Moore et al v. Tangipahoa Parish School Board et al

Filing 1510

ORDER AND REASONS: IT IS ORDERED that the 1476 motion is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court Compliance Officer (CCO) file into the record his updated findings and recommendations on the use of interim hiring by March 31, 2018, as set forth in document. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 1/18/2018. (jls)

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
“Motion for Reconsideration of Staff Order.” Rec. Doc. 1476.
Plaintiffs filed an opposition. Rec. Doc. 1489. For the reasons
discussed below,
IT IS ORDERED that the motion (Rec. Doc. 1476) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court Compliance Officer (CCO)
file into the record his updated findings and recommendations on
the use of interim hiring by March 31, 2018.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This motion to reconsider is part of a long-running school
desegregation case, the facts of which have been discussed at
length in the underlying Opinion. See Rec. Doc. 1471. To recap the
most relevant history, the Board is under a desegregation consent
decree with respect to, inter alia, staff assignment. See Rec.
Docs. 866; 876 at 19. In 2015, the Court provisionally granted
unitary status in the area of staff assignment, subject to a yearlong compliance review period. See Rec. Doc. 1278. The Board’s
motion (Rec. Doc. 1410) for full unitary status in the area of

1

staff assignment was dismissed without prejudice for lack of a
sufficient record on which to assess the Board’s compliance. See
Rec. Docs. 1419; 1425.
The Board subsequently reurged its motion for full unitary
status in the area of staff assignment. See Rec. Doc. 1450. Though
Plaintiffs did not file an opposition, they did file related
objections to a recommendation by the CCO (Rec. Doc. 1463) and the
Board’s use of interim hiring (Rec. Doc. 1464). The Board opposed
both. Rec. Docs. 1465; 1466. In July 2017, the Court dismissed
without prejudice the Board’s motion for unitary status in the
area of staff assignment to allow time for development of a record
about the Board’s ongoing use of interim hiring. See Rec. Doc.
1471.

In

response,

the

Board

filed

the

instant

motion

for

reconsideration. Rec. Doc. 1476. The CCO then filed his annual
report

for

the

2016-2017

school

year,

which

documented

his

preliminary findings on the Board’s use of interim hiring. Rec.
Doc. 1484.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
The Board seeks reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59(e). See Rec. Doc. 1476-1 at 6-7. “Rule 59(e) serves
the narrow purpose of allowing a party to correct manifest errors
of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” Templet
v. HydroChem, Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 479 (5th Cir. 2004). “A Rule
59(e)

motion

. . .

is

not

the
2

proper

vehicle

for

rehashing

evidence, legal theories, or arguments that could have been offered
or raised before” the order was issued.1 Id. at 478-79. As a result,
the “extraordinary remedy” available under Rule 59(e) “should be
used sparingly.” Id. at 479.
First, the Board argues that the C.S. grievance was not a
major compliance issue because the Board did not know C.S. was
qualified for the position, especially given that the Louisiana
Department of Education’s (LDOE) review of the certification was
not ministerial. See Rec. Doc. 1476-1 at 8-13. While the Board
reiterates its argument that it was unaware that C.S. was eligible
for the requisite certification, the Board does not address the
concern that others held school leadership and administrative
positions without similar qualifications. See Rec. Doc. 1471 at
10. Furthermore, the Board’s argument that the LDOE’s review was
not ministerial is unpersuasive. The Board does not establish that
the

LDOE

requested

examination

was

verification

of

discretionary,
C.S.

having

only

that

completed

the

the

LDOE

required

trainings. Checking requirements off a list of prerequisites is
not a discretionary task; as the LDOE ultimately concluded, C.S.
was entitled to the certification because she had completed all of
the required prerequisites. Ultimately, the Board’s arguments with

1

The Board’s motion is properly analyzed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
59(e) because it was filed within twenty-eight days after the motion for unitary
status in the area of staff assignment was dismissed without prejudice. See
Tex. A&M Research Found. v. Magna Transp., Inc., 338 F.3d 394, 400 (5th Cir.
2003).

3

respect to the C.S. grievance largely rehash issues raised and
addressed when the motion was originally decided, which does not
warrant granting reconsideration.
Second, the Board argues that complaints about the use of
interim hiring did not arise during the relevant review period.
See Rec. Doc. 1476-1 at 13-14. But that argument was already raised
and

addressed.

See

Rec.

Doc.

1471

at

4

n.3.

As

explained

previously, Plaintiffs’ untimely filings were considered given
their effect on the motion for unitary status, taking into account
a district court’s continuing obligation during the final phases
of a desegregation case to thoroughly evaluate compliance with the
desegregation order. See id. (citing Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S.
467, 492 (1992)). And while the Opinion requested additional
information about interim hiring at Hammond High School, it was
more

focused

on

the

Board’s

broader

use

of

interim

hiring

throughout the district. See Rec. Doc. 1471 at 24-25.
Moreover, the CCO’s annual report for the 2016-2017 school
year confirms that this broader use of interim hiring should be
addressed before again examining the question of unitary status in
the area of staff hiring. See Rec. Doc. 1484 at 22-34. Based on
filings submitted by the parties and his own investigation, the
CCO reports that the Board “appears to have adopted a broad and
free ranging view of when it may use [interim hiring] that is not
contemplated or sanctioned by” the order governing staff hiring.
4

Rec. Doc. 1484 at 23 (referring to Rec. Doc. 866). The CCO further
notes that the Board “seems ambivalent, if not disinclined, to
offer any before the fact notice or indication of its intention
not to follow [the staff hiring order] . . . , much less define
any compelling need why circumventing [the staff hiring order]
provisions would be appropriate.” Id. at 23-24 (referring to Rec.
Doc. 866). The CCO is “actively engaged in investigating these
issues further” and has committed to “report[ing] any additional
findings . . . , as appropriate.” Id. at 31.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 18th day of January, 2018.

___________________________________
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5