United States v. City of Miami

The attorney general (plaintiff) sued the City of Miami (city), the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), and the Miami Police Benevolent Association (PBA) (defendants) for racial and sex-based discriminatory employment practices, seeking both temporary and permanent injunctions. FOP and PBA were joined as defendants because of their alleged roles as collective-bargaining agents on behalf of the city’s police officers. Two months after the action was filed, the district court approved a consent decree negotiated and submitted by the city and the attorney general. FOP objected to the consent decree and moved to vacate it on the grounds that the decree’s terms violated the collective-bargaining agreement between FOP and the city and that it violated FOP’s constitutional rights. The district court vacated the consent decree and instructed all parties to attempt to reach an agreement, but negotiations were unsuccessful. After two hearings on the proposed consent decree, the district court entered a modified version of the decree over FOP’s objections, finding that the consent decree was constitutionally valid and did not interfere with the bargaining agreement between the city and FOP. However, the district court did not dismiss FOP and PBA as parties because the consent decree enjoined anyone acting in concert with the city from unlawful discrimination against city employees. FOP filed an appeal, and the appellate court panel affirmed the district court’s ruling. FOP petitioned for rehearing en banc, and the appellate court panel’s opinion was vacated for rehearing.