Skip to main content

U.S. v. City of New York (FDNY)

Update your contact information

If you have already submitted a claim form in this case and your contact information has changed since you submitted the claim form, please provide your updated contact information here.

Current Status & Important Dates

(see Case Timeline and Court Decisions page for more info)

June 30, 2014

The Court preliminarily approved the parties' proposed Monetary Relief Consent Decree and scheduled a Fairness Hearing to determine whether to finally approve the Decree and whether to approve or amend the Proposed Relief Awards List, which shows the proposed awards for back pay, fringe benefits, and interest for each of the 1,470 claimants who the Court determined are eligible to receive individual monetary relief.

June 27, 2014

The parties filed with the Court a proposed Monetary Relief Consent Decree to settle the claims for back pay and fringe benefits (plus interest) lost by black and Hispanic firefighter applicants due to the City's discrimination.

March 18, 2014

The parties announced that they had reached an agreement in principle to settle this case.

February 18, 2014

Deadline for eligible black claimants to submit compensatory damages claim forms (optional)

September 4, 2013

Deadline for eligible claimants to respond to the City's discovery requests.

August 9, 2013

Court issued final set of determinations regarding claimants' eligibility for relief.

June 28, 2013

Special Masters issued final set of Reports and Recommendations regarding claimants' eligibility for relief.

June 6, 2013

The Court entered a Modified Remedial Order in accordance with the Second Circuit's May 14 opinion.

May 14, 2013

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling overturning the intentional discrimination finding and sending the intentional discrimination claim to a new district court judge for trial. The Second Circuit also upheld most of the remedies ordered by Judge Garaufis, including a Court Monitor to oversee the FDNY's hiring, and held that Judge Garaufis would maintain jurisdiction over financial and other remedies.

 


Please do not contact the court for information about this case.