Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
w w . <br /> � O� . <br /> • O O <br /> ��b. - . CITY of ORONO <br /> � � � . <br /> '�' RESOLUTION OF.THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> ��`�kE xo4'�� � � . Na 4 1 `�. '� : <br /> . s . � <br /> RESOLUTION APPROVING SETTLEMENT <br /> OF MINNESOTA POLICE RECRUITMENT SYSTEM CASES; <br /> t AND AUTHORIZING PAYMENT THEREOF�` <br /> BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Orono,Minnesota as follows: <br /> Section 1. Back rg�ound• <br /> 1.1. The City of Orono (hereinafter referred to as the "City") is a defendant in the cases <br /> of Starks v. Minnesota Police Recruitment System, et al; Hennepin County District Court File No. <br /> EM93-219,and Fields v. Minnesota Police Recruitment System, et al;District Court File No.EM93- <br /> 218. . <br /> � 1.2. The Court has concluded in said actions that the defendants violated Minnesota <br /> Statutes, Chapter 363, the Minnesota Human Rights Act, in the administration of the Minnesota <br /> Police Recruitment System (MPRS) testing process for entry level police officers employment <br /> screening and that defendants are obligated to pay certain damages and penalties. <br /> 1.3. The City has previously approved a formula for the allocation of costs and damages <br /> among the defendants. . <br /> 1.4. The order of the Court also requires ongoing reporting to the Court of information <br /> about all written tests used by the City for police officer selection until January 1,2004. <br /> 1.5. The Council has been presented with a proposal for settlement of these cases under <br /> which the defendant cities would collectively pay the sum of Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000) � <br /> in addition to damages,costs,and fees previously awarded by the Court if counsel for plaintiffs and <br /> defendant are successful in securing a complete dismissal of the cases. � <br /> 1.6. The Council has determined that it is in the public interest to settle the cases to avoid <br /> the administrative burden, commitment of staff resources, attorneys' fees and costs associated with <br /> ongoing reporting to the Court. <br /> � <br />