Everett v. PITT COUNTY BD. OF EDUC.
678 F.3d 281
4th Cir.2012Background
- In Teel and Edwards, Pitt County was found to operate a racially dual, segregated school system prior to the 1965-66 school year, triggering a continuing affirmative duty to move toward unitary status.
- The 2009 Consent Order settled prior disputes and required the parties to work toward unitary status, with a December 31, 2012 deadline for reports detailing progress.
- In 2016-2010, Pitt County School Board developed the 2011-2012 Assignment Plan to accommodate new Lakeforest Elementary, a re-purposed preschool program, and overcrowding, using criteria beyond race (proximity, capacity, academic achievement, impact area).
- Three assignment-scenarios were debated; Scenario 3 (proximity-focused) was adopted, projecting more diversity yet also some increases in racially identifiable schools.
- Appellants moved for injunctive relief arguing the 2011-2012 Plan violated desegregation orders and moved away from unitary status; the district court denied the injunction.
- Appellants appealed, arguing the district court should apply a presumption that current disparities are caused by past segregation and place the burden on the Board to prove progress toward unitary status.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a presumption applies that current disparities stem from past segregation | Baliles burden on Board to prove progress toward unitary status. | Disparities not automatically presumption; district court can evaluate plan under current standards. | Presumption applied; burden on Board to show progress toward unitary status. |
| Who bears the burden to show the 2011-2012 Plan moves toward unitary status | Board must prove plan advances unitary status. | Appellants must show plan harms progress toward unitary status; BC arguments rely on policy compliance. | Board bears continuing burden to prove plan advances toward unitary status. |
| Whether the district court erred in applying the wrong evidentiary standard for injunctive relief | The injunction analysis should follow pre-unitary burden framework; strict showing required. | Court appropriately treated as injunction-like inquiry under context of settlement and unitary status. | Record warrants remand for proper evidentiary burden application consistent with presumption. |
| Whether the district court should have remanded for further record development | Need fuller record on whether Scenario 3 complies with court orders toward unitary status. | Record sufficient to deny injunction; further review occurs in December 2012 report. | Remand warranted to evaluate the plan under correct burdens and policy compliance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bd. of Educ. v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237 (1991) (unitary status prerequisite to lifting desegregation orders; Green framework)
- Baliles, 829 F.2d 1308 (4th Cir. 1987) (presumption that current disparities arise from past de jure segregation until unitary status is reached)
- Green v. School Bd. of New Kent Cnty., 391 U.S. 430 (1968) (presumption that plans must meaningfully dismantle segregation; heavy burden on board)
- Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467 (1992) (discusses persistence of vestiges after de jure segregation and burden to prove progress)
- Jacksonville N.A.A.C.P. v. Duval Cnty. Sch., 273 F.3d 960 (11th Cir. 2001) (current disparities presumed linked to past unlawful conduct)
- Brinkman, 443 U.S. 526 (1979) (heavy burden on pre-unitary boards to justify actions that continue effects of dual system)
- Green v. Bd. of Ed. of Greenville Cnty., 391 U.S. 430 (1968) (unitary status requires progress toward eliminating vestiges of segregation)