Moore et al v. Tangipahoa Parish School Board et al
Filing
1547
ORDER AND REASONS granting 1540 Motion for Court Approval of Repairs/Replacement of Football Field Lights at Independence High Magnet School. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 7/20/2018. (clc)
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
The Tangipahoa Parish School Board filed a “Motion for Court
Approval
of
Repairs/Replacement
of
Football
Field
Lights
at
Independence High Magnet School.” Rec. Doc. 1540. Though the motion
was noticed for submission on July 11, 2018, and indicates that
Plaintiffs oppose the expenditure, no timely opposition has been
filed. For the reasons discussed below,
IT IS ORDERED that the motion (Rec. Doc. 1540) is GRANTED.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
According to the Board’s motion, “[i]n May 2018, the Board
approved a recommendation of the Capital Outlay Committee to seek
bids to replace the [Independence High Magnet School] football
field light fixtures with new LED light fixtures[.]” Rec. Doc.
1540 at 1. The Board than accepted a bid for the work with a cost
estimated
at
$283,705.00.
Id.
The
Board
believes
that
the
“construction project is necessary to achieve the overall desired
light levels as well as the overall aesthetics and quality of the
lighting of the football field at this school.” Id. at 2.
1
The
Board
unsuccessfully
sought
the
consent
of
Lead
Settlement and Negotiation Counsel for Plaintiffs. Id. The Chief
Desegregation
Implementation
Officer
(CDIO)
approves
of
the
expenditure. Id. After these discussions, the Board filed the
instant motion for approval of the expenditure. Rec. Doc. 1540.
The
motion
does
not
indicate
the
Chief
Compliance
Office’s
position. No timely opposition has been filed.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
“Court approval [is] . . . required for repairs to existing
school facilities . . . where the cost of the repair exceeds one
hundred twenty-five thousand dollars.”1 Rec. Doc. 876 at 25. The
desegregation orders mandate that, when the Board makes repairs,
the Board must “take affirmative steps to eliminate any
remaining vestiges of prior de jure segregation[.]” Rec. Doc.
876 at 24; see also Rec. Doc. 612 at 2 (noting the parties’
“ongoing affirmative duty to ensure that proposed capital
expenditures bring about a unitary system and [] prevent
reoccurrence of a dual school system”); Rec. Doc. 522-1 at 4
(“[T]he school board[] [has an] affirmative duty to ensure that
the proposed construction or improvements assist in bringing
1
Requirements for fundraising and other capital expenditures are
contained in other court orders. See Rec. Docs. 612, 522-1; see
also Rec. Doc. 1528.
2
about a unitary system and prevents recurrence of the dual
system.”).
In July 2017, the Court provisionally granted unitary
status in the area of facilities. See Rec. Doc. 1472. “[T]he
Court agree[d] 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.” Id. at 11. While unitary status is provisional,
the Board remains obligated to ensure that repairs do not allow
“recurrence of the dual system.” See Rec. Docs. 522-1 at 4; 1472
at 15 (explaining need for compliance reviews during provisional
period); see also, e.g., Flax v. Potts, 915 F.2d 155, 163 (5th
Cir. 1990) (explaining that provisional period allows district
court to confirm that unitary status has been maintained).
Repair of the lighting at the football field at Independence
High Magnet School will not impair the Board’s provisional unitary
status in the area of facilities. As of the end of the 2016-2017
school year, 60% of the students at Independence High Magnet School
were black. See Rec. Doc. 1484-19 at 4. This falls within the +/15% standard for considering a school to be desegregated because
the Board’s “student population is roughly 49% black and 51% nonblack.” See Rec. Docs. 876 at 6; 1532 at 4. Therefore, the
percentage of black students at Independence High Magnet School is
above-average for the district as a whole, but not so high as to
3
indicate non-compliance with the desegregation orders. The Board’s
proposed investment in the facilities at a desegregated school is
permissible, so long as it does not interfere with the Board’s
efforts to maintain unitary status in facilities and achieve
unitary status with respect to the remaining unresolved Green
factors—student assignment, faculty assignment, and full unitary
status in staff assignment.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 20th day of July, 2018.
___________________________________
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?