TULSA--The city asked a judge last week to terminate federal court supervision over a 2003 consent decree in a racial-discrimination lawsuit.Joel Wohlgemuth, an attorney representing the city, claimed in the motion that a settlement that was reached in the Black police officers class-action lawsuit Oct. 29, but has since been “repudiated” by the plaintiffs and the Fraternal Order of Police, an intervening party.
“The plaintiffs have refused to sign the agreement based upon their disagreements with the manner in which the city is attempting to deal with its budget crisis,” he wrote, “which could involve potential layoffs or pay reduction for certain Tulsa Police Department personnel.”
Mr. Wohlgemuth’s motion said the plaintiffs have taken the position that any proposal that would involve layoffs would violate the consent decree because it would reduce the number of Black officers on the police force.
However, he said that issue is unrelated to the city’s compliance with the decree.
Louis Bullock, the attorney for the plaintiffs, said he would not comment until he has read the pleading and discussed it with his clients.
Phil Evans, president of the Fraternal Order of Police, did not return a message.
The pleading said the FOP’s approval is not necessary for the court to terminate the decree.
It said the city believes that the October agreement is legally “valid and enforceable.”
But Mr. Wohlgemuth indicated that, even if the court disagrees, it could still terminate the consent decree based on the city’s “substantial compliance” with its terms for nearly seven years.
The city filed its motion two days before the 16th anniversary of the lawsuit’s filing.
The case was filed in Jan. 1994 by then-Officer Roy Johnson, who alleged that the Tulsa Police Department discriminated against him and other Black officers.
The suit was made a class action in 1998, opening it to all Tulsa current and former Black police officers if they didn’t choose to opt out.
According to last week’s pleading, the October accord called for the city to implement a new policy relating to specialty assignments.
The city asked that various documents be sealed because they “describe or relate to settlement proceedings that occurred in this case as well as the efforts of the city to finalize an agreement,” a separate document stated.
