Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-92-0311J-92-381 8/7/92 RESOLUTION NO. 92-- 311 - A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE FRATERNAL, ORDER OF POLICE, LODGE NO. 20 = RELATING TO THE 1984-1988 POLICE LIEUTENANT'S _ CIVIL SERVICE EXAMINATION AT AN ESTIMATED COST OF $471 750.00 WITH FUNDS THEREFOR BEING ALLOCATED FROM CLAIMS PAYABLE ACCOUNTS OF THE SELF-INSURANCE TRUST FUND. WHEREAS, oontingent upon City Commission approval, the City Manager has entered into a proposed settlement agreement with the Fraternal Order of Police to resolve completely the lawsuit entitled Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge No. 20 vs. City of Miami, Case No. 86--51808 CA (03) and any and all claims related in any way to the 1984-1985 City of Miami police lieutenant's civil service examination without an admission of liability by the City of Miami; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the proposed settlement, all affeoted active employees and all affeoted retirees were required to execute releases disoharging the City of Miami and any of its agents, offioers, or employees from any and all claims of any kind that are related in any way to the 1984-1988 police lieutenant's civil service examination; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA: CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF. MAY 1 4 1992 Resolution No. 92- 311 Section 1. The recitals and findings contained in the Preamble to this Resolution are hereby adopted by reference y thereto and incorporated herein as if fully set forth in this Section. Section 2. The City Manager is hereby authorized to enter into a settlement agreement with the Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge No. 20 relating to the 1984-1988 police lieutenant's civil service examination, under the terms specified in Sections 3-18 hereinbelow, at an estimated cost of $471,750.00 with funds therefor being hereby allocated from Claims Payable Accounts of the Self-Insuranoe Trust Fund. Section 3. All affected active employees shall receive a fifteen percent (15%) per hour (initial) retroactive pay raise to October 1, 1990 (three step equivalent), minus appropriate deductions, and the affected employees' hourly rate shall be adjusted accordingly. Section 4. All affeoted active employees shall receive the (initial) retroactive payment within three full pay periods following the adoption of this Resolution by the City Commission. Section 8. Upon retirement (service, rule of 70, aooidental/servioe incurred or disability retirement) from City of Miami employment, of an affected active employee, the employee shall receive a (final) retroactive pay increase of $4.8077 per hour ($10,000) for the year immediately preceding his/her retirement. r Section 6. Should an affected active employee die prior to retirement from City of Miami employment, the employee shall be -2- 92- 311 given a retroactive (final) pay increase of $4.8077 ($10,000) per hour for the year immediately preceding the date of his/her death payable to the employee's designated beneficiary. Section 7. The (final) retroactive pay increase shall not be included for the calculation of payment of leave balances or severance pay. Pay out of leave balances and severance pay shall be paid at the rate of pay the employee was receiving prior to the (final) retroactive pay increase and in accordance with the labor agreement and appropriate Civil Service Rules and Regulations. Section 8. All affected active employees who receive the fifteen percent (15%) per hour (initial) retroactive increase shall not be eligible to receive any further anniversary increases and/or longevity increases should such increase place the employee above the pay range of their classification. To the extent that the fifteen percent (15%) per hour (initial) retroactive pay increase places an affected employee above the pay range of his or her classification, the employee shall not be eligible to receive any further anniversary increases and/or longevity increases. However, any future across-the-board pay increases which are made available to all members of the bargaining unit shall also apply to employees affected by this agreement. Section 9. Those affected employees who retired prior to City Commission adoption of this Resolution shall be entitled to receive a fifteen percent (15%) per hour retroactive increase for the year immediately proceeding the employee's retirement date, -3- 92-- 311 minus appropriate deductions. The affected employee's hourly rate shall be adjusted a000rdingly. The fifteen percent (15%) per hour retroactive pay adjustment shall be deemed as part of the employee's average final compensation for pension benefit calculations. This payment shall be made within three (3) full pay periods following City Commission adoption of this Resolution. Section 10. The acceptance of the benefits paid under the settlement agreement shall be in lieu of any and all other claims for promotion and/or back pay compensation raised in connection with the 1984-1985 police lieutenant's civil service examination. Any future retirement incentive pay programs implemented by the City shall not be made available to the affected employees. Section 11. For the purposes of the settlement agreement, Mary Lou Nichols -Woods shall receive a one time lump sum payment of five thousand ($6,000) dollars and shall not be eligible to receive the fifteen percent (15%) per hour (initial) retroactive pay raise. Mary Lou Niohols-Woods shall, however, be eligible to receive the (final) retroactive pay increase upon her retirement as speoified in Sections 8, 6 and 7 herein. The five thousand (S5,000) dollar lump sum payment shall be made within three full pay periods following the adoption of this Resolution by the City Commission. Section 12. For the purposes of the settlement agreement, Arnold Gibbs shall receive a one time lump sum payment of twelve thousand ($12.000) dollars and shall not be eligible to receive the fifteen percent (15%) per hour (initial) retroactive pay -4- 92s 311 raise or the (final) retroactive pay increase upon his retirement as specified in Sections 8, 8 and 7 of this Resolution unless he -= is involuntarily returned to a bargaining unit classification by the City Manager. Should Arnold Gibbs be returned to a bargaining unit classification of Captain or below, Arnold Gibbs shall receive the fifteen percent (15%) per hour (initial) retroactive pay raise as specified in Section 3 of this Resolution and be eligible to receive the (final) retroactive pay increase upon his retirement as specified in Sections 8, 8 and 7 of this Resolution. The twelve thousand ($12,000) dollar lump sum payment shall be made within three (3) full pay periods following the adoption of this Resolution by the City Commission. Seotion 13. For the purposes of the settlement agreement, anyone appointed above the rank of Captain shall not be entitled to any benefits resulting from the settlement. Any appointed person who is involuntarily returned to the rank of their former bargaining unit classification by the. City Manager shall be entitled to the benefits of the settlement agreement. Section 14. The City shall pay to the Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge 20, the sum of fifty thousand dollars (580,000) for attorney's fees and costs. This payment shall be made within three full pay periods following the adoption of this Resolution by the City Commission. Section 18. Upon City Commission adoption of this Resolution, the City of Miami and the Fraternal Order of Police shall jointly petition the Third District Court of Appeal to remand the case to the circuit court in Case No. 88-81808 for the .MM 92- 311 purpose of having the circuit court approve the settlement agreement which Court approval shall constitute a judgment of the Court binding upon the City, the Fraternal Order of Police, and affected employees signing releases pursuant to the settlement. Section 16. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14t--h day of MAV 1992. Gam._ ATTE . XAVIER LUAREZ, MAYOR MATTY HIRAI, CITY CLERK BUDGETARY REVIEW: MANOHAR S. SII ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER -w SELF-INSU CE TRUST FUND REVIEW: SUJAN S. C RECTOR DEPARTMENT ISK iXtiT PREPARED AND APPROVED BY: ALBERTINS . SMITH CHIEF ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY =� APPROVED AS TO FORK AND CORRECTNESS: II , CITY ATTORNEY ABS/ sls/ s/M2912 92- 311 CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM 24 - TO Honorable Mayor and Members DATE April 28, 1992 FILE i of th City A; Commission FROM, Cesar H. Odio City Manager RECOMMENDATION: SUBJECT Police Lieutenant's Examination Settlement - 1984-1985 REFERENCES. ENCLOSURES. It is respectfully requested that the City Commission authorize the City Manager to enter into a proposed settlement agreement (settlement attached) with the Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge No. 20 relating to the 1984-1985 Police Lieutenant's Civil Service Examination. BACKGROUND: The 1984-1985 Police Lieutenant's examination has been the subject of two extensive lawsuits filed by the Fraternal Order of Police on behalf of individuals failing to pass the examination. The first lawsuit, which was successfully defended and appealed by the City, was litigated within local Circuit Court and appealed to the Third District Court of Appeals (opinion attached) and the Florida Supreme Court. The second lawsuit which was filed by the Fraternal Order of Police in the local Circuit Court resulted in a judgment against the City that would require the reconducting of the examination. A copy of the Judgment is attached. The City has appealed this judgment and has filed its initial brief. The Fraternal Order of Police has filed a Notice of Cross Appeal. As a result of this costly and protracted litigation, the City has entered into a proposed settlement agreement with the Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge No. 20, to resolve any and all claims related in any way to the 1984-1985 City of Miami Police Lieutenant's examination. The proposed settlement involves twenty-four (24) active and five (5) retired employees affected by the 1984-1985 Lieutenant's examination. The stipulations of the proposed settlement agreement are listed as follows: 1) For active employees, a 15% retroactive pay raise from October 1, 1990 through May 16, 1992, 92- 311 .2 Y-/ Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Commission April 28, 1992 Pa ge 2 2) Upon retirement, an annualized $10,000 pay increase for the year preceding retirement, 3) For retired employees, a 15% retroactive pay raise for the year preceding the employee's retirement date, 4) A lump sum payment to Lieutenant Mary Lou Nichols -Woods in the amount of $5,000, 5) A lump sum payment to Assistant Police Chief Arnold Gibbs in the amount of $12,000, and 6) Attorney's fees paid to the Fraternal Order of Police in the amount of $50,000. The estimated FY'92 cost of the proposed settlement agreement is $471,750. In contrast, the estimated FY192 cost of the Court 's judgment is $561,400 plus interest at the rate of 12 0. The settlement will be paid from the Claims Payable Account of the Self -Insurance Trust Fund. ,� 92- 311 SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE AGREEMENT 1. This document is a settlement and release agreement that completely resolves the lawsuit entitled Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge *20 vs. City of Miami, Case No. 86-51808 CA (03) and any and all claims related in any way to the 1984 - 1985 City of h1laml police lieutenant civil service examination which �1 was the subject of said lawsuit. in entering Into this settlement, the City of Miami does not admit liability. 2. All active employees as defined on the attached list shall receive a fifteen percent (15%) per hour (Initial) retroactive pay raise to October 1, 1990 (three step equivalent), —" minus appropriate deductions, and the affected employees' hourly rate shall be adjusted accordingly. 3. All active employees shall receive the (initial) retroactive payment within three full pay periods following City Commission approval of the settlement of this lawsuit. 4. Upon retirement (service, rule of 709 accidental/service Incurred or disability retirement) from City of Miami employment, of an active employee as specified on the attached list, the employee shall receive a (final) retroactive pay increase of $4.8077 per hour ($10,000) for the year immediately preceding his/her retirement. 5. Should an active employee as specified on the attached list die prior to retirement from City of Miami employment, the employee shall be given a retroactive (final) pay increase of $4.8077 ($10,000) per hour for the year immedlately preceding the 92- 311 3 date of his/her death payable to the employee's designated beneficiary. 6. The (final) retroactive pay Increase shall not be Included for the calculation of payment of leave balances or severance pay. Pay out of leave balances and severance pay shall be paid at the rate of pay the employee was receiving prior to the (final) retroactive pay Increase and in accordance with the labor agreement and appropriate Civil Service Rules and Regulations. 7. All active employees, as defined on the attached list, who receive the fifteen percent (15%) per hour (Initial) retroactive Increase shall not be eligible to receive any further anniversary Increases and/or longevity increases should such Increase place the employee above the pay range of their classification. To the extent that the fifteen percent (15%) per hour (initial) retroactive pay Increase places an affected employee above the pay range of his or her classification, the employee shall not be eligible to receive any further anniversary Increases and/or longevity Increases. However, any future across-the-board pay Increases which are made available to all members of the bargaining unit shall also apply to employees affected by this agreement. 8. Those employees who retired, as specified on the attached list, prior to City Commission approval of the settlement of this lawsuit shall be untitled to receive a fifteen percent (16%) per hour retroactive Increase for the year Immediately proceeding the employee's retirement date, minus 92- 311 it 9 appropriate deductions. The affected employee's hourly rate shall be adjusted accordingly. The fifteen percent (16%) per hour retroactive pay adjustment shall be deemed as part of the employee's average final compensation for pension benefit calculations. This payment shall be made within three (3) full pay periods following City Commission approval of the settlement of this lawsuit. 9. The acceptance of the benefits paid under this agreement shall be In lieu of any and all other claims for promotion and/or back pay compensation raised In these Proceedings. Any future retirement incentive pay programs Implemented by the City shall not be made available to the affected employees. 10. For the purposes of this settlement, Mary Lou Nichols - Woods shall receive a one time lump sum payment of five thousand ($5,000) dollars and shall not be eligible to receive the fifteen percent (15%) per hour (initial) retroactive pay raise. Mary Lou Nichols -Woods shall, however, be eligible to receive the (final) retroactive pay increase upon her retirement. as specified In Items *4, 5, and 6 herein. The five thousand (%5,000) dollar lump sum payment shall be made within three full pay periods following City Commission approval of the settlement of this lawsuit. 11. For the purposes of this settlement, Arnold Gibbs shall receive a one time lump sum payment of twelve thousand ($12,000) dollars and.shall not be eligible to receive the fifteen percent (15%) per hour (initial) retroactive pay raise or the (final) 92- 311 , retroactive pay increase upon his retirement as specified in Items *4, *5 and *6 herein unless he is involuntarily returned to a bargaining unit class[ flcatIon by the City Manager. Should Arnold Gibbs be returned to a bargaining unit classification of Captain or below, Arnold Gibbs shall receive the fifteen percent (16%) per hour (initial) retroactive pay raise as specified in Item *1 and be eligible to receive the (final) retroactive pay _ Increase upon his retirement as specified in Items *4, *6 and *6. The twelve thousand ($12,000) dollar lump sum payment shall be made within three (3) full pay periods following City Commission approval of the settlement of this lawsuit. 12. For the purposes of this settlement, anyone appointed above the rank of Captain shall not be entitled to any benefits resulting from the settlement. Any appointed person who is Involuntarily returned to the rank of their former bargaining unit classification by the City Manager shall be entitled to the benefits of this settlement. 13. The City shall pay to the Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge 20, the sum of fifty thousand ($60,000) dollars for attorney's fees and costs. This payment shall be made within three full pay periods following City Commission approval of the settlement of this lawsuit. 14. This stipulation shall be entered Into and agreed upon by all affected employees as specified on the attached list and each affected employee shall sign a copy of this Settlement and Release Agreement. 92— 311 w� =a 15. Upon City Commission approval of the settlement of this lawsuit the parties shall Jointly petition the Third District Court of Appeal to remand the case to the trial court for the purpose of having the trial court approve the Settlement and Release Agreement, which Court approval shall constitute a judgment of the Court binding upon the City, the Fraternal Order of Police and affected employees signing this Agreement. 16. This settlement Is contingent upon City Commission approval. 17. The Fraternal Order of Police, in consideration of the recitals set forth above, hereby forever releases and discharges the City of Miami and any of Its agents, officers, or employees from any and all demands liabilities or claims of any kind that are related in any way to the 1984 - 1985 police lieutenant civil service examination and will not file, sponsor, or support any such claim. 18. Each affected employee, in consideration of the recitals set for the above, by his or her notarized signature on this document forever releases and discharges the City of Miami and any of Its agents, officers, or employees from any and all demands, liabilities, or claims of any kind that are related in any way to the 1984 - 1985 police lieutenant civil service examination. CESAR H. ODIO, CITY MANAGER A ORNEL "AL" COTERA, PRESIDENT FOP MIAMI LODGE 20 9 2 -- 311, "� 7 4 ell NOTARIZED SIGNATURE OF AFFECTED EMPLOYEE 1, , hereby acknowledge and affirm that I have read this settlement and release agreement, that I have consulted with an attorney regarding this settlement and release agreement, and that 1 fully understand and agree with this settlement and release agreement. By: STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF Before me personally appeared known to me to be the person who executed the foregoing Instrument, and acknowledged to and before me that executed said Instrument for the purposes therein expressed. WITNESS my hand and official seal, this day of A.D., 19 Notary Public State of Florida My commission expires 92- 311 ZS SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE AGREEMENT 1984 - 1985 POLICE LIEUTENANTS EXAM AFFECTED EMPLOYEES Active: Aguirre, S. Blanco, E. Bohan, R . Boyd, H. Burns, P. Caldwell, D. Doice, L. Domm, E. Downey, D. Gibbs, A. Glalster, W. Heterington, V. Jaffe, R . Kal ine, J. Maye, F. Mazur, M. Rimes, C. Satcher, E. Smith, W. Smylle, W. Turner, J. Watterson, T. Williams, R. Woods, M. Retired: Hatton, J. Liles, K. Seaman, T. Smith, V. Travis, S. T i J'ATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE v. ODI. Fla. 339 Cho M 4918eJ4 LH (MA". 3 WAL IM) Before NESBITT, BASKIN and FERGU- lished that search of bag was accomplished SON, JJ. with defendant's consent. PER CURIAM. Finding that the trial court correctly de- termined that, under the parties' indemnifi- cation agreement, Crown Premium Fi- nance, Inc. (Crown) was entitled to reim- bursement from Harvey Moss for attor• ney's fees expended by Crown, we affirm. Sce General Insurance Co. of America v. Sentry Indemnity Co., 384 So.2d 1305 (Fla. 5th DCA), review dismissed, 889 So.2d 1110 (F1a.1980). Appellant's remain- ing points lack merit. Affirmed. w o ��lr�v�N�snnM The STATE of Florida, Appellant, V. Pedro PEREZ, Appellee. Nos. 85-2802, 85-2804. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District. July 22, 1986. In a probation violation proceeding, the State appealed from a suppression order of the Circuit Court, Dade County, Arthur I. Snyder, J. The District Court of Appeal held that: (1) exclusionary rule applied to probation violation hearing, and (2) unre- butted evidence before trial court estab- lished that search of bag was accomplished with defendant'& consent. Reversed and remanded. I. CrindW Law 0-982.9(5) Exclusionary rule applied to probation violation hearing. 2. Criminal Law *-98L9(5) Unrebutted evidence before trial in probation violation proceeding Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Charles M. Fahlbusch, Asat. Atty. Gen., for appellant. Armando A. Perez, Miami, for appellee. Before SCHWARTZ, CJ., and HUB- BART and BASKIN, JJ. PER CURIAM. [1.21 The state appeals from an order suppressing evidence in a probation viola- tion proceeding. We reject the state's con- tention that the exclusionary rule does not apply to probation violation hearings. State v. Cross, 487 So.2d 1056 (F1a.1986). We reverse the order suppressing the evi- dence, however, because the unrebutted ev- idence before the trial court established that the search of the bag was accom- plished with defendant Perez's consent. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 36 I..Ed.2d 854 (1978); Burke v. State, 465 So.2d 1887 (Fla. 6th DCA 1985). Reversed and remanded. FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, Mi. ami Lodge 20, a labor organisation, William T. Sm ytle and Jeff Turner, Ap• peAants, v. Cesar ODIO, in his capacity as City Man- Wr of the City of Miami, and the City of Miami, a municipal corporation, Ap• pollees. No. 8"9. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District. July 22, 1986. courtl Appeal from the Circuit Court for Dade estab-1 County; Jack III. Turner, Judge. 92- 311 r N 340 Fla. 491 SOUTRERN REPORTER. 2d baRIES Peeliner,— Schwedock, Finkelstein dt Klausner, Alan Eichenbsum, Miami, for ap- pellants. Lucia A. Dougherty, City Atty., and A. Quinn Jones and Albertine B. Smith, Aaat. City Attys., for appellees. Before HUBBART, BASKIN and DAN- IEL S. PEAJ'iSON, JJ. PER CURIAM. Appellants challenge the trial court's is- suance of a final order denying a petition for writ of mandamus and a request for temporary injunction. A writ of manda- mus may be issued only where a petitioner has demonstrated a clear legal right on its part, an indisputable ministerial duty on the part of the respondent, and the absence of another adequate remedy. Departmemt of Health & Rehabilitative Srrvtces v American Healthcorp, 471 So.2d 1812, 1814 (Fla. 1st DCA 198!5); State ex r+el. Blatt v. Pane;jab International Corp., $14 So.2d 196, 198 (Fla. Sd DCA 19 , City of Miami v. Rueau, In So.2d 432 (Fla. Sd DCA), cent. denied, 188 So.2d 646 (F1a.1961). Our review of the record, appli- cable case law, and the pertinent sections of the Civil Service Rules and Regulations and the Charter of the City of Miami re- veals that appellants Wed to prove the evdence of even one of these three factors. Finding no merit in the remaining issues, we affirm. FIT. Bruce Robert SAYLOR and Patrick Robin Rirst, Appellants, V. The STATE of Florida. Appellee. No. W110. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District. July 22, 1986. Defendants were convicted in the Cir. cult Court for Dade County, Amy Steele Donner, J., of conspiring with one another to traffic in cocaine, and they appealed. The District Court of Appeal held that there was insufficient evidence to support conspiracy convictions. Reversed with directions. Conspiracy es47(12) Evidence concerning police officer's selling cocaine to defendants was insuffi- cient to convict defendants of conspiring with one another to traffic in cocaine, when there was no evidence that second defendant said anything during convema- tion between fast defendant and police of- fvicer about "doing" cocaine deal, or that there was any suggestion by first defend- ant, in which second defendant might be said to have acquiesced by his silence, that second defendant had agreed with first de- fendant to buy cocaine from police officer. West's F.S.A. $ 777.04(8). Bruce Rogow, Fort Lauderdale and Ed- o ward J. McRale, for appellant Hirst. Edward J. O'Donnell, Jr., Miami, for ap• pellant Saylor. Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Richard L Haplan, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee. Before BUBBART. BASHIN surd DAN- IEL & PEAPMN, JJ. I� 92- 311 8651808.Ord FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, MIAMI LODGE 20, A labor organization, et al., plaintiffs, vs. CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, a municipal corporation, Defendant. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION Case No. 86-51808 CA 03 FINAL JUDGMENT THIS CAUSE came before the Court in an action for declaratory relief seeking to declare invalid certain portions of the 1984-85 Miami Police Department lieutenant's promotional Examination. By earlier order of this Court, the Honorable Dennis Lynch was appointed as Special Master and in August, 1990 Lynch rendered his findings of fact and conclusions of law. The parties thereafter filed various exceptions to the findings of fact and the FOP filed a request to adopt the Special Master's findings of fact. y The Court conducted further hearings on that matter and has determined that the Special Master's findings of fact and conclusions -of law are correct and the Court hereby adopts said findings of fact and, conclusions of law as its own. 92- 311 13 The result of that Special master's report is a finding that the City of.Miami has violated the civil service rules and regulations of the City in that it failed to use sound measurement techniques in the manner in which it conducted the assessment center portion of the 1984-85 lieutenant's promotional examination. The Court then turned to the question of remedy. The Court conducted various hearings on the issue of remedy and solicited and received memoranda of law from the parties on the subject. Having taken those memoranda and the evidence and argument presented at the various hearings and the consideration, the Court enters the following final declaratory judgment. A. The Court has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of this action; B. The City of Miami has violated the Civil. Service Rules and regulations set forth in City Ordinance 8977 in its failure to use sound measurement techniques in the 1984-85 assessment center portion of the police lieutenant's promotional examination; C. The Court has determined as an appropriate remedy that the assessment center portion of the test shall be reconducted in a manner as approved by the court and shall be administered by a person or persons who to the Court's satisfaction are competent to conduct such an examination. 92- 311 1y Cif D. The Court directs that the assessment center examination be reconducted in not more than 120 days from the date of this order and that the Court shall further reserve jurisdiction to consider protest by any affected employee concerning the result of the assessment center directed by this order; E. Any person who achieves a passing score of 84 or higher on this new examination shall be declared promoted to the rank of police lieutenant retroactive to September 27, 1985, with R all pay, seniority, pension benefits and other emoluments of office. Any person who achieves less than 84 but because of his status as a minority or otherwise can prove to the court that they would have nonetheless been the subject of such promotion may request a hearing for that purpose. F. Any affected person who achieved a passing score of 84 or higher on a subsequent promotional examination to the rank -- of police lieutenant may retain said score and shall be declared promoted retroactive to September 27, 1585, with all pay and emoluments. Any person who achieved less -than 84 but because of his status as a minority or otherwise can prove to the court that they would have nonetheless been the subject of such promotion may request a hearing for that purpos®. - s G. Any affected employee who has since September 27, a 1985, retired from the service of the City of Miami shall be 92- 311 5 -= allowed to retake the assessment center examination and if he or she passes with a score of 84 or higher shall be deemed promoted —� and shall receive pay at the appropriate lieutenant's pay grade from September 27, 1985, to the date of retirement and shall thereafter receive pension payments reflecting the difference in salary; H. For any of those affected persons who achieve a score of 84 or higher on a subsequent examination, the City of Miami shall have the opportunity to show cause to the Court why any of such persons should be bypassed for promotion. =s I. All promotions and payments of back pay and other emoluments shall be completed within 180 days of the date of this order. J. The Court reserves jurisdiction upon the presentation of proper proof to determine the amount of costs and attorney's fees to be awarded; i1 3 K. The Court reserved jurisdiction to enter such 4 further orders as may be necessary to fulfill the objectives of this Final Judgment. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Dade County, Florida, this da of:Ju 1991. � AR M SI NS; C u ge . I1 t 'ii'71441 Copies furnished to: Robert D. Klausner, Esq. j Albertine B. Smith, Assistant City Attorney g .fudge STUART. M. SIMONS '• 9 2 - 311 """�