Arizona, State of et al v. Cottonwood, City of et al
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|Date Filed||#||Document Text|
|July 20, 2012
ORDER granting 22 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 24 Motion for Summary Judgment. a) Plaintiffs' retaliation claims (Count III and Count V) survive only to the extent that they claim that CPD retal iated against Det. Kuhlt for writing her March 9, 2009 letter asking CRD to re-open her case by sending her to a doctor for a medical evaluation andsubsequently putting her on modified duty. b) Plaintiffs' claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Coun t IV) is dismissed. c) All other claims survive.Defendants are hereby enjoined from requiring officers seeking promotionwithin the Cottonwood Police Department from passing a physical fitness exam as a prerequisite to promotion unless the exam in question has been validated as job-related specifically to the job for which the applicant is applying. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 7/20/12.(LAD)
|June 1, 2012
ORDER denying 36 Defendants' Motion to Strike the Declaration of Roger Millsap. Defendants shall have 30 days from the date of this Order to submit any evidence rebutting Dr. Millsap's conclusion or otherwise suggesting that the FIT standards do not have a disparate impact on female test-takers. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 6/1/12.(LSP)
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system.
A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Arizona District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?