Police Association of New Orleans v. City of New orleans Case Study

Police Association of New Orleans v. City of New orleans - Case Study Example The new system offered better base salary, better equipment facilities for street personnel, high power rifles, additional state supplemental pay, and a range of other improved facilities. The PANO could effectively deal with various obstacles and perform a prominent role in organizing other police unions throughout the south. Background In the middle of 1980s, a group of African-American police officers claimed that policies related to promotion and hiring in New Orleans Police Department (NOPD) were discriminatory. In order to solve this issue, the City of New Orleans agreed to issue a decree for the African-American police officers on May 27, 1987 (Justia.com). The term ‘decree’ means a rule of law that is issued by someone in authority within the legal system. Generally, decree is issued by the head of state. Although, a decree does not constitute all the features of an order, this particular degree represents certain specific procedures. The main intention of this d ecree was to ensure equal employment opportunities in NOPD and thereby eliminate all sorts of racial discrimination practices. Obviously, the decree brought considerable modifications in the NOPD’s promotion procedures mainly with the aim to increase the opportunities for the advancement of African-American officers. The proposed decree enforced the creation of supernumerary positions. However, a group of officers who are not African-American raised voice against this provision. In order to comply with the framed stipulation structure, PANO informed NOPD its need to maintain additional regular sergeant positions. The City has made certain adjustments in the administration of sergeant appointment in order to give equal priority to African-American officers and other officers. As a result of this practice, the city could maintain a total of 16 new sergeants, out of which six African-American officers were from Band 6 and ten non African-American officers were from Band 5. The P ANO and other 24 police officers who were not African-American alleged that the City dealt with certain transfers and promotions in a manner that violated the intention of the decree. In fact, all the 24 police officers who opposed the move were already in Band 5 of the Commission’s promotional register, and hence, according to them, promoting the Band 6 African-Americans adversely affected the employment opportunity of those 24 individual officers. The plaintiffs argued that the transfers and promotions that were exercised on 31st December 1993 were a blatant violation of the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Article I, Section 3 of the Louisiana Constitution of 1974† (Findlaw). The district court found that the promotions and transfer practices of the City on 31st December 1993 were against the decree and fundamental laws of the US constitution. Although, the district court gave the City an oppo rtunity to find an effective remedy that would correct the identified violations, the City could not frame a potential remedy within the specified date. As a result, the court ordered the City to pay $5,000 per day as fine until the City brought a reasonable solution to the issue. The City proposed another remedy soon, but that too was judged unsatisfactory by the court. After a series