Laserfiche WebLink
ZHTROOOCTZQH <br />t^ie court has made a finding of disparate irrpact with regard <br />to a testing process eirployed by the KFRS. Plaintiffs now allege <br />that they are entitled to certain damages and ref-edies. The <br />evidence at the hearing on carages showed th plaintiffs are not <br />entitled to back front pay because they would not have been hired <br />even if they had passed the M?RS test. Further, plaintiffs are not <br />entitled to damages for mental anguish because they failed to carr'/ <br />their burden of proof. .^s to .non-monetary remedies, defendanta' <br />believe that appropriate relief can be granted by the Court without <br />imposing a num—er of the burdensom.e, impractical or unwarranted <br />remedies suggested by plaintiffs. <br />DAMAGES <br />Z. PACTS <br />Plaintiffs clai.T. e.ntitle.T.ent to dam.ages for lost past and <br />future wages and m.ental anguish. Plaintiffs must show that they <br />would have been hired, absent the MPRS test. However, Plaintiffs <br />have been unsuccessful in applying to a number of non-MPRS cities. <br />Plaintiffs have failed to secure law enforcement positions because <br />of problem>s in prior employment and their failure to be forthright <br />and complete in their disclosures to prospective employers. <br />A. Wage Claim <br />1. John Starks. Starks is now pursuing an education <br />career after being re:ected by numerous non-MPRS police agencies <br />for police positions. Reasons for rejecting Starks for these <br />cos It ions had nothing to with MPRS test me.