Laserfiche WebLink
Qualified car.didate for a sworn police officer posincn. <br />Instead of ccnsiderins a back pay award, this Court shouid, as <br />in Evans. provide another opportunity for Fields and Starks to take <br />the revised test and be restored to the place they would have <br />sass the test and meet other entranceoccupieo It tney ^ <br />reQUiren\ents. To date, neither has shewn that he would have been <br />hired even if he had passed the MPRS testing. 3oth Fields and <br />Starks applied to r.any non-MFRS cities and failed the written. <br />oral, psychological or background exaits. The court should note <br />that since MPP.S has restruotured its tests, pursuant to court <br />order, neither Fields or Starks .has sought re-testing. <br />Moreoever, even if p..ainciffs were qualified, the probability <br />that they would have been hired is statistically very low. The <br />overall selection rate ranged fren a high of 14.8% to a low of 5.4% <br />during the relevant period. E.x.2063. At best, plaintiffs lost a <br />Ic.ng-shot cha.nre at a jcb, not the lob itself. <br />A discrimination plaintiff forfeits his right to back pay if <br />he refuses a ]ob substantially equivalent to the one denied or if <br />he does not seek out available work for which he is qualified.* <br />"laintiffs failed to mitigate when they failed to re-take the <br />revised MPRS test. <br />B. PLAINTIFFS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO AN AWARD OF FRONT PAY <br />The following decisions provide authority for denial of front <br />pay. In Di 1 lor, v. Co j, 746 F.2d 598 (3rd Cir. 1984), the court <br />•Anderscr. v. Hunter Marshall Co., 401 N.W.2d 75 (Minn.App. 1987), <br />dff'd ir. rart . r«v' d. Tr. -rner rrrur.ds 417 N.W.2d 619 (Minn. 1988). <br />13