# Appendix — Richard W. Velde v. National Black Police Association, Inc. > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385007_1933%3A2 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1982 - **Citation:** 458 U.S. 591 ## 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 Nov 19 19 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. 1 Dec Dec 1976 Jan Dec Jan Jan 2 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, J. 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 Feb Feb 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 17 07 14 15 4 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) 5 RELEVANT DOCKET ENTRIES UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 3--15-77 4-26-77 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, "8 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 DC 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 5-14-80 5-19-80 5-27-80 6-3-80 6-16-80 06-25-80 7-11-80 08-01-80 08-01-80 7 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 10-22-80 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 04-01-81 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 10 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 11 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, 13 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 14 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. 15 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. 16 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. 17 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 18 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- 19 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 20 . (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. 21 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 23 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- 24 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- 25 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. 27 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 30 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 31 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 34 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 35 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- 36 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. 37 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 38 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 39 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 40 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. 41 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- 42 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- 43 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- 44 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. 45 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 46 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. 47 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 48 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 a 49 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 50 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 . 69 89 91 117 126 134 135 139 142 51 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 52 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. 53 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- oA 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 55 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- 56 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 57 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 58 the litigation and are presently awaiting a copy of the most recent Circuit Court decision for review. (c) If the Alabama State Police is found by the court 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 59 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 60 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 61 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 62 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 63 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 64 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, 65 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, 66 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. 67 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 = = ° SY ~”! ® 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) 68 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 69 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 inves [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385007_1933%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.