Discrimination: Chicago’s
Employment Exams
City of Chicago’s Police and Firefighter Departments
Authors: Sivonnia Hunt, Anna Carvalho, and
Katelyn Nassin, 2013
Chicago Discrimination
Hunt,
Carvalho & Nassin
|1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................... 2
FACTS OF LEWIS V. CITY OF CHICAGO .......................................................................................... 2
I.
City of Chicago’s hiring procedures.............................................................................................. 2
a.
i.
Requirements to be eligible for department hiring. ...................................................................... 2
ii.
Frequency and number of applicants............................................................................................ 3
b.
Statistics of candidates who sit for the test. .................................................................................. 3
c.
The 1995 required test and the beginning of Lewis v. City of Chicago. ...................................... 3
II.
LEWIS’ CASE TRAJECTORY. ............................................................................................................ 4
a.
Motion for Summary Judgment Denied in 2000 and Pretrial Rulings on Discovery began in
2003. ................................................................................................................................................ 4
b.
In 2005 Plaintiffs win after an eight-day trial. ............................................................................. 5
c.
Post-trial 2007 rulings, requirements handed down by the Court for the City of Chicago and
Stay pending appeal is granted. .................................................................................................... 5
d.
In 2008 and 2009, the Appellate Court reversed based on statute of limitation, an order for
rehearing en banc is denied, the Court grants Writ of certiorari, and Solicitor General is
invited to write brief. ..................................................................................................................... 7
e.
Solicitor General was allowed to participate and SCOTUS reverses the Appellate Courts
decision in 2010. ............................................................................................................................. 8
f.
From 2011 to 2012, the Appellate Court affirms the District Court’s decision except as it
relates to the first batch of hires, and the court denies a motion of hired applicants to be
included in the class of injured parties......................................................................................... 8
III.
DISCRIMINATION NEXUS BETWEEN CHICAGO FIRE DEPARTMENT AND CHICAGO POLICE
DEPARTMENT. ................................................................................................................................. 9
IV.
RACIAL DEMOGRAPHICS .............................................................................................................. 12
a.
The effects of bringing suit. .......................................................................................................... 12
b.
Reverse Racial Discrimination Claims ........................................................................................ 15
CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................................... 16
Chicago Discrimination
Hunt,
Carvalho & Nassin
|2
INTRODUCTION
When does hard work pay off? Does it pay off depending on the color of your skin? Do
you have more of chance of achieving your goals in life if you are one race or the other? These
are questions that many people have faced and that many have today. Trouble constantly lurks
behind the scenes of African Americans who work hard for a chance to succeed along with their
white counterparts. On the other hand, white individuals also feel hurt and betrayed because
their selection is being looked over to diversity the City of Chicago’s police force and fire
departments. After a long litigation battle in discrimination, the 7th Circuit is just making a
decision and ordering the City to hire blacks who did qualify for police and firefighter jobs based
on entrance exams. Some blacks are denied the opportunity to fight for their employment rights
in hiring because they are not considered “a class” of individuals who were hurt.
This case study analyzes Lewis v. City of Chicago, a race discrimination case, and looks
into racial demographics and issues that have risen from Chicago’s Police and Fire Departments.
I.
FACTS OF LEWIS V. CITY OF CHICAGO
a. City of Chicago’s hiring procedures
i. Requirements to be eligible for department hiring.
To be hired by the Chicago Fire Department, a potential applicant must meet a set of
minimum qualifications and must pass a series of screening tests.1 First, an applicant must be
over the age of 19 but under the age of 35. Id. An applicant must also be a resident of the City
of Chicago and possess a valid driver’s license. Id. Furthermore all applicants must have
minimum of a high school diploma or a GED. Id. If an applicant meets these minimum
qualifications they may then sign up for the written examination. Id. Depending on the outcome
1
2006 Firefighter/EMT Examination Announcement,
http://www.publicsafetyrecruitment.com/apps/forms/2006/firefighterEMTexam.PDF, (accessed Feb 16, 2013).
Chicago Discrimination
Hunt,
Carvalho & Nassin
|3
of that written examination, applicants who receive a call back must then pass a background
investigation, a medical examination, a drug screen, and a physical abilities test. Id.
ii. Frequency and number of applicants.
The first step, once a potential applicant meets the minimum requirements, is the written
exam. However, this written exam is held very infrequently. Cynthia Dizikes, Fewer Black
Firefighters in the ranks, Chicago Tribune (Mar. 12, 2010). A majority of fire departments in
Illinois are required to hold their qualifying exams approximately every three years. Id.
However, Chicago is exempt from this requirement. Id. Chicago’s past three exams have been
held in 2006, in 1995, and in 1985. Id.
b. Statistics of candidates who sit for the test.
As of 1995, African Americans represented twenty two percent of the Chicago Fire
Department. Id. Since 2005 that percentage has decreased to approximately eighteen percent,
though African Americans make up approximately thirty-four percent of the general population
of the city. Id. “In 1995, blacks represented 36 percent of those who took the exam.” Id.
However, only 2.2% of African Americans who took the test wound up in the highly qualified
group, in comparison to 12.6% of whites who took the test. Lewis v. City of Chicago, 2005 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 42544 at *5 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 22, 2005). In contrast, 93.45% of whites and 72.3% of
African Americans who took the test were considered at least qualified. Id. at *11
c. The 1995 required test and the beginning of Lewis v. City of Chicago.
The test given in 1995 had a total possible score of 100. After the test was given, the
City determined that a passing score was 65/100.2 Individuals with a score between 65 and 88
Chicago Lawyer’s Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, 1995 Chicago Firefighter Examination Class Action
Website, http://www.cfd1995testlitigation.com/FAQ.aspx#1 (accessed Feb. 16, 2013).
2
Chicago Discrimination
Hunt,
Carvalho & Nassin
|4
were determined to be qualified. Lewis v. City of Chicago, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS at *6.
Individuals who scored between 89 and 100 were considered well qualified. Id.
In 1995, approximately 26,000 individuals took the written exam. Lewis v. City of
Chicago, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS at *5. As a result, on March 21, 1997, eight plaintiffs filed a
class action suit against the Chicago Fire Department alleging the 1995 test had a disparate
impact on African Americans. Id. at *1. That plaintiff class ultimately grew to include 6,000
applicants. Id.
II.
LEWIS’ CASE TRAJECTORY.
a. Motion for Summary Judgment Denied in 2000 and Pretrial Rulings on
Discovery began in 2003.
This case first made it to court in 2000 when the defendant, the City of Chicago filed a
motion for summary judgment based on the argument that the plaintiff’s suit was not timely.
Lewis v. City of Chicago, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7304 at *2 (N.D. Ill. May 25, 2000). Thus, the
City argued, the suit was barred by the statute of limitations and should be dismissed. Id. The
Court denied the City’s motion for summary judgment reasoning that the city’s “ongoing
reliance” on the discriminatory 1995 test results were a continuing violation and therefore within
the statute of limitations. Id. Thus the plaintiffs had successfully shown that there was at least
some evidence of an ongoing discriminatory hiring practice by the Chicago Fire Department.
The Court’s 2000 ruling will become pivotal when, in 2003, the plaintiffs and defendants
are again before a judge to appeal some pretrial discovery rulings made by a magistrate judge.
Lewis v. City of Chicago, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10826 (N.D. Ill. June 25, 2003). A magistrate
judge had granted the plaintiffs a protective order regarding communication between the
plaintiffs and an attorney. Id. at 2. While the court disagreed with the way the magistrate judge
came to her decision, the court found that because the court had, in the 2000 motion for summary
Chicago Discrimination
Hunt,
Carvalho & Nassin
|5
judgment, found that there was a “continuing course of action” the discovery issue was moot. Id.
at *3.
b. In 2005 Plaintiffs win after an eight-day trial.
Six years after the plaintiffs initially filed their lawsuit the case went to trial. In an eight
day long bench trial in January of 2004, followed by eight months of post-trial briefings, the
plaintiffs and defendants argue the merits of the case. Lewis v. City of Chicago, 2005 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 42544 at *2 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 22, 2005). Ultimately, in March of 2005, the Court handed
down a ruling, holding the Chicago Fire Department’s hiring practices to be unlawful under Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Id. at *3. The Court held that the evidence at trial revealed
that: “(a) the 1995 Test may not be a reliable measure of the four cognitive abilities it was
intended to measure; (b) the 89 cut-off score was a statistically meaningless benchmark; (c) even
if the 1995 Test could reliably measure what it was supposed to measure, it could not distinguish
between those who were qualified for the position of CFD firefighter and those who were not;
and (d) less discriminatory, and equally convenient, selection strategies were available.” Id. at
**2-3.
This ruling was an important step for the plaintiffs, but it would take more than five years
before the appeals end and the relief begins.
c. Post-trial 2007 rulings, requirements handed down by the Court for the City of
Chicago and Stay pending appeal is granted.
The parties are back in court almost exactly two years later, in March of 2007, so that the
court can rule on several of the disagreements between the parties on the remedies required.
Lewis v. City of Chicago, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24378 (N. D. Ill. Mar. 20, 2007).
The first issue was about the amount of effort the City had to put into finding potential
plaintiffs. Id. at *5. The Court rules, that the city is not required to use skip-tracing to find
Chicago Discrimination
Hunt,
Carvalho & Nassin
|6
potential class members. Id. The court held that it was sufficient that the City rely upon their
instructions to applicants to inform the city of any forwarding information. Id.
The second issue was one of timing. The original ruling gave the City 120 days to
prescreen the potential new employees. Id. The City argued they needed at least 200 days. Id.
at *6. The court held that the city has six months for pre-employment screening of the shortfall
group. Id.
The third issue was over the city’s practice of randomly selecting applicants from the
pool of qualified applicants. Id. The court held that the city may continue its practice of random
selection of who to accept from the pool of candidates, though it must increase its pool to include
those who had moved out of Chicago, but might move back with a job offer. Id.
Fourth, the plaintiff argued that the City should be required to expand its class size to 132
in order to include all of the plaintiffs in the first year. Id. at *7 The City argued that it had
practical training reasons for the limit, and that more than doubling the class size would cause
operational problems. Id. The court sided with the city, holding that the City does not have to
expand its class size from 60 to 132 at the Chicago Fire Department Academy. Id.
Fifth, the City and the plaintiffs disagreed over the speed of promotions. Id. at *8. The
plaintiffs were requesting a reduction of the time it took for a promotion to lieutenant or engineer
from 54 months to 30 months. Id. The court again sided with the City, that the time in
requirement for promotions should not be reduced for the plaintiffs because serves the purpose of
promoting only experienced and better qualified individuals. Id. at *9.
The Court sided with the plaintiffs on the issue of seniority date, holding that the
plaintiffs should be given retroactive seniority based on an average seniority date. Id. at **1011.
Chicago Discrimination
Hunt,
Carvalho & Nassin
|7
Another win for the plaintiff’s came in the form of a court appointed monitor. Id. at *12.
The court held that a monitor should be appointed to report the progress of relief, despite the
city’s arguments that it would be unnecessary. Id.
Finally, the court held that plaintiffs should not receive damages for potential wages of
second jobs they could have held if they were firefighters. Id. at **24-28. The plaintiff’s
argument was based on the unique nature of a firefighter’s schedule. Id. A firefighter works 24
hours on, 48 hours off. Id. at *23. Because of this schedule, firefighters often are able to have
second jobs. Id. at *24. The plaintiffs argued that these potential extra earnings should be
included in any calculation of damages. Id. The court disagreed, finding the proposed damages
too speculative. Id. at *28.
Three months after the court clarifies exactly what steps the City of Chicago must take,
the court grants the City a stay pending an appeal to the 7th District Court of Appeals. Lewis v.
City of Chicago, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41882 (N.D. Ill. June 7, 2007).
d. In 2008 and 2009, the Appellate Court reversed based on statute of limitation, an
order for rehearing en banc is denied, the Court grants Writ of certiorari, and
Solicitor General is invited to write brief.
The City of Chicago files an appeal, arguing that the District Court should have granted
the Motion for Summary Judgment based on the statute of limitations. Lewis v. City of Chicago,
528 F.3d 488 (7th Cir. Ill. 2008). The Appellate Court holds that the City of Chicago is correct.
Id. The City of Chicago sent notices to applicants 420 days before the plaintiffs ultimately filed
their lawsuit. Id. The Court held that time began to run when the notices are sent, not when the
City began hiring people. Id. The Plaintiffs appeal, requesting that the issue be heard en banc.
This is denied. Lewis v. City of Chicago, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 18442 (7th Cir. Ill. 2008).
Chicago Discrimination
Hunt,
Carvalho & Nassin
|8
The Plaintiffs appeal to the United States Supreme Court, and in 2009 the court grants the
writ of certiorari. Lewis v. City of Chicago, 557 U.S. 965 (2009). The Solicitor General is then
invited to write a brief on the issue. Lewis v. City of Chicago, 556 U.S. 1233 (2009).
e. Solicitor General was allowed to participate and SCOTUS reverses the Appellate
Courts decision in 2010.
The United States Supreme Court grants a motion to allow the Solicitor General to
participate in the oral argument as amicus curiae. Lewis v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 1499
(2010). The Supreme Court held that the term “employment practice” includes the continued
exclusion of applicants who scored between 65 and 88 on the City’s 1995 written exam. Lewis v.
City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 2191 (2010). Thus, the first selection round is excluded by the
statute of limitations, but each subsequent round is a continuing discriminatory employment
practice. Id.
f. From 2011 to 2012, the Appellate Court affirms the District Court’s decision
except as it relates to the first batch of hires, and the court denies a motion of
hired applicants to be included in the class of injured parties.
After receiving the case back from the United States Supreme Court, the 7th District
follows the Supreme Court’s ruling and upholds the decision of the Northern District of Illinois.
Lewis v. City of Chicago, 643 F.3d 201 (7th Cir. Ill. 2011). The first batch of hires, in 1996 are
beyond the statute of limitations, however, due to the continuing violations of Title IV the
plaintiffs maintain their victory on all subsequent hires. Id. Thus, six years after the district
court’s ruling, 14 years after the filing of the lawsuit, and 16 years after the 1995 test was given,
the plaintiffs have finally won their case.
While, a large number of African American applicants to the Chicago Fire Department
were not hired, some were. Those who were, file a motion upon discovering that they are not
considered part of the plaintiff class. A district court tosses their motion, and they appeal it. The
Chicago Discrimination
Hunt,
Carvalho & Nassin
|9
Appellate Court affirms the district court’s holding. Applicants to the Chicago Fire Department
who were hired by the Chicago Fire Department cannot be members of a class action suit based
on not being hired by the Chicago fire department. Lewis v. City of Chicago, 2012 U.S. App.
LEXIS 25707 (7th Cir. Ill. Dec. 17, 2012).
III.
DISCRIMINATION NEXUS BETWEEN CHICAGO FIRE DEPARTMENT AND CHICAGO
POLICE DEPARTMENT.
Racial discrimination in Chicago employment is not isolated to the Chicago Fire
Department. There has been a history of racial discrimination in hiring for the Chicago Police
Department as well. A series of civil rights cases brought against the city, because of alleged
discrimination in various hiring processes, was consolidated and decided on in January of 1977.
Issues in the various cases included possible racial and sexual discrimination in both the hiring
and promoting processes for the Chicago Police Department. The focus is to find the racial
discrimination; not sexual discrimination in Chicago Police Department’s hiring process.
Therefore, while there was a finding of sexual discrimination, it will not be discussed.
The first complaint brought against the city was brought in September of 1970. The
complaint was brought by Renault Robinson and the Afro-American Patrolmen’s League, and
against the city of Chicago, the City Superintendent of Police and the Police Review Board.
United States v. City of Chicago, 411 F. Supp. 218, 226 (N.D. Ill., 1977). The plaintiff alleged
violation of his First, Fifth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Id. In May of 1973,
Tadeo Robert Camacho and other minorities who had applied to be Chicago Police Officers filed
a complaint against the city of Chicago. Id. The complaint alleged discrimination in the hiring
process. Id. In August of 1973, the United States filed a complaint and named the city of
Chicago, the police Superintendent and the Civil Service Commission of Chicago as the
defendants. Id. The complaint alleged racial and sexual discrimination in employment,
Chicago Discrimination
Hunt,
Carvalho & Nassin
| 10
promotion and discipline of the Chicago Police department. Id. In 1974, the plaintiffs in all three
cases moved to consolidate them. Id. Although the city of Chicago insisted on separate trials, the
motion to consolidate was granted. Id.
In the instant case, the plaintiffs brought claims regarding racial discrimination in the
process of hiring police officers and promoting police officers to lieutenants within the police
department. Id. at 231. The plaintiffs, specifically Arado, are concerned with the hiring process
starting in 1970. Id. The defendants claimed that the black male interest in becoming a Chicago
Police officer was drastically decreasing during the time of Martin Luther King and the Black
Panther raid, and therefore the hiring process was not racially discriminatory, but rather there
was less black males applying for the positions. Id. However statistics prove the exact opposite,
in fact the black male interest in the Police Department was actually increasing at the time. Id.
Specifically, twenty nine percent of applicants were black males for the 1971 police
examination. Id. For the 1971 examination, white males failed at a 33% rate while black males
failed at a 67% rate. Id. at 233. In addition to the drastic difference in pass percentage, black
males were hired at a lower rate due to background checks. Id. at 234.
Racial discrimination in sergeant promotion in 1973 was also an issue in the case. Id. The
percentage of minority sergeant applicants was more than the percentage of minorities in the
entire department. Id. Only 13% of those who passed the sergeant test were minorities, and out
of that 13% less than half were expected to actually be promoted. Id. at 236.
Racial discrimination was alleged in regards to work assignments as well. Id. The
plaintiffs claimed that black police officers were most commonly assigned to black communities
and had been since as early as 1950. Id. at 240. However, the court determined that it is not
unlawful for a police department to assign minority members in areas where are most needed as
Chicago Discrimination
Hunt,
Carvalho & Nassin
| 11
long as it is done reasonably. Id. The court agreed that there are certain areas that have a
significantly less black police population but overall there is no pattern of racial discrimination in
assignments due to the fact that there are just significantly fewer minorities in the police force
over all. Id. The court predicted that once the percentages of races were more equal that it would
be clearer that there is not a racially discriminatory pattern in the assignments. Id. at 241.
Furthermore, all of the plaintiffs alleged various instances of discriminatory disciplinary
proceedings in regards to the department but the claims were dismissed. Id.
Once the Court determined that the Police Department was racially discriminating in the
hiring and promoting processes, the court had to determine the remedies. Id. The court was
concerned both with the scope of the immediate relief but also with the determination of future
hiring and promoting standards within the department. Id. The Department was ordered to
immediately hire 200 officers and was given specific directions regarding ratios. Id. at 241.
In regards to the hiring of officers, the Department was ordered to hire from the 1971
patrolman roster and 1972 policewoman roster and the ratio had to be 100 black and Spanish
surnamed males from the 1971 roster, 67 other males from that roster and 33 females from the
1972 roster. Id. at 242. While the Court recognized that their job was not to be an employment
review board, they still set quotas for future hiring because of the severe difference in the
percentages of whites and minorities on the police force, and the evident practice of unlawful
racial discrimination on the Department’s part. Id. The court ordered the Police Department to
hire 16% females, 42% black and Spanish surname males and 42% other males until further
ordered. Id. at 242.
Ultimately, in regards to the promoting of sergeants, the court wanted the representation
of minorities in position of sergeant to be similar to the representation of minorities in the police
Chicago Discrimination
Hunt,
Carvalho & Nassin
| 12
force as a whole. Id. The court set a standard of promoting 40% black and Spanish surname
males and 60% other males. Id. The Court ordered the department to promote from the 1973
sergeant roster. The court also believed that over time the new quotas in the hiring of police
officers would positively affect the percentage of minorities promoted. Id. at 243.
While the Courts found the Chicago Fire Department to be utilizing racially
discriminatory testing for the hiring of firefighters, the Department is not the only employers in
the public servant field held responsible for their racially discriminatory processes. The Chicago
Police Department faced various allegations and claims regarding racial discrimination as early
as nearly twenty years prior to the claim brought against the Chicago Fire Department.
IV.
RACIAL DEMOGRAPHICS
a. The effects of bringing suit.
It’s apparent that being black is not always easy; but it’s not a choice that black people
have. African Americans who want to make a difference and serve a purpose are still being
treated unfairly regardless of hard work that they have invested. When racial tactics exists in
areas where we – the citizens – depend on our firefighters and police officers to serve our best
interests and to help us, those tactics seem like unobtainable goals that will never aspire.
However, our departments still allow behavior that will have, and does have, a trickling down
effect on those who depend on these services.
Currently, Chicago Police Department (CPD) demographics look like this: total males
are 76%; females are 24%; total white are 54%; African-American/Black make up only 26%;
Hispanics are 18%, and the other categories fall in 2%.3 In 1871, CPD hired its first African-
3
Wikipedia, Chicago Police Department Demographics, n.9 omitted, Accessed February 15, 2013,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Police_Department
Chicago Discrimination
Hunt,
Carvalho & Nassin
| 13
American Chicago Police Officer - James L. Shelton.4 In 1891, only 20 years later, the first
female officer, Marie Owen, was hired to the department.5 Marie Owen was “a widow of a
Chicago police officer [and the] Chicago City Council grant[ed] her the title and pay of
Patrolman.6 Forty-seven years after the First African-American officer is appointed and 27 years
after the first white woman has been appointed, Ms. Grace Wilson, an African American female,
gets appointed.7 CPD pointed out that Ms. Wilson is “also quite possibly the first black female
officer in United States history.”8
Although the appointment of black individuals and female individuals seemed to pierce
the discrimination and segregation of the department’s time, trouble still loomed. Years of
discrimination cases flooded the employment sector of the department. Many African
Americans felt deprived and excluded from jobs that they qualified for. Litigation ensued, not
just for hiring issues but for racial obscenities. The Chicago Tribune reporters point out that
Detlef Sommerfield, a German immigrant to Chicago, left in order find a better life.
Sommerfield had accomplished his dream to work as a police officer and the CPD gave him that
chance. “But his coveted career soon became a source of pain and humiliation after the Jewish
officer alleged he was targeted by a sergeant with repeated religious and ethnic slurs. For years,
he endured epithets including "Jew boy," "stupid German" and "Nazi," according to his federal
lawsuit.”9 Mr. Sommerfield had an aunt who was killed in the German Nazi camps10 so it is
4
Chicago Police Department, Clear Path, Accessed February 15, 2013,
https://portal.chicagopolice.org/portal/page/portal/ClearPath/About%20CPD/History
5
Id.
6
Id.
7
Id.
8
Id.
9
Sweeney, Annie and Gorne, Jeremy (Feb. 2012), The Chicago Tribune, Officer Awarded $30,000 in discrimination
Lawsuit. Accessed February 15, 2013, http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-02-02/news/ct-met-cop-harassmenttrial-0202-20120202_1_police-officers-fellow-officer-internal-affairs-division
10
Id.
Chicago Discrimination
Hunt,
Carvalho & Nassin
| 14
apparent that racial slurs that remotely connects him to Hitler’s reign is undoubtedly hurtful.
Situations like this should remind of the “eggshell plaintiff” in tort actions. It doesn’t matter if
you didn’t know that individual had a preconceived injury of some sort – regardless whether it is
emotional – there is no recourse for an individual to rant racial slurs and obscenities to another
that ultimately causes that injured party, extreme pain, however it may be.
Like the CPD, Chicago Fire Department has been held responsible for racial issues
involving hiring tactics. As mentioned earlier, tests had been administered to both African
Americans and white individuals. However, when it came down to giving the jobs to qualified
candidates, it went to whites, although some blacks passed the exams as well. Deanne Bellandi,
of the Huffington Post, wrote in 2010 about the aftermath of the lawsuit brought by African
Americans who were excluded from jobs they qualified for. Many of them were hesitant to take
the job after the 7th Circuit hands down a ruling. Anthony Sturdivant was now 47-year-old and
had taken that exam in 1995. Although the case had been handed back down to the lower courts
for determination, Sturdivant said “he wouldn't leave his job as an assistant superintendent of
building services at the University of Illinois at Chicago for a chance to join the department.”11
Sturdivant would lose his retirement that he had already paid into and what are the chances that
he would not get taunted at the Fire Department.
It seemed that only after the court steps in to intervene with the problem is when the Fire
Department took effort to hire more African Americans in an effort to diversify their force. In
2011, CBS covered those exact feelings of those who did aspire to become Chicago Firefighters.
The court had ordered the department to make 111 hires. Many of those candidates who stood
and waited to take that entrance exam in 1995 are now troubled by what they may endure if they
11
Bellandi, Deanna (2010) Huffington Post: Fifteen Years after the test, accessed February 15, 2013,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/25/chicago-fire-department-f_n_589349.html
Chicago Discrimination
Hunt,
Carvalho & Nassin
| 15
take the job.12 One candidate noted in this interview that they would not be free from the racism
that looms in the department. Furthermore they will be put “under a microscope, a double
standard.” 13 Ms. Tucker noted that “[the] men have good reason to raise questions [because the]
Chicago Fire Department is more than 80 percent white and has a history of racial tension.” 14
Furthermore, “[in] 1990, white firefighters were captured on video tape using racial slurs[;] [in]
1999, a study commissioned by the city concluded that the racial divide in the department is
“enormous”[; and in] 2004, a firefighter was recorded using the “N word” three times on a radio
transmission.”15
It’s apparent that more harm was done to these individuals and it still seems that offering
the job that they wanted so badly was not enough to cure the hurt they endured. However, the
City was still ordered to pay these candidates for policing and firefighter jobs for the exclusions
and racism that affected them so many years ago. But, what happens when white individuals
claim they have been discriminated against because of the influx to hire blacks who were
excluded previously?
b. Reverse Racial Discrimination Claims
Our country allows anyone who feels their right to be free from racial discrimination may
seek justice in the court of law. Now we find white individuals bringing suit that they are being
denied jobs that they qualify for. I ask, has Lewis v. City of Chicago and further litigation helped
African Americans or hurt the purpose of their initial fight? Many would say it helped because
litigation provided a voice to those who knew they could not act or speak for themselves. It hurt
12
Tucker, Dorothy (May 2011) CBS: Aspiring Black Firefighters Cautious about Chicago Department, After
Dispute, last accessed on February 14, 2013, http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/05/27/aspiring-black-firefighterscautious-about-chicago-department-after-court-dispute/
13
Id.
14
Id.
15
Id.
Chicago Discrimination
Hunt,
Carvalho & Nassin
| 16
because now there is explicit law and the courts have the obligation to follow the letter of the law
regardless of the plaintiff’s race.
White firefighters fight for the same reason black firefighter candidates fought – they all
took a test and that test led to some many demise. In 2002, the Adversity Net reported that
‘"Nine white firefighters won more than $2.3 million in back pay and damages because their
scores on a lieutenant's test were lowered 16 years ago because the city wanted to promote
minorities.’”16 In May, 2002, a federal jury decided that eight of the white firefighters had been
injured because they would have attained the level of Captain if they were not passed over and at
least three of them would have attained promotions to Battalion Chief after they sat for
promotional exams. 17 During the issue of entrance exams for firefighters, many blacks
complained that the test were unconstitutional. Therefore, the “city lowered the scores of white
firefighters to even the results of what was believed to be a racially biased test in practice called
“race norming” – made illegal by the 1991 Civil Rights Act.”18 Once this test was challenged, a
jury determined that the test was in fact fair and the city erred when they lowered the scores of
white candidates.19
CONCLUSION
What result did discrimination litigation have on blacks and white? Did it really help those who
didn’t have a voice? Did it give more momentum to those who have always dominated – white
candidates? The answer lies in the middle. Since Lewis v. City of Chicago, rights have been
Adversity Net (May 2002) White Chicago Firefighters Win Reverse Discrimination Suit…, last accessed February
13, 2013, http://www.adversity.net/policefire_2_chicago.htm
17
Id.
18
Id.
19
Id.
16
Chicago Discrimination
Hunt,
Carvalho & Nassin
| 17
advanced to keep African Americans from being hurt in ways that our country has tried to move
away from.