Case: 1:80-cv-00369-SJD Doc #: 207-1 Filed: 12/12/22 Page: 1 of 22 PAGEID #: 290

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT

COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT
OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. c-1-80-369
)
CITY OF CINCINNATI, OHIO )
et al., )
)
Defendants. )
___________________________________)

MODIFIED CONSENT DECREE

This action was initially brought in 1980 by the United States against the Defendants,

the City of Cincinnati (“City”), the Cincinnati Police Division (now commonly known as the

Cincinnati Police Department (“CPD” or “Police Department”)), and the members of the

Cincinnati Civil Service Commission (collectively the “City Defendants”) to enforce the

provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., (“Title VII”).

This Court has jurisdiction over this action under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-6 and 28 U.S.C. §§

1343(a)(3) and 1345.

In its Complaint, the United States alleged that the City Defendants were engaged in a

pattern or practice of discrimination in employment on the basis of race (black) and sex (female),

in violation of Title VII. On August 26, 1980, Queen City Lodge No. 69, Fraternal Order of Police

(“FOP”) was granted leave to intervene as a party defendant in this action.

In August 1981, the United States, the City Defendants, and the FOP entered into a Consent

Decree (the “Original Consent Decree”) to resolve all claims in the United States’ Complaint. The
 Case: 1:80-cv-00369-SJD Doc #: 207-1 Filed: 12/12/22 Page: 2 of 22 PAGEID #: 291

Original Consent Decree did not constitute an admission, adjudication, or finding on the merits of

the case, and the City Defendants denied that any unlawful discrimination had occurred.

The Original Consent Decree did not specify a particular date of expiration, but rather

permitted the City Defendants to notify the United States of their intention to terminate the Decree

any time after five years from the date of the Decree. (See Original Consent Decree ¶ 9). Neither

the United States nor the City Defendants have moved to terminate the Original Consent Decree

since it was entered by the Court in 1981.

Throughout the City’s hiring and promotion cycles since 2012, the United States and the

City have been evaluating the City’s compliance with the Original Consent Decree and whether

the City’s current Police Officer and Police Sergeant selection procedures comply with Title VII

and are job-related and consistent with business necessity.

The United States and the City Defendants are seeking a modification of the Original

Consent Decree based upon changed circumstances as recognized in the Court’s Order Granting

Plaintiff’s Motion to Modify the Consent Decree. Doc. 198 at PAGEID 231 (Sept. 15, 2021)

(noting an increase in both minority and female representation within CPD from 9.9% and 3.4%

respectively in 1980 to 28.3% and 22.9% in 2021). Additionally, circumstances regarding how

the City hires certain law enforcement officers has changed as well. In 2001, Cincinnati voters

approved a Charter amendment that provided for the positions of police chief and assistant police

chief to be in the unclassified civil service and exempt from all competitive examination

requirements. Cincinnati Ordinance 238-2001. In 2018, Cincinnati voters approved an amendment

to the City’s Charter that provides that graduates of a public safety academy established by

Cincinnati Public Schools in collaboration with the City of Cincinnati be provided an incentive to

2
 Case: 1:80-cv-00369-SJD Doc #: 207-1 Filed: 12/12/22 Page: 3 of 22 PAGEID #: 292

serve the City in the fire and police departments through an award of 5 points in examination credit

on departmental entry level examinations. Cincinnati Ordinance 252-2018. On November 15,

2021, the City filed a Notice of Appeal regarding the Court’s September 15, 2021 Order. On July

11, 2022, the City filed a Motion to Dismiss the Appeal. On July 11, 2022, the Sixth Circuit

dismissed the Appeal and remanded the case to this Court.

In this Modified Consent Decree (“Modified Consent Decree”), the Parties recognize the

effect of this Court’s September 15, 2021 order which terminates the provisions of the Original

Consent Decree that provide for interim race- and gender-based goals as a means to achieve the

short- and long-term goals of the Original Consent Decree (see Original Consent Decree ¶¶ 2(A)–

(B)); and agree to put into place a process by which the City, in consultation with an expert, will

consider expert recommendations about current best practices to recruit, promote, and retain black

and female personnel using race- and gender-neutral means in order to ensure that the Police

Department continues its progress toward achieving diversity following the termination of the

short- and long-term goals. The City will further determine which best practices it will adopt after

full consideration of the expert recommendations, to include whether the best practices are

consistent with its obligations under federal, state, and local law and adhere to the terms of

applicable collective bargaining agreements. This Modified Consent Decree (“Modified Consent

Decree”) specifies a period of time to allow for adequate review of the City’s efforts as described

above. During that time period, the United States will continue to review the City’s current Police

Officer and Police Sergeant selection procedures to “[e]nsure that blacks and women are not

disadvantaged by the [City’s] hiring [and] promotion[al] … practices.” (Original Consent Decree

at ¶ 2). The Modified Consent Decree establishes a specific termination date for the Decree.

3
 Case: 1:80-cv-00369-SJD Doc #: 207-1 Filed: 12/12/22 Page: 4 of 22 PAGEID #: 293

In order to implement the Court’s Order of September 15, 2021, and to resolve all claims

in this matter and avoid the burden of protracted litigation, the United States and the City

Defendants enter into this Modified Consent Decree and agree to waive hearings and findings of

fact and conclusions of law on all remaining issues in this case.

In resolution of this action, with the consent of the Parties, IT IS THEREFORE

ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED as follows:

I. DEFINITIONS AND PARTIES

1. The “Parties” to this Modified Consent Decree are the United States, by the

Department of Justice, (“United States”), the City of Cincinnati, the Cincinnati Police

Department, and the members of the Cincinnati Civil Service Commission (the “City

Defendants”).

2. “Days” refers to calendar days unless business days are clearly specified in the

context of a specific provision of this Modified Consent Decree. If any deadline referenced in this

Modified Consent Decree should fall on a weekend or federal holiday, the deadline shall be moved

to the next business day.

3. The term “date of entry” of the Modified Consent Decree refers to the date on

which the Court orders entry of the Modified Consent Decree pursuant to Section IV of this

Modified Consent Decree.

4. “Police Officer(s)” refers to the entry-level sworn position in the Cincinnati

Police Department or any person who was hired as a police officer for the City Defendants’ police

department upon completing all required steps in the selection process.

5. “Police Sergeant” refers to the sergeant position in the Cincinnati Police

4
 Case: 1:80-cv-00369-SJD Doc #: 207-1 Filed: 12/12/22 Page: 5 of 22 PAGEID #: 294

Department or any person who was hired as a police sergeant for the City Defendants’ police

department upon completing all required steps in the selection process.

6. “Selection device” refers to any examination, test, requirement or criterion used

to evaluate a person’s qualifications for appointment to the position of Police Officer or Police

Sergeant (e.g., written examination, multiple choice test, writing exercise).

II. PURPOSE OF MODIFIED CONSENT DECREE

7. The purpose of this Modified Consent Decree is to ensure that the City Defendants

comply with Title VII by using selection procedures that do not unlawfully discriminate on the

basis of race or sex in the hiring of applicants for the position of Police Officer and in the promotion

of applicants to the position of Police Sergeant.

III. GENERAL INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

8. The City Defendants, their officials, agents, employees, and successors, and all

persons acting on behalf of or in active concert or participation with the City Defendants, are

enjoined from using, in the hiring of Police Officers or the promotion of Police Sergeants, any

selection device that has a disparate impact upon black or female candidates on the basis of race,

sex or both, and is not job-related for that position and consistent with business necessity, or

otherwise does not meet the requirements of Title VII.

9. The City Defendants, their officials, agents, employees, and successors, and all

persons acting on behalf of or in active concert or participation with the City Defendants, are

enjoined from engaging in any act of retaliation or act which in any respect adversely affects a

person on account of that person’s participation in or cooperation with the litigation or

administration of this case or this Modified Consent Decree.

5
 Case: 1:80-cv-00369-SJD Doc #: 207-1 Filed: 12/12/22 Page: 6 of 22 PAGEID #: 295

10. This Modified Consent Decree supersedes the Original Consent Decree and upon

entry of this Modified Consent Decree, the Original Consent Decree shall no longer be operative.

11. The City Defendants shall designate a person who shall be responsible for assuring

their compliance with the provisions of this Modified Consent Decree. The designated person’s

responsibilities shall include, but not be limited to, ensuring that the City Defendants fully

implement and comply with all paragraphs of this Modified Consent Decree.

IV. ENTRY OF THE MODIFIED CONSENT DECREE

12. If the Court determines, on consideration of the Parties’ contemporaneously filed

motion(s) and any other process the Court directs, that the terms of this Modified Consent Decree

are fair, adequate, reasonable, as well as consistent with the public interest and otherwise consistent

with federal law, the Court shall enter the Modified Consent Decree.

V. CITY’S ENGAGEMENT OF CONSULTANT TO IDENTIFY BEST PRACTICES

13. No later than thirty (30) days after the date of entry of the Decree, the City shall

retain a consultant with expertise in the areas of diversity and inclusion in public safety

employment environments to review the Police Department’s hiring and promotional processes.

That consultant shall provide recommendations to the City Defendants for incorporating best

practices for the recruitment, hiring, promotion, and retention of black and female applicants to

the positions of Police Officer and Police Sergeant. As part of the review, the consultant shall

solicit input from community stakeholders identified by the City, including but not limited to the

Fraternal Order of Police Queen City Lodge 69 and the Cincinnati Police Sentinel’s Association.

The City will provide a copy of this Modified Consent Decree in any Request for Proposal, if a

competitive process is used. The City will include a copy of this Modified Consent Decree as an

6
 Case: 1:80-cv-00369-SJD Doc #: 207-1 Filed: 12/12/22 Page: 7 of 22 PAGEID #: 296

exhibit to any contract with the consultant.

14. No later than one hundred and eighty (180) days after the date of entry of the

Decree, or other time period as reasonably established by the City’s consultant and agreed to by

the Parties, the City’s consultant shall provide the City Defendants with a report which:

a. identifies and evaluates the effectiveness of the Police Department’s various

recruitment activities at reaching and successfully recruiting black and female

candidates for employment in sworn positions;

b. identifies best practices for the recruitment of the black and female sworn

workforce, and police officer candidates in particular;

c. recommends changes and tactics the Police Department can use to improve the

effectiveness and efficiency with which it recruits black and female police

officer candidates;

d. identifies and evaluates the effectiveness of the public safety academy operated

in partnership with Cincinnati Public Schools, specifically examining the

funding needs of a successful program and making recommendations for

changes to the current approach;

e. identifies and evaluates approaches to engage and attract youth between the

ages of 18 and 21 to law enforcement careers;

f. examines the feasibility of providing incentives to City residents to apply for

positions within the Police Department;

g. recommends measurable and lawful short-term and long-term objectives for

the recruitment of black and female police officer candidates;

7
 Case: 1:80-cv-00369-SJD Doc #: 207-1 Filed: 12/12/22 Page: 8 of 22 PAGEID #: 297

h. identifies and evaluates the effectiveness of the Police Department’s various

activities aimed at retaining and promoting black and female police officers;

i. identifies lawful best practices for the retention and promotion of the black and

female sworn workforce, and police sergeant candidates in particular;

j. recommends lawful changes and tactics the Police Department can use to

improve the effectiveness and efficiency with which it retains and promotes

black and female police sergeant candidates, including examining the length

of time promotional eligibility lists are in effect;

k. recommends measurable and lawful short-term and long-term objectives for

the retention and promotion of black and female police sergeant candidates

and;

l. in light of the findings and recommendations contained in sub-paragraphs (a)-

(k), identifies the resources needed by the Police Department to meet its goals,

and recommends minimum and ideal budgets for the Police Department to

accomplish such goals.

15. Nothing in this Modified Consent Decree prevents the City from requesting that

the consultant additionally consider recruitment, promotion, and retention of Hispanic, Asian-

American and Pacific Islander, and Native American candidates, nor does this Modified Consent

Decree prohibit the City from requesting that the consultant consider retention of all Cincinnati

Police Officers.

16. No later than sixty (60) days after receiving the consultant’s report, the City shall

provide the United States with a copy of the consultant’s report, along with its response to the

8
 Case: 1:80-cv-00369-SJD Doc #: 207-1 Filed: 12/12/22 Page: 9 of 22 PAGEID #: 298

consultant’s report. The City’s response shall identify whether the consultant’s recommendations

are consistent with federal, state, or local law, including collective bargaining agreements; which

of the consultant’s recommendations it intends to adopt; the steps the City will take to implement

the recommendations it intends to adopt including funding for the implementation; and a proposed

timeline for the steps identified. If any of the recommendations the City intends to adopt conflict

with applicable state or local law or the applicable collective bargaining agreements, the City will

include in its proposal steps within its lawful authority for addressing any such conflicts.

17. No later than thirty (30) days after receiving the City’s response and the

consultant’s report, the United States shall inform the City in writing either that it has no objection

to the City’s response to the consultant’s report, or that it objects to the City’s response to the

consultant’s report. The United States may object to the City’s response if it believes that any

aspect of the response does not conform to the objectives of the Modified Consent Decree or to

any controlling legal standards. If the United States objects to the City’s response, it shall state the

basis for its objections in the notice required by this paragraph. If the United States objects to the

City’s response to the consultant’s report, the City and the United States shall meet and confer and

use their best efforts to resolve any resulting dispute about whether the City’s response complies

with the Modified Consent Decree and controlling legal standards. If the United States’ objections

are resolved during the meet and confer process, it shall provide the City with written notice that

it has no further objections. If the United States and City are unable to resolve such a dispute within

twenty-one (21) days of the date of the United States’ objections, the United States or the City will

follow the procedures set forth in Paragraph 35 regarding disagreement as to compliance with the

Modified Consent Decree.

9
Case: 1:80-cv-00369-SJD Doc #: 207-1 Filed: 12/12/22 Page: 10 of 22 PAGEID #: 299

18. After receiving the City’s response and the consultant’s report, the Department of

Justice’s Civil Rights Division will identify competitive funding opportunities offered by the

Department of Justice that relate to the subject matter of the consultant’s recommendations that

the City intends to implement. The Civil Rights Division will notify the City of any relevant

funding opportunities for which it may wish to consider applying for during the 2023 or 2024

application cycle, whichever is applicable.

19. The City shall begin implementing the actions identified in its response to the

consultant’s report no later than thirty (30) days after the United States notifies the City that it has

no objections to the City’s response or that its objections have been resolved or, absent agreement,

when ordered by this Court.

VI. REVIEW OF CITY’S SELECTION PROCEDURES

20. The City will use lawful selection devices to select qualified candidates for hire to

the position of Police Officer and for promotion to the position of Police Sergeant that meet the

requirements of Title VII. The selection devices shall either have no statistically significant

disparate impact on the basis of race or sex, or shall have been demonstrated to be job-related for

the Police Officer position and Police Sergeant positions. If a selection device has a statistically

significant disparate impact on the basis of race or sex, the City will be in compliance with this

provision if it evaluates whether there are alternative uses of the selection device that have less

disparate impact and are substantially equally valid and, if so, adopts such an alternative use

(including an alternative proposed by the United States pursuant to Paragraphs 23 or 28 herein).

10
Case: 1:80-cv-00369-SJD Doc #: 207-1 Filed: 12/12/22 Page: 11 of 22 PAGEID #: 300

A. Review of Police Officer Hiring

21. Production of Police Officer Hiring Data from June 2018-Entry of Decree: No

later than thirty (30) days after the date of entry of the Decree, the City shall provide to the United

States the following data upon which any eligibility list was based for the Police Officer position

from June 2018 through the date of entry of this Decree.

a. Information identifying (by title, series or identification number, vendor, and

author/developer) and describing each selection device (e.g., application,

written examination, reading examination, video test, report writing test,

physical agility test) that has been used as part of the application, selection, and

hiring process for the Police Officer position in the Cincinnati Police

Department during the relevant time period, including any selection devices

used during training academy or probationary periods (e.g., training academy

examinations, written examinations, probationary evaluation forms).

b. Information in Excel format identifying the name, unique identifier, gender,

race, scores and applicable sub-scores on all components of the selection

process, any applicable combined and final scores, military, veteran’s,

seniority, or other bonus points, and the ranks for each applicant who

participated in the selection process, if applicable, whether the applicant was

disqualified or hired, the date of disqualification or hire, or other reason the

applicant was not selected (e.g., withdrew from process, declined offer, not

reached on eligibility list, etc.).

c. Information relating to the scoring system and any passing or cut-off score

11
Case: 1:80-cv-00369-SJD Doc #: 207-1 Filed: 12/12/22 Page: 12 of 22 PAGEID #: 301

applicable to each selection device identified in sub-part (a) herein, including

the manner in which the selection device has been used as part of the

application, selection, and hiring process (e.g., whether it has been used on a

pass/fail basis, for ranking applicants, for banding), and the distribution of

scores by race and sex for each administration of each selection device.

d. Answer keys and item-level data (e.g., test question responses for each

candidate) for each selection device identified in subpart (a) herein.

22. Production of Police Officer Hiring Data after Entry of Decree: No later than

thirty (30) days after the completion of the administration and scoring of the City’s first entry-

level examination administered after the entry of the Modified Consent Decree on which any

Police Officer eligibility list may be based, the City shall provide to the United States the

following information.

a. Information identifying (by title, series or identification number, vendor, and

author/developer) and describing the entry-level examination.

b. Information in Excel format identifying the name, unique identifier, gender,

race, scores and applicable sub-scores on all components of the entry-level

examination, any applicable combined and/or final scores, military, veteran’s,

seniority, or other bonus points, and the ranks for each applicant who

participated in the selection process.

c. Information relating to the scoring system and any passing or cut-off score

applicable to all components of the entry-level examination identified in sub-

part (a) herein, including the manner in which the entry-level examination has

12
Case: 1:80-cv-00369-SJD Doc #: 207-1 Filed: 12/12/22 Page: 13 of 22 PAGEID #: 302

been used as part of the application, selection, and hiring process (e.g., whether

it has been used on a pass/fail basis, for ranking applicants, for banding), and the

distribution of scores by race and sex for all components of the entry-level

examination.

d. The City will provide the answer keys and item-level data (e.g., test question

responses for each candidate) for all components of the entry-level

examination.

23. Within ninety (90) days of the City providing the information identified in

Paragraphs 21 and 22, the United States must either propose an alternative use of the entry-level

examination that is substantially equally valid to the City’s use and results in less disparate impact

on the basis of race, or notify the City that it has not identified such an alternative use. If the United

States makes an alternative use proposal, it will provide the City with a written justification of the

proposal explaining its analyses. The City will evaluate whether it will adopt the alternative use

recommended by the United States and inform the United States of its decision within thirty (30)

days of receiving the United States’ proposal. The Parties shall meet and confer in good faith to

attempt to resolve any disagreement. If the United States and City are unable to resolve such a

dispute within twenty-one (21) days of the date of the United States’ objections, the United States

or the City will follow the procedures set forth in Paragraph 35 regarding disagreement as to

compliance with the Modified Consent Decree.

24. The United States has the right to request additional information and data

regarding the City’s administration of Police Officer selection devices. The City will cooperate

with the United States’ request(s) for any additional information related to the administrations of

selection device(s) (e.g., application, multiple choice examination, written examination, reading
13
Case: 1:80-cv-00369-SJD Doc #: 207-1 Filed: 12/12/22 Page: 14 of 22 PAGEID #: 303

examination, video test, report writing test, physical agility test) that has been used as part of the

application, selection, and hiring process for the Police Officer position in the CPD during

the relevant time period.

B. Review of Police Sergeant Promotions

25. Production of Police Sergeant Promotional Data from June 2018-Entry of Decree:

No later than thirty (30) days after the date of entry of the Decree, the City shall provide to the

United States the following data upon which any eligibility list was based for the Police Sergeant

position from June 2018 through the date of entry of this Decree.

a. Information identifying (by title, series or identification number, vendor, and

author/developer) and describing each selection device (e.g., application,

multiple choice examination, written examination, reading examination, video

test, report writing test, physical agility test) that has been used as part of the

application, selection, and hiring process for the Police Sergeant position in the

CPD during the relevant time period.

b. Information in Excel format identifying the name, unique identifier, gender,

race, scores and applicable sub-scores on all components of the selection

process, any applicable combined and final scores, military, veteran’s,

seniority, or other bonus points, and the ranks for each applicant who

participated in the selection process, if applicable, whether the applicant was

disqualified or hired, the date of disqualification or hire, or other reason the

applicant was not selected (e.g., withdrew from process, declined offer, not

reached on eligibility list, etc.).

14
Case: 1:80-cv-00369-SJD Doc #: 207-1 Filed: 12/12/22 Page: 15 of 22 PAGEID #: 304

c. Information relating to the scoring system and any passing or cut-off score

applicable to each selection device identified in sub-part (a) herein, including

the manner in which the selection device has been used as part of the

application, selection, and hiring process (e.g., whether it has been used on a

pass/fail basis, for ranking applicants, for banding), and the distribution of

scores by race and sex for each administration of each selection device.

d. Documentation that purports to validate the City’s use of the selection device(s)

identified in sub-part (a) (i.e. validity report, exam development material,

administration and scoring instructions, transportability study, etc.).

26. Production of Police Sergeant Promotional Data after Entry of Decree: No later

than thirty (30) days after the completion of the administration and scoring of the City’s first

promotional examination after the entry of the Modified Consent Decree on which any Police

Sergeant eligibility list may be based, the City will provide the following information.

a. Information identifying (by title, series or identification number, vendor,

and author/developer) and describing all components of the promotional

examination.

b. Information in Excel format identifying the name, unique identifier,

gender, race, scores and applicable sub-scores on all components of the

promotional examination, any applicable combined and final scores,

military, veteran’s, seniority, or other bonus points, and the ranks for each

applicant who participated in the promotional examination, if applicable.

c. Information relating to the scoring system and any passing or cut-off score

15
Case: 1:80-cv-00369-SJD Doc #: 207-1 Filed: 12/12/22 Page: 16 of 22 PAGEID #: 305

applicable to all components of the promotional examination identified in

sub- part (a) herein, including the manner in which all components of the

promotional examination has been used as part of the application, selection,

and hiring process (e.g., whether it has been used on a pass/fail basis, for

ranking applicants, for banding), and the distribution of scores by race and

sex for each administration of each selection device.

d. Documentation that purports to validate the City’s use of the promotional

examination identified in sub-part (a) (i.e. validity report, exam

development material, administration and scoring instructions,

transportability study, etc.).

27. If the United States determines based on its review of the information provided

pursuant to Paragraphs 25-26 that the City’s use of the selection devices do not comply with Title

VII and with this Modified Decree, the United States shall notify the City in writing that it objects

to the City’s use of the promotional examination. The United States shall provide such notice no

later than ninety (90) days after receipt of the information required by Paragraphs 25-26, and the

Parties shall meet and confer in good faith to attempt to resolve any objection(s). If the United

States and City are unable to resolve such a dispute within twenty-one (21) days of the date of the

United States’ objections, the United States or the City will follow the procedures set forth in

Paragraph 35 regarding disagreement as to compliance with the Modified Consent Decree.

28. Within ninety (90) days of the City providing the information identified in

Paragraphs 25 and 26, the United States must either propose an alternative use of the promotional

examination that is substantially equally valid to the City’s use and results in less disparate impact

16
Case: 1:80-cv-00369-SJD Doc #: 207-1 Filed: 12/12/22 Page: 17 of 22 PAGEID #: 306

on the basis of race or sex, or notify the City that it has not identified such an alternative use. If

the United States makes an alternative use proposal, it will provide the City with a written

justification of the proposal explaining its analyses. The City will evaluate whether it will adopt

the alternative use recommended by the United States and inform the United States of its decision

within thirty (30) days of receiving the United States’ proposal. The Parties shall meet and confer

in good faith to attempt to resolve any disagreement. If the United States and City are unable to

resolve such a dispute within twenty-one (21) days of the date of the United States’ objections, the

United States or the City will follow the procedures set forth in Paragraph 35 regarding

disagreement as to compliance with the Modified Consent Decree.

29. The United States has the right to request additional information and data regarding

the City’s administration of Police Sergeant selection devices. The City will cooperate with the

United States’ request(s) for any additional information related to the administrations of selection

device(s) (e.g., application, multiple choice examination, written examination, reading

examination, video test, report writing test, physical agility test) that has been used as part of the

application, selection, and hiring process for the Police Sergeant position in the CPD during the

relevant time period.

30. Upon resolution of any disagreements between the Parties or resolution by the

Court, the City shall certify the eligibility lists for Police Officer and Police Sergeant.

VII. RECORD KEEPING REQUIREMENTS

31. While this Modified Consent Decree remains in effect, the City Defendants shall

maintain all of the following records (including those created or maintained in electronic form):

a. all applications for Police Officer and Police Sergeant positions;

17
Case: 1:80-cv-00369-SJD Doc #: 207-1 Filed: 12/12/22 Page: 18 of 22 PAGEID #: 307

b. all documents relating to the screening, evaluation or selection of applicants

for the position of Police Officer and Police Sergeant; and

c. all other documents relating to the City Defendants’ compliance with the
requirements of this Modified Consent Decree.

32. Except as otherwise provided in this Modified Consent Decree, the City

Defendants will make available to the United States, no later than thirty (30) days after the United

States so requests in writing, any records maintained in accordance with the preceding paragraph

of this Modified Consent Decree and any additional documents relating to any dispute arising

under the Modified Consent Decree.

33. When possible, all records furnished to the United States shall be provided in a

searchable computer-readable format to be agreed upon by the Parties prior to production.

34. Within thirty (30) days after the United States so requests in writing, or other time

agreed to by the Parties, the City Defendants shall make available for interview or deposition (at

the United States’ option) any agent, employee or official of the City Defendants who the United

States reasonably believes has knowledge of information necessary to verify the City Defendants’

compliance with the terms of this Modified Consent Decree or to resolve a dispute arising under

this Modified Consent Decree.

35. The Parties shall attempt in good faith to resolve informally any disputes that arise

under this Modified Consent Decree. If the Parties are unable to resolve the dispute expeditiously,

either party may submit the disputed issue to the Court for resolution upon seven (7) days written

notice to the other party, unless a different time period has been specified elsewhere in this Modified

Consent Decree.

18
Case: 1:80-cv-00369-SJD Doc #: 207-1 Filed: 12/12/22 Page: 19 of 22 PAGEID #: 308

VIII. DURATION OF MODIFIED CONSENT DECREE

36. This Modified Consent Decree shall be dissolved and this action shall be

dismissed, without further order of the Court, upon the occurrence of the later of the following

two events: (a) thirty (30) days after the United States provides written assurance that it has no

further objections to the City’s response or, absent agreement, where ordered by this Court as

described in Paragraph 17 or (b) thirty (30) days after the Parties resolve any disputes or the

Court orders relief as described in Paragraphs 23, 27 and 28.

IX. COSTS AND FEES

37. Each party shall bear its own costs and expenses incurred as a result of

obligations imposed by this Modified Consent Decree.

38. Each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees incurred in

this litigation.

X. MISCELLANEOUS

39. The Court shall retain jurisdiction over this Modified Consent Decree for the

purpose of resolving any disputes or entering any orders that may be appropriate to implement

the Modified Consent Decree, including joining any parties whose joinder is necessary to

accord complete relief under this Modified Consent Decree.

40. The United States and the City may agree to modifications of the time limits

for the performance of the provisions set forth in this Decree without Court approval.

41. This Modified Consent Decree constitutes the entire agreement of the Parties,

and supersedes all prior agreements, decrees, representations, negotiations and undertakings not

set forth or incorporated herein.

19
Case: 1:80-cv-00369-SJD Doc #: 207-1 Filed: 12/12/22 Page: 20 of 22 PAGEID #: 309

42. Where possible, all documents required to be delivered to the United States under

this Decree shall be sent via electronic mail to Jeremy Monteiro (at

jeremy.monteiro@usdoj.gov) and Catherine Sellers (at catherine.sellers@usdoj.gov). Where

such electronic mail is not possible, documents shall be sent via overnight delivery to:

Jeremy Monteiro
Catherine Sellers
Employment Litigation Section
Civil Rights Division
United States Department of Justice
4 Constitution Square
150 M Street, NE
Washington, DC 20530

43. All documents required to be delivered under this Decree to the City shall be sent

via electronic mail where possible to Emily Smart Woerner (at emily.woerner@cincinnati-

oh.gov) and William Hicks (at william.hicks@cincinnati-oh.gov). Where such electronic mail is

not possible, documents shall be sent via overnight delivery to:

City Solicitor
City of Cincinnati Solicitor’s Office Labor & Employment Section
Law Department
801 Plum Street, Room 214
Cincinnati, OH 45202

It is so ORDERED, this day of , 2022

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
Case: 1:80-cv-00369-SJD Doc #: 207-1 Filed: 12/12/22 Page: 21 of 22 PAGEID #: 310

/s/ Emily Smart Woerner KRISTEN CLARKE

EMILY SMART WOERNER (0089349) Assistant Attorney General
City Solicitor Civil Rights Division

WILLIAM C. HICKS (0068565) KAREN D. WOODARD (MD Bar, no

MARK R. MANNING (0088331) number issued)
ASSISTANT CITY SOLICITORS Chief
Labor & Employment Section Employment Litigation Section
Law Department Civil Rights Division
801 Plum Street, Rm. 214
Cincinnati, OH 45202 MEREDITH L. BURRELL (MD Bar, no
Telephone: (513) 352-3334 number issued)
Principal Deputy Chief
Counsel for Defendants City of Cincinnati, Employment Litigation Section
the Cincinnati Police Department and the Civil Rights Division
Cincinnati Civil Service Commission
/s/ Jeremy P. Monteiro
JEREMY P. MONTEIRO (GOVT. DC Bar
977628)
Senior Trial Attorney
United States Department of Justice
Employment Litigation Section
Civil Rights Division
4 Constitution Square
150 M Street, NE, Room 9.930
Washington, DC 20530
(202) 307-6230
(202) 514-1005 (fax)
jeremy.monteiro@usdoj.gov

/s/ Catherine N. Sellers

CATHERINE N. SELLERS (GOVT. WA
Bar 44563)
Senior Trial Attorney
United States Department of Justice
Employment Litigation Section
Civil Rights Division
4 Constitution Square
150 M Street, NE, Room 9.1802
Washington, DC 20530
(202) 598-0696
(202) 514-1005 (fax)
catherine.sellers@usdoj.gov

21
Case: 1:80-cv-00369-SJD Doc #: 207-1 Filed: 12/12/22 Page: 22 of 22 PAGEID #: 311

Counsel for Plaintiff United States

22