Latest News
Updated 7/22/10: The Court of Appeals has ordered the parties to file briefs as to two remaining issues. The Court's order is as follows. ORDER: In their statements filed pursuant to Circuit Rule 54, the parties agree that there are two issues that remain open after the Supreme Court’s decision: 1) whether the City of Chicago preserved the argument that plaintiffs failed to prove that use of the eligibility list had disparate impact, and 2) whether the City preserved the argument that first round of hiring occurred outside the charging period even for the earliest EEOC charge. These two issues will be resolved after briefing and argument. Briefing will proceed as follows: Appellant's brief due on or before 08/23/2010 for City of Chicago. Appellee's brief due on or before 09/22/2010.
In May 2010 the Supreme Court ruled in our favor and determined that the case could move ahead. More specifically, the Supreme Court held that an employment practice with an illegal adverse impact can be challenged each time it is used. What's next? The case will likely go back to the Court of Appeals for a few remaining arguments, then back to the trial judge. How will hiring and back pay be determined? The trial judge will make those decisions. She entered a remedial order in April 2007. That order is posted below. The order will be modified due to changed circumstances since April 2007, but the order provides a good sense of how the judge will decide the remaining remedial issues.
If you are a class member, please contact the Chicago Fire Department at 312-746-6993 to provide them with your updated address.
Updated 2/23/10: On 2/22/10 the Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case. To read the transcript of the argument, click here 
. The argument went well, but we will not know how the Supreme Court will rule until it issues a written opinion, which should happen by the end of June 2010. There will not be any court proceedings until we receive a ruling from the Supreme Court.
Updated 2/8/10: To read a copy of our Supreme Court reply brief, click here
Updated 11/23/09: We filed our opening brief in the Supreme Court on November 23, 2009 and oral arguments will take place in the Supreme Court on February 22, 2010. To read the brief, click here
Updated 9/30/09: On 9/29/09 the Supreme Court decided to hear our appeal. Because there are over 6500 people in the plaintiff class, we regret that we cannot speak to every class member about the appeal. The appeal will focus on the following question: whether a plaintiff may bring a lawsuit challenging a discriminatory employment test within 300 days after the employer used the test to hire employees, although the employer previously scored the test and announced its results. We will post the briefs here once the briefs have been filed. Here is the Supreme Court's schedule for briefs and oral argument:
Our opening brief is due 11/16; Chicago's response is due 12/16; our reply is due 1/15. Oral argument will be set for late Fed or early March 2010.
Updated 8/27/09: The United States recently filed a brief with the Supreme Court arguing that the Court should hear our appeal, and that our EEOC charges were filed on time. To read the United States' brief, click here 
Updated 7/13/09: In February 2009 we asked the United States Supreme Court to consider the case. It is important to understand that the Supreme Court does not have to consider our appeal. In May 2009 the Supreme Court asked the Solicitor General (who represents the federal government in the Supreme Court) to give its opinion as to whether the Supreme Court should consider the Lewis case. We recently met with the Solicitor General's office to urge the Solicitor General to ask the Supreme Court to take our appeal and to find in our favor. We expect that in the next few months the Supreme Court will decide whether to consider our case.
Updated 6/4/08: The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed the lower court's decision in Lewis, et al. v. City of Chicago, with directions to enter a judgment for the defendant, the City of Chicago. You can download the court's decision here (97 KB, .pdf) .
-----
On Feb 22, 2008, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in the Lewis case. You can listen to those arguments online here. The court must now decide whether the EEOC charges were filed on time. It could take 1-6 months for the court to rule.
On June 7, 2007 the trial court judge stayed its remedial order pending the City's appeal. To read the order, click here (20 KB) .
On May 7, 2007 the City filed an appeal in the Court of Appeals. The City has a right to challenge both the liability determination (i.e., that the 1995 test was discriminatory) and the remedy (i.e., that we are entitled to 132 jobs and back pay) in this appeal.
On April 19, 2007, Judge Gottschall issued a remedial injunction - click here to read the order (243 KB) . In summary, the Judge ordered the City to: hire 132 class members over the next two years; award these 132 class members retroactive seniority for most purposes; pay a share of back wages to class members who are not hired in accordance with her April 19, 2007 order but who submit a valid and timely claim form; appoint a CFD incumbent as an ombudsman to address the needs of class members hired pursuant to the April 19,2007 remedial order. Please note that back pay will not be distributed until 2009. Please also note that because the back wages for 132 positions will be distributed to a very large class--a class of over 6,000 class members--the share that any one class member receives will be small. The City has the right to appeal the April 19, 2007 remedial decision, as well as the earlier decision that determined that the 1995 firefighter exam was discriminatory.
On March 20, 2007, Judge Gottschall issued an opinion resolving many remedial issues. Click here to read the opinion. (49 KB) . Highlights of the judge's opinion include: There will be 132 remedial hires from our plaintiff class over the next two years. These 132 hires will be chosen randomly from the plaintiff class. The Court will appoint a CFD incumbent as an ombudsman for the 132 classmembers hired pursuant to the judge's order. Seniority will be awarded to the 132 hires. The judge also awarded the plaintiff class back pay; for specifics, please read the judge's opinion.
PLEASE NOTE: If you are in the plaintiff class (i.e., if you are African American, took the 1995 firefighter exam and passed the exam with a score between 65 and 89) and would like to be considered for remedial hiring, you must provide the City of Chicago with your current address. We advise you to do so immediately, by going to City Hall- Room 100- in person to fill out a change of address form AND by sending a change of address by first class mail. According to the City, to send a request by mail you need to provide the following information: your name, your 1995 and current address, your social security number and the year you took the firefighter entrance exam. Mail this information to: City Hall, 121 N. LaSalle, Room 1100, Attention Miss Johnson, Chicago, Ill 60602.
There are nearly 7,000 African Americans in our plaintiff class, so we cannot always take all of your phone calls.
Lewis Firefighter Case History/Background
The Chicago Lawyers’ Committee filed a lawsuit in 1998 which argued that the Chicago Fire Department's use of a very high cut score on the 1995 firefighter entrance exam discriminated against African Americans. We filed the case on behalf of African Americans who scored between 65 and 89 on the test. There are nearly 7,000 African Americans in the plaintiff class.
-On March 22, 2005 Judge Gottschall ruled that the City's use of the 89 cut score on the 1995 test was discriminatory. Specifically, the judge held that the City had not shown that the 1995 test effectively measured the skills it was supposed to measure (like the ability to learn from demonstration) or that performance on the 1995 test predicted performance in the Fire Academy or on the job. She also found that performance on the video portion of the 1995 exam hinged on one's ability to take notes--an ability that was not important to being a good firefighter.
To see the judge's opinion in the case, please 
click here (1261 KB) (you need the free Adobe Reader to view the file).
-On June 21, 2005, class counsel filed a motion requesting that the Court order hiring of class members as the first part of a remedy for the City's violation of class members' rights.
-On July 21st, 2005, the City filed its own motion, seeking discovery from class members regarding both their earnings and medical history since 1995. On July 28, 2005, class counsel filed a brief both opposing that request and also urging that the issue of awarding firefighter jobs to class members should be addressed first.
-On June 1, 2006 our trial court judge, Judge Gottschall, ruled on our request that she order immediate remedial hiring. The judge declined to order immediate remedial hiring, and instead ordered the parties to finish discovery as to all remedy issues, for example, how much back pay and how many remedial hires are owed to the class.
-On December 12, 2006 we finished submitting damages evidence in the case.