Laserfiche WebLink
<br />CITY OF Roseville <br />COUNTY OF Ramsey <br />STATE OF MINNESOTA <br /> <br />RESOLUTION NO. 9586 <br /> <br />RESOLUTION APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND <br />AUTHORIZING PAYMENT THEREOF <br /> <br />BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Roseville , Minnesota (City) as <br />follows: <br /> <br />Section 1. <br /> <br />Background. <br /> <br />1.1. The City of Roseville (hereinafter referred to as the "City") is a defendant in <br />the cases of Starks v. Minneapolis Police Recruitment System, et a1.; Hennepin County District <br />Court File No. EM93-219, and Fields v. Minnesota Police Recruitment System, et a1.; District Court <br />File No. EM93-218. <br /> <br />1.2. The Court has concluded in said actions that the defendants violated Minnesota <br />Statutes, Chapter 363, the Minnesota Human Rights Act, in the administration of the Minnesota <br />Police Recruitment System (MPRS) testing process for entry level police officers employment <br />screening and that defendants are obligated to pay certain damages and penalties. <br /> <br />1.3. The City has previously approved a formula for the allocation of costs and damages <br />among the defendants. <br /> <br />1.4. The order of the Court also requires ongoing reporting to the Court of information <br />about all written tests used by the City for police officer selection until January 1,2004. <br /> <br />1.5. The Council has been presented with a proposal for settlement of these cases under <br />which the defendant cities would collectively pay the sum of Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000) in <br />addition to damages, costs, and fees previously awarded by the Court if counsel for plaintiffs and <br />defendant are successful in securing a complete dismissal of the cases. <br /> <br />1.6. The Council has determined that it is in the public interest to settle the cases to <br />avoid the administrative burden, commitment of staff resources, attorneys' fees and costs associated <br />with ongoing reporting to the Court. <br /> <br />1.7. The MPRS has proposed that payment of the settlement be allocated among the <br />defendant cities in accordance with Attachment One to this Resolution, which allocation is the <br />same as that used for costs and damages previously awarded by the Court, and which allocation the <br />Council finds to be fair and reasonable. <br /> <br />..- <br /> <br />CLL-150279 <br />MPllO-2 <br /> <br />1 <br />