Shelby County Board Of Education v. Memphis City Board of Education et al

Filing 150

ORDER GRANTING 71 Motion to Intervene and GRANTING 108 Motion to File Certificate of Consultation by Counsel. Signed by Judge Samuel H. Mays, Jr., on 5/5/2011. (Mays, Samuel)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SHELBY
COUNTY, TENNESSEE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,
v.
MEMPHIS CITY BOARD OF
EDUCATION, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 11-2101

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO INTERVENE AND GRANTING MOTION TO FILE
CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTATION BY COUNSEL

Before the Court is the March 23, 2011 Motion to Intervene
filed by the Memphis Education Association (“MEA”), Keith O.
Williams

(“Williams”),

and

Karl

Thomas

(collectively, “Proposed Intervenors”).
No. 71.)

Emens

(“Emens”)

(Mot. to Intervene, ECF

Also before the Court is the Proposed Intervenors’

April 4, 2011 Motion to File Certificate of Consultation by
Counsel.

(Mot. to File Certificate of Consultation by Counsel,

ECF No. 108.)
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2), courts must
allow

intervention

as

of

right

when

a

proposed

intervenor

“claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that
is the subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing

of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the
movant’s

ability

to

protect

its

interest,

parties adequately represent that interest.”
24(a)(2).

existing

Fed. R. Civ. P.

The rule “is broadly construed in favor of potential

intervenors.”
Cir.

unless

1991)

Purnell v. City of Akron, 925 F.2d 941, 950 (6th
(citations

omitted).

Nevertheless,

a

proposed

intervenor must satisfy four requirements to intervene as of
right:
(1) the motion to intervene is timely; (2) the
proposed intervenor has a substantial legal interest
in the subject matter of the case; (3) the proposed
intervenor’s ability to protect [its] interest may be
impaired in the absence of intervention; and (4) the
parties already before the court cannot adequately
protect the proposed intervenor’s interest.
Coal. to Defend Affirmative Action v. Granholm, 501 F.3d 775,
779 (6th Cir. 2007) (citing Grutter v. Bollinger, 188 F.3d 394,
397-98 (6th Cir. 1999)).
Here,

the

Proposed

Intervenors

moved

to

intervene

soon

after learning that the potential transfer of administration of
public schools located in the City of Memphis to the Shelby
County Board of Education was an issue in this case.

(Compare

Mot. to Intervene 4 (seeking, on March 23, 2011, to intervene),
with

Compl.

for

Declaratory

J.

21,

ECF

No.

1

(seeking,

on

February 11, 2011, a declaration of when the transfer of the
administration of the public schools located within the City of
Memphis to the Shelby County Board of Education has occurred or
2 

will occur), and Pl.’s Mot. for Injunctive Relief 7, ECF No. 57
(seeking, on March 21, 2011, a preliminary injunction to prevent
the Shelby County Commission from expanding the number of seats
on, redistricting members’ seats on, and appointing new members
to

the

Shelby

County

Board

of

Education).)

Because

the

litigation is in its early stages, intervention is sought for
the

limited

rights,

the

purpose
Proposed

of

protecting

Intervenors

professional

moved

to

employees’

intervene

promptly

after discovering their interest in the litigation, no prejudice
to the original parties would result from intervention, and no
unusual circumstances are present, the Motion to Intervene is
timely.

See United States v. Tennessee, 260 F.3d 587, 592 (6th

Cir. 2001) (citing Grubbs v. Norris, 870 F.2d 343, 345 (6th Cir.
1989)).
The Proposed Intervenors have a substantial legal interest
in the subject matter of the case because of their interest in
ensuring that the rights and privileges of teachers in Memphis
City Schools under Tennessee law are protected if the Shelby
County Board of Education assumes or has assumed responsibility
for public schools located in the City of Memphis.
Supp. of Mot. to Intervene 3, ECF No. 72.)

(See Mem. in

The MEA is an

organization that represents professional employees working at
public schools located in the City of Memphis.
to Intervene 2.)

Williams is a teacher at a Memphis public
3 

(See id.; Mot.

school and President of the MEA.

(See Mot. to Intervene 2.)

Emens is also a teacher at a Memphis public school.

(See id.)

The MEA and the Memphis City Schools Board of Education are
parties to a collective bargaining agreement setting forth the
terms

and

conditions

of

professional

employees’

employment.

(See Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Intervene 3-4.)
Tennessee Code Annotated § 49-5-203(a) provides that:
The change in the governmental structure of a school
system
or
institution
through
the
process
of
annexation,
unification,
consolidation,
abolition,
reorganization
or
transfer
of
the
control
and
operation of a school system or institution to a
different type governmental structure, organization or
administration shall not impair, interrupt or diminish
the rights and privileges of a then existing teacher;
and such rights and privileges shall continue without
impairment, interruption or diminution.
Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-5-203(a).

Tennessee Code Annotated § 49-5-

203(b) provides that, “[i]f the teacher becomes the employee of
another school system or institution as a result of a change in
the governmental structure, then the rights and privileges of
the teacher shall continue without impairment, interruption or
diminution as obligations of the new government, organization or
administration.”
working

at

Id.

Memphis

§

49-5-203(b).

public

schools

have

Professional
a

employees

legally-recognized

interest in the continuation of their rights and privileges if
the Shelby County Board of Education becomes or has become the
governmental entity responsible for administering public schools

4 

located in the City of Memphis.
Given

that

expansive

the

Court

notion

of

of
the

See id. §§ 49-5-203(a), (b).

Appeals

“has

interest

opted

for

sufficient

a

rather

to

invoke

intervention of right,” Mich. State AFL-CIO v. Miller, 103 F.3d
1240, 1245 (6th Cir. 1997) (citations omitted), the Proposed
Intervenors have demonstrated a substantial legal interest in
the subject matter of the case sufficient to intervene.1

See,

e.g., Shreve v. Franklin Cnty., No. 2:10-cv-644, 2011 WL 250407,
at *2-5 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 25, 2011).
If the Court denied the Proposed Intervenors’ Motion to
Intervene, their legal interests could be affected if the Shelby
County Board of Education and the Memphis City Schools Board of
Education

refuse

to

assume

responsibility

for

public

schools

located in the City of Memphis because the two boards differ
about whether school consolidation has occurred.

The Proposed

Intervenors’ legal interests could also be affected if the Court
concludes that Shelby County Schools and Memphis City Schools
must be consolidated pursuant to a transition plan or that the
Shelby County Board of Education has been responsible for public
schools located in the City of Memphis since the Memphis City

1

Although the MEA is an association, it appears at this stage of the
litigation that it has standing because its members would have standing in
their own right.
They have interests in the continuation of the terms and
conditions of their employment, the interests the MEA seeks to protect are
central to its purpose, and the claims asserted and relief requested by the
parties in this litigation do not require the participation of the MEA’s
individual members.
See Heartwood, Inc. v. Agpaoa, 628 F.3d 261, 266 (6th
Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). The MEA also meets the standing requirements
of Article III at this time. See id.

5 

Council

voted

Schools.
Shelby

surrender

the

charter

of

the

Memphis

City

The Proposed Intervenors could also be affected if the
County

responsibility
Memphis.
protect

to

Board
for

of

public

Therefore,
their

intervention.

Education

the

interests

schools

lacks
located

Proposed

may

be

funding
in

the

in

assume

the

City

of

ability

Intervenors’

impaired

to

to

absence

of

See Coal. to Defend Affirmative Action, 501 F.3d

at 779; Ne. Ohio Coal. for Homeless v. Blackwell, 467 F.3d 999,
1007 (6th Cir. 2006); Shreve, 2011 WL 250407, at *5.
The
represent

parties
the

now

before

professional

the

Court

employees’

may

legal

not

adequately

interests.

The

present parties’ primary concerns are whether and when school
consolidation occurs or has occurred and whether certain state
laws are constitutional, not whether the professional employees’
rights are protected.

The Proposed Intervenors’ interests in

the continuation of the terms and conditions of the professional
employees’
parties’

employment
interests

may
over

be

inconsistent

the

course

of

with

the

the

existing

litigation.

Therefore, the Proposed Intervenors satisfy the fourth element
required

to

intervene

as

of

right.

See

Coal.

to

Defend

Affirmative Action, 501 F.3d at 779; Pride v. Allstate Ins. Co.,
No. 10-13988, 2011 WL 692299, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 18, 2011);
Shreve, 2011 WL 250407, at *5.

6 

The Proposed Intervenors have satisfied each of the four
requirements to intervene as of right.

See Fed. R. Civ. P.

24(a)(2); Coal. to Defend Affirmative Action, 501 F.3d at 779.
Therefore,

the

Proposed

Intervenors’

Motion

to

Intervene

is

GRANTED.2

The Motion to File Certificate of Consultation by

Counsel is also GRANTED.
So ordered this 5th day of May, 2011.

s/ Samuel H. Mays, Jr.
SAMUEL H. MAYS, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

2

The Proposed Intervenors have also established grounds for permissive
intervention because the Motion to Intervene is timely, the Proposed
Intervenors raise questions of law and fact about the Shelby County Board of
Education’s obligations to professional employees working in schools located
in the City of Memphis that are in common with those already before the
Court, and no undue delay or prejudice would result from their intervention.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1)(B), (b)(3); Purnell, 925 F.2d at 950.

7