Laserfiche WebLink
process would result ir. a corresponding loss of resources for <br />public services, including police protection. <br />A new testing process developed under court supervision might <br />or might not be equally predictive of successful job <br />performance, and might or m.ight not have less adverse impact. 3ut <br />in any case a new testing process may not meet the future needs, or <br />be consistent with the hiring philosophies of the defendant cities. <br />The defendant cities should not be precluded from selecting other <br />available written tests in the future, possibly including tests <br />which have less adverse i.mpact.r,ven if the court rules <br />unequivocally that the amendments to the MPRS testing process are <br />sufficient to make it a lawful employee selection device, the <br />cities should not be compelled to use the MPRS testing process, or <br />to involuntarily continue their membership in the MPRS. <br />CONCLUSION <br />For the reasons stated above. Defendants respectfully request <br />that the Court deny plaintiffs request for damages and remedies. <br />Dated: July 29, 1995 KEhT^TDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED <br />^ - V / <br />C.haries L. LeFevere, No. <br />John M. LeFevre, Jr., No, <br />Jce Y. Yang, No. 25493 <br />470 Pillsbury Center <br />Minneapolis, MN 55402 <br />(612) 337-9300 <br />ATTOPCJEYS FOR DEFENDANTS <br />37