Moore et al v. Tangipahoa Parish School Board et al

Filing 1278

ORDER provisionally granting 1241 Motion for Unitary Status: Staff Assignments as set forth in document; ORDERED that 1268 Request for Evidentiary Hearing is DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 6/19/2015. (lag)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JOYCE MARIE MOORE, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 65-15556

TANGIPAHOA PARISH SCHOOL BOARD,
ET AL.

SECTION "B"(1)

ORDER
Before

the

Court

is

Defendant,

Tangipahoa

Parish

School

Board’s Motion for Unitary Status: Staff Assignment. (Rec. Doc.
No. 1241).

The Motion, filed on March 13, 2015, was set for

submission

on

April

8,

2015.

Plaintiffs

have

not

filed

a

response in opposition, and the Motion remains unopposed.
In

deciding

a

motion

for

unitary

status,

the

ultimate

inquiry for the court is “’whether the [constitutional violator]
ha[s] complied in good faith with the desegregation decree since
it was entered, and whether the vestiges of past discrimination
ha[ve] been eliminated to the extent practicable.’” Freeman v.
Pitts,

503

U.S.

467,

492,

112

S.Ct.

1430,

118

L.Ed.2d

108

(1992). It is well established that defendants bear the burden
of proof on their compliance with remedial orders. See id. at
494.
In

exercising

its

discretion,

the

district

court

must

consider the following factors:

1

(1)

whether there has been full and satisfactory compliance
with the remedial order in those aspects of the system
where supervision is to be withdrawn;

(2)

whether retention of judicial control is necessary or
practicable to achieve compliance with the remedial order
in other facets of the school system; and

(3)

whether the school district has demonstrated its good
faith commitment to the whole of the court's remedial
order and to those provisions of law and the constitution
that were the predicate for judicial intervention in the
first instance.

See id. at 491.
This Court’s order provides:
When vacancies occur for principals, central office
administrators, or other supervisory positions which
include but are not limited to directors, supervisors,
coordinators, principals, assistant principals and
administrative assistants, the school system shall
hire or appoint a qualified Black person who has
submitted an application to fill them to achieve a
diversity goal of 40 percent Black and 60 percent
white in each category or to achieve the percentage of
Black school-site administrators that will approximate
the percentage of Black students enrolled in the
school system....1
It is well understood by and between the parties that
the foregoing hiring procedures are a remedy in
accordance with prior court orders concerning hiring,

1

Rec. Doc. No. 866 at 2.
2

and these procedures shall terminate at such time as
the diversity goals outlined above are met.2
The current Record seemingly shows that the School Board
has materially complied with the orders of this Court and met
established desegregation standards. While accompanied at times
by partisan grandstanding by a few Board members, the Board as a
whole over the past 10 years has progressively worked in good
faith to attain the 40-60 diversity goal set forth in Rec. Doc.
No.

866

with

respect

to

staff

assignments

for

a

three

year

period in that area.3 See Green v. County of School Bd. Of New
Kent Cnty., 391 U.S. 430, 435-42, 88 S.Ct. 1689, 20 L.Ed. 2d 716
(1968). Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Tangipahoa Parish School Board is
provisionally

GRANTED

unitary

status

relative

to

staff

assignments, subject to further compliance review(s) during the
next twelve months. Although a district court need not retain
2
3

Rec. Doc. No. 866 at 3.
Rec. Doc. No. 1241-1 at 8; Rec. Doc. No. 1241-3 at 11-26.
Year
12-13

13-14

14-15

Principals
B 14
41%
W 20
59%
B 15
44%
W 19
56%
B 14
44%
W 18
56%

Asst. Princ./Adm. Asst.
B 18
39%
W 28
61%
B 18
42%
W 25
68%
B 20
44%
W 25
56%

Central Office
B 3
21%
W 11
79%
B 4
29%
W 10
71%
B 4
31%
W 9
69%

Totals
B 35
37%
W 59
63%
B 37
41%
W 54
58%
B 38
42%
W 52
58%

3

supervision or control over factors as to which compliance has
been

achieved,

appropriate

it

motion,

may.
the

See

Freeman,

Court

will

503

U.S.

consider

at

an

507.

On an

unconditional

grant of such status, if no major compliance issues arise during
the applicable review period. See Ross v. Houston Independent
School

Dist.,

699

F.2d

218,

226

(5th

Cir.

1983)(“district

judge...followed the procedure we have required to assure that a
determination of unitary status is not prematurely reached”);
see Tasby v. Woolery, 869 F.Supp. 429, 477-478 (N.D. Tex. July
26, 2008); see also Reed v. Rhodes, 1 F.Supp. 2d 705 (N.D. Ohio,
Mar. 27, 1998).
IT IS ORDERED that the Request for (Evidentiary) Hearing
(Rec. Doc. No. 1268) is DENIED as moot.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 19th day of June, 2015.

____________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4