Stevenson et al v. City and County of San Francisco et al
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)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
AARON C. STEVENSON, et al.,
No. C-11-4950 MMC
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
THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, et al.,
Before the Court is plaintiffs’ “Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to
Show Cause Re Preliminary Injunction,” filed February 4, 2016. Having read and
considered the motion, the Court rules as follows.
To the extent the motion seeks an order enjoining defendants from administering
the H-50 Assistant Chief Examination currently scheduled for February 19, 2016, and
February 20, 2016, the motion is hereby DENIED. There is no showing that such
examination will have a disparate impact on African-Americans, nor could there be given
the test results are not available, and any objection plaintiffs or anyone else may have
once the results are announced can be challenged in the appropriate forum at that time.
See Guardians Ass’n v. Civil Service Comm’n, 490 F.2d 400, 404 (2nd Cir. 1973) (affirming
district court’s denial of motion to preliminarily enjoin employer from administering new
examination, where motion made in course of litigation challenging prior examination given
by same employer).
To the extent the motion seeks an order enjoining defendants from making any
permanent appointment to the rank of H-50 Assistant Chief based on the results of the
above-referenced examination scheduled to be given later this month, there is no showing
that any permanent appointment based on such new examination is anticipated to be made
in the near future.1 Accordingly, the request for a temporary restraining order is hereby
DENIED and the Court, by its Order to Show Cause filed concurrently herewith, has set a
briefing schedule and hearing on the request for a preliminary injunction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 5, 2016
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge
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.)
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?