Moore et al v. Tangipahoa Parish School Board et al
Filing
1684
ORDER AND REASONS: IT IS ORDERED that plaintiffs' 1675 "Motion for show cause evidentiary hearing in re office of equity" is DENIED. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 8/27/2021. (pp)
Case 2:65-cv-15556-ILRL-JVM Document 1684 Filed 08/27/21 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JOYCE MARIE MOORE, ET AL.
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NUMBER: 65-15556
TANGIPAHOA PARISH SCHOOL BOARD,
ET AL
SECTION: “B”(1)
ORDER & REASONS
For the following reasons, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiffs’ “motion for show cause
evidentiary hearing in re office of equity” is DENIED (Rec. Doc. 1675).
Interestingly, movant’s counsel seeks court intervention to force adoption of the Chief
Equity Officer’s (CEO) proposed plans for operating his office, including staff expansion and
services. The plans were never previously submitted to this court but were directly circulated to
the Superintendent of Tangipahoa Parish School System (“TPSS”) and others, including movant.
See Rec. Doc. 1675-3 thru 15. In conclusory fashion, counsel accuses the Superintendent’s alleged
refusal to consider the plans as somehow indicative of an effort on her part that has “vetoed
establishment of the Office of Equity ordered by the court.” In response, TPSS cites to the CEO’s
participation in development of the New District Strategic Three Year Plan and A District Equity
Plan that included input from stakeholders and third party vendors, e.g. parents, students,
employees, community members and vendor DRP. See Rec. Doc. 1679, pp. 2, 3, 7 and 1679-2
thru 5. That response also references several meetings the Superintendent had concerning the
CEO’s plan with the CEO, CCO Massey, and lead settlement attorneys. Conclusions to the
contrary are not convincing.
Case 2:65-cv-15556-ILRL-JVM Document 1684 Filed 08/27/21 Page 2 of 2
Like other parts of the newly modified plan for achieving unitary status in remaining areas,
the development of the new Office of Equity will be a work-in-progress involving the CEO as
senior equity officer under the direct supervision of the Superintendent. The CEO is a senior part
of her leadership team and other committees, with the authority to monitor and implement duties
as assigned and approved by the Superintendent within the scope of applicable court orders. E.g.,
Rec. Doc. 1661. As part of that progression towards a more equitable system, TPSS’s review of
the CEO’s current operations is a helpful starting point, but not necessarily a limiting end-all
analysis of same. See Rec. Doc. 1679-1. As experienced throughout the long history of this case,
modifications are made to address changed circumstances, meet new challenges, and overcome
old mind-sets that hinder equitable progress and inclusive growth. We commend the CEO’s
initiatives throughout this case and the support he receives from the TPSS, especially the
Superintendent. See e.g. Rec. Doc. 1682-2 (Joint declaration of Superintendent Stilley and CEO
Jackson). In many aspects, the CEO’s proposed plan and the TPSS’s goals and plans for equity
and inclusion have common features. Superintendent Stilley is the executive who bears ultimate
responsibility for daily operations of the TPSS, including the plans for and eventual
implementation of all programs. She supervises TPSS employees. While we discern no deviation
from noted court mandates in this instance, and expect none, there are checks and balances in place
that will activate intervention wherever shown to require such, as done in the past. Today however
that intervention is not warranted. In that regards, we look forward to reviewing the CCO’s next
annual report that will surely expound upon current and future issues.
New Orleans, Louisiana this 27th day of August, 2021
_______________________________________
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?