Moore et al v. Tangipahoa Parish School Board et al

Filing 1472

ORDER AND REASONS: IT IS ORDERED that the 1455 motion for unitary status in the area of facilities is provisionally GRANTED as set forth in document. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 7/20/2017. (mmv)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
M.C. MOORE, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 65-15556

TANGIPAHOA PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL.

SECTION "B"(1)

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is the Tangipahoa Parish School Board’s (“the
Board”) “Motion for Unitary Status:

Facilities.” Rec. Doc. 1455.

Plaintiffs timely filed an opposition memorandum. Rec. Doc. 1456.
The Board then requested (Rec. Doc. 1459), and was granted (Rec.
Doc. 1461), leave to file a reply memorandum (Rec. Doc. 1462). For
the reasons discussed below,
IT IS ORDERED that the motion for unitary status in the area
of facilities (Rec. Doc. 1455) is provisionally GRANTED.
I.

APPLICABLE LAW
In school desegregation cases, “the court’s end purpose must

be to remedy the violation and, in addition, to restore state and
local authorities to the control of a school system that is
operating in compliance with the Constitution.” Freeman v. Pitts,
503 U.S. 467, 489 (1992) (citing Milliken v. Bradley, 433 U.S.
267, 280-81 (1977) (“the federal courts in devising a remedy must
take into account the interests of state and local authorities in
managing their own affairs, consistent with the Constitution”)).
“‘[L]ocal

autonomy

of

school

districts

1

is

a

vital

national

tradition’” and “[r]eturning schools to the control of local
authorities at the earliest practicable date is essential to
restore their true accountability in our governmental system.”
Freeman, 503 U.S. at 490 (quoting Dayton Bd. of Ed. v. Brinkman,
433 U.S. 406, 410 (1977)). Before a school may achieve full unitary
status, it must be free from racial discrimination in several
areas, commonly referred to as the “Green factors”:

student

assignment, faculty assignment, staff assignment, extracurricular
activities, transportation, and facilities. Green v. Cty. Sch. Bd.
of New Kent Cty., Va., 391 U.S. 430, 435 (1968); see also Freeman,
503 U.S. at 486.1 If a school district has achieved partial unitary
status in one or more of these areas, the court “has the discretion
to order an incremental or partial withdrawal of its supervision
and

control.”

Freeman,

503

U.S.

at

489-90.

This

is

because

“remedies must be narrowly structured to address the scope of a
violation

and

.

.

.

consequently,

once

the

need

for

close

supervision of a particular facet of a school desegregation plan
ceases, a court must not continue to supervise that particular
facet.” Flax v. Potts, 915 F.2d 155, 159 (5th Cir. 1990).
Among the factors which must inform the sound discretion
of the court in ordering partial withdrawal are the
following: whether there has been full and satisfactory
This Court has previously granted unitary status in the areas of
extracurricular activities (Rec. Doc. 1014) and transportation, with the
exception of transportation required for implementation of majority-to-minority
and magnet transfers as provided by the Court’s Order at record document 876
(Rec. Doc. 907). The Court also granted provisional unitary status in the area
of staff assignment. Rec. Doc. 1278.
1

2

compliance with the decree in those aspects of the system
where supervision is to be withdrawn; whether retention
of judicial control is necessary or practicable to
achieve compliance with the decree in other facets of
the school system; and whether the school district has
demonstrated, to the public and to the parents and
students of the once disfavored race, its good-faith
commitment to the whole of the court’s decree and to
those provisions of the law and the Constitution that
were the predicate for judicial intervention in the
first instance.
Freeman, 503 U.S. at 491; see also Bd. of Educ. of Okla. City Pub.
Sch. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 89, Okla. Cty., Okla. v. Dowell, 498
U.S. 237, 248 (1991) (“Dissolving a desegregation decree after the
local authorities have operated in compliance with it for a
reasonable period of time properly recognizes that ‘necessary
concern for the important values of local control of public school
systems dictates that a federal court’s regulatory control of such
systems not extend beyond the time required to remedy the effects
of past intentional discrimination . . . .’”) (citations omitted).
Further, “[a] district court in [the Fifth Circuit] does not
dismiss a school desegregation case until at least three years
after it has declared the system unitary.” Flax, 915 F.2d at 158
(citing Youngblood v. Bd. of Pub. Instruction of Bay Cty., Fla.,
448 F.2d 770, 771 (5th Cir. 1971)).
As

to

facilities,

“the

first

remedial

responsibility

of

school authorities is to eliminate invidious racial distinctions,”
for example, “with regard to the maintenance of buildings and the
distribution of equipment.” Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of
3

Ed.,

402

U.S.

1,

18

(1971).

“Courts

consider

‘facilities’

synonymous with ‘school buildings,’ so they assess this factor by
comparing the quality of different, racially identifiable schools
within the district in question.” United States v. Jefferson Cty.
Sch. Dist., 63 F. Supp. 3d 1346, 1353 (N.D. Fla. 2014) (citing
Thomas Cty. Branch of N.A.A.C.P. v. City of Thomasville Sch. Dist.,
299 F. Supp. 2d 1340, 1364 (M.D. Ga. 2004), aff’d in part, vacated
in part, rev’d in part sub nom. Holton v. City of Thomasville Sch.
Dist., 425 F.3d 1325 (11th Cir. 2005); Valley v. Rapides Par. Sch.
Bd., 646 F.2d 925, 932, on reh’g, 653 F.2d 941 (5th Cir. 1981)).
II.

COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDERS

The Tangipahoa Parish School System (“the System”) consists
of thirty-one schools. Rec. Doc. 1455-1 at 1. With regard to those
facilities, this Court has issued several specific orders. For
example, on March 4, 2010, the Court ordered the Board to construct
O. W. Dillon Elementary School. Rec. Doc. 876 at 2 (the “2010
Order”). On June 4, 2013, the Board approved a certificate of
substantial completion of the school. Rec. Doc. 1455-3 at 2.
The 2010 Order also required Court approval for all repairs
to existing facilities exceeding $125,000. Rec. Doc. 876 at 25. It
appears that the Board substantially complied with this Order. See
Rec.

Doc.

1455-37

at

2-4

(summarizing

4

all

facilities-related

motions and orders filed into the record between June 18, 2010 and
August 31, 2016).2
Further,

the

2010

Order

required

the

System

to

“take

affirmative steps to eliminate any remaining vestiges of prior de
jure segregation at its historically and/or racially identifiable
black schools . . . .” Rec. Doc. 876 at 24. The Court then
specifically listed fourteen (14) schools that were identifiable
as “black.” Id. at 25. Of course, the names of some of those
schools have changed, so the Board supplied the Court with a list
of those schools with their current names. Rec. Doc. 1455-1 at 7.3
The Board maintains that “it has complied with this requirement
based on its fulfilment of its constitutional obligations to
maintain all of its schools in an equitable and nondiscriminatory
manner.” Id. The Court systematically compared the facilities
below, using photographs supplied by the Board.
The 2010 Order also recognized that the System reviewed the
facilities needs at the schools previously identifiable as black
and agreed to implement a plan to address those needs. Rec. Doc.

From this summary, it appears that only one of the Board’s motions was denied
by the Court. See Rec. Doc. 1151 (denying without prejudice a motion to expand
the visitor section of the football stadium at Sumner High School because the
parties failed to submit updated reports).
3 The Board did not explicitly state that the current Woodland Park Elementary
School encompasses both the former Woodland Park Elementary School and Woodland
Park Early Learning Center, but the Court will assume that it does (see Rec.
Doc. 1455-1 at n.28), such that the current list of schools previously named by
this Court as identifiable as black consists of only thirteen, not fourteen,
schools. The Board’s list contains the names of fourteen schools, but Amite
Westside Middle School appears twice on that list. Rec. Doc. 1455-1 at 7.
2

5

876 at 25 (citing Rec. Doc. 876-3 at 11). However, the funding for
those projects depended on certain tax revenue or bonds. Rec. Doc.
876-3 at 13-14. Ultimately, these taxes were not made available to
the Board. Rec. Doc. 935-1 at 1. Thus, the Court ordered that
those provisions of the court’s Order (R. Doc. No. 876)
that were to be funded by proceeds of the new taxes
provided for in said Order, with the exception of the
above-ordered
new
elementary
schools
and
needed
renovations and/or new construction at Kentwood High
School for housing of the Career Education Center, shall
be held in abatement pending further orders . . . . All
other provisions of said Order not dependent upon
funding from proceeds of the said new taxes shall remain
in force and effect.
Rec. Doc. 956 at 2.
On August 31, 2011, this Court ordered the construction of
three new schools and the renovation of a Career Education Center
at Kentwood High Magnet School. Rec. Doc. 956 at 1-2. Steps were
taken to comply with the Court’s order to renovate the education
center. Rec. Doc. 1455-36 at ¶ 4.
As to the three new schools, both the 2010 and 2011 Orders
referred to their construction. Rec. Docs. 876 at 2 (“The student
assignment

plan

is

premised

upon

construction

of

three

new

elementary schools (the new elementary schools are listed in
Attachment ‘A’)”); 956 at 1 (ordering the Board to “take prompt
steps to construct three new schools . . . all as referenced and
provided for in Attachments ‘A’ and ‘I’ to the court’s Order (R.
Doc. No. 876)”). However, in 2015, the parties entered into a

6

consent

order

contained

in

superseding
prior

Court

the

student

orders.

Rec.

assignment

provisions

Doc.

The

1264.

Order

specifically referenced exhibits (see, e.g. Rec. Doc. 1264 at 2,
referencing an “interim student assignment plan attached to this
Order as Exhibit 1”); even though these exhibits were not attached
to the Order, they were attached to the original motion (Rec. Doc.
1260-2). The relevant exhibit provided that some of the “key
elements” of the proposed modifications to Record Document 876
were the removal of Attachments “A” and “I.” Rec. Doc. 1260-2 at
4-5. Thus, it would appear that the Board is no longer required to
construct the three new schools. Further, the Board maintains that
it is working diligently to implement the student assignment plan
agreed to in the superseding consent order and that there is no
longer a need to construct the new schools. Rec. Doc. 1455-1 at
23. Nonetheless, even if the Board was still required to build
these schools, it argues that it does not have to wait until all
construction projects are completed before moving for unitary
status. Id. at 24 (citing Anderson v. Sch. Bd. of Madison Cty.,
517 F.3d 292, 296-97, 303 (5th Cir. 2008)).
In their two-page response, Plaintiffs maintain that “the
court has never vacated R. Doc. 876; nor has the court ever held
a

hearing

to

vacate

compliance.”

Rec.

Doc.

1456

at

1.

They

therefore conclude that “[n]on-compliance with the order directly

7

related to facilities in this desegregation case precludes a
finding of unitary status.” Id.
Based on a comprehensive review of the record and supporting
documents, this Court finds that the Board has complied with the
2010 and 2011 Orders to the extent that they were not altered by
subsequent

Orders,

namely

Record

Documents

956

and

1264.

Plaintiffs fail to explain how the Board has failed to comply with
Record Document 876, as modified by those subsequent Orders.
III. COMPARING THE FACILITIES
The

Board

specifically

argues

that

the

schools

are

not

imbalanced based on race, because every student attends a school
in

an

attendance

assignment. See

zone

set

by

a

consent

order

for

student

Rec. Doc. 1264. Thus, because no student is

assigned to any school based on race, except for those students
granted majority-to-minority transfers, and the student body of
every school consists of both black and non-black students, the
Board maintains that no imbalance exists. Rec. Doc. 1455-1 at 8.
Further, the Board insists that no school can be identified
as “white” or “black” based on the physical condition of the
school’s facilities. Rec. Doc. 1455-1 at 8. To support this
contention,

the

Board

hired

an

8

independent

photographer

to

photograph each of the thirty-one schools in the System between
October and December of 2016. Id.4
The Court reviewed all of these photographs, paying special
attention to classrooms, computer labs, outdoor play areas, and
gymnasiums, and attempted to compare those schools that were not
previously identifiable as black with those that were.5 Based on

See also Rec. Docs. 1455-4 (declaration of Wendy Shelton, the photographer);
1455-5 (photographs of Champ Cooper Elementary and Jr. High); 1455-6
(photographs of Martha Vineyard Elementary School); 1455-7 (photographs of
Ponchatoula High School); 1455-8 (photographs of D.C. Reeves Elementary School);
1455-9 (photographs of Tucker Elementary School); 1455-10 (photographs of
Ponchatoula Junior High School); 1455-11 (photographs of Perrin Early Learning
Center); 1455-12 (photographs of Woodland Park Magnet School, named by the Board
in its memorandum as Woodland Park Elementary School and which was racially
identifiable as black according to this Court’s 2010 Order); 1455-13
(photographs of Greenville Park Leadership Academy, named by the Board as
Greenville Park Junior High School and which was previously identifiable as
black); 1455-14 (photographs of Hammond Eastside Magnet School, named by the
Board as Hammond Eastside Elementary School and which was previously
identifiable as black); 1455-15 (photographs of Hammond High Magnet School,
previously identifiable as black); 1455-16 (photographs of Natalbany Middle
School);
1455-17
(photographs
of
Midway
Elementary
School);
1455-18
(photographs of Nesom Memorial School); 1455-19 (photographs of Independence
Middle Magnet School, previously identifiable as black); 1455-20 (photographs
of Independence Leadership Academy, previously identifiable as black); 1455-21
(photographs of Independence High School); 1455-22 (photographs of Hammond
Westside Montessori School, named by the Board as Hammond Westside Elementary
School and which was previously identifiable as black); 1455-23 (photographs of
Amite Westside Middle School, previously identifiable as black); 1455-24
(photographs of Roseland Elementary Montessori School, named by the Board as
Roseland Montessori Magnet School and which was previously identifiable as
black); 1455-25 (photographs of Amite High Magnet School, named by the Board as
Amite High School and which was previously identifiable as black); 1455-26
(photographs of Amite Elementary Magnet School, named by the Board as Amite
Elementary School and which was previously identifiable as black); 1455-27
(photographs of Loranger High School); 1455-28 (photographs of Loranger Middle
School); 1455-29 (photographs of Loranger Elementary School); 1455-30
(photographs of O.W. Dillon Leadership Academy, named by the Board as O.W.
Dillon Elementary School and which was previously identifiable as black); 145531 (photographs of Kentwood High Magnet School, named by the Board as Kentwood
High School and which was previously identifiable as black); 1455-32
(photographs of Spring Creek Elementary School); 1455-33 (photographs of Sumner
Middle School); 1455-34 (photographs of Sumner High School); 1455-35
(photographs of Chesbrough Elementary School).
5 For example, the computer labs and libraries at Hammond High Magnet School,
previously identifiable as black, and Ponchatoula High School appear similar.
See Rec. Docs. 1455-15 at 7-9; 1455-7 at 8. Plus, both schools have stadiums
4

9

(Rec. Docs. 1455-15 at 14; 1455-7 at 13) and theaters (Rec. Docs. 1455-15 at
15; 1455-7 at 16). However, it appears that, at the time the pictures were
taken, Hammond High Magnet Schools was re-doing their gymnasium floor. Rec.
Doc. 1455-15 at 13. Amite High Magnet School, previously identifiable as black,
and Independence High School both have computer labs and libraries. Rec. Docs.
1455-25 at 7-8; 1455-21 at 7-8. Their cafeterias appear comparable in size (Rec.
Docs. 1455-25 at 10; 1455-21 at 10), their gymnasiums appear comparable in
quality (Rec. Docs. 1455-25 at 15; 1455-21 at 13), and their science labs
equipped with comparable materials (Rec. Docs. 1455-25 at 20; 1455-21 at 18).
Kentwood High Magnet School, previously identifiable as black, and Loranger
High School have classrooms of similar sizes (Rec. Docs. 1455-31 at 5-6; 145527 at 5-6), computer labs (Rec. Docs. 1455-31 at 7; 1455-27 at 7), cafeterias
(Rec. Docs. 1455-31 at 10; 1455-27 at 10), and gymnasiums (Rec. Docs. 1455-31
at 13; 1455-27 at 14) of similar quality. Independence Middle Magnet School,
previously identifiable as black, and Natalbany Middle School have classrooms
with similar equipment (Rec. Docs. 1455-19 at 4; 1455-16 at 5), computer labs
of similar quality (Rec. Docs. 1455-19 at 6; 1455-16 at 7, 9), and comparable
gymnasiums (Rec. Docs. 1455-19 at 10; 1455-16 at 13). Independence Leadership
Academy, previously identifiable as black, and Loranger Middle School have
similar buildings (Rec. Docs. 1455-20 at 3; 1455-28 at 3), computer labs (Rec.
Docs. 1455-20 at 7; 1455-28 at 6), and bathrooms (Rec. Docs. 1455-20 at 11-12;
1455-28 at 7-8). Amite Westside Middle School, previously identifiable as black,
and Sumner Middle School, have classrooms of a similar size and with similar
equipment (Rec. Docs. 1455-23 at 5; 1455-33 at 5), similar computer labs (Rec.
Docs. 1455-23 at 7; 1455-33 at 7), similar libraries (Rec. Docs. 1455-23 at 89; 1455-33 at 8-9), and though the former appears to be an older building, it
has a better gymnasium (Rec. Docs. 1455-23 at 14; 1455-33 at 12). Greenville
Park Leadership Academy, previously identifiable as black, and Ponchatoula
Junior High School have similar computer labs (Rec. Docs. 1455-13 at 7; 145510 at 6) and gymnasiums (Rec. Docs. 1455-13 at 13; 1455-10 at 12). Roseland
Elementary Montessori School, previously identifiable as black, and Martha
Vinyard Elementary School have comparable computer labs (Rec. Docs. 1455-24 at
7; 1455-6 at 6). Hammond Westside Montessori School, previously identifiable as
black, and D.C. Reeves Elementary School have similar computer labs (Rec. Docs.
1455-22 at 7; 1455-8 at 7), libraries (Rec. Docs. 1455-22 at 9; 1455-8 at 8),
cafeterias (Rec. Docs. 1455-22 at 10; 1455-8 at 10), and outdoor play areas
(Rec. Docs. 1455-22 at 13; 1455-8 at 13). Hammond Eastside Magnet School,
previously identifiable as black, and Midway Elementary School have comparable
buildings (Rec. Docs. 1455-14 at 2; 1455-17 at 3), libraries (Rec. Docs. 145514 at 8; 1455-17 at 8), cafeterias (Rec. Docs. 1455-14 at 10; 1455-17 at 10),
bathrooms (Rec. Docs. 1455-14 at 11-12; 1455-17 at 11-12), and outdoor play
areas (Rec. Docs. 1455-14 at 15; 1455-17 at 13). Woodland Park Magnet School,
previously identifiable as black, and Loranger Elementary School have comparable
buildings (Rec. Docs. 1455-12 at 3; 1455-29 at 2), classrooms (Rec. Docs. 145512 at 5-6; 1455-29 at 4-5), computer labs (Rec. Docs. 1455-12 at 7; 1455-29 at
6), libraries (Rec. Docs. 1455-12 at 8-9; 1455-29 at 7-8), cafeterias (Rec.
Docs. 1455-12 at 10; 1455-29 at 9), bathrooms (Rec. Docs. 1455-12 at 12-13;
1455-29 at 10-11), and outdoor play areas (Rec. Docs. 1455-12 at 14; 1455-29 at
12). Amite Elementary Magnet School, previously identifiable as black, and
Spring Creek Elementary School have similar buildings (Rec. Docs. 1455-26 at 3;
1455-32 at 3), computer labs (Rec. Docs. 1455-26 at 7; 1455-32 at 7), cafeterias
(Rec. Docs. 1455-26 at 10-11; 1455-32 at 10-11), bathrooms (Rec. Docs. 1455-26
at 13-14; 1455-32 at 12-13), and outdoor play areas (Rec. Docs. 1455-26 at 15;
1455-32 at 15). O.W. Dillon Leadership Academy, previously identifiable as
black, and Chesbrough Elementary School have similar libraries (Rec. Docs. 145530 at 10; 1455-35 at 7-8), cafeterias (Rec. Docs. 1455-30 at 11; 1455-35 at 9),

10

this review, the Court agrees with the Board’s assertion that the
physical facilities at schools previously identifiable as black
are largely comparable to the physical facilities at other schools
in the System. Plus, the Board provided a summary of declarations
from the principals of each school, which indicates that almost
all of the schools have computers, smart boards in all classrooms,
and access to the internet. Rec. Doc. 1455-37 at 5-6.6 Further,
the schools previously identifiable as black are operating within
their capacity as of March of 2017. Id. at 11-13. The Board also
explains that temporary or modular buildings are not used in a
discriminatory way throughout the district. Rec. Doc. 1455-1 at
11-12. Rather, only six of the thirty-one schools do not use such
buildings, and five of those are majority black schools. Id. at 12
(citations omitted). Of the seven schools with ten or more modular
buildings, six are majority non-black. Id. (citations omitted).
The Board explains that it has invested in facilities at
majority black schools during the last several years, including a
new gymnasium and renovated stadium and fieldhouse at Amite High
School, new athletic fieldhouse and performing arts building at
Kentwood High School, and a new gymnasium at Hammond High School.

bathrooms (Rec. Docs. 1455-30 at 12-13; 1455-35 at 10-11), outdoor play areas
(Rec. Docs. 1455-30 at 15; 1455-35 at 12-13), and gymnasiums (Rec. Docs. 145530 at 14; 1455-35 at 14).
6 Interestingly, the only school that does not have smart boards in every
classroom and is operating beyond functional capacity is Ponchatoula High
School, which was not previously identifiable as black. See Rec. Doc. 1455-37
at 6, 13.

11

Rec. Doc. 1455-1 at 13 (citations omitted). Plus, the Board has
adopted

a

policy

of

nondiscrimination

and

various

policies

governing purchasing, construction, management, safety, repairs,
long range planning, facility planning, and architects. Rec. Doc.
1455-44 at 2-17.
As

to

expenditures,

since

2010,

the

System

has

spent

$9,536,204 in capital project funds on the four majority black
high schools, or $2,384,051 per school and $4,191 per pupil, and
$4,408,810 on the three majority non-black schools, or $1,469,603
per school and $1,737 per pupil. Rec. Doc. 1455-37 at 9. It spent
$4,932,628 on the twelve majority black elementary and middle
schools, or $411,052 per school and $760 per pupil, and $4,846,136
at the twelve majority non-black elementary and middle schools, or
$403,845 per school and $718 per pupil. Id. Thus, over six years,
approximately 61% of the funds were spent at majority black
schools. Id.
During

the

same

period,

the

System

spent

$4,337,960

in

maintenance expenditures at the four majority black high schools,
or $1,084,490 per school and $1,729 per pupil, and $4,083,835 at
the three majority non-black schools, or $1,361,278 per school and
$1,144 per pupil. Rec. Doc. 1455-37 at 10. It spent $7,110,218 at
the

twelve

majority

black

elementary

and

middle

schools,

or

$592,518 per school and $1,082 per pupil, and $5,577,800 at the
twelve

majority

non-black

elementary
12

and

middle

schools,

or

$464,816 per school and $814 per pupil. Id. Thus, over six years,
approximately 54% of the total maintenance funds expended were
spent at majority black schools. Id.
In response, Plaintiffs allege with some record support that
“school board leaders and the board president and superintendent
have publicly sabotaged public opinion against compliance with R.
Doc. 876.” Rec. Doc. 1456 at 2. “Their public comments give support
for the idea that the community may reject taxes, hold out, get
unitary status, and then build schools and facilities wherever
they wish, without regard for desegregation.” Id.
The Board filed notice of its intent to move for unitary
status in February of 2015. See Rec. Doc. 1239 at 31 (“The School
Board has begun the appropriate expert evaluation of all District
facilities for compliance with unitary standards and will take
steps to obtain a declaration of unitary status in the area of
facilities after the filing of this Action Plan”). In that time,
Plaintiffs have shown instances where a Board member has evidenced
bad faith intentions at compliance with lawful orders and rules.
While

dedicated

to

the

desegregation

of

the

Tangipahoa

System, we cannot justify indefinite oversight over facilities
when there is little relevant evidence of ongoing discrimination.
The Board majority appears in compliance with standing desegregation
orders, and we are unaware of any reason to allow for indefinite
judicial

control

over

facilities
13

as

a necessary tool here

for compliance in other areas; the Board’s actions in this context,
minimally

yet

sufficiently,

demonstrated

a

commitment

to

desegregation. See Taylor v. Ouachita Par. Sch. Bd., No. 66-12171,
2012 WL 4471643, at *8, n.4 (W.D. La. Sept. 27, 2012) (granting
unitary status in several areas, including facilities, because,
even though “[t]he physical campuses differ in construction, age,
and design . . . the facilities provide adequate space for their
educational use and are all well maintained. Additionally, the
School Board . . . has been able to ensure that classrooms are
equally equipped with ‘smartboards’ and other forms of technology”
and “[a]lthough there was some disparity in the amount spent on
the schools, the disparity is based upon the natural growth in
student populations, not based on any discriminatory reason”);
Williams v. Kimbrough, No. 65-11329, 2010 WL 1790516, at *5 (W.D.
La. May 3, 2010) (granting unitary status in the area of facilities
where the elementary school facilities were not new, but were
“well-maintained, grade-appropriate facilities”); United States v.
Franklin Par. Sch. Bd., No. 70-15632, 2013 WL 4017093, at *5 (W.D.
La. Aug. 6, 2013) (declaring the system unitary in the area of
facilities

where

the

schools

provided

reasonably

similar

accommodations, had comparable libraries, had the same or similar
technology, used the same procedures for acquiring and repairing
equipment and requesting maintenance, and were given an equitable
amount of funds for maintenance, renovations, and technology).
14

IV.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons outlined above,
IT IS ORDERED that the motion for unitary status in the area
of facilities (Rec. Doc. 1455) is provisionally GRANTED. Out of
concern over mixed signals from some Board members that were the
subject of a prior hearing involving at least one of those members,
the good faith intentions and practices of the Board have unfortunately been called into question by one's inappropriate selfaggrandizing

remarks.7

Therefore,

we

will

provisionally

grant

unitary status in the area of facilities, subject to retention of
jurisdiction and to further compliance review(s) on a semi-annual
basis during the next twenty-four months. On an appropriate motion,
the Court will consider an unconditional grant of such status if
no major compliance issues arise during the applicable review
period. Ross v. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist., 699 F.2d 218, 226 (5th
Cir. 1983) (noting that the district court followed the Fifth
Circuit’s procedure “to assure that a determination of unitary
status is not prematurely reached” when it retained jurisdiction
for three years, during which time the school district had to file
operational reports, and would hold a hearing at the end of three
years to allow the plaintiffs to show why dismissal should be

Unprofessional and unethical remarks by attorneys, including those who are
parties to litigation, may constitute violations of rules governing attorney
conduct. See, e.g., LA. RULES OF PROF’L CONDUCT 3.5(d), 4.1-4.4, and 8.4(d).

7

15

delayed); Tasby v. Woolery, 869 F. Supp. 454, 477-78 (N.D. Tex.
1994). The CCO is authorized to take reasonable measures to enforce
compliance with this and related orders as he deems necessary.
IT

IS

FURTHER

ORDERED

that

Plaintiffs’

request

for

an

evidentiary hearing is DISMISSED AS MOOT.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 20th day of July, 2017.
___________________________________
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16