Summary
The Second Circuit affirmed the denial of Michael McMahon’s motion to intervene in longstanding litigation concerning New York State Police minority hiring quotas. The court held that his motion was untimely under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24, considering the delay, prejudice, and surrounding circumstances, and also concluded that he could not show impairment of his interest because he was age-ineligible for academy admission absent a waiver. The court did not reach the merits of quota modification or class certification.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether McMahon's motion to intervene as of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) was timely.
- Whether the district court could apply a per se seven-year lapse rule rather than considering all circumstances relevant to timeliness.
- Whether McMahon satisfied the interest-impairment and adequate-representation requirements of Rule 24(a)(2).
- Whether permissive intervention under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b)(2) was properly denied.
Holdings
- Timeliness under Rule 24(a)(2) must be determined from all the circumstances of the case; the passage of time is only one factor and cannot alone establish untimeliness per se. Nevertheless, McMahon's motion was untimely because he knew or should have known of his claimed interest well before filing, his delay prejudiced existing parties, and unusual circumstances weighed against intervention.
- Because McMahon's intervention request was untimely, his motion for permissive intervention under Rule 24(b)(2) was also properly denied.
- McMahon had a direct and protectable interest in avoiding employment foreclosure based on race, and the State's representation of him was not entitled to the ordinary sovereign-representation presumption because New York was participating as an employer rather than as a sovereign. However, the court did not need to resolve those issues definitively because untimeliness alone supported denial; moreover, without an age waiver, McMahon could not show that the quota impaired his interest.
Key quotations
“But a lapse of time is only one of several factors to be considered when deciding timeliness under Rule 24(a)(2), and it is incorrect to adopt a per se rule focused solely on that factor.” (820 F.2d at 557)
“Thus, it is plain upon reviewing these four factors that McMahon’s motion to intervene as of right was untimely made.” (820 F.2d at 558)
Factual background
The United States obtained a 1979 order requiring New York to use a 40 percent minority hiring measure for state trooper applicants. McMahon, a white male state-police dispatcher, took the trooper examination in May 1985, knew of the quota system, and alleged that lower-scoring minority applicants were selected over him. He filed to intervene in August 1986, after learning in April 1986 that he was age-ineligible for future admission, and sought to alter the quota and represent similarly situated white male applicants.
Procedural history
The United States sued New York under Title VII and obtained a 1979 order requiring a 40 percent minority hiring measure for state trooper applicants. In August 1986, McMahon and Craig Smith moved to intervene under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 and sought modification of the quota and class certification. The district court denied intervention as untimely, and McMahon alone appealed.