Anda di halaman 1dari 21

Case 8:80-cv-00849-SDM-TGW Document 34 Filed 06/09/17 Page 1 of 21 PageID 263

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,
Case No.8:80-cv-00849-T-23TGW

PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA, et al.,

Defendants.
/

WILLIAM T. ROBERTS, SHERIFF OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA


MOTION FOR DISSOLUTION OF CONSENT AGREEMENT

Defendant William T. Roberts,1 Sheriff of Pinellas County, Florida (hereinafter

Sheriff) hereby files this Motion for Dissolution of Consent Agreement Doc. # 13 as

the basic purpose of the Agreement has been achieved. The grounds in support are set

forth in the following Memorandum of Law.

MEMORANDUM OF LAW

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

1. The Consent Agreement, which forms the basis of this Motion, was

approved by the Court on December 10, 1980. Doc. #12. Notably, this Order expressly

deletes ALL provisions concerning promotions of existing employees. Doc. #12.

2. On May 29, 2014, the United States and all Parties except the Sheriff

entered a stipulation to dissolve the Agreement as to all parties except the Sheriff. Doc. #

17, # 18. The United States refused to allow Sheriff to join the stipulation; instead, over

1
At the time of the commencement of this case, William T. Roberts was the
Sheriff of Pinellas County, Florida. The current Sheriff of Pinellas County is Bob
Gualtieri. Throughout this response, the respondent is referred to simply as Sheriff.
See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(d) (permitting a public officer sued in his official capacity to
be referred to by his official title).
1
Case 8:80-cv-00849-SDM-TGW Document 34 Filed 06/09/17 Page 2 of 21 PageID 264

Sheriffs objection, the United States represented to this Court that in its opinion the

Sheriff was not in compliance with Consent Agreement. Doc. # 18. On July 16, 2014,

this Court entered its Order dissolving the Agreement to all parties except Sheriff. Doc. #

27.

3. On November 9, 2016, the United States filed a motion to reopen the case

and a motion for order to show cause. Doc. # 28, # 29. Pursuant to this Courts Order,

Sheriff filed its Response to the United States motions. Doc. # 30, # 32.

4. On May 18, 2017, this Court denied the United States Motion for Order to

Show Cause and Granted the United States Motion to re-open the case for the limited

purpose of Sheriff moving to dissolve the Consent Agreement no later than June 9, 2017.

Doc. # 33.

II. FACTUAL HISTORY AND TERMS OF THE CONSENT AGREEMENT.

Although the United States asserted allegations of discrimination against the

Sheriff and others, there was no judicial determination of discrimination. Doc. # 17-2; #

13, p 2. The Consent Agreement states [i]t is understood that this agreement does not

constitute an admission by Defendants of any violation of law. Doc. # 13, p. 2. Prior to

approval of the negotiated Consent Agreement, this Court questioned the constitutionality

of including promotional goals in the absence of a judicial finding of past discrimination.

Doc. #29-3, pg. 8. Ultimately, the Court approved the Consent Agreement in its Order

dated December 10, 1980 and addressed the concerns of constitutionality as follows:

A conference was held on October 21, 1980 and the parties have since
filed a joint motion and have modified the consent agreement to delete all
provisions concerning promotions of existing employees, reserving those
issues for later resolution.

2
Case 8:80-cv-00849-SDM-TGW Document 34 Filed 06/09/17 Page 3 of 21 PageID 265

(emphasis added) Doc. # 17-1. As such, all promotional provisions have been deleted

from the Consent Agreement.2

A. Basic Objective of the Consent Agreement.

The basic objective is set forth expressly in the Consent Agreement.3 The

objective is described as follows:

The purpose of this Consent Agreement is to insure that minorities and


women are not placed at a disadvantage by the hiringpolicies of the
Defendants, and that any disadvantage to minorities and women which
may have resulted from past discrimination is remedied so that equal
employment opportunities will be provided to all.

Doc. #13, 4.

B. Goals of the Consent Agreement.

As applicable to Sheriff, the only goals are contained in paragraphs 4 and 6 of the

Consent Agreement. Paragraph 4 pertains to all job classifications unless otherwise

noted (emphasis added) Doc. # 13, 4. Paragraph 6 states Sheriff shall seek to

achieve the interim goalin the entry level job classifications ofDeputy and

2
Interpreting a consent decree is a matter of strict construction: A consent decree
cannot be construed to impose additional prohibitions not mentioned in the decree itself.
United States v. Armour & Co., 402 U.S. 673, 682 (1971). As the Supreme Court
explained in Armour, the rationale for this interpretive rule is that a consent decree is the
product of negotiation and compromise in which the parties give up the right to litigate
the issues in the case and, therefore, the instrument must be construed as it is written,
and not as it might have been written had the plaintiff established his factual claims and
legal theories in litigation. Id.
3
Because, in interpreting a consent decree, courts enforce the parties bargain
rather than the purposes of the legislation that gave rise to the underlying action, ITT
Continental Baking Co., 420 U.S. 223, 233, 237-38 (1975), a consent decree is a form of
contract [and] the rules [used] to interpret a consent decree are the same ones [used] to
interpret a contract . . . . Reynolds v. Roberts, 202 F.3d 1303, 1312 (11th Cir. 2000).
With a consent decree as with a contract, the first place we look and often the last as
well is to the document itself. Sierra Club v. Meiburg, 296 F.3d 1021, 1029 (11th Cir.
2002).

3
Case 8:80-cv-00849-SDM-TGW Document 34 Filed 06/09/17 Page 4 of 21 PageID 266

Corrections Officer4 relative to each groups representation in the relevant long range

goals set forth in this paragraph 6. (emphasis added). Paragraph 6 sets forth the goals as

10% Black, 2% Hispanic and 8% female.

As such, the numeric goals contained in the Consent Agreement are as follows:

Black Hispanic Female


Sworn 10% 2% 8%
Non-Sworn 11% 2% 25%

Doc. # 13, 4, 6.

The Consent Agreement contemplates that these goals are subject to the

availability of qualified applicants. Doc. # 13, 4. Further, there is no provision in the

Consent Agreement or under Florida law permitting Sheriff to hire a person who does not

meet the statutory qualifications for a position. See, Doc. # 13, 2.

The only other goal reflected in the Consent Agreement is the directive that

Sheriff shall engage in affirmative recruitment activities consistent with the goals of the

Consent Agreement, including but not limited to advertising employment opportunities in

mass media primarily directed to Black, Hispanic and female audiences Doc. # 18, 13.

Further, Sheriff shall announce all job openings to the general public and give equal

consideration in hiring decisions to non-incumbents. Id.

4
The Consent Agreement utilizes the terms Civil Deputy, Deputy, Corrections
officer and Bailiff. However, Sheriff no longer has these four job classifications.
Sheriffs sworn workforce contains only deputies and detention deputies. Exh. # 4.
4
Case 8:80-cv-00849-SDM-TGW Document 34 Filed 06/09/17 Page 5 of 21 PageID 267

III. SHERIFFS ACHIEVEMENT OF BASIC OBJECTIVE OF CONSENT


AGREEMENT

As noted, the Consent Agreement was entered in 1980. In the thirty-seven years

since, the Sheriffs of Pinellas County were as follows:

William Bill Roberts 1975-1981


Gerard Gerry Coleman 1981-1989
Everett S. Rice 1989-2004
James Jim Coats 2004-2011
Robert Bob Gualtieri 2011- present

A. Prior to Sheriff Gualtieris Administration: 1980-2011.

During the prior Sheriffs relevant tenure, each Sheriff was the ultimate

policymaker and bore final responsibility for the creation, revision and implementation of

Sheriffs Office policies; including those relating to recruitment, selection and hiring. In

addition to evolving as laws changed and the various accreditation standards changed,

each Sheriffs policies and procedures reflected the visions of that Sheriff as an elected

Constitutional Officer. Furthermore, personnel has changed over the life of the Consent

Agreement. As such, unless documented, any prior procedure used by any prior Sheriff

in the recruitment, selection and hiring is largely unknown to the current Sheriff.

Until recently, the County Attorneys office represented all Defendants in this

action. As such, the United States communicated with all Defendants through the County

Attorneys office. See e.g. Exh. 1. The County Attorneys office submitted all

documentation on behalf of all Defendants and the County retained the records of the

submissions. Combining all Defendants went deeper than just legal representation; the

United States treated all matters under the Consent Agreement as pertaining to the

County and even reported its findings as to the Sheriff as though the County was

5
Case 8:80-cv-00849-SDM-TGW Document 34 Filed 06/09/17 Page 6 of 21 PageID 268

responsible.5 See e.g. Exh. 2. The Defendants, as a group, sought many times to obtain

the United States agreement on dissolution. See e.g. Exh. 3.

Although the Consent Agreement was not dissolved, the progress made by the

former administrations is undeniable and the figures clearly indicate that any possible

disadvantage that may have occurred to minorities and women 28 years prior had been

remedied. The workforce composition is summarized as follows:

AGENCY TOTAL

Total Black Hispanic Female


T % T % T %
1980 677 12 1.8% 5 0.7% 169 25%
1988 1452 115 7.9% 36 2.5% 416 28.7%
1992 1785 152 8.52% 36 2% 600 33.6%
2000 2456 256 10.4% 76 3% 954 38.8%
2004 2861 278 9.7% 91 3.1% 1177 41.1%
2008 2962 336 11.3% 111 3.7% 1233 41.6%

Exh. 4.

SWORN, LEO POSITIONS

Total Black Hispanic Female


T % T % T %
1980 213 5 2.4% 4 1.8% 4 1.8%
1988 419 34 8.1% 11 2.6% 34 8.1%
1992 423 42 9.93% 11 2.6% 45 10.6%
2000 634 47 7.4% 19 3% 67 11%
2004 762 57 7.4% 27 3.5% 88 11.5%
2008 862 61 7% 22 2.5% 110 12.7%
Exh. 4.

Initially Sheriff was a member of the Unified Personnel Services created in Chpt.
5

75-488 Florida Law; however, the Sheriff was not a member for long and ultimately the
Civil Service System was created for Sheriffs personnel. Chpt. 89-404 Florida Law.
6
Case 8:80-cv-00849-SDM-TGW Document 34 Filed 06/09/17 Page 7 of 21 PageID 269

SWORN, DETENTION POSITIONS

Total Black Hispanic Female


T % T % T %
1980 142 4 2.8% 4 2.8% 18 12.7%
1988 409 52 12.7% 11 2.7% 83 20.3%
1992 583 75 12.86% 10 1.72% 140 24.01%
2000 667 107 16% 30 4.5% 192 29%
2004 731 118 16.1% 33 4.5% 214 29.2%
2008 885 113 12.7% 43 4.8% 272 30.7%

Exh. 4.

In 2008, the economy significantly changed and the Sheriffs Office budget was

cut by 100 million and over 600 positions were eliminated agency wide resulting in lay-

offs. Doc. # 29-20, p. 16. By 2011, the economic conditions were improving to the

extent that hiring had resumed; however, the economic conditions did not affect police

departments in the same manner as the Sheriffs Office. Id. As such, in November,

2011, upon Sheriff Gualtieri taking office he was presented with significant challenges.

Doc. # 29-20, p. 21.

B. Sheriff Gualtieris Administration: 2011-present.

During Sheriff Gualtieris tenure, the workforce composition is summarized as

follows:

7
Case 8:80-cv-00849-SDM-TGW Document 34 Filed 06/09/17 Page 8 of 21 PageID 270

AGENCY TOTAL

Total Black Hispanic Female


T % T % T %
2012 2581 316 12.2% 105 4% 1126 43.36%
2013 2706 315 11.6% 123 4.5% 1185 43.7%
2014 2733 316 11.5% 136 4.9% 1179 43.1%
2015 2700 310 11.4% 146 5.4% 1162 43%
January 2016 2675 304 11.3% 143 5.3% 1160 43.3%
June 2016 2667 312 11.6% 142 5.3% 1170 43.8%
January 2017 2682 315 11.7% 146 5.44% 1176 43.8%
June 2017 2673 317 11.8% 151 5.6% 1186 44.3%

Exh. 4.

SWORN, LEO POSITIONS

Total Black Hispanic Female


T % T % T %
2012 751 59 7.86% 27 3.6% 91 12.1%
2013 810 53 6.5% 34 4.1% 106 13%
2014 851 57 6.7% 40 4.7% 106 12.4%
2015 832 54 6.5% 42 5% 106 12.7%
January 2016 831 50 6% 42 5% 110 13.2%
June 2016 818 52 6.3% 43 5.2% 108 13.2%
January 2017 815 53 6.5% 40 4.9% 108 13.2%
June 2017 807 54 6.6% 40 4.9% 110 13.6%

Exh. 4.

8
Case 8:80-cv-00849-SDM-TGW Document 34 Filed 06/09/17 Page 9 of 21 PageID 271

SWORN, DETENTION POSITIONS

Total Black Hispanic Female


T % T % T %
2012 719 132 18.36% 40 5.56% 236 32.8%
2013 735 135 18.3% 42 5.7% 244 33.2%
2014 721 135 18.7% 43 5.9% 235 32.6%
2015 716 136 19% 45 6.2% 233 32.5%
January 2016 688 135 19.6% 41 5.9% 222 32.2%
June 2016 677 137 20.2% 38 5.6% 228 33.6%
January 2017 687 138 20% 39 5.6% 233 34%
June 2017 674 133 19.7% 45 6.6% 228 33.8%

Exh. 4.

NON-SWORN POSITIONS

Total Black Hispanic Female


T % T % T %
2012 1111 125 11.2% 38 3.4% 799 71.9%
2013 1161 127 11% 47 4% 835 72%
2014 1161 124 10.6% 53 4.5% 838 72%
2015 1152 120 10.4% 59 5.1% 823 71%
January 2016 1156 119 10.2% 60 5.2% 828 71.6%
June 2016 1172 123 10.4% 61 5.2% 834 71%
January 2017 1180 124 10.5% 67 5.6% 835 70%
June 2017 1192 130 10.9% 66 5.5% 848 71.1%

Exh. 4.

These figures show that the numeric goals for the non-sworn workforce (11%

Black, 2% Hispanic, 25% female) have been met. These figures also show that the

numeric goals for the sworn workforce (10% Black, 2% Hispanic, 8% Female) have been

met as to detention positions and as to Hispanics and females in law enforcement; but

9
Case 8:80-cv-00849-SDM-TGW Document 34 Filed 06/09/17 Page 10 of 21 PageID 272

have not been met as to as to Black in the sworn law enforcement positions. That

numeric goal calls for 10%; however, Sheriffs sworn law enforcement work force is

between 6-7%.

Although Sheriff has not achieved the ratio of 10% for Black in the deputy law

enforcement position; the failure to reach that goal is based on the lack of qualified

applicants. Exh. # 4. The legal requirements to become a sworn law enforcement officer

in Florida are set forth in 943.13 Fla. Stat. and also 11B-27.0011 F.A.C. These

requirements include, but are not limited to, the applicant must be a U.S. citizen, must

have a high school diploma or equivalent, must have a lack of significant criminal

background, must pass a physical examination and must have good moral character;

among other requirements. Additionally, the Sheriff requires an applicant to be at least

21 years of age and have a valid drivers license, among other requirements. Exh. # 29-

20, p. 10. All requirements are fully set forth in Doc. # 29-20 and all applicants must

meet all requirements or an applicant is disqualified.6 If an applicant is disqualified, the

reason for the disqualification is noted in the applicants file. Exh. # 4. A chart

containing all applicants for the sworn law enforcement position, the ultimate outcome of

that applicant and the applicants race and gender is attached.

The Sheriffs selection process for a law enforcement deputy can be summarized

as every qualified candidate that has not been excluded or disqualified is hired. Exh. # 4.

Candidates are excluded upon failure to meet the qualifications imposed by law or

imposed by policy as to the Pinellas County Sheriffs Office (i.e. smoking). Id.

Although a handful of applicants that were not disqualified were not immediately hired;

6
Although Doc. # 29-20 was created in March, 2015; the process has not had any
significant changes.

10
Case 8:80-cv-00849-SDM-TGW Document 34 Filed 06/09/17 Page 11 of 21 PageID 273

all qualified applicants were eventually hired. Exh. # 4. The attached chart lists every

applicant for the sworn law enforcement position as well as the ultimate outcome for each

applicant. Id. No applicant or candidate has ever been disqualified on the basis of race

or gender. Id.

Additionally, Sheriff continues to implement his written Recruitment Plan which

sets forth his ultimate goal of recruiting and retaining talented individuals while

achieving a diverse workforce. Ex. # 4. Sheriff personnel also announce all positions to

the general public and advertise through traditional mass media and social media. Id.

Additionally, Sheriffs personnel showcase women and minorities in law enforcement

roles, utilize bilingual personnel and attend local community events to attract local

applicants. Id. Sheriffs personnel also actively recruit at job fairs and colleges,

including visiting traditional/historical African American colleges and universities. Id.

The date and location of the recruitment events are documented in the Recruitment Log.

Id.

Sheriffs recruitment efforts ensure available positions within the Sheriffs office

are exposed to minorities and women. Sheriffs hiring and selection process ensure that

all qualified candidates are hired. Sheriffs efforts at obtaining a diverse workforce are

evidenced by viewing the entry level deputy positions since Sheriffs tenure which are

much closer to the numeric goals set forth in the Consent Agreement. These figures are

as follows:

11
Case 8:80-cv-00849-SDM-TGW Document 34 Filed 06/09/17 Page 12 of 21 PageID 274

SWORN, ENTRY LEVEL DEPUTY POSITIONS

Total Black Hispanic Female


T % T % T %
2012 597 55 9.2% 21 3.5% 77 12.9%
2013 629 49 7.7% 27 4.2% 89 14%
2014 665 54 8.1% 34 5.1% 92 13.8%
2015 632 50 7.9% 37 5.8% 89 14%
January 2016 629 46 7.3% 38 6% 91 14.4%
June 2016 622 49 7.8% 39 6.2% 90 14.4%
January 2017 615 47 7.6% 36 5.8% 85 13.8%
June 2017 601 46 7.6% 35 5.8% 85 14.1%

Exh. # 4.

Although these numbers reflect that the Sheriff still has not attained the long-term

goal as set forth in the Consent Agreement for Black sworn law enforcement; Sheriff has

actively recruited and has hired every qualified candidate. As such, the failure to achieve

the numeric goal is for neutral non-discriminatory reasons. Moreover, any discriminatory

practices or effect from 37 years ago has long since been remedied.

C. United States Position on Achievement of Goals of Consent Agreement.

The United States refuses to acknowledge the numeric goals of the Consent

Agreement although it concedes that these goals have not been modified.7 Doc. #18, 4.

Even though Sheriff repeatedly points to this Courts Order deleting all promotional

provisions within the Consent Agreement, the United States claims certain promotional

provisions remain. Doc. # 12. Without citing any authority, the United States

7
See Hughes v. United States, 342 U.S. 353, 356-57 (1952) (rejecting invitation
to advance asserted purpose of consent decree through interpretation not justified by
decrees four corners).

12
Case 8:80-cv-00849-SDM-TGW Document 34 Filed 06/09/17 Page 13 of 21 PageID 275

persistently asserts the Order deleting all promotional provisions does not apply to all

promotional provisions, but applies only to two specific paragraphs identifying interim

goals. Exh. # 5.

The United States acknowledges that the Civilian Labor Force in Pinellas County

is inherently less precise than a robust applicant flow data reflecting who is actually

applying to work for PCSO; nevertheless, relies solely on the CLF for not joining in a

motion to dissolve. 8 Exh. # 6. Although Sheriff supplied applicant flow data consistent

with the requirements of the Consent Agreement, the United States indicated that it could

not assess Sheriffs compliance due to the manner in which Sheriff sent the data. Id.

The United States has also repeatedly and consistently claimed that it requires

interviews of relevant personnel and depositions of Sheriffs personnel in order to

assess compliance with the Consent Agreement. Doc. # 29, p. 17. However, the

Consent Agreement does not provide for interviews or depositions. Doc. # 13.

Unfortunately, the United States has made it clear that it is not limiting itself to

the plain language of the Consent Agreement or the terms contained in the Consent

Agreement. Exh. # 7. The United States is not evaluating the progress made over the

course of the past 37 years or evaluating whether the effects of past discrimination have

been remedied to the extent practicable. The ONLY thing the United States has been

willing to do is to review Sheriffs documents, if presented in the exact manner they

request, to make a determination whether the United States believes the current practices

8
In the most recent discussions the United States is taking the position that Sheriff
is required to achieve 18% for Black in sworn law enforcement. For the reasons set forth
herein, that position has no basis in fact or law and is therefore, not presented herein.
13
Case 8:80-cv-00849-SDM-TGW Document 34 Filed 06/09/17 Page 14 of 21 PageID 276

of the current Sheriff have a disparate impact on minorities or women.9 Id. Yet, the

United States does not need a Consent Agreement to enforce the provisions of Title VII.

Even if the Consent Agreement were dissolved, the United States would still be tasked

with enforcing Title VII as to all employers, not just Sheriff. As such, the sole issue

before this Court is whether the Sheriff has met the objective of the 37 year old Consent

Agreement thereby rending dissolution appropriate.

MEMORANDUM OF LAW

In considering a motion to dissolve a consent decree, the Court first determines

the basic purpose of the decree. United States v. City of Miami, 2 F.3d 1497, 1505 (11th

Cir. 1993). With the underlying purpose of the decree in mind, the Court next looks to

the degree of progress made toward the decrees long-term goals. Id. at 1508. The

purpose of an employment-related decree such as the one in issue in this case is not to

create or maintain a quota, but rather to remedy the effects of past discrimination. Id.

(citations omitted). For example, if underrepresentation is due to neutral,

nondiscriminatory factors rather than a vestige of past discrimination, then termination of

the decree is appropriate. Id. In this case, the Court should find that the Sheriff has

complied with the decades-old decree in good-faith, that the Sheriffs progress toward the

quotas in the decree has been substantial, that the Sheriff ameliorated the effects of past

discrimination to the extent practicable, and that where those quotas have not been met it

is for neutral, nondiscriminatory reasons. Id. at 1509 (emphasis added).

9
The scope of a consent decree must be discerned within its four corners, and
not by reference to what might satisfy the purposes of one of the parties to it. United
States v. Armour & Co., 402 U.S. 673, 682 (1971).

14
Case 8:80-cv-00849-SDM-TGW Document 34 Filed 06/09/17 Page 15 of 21 PageID 277

The basic objective of the Agreement is expressly set forth in paragraph 4 of the

Consent Agreement. The purpose of the Consent Agreement is to ensure that minorities

and women are not placed at a disadvantage by the hiring policies of Sheriff and that any

disadvantage to minorities and women which may have resulted from past discrimination

is remedied. Although the Consent Agreement enjoins Sheriff from engaging in any

unlawful discrimination against any employee, applicant or potential applicant and is

required to comply with Title VII; neither of these are the basic purpose of the Consent

Agreement. See City of Jacksonville v. Wilson, 27 So.2d 108 (Fla. 1946) (an injunction

that merely prohibits unlawful conduct serves no purpose). Moreover, no applicant or

employee has filed a complaint, lawsuit or claim during Sheriff Gualtieris tenure

alleging discrimination arising from recruitment, selection or hiring for any position. Nor

is Sheriff aware of any other claim or lawsuit alleging discrimination arising from

recruitment, selection or hiring during any other Sheriffs tenure.

As the records show, at the inception of the Consent Agreement, the Sheriffs

workforce was - 1.8% Black; 0.7% Hispanic; 25% Female. Now, the Sheriffs workforce

is 11.8% Black; 5.6 % Hispanic; 44.3% Female. This can be only be described as

significant progress. The progress in the sworn work force is equally significant. In

1980, the records reflect the Sheriffs sworn law enforcement workforce was 2.4%

Black; 1.8% Hispanic; 1.8% Female. Now, the Sheriffs sworn law enforcement

workforce is 6.6% Black; 4.9% Hispanic; 13.6% Female. In 1980, the records reflect that

the Sheriffs sworn detention workforce was 2.8% Black; 2.8% Hispanic; 12.7%

Female. Now, the Sheriffs sworn detention workforce is 19.7% Black; 6.6% Hispanic;

33.8% Female.

15
Case 8:80-cv-00849-SDM-TGW Document 34 Filed 06/09/17 Page 16 of 21 PageID 278

Although Sheriff still has not achieved the ratio of 10% for Black in the deputy

law enforcement position; as fully explained herein, that failure is based on neutral,

nondiscriminatory reasons. All criteria used to determine whether a candidate qualifies

for a sworn deputy positon can be divided into two categories - those imposed by law and

those imposed by policy both categories are objective and job-related.

The criteria imposed by law includes age, education, citizenship, physical

examination, criminal background check, no prior drug use and many other criteria.

943.13 Fla. Stat; Doc. # 29-20. The FDLE Commissioner is responsible for establishing

uniform minimum employment standards for the various criminal justice disciplines.

943.12 Fla. Stat. FDLE also interprets these employment standards on behalf of all law

enforcement agencies. See 11B-27.0011 F.A.C. et seq. As such, Sheriff does not have

the ability to waive these requirements or to subjectively interpret these requirements.

The criteria imposed by policy is also objective and job-related. Sheriff requires

an applicant to be 21 years old, whereas the statutory minimum age of 19. Doc. # 29-20,

p. 10. Sheriff also requires an applicant to have had no tobacco use for at least 6 months.

Id. Sheriff also requires all applicants to have a valid drivers license. Id. These

requirements are imposed on all applicants, the requirements are objective and the

requirements are directly related to service as a sworn law enforcement officer.

In addition to qualification criteria, Florida law also provides for mandatory

selection of certain candidates. One such selection requirement is the Veterans

preference. 295.09 Fla. Stat. If a veteran qualifies for the veteran preference, Florida

law requires that Sheriff apply that preference.

16
Case 8:80-cv-00849-SDM-TGW Document 34 Filed 06/09/17 Page 17 of 21 PageID 279

Typically, candidates applying for a sworn deputy position with the Pinellas

County Sheriffs Office also apply for sworn law enforcement positions with other law

enforcement agencies. Doc. # 29-20. As such, factors such as rate of pay and benefits

influence which agency a qualified applicant accepts a position. The economic

conditions affecting the Pinellas County Sheriffs Office from 2011-2014 drove qualified

candidates to choose other agencies. Doc. # 29-20. As such, Sheriff Gualtieri faced

significant challenges obtaining qualified applicants to fill the sworn deputy positions.

Undeniably Sheriff has met the goals for the sworn detention workforce in all

categories. The ultimate composition of the black sworn detention workforce is 19.7%;

nearly double the numeric goal set forth in the Consent Agreement. But, the

requirements for becoming a sworn detention deputy are not the same as the requirements

for becoming a sworn law enforcement deputy. These differences result in many

applicants choosing to begin their career in law enforcement as a detention deputy. Doc.

# 29-20.

However, when combining all sworn employees in the Sheriffs office both

deputy and detention deputy - the ultimate composition far exceeds the numeric goals set

forth in the Consent Agreement. This is further proof that Sheriff complied with the

decades-old decree in good-faith, that the Sheriffs progress toward the goals in the

decree has been substantial, that the Sheriff ameliorated the effects of past discrimination

to the extent practicable, and that the failure to reach 10% for Blacks is due to neutral,

nondiscriminatory reasons. The ultimate composition for all sworn positions is as

follows:

17
Case 8:80-cv-00849-SDM-TGW Document 34 Filed 06/09/17 Page 18 of 21 PageID 280

SWORN, ALL POSITIONS

Total Black Hispanic Female


T % T % T %
2012 1470 191 13% 67 4.5% 327 22.2%
2013 1545 188 12.1% 76 5% 350 22.6%
2014 1572 192 12.2% 83 5.2% 341 21.6%
2015 1548 190 12.2% 87 5.6% 339 21.9%
January 2016 1519 185 12.1% 83 5.4% 332 21.8%
June 2016 1495 189 12.6% 81 5.4% 336 22.4%
January 2017 1502 191 12.7% 79 5.2% 341 22.7%
June 2017 1481 187 12.6% 85 5.7% 338 22.8%

Exh. # 4.

Moreover, the failure to achieve a more diverse law enforcement workforce is a

nationwide issue. Similar to the Sheriff, the federal sworn workforce is also

underrepresented for Blacks when compared to other job classifications.

On May 25, 2016, Former FBI Director James Comey admitted the FBI is 83%

white and he further stated that the percentage of white agents has been growing slowly

but steadily for 10 to 12 years.10 The latest data available shows that approximately 8

years prior to Former Director Comeys announcement, the FBI had the following

ultimate composition:11

African
total American Hispanic Female
% % %
FederalBureauInvestigation 12,925 5.4% 8.1% 18.8%

10
https://www.fbi.gov/news/speeches/strength-through-diversity-building-a-
better-fbi

11
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fleo08.pdf

18
Case 8:80-cv-00849-SDM-TGW Document 34 Filed 06/09/17 Page 19 of 21 PageID 281

The federal sworn workforce also consists of the same two distinct categories of

corrections and law enforcement. The United States corrections component, the Federal

Bureau of Prisons, compares to the FBI as follows:

African
total American Hispanic Female
% % %
FBI 12,925 5.4% 8.1% 18.8%
FederalBureauofPrisons 16,993 24.1% 12.9% 13.6%

Id., see also Doc. # 29-20, p. 24.

Additionally, in October, 2016, the Plaintiffs in this action the U.S. Department

of Justice, Civil Rights Division - authored Advancing Diversity in Law Enforcement

to address the lack of diversity in law enforcement.12 In that publication, the United

States identifies the barriers to achieving diversity in law enforcement. Id. The barriers

according to the Plaintiff are educational requirements, criminal background checks,

prohibition of illegal drug use and credit checks. Id. The United States even announces

that the application of a Veterans preference while laudable is an impediment to

diversity. Id. p. 21. Surprisingly, the United States includes U.S. citizenship as a

barrier. Id. p. 22. The United States does point out that state law may require law

enforcement agencies to apply these barriers when hiring a law enforcement deputy.

Id.

12
https://www.justice.gov/crt/case-document/file/900761/download

19
Case 8:80-cv-00849-SDM-TGW Document 34 Filed 06/09/17 Page 20 of 21 PageID 282

Every barrier identified by the United States in their publication is a legal

requirement in Florida. As such, Sheriff is unable to remove any of these barriers as a

method of obtaining a more diverse law enforcement workforce.

As indicated herein, over the course of the last 37 years, including this Sheriffs

tenure, the Sheriff has complied with the decades-old decree in good-faith. The Sheriff

has achieved the numeric goals, except for Black in law enforcement. There is absolutely

no evidence that any effects of discrimination from 37 years ago is present today.

CONCLUSION

Since Sheriff has demonstrated that he has fulfilled the basic objective of the

Agreement, Sheriff respectfully seeks dissolution of the Consent Agreement.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED on June 9, 2017.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Shannon Kennedy Lockheart


Shannon Kennedy Lockheart
General Counsel
FBN: 79030
10750 Ulmerton Road
Largo, FL 33778
Telephone: (727) 582-6274
Facsimile: (727) 582-6459
slockheart@pcsonet.com
lgustofik@pcsonet.com
Attorney for Defendant, Bob
Gualtieri, in his Official Capacity as
Sheriff of Pinellas County, Florida

20
Case 8:80-cv-00849-SDM-TGW Document 34 Filed 06/09/17 Page 21 of 21 PageID 283

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on June 9, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing


with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system, which will send a notice of
electronic filing to:

Candyce Phoenix, Esq.


US Department of Justice
Suite 4034
601 D St NW
Washington, DC 20004
Email: candyce.phoenix@usdoj.gov
and

Carolyn Peri Weiss, Esq.


US Department of Justice
601 D St, NW, PHB 4036
Washington, DC 20579
Email: carolyn.weiss@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for Plaintiff

/s/ Shannon Kennedy Lockheart

21