Stevenson et al v. City and County of San Francisco et al

Filing 172

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on February 5, 2016. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/5/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11

AARON C. STEVENSON, et al.,

No. C-11-4950 MMC

Plaintiffs,

12

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER; GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR
ISSUANCE OF ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE RE: PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

v.
13
14
15

THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, et al.,
Defendants.

/

16
17

Before the Court is plaintiffs’ “Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to

18

Show Cause Re Preliminary Injunction,” filed February 4, 2016. Having read and

19

considered the motion, the Court rules as follows.

20

To the extent the motion seeks an order enjoining defendants from administering

21

the H-50 Assistant Chief Examination currently scheduled for February 19, 2016, and

22

February 20, 2016, the motion is hereby DENIED. There is no showing that such

23

examination will have a disparate impact on African-Americans, nor could there be given

24

the test results are not available, and any objection plaintiffs or anyone else may have

25

once the results are announced can be challenged in the appropriate forum at that time.

26

See Guardians Ass’n v. Civil Service Comm’n, 490 F.2d 400, 404 (2nd Cir. 1973) (affirming

27

district court’s denial of motion to preliminarily enjoin employer from administering new

28

examination, where motion made in course of litigation challenging prior examination given

1

by same employer).

2

To the extent the motion seeks an order enjoining defendants from making any

3

permanent appointment to the rank of H-50 Assistant Chief based on the results of the

4

above-referenced examination scheduled to be given later this month, there is no showing

5

that any permanent appointment based on such new examination is anticipated to be made

6

in the near future.1 Accordingly, the request for a temporary restraining order is hereby

7

DENIED and the Court, by its Order to Show Cause filed concurrently herewith, has set a

8

briefing schedule and hearing on the request for a preliminary injunction.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10
11

Dated: February 5, 2016
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
1

27
28

Indeed, as plaintiffs acknowledge, the first permanent appointments made based on
the eligibility list created after the administration of last H-50 examination was made more
than seven months after the date on which said examination was given. (See Pls.’ Mot. for
Temporary Restraining Order at 2:22-26.)
2