Andrews et al v. Monroe et al

Filing 57

RULING re 48 MOTION Partial Relief From Judgment (Civ. R. 60) filed by School Board City of Monroe. Signed by Chief Judge Robert G James on 6/20/12. (crt,DickersonSld, D)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MONROE DIVISION
JIMMY ANDREWS, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 65-11297

VERSUS

JUDGE ROBERT G. JAMES

CITY OF MONROE, ET AL.

MAG. JUDGE KAREN L. HAYES
RULING

Pending before the Court is a Motion for Partial Relief from Judgment [Doc. No. 48] filed
by Defendant Monroe City School Board (“School Board”). The School Board moves the Court
to approve its plan to modify student attendance zones and assignments for certain elementary
and middle schools located in the Monroe City School District (“the District”).
For the following reasons, the School Board’s Motion for Partial Relief from Judgment is
GRANTED.
I.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The boundaries for the District are coterminous with the geographic boundaries that form

the corporate limits of the City of Monroe, Louisiana (“the City”). According to the 2010 United
States Census Bureau data, the City’s population has decreased to 48,815 residents over the years.
The racial composition of the City is 33.4% white and 63.9% black, which reflects an increase in
the black population and a decrease in the white population since the last figures in 2000. In the
past ten years, the City has also experienced a decrease in population in the southern part of the
City, which is largely populated by black residents, and a greater growth in enrollment in the
schools in the northern part of the City, which has a greater concentration of white residents.
Currently, the District’s student population is 85% black.

For more than 40 years, the School Board has operated the District under a desegregation
decree. On August 5, 1965, a complaint was filed in the name of then minor students, Jimmy
Andrews and Tommy Ray Robertson, by their mothers, against the City, the Mayor, the members
of the School Board, and the Superintendent. On September 17, 1965, the Court issued a
permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants from operating a bi-racial school system.
On August 1, 1969, the Court issued a desegregation decree. In this decree, the Honorable
Ben C. Dawkins, Jr., approved a modified desegregation plan proposed by the School Board,
which provided:
(1)

Following a zoning plan proposed by the Monroe City School Board;

(2)

Allowing any student in the majority race at his school to transfer to a school
where he would be in the minority race;

(3)

Refusing students the opportunity to transfer from a school in the District to a
school under the direction of the Ouachita Parish School Board;

(4)

Allowing the School Board to appoint a bi-racial advisory committee to assist in
the desegregation of schools; and

(5)

Submitting a plan by February 1, 1970, to accomplish full integration or
desegregation of the school system.

The August 1, 1969 decree was subsequently modified on November 4, 1969; February 11, 1970;
February 24, 19701 ; July 30, 1970; July 30, 1971; January 27, 1972; August 16, 1973; August 30,
1973; August 15, 1988; June 7, 1989; July 6, 1992; April 29, 1998; August 4, 1998; December

1

The February 11 and 24, 1970 modifications specifically addressed student assignments.
2

18, 2000; July 26, 2000; August 8, 2005; March 30, 2010; and July 25, 2011.
On February 16, 1970, the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) intervened as
amicus curiae. On May 11 1978, the Court granted DOJ’s motion to formally intervene and DOJ
has been active in the case since that time.
Although there have been many modifications to the desegregation decree, the origin of
the current attendance zone plan dates back to at least 1981.
On July 6, 1992, the Court granted the School Board’s motion for unitary status in part
and declared the District unitary in the areas of facilities, extracurricular activities, and hiring and
retention of teachers and administrators. The Court denied the School Board’s motion in part,
finding that the District was not unitary in the areas of teacher and principal assignments, student
assignments, and transportation.
In July 9, 1998, Benya Marshall and Annie Faye Harris (collectively “Plaintiffs”) were
permitted to join the case as Plaintiffs and remain actively involved.
On December 2, 2009, the Court held a status conference with the parties to address the
remaining areas in which the School Board had not been declared unitary. At that time, the DOJ
and the School Board reported that they had been working amicably in an effort to reach
agreement on a consent decree. Plaintiffs’ counsel did not have concerns to report from his
clients.
On March 26, 2010, the parties filed a proposed Consent Decree with the Court. Plaintiffs
did not object. On March 30, 2010, the Court signed a Consent Order [Doc. No. 16], which again
modified the August 1, 1969 Decree. The Consent Order provided for specific actions to be taken
by the School Board, culminating in a review of the District’s unitary status at the end of June,
3

2014.
On July 25, 2011, the Court issued an Order [Doc. No. 38] granting the School Board’s
Motion for Partial Relief from Judgment, again modifying the August 1, 1969 Decree, to provide
for the reassignment of sixth grade students at Cypress Point Elementary School to Sallie Humble
Elementary School for the 2011-2012 school year. Additionally, the School Board was directed
to “petition the Court to approve the School Board’s proposed comprehensive attendance plan for
implementation prior to the commencement of the 2012-2013 school year.” Id.
Subsequently, the School Board retained a demographer, Michael Hefner, to assist in the
development of a new attendance zone plan. After Mr. Hefer completed his report and made his
recommendations to the School Board, on May 25, 2012, in compliance with the Court’s July 25,
2011 Order, the School Board filed the instant Motion for Partial Relief from Judgment [Doc. No.
48]. The DOJ does not oppose the proposed attendance zone plan. Plaintiffs filed an opposition
memorandum [Doc. No. 51]. The School Board has also filed a reply memorandum [Doc. No.
52].
The Court conducted a status conference and hearing on the motion on June 18, 2012, and
is now prepared to rule.
II.

ANALYSIS
Once a school board has been determined to have violated the Equal Protection Clause by

maintaining a discriminatory dual educational system, then under Brown v. Board of Educ. of
Topeka, Shawnee County, Kan., 347 U.S. 483 (1954), and Brown v. Board of Educ., 349 U.S. 294
(1955), the dual system must be dismantled, and the school board must “take whatever steps
might be necessary to convert to a unitary system in which racial discrimination would be
4

eliminated root and branch.” Green v. County Sch. Bd. of New Kent Cty., Va., 391 U.S. 430, 43738 (1968).
Despite the passage of time, a school board’s duty does not end with the initial
desegregation order; rather the school board has a “continuing duty to eliminate the system-wide
effects of earlier discrimination and to create a unitary school system untainted by the past.” Ross
v. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist., 699 F.2d 218, 225 (5th Cir. 1983) (citing Swann v.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 402 U.S. 1, 15 (1971)). The district court “retain[s]
jurisdiction until it is clear that state-imposed segregation has been completely removed.” Id.
(citing Green, 391 U.S. at 439; Raney v. Bd. of Educ., 391 U.S. 443, 449 (1968)).
As part of its constitutional duties, the district court must scrutinize school board actions
with regard to certain areas, including student assignment. Hull v. Quitman Cty. Bd. of Educ., 1
F.3d 1450, 1458 (5th Cir. 1993). The court’s concern is whether any action or plan proposed by
the School Board will be used to “perpetuate or reestablish the dual system.” Id. at 1454.
(citations omitted). Nevertheless, “there is no constitutional duty to achieve maximum
desegregation or to achieve an ideal racial balance in the schools.” Id. at 1455 (citations omitted).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit “has also recognized limits imposed
upon desegregation efforts by population changes and the reality of white flight, holding that
‘school officials who have taken effective action have no affirmative fourteenth-amendment duty
to respond to the private actions of those who vote with their feet.’” Id. (quoting Ross v.
Houston Independent Sch. District, 699 F.2d 218, 288 (5th Cir. 1983) (other citation omitted)).
As part of its analysis, the Supreme Court has permitted district courts to only a limited
use of mathematical formulas in the area of student assignments. Swann v. Charlotte5

Mecklenburg Bd. of Ed., 402 U.S. 1, 25 (1971). Such formulas are “no more than a starting point
in the process of shaping a remedy, rather than an inflexible requirement.” Id. at 24. Commonly,
a 20% plus or minus deviation from the overall student racial percentages has been used to
determine if a school is racially identifiable. See United States v. Texas Educ. Agency, 679 F.2d
1104, 1114 (5th Cir. 1982) (using a 20% deviation); see also United States v. Georgia, 171 F.3d
1333, 1338 (11th Cir. 1999) (using a 20% deviation). However, an attendance zone plan may
pass Constitutional muster, even though racially identifiable schools continue to exist in the
district.
Based on its continuing jurisdiction over the areas of student assignments, teacher and
principal assignments, and transportation, the Court must review the proposed attendance zone
plan, which would result in the following changes to student assignments and school attendance
zones, effective the 2012-2013 school year:
(1)

Martin Luther King, Jr. Middle School will be converted from a school that serves
students in grade levels 6 through 8 to a school that serves students in grade levels
7 and 8;

(2)

Sixth grade students who would otherwise be assigned to Martin Luther King, Jr.
Middle School will be assigned to Berg Jones Elementary School, Jefferson Upper
Elementary School or Minnie Ruffin Elementary;

(3)

The current Lexington Elementary School and Sallie Humble Elementary School
attendance zones will be merged to form a single attendance zone;

(4)

Lexington Elementary School will be converted to a lower elementary school that
serves students in grade levels pre-kindergarten through 2 who reside within the
6

newly formed attendance zone;
(5)

Sallie Humble Elementary school will be converted to an upper elementary school
that serves students in grade levels 3 through 6 who reside within the newly
formed attendance zone;

(6)

That section of the southern boundary of the existing Cypress Point Elementary
School attendance zone that lies between U.S. Highway 165 to the west and South
College Drive to the east will be modified to establish the Union-Pacific Railroad
track as the new boundary;

(7)

The Union Pacific Railroad track that forms the southern boundary for the Cypress
Point Elementary School attendance zone will also serve as the northern boundary
for Lincoln Elementary School attendance zone;

(8)

Students who attended grade level 5 at Cypress Point Elementary School and who,
as a consequence of the Cypress Point Elementary School - Lincoln Elementary
School zone modification, will be zoned to attend Lincoln Elementary School, will
be permitted to remain at Cypress Point Elementary School until such time that
they complete grade level 6;

(9)

Students in grade level 6 who reside within the Cypress Point Elementary School
zone will be reassigned to Cypress Point Elementary School, rather than to Sallie
Humble Elementary School;

Additionally, the School Board seeks authority to modify staffing assignments and transportation
routes as necessary to accommodate the student reassignments and changes in attendance zones.
The School Board contends that the last comprehensive modification to the attendance
7

zones took place in 1998, but those changes and post-1998 modifications did not serve the current
student population of the District. Based on the findings of the demographer, Mr. Hefner, the
School Board contends that its proposed attendance zone plan would have no effect on racial
demographics for Martin Luther King, Jr. Middle School, Berg Jones Elementary School,
Jefferson Upper Elementary School, and Minnie Ruffin Elementary. See [Doc. No. 48, Exh. 3].
The students zoned to attend these elementary schools for fifth grade would simply remain at the
school for sixth grade. Currently, all students attending the schools are black, and, thus, the plan
does not effect any changes in the student population.
The School Board further contends that the establishment of a lower elementary school at
Lexington Elementary School and an upper elementary school at Sallie Humble Elementary
School will have a positive effect on desegregation efforts. The black student enrollment at
Lexington Elementary School will increase from 38.1% to 45%, and the black student enrollment
at Sallie Humble Elementary School will decrease from 67.6% to 53%.
The School Board finally contends that the changes at Cypress Point and Lincoln
Elementary Schools will have a de minimis effect on desegregative efforts. All thirty-two
students who are expected to be affected are black, and the School Board expects to retain the
white students currently enrolled.
However, Plaintiffs object to the School Board’s proposed attendance zone plan. They
contend that in 1964 all schools in the southern part of the City were racially segregated and,
under this plan, they will remain so, while the School Board has made the efforts to desegregate
the schools in the northern part of the City. They argue that the lack of impact of the proposed
attendance zone plan is precisely the problem. They argue further that the School Board must
8

address the disparity of programs between the schools in the northern and southern part of the
City. They further suggest that the School Board reestablish a Cypress Point zone for Carroll
Junior High and High Schools, extend the attendance zone for Clark Magnet School, and
establish a central fifth or sixth grade school in the southern part of the City to be used for the
entire system, as means of bringing more white students into schools in the southern part of the
City.
In response, the School Board notes that it has communicated with Plaintiffs the specific
details of its proposed plan since February 2012, but heard no objections until June 12, 2012.
Substantively, the School Board rejects Plaintiffs’ arguments as based on false assumptions and
suppositions and ignoring the racial demographics of the City and the housing choices of its
residents. The School Board points out that Mr. Hefner found that the racial makeup of students
in the District is actually 85% black, in contrast to the general racial demographics of the City,
and this fact limits the options for further desegregation. Further, the racial makeup of the
schools in the southern part of Monroe is a reflection of the racial makeup of the families with
school-age children who reside in those attendance zones, not a reflection of any actions taken by
the School Board. The School Board takes issue with Plaintiffs’ statements that schools in the
southern part of the City do not have the same programs as schools in the northern part of the
City, such as drama, because Plaintiffs fail to acknowledge that there are also programs which are
only offered in the schools in the southern part of the City.
The School Board also specifically addresses the proposals suggested by Plaintiffs,
pointing out that any student in the District who qualifies for the magnet program may enroll at
the Carroll schools or the Clark Magnet School and that Plaintiffs have failed to address the
9

practical and logistical issues associated with creating one fifth or sixth grade for the entire
District. Finally, the School Board points out that an extension of the Cypress Point Elementary
zone would have an insignificant impact on desegregating schools.
In conducting its review of the School Board’s proposed attendance zone plan and the
potential effect on desegregation, the Court first notes that the standard mathematical formula for
determining whether schools are racially identifiable is, as Mr. Hefner notes, “very limited in its
usefulness.” [Doc. No. 48, Exh. 3, p. 11]. Since the District has an 85% black student population,
any school which has less than a 65% black student population is racially identifiable as white,
but schools which have a 100% black student population are not considered racially identifiable.
Under these facts, the School Board’s proposed attendance zone plan will result in the creation of
a racially identifiable school at Sallie Humble Elementary School since the black student
population will decrease to 53%, but it will actually increase black student enrollment at
Lexington Elementary School, which was already racially identifiable. Notably, both schools are
located in the northern part of the City where there is a greater concentration of white students.
However, the remainder of the schools objected to by Plaintiffs are not considered racially
identifiable under the 20% deviation standard.
The very existence of one or more racially identifiable schools under a proposed
attendance zone plan does not render the plan unconstitutional. “The constitutional command to
desegregate schools does not mean that every school in every community must always reflect the
racial composition of the school system as a whole.” Swann, 402 U.S. at 24. Rather, the Court
must look at the entirety of the plan, keeping the goals of desegregation in mind. In this case, the
Court has carefully considered the proposed attendance zone plan, prepared with the assistance of
10

a demographer well known and respected by this Court, as well as Plaintiffs’ objections. The
Court finds that the proposed attendance zone plan is reasonable in light of the current housing
choices of residents, racial demographics, and practical and logistical considerations. There is
simply no evidence that this plan is the result of past discrimination or is designed to reestablish a
dual educational system, but was, in fact, carefully prepared to address the goals of desegregation
and the education of the children in the District.
Finally, the Court appreciates the concerns of Plaintiffs and remains focused on addressing
all remaining unitary status issues in this case. However, the School Board has been granted
unitary status in the area of extracurricular activities, and the existence of a drama program at one
school versus other programs, such as the magnet programs at the Carroll schools, is simply not
sufficient grounds for the Court to reject the School Board’s proposed attendance zone plan out of
hand. Likewise, Plaintiffs offered alternative suggestions for student assignments, but failed to
present sufficient evidence, despite the opportunity to do so, which would give the Court any
indication whether their suggestions were feasible and practical solutions.
III.

CONCLUSION
After considering the proposed attendance zone plan presented by the School Board, the

Court finds that it is neither designed to nor does promote resegregation and that it is an
appropriate method of addressing the area of student assignments. Thus, the School Board’s
Motion for Partial Relief from Judgment [Doc. No. 48] is GRANTED, and the Court will enter an

11

order granting the relief prayed for by the School Board.
MONROE, LOUISIANA, this 20th day of June, 2012.

12