Floyd v. City of New York
Not available (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A class action may be certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 when plaintiffs challenge a centralized, top-down, and uniform policy that allegedly harms a large group of people. The common question of the policy's legality satisfies the commonality requirement, distinguishing it from cases involving decentralized, discretionary decision-making by lower-level managers.
Facts:
- Between 2004 and 2009, New York City Police Department (NYPD) officers conducted and documented over 2.8 million 'stop and frisk' encounters with civilians.
- The NYPD's stop-and-frisk program was a centralized, hierarchical policy designed, implemented, and monitored by the department's highest-ranking officials through processes like CompStat meetings.
- The NYPD set performance goals and productivity standards for officers related to stops, summonses, and arrests, which plaintiffs allege functioned as quotas and led to a dramatic increase in the number of stops.
- Statistical analysis of the NYPD's own data (UF-250 forms) showed that over 50% of those stopped were Black and 30% were Latino, while only 10% were White.
- The same data indicated that in at least 170,000 stops, the officers' own stated reasons for the stop were legally insufficient on their face to establish reasonable suspicion (e.g., citing only 'furtive movements').
- The named plaintiffs, David Floyd, Lalit Clarkson, Deon Dennis, and David Ourlicht, are Black men who were each stopped by NYPD officers on one or more occasions.
Procedural Posture:
- David Floyd and other named plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the City of New York, its Mayor, and Police Commissioner.
- The complaint alleged that the NYPD's stop-and-frisk practices violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
- The court previously denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment.
- The court also ruled on a motion to exclude the testimony of the plaintiffs' statistical expert, Jeffrey Fagan, granting it in part and denying it in part.
- Plaintiffs then moved for certification of a class consisting of all persons unlawfully stopped by the NYPD since January 31, 2005.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a proposed class of individuals allegedly subjected to the New York Police Department's city-wide stop-and-frisk policies satisfy the numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy requirements for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23?
Opinions:
Majority - Scheindlin, J.
Yes. A proposed class challenging the NYPD's stop-and-frisk program satisfies the requirements for class certification under Rule 23. The plaintiffs' claims stem from a single, centralized policy, which distinguishes this case from Wal-Mart v. Dukes, where employment decisions were left to the discretion of local managers. Here, the common question is whether the NYPD's department-wide policy and practice of stops and frisks violates the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. This central question is capable of class-wide resolution, satisfying the commonality requirement. The court found that the plaintiffs easily met the numerosity requirement, given the millions of stops, and that the named plaintiffs' claims were typical of the class because their injuries derived from the same unitary course of conduct. Finally, the plaintiffs were found to be adequate representatives of the class, as their interests were not antagonistic to other members.
Analysis:
This decision is significant for reaffirming the viability of civil rights class actions against government agencies with hierarchical command structures in the wake of the Supreme Court's restrictive Wal-Mart v. Dukes ruling. The court established a clear distinction between a decentralized corporate policy of delegating discretion (as in Wal-Mart) and a centralized, top-down government policy that guides and pressures officer conduct. This provides a crucial framework for future class actions alleging systemic constitutional violations by police departments or other government bodies, demonstrating that statistical evidence of a uniform practice can be the 'glue' that holds a class together.
Unlock the full brief for Floyd v. City of New York