State Labor Law and Federal Police Reform

In April of 1997, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) reacheda settlement agreement with the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police(PBP) to correct a pattern of unconstitutional misconduct.' It wasthe first time the DOJ had used 42 U.S.C. § 14141 to interveneinto a local police department to correct systemic misconduct.The statute, passed in response to the Rodney King beating,provides the U.S. Attorney General with the power to seekequitable relief against troubled local police departments. As the reform process began to unfold in Pittsburgh, "problemssoon emerged." The consent decree required Pittsburgh toimprove its process for investigating and responding to civiliancomplaints. But at times, the PBP found it difficult to complywith this requirement, in part because the city had agreed to acollective bargaining agreement with the police union that limitedwhich complaints were eligible for investigation. While theconsent decree established ambitious goals for improvement, italso included a clause that read: "Nothing in this Decree isintended to alter the collective bargaining agreement between theCity and the Fraternal Order of Police." This meant that, inattempting to reform the Pittsburgh Police Department via§ 14141, the DOJ was effectively limited in its reach because of theterms of the collective bargaining agreement.

As Jonathan M.Smith, the former Chief of the Special Litigation Section of theDOJ's Civil Rights Division has observed, the Pittsburgh experience is hardly unique. In the over twenty years since theDOJ has had the power under § 14141 to seek equitable reliefagainst police departments, it has often had to take on "lesssufficient reform strategies" because of the barrier of police unioncontracts.