-

tion or suspension” of LEAA funding. On information and

belief, the defendants in response requested information

from the Department, but refused to conduct an on-site

field investigation. The defendants did not initiate fund ter-

mination procedures.

81. In June, 1974, plaintiff McKinney, one of the few

Oakland police officers who was a college graduate, was

discriminatorily discharged by the Oakland Police Depart-

ment for reasons unrelated to successful job performance.

82. In August, 1974, plaintiff McKinney and plaintiff

Clark, President of the Oakland Black Officers Association,

a member of plaintiff NBPA, filed a charge of discrimina-

tion with the defendants against the Oakland Police De-

partment. In that charge, plaintiffs Clark and McKinney

complained of plaintiff McKinney’s discriminatory discharge

and enumerated other discriminatory employment practices

of the Oakland Police Department. Although the defend-

ants conducted an investigation of that charge, they have

not initiated procedures to terminate their LEAA funding

to the Oakland Police Department.

83. Subsequent to the filing of the charge with the

defendants, the Oakland Police Department suspended

plaintiff Clark, caused him to receive an unfavorable super-

visory evaluation, denied him promotion through a discrim-

inatory and unvalidated written test, and twice assigned

him a swing shift which precluded him from attending two

quarters in the law school in which he had been enrolled.

Despite the defendants’ knowledge of these events, the de-

fendants have continued to provide uninterrupted LEAA

funding to the Oakland Police Department.

I. Plaintiffs Orazetti and Ledyard

84. Plaintiffs Penny Orazetti and Roberta Ledyard have

been discriminated against by the defendants through their

provision of more than five million dollars in LEAA funding

to the Portland (Oregon) Police Bureau and their refusal to

terminate that funding, despite the defendants’ determina-

tion that the Bureau is not in civil rights compliance.

85. Until 1973: the Portland Police Bureau maintained

separate job classifications for female officers, classified as

“policewomen,” and for male officers, classified as “police-

men”; there were only 18 authorized entry-level and promo-

tional positions for policewomen, and approximately 700

entry-level and promotional positions for policemen; police-

women were paid less than policemen (deemed to be “spe-

cialists”) performing the same work; and all policewomen

were permanently assigned to the Women’s Protective Di-

vision. Currently, the Portland Police Bureau employs ap-

proximately 730 sworn police officers, of whom only 27 (or

approximately 3.7%) are women.

86. Plaintiff Orazetti became a policewoman with the

Portland Police Bureau in 1964 at a time when policewomen

were required to have a college degree although policemen

needed only a high school diploma or G.E.D. When plaintiff

Orazetti complained that entry-level policemen (“special-

ists”) were being paid higher salaries than entry-level po-

licewomen performing the same work, she was threatened

with termination. In 1968, when plaintiff Orazetti applied

to take the promotion examination for detective, her appli-

cation was denied on the grounds that she was not a “po-

liceman,” and she was assigned to secretarial duties as pun-

ishment. In recent years, plaintiff Orazetti has been denied

other promotions, denied access to transfers, and in other

ways discriminatorily harassed.

87. Plaintiff Roberta Ledyard became a policewoman

with the Portland Police Bureau in July, 1971. After

graduating number one in her class ahead of the 42 police-

men in the Police Academy, plaintiff Ledyard was assigned

to the Women’s Protective Division although the policemen

received assignments throughout the Police Bureau. Like

plaintiff Orazetti, plaintiff Ledyard thereafter was denied

equal pay, was denied access to transfers and promotions,

and was in other ways discriminatorily harassed.

88. In December 972, an investigative team from defend-

ant LEAA conducted a civil rights compliance review of the

Portland Police Bureau’s employment practices. Plaintiffs

Orazetti and Ledyard were told by the investigators that

the filing of administrative charges with defendant LEAA

was unnecessary because of the compliance review and be-

cause defendant LEAA “would never deny LEAA funds to

an agency because of discrimination.”

89. In a letter dated January 31, 1973, defendant Rice

advised the Portland Civil Service Board that the Portland

Police Bureau was not in compliance with the LEAA

nondiscrimination regulations, and that four “immediate

steps” were “require[d]”: (1) that the position of polieewom-

an be abolished; (2) that female officers be given equal op-

portunity in promotion; (3) that previously denied training

be given to female officers to allow them “to fairly compete

in promotional examinations”; and (4) that a “new recruit-

ing effort” be undertaken to attract female applicants.

90. Of the four requirements set forth in defendant

Rice’s determination, only the first has been complied with:

the Portland Police Bureau abolished the position of police-

woman, but it lowered the pay of all police officers to that

previously paid to policewomen; refused to direct recruit-

ment to attract female officers; required applicants to pass

discriminatory and unvalidated physical agility tests; re-

fused to provide additional training to female officers; and

continued to penalize female officers for lack of patrol expe-

rience (denied to women before 1973) in promotional exami-

nations. And although the Bureau appointed plaintiff

Orazetti as Project Director of an LEAA funded project, it

has paid her a lower salary than the previous Project Direc-

tor, a male officer.

91. On information and belief, the defendants have

unsuccessfully attempted to secure voluntary civil rights

compliance from the Portland Police Bureau during the

past several years. Despite the Bureau’s civil rights non-

compliance, the defendants have refused to initiate their

mandated fund termination procedures and instead have

continued to provide uninterrupted LEAA funding to the

Bureau.

J. Plaintiffs Booth and Harris

92. Plaintiffs Robert Booth and William Harris have

been discriminated against by the defendants through their

provision of nearly four million dollars in LEAA funding to

the Wayne County (Michigan) Sheriff's Department and

their refusal to terminate that funding, despite a court or-

dered preliminary injunction finding the Department’s pro-

motion practices to be discriminatory.

93. Plaintiff Robert Booth, a fifteen-year veteran of the

Wayne County Sheriff's Department currently holding the

entry-level position of patrolman, has been denied promo-

tion to the ranks of detective or sergeant on seven separate

occasions, most recently in September, 1974, on the

grounds that he failed to rank high enough on the Depart-

ment’s discriminatory and unvalidated promotion criteria.

On the basis of the recent examinations administered in the

fall of 1974, the Department excluded all black applicants

from promotion to detective or sergeant.

94. Plaintiff William Harris, a seventeen-year veteran of

the Wayne County Sheriff's Department currently holding

the rank of lieutenant, was denied promotion to the rank of

deputy inspector in December, 1973, on the grounds that he

had failed the Department’s discriminatory and unvalidated

oral interview. All other black applicants were similarly

denied promotion for failing that oral interview.

95. The Wayne County Sheriff's Department has pro-

moted very few blacks to command positions: of 29 detec-

tives, there are only 3 (or 10.8%) black detectives; of 40

sergeants, there are only 7 (or 17.5%) black sergeants;

there are only 5 black lieutenants; and of 7 . eputy inspec-

tors, there are no black deputy inspectors. A.vording to the

1970 census, the population of Wayne County was 27%

black.

96. In November 1974, plaintiffs Booth and Harris, other

blacks, and the Guardians of Michigan, a member of plain-

tiff NBPA, filed an employment discrimination complaint in

the United States District Court against various officials of

Wayne County, Reed v. Lucas, 74-72798 (E.D. Mich. filed

Nov. 18, 1974). In July, 1975, the Court granted plaintiff's

motion for a preliminary injunction against the discrimina-

tory promotion practices and ordered that “one of every

two persons promoted to detective and to deputy inspector

must be a member of the black race.”

97. Earlier, in April, 1975, one of the Reed plaintiffs

filed with the defendants an LEAA charge of discrimina-

tion detailing the unlawful employment discrimination in

the Wayne County Sheriff's Department. Upon information

and belief, defendants refused to conduct an investigation

into the charge filed against the Wayne County Sheriff's

Department.

98. In August, 1975, plaintiff Booth, on behalf of himself

and the Guardians of Michigan, of which he is Vice Presi-

dent, filed with the defendants another charge of discrimi-

nation against the Wayne County Sheriffs Department.

Plaintiff Booth enclosed a copy of the Court’s Mcmorandum

Opinion and Order in Reed v. Lucas, supra, and urged the

defendants to “immediately suspend all LEAA funding to

the Wayne County Sherifi’s Department and [to] immedi-

ately initiate proceedings to recover all unlawfully spent

LEAA monies.” Although the defendants docketed the

charge, they have refused to investigate the charge [see

138 supra] and have refused to initiate proceedings to sus-

pend, terminate or recover the LEAA funding. The defend-

ants continue to provide uninterrupted LEAA funding to

the Wayne County Sheriff's Department.

K. Plaintiff McAllister

99. Plaintiff Jennie A. McAllister has been discriminated

against by the defendants through their provision of LEAA

funding and refusal to terminate that funding to the

Honolulu Police Department, despite the defendants’

knowledge that the Department discriminatorily denied

employment to plaintiff McAllister in violation of the de-

fendants’ Equal Rights Guidelines.

100. Plaintiff McAllister, who is studying toward her AA

degree in police science, is working toward a brown belt in

Karate, and stands 5'4” in height, was denied employment :

as a police officer with the Honolulu Police Department in

June, 1974, solely because she did not meet the Depart-

ment’s discriminatory and unvalidated 5’8” height require-

ment.

The Honolulu Police Department employs approximately

1461 sworn police officers, of whom only 10 (or approxi-

mately .7%) are women.

101. In July, 1975, plaintiff McAllister filed a complaint

in the United States District Court charging Honolulu offi-

cials with sex discrimination in violation of defendant

LEAA’s Equal Rights Guidelines, 38 Fed. Reg. 6415 (1978)

reissued (1974), McAllister v. Honolulu, Civ. No. 75-248

(D. Haw., filed July 17, 1975).

102. Several years earlier, in 1973, in response to a sex

discrimination charge filed with the defendants by Honolulu

police officer Lucile Abreu, the defendants determined that

the Department’s minimum height requirement was dis-

criminatory and not job related, and that the Department

thus was not in civil rights compliance. The defendants,

however, never terminated their LEAA funding to the

Honolulu Police Department; instead, the defendants con-

tinued to provide uninterrupted LEAA funding.

VII. IRREPARABLE INJURY

103. Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated have suf-

fered, and will continue to suffer, irreparable injury, eco-

nomic loss, humiliation, and denial of their constitutional

and statutory rights as a result of the defendants’ failure to

insure that LEAA funding is not used in a racially and sex-

ually discriminatory manner by law enforcement agencies

and as a result of the defendant’s failure to enforce their

constitutional and statutory civil rights obligations against

law enforcement agencies. Plaintiffs have no adequate,

plain or speedy remedy at law.

VIII. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

104. Defendants, acting unconstitutionally and in excess

of their authority, have violated rights secured to the plain-

tiffs and to the members of the class by § 518(c) and § 509

of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968,

as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 3766(c) and § 3757.

IX. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

105. Defendants, acting unconstitutionally and in excess

of their authority, have violated rights secured to the plain-

tiffs and to the members of the class by Title VI of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d et seq.

X. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

106. Defendants, acting unconstitutionally and in excess

of their authority, have violated rights secured. to the plain-

tiffs and to the members of the class by Executive Orders

11246 and 11375.

XI. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

107. Defendants, acting unconstitutionally and in excess

of their authority, have violated rights secured to the plain-

tiffs and to the members of the class by the Omnibus Crime

Control and Safe Streets Act, as ameniied; by Title VI of

the Civil Rights Act of 1964; by Executive Orders 11246

and 11375; and by the federal reguiations promulgated pur-

suant thereto, 28 C.F.R. Part 42, and the Equal Rights

Guidelines, 38 Fed. Reg. 6415 (1973), reissued (1974).

XII. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

108. Defendants, acting unconstitutionally and in excess

of their authority, have violated rights secured to the plain-

tiffs and to the members of the class by the Due Process

Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Con-

stitution.

XIII. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

109. Defendants, acting unconstitutionally and in excess

of their authority, have violated rights secured to the plain-

tiffs and to the members of the class by 42 U.S.C. § 1981.

XIV. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

110. Defendants, acting unconstitutionally and in excess

of their authority, have violated rights secured to the plain-

tiffs and to the members of the class by 42 U.S.C.

§ 1985(3).

XV. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

111. Defendants, acting unconstituionally and in excess

of their authority, have violated rights secured to the plain-

tiffs and to the members of the class by the Equal Protec-

tion Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United

States Constitution.

XVI. NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

112. Defendants, acting unconstitutionally and in excess

of their authority, have violated rights secured to the plain-

tiffs and to the members of the class by 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

XVII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray that this Court:

A. Assume jurisdiction of this cause.

B. Issue an order determining that this cause may pro-

ceed as a class action.

C. Enter a declaratory judgment declaring the acts,

practices and omissions of the defendants to be unconstitu-

tional and in excess of their authority, issue a preliminary

and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from

acting unconstitutionally and in excess of their authority,

and issue a writ of mandamus requiring the defendants to

act constitutionally and within their authority—all as man-

dated by § 518(c) and § 509 and the Omnibus Crime Con-

trol and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C.

§ 3766(c) and § 3757; by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of

1964, 42 U.S.C. §$§ 2000d et seq.; by Executive Orders

11246 and 11375; by the regulations promulgated pursuant

to the foregoing, 28 C.F.R. Part 42, and the Equal Rights

Guidelines, 38 Fed. Reg. 6415 (1973) reissued (1974); by the

Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United

States Constitution; by 42 U.S.C. § 1981; by 42 U.S.C.

§ 1985(3); by the Equal Protection Clause of the Four-

teenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; and

by 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

D. Issue a preliminary and permanent injunction and a

writ of mandamus requiring the defendants:

1. To immediately suspend and terminate all LEAA

funding to the Indiana State Police Department, the Wayne

County Sheriff's Department, and all other law enforce-

ment agencies which have been judicially determined to be

in violation of federal civil rights laws.

2. To immediately initiate administrative hearings to sus-

pend and terminate LEAA funding to the Richmond Police

Department, the Oakland Police Department, the Phila-

delphia Police Department, the Des Moines, Ames and

Newton Police Departments, the New Orleans Police De-

partment, the Portland Police Bureau, the Honolulu Police

Department, and all other law enforcement agencies which

have been or should have been determined by defendant

LEAA to be in civil rights non-compliance and which have

not voluntarily complied with the civil rights laws.

3. To immediately initiate proceedings to recover all

LEAA monies unlawfully spent by the above law enforce-

ment agencies.

4. To award LEAA funding only to those departments

which have been determined by the defendants to be in civil

rights compliance and to place all pending LEAA funding in

escrow until there has been a determination of civil rights

compliance.

E. Award to plaintiffs and to the members of the class,

as against defendants Velde, Work, Rice and Levi,

$10,000,000 in compensatory damages for injuries suffered

by them and $10,000,000 in punitive damages for injuries

suffered by them, as a result of defendants’ willful and ma-

licious refusals, which are unconstitutional and in excess of

their authority as set forth above, to insure that LEAA

funding is not awarded to governmental law enforcement

agencies engaged in racially or sexually discriminatory em-

ployment practices, and as a result of defendants’ willful

and malicious refusals (which are unconstitutional and in

excess of their authority) to enforce their federally man-

dated civil rights enforcement obligations.

F. Order the defendants to take such other appropriate

and immediate action as may be necessary to redress the

effects of the defendants’ unlawful acts, practices and omis-

sions as set forth herein.

G. Award plaintiffs costs and attorneys fees incurred in

the prosecution of this action.

H. Retain jurisdiction of this action until the defendants

have fully complied with the Orders of this Court.

I, Award such other and further relief as this Court may

deem just and proper.

Dated: Washington, D.C.

January 2, 1976

Respectfully submitted,

E. RICHARD LARSON

KATHLEEN WILLERT PERATIS

American Civil Liberties Union Foun-

dation

22 East 40th Street

New York, New York 10016

(212) 725-1222

MELVIN L. WULF

American Civil Liberties Union

410 First Street, S.E.

Washington, D.C. 20003

(202) 544-1681

WILLIAM E. CALDWELL

Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights

Under Law

. . 733 Fifteenth Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005

(202) 638-6700

T. MICHAEL PEAY

PAUL R. DIMOND

Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights

Under Law

733 Fifteenth Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005

(202) 638-6700

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Civ. No. 75-1444

Judge Corcoran

NATIONAL BLACK POLICE ASSOCIATION, ET AL.,

PLAINTIFFS,

-U-

RICHARD W. VELDE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTION AND A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Upon the attached Affidavits and exhibits attached

thereto, and upon all prior proceedings in this action, plain-

tiffs move this court for a preliminary injunction pursuant

to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and for a

writ of mandamus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361 ordering

the defendants, their agents and employees:

(1) To initiate administrative procedures to terminate

LEAA funding to the Philadelphia Police Department and

to other law enforcement agencies which the defendants

have determined to be in civil rights noncompliance; and,

(2) To investigate complaints and to make determinations

of civil rights compliance or noncompliance with regard to

the Richmond California Police Department and to other

law enforcement agencies regardless of the pendency of lo-

cal proceedings against such law enforcement agencies.

Plaintiffs request an oral hearing on this Motion pursuant

to Rule 1-9 e) of the Civil Rules of this Court.

/s/

E. RICHARD LARSON

KATHLEEN WILLERT PERATIS

American Civil Liberties Union Foun-

dation

22 East 40th Street

New York, New York 10016

(212) 725-1222

/s/

MELVIN L. WULF

American Civil Liberties Union

410 First Street, S.E.

Washington, D.C. 20003

(202) 544-1681

/s/

WILLIAM E. CALDWELL

Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights

Under Law

733 Fifteenth Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005

(202) 628-6700

/s/

T. MICHAEL PEAY

PAUL R. DIMOND

Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights

Under Law

733 Fifteenth Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005

(202) 628-6700

Dated: Washington, D.C.

January 14, 1976

UNITED STATES DISCTICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Civ. No. 75-1444

Judge Corcoran

PROPOSED ORDER

NATIONAL BLACK POLICE ASSOCIATION, ET AL.,

PLAINTIFFS,

-U-

RICHARD W. VELDE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

Upon plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction pur-

suant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

and for a writ of mandamus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361,

upon the affidavits and exhibits attached thereto, and upon

all prior proceedings in this action,

THE DEFENDANTS, THEIR AGENTS AND EM-

PLOYEES ARE HEREBY ORDERED:

(1) To initiate administrative procedures to terminate

LEAA funding to the Philadelphia Police Department and

to other law enforcement agencies which the defendants

have determined to be in civil rights noncompliance; and,

(2) To investigate complaints and to make determinations

of civil rights compliance or noncompliance with regard to

the Richmond California Police Department and to other

law enforcement agencies regardless of the pendency of lo-

cal proceedings against such law enforcement agencies.

SO ORDERED

Dated:

United States District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Civ. No. 75-1444

Judge Corcoran

NATIONAL BLACK POLICE ASSOCIATION, ET AL.,

PLAINTIFFS,

. -U-

RICHARD W. VELDE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

INDEX

AFFIDAVITS AND EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTION AND A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Consecutive

Affidavits and Exhibits Pages

Affidavit of E. Richard Larson .........600eeeeeeeeeee l

Exhibit A: Letter dated May 28, 1974 to U.S. Rep-

resentative Charles B. Rangel from LEAA Ad-

ministrator Donald E. Santarelli describing the

discriminatory and unlawful practices of the

Philadelphia Police Department as determined

by LEAA ..ccecccccccccccccccccvcccecsccceees 7

Exhibit B: Letter dated January 10, 1975 to U.S.

Representative Charles B. Rangel from LEAA

Administrator Richard Velde describing

LEAA’s refusal to initiate administrative proce-

dures to terminate LEAA funding to the

Philadelphia Police Department............++++ 32

Exhibit C: LEAA documents and correspondence

describing the discriminatory and unlawful prac-

tices of the Philadelphia Police Department, and

LEAA’s referral of the matter to the Civil

Rights Division of the Department of Justice ... 43

Exhibit D: LEAA computer printout describing the

eight million dollars in LEAA funding provided

to the Philadelphia Police Department .........

Exhibit E: Administrative complaint filed with

LEAA in April, 1973 against the Richmond Po-

EE Thivecénccacccdvensiecadecéenss

Exhibit F: Letter dated July 14, 1975 describing

LEAA’s inaction against the Richmond Police

IIIS i ven ntuvbns decdencéccctccccevenes

Exhibit G: LEAA documents indicating the sixteen

LEAA compliance reviews and the LEAA policy

of deeming to be “Inactive” complaints against

law enforcement agencies where litigation is

pending or contemplated .............ceeeeeees

Exhibit H: LEAA computer printout describing the

half million dollars in LEAA funding provided to

the Richmond Police Department ..............

Affidavit of plaintiff Penelope Brace..............

Exhibit A: Letter dated February 4, 1974 to plain-

tiff Brace from LEAA Director of the Office of

Civil Rights Compliance Herbert C. Rice advis-

ing that LEAA has referred the discriminatory

and unlawful practices of Philadelphia to the De-

PAPEMROME OF PUSEIED cc cccccccccccccdccccccccces

Affidavit of plaintiff Ollie Glover ..............45.

Exhibit A: Administrative complaint filed with

LEAA in July, 1975 against the Richmond Police

PPM ncotecccksvccccnceccetabdcotasvacns

Exhibit B: Letter dated August 22, 1975 to plaintiff

Glover from defendant Herbert C. Rice

describing LEAA’s refusal to assert jurisdiction

over plaintiff Glover's administrative complaint .

117

126

134

135

139

142

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Civ. No. 75-1444

Judge Corcoran

NATIONAL BLACK POLICE ASSOCIATION, ET AL.,

PLAINTIFFS,

-U-

RICHARD W. VELDE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

AFFIDAVIT

STATE OF NEW YORK )

) ss.

COUNTY OF NEW YORK)

E. RICHARD LARSON, being first duly sworn, deposes

and says:

1. I am one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs in the

above-styled action. I submit this Affidavit in support of

Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and a Writ of

Mandamus.

2. Approximately one year ago I began to acquaint my-

self fully with the manner in which the defendants in this

action carried out their federal civil rights enforcement

mandate. During this investigation I obtained a variety of

information. and documents from government officials and

civil rights. lawyers, and through the Freedom of Informa-

tion Act from the defendants.

THE DEFENDANTS’ CIVIL RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT

WITH REGARD TO THE PHILADELPHIA POLICE

DEPARTMENT

3. On January 22, 1975, in the office of United States

Representative Charles B. Rangel, I reviewed numerous

documents pertaining to the defendants’ civil rights en-

forcement policies and practices.

a. In one document, a letter dated May 21, 1974 to Mr.

Rangel from Donald E. Santarelli, then Administrator of

LEAA, Mr. Santarelli noted that LEAA had found “sys-

tematic” sex discrimination in the selection, assignment,

and promotion practices of the Philadelphia Police Depart-

ment, and that LEAA had found “retaliation and harass-

ment” by the Philadelphia Police Department against Plain-

tiff Penelope Brace because she had filed a complaint with

LEAA. (See Exhibit A attached hereto, pages 19-21, in-

fra.). Mr. Santarelli also stated that LEAA had “deter-

mined that many of the employment policies and practices

of the Philadelphia Police Department were discriminatory

based upon sex,” but that “no formal administrative hear- ,

ings have been held.” Instead, on “January 28, 1974, a

formal referral of this matter was made to the Civil Rights

Division of the U.S. Department of Justice.” (See Exhibit

A attached hereto, pages 19-20, infra.).

b. In another document, a letter dated January 10, 1975

to Mr. Rangel from defendant Richard W. Velde, Adminis-

trator of LEAA, Mr. Velde noted that “no formal adminis-

trative hearing was held by LEAA,” that “LEAA funds are

still going to the Philadelphia Police Department,” that in-

deed “two $1 million discretionary awards were recently

made,” and that “institution of proceedings to defer, sus-

pend, or terminate funding seems inappropriate in this case

[because] the impact upon all citizens of Philadelphia of

withdrawing the additional police protection being provided

was deemed to be on balance of more immediate conse-

quence.” (See Exhibit B attached hereto, pages 40-41 in-

fra.).

4. On August 11, 1975, I served a Freedom of Informa-

tion Act request upon defendant Herbert C. Rice, current

Director of LEAA’s Office of Civil Rights Compliance, re-

questing inter alia documents pertaining to LEAA’s civil

rights enforcement against the Philadelphia Police Depart-

ment. Enclosed with a return jwtter dated August 21, 1975

from Mr. Rice were numerous such documents.

a. In one document, a letter dated January 29, 1974 to

the Chief Deputy City Solicitor of Philadelphia from J.

Stanley Pottinger, Assistant Attorney General of the

United States, Mr. Pottinger noted that “the Attorney

General had authorized the filing of a civil action against

the Philadelphia Police Department.” (See Exhibit C at-

tached hereto, pages 46-47, infra.).

b. In another document, a mailgram dated February 1,

1974 to Philadelphia Police Commissioner Joseph O'Neill

from defendant Herbert C. Rice, Mr. Rice formally con-

firmed: THAT LEAA HAS DETERMINED THAT THE

PHILADELPHIA POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS

FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE LEAA EQUAL EM-

PLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY REGULATIONS, 28

C.F.R. 42.201 ET SEQ., SUBPART D. THE LEAA HAS

FURTHER DETERMINED THAT COMPLIANCE

WITH THESE REGULATIONS CANNOT BE

ACHIEVED BY VOLUNTARY MEANS. (See Exhibit C

attached hereto, page 48, infra.).

c. In a third document, a letter eivht months later, dated

September 20, 1974, to the Manag’ 7 Director of the City

of Philadelphia from LEAA Regivnal Administrator

Cornelius Cooper, Mr. Cooper stated that the “draft EEO

program developed by the Philadelphia Police Department”

violated eleven separate sections of the LEAA regulations,

28 C.F.R. §§ 42.301 et seg. (See Exhibit C attached here-

to, pages 49-50, infra.).

d. In an apparently subsequent document, an undated

letter to the Managing Director of the City of Philadelphia

from defendant Charles R. Work, then LEAA’s Deputy Di-

rector for Administration, Mr. Work stated that “continua-

tion funding” of the two one million dollar grants had been

“found to be programatically acceptable” and that “final ap-

proval of these grants is being considered in the context of

satisfactory progress in the suit filed by the United States

Department of Justice.” (See Exhibit C attached hereto,

pages 51-52, infra.).

5. On August 7, 1975, I served a Freedom of Information

Act request upon defendant Richard Velde requesting in-

ter alia an enumeration of LEAA funding to the Philadel-

phia Police Department. Enclosed with a return letter dat-

ed August 21, 1975, was a computer printout of

approximately 400 pages indicating in part that the

Philadelphia Police Department had received in excess of

eight million dollars in LEAA funding. (See Exhibit D at-

tached hereto, pages 53-58 in/ra.).

6. During the fall and winter of 1975, I had several con-

versations with Nathan Dodell, attorney for the defend-

ants, and with Andrew Strojny, LEAA’s Chief of the Com-

pliance Reviev’ Division. Both Mr. Dodell and Mr. Strojny

have advised me that no administrative hearing procedures

have been commenced against the Philadelphia Police De-

partment to terminate LEAA funding and that LEAA

grants have continued to be approved for the Philadelphia

Police Department.

THE DEFENDANTS’ CIVIL RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT

WITH REGARD TO THE RICHMOND CALIFORNIA

POLICE DEPARTMENT

7. In the Spring and Summer of 1975, I received from

plaintiff Ollie Glover and from various organizations,

including the Center for National Policy Review in

Washington, D.C. and Public Advocates, Inc. in San

Francisco, copies of the administrative complaint filed with

the defendants in April, 1978, by a coalition of seven civil

rights organizations against the Richmond Police Depart-

ment and against eighteen other law enforcement agencies

in California. That complaint outlined the discriminatory

practices of the Richmond Police Department and of other

police departments, and requested the “termination, or sus-

pension as appropriate, of funding for all LEAA recipients”

which were not in compliance with LEAA’s civil rights reg-

ulations. (See Exhibit E attached hereto, pages 24, 69-88,

infra.).

8. In July, 1975, I received a copy of a letter dated

July 14, 1975 to defendant Herbert C. Rice from William

H. Hastie, Jr., attorney for the complainants, wherein he

recounted: that LEAA initially contacted all nineteen police

departments; that on-site investigations were conducted

only upon the Berkeley, San Diego and San Francisco Po-

lice Departments; that subsequent negotiations occurred

concerning only the San Francisco Police Department; and '

that no further action was taken by LEAA with regard to

the other police departments—thus virtually no civil rights

enforcement was undertaken with regard to the Richmond

Police Department. (See Exhibit F attached hereto, pages

89-90, infra.).

9. In July, 1975, plaintiff Ollie Glover filed with the de-

fendants a charge of discrimination against the Richmond

Police Department. By letter dated August 22, 1975 to Ser-

geant Glover from defendant Herbert C. Rice, Mr. Rice

stated that LEAA “will defer asserting of jurisdiction” in

view of local litigation pending against the Richmond Police

Department. (See Exhibits A and B attached to the Affida-

vit of Ollie Glover, pages 137-142 infra.).

10. Some months earlier, in January, 1975, as modified in

April, 1975, I served a Freedom of Information Act request

upon defendant Herbert C. Rice requesting inter alia doc-

uments pertaining to LEAA complaint procedures and to

compliance reviews. Enclosed with a return letter dated

May 19, 1975 from Mr. Rice were numerous such docu-

ments. (See Exhibit G attached hereto, pages 91-116, in-

fra.).

a. The documents indicate the sixteen law enforcement

agencies which have been subject to LEAA compliance re-

views; the Richmond Police Department is not among such

law enforcement agencies. (See Exhibit G attached hereto,

pages 96-98, infra.).

b. The documents also indicate that administrative com-

plaints, filed with LEAA against law enforcement agencies

where local litigation is pending or even contemplated, are

deemed “Inactive.” (See Exhibit G attached hereto, pages

111-116, infra.).

11. On August 11, 1975, I served a Freedom of Informa-

tion Act request upon defendant Richard Velde requesting

inter alia an enumeration of LEAA funding to the

Richmond Police Department. Enclosed with a return let-

ter dated August 21, 1975, was a computer printout of ap-

proximately 400 pages indicated in part that the Richmond

Police Department had received in excess of half a million

dollars in LEAA funding. (See Exhibit H attached hereto,

pages 117-125, infra.).

THE DEFENDANTS’ CIVIL RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT

12. In November, 1975, the United States Commission

on Civil Rights published its report on Justice, LEAA and

their civil rights enforcement policies and practices: The

Federal Civil Rights Enforcement Effort, Vol. VI, To Ex-

tend Federal Financial Assistance, 270-373 (November,

1975). That report, too bulky to be attached hereto, is be-

ing filed with plaintiffs’ motion papers.

/s/

E. RICHARD LARSON

Sworn to before me this day of January, 1976.

/s/

BELLA GREENE

Notary Public

LARSON AFFIDAVIT

EXHIBIT A

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE

ADMINISTRATION

Washington, DC 20530

May 28, 1974

The Honorable Charles B. Rangel

House of Representatives

Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Rangel:

This is in further response to your recent letter regard-

ing the civil rights compliance programs of the Law En-

forcement Assistance Administration.

Our responses to your nine questions follow. Please let

me know if you wish us to furnish additional information.

1. On February 10, 1972 a United States District Court in

Alabama ordered the Alabama State Police to hire one

black trooper for every white trooper hired until the force

was 25 percent black. In December 1973 the Southern Pov-

erty Law Center filed a brief in that U.S. District Court

charging that the Alabama State Police have failed to fol-

low the court order and that only 25 blacks have been hired.

Of that number only 15 remain on the force.

(a) Is LEAA, either through SPA grants or “Discre-

tionary Grants,” still funding the Alabama State

Police?

The LEAA Grants Management Information System

indicates that the Alabama Department of Police Safe-

ty has received $402,617 in block grants funds in

FY 1972 and FY 1973. No discretionary grants were

made.

(b) If so, is any review of this police force's complia nce

with the 1972 court order under way?

The Court is reviewing the compliance of the

Alabama State Police with its order. LEAA’s Office of

Civil Rights Compliance is in touch with Civil Rights

Division, Department of Justice as to the progress of

the litigation and are presently awaiting a copy of the

most recent Circuit Court decision for review.

not to be in compliance with the earlier court order

will LEAA terminate its funding to the Alabama

State Police?

If the Court should find noncompliance with its or-

ders, LEAA will, of course, review the matter, to de-

termine whether deferral, suspension, or termination

of funding would be an appropraite remedy.

2. It is our understanding that in late 1973 LEAA sent

copies of its EEO-4 form to state and local police and sher-

iff's departments to be filled out and returned to LEAA’s

office in Washington. Will you make copies of the com-

pleted EEO-4 forms in your possession available to inter-

ested congresspersons and organizations upon request?

In 1972 and 1973 LEAA sent its 2000/1 Form to state and

local police and sheriff's departments to be filled out and re-

turned to LEAA. The Form was somewhat similar to the

EEOC Form EEO-4. We have made copies of the com-

pleted forms available upon request. However, please note

that the reporting form was only sent to funded agencies as

of June 1972, and that the response to two mailings of the

form was incomplete.

8. Would you please let me know how many pending com-

plaints of racial or sex discrimination LEAA has at pres-

ent, with the name of the law enforcement agency com-

plained about. It will not be necessary for you to give me

the name of the complaining person, or organization, if

your office keeps the name of the complainant confidential.

However, if the name of the complaining person or organi-

zation is divulged to the agency complained of, I would like

you to give that name to me as well.

OCRC is investigating allegations of discriminatory em-

ployment practices in each of the cases listed in attachment

#1. Pursuant to an intra Department of Justice agreement,

police brutality and correctional institution complaints are

initially processed by the Civil Rights Division. Complaints

of discrimination against educational institutions are

referred to the Office of Civil Rights of HEW for initial in-

vestigation. When investigative findings of discrimination

are made, that Division will coordinate with OCRC on ob-

taining compliance. Similar procedures are followed where

complaints are referred to OCR at DHEW for investigation

(medical and educational institutions).

Disclosure of the name of the complaining party in these

cases might prejudice on-going negotiations seeking amica-

ble resolution of the complaint. Further, it seems reasona-

ble that the disclosure of the name of the person complain-

ing to the agency complained about, does not relieve LEAA

of the responsibility of protecting the general confidence of

the identity of persons filing complaints with it.

4. In your response to my earlier inquiries concerning

LEAA’s civil rights enforcement effort (your response dat-

ed September 14, 1973) you stated that you were analyzing

the impact of police services in fourteen municipal police

departments, a sheriff's department, and a state highway

patrol. Would you please send me your survey forms used

for this study along with the study’s findings, identifying

the specific police agencies with the appropriate findings.

The Office of Civil Rights Compliance conducted civil

rights compliance reviews in fifteen police agencies. We

have indicated on the following pages several examples of

recommendations we have made relating to allocation of

services, where it appeared that some action by the agency

in question would be necessary for the agency to voluntari-

ly come into compliance.

Because negotiations are now pending with the agencies

listed, we do not feel free to identify the particular agency

in which specific recommendations have been made.

Some of the reviews in question were with staff assist-

ance from the Civil Rights Division of the Department of

Justice.

Compliance Reviews of Police Agencies

Conducted by OCRC

1. Dallas, Texas, Police Department

2. St. Louis, Missouri, Police Department

Cleveland, Ohio, Police Department

Portland, Oregon, Police Department

Baltimore, Maryland, Police Department

Phoenix, Arizona, Police Department

New Orleans, Louisiana, Police Department

Atlanta, Georgia, Police Department

South Carolina State Highway Patrol

10. Clark County, Nevada, Sheriffs Department

11. San Diego,California, Police Department

12. Newark, New Jersey, Police Department

13. Denver, Colorado, Police Department

14. Berkeley, California, Police Department

15. San Francisco, California, Police Department

Below are listed sample recommendations made in some

of these compliance reviews:

SOs Pr? =

1. Delivery of Services

Based on the data we have received, some disparity was

noted between districts for the reported police arrivals

(TC6 calls) for the call categories of burglary, injured per-

son, criminal assault and felony in progress. However, as

noted in a letter from the Police Department, firm conclu-

sions cannot be drawn because departmental procedures

have not required notification to the dispatcher of all arriv-

als at the scene.

Therefore, we suggest that the Police Department gather

and review the data necessary to ascertain if in fact, inequi-

table treatment it accorded some segments of the popula-

tion.

2. Community Services

The team reviewed a manpower allocation plan of the De-

partment and determined that services were responsive to

area needs as determined by numbers of requests for police

services. The response times, as we were able to interpret

them, indicated that the community is receiving equitable

services, and that in fact, higher crime areas tend to re-

ceive quicker responses to requests for service.

It is our understanding that the Department is

elaborating a program to more accurately interpret serv-

ices by analyzing tires of reception, dispatch, arrival of ve-

hicle and termination of service. We encourage the rapid

implementation of this program.

3. Delivery of Services

A disparity in response times was not noted for different

areas of the community, in part, because the Department

does not record the times the request for service is re-

ceived.

4. Services

It is our understanding that the deployment of services

by the Police Department has been determined by popula-

tion density, crime rate, and the number of calls for serv-

ice. We further understand that as data accumulates, the

Police Department will be better able to ensure that re-

quests for services throughout the city are responded to in

an equitable manner.

Recommendation

We urge the Police Department to continue its analysis

and evaluation of data, as it is accumulated, to determine if

services are equitably provided.

5. Delivery of Services to Community

An analysis of services performed by the Police Depart-

ment was limited because of the lack of recorded data and

an overtaxed police force.

Presumably, the current resource allocation study will

result in a more effective and equitable distribution of serv-

ices. We recommend that as part of present and future re-

source allocation studies, provisions be made to record data

in such a manner that it can be verified that areas of the

community identifiable by their racial or ethnic composition

are receiving equitable services.

6. Service to Community

Lack of records made it difficult for the review team to

make a determination that police services are equitably ad-

ministered to the community, Therefore we recommend:

A. That the Police Department develop and maintain

information that would indicate the response time

in individual districts, to determine if services are

equitably distributed throughout the city. This

data would be a natural part of an improved dis-

ape and record keeping system understood to

presently under consideration,

B. That records be developed that will make it possi-

ble to determine that the quality of services is eq-

uitable. This probably could beat be accomplished

by developing a procedure under which the call for

mah card is related to the report and resolution

records,

7. Service to Public

Police services to the community appear to be equitably

administered under the new Plan, As this Plan is adopted,

or should you adopt a different patrol system, we recom-

mend that you give priority to the evaluation of services to

the community to ensure equity in the provision of police

service to the public by race and ethnicity.

8. Service to Public

Based on the data available to us, a comprehensive analy-

ais of selected areas, representing diverse socio-economic

levels, ethnic and racial groupings, indicate that police

services were equitably administered, We base this conclu-

sion on a computerized study of response times, utilizing

statistical methods to analyse the variances between re-

quest time and dispatch time for the various communities,

However, a conclusive evaluation of services cannot be

made because there is no way to protect the number of calls

which might be made were it not a fact that the commu-

nities have no representative at the switchboard to receive

their calls,

We are requesting that within thirty days of receipt of

this letter, you forward us your plan for carrying out the

recommendations outlined in this letter, including a reason-

able time frame for implementation. Upon receipt of your

plan, we will set mutually agreeable goals which would

then be reviewed for progress in late 1974,

Members of our team are available for consultation and

review of these recommendations, if requested, For this

purpose, your representative may wish to contact the

OCRC staff. I am, of course, available to discuss this mat-

ter with you,

Sincerely,

HERBERT C, RICE, Director

Office of Civil Rights Compliance

* * * * *

Please note in reviewing these recommendations that the

OCRC Review Staff is aware that a rapid response time in

getting to a minority neighborhood may evidence an over-

zealous enforcement policy. We have attempted to deter-

mine if this is the case through community interviews

among minorities,

5. In March 1973 your agency promulgated two adminia-

trative guidelines governing equal employment opportuni-

ty. These guidelines required LEAA grantees to, (1) elimi-

nate discriminatory height requirements unless they could

be shown to be necessary for successful job performance,

and (2) required that LEAA grantees adopt an EEO plan,

(a) What follow up studies has LEAA undertaken to

assure that all grantees are in conformity with the

guidelines?

(b) What procedures has LEAA adopted to assure that

law enforcement agencies that have failed to elimi-

nate discriminatory height requirements, and/or

failed to file EEO programs and are not certified

as such are not receiving LEAA grants?

5. (a & b)

LEAA has provided technical assistance to state

planning agencies, regional planning units and recipient

agencies to assist them in preparation of appropriate EEO

programs, Upon conduct or reviews or investigations of

complaints we make recommendations concerning minimum

height requirements, when appropriate.

Beyond this, the LEAA Office of Inspector General

routinely checks on the existence and scope of EEO pro-

grams in the discharge of its audit function,

Attachment #2 is a copy of training materials used in the

training of criminal justice planning unit and operational

personnel, As indicated in the attached program, instruc-

tion was given at seven regional and state meetings in civil

rights compliance matters affecting the LEAA program,

with particular emphasis on the development of EEO pro-

grams in accordance with the LEAA guidelines, Further,

LEAA will soon issue a manual, designed as a technical as-

sistance aid in the development of EEO programs,

Beyond this, the Marquette Center for Criminal Justice

Agency Organization and Minority Employment Opportuni-

ties, and the International Association of Official Human

Rights Agencies (IAOHRA), provide through LEAA fund-

ed projects, technical assistance to state planning agencies,

regional planning units, and state and local criminal justice

agencies, and technical assistance in civil rights compliance

problems arising under the LEAA program,

Taken together, LEAA feels it has undertaken and is im-

plementing a comprehensive program to assure compliance

with the criminal justice planning and operational communi-

ty with the civil rights compliance requirements of the

LEAA program, particularly those relating to the LEAA

Guidelines requiring the preparation of Equal Employment

Opportunity Programs as a condition of the award of

LEAA funds,

Affected recipient agencies are not required to file their

EEO programs with either the SPA or with LEAA. They

must certify that they have prepared such programs prior

to receipt of new awards of LEAA monies, either block or

discretionary. It is the obligation of the SPA or the LEAA

regional office to determine that the certificate is on file

prior to funding.

5. (c) Would you forward to me a list of law enforcement

agencies that are scheduled for civil rights compliance re-

views in fiscal year 1974, if such a list exists?

The only law enforcement agency scheduled for review in

FY 1974 is the Norfolk Police Department. A compliance

review of that Department is presently being conducted by

an OCRC review team,

5. (d) Would you forward to me a list of law enforcement

agencies for which you have done civil rights compliance

reviews and your findings in auch reviews of those

agencies?

In the response to Question Number Four we have listed

police agencies where reviews have been conducted, We

are presently completing the review in the Norfolk,

Virginia, Police Department. In addition, we have con-

ducted reviews in the Rhode Island Department of Correc-

tions and the Union Correctional Institution in Raiford,

Florida,

5. (e) How many administrative and/or court proceedings

have been brought against violators of either guideline?

None,

5. () How many law enforcement agencies have complied

with these guidelines after threats by LEAA to commence

fund termination proceedings?

Threats by LEAA to begin fund termination proceedings

have not been necessary because voluntary compliance with

the guidelines has been achieved after discussion and nego-

tiation with the law enforcement agencies.

To the best of our knowledge, recipient agencies have

prepared EEO plans to the extent that they have adequate

data to do so,

We have no specific knowledge as to the scope of compli-

ance with the height guideline. Following complaint inves-

tigations or compliance reviews, a number of recipient law

enforcement agencies have lowered significantly, or

dropped entirely minimum height requirements.

6. On December 21 I was informed that LEAA had made a

grant to the City of Baltimore, Maryland public schools for

$54,000. The purpose of this grant was allegedly to admin-

ister a test to grammer school children to determine their

possible propensity to become juvenile delinquents.

With respect to Baltimore Public School Project, it is our

understanding that the Maryland SPA granted the

Baltimore School Board $54,000 to run a project called Ear-

ly Identification of Pre-delinquent and Delinquent Behav-

ior. The main purpose of this project was to develop behav-

ior problems which can be related to subsequent

pre-delinquency and/or delinquency.

The project’s staff included four professionals with con-

siderable experience and a clerk stenographer. Basically,

the Rosenburg First Grade Screening Test, the Pupil Be-

havior Inventory Test, and the California Test of Personali-

ty were administered to children throughout the school sys-

tem. The premise was that through the combination of

objective screening devices and standardized tests, a sys-

tem could be devised which would predict school maladjust-

ment and pre-delinquent behavior with an approximate 75

percent accuracy. The project was scheduled to evrire last

December 31. The school board asked for refuna.:.z, but it

was denied.

6. (a) Does LEAA have any other grants for such studies

currently runing? Where?

VISA, or Volunteers Influencing Student Achievement,

is a $120,000 project funded by the California SPA with

block grant funds “to help juveniles who develop any type

of personal problem which appears and affects their school

work.” The program operates only in the Placentia School

District. There are 20 schools in the program. Parents must

sign an authorization form.

We have been able to uncover no other program similar

in thrust to the Baltimore project.

6. (b) Has LEAA given any similar grants to educational

institutions or school districts in the past? Where? Are

there any reports?

There are no records indicating that LEAA has given

any similar grants to educational institutions or school dis-

tricts in the past.

6. (c) Does LEAA have any guidelines specifically gov-

erning this type of grant?

LEAA has not promulgated guidelines specifically gov-

erning this type of grant. It should be noted that the 1973

amendments to the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe

Streets Act, forbid grantees and others from transmitting

research or statistical information to unauthorized persons

and provide for a $10,000 maximum fine (see Section 524).

7. How has LEAA'’s civil rights compliance staff been ex-

panded since your last report to me (September 14, 1973)?

The Office of Civil Rights Compliance has increased its

full-time staff from 11 to 14. Our full-time temporary staff

is always complemented by students in criminal justice

schools, and this figure varies between 4 and 10 at various

times during the year. At present we have 3 full-time em-

ployees detailed to us who, based on FY 1974 allocation,

will become permanent members of our staff.

The employees by title, race, ethnicity, and sex are de-

tailed below:

Full-Time Permanent

Position

~”!

bad

1. Director WwW M

2. Attorney-Advisor (Civil Rights) WwW F

3. Attorney-Advisor (Civil Rights) WwW M

4. Attorney-Advisor (Civil Rights) WwW M

5. Supervisor, Complaint Resolution B M

6. Supervisor, Compliance Reviews W M

7. Grants and Contracts Officer B M

8. Supervisor, Contract Compliance B M

(Executive Orders)

9 WwW F

. Secretary (Steno)

Full-Time Permanent

Position Race Ser

10. Clerk (Typing)

11. Clerk-Typist

12. Program Assistant

13, Staff Aid

14, Civil Rights Compliance Specialist

wwowww

Ke Be Me Be)

Full-Time Temporary

15. Clerk-Typist B F

16. Staff Aid WwW F

17. Clerk Typist Chicano F

18. Clerk-Typist B F

19. Legal Assistant B M

Full-Time Detailed to OCRC

20, Civil Rights Compliance Specialist W F

(Corrections)

21. Legal Assistant Chicano M

7. (a) How many persons in LEAA Regional Offices are

assigned to monitor grantees civil rights compliance and

compliance with the EEO guidelines?

The Office of Civil Rights Compliance has not, to date,

decentralized. Therefore, there are no compliance person-

nel within our regional office.

However, regional office personnel assist us as needed in

our compliant and compliance reviews.

8. How many outstanding LEAA grants (either through

SPA’s or “Discretionary Grants”) are going to predom-

inately black colleges and universities?

(9) What percent of the total grants to universities does

this represent?

Of the approximately $42.9 million available for students

in the Law Enforcement Education Program (LEEP) in

Fiscal 1974, $1,119,526 has gone to a total of 40 predomi-

nantly black colleges and universities

Racial data on LEEP students from the inception of

LEAA in June 1969 to November 1973, the most recent in-

formation available, is as follows:

Black 16,699

White 151,944

Other 2,051

Unknown 8,603

The reason for the unknown category is because the appli-

cant has failed to answer the question on the application.

LEAA’s Grant Management Information System has

been able to identify 229 grants of LEAA assistance to

colleges and universities for Fiscal 1973 and 1974 to date.

Of this number, three grants were made to predominately

black colleges and universities. While this includes all cate-

gorical grants made by LEAA, it does not include all

subgrants made by the states during this period because

they have not been reported to LEAA by the state

planning agencies. Both the categorical grants and the

subgrants are for various purposes and are not limited to

providing educational assistance to a particular student.

9. On or about February 19, 1974 the Civil Rights Division

of the Department of Justice filed suit charging the

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Police Department with main-

taining policies and practices that discriminate against

women in job opportunities. The press release announcing

the filing of this suit noted that it was filed at the request of

LEAA which investigated the original compliants.

(a) Would you please detail the LEAA administrative

procedure that proceeded the filing of this suit.

On August 4, 1973 LEAA received a compliant from a

Philadelphia policewoman, Officer Penelope Brace, alleging

discrimination based on sex in the employment practices of

the Philadelphia Police Department. The Office of Civil

Rights Compliance conducted an investigation into the alle-

gations and determined that many of the employment poli-

cies and practices of the Philadelphia Police Department

were discriminatory based on sex.

In December, 1973, discussions began between the Office

of Civil Rights Compliance and representatives of the Po-

lice Department for the purpose of determining what reme-

dial action was appropriate and necessary to eliminate

those discriminatory policies and practices.

These discussions continued in January 1974, until actions

of the Philadelphia Police Department convinced LEAA

that the noncompliance which had been determined by our

investigation could not be corrected by informal means

within the meaning of 28 C.F.R. 42.206 and 28 C.F.R.

42.108. On January 28, 1974, a formal referral of this mat-

ter was made to the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. De-

partment of Justice. From the point on, LEAA played no

role in the events leading up to the formal filing of a suit on

February 19, 1974.

9. (b) Was there a formal administrative hearing held by

LEAA, leading to fund termination proceeding before this

suit was brought by the Justice Department?

A formal administrative hearing was not held. Instead,

this case was referred to the Civil Rights Division of the

U.S. Department of Justice for litigation to enforce the spe-

cific assurances of non-discrimination given by the

Philadelphia Police Department to LEAA pursuant to 28

C.F.R. 42.204 (a)(1).

9. (c) Is the Philadelphia Police Department currently

receiving any LEAA funding? What's LEAA policy with

respect to any application for funding received from the

Philadelphia Police Department during the pendency of the

lawsuit?

As stated in response to question 9(b), no formal adminis-

trative hearings have been held, and LEAA has not re-

sorted to the procedures for termination of funding. Thus,

block grant funding to the Philadelphia Police Department

from the Governor’s Justice Commission has not been af-

fected. Currently, however, discretionary grant applica-

tions by the Philadelphia Police Department are being con-

sidered in the context of a settlement of the issues raised in

this case.

9. (d) Would you please forward me copies of the LEAA in-

vestigative report on the sexually discriminatory practices

if the Philadelphia Police Department?

During the investigation of this complaint, a large file

was generated. While this file was the basis for the referral

to the Civil Rights Division, a formal “report” was never

compiled. However, the following is a composite list of the

findings of our investigation:

I. Systematic Discrimination

We found that the employment policies and practices

of the Philadelphia Police Department were discrimi-

natory based on sex in the following areas—

a. Selection. There was only a definite and very

small number of positions within the Police De-

partment which could be filled by women. At the

time of our investigation, there were approxi-

mately 68 positions open to women officers on a

force of over 7,000 police officers.

b. Assignment. All female officers were routinely

assigned to the Juvenile Aid Division, the unit

within the Police Department which deals pri-

marily with juvenile problems.

¢c. Promotion. There was a very limited number of

ranking positions to which a female officer could

be promoted. Women could hold a command posi-

tion only within the Juvenile Aid Division, which,

at the time of our investigation, allowed for a to-

tal of approximately five female ranking officers.

II. Retaliation and Harassment

Our investigation also found cause to believe that

Officer Brace was harassed and retaliated against

because she had filed a cor plaint. This finding was

based on information indicating that shortly after

Officer Brace filed her complaint, she was:

ta) transferred to the District farthest from her

ome;

(b) ordered to report for a psychiatric re-

evaluation;

days based on an anonymous letter; and

(d) brought before a Police Board of Inquiry on dis-

ciplinary charges stemming from the results of

the surveillance.

Until the filing of the complaint, Officer Brace had re-

ceived consistently superior performance ratings.

Your interest in the programs of the Law Enforcement As-

sistance Administration is appreciated.

Sincerely,

DONALD E. SANTARELLI

Administrator

Enclosures

Attachment #1

RESPONDENTS

1. St. Louis, Missouri, Police Department (race)

2. Lafayette Parish, Louisiana

(1) Police Jury and (2) Sheriff's Office (race)

8. Kansas City, Kansas, Police Department (race)

4. Department of Safety, Tennessee—State

Police (race)

5. Rochester, New York, Police Department (sex)

6. Birmingham, Alabama, Police Department (race)

7. Jacksonville, Florida, Police Department (race)

8. Austin, Texas, Police Department (national origin)

9. Anniston, Alabama, Police Department (race)

10. Marlboro County, South Carolina, Sheriff's

Dept. (referred to Office of Institutions

and Facilities, Civil Rights Division, for

litigation in April, 1974) (race)

11. Bessemer, Alabama, Police Department (race)

12. Nassau County, New York, Police Depart-

ment (race)

13. City of Meridian, Mississippi, Police De-

partment (race)

14. Dallas, Texas, Police Department FY 1973 (race)

15. South Carolina Department of Corrections (race)

16. California Department of Correc-

tions (national origin)

17. Madison, Wisconsin, Police Department (race)

18. Tampa, Florida, Police Department (sex)

19. Missouri Highway Patrol (race)

20. Columbia, South Carolina, Police Depart-

ment (race)

21. Mississippi State Division of Law Enfor:

ment (race)

22. Wheeling, West Virginia, Police Depart-

ment

(race)

S85

41.

43.

SKE SRESESBSRNRRES

Seattle, Washington, Police Department (sex)

Oakland, California, Police Department (sex)

Grenda, Mississippi, Sheriff's Department (race)

Grenda, Mississippi, Police Department (race)

Hawaii County, Hawaii, Police Department _ (religion)

Honolulu, Hawaii, Police Department (sex)

New Orleans, Police Department (sex)

New Orleans, Police Department (race)

Alexandria, Louisiana Police Department (race)

Dallas Co. Sheriffs Department (sex)

Indiana State Prison (referred to

OCRC Review Division) (race and sex)

Illinois State Police (sex)

New York State Troopers (sex)

Monroe County, New York, Civil Service

Commission (sex)

Marion, North Carolina Police Department (race)

Illinois State Police (race)

. Nineteen California Cities (referred

to OCRC Review Division) (race,

national origin and sex)

Philadelphia, Police Department (national origin)

Louisiana Office of State Examiner of Mu-

nicipal Fire and Police (race)

. Brunswick, Georgia, Police Department (sex)

Central Missouri State University

(referred to HEW, Office for Civil

Rights) (sex)

Prince Georges County, Maryland Police

Department (race)

Western Illinois University referred to

HEW, Office of Civil Rights (race)

Louisville Division of Police (race)

. Louisville Division of Police (race)

. Create Two Temporary District

Courts for Dallas County (race and sex)

. San Jose, California, Police Depart-

ment (national origin)

Charles County, Maryland, Sheriffs De-

partment (sex)

- Union Correctional Institution, Ratford,

Florida (race)

Denver, Colorado, Police Department (race)

Lafayette Parish Sheriff's Department FY

1974 (race)

Pennsylvania State Police Academy (sex)

Coastal Area Planning and Develop-

ment Commission, Brunswick,

Georgia (race and sex)

Metropolitan Police Department,

Washington, D.C. (race and sex)

. Kansas City, Missouri, Police De-

partment (national origin)

- City of Champaign, Illinois, Board of Fire

and Police Commission (race)

Philadelphia, Police Department (referred

to Civil Rights Division for litigation) (sex)

Coastal Area Planning and Devel-

oping Commission, Brunswick,

Georgia (race and sex)

Illinois Department of Corrections (sex)

Atlanta, Georgia Police Department (sex)

- DeKalb County, Georgia, Police Depart-

ment (sex)

. Gwinnett County, Georgia, Police Depart-

ment (sex)

. Prisoners Rights Project, Boston,

Massachusetts (race)

Hillsborough County, Florida, Sheriff's De-

partment (sex)

67. Plant City, Florida, Police Department (sex)

68. Temple Terrance, Florida, Police Depart-

ment (sex)

69. Willingsboro, New Jersey, Police Depart-

ment (race)

70. Metro. Criminal Justice Center, Drake

University—referred to HEW Civil

Rights (sex)

71. Orange County California, Criminal Justice

Council (race)

72, Charleston, West Virginia, Police Depart-

ment (race)

73. Dallas-Fort Worth Regional Airport, De-

partment of Public Safety (race)

74, Jacksonville, Florida, Sheriff's Department (race)

75. Lee County, Florida, Sheriff's Department (sex)

76. Detoxification Center, San Diego, Police

Department (sex)

77. Metropolitan, Washington, D.C., Police

Department (sex)

78. Daugherty County Police Department (race)

79. Spokane, Washington, Police Department (sex)

80. Sarasota County, Florida, Sheriff's Depart-

ment (sex)

81. Spokane County, Washington (sex)

82. Santa Clara County, California,

Sheriff's Department (national origin)

83. City of Berkeley, California, Police Depart-

ment (sex)

84. City of Rochester, Rochester, New York

Police Department (race)

85. Pennsylvania State Police (race)

86. Georgia Department of Offender

Rehabilitation (race and sex)

87. Georgia Department of Public Safe-

ty (race and sex)

88. Denver, Colorado Police Depart-

ment (national origin and sex)

89. Maryland State Penitentiary (race)

90. Prince George County, Maryland Sheriff's

Department (sex)

91. Chicago, Illinois Police Department

(referred to Civil Rights Division in con-

junction with litigation pending) (sex)

92. Santa Barbara County, California,

Sheriffs Department (race and sex)

93. Beaumont, Texas, Police Depart-

ment (national origin)

94. Houston, Texas, Police Department (national origin)

95. Fairfax County, Virginia, Police Depart-

ment (sex)

96. El Paso County, Texas, Jail (national origin)

97. New Jersey State Troopers (sex)

98. Missouri Law Enforcement Assistance

Council (race)

99. Northwest Missouri Law Enforcement As-

sistance Council (race)

100. Berkeley, California Police Department

(referred to Review Division of OCRC

and litigation by private individuals) (race, sex and

national origin)

101. Austin, Texas, Police Department (national origin

and sex)

102. Hendersonville, Tennessee, Police De-

partment (sex)

103. New York City, Nw York, Police Depart-

ment (race)

104. Arizona State Prison (race)

105. University of Illinois at Chicago (referred

to HEW, Office for Civil Rights) (race)

106. Florida Highway Patrol (national origin

and sex)

107.

108.

109.

110,

111.

112.

113.

114,

115.

116.

117.

118.

119.

120.

121,

122.

123.

124.

125.

126.

Texas Department of Public Safety (national origin)

Austin, Texas, Police Department (sex)

Chicago, Illinois, Police Department

(referred to Civil Rights Division in

conjunction with litigation (sex)

Sheriff's Office of Kay County,

Oklahoma (national origin)

Los Angeles, California Police De-

partment (national origin)

Rolland Park, Kansas Police De-

partment (national origin)

Fairway, Kansas Police Depart-

ment (national origin)

State of Wisconsin, Higher Educational

Aids Board (referred to HEW Office of

Civil Rights) (race)

New Orleans, Louisiana Police De-

partment (race and sex)

Vineland, New Jersey Police Department (sex)

Travis County, Texas Sheriff's De-

partment (race and sex)

Georgia Bureau of Investigation (race)

Dubuque County, Iowa Board of Supervi-

sors et. al. (race)

Illinois, Mental Health Police (referred to

Office of Civil Rights, HEW) (race)

Los Angeles, California Police De-

partment (race and sex)

Civil Service Board of Jacksonville

et. al (national origin

and sex)

Tuscaloosa, Alabama, Police Department (race)

Tuscaloosa, Alabama Juvenile Court (race)

Norwich, Connecticut, Police Department (sex)

Petersburg, Virginia Bureau of Police (race)

127. Tallahassee, Florida, Police Department (sex)

128, Leon County, Florida, Sheriff's Depart-

ment (sex)

LARSON AFFIDAVIT

EXHIBIT B

January 10, 1975

The Honorable Charles B. Rangel

House of Representatives

Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Rangel:

This is in response to your most recent letter regarding

the civil rights compliance activities of the Law Enforce-

ment Assistance Administration. Our answers to your ten

questions follow.

1. In response to Question 1, designated Part C, you in-

dicate that LEAA will review a finding of non-compliance

by the Court of Appeals regarding an order for the

Alabama State Police to achieve a ratio of State Troopers of

25 percent Black and 75 percent White. As I am sure you

are aware, on April 19, 1974, the Court of Appeals for the

Fifth Circuit Court found non-compliance by the State of

Alabama. What action is LEAA taking in response to this

finding?

More specifically, will there be an administrative review

conducted by LEAA preparatory to the termination of

funding to the State of Alabama?

Answer:

The only issue before the Court of Appeals at the time of

its April 1974 decision was whether the District Court had

abused its discretion in setting a quota hiring requirement

upon the Alabama Highway Patrol. They found that, under

the facts of the case, the finding was appropriate and neces-

sary. The Court of Appeals did not find that the highway

patrol was out of compliance with the lower court order.

The case has been remanded to the District Court for a fur-

ther order.

A hearing was held in the U.S. District Court on Septem-

ber 26. and we expect a further order soon. We are in con-

tact with attorneys from the Employment Section of The

Civil Rights Division. Department of Justice, who are ac-

tively involved in the prosecution of this case.

2. In response to Question 2 you indicate an “incomplete”

response to LEAA’s mailing of the EEO-4 forms to state

and local police and sheriff's departments. Will you take

any action against those funded police agencies who have

not responded to your EEO-4 forms?

Answer:

LEAA does not distribute the EEO-4 forms. A similar

form was issued by LEAA in 1972 to measure the utiliza-

tion of minorities and women in state and local police de-

partments. Most of these forms which were not returned

would have come from small departments. Virtually, all

large departments have responded.

3. In response to Question 3 you provide a list of cases in

Attachment 1. Again, without necessarily disclosing the ac-

tual parties involved, I would like you to inform me of the

resolution of the complaints which LEAA has been

investigating. Specifically, I would like to know when the

investigation results in a finding for the complainant and

the resulting action taken by LEAA.

Answer:

The following is a summary, taken from the list of cases

we previously provided to you, of the actions undertaken

by OCRC where we concluded that the facts would sustain

the complainant, or where we uncovered other problems of

non-compliance

1, St. Louis, Missouri, Police Department—race

We found that the background factors utilized in re-

jecting the complainant were discriminatorily applied.

The respondent, upon our request, agreed to re-

consider the complainant, not utilizing those factors.

After a significant number of months, the complainant

failed to reduce his weight to an acceptable level, and

his blood pressure was not within acceptable meas-

ures. We, therefore, removed the case from our active

files. Systemic problems are being addressed by the

Review Division of OCRC.

8. Austin, Texas, Police Department—National Ori-

gin

We disagreed with the complainant’s rejection by

the oral examination board. We have requested that

he be hired, with back pay, and that systemic reforms

be made of the police department’s hiring practices to

insure equal empioyment opportunities for minorities

and females. At this date, the department has not

been responsive. We have now referred the matter to

the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice

for consideration of appropriate legal proceedings to

secure compliance.

10. Marboro County, S.C., Sheriff's Department—

race.

After referral to the Civil Rights Division for litiga-

tion, respondent immediately integrated its jail facili-

ties. The Civil Rights Division of the Department of

Justice is monitoring for continued compliance.

27. Hawaii County, Hawaii, Police Department—

Religion.

We found that complainant, a Seventh-Day Advent-

ist, was terminated because of his religious beliefs and

practices. We unsuccessfully sought his reinstatement.

Religion is not covered by Section 515(c)(1) of the Om-

nibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act and we have

now referred the matter to the Civil Rights Division of

the Department of Justice for consideration of appro-

priate legal proceedings to secure compliance.

48. Create two temporary District Courts for Dallas

County, Texas—race.

We did not find that the individual complainant was

not hired because of race or sex. However, we deter-

mined that the respondent failed to affirmatively re-

cruit and inform the minority community of job vacan-

cies and, therefore, we required specific modifications

in its employment practices to rectify these problems.

We are also monitoring the results of those changes.

The first monitoring report was received recently and

will be evaluated.

55. Georgia, Coastal Area Planning and Develop-

ment Commission—race and sex.

In coordination with several other Federal agencies

which provide funds to the respondent, we are seeking

back pay for the complainant, who does not wish re-

employment. We also are seeking to obtain affirmative

recruitment of minorities.

59. Philadelphia, Police Department—sex.

As reported in earlier correspondence, the matter

was referred to the Civil Rights Division of the De-

partment of Justice, which instituted legal proceed-

ings. The matter is presently before the court.

69. Georgia Coastal Area Planning and Develop-

ment Commission—race and sex.

Results are the same as in case number 55, except

that we are seeking reinstatement for the complainant.

68. Temple Terrace, Florida, Police Department—

sex.

The complaint was filed by the National Organiza-

tion of Women and did not involve any specific com-

plainant. We found that the respondent needed to

make some of the questions neuter on its application

form. This has been done by the respondent.

75. Lee County, Florida Sheriff's Department —sex

(employment), race (facilities).

Subsequent to our initial investigation of sex dis-

crimination in the respondent’s employment practices,

we discovered that the jail facilities are partially seg-

regated by race. We are currently attempting to se-

cure voluntary compliance in both these areas.

4. In response to my Fourth Question, you list police

agencies in which compliance reviews have been conducted

by the Office of Civil Rights Compliance and indicate that

recommendations have been made regarding the allocation

of services by police departments, while stating that you

feel you are not free to provide information in the nature of

recommendations made. I would like to receive the survey

forms that are used by LEAA in its compliance reviews of

police agencies so that I might know what questions are

asked and what areas are being investigated. Further, it

appears to me that your policy of not making service dis-

crepancies public is counter-productive in your current ne-

_ gotiations. It seems to me that the threat of publicized

communities would be a tremendous bargaining asset as I

am sure no police agency wants to be publicized as discrimi-

nating in regard to its allocation of manpower and services

to particular communities within a city.

I would hope that you would reconsider this policy and

provide me with information on the recommendations that

have been made to specific police departments. Further, I

believe non-disclosure of this information is inconsistent

with the Freedom of Information Act and could be obtained

through administrative action. In your list of sample recom-

mendations made in compliance reviews to police forces,

specifically in Subsections 5 and 6, it is stated that the lack

of police department records makes it impossible for LEAA

to make a determination and therefore no recommendation

can be set forth. Why is there a dependence on police de-

partment records? LEAA has a well funded research capac-

ity and the ability to investigate the situation itself. Is not

an investigation conducted by LEAA to determine the facts

where adequate police department records do not exist?

Answer:

I have enclosed a copy of the LEAA “Civil Rights Com-

pliance Review Manual for Police Agencies,” which con-

tains the survey forms you requested.

LEAA does not have the internal capacity to collect the

civil rights compliance data for every department in which

it does a compliance review where the department itself

may not collect data. OCRC has, in the process of compli-

ance reviews, conducted community interviews and taken

statistical samples where data is lacking and cannot be gen-

erated by the police department.

5. Your response to my question denoted 5A indicates

that LEAA has initiated no action itself regarding provid-

ing technical assistance to state planning agencies to assist

them in preparation of appropriate EEO programs. Is

LEAA contemplating its own compliance program to deter-

mine whether height guidelines are being complied with by

recipient agencies?

Answer:

As indicated in our response to your previous letter,

LEAA has provided a mechanism to furnish expert techni-

cal assistance in equal opportunity matters to criminal jus-

tice agencies through a contract with the International As-

sociation of Official Human Rights Agencies (IAOHRA) and

a grant to the Marquette University Center for Criminal

Justice Agency Organization and Minority Employment Op-

portunities. Enclosed for your information is a copy of

LEAA’s recently published Equal Employment Opportuni-

ty Program Development Manual.

LEAA makes recommendations concerning minimum

height requirements, when appropriate, as part of the com-

plaint investigation or compliance review procedure.

6. I am amazed by your response to Question 5C in

which you indicate that the only law enforcement agency

scheduled for a compliance review in FY 1974 is the

Norfolk Police Department. I understand that only two

compliance reviews have been made in the last three years

by the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration. This

record does not appear to be one of vigorous civil rights

compliance and I would like an explanation as to why only

one compliance review of a police department has been

scheduled for 1974 and why there has been such a limited

number of compliance reviews by the Office of Civil Rights

Compliance. I would also like to receive a copy of the com-

pliance reviews which have been completed.

Answer:

LEAA recently has focused its efforts on pre-award com-

pliance reviews in order to prevent funding of agencies

which practice discrimination. As a result, staff time to con-

duct systemic compliance reviews of recipient agencies has

been limited.

However, LEAA does have a record of vigorous civil

rights compliance activity, exemplified by systemic compli-

ance reviews in 18 major criminal justice agencies. Other

systemic reviews will be conducted during fiscal year 1975.

Negotiations for voluntary compliance are continuing in

some of the agencies where we have conducted systemic re-

views. We have not made copies of documents relating to

these reviews available to the public because we believe

that to do so might prejudice our negotiations.

A copy of the LEAA-funded study of minority employ-

ment practices of the Chicago Police Department is en-

closed.

With the exception of Chicago, the copies of compliance

reviews which you requested cannot be supplied because

they do not exist. The typical systemic compliance review

involves the collection of a great deal of raw data, from

which are drawn specific recommendations for corrective

actions to the department in question. No report analyzing

the information gathered on a particular department ordi-

narily is produced.

However, when voluntary compliance is achieved or legal

proceedings to enforce compliance initiated, data relating to

the departments involved is released to the public.

7. In response to Question 7 regarding the expansion of

the Civil Rights Compliance staff you provided me with a

list of employees by title, race, ethnicity, and sx. Al-

though I did not request this information, I welcome it for

it provides the basis for another question. It appears to me

that the Office of Civil Rights Compliance needs a compli-

ance investigation of its own. It appears from your list that

the top four positions in the office are held by whites, that

there are no Black attorneys working in the Office of Civil

Rights Compliance Review and that out of the positions

which I can identify as professional, only three are held by

Blacks. Out of the twelve non-professional positions, how-

ever, eight are held by Blacks. Have efforts been made to

hire Black attorneys in the Office of Civil Rights Compli-

ance? If there is an affirmative action plan for equal em-

ployment opportunity for the LEAA I would like to receive

a copy.

Answer:

I have enclosed a copy of the LEAA affirmative action

plan. Two of the Blacks of OCRC’s professional staff are

law graduates, and one of these is awaiting the results of

the District of Columbia bar examination. The OCRC staff

has been integrated thoroughly on the basis of race, sex,

and ethnicity since it was formally organized as an office in

May 1971. Blacks are well represented in the various levels

of supervision and responsibility within OCRC.

8. Your response to Question 7A indicates that there is

no ongoing civil rights compliance activity in the LEAA re-

gional offices. Even if the Office of Civil Rights Compliance

is not physically located in these offices is there not an

LEAA official with responsibility for civil rights compliance

on a day-to-day basis?

Answer:

Centralization of coordination efforts in civil rights mat-

ters at the regional level through a single individual has not

always worked well. Some offices designate individuals to

coordinate compliance activities, but most coordination of

this character is carried on by the LEAA state program

representative for the state in question.

9. Your response to Question 8 indicates that grants pro-

vided by LEAA directly to colleges and universities are not

being given to predominantly Black colleges and universi-

ties. Out of 229 grants provided in FY 1973 and 1974 to

date only three grants have been received by Black univer-

sities. Such a record is bitter irony given the fact that many

of these grants have been given to study conditions in the

Black community. Once again we see the phenomenon of

white scholars being given federal money to study Black

folks. This situation is intolerable and must be investigated

so thai Black colleges and universities who have the

greatest expertise can get a fair share of research money

which would, of course, be of tremendous assistance to

them in providing their educational function for the Black

community and would at the same time provide better qual-

ity of study and recommendation for the federal govern-

ment for our policy determinations. I would like to receive

a description of the purpose of each of the 229 grants that

have been awarded and the name of the universities to

which they have been awarded.

Answer:

Enclosed is the most recent computer printout from

LEAA’s Grant Management Information System disclosing

594 Grants to educational institutions. The reason for the

large increase in the number of grants is the result of con-

tinuous updating of the data base. A large part of this in-

crease is because grantor agencies participating in the

LEAA programs often wait to the conclusion of a fiscal

year before reporting certain types of grants.

The only program available to retrieve the information

you requested is to ask for all grants going to educational

institutions. In addition to grants to colleges and universi-

ties, grants to 23 other types of educational institutions are

included. They are noted with a red asterisk. The 571

grants to colleges and universities fund a variety of proj-

ects such as campus security, evaluation of criminal justice

programs, graduate research fellowships, and student in-

ternship programs. Twenty of these grants went to 12 pre-

dominantly Black schools. They are noted with a green as-

terisk. The lack of participation of these schools can be

explained in part by the fact that many of them do not offer

graduate programs.

The printout lists only a small percentage of the student

internship grants. A request for an intership grant is nor-

mally initiated by the student. The increase in the percent-

age of Black college students going to predominantly white

institutions may partially account for the low number of in-

ternship grants to predominantly Black institutions.

10. In regard to your response to my Question 9 concern-

ing the investigation of the Philadelphia Police Depart-

ment, it is my understanding that the LEAA statute, as

amended by the Congress in 1973, requires a termination of

funding to agencies for which has been found a non-

compliance which cannot be corrected by informal means

within the meaning of 28 C.F.R. 42.206 and 28 C.F.R.

41.108. Yet in your response to number 9C, you indicate

that no formal administrative hearings have been held and

LEAA has not resorted to the procedures for termination

of funding. In failing to terminate funding to the police de-

partment are you not presently in violation of the law?

Answer:

No formal administrative hearing was held by LEAA

leading to fund cutoff before the Philadelphia suit was

brought by the Justice Department. A court action was

brought for three reasons:

(i) In January 1974, LEAA was informed by the

City of Philadelphia Solicitor’s Office that Officer Pe-

nelope Brace, the individual who had filed a complaint

with LEAA and the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission, would be removed from the Philadelphia

Police Force in a matter of days. LEAA had reason to

believe that Officer Brace’s removal was ordered in re-

taliation for her filing complaints with LEAA and the

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Only a

court ordered injunction, which the Department of

Justice ultimately obtained, could have prevented this

firing and kept Officer Brace on the police force.

(ii) The novelty of the question of utilization of wom-

en in police service was and still is in need of resolu-

tion in a court of law. Reed v. Reed, 401 U.S. 71 (1971)

extended coverage of the Equal Protection Clause of

the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Con-

stitution to women. This coverage was broadened to

include discrimination in employment in Frontiero v.

Laird, 411 U.S. 677 (1973), but not Federal Court

above the District Court level has yet considered com-

prehensively the critical issue as to whether sex is a

valid criterion for selecting persons for police work

from a Fourteenth Amendment—equal protection—

point of view, or from the point of view of statutory

provisions such as Section 518(c)(1), which are derived

from the Fourteenth Amendment. LEAA thought it

desirable to obtain a more authoritative ruling of the

Federal courts on this issue before attempting to en-

force compliance and causing disruption in funding the

Philadelphia Police Department which could result

from an erroneous application of the law.

(iii) The extent to which employment discrimination

is covered by Section 518(c) of the Omnibus Crime

Control and Safe Streets Act is open to varying inter-

pretations. LEAA did not rely on Section 518(c) in

referring the case to the Civil Rights Division. LEAA

relied on its equal employment opportunity regula-

tions, 28 C.F.R. 42.301 et seg., which require LEAA

to pursue court action and not administrative action to

resolve matters of employment discrimination.

LEAA funds are still going to the Philadelphia Police De-

partment. Two $1 million discretionary awards were re-

cently made to continue the funding of two task force

patrols in the city’s high-crime areas. LEAA originally de-

ferred funding of these proposals to assure appropriate

progress in the satisfactory resolution of the litigation.

With the complainant, Penelope Brace, reinstated to her

position with the Philadelphia Police Department, and the

difficult issues of discrimination because of sex being con-

sidered in an orderly manner by the court, institution of

proceedings to defer, suspend, or terminate funding seems

inappropriate in this case.

The impact upon all citizens of Philadelphia of with-

drawing the additional police protection being provided was

deemed to be on balance of more immediate consequence.

These grants were specifically oriented to provision of bet-

ter police protection in the high crime areas of the city and

the effect of withdrawal of this protection would impact

harshly on the citizens least able to protect themselves.

The funds in question were applied for in October 1973.

The Philadelphia Regional Office of LEAA agreed at that

time to pay the police department’s pre-agreement ex-

penses if the awards were eventually granted. The City has

expended virtually all of the $2 million. Our decision to fund

is not an endorsement of the Police Department’s present

employment practices. If the court determines that the

Philadelphia Police Department is engaging in discrimina-

tion because of sex in its employment practices, LEAA will

review its grants to Philadelphia in order to determine if

further proceedings to defer, suspend, or terminate LEAA

funding to the City of Philadelphia would assist in achieving

full compliance with the court order.

LEAA’s view of Section 518(c)(1) of the Act is that it

applies to employment matters where the primary purpose

of a program or activity, funded under the Omnibus Crime

Control and Safe Streets Act, is employment related or

where discrimination in the employment practices of a re-

cipient of LEAA funds could cause a beneficiary to be ex-

cluded from an LEAA-funded activity on the ground of

race, color, national origin, or sex. Whenever the Adminis-

trator determines that a State government or unit of local

government has failed to comply with Section 518(c)(1) of

the Act and the Governor of a State fails to secure compli-

ance, initiation of an administrative hearing under Section

509 of the Act is required. However, where the Adminis-

tration is of the view that it does not have sufficient evi-

dence or legal guidance before it to determine that there is

failure to comply with Section 513(c)(1) but only has reason

to believe that a violation of Section 518(c)(1) but only has

reason to believe that a violation of Section 513(c)(1) has

occurred, it is proper under Section 513(c)(3) to ask the At-

torney General to bring a civil action in the appropriate

United States District Court.

You will also be interested to know that early in calendar

year 1975 we plan to submit for internal review by LEAA

managers and Department of Justice officials regulations

which would implement Section 518(a) of the Act. External

review by the civil rights community and criminal justice

planning and operational groups will also be sought.

Your continued interest in these matters and in the pro-

grams of the Law Enforcement Assistance is appreciated.

Sincerely,

Richard W. Velde

Administrator

Enclosure:

LARSON AFFIDAVIT

EXHIBIT C

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

22 East 40th Street

New York, N.Y. 10016 (212) 725-1222

August 11, 1975

Mr. Herbert C. Rice, Director

Office of Civil Rights Compliance

Law Enforcement Assistance Administration

United States Department of Justice

Washington, D.C. 20530

Re: FOIA Request

Dear Herb:

Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C.

§552, I hereby request copies of the following documents:

1. All documents, memoranda and letters to the City of

Philadelphia, to the Philadelphia Police Department, to

their representatives, and to the chief executive of the

State of Pennsylvania or his/her designee, indicating

OCRC’s belief that the Philadelphia Police Department is

not or was not in civil rights compliance with the Safe

Streets Act, Title VI, and/or LEAA regulations and

guidelines.

2. All documents, memoranda, and letters to the City of

Portland [Oregon], to the Portland Police Department, to

their representatives, and to the chief executive of the

State of Oregon or his/her designee, indicating OCRC’s be-

lief that the Portland Police Department is not or was not

in civil rights compliance with the Safe Streets Act, Title

VI, and/or LEAA regulations and guidelines.

3. All post-investigation documents, memoranda, and

letters to an LEAA recipient or subgrantee, to its repre-

sentatives and to the chief executive of a State or hi

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.