U.S. Marshals Race Discrimination Class Action

Case type: Race Discrimination
Case name: Hedgepeth v. Garland

Case Summary

Update: On June 24, 2024, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) granted final approval of a $15 million settlement, ending Sanford Heisler Sharp McKnight‘s nearly 30-year-long litigation against the United States Marshals Service on behalf of more than 700 current and former African American Deputy U.S. Marshals who experienced race discrimination in promotions and headquarters assignments, and thousands more who were denied hire.

Class members are now eligible for monetary relief (please note: Shortly before the final settlement approval, the matter was renamed “Hedgepeth v. Garland” after a Supervisory Administrative Law Judge issued an Order removing Matthew Fogg as a class agent). The settlement also provides that the Marshals Service will institute programmatic relief designed to enhance equity, objectivity, and transparency in promotion, hiring practices, and headquarters assignments.

Background: Fogg v. Garland was a race discrimination class action before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) against the United States Marshals Service (“USMS”). Our firm, Sanford Heisler Sharp McKnight, was counsel for the class, which includes over 700 current and former African American Deputy U.S. Marshals and Detention Enforcement Officers who experienced racism in hiring, promotions, and headquarters assignments from 1994 to the present. The class also includes all African American candidates who applied for Deputy U.S. Marshal positions since 1994 but were never hired.

Hiring Claims: Class Agents allege that the USMS hiring process discriminates against African Americans applying for the Deputy U.S. Marshal position. Class Agents allege that the following policies and practices have caused a disparate impact on African American candidates:

• The minimum qualifications required for the Deputy U.S. Marshal position
• Hiring examinations used at several points since 1994 to assess applicants
• The Agency hiring interview used from 1994 until 2011 or 2012
• The Agency’s lack of objective criteria for selecting a candidate for hire from the hiring register

Promotions Claims: Class Agents allege the USMS merit promotion process discriminates against African Americans. Class Agents allege that the following policies and practices have adversely affected African Americans’ ability to be promoted within the USMS:

• The experience section used from 1995 to 2017 to assess the applicants
• The Merit Promotion Exam used since 1994
• The system used by the USMS management to rank candidates for promotion
• The USMS Director’s ability to select a candidate of his or her choosing without regard to qualifications, or to cancel the position and re-announce it or assign someone into it

Headquarters Assignments Claims: Class Agents allege that the policies and practices for selecting individuals for headquarters positions, particularly within the prestigious Investigative Operations and Tactical Operations Divisions, including through merit promotions, directed reassignments, and temporary duty assignments, have a disparate impact on African American deputies.

Am I a Class Member?

The class is defined as: “All current and former African American Deputy U.S. Marshals who were subjected to USMS policies and practices regarding promotions under the Merit Promotion Process, Management Directed Reassignments, and Headquarters Division assignments, and all African American current and former Deputy U.S. Marshals, Detention Enforcement Officers, and applicants never employed who were subjected to USMS policies and practices for hiring and recruitment of Deputy U.S. Marshal positions from January 23, 1994 to present.”

Therefore, you are automatically a class member if you identify as African American/Black AND (1) you were a Deputy U.S. Marshal at any point from 1994 to the present; OR (2) you were a Detention Enforcement Officer or other applicant who applied unsuccessfully to be a Deputy U.S. Marshal at any point from 1994 to the present.

If you are a class member and would like to speak with a member of our team, please email [email protected].

Case History 

Matthew Fogg first filed his class complaint in July 1994, asserting that African Americans are systematically discriminated against based on race by the U.S. Marshals Service. Lead Counsel David Sanford, the chairman and co-founder of Sanford Heisler Sharp McKnight, a leading national public interest law firm, began representing Mr. Fogg in 2004. To read more about Mr. Sanford and the cases he has worked on, click this link.

Due to various procedural hurdles and appeals over the past decade, the case has proceeded slowly. However, in 2017 an Administrative Judge certified the class. Since then, the parties have engaged in fact discovery—the gathering of information through document and data production and the testimony of witnesses in depositions.

In October 2020, a new EEOC Administrative Judge was assigned to the case. In August 2021, the Administrative Judge granted Class Agents’ Motion to Amend the class charge which, among other things, added eight new class agents and expanded the hiring class to include any Black/African American person who applied to be Deputy U.S. Marshals at any point from 1994 to the present.

Brewer v. Holder

In addition to the Fogg class action in the EEOC, Sanford Heisler Sharp McKnight litigated a class action race discrimination case against the U.S. Marshals Service in federal court from 2008 to 2019. Herman Brewer Jr., et al. v. Loretta Lynch was filed in 2008 by then-Deputy U.S. Marshal David Grogan in D.C. District Court. In September 2015, a D.C. District Court judge denied Sanford Heisler Sharp McKnight's motion to certify a class of African American Criminal Investigators in Grades 12 through 15. Sanford Heisler Sharp McKnight promptly appealed that decision to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and argued the matter in the Court on September 12, 2016. In July 2017, the Court of Appeals remanded the case with instructions to allow class members to file a new motion for class certification. Because the Fogg EEOC case was proceeding as a class action that included all the claims in the Brewer case, in February 2020, the Brewer matter was dismissed without prejudice in light of the Fogg proceedings. All class members in the Brewer action are class members in the Fogg matter and their claims were thus pursued in the EEOC.