To the extent that a significant rather than a fortuitous
relationship can be shown, the nature of the relationship is
important as to whether there is standing.*fn23 In the
present case, the relationship involved was that between the
League and its members. The alleged constitutional violations
relate to the purpose of such membership, viz., freedom from
racial discrimination.*fn24 Certainly, the League is the
"medium through which its individual members seek to make more
effective the expression of their views" and thus has a
significant relationship with its members. 357 U.S. at 459, 78
S.Ct. at 1170.
Finally, in order to sue individually, the League members
would expose themselves to extra-legal sanctions of the
Department. Thus, for the individual members of the League to
file suit is impracticable. Furthermore, standing may be
permitted, even though the individual could effectively assert
his own rights.*fn25
The criteria which the Court considered decisive in NAACP v.
Alabama, supra, are satisfied in the present case. The League's
nexus with its members is sufficient to permit it to act as
their representative in contesting the alleged discriminatory
practices of defendants as alleged in Count 2 of the Second
Amended Complaint. Accordingly, defendants' argument that the
Association lacks standing to assert the constitutional rights
pertaining to its members, who are not parties to the
litigation, is rejected.
The allegations of paragraph 22 of Count 2 adequately allege
the League's standing to sue.*fn26 Accordingly, defendants'
motion to dismiss the League from Count 2 is denied.
PROMOTION EXAMINATIONS AND QUALIFICATIONS
All defendants move to dismiss the allegations of Count 2 of
the Second Amended Complaint regarding the Department's
promotion examinations and qualifications on the grounds that
they have no power or control over promotion of police
officers. Defendants assert that the Civil Service Commission
of the City is the proper party defendant as to these claims.
The Civil Service Commission provides for promotions in the
Department on the basis of merit, seniority and examination.
Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 24, §§ 10-1-13, 10-1-14. The members of the
Commission, however, are appointed by the Mayor of Chicago and
are paid by the City of Chicago. Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 24, §
10-1-1. Consequently, the City effectively controls the Civil
Service Commission and thus the process of promotion in the
The practices of the Department are directly in issue. Thus,
Conlisk, Rochford, the Board and the members thereof
of who are named as defendants are proper parties under Count
Accordingly, defendants' motion to dismiss on the grounds
that they have no control over promotion in the Department is
All defendants move to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint
on the grounds that it fails to state a justiciable
controversy. The apparent basis of defendants' motion is the
alleged inability of the court to fashion a remedy that would
not involve it with the daily administration of the
Department. Defendants contend that such involvement is best
left to the legislative and executive branches of government.
The legal issues involved in the present case regarding the
alleged discriminatory nature of the hiring and promotion of
City police officers have been considered by other courts.
Bridgeport Guardians, Inc., et al. v. Members of the
Bridgeport Civil Service Commission, 482 F.2d 1333 (2d Cir.
1973); Castro v. Beecher, 459 F.2d 725 (1st Cir. 1972); Carter
v. Gallagher, 452 F.2d 315 (8th Cir. 1972). The types of
equitable remedies which properly may be invoked once a
finding of unlawful discrimination has been made are varied.
See Arnold v. Ballard, 5 E.P.D. ¶ 8630 (N.D.Ohio May 14, 1973);
Harper v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 359 F. Supp. 1187
Accordingly, defendants' motion to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint on this ground is denied.
Thereupon, it is ordered that defendants' motion to
reconsider their motion to strike and dismiss and for summary
judgment is denied.
Defendants Conlisk, City of Chicago, Goodrich, Hauser,
Johnson, Daniel, Perch, the Police Review Board and Rochford
are ordered to answer the Second Amended Complaint in 20 days.