Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

settlementmotionsummary judgmentdiscriminationleasemotion for summary judgment
settlementlease

Related Cases

Durkin v. Shea & Gould, 92 F.3d 1510, 65 USLW 2125, 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6146, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 10,095
View Case »
In re Marriage of Olson, 14 Cal.App.4th 1, 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 480
View Case »
Haines v. Liggett Group Inc., 975 F.2d 81, 61 USLW 2148, 36 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 782
View Case »
Adamson v. Bowen, 855 F.2d 668, 57 USLW 2144, 11 Fed.R.Serv.3d 606, 22 Soc.Sec.Rep.Serv. 698, Unempl.Ins.Rep. (CCH) P 14107A
View Case »
Sanders v. Sullivan, 863 F.2d 218, 57 USLW 2363
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Hopson v. City of Baltimore, Not Reported in F.Supp.3d, 2014 WL 4662339

Facts

In December 2004, Carter and others sued the BPD and the City for discrimination against African American police officers. They entered into a Settlement Agreement in June 2009, which included confidentiality provisions regarding personnel files. Carter later alleged that the BPD violated this agreement by disclosing his full personnel file to potential employers, despite the agreement stipulating that only dates of service should be disclosed. The BPD contended that it acted within its rights based on releases signed by Carter allowing full disclosure.

Carter later alleged that the BPD violated this agreement by disclosing his full personnel file to potential employers, despite the agreement stipulating that only dates of service should be disclosed.

Issue

Did the Baltimore Police Department and the City of Baltimore violate the confidentiality provisions of the Settlement Agreement by disclosing Carter's personnel records to potential employers?

The issues here are whether the BPD or the City knowingly violated the terms of the Settlement Agreement and whether Carter has shown harm as a result of the alleged violation.

Rule

To establish civil contempt, a movant must show by clear and convincing evidence: (1) the existence of a valid decree of which the alleged contemnor had actual or constructive knowledge; (2) that the decree was in the movant's favor; (3) that the alleged contemnor by its conduct violated the terms of the decree; and (4) that the movant suffered harm as a result.

To establish civil contempt, a movant must show by clear and convincing evidence: (1) the existence of a valid decree of which the alleged contemnor had actual or constructive knowledge; (2) that the decree was in the movant's favor; (3) that the alleged contemnor by its conduct violated the terms of the decree, and had … at least constructive knowledge of such violations; and (4) that the movant suffered harm as a result.

Analysis

The court analyzed whether the BPD knowingly violated the Settlement Agreement's confidentiality provision. It found that the BPD's actions were justified by the releases signed by Carter, which allowed for full disclosure of his records. The court also noted that Carter failed to demonstrate any harm resulting from the alleged violation, as there was no evidence linking the BPD's actions to his inability to secure employment.

The court finds that Carter has not presented clear and convincing evidence of a knowing violation of the Settlement Agreement by BPD; nor has he shown resultant harm.

Conclusion

The court concluded that Carter's motion for summary judgment was denied, as he did not provide clear and convincing evidence of a knowing violation of the Settlement Agreement by the BPD or the City, nor did he show resultant harm.

Accordingly, the Court finds that Carter has not presented clear and convincing evidence of a knowing violation of the Settlement Agreement by BPD; nor has he shown resultant harm.

Who won?

Baltimore Police Department and the City of Baltimore prevailed in the case because the court found no violation of the Settlement Agreement and no evidence of harm to Carter.

BPD asserts it did not violate the Settlement Agreement because Carter's personnel file was provided to two prospective employers based on Carter's execution of the Public Safety and Sheriff's Releases.

You must be