Lee v. Randolph Bd of Ed
3:70-cv-00847
M.D. Ala.Jun 22, 2021Background
- Case began in 1963 (Lee litigation) challenging de jure school segregation; Randolph County Board of Education was ordered to desegregate in the 1960s and later became subject to long‑term consent orders.
- 1994 Consent Decree imposed comprehensive remedial measures (workforce goals, review of student assignment, discipline, extracurriculars, facilities, recruitment, bi‑racial committees, reporting, and Discipline Coordinator duties).
- Subsequent orders (2011, 2013) narrowed remaining issues to hiring/Category 1 workforce goals and interim employment; 2013 adjusted the Black Category 1 goal to 16% to be achieved in three years and maintained for two years.
- 2016 consent order required active recruitment (including HBCUs), a faculty equity consultant, revised hiring/retention practices, and monthly/annual compliance reporting to the court.
- Randolph County moved for declaratory unitary status on Feb. 26, 2021; the United States and private plaintiffs raised no legal objection but reserved rights at a fairness hearing. The court held a noticed fairness hearing (May 14, 2021); the public filed eight written objections focused mainly on alleged employment discrimination and hiring practices.
- After reviewing evidence, testimony, reports, and community comments, the court concluded the district is unitary in all Green factors, granted unitary status, dissolved outstanding orders as to the Board, and dismissed the litigation against the Board, its members, and superintendent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Randolph County has achieved unitary status and the case should be terminated | Plaintiffs (private and community objectors) argued concerns remain—particularly employment discrimination, failure to follow hiring procedures, and possible retaliation—so supervision should continue | Board argued it complied in good faith with consent orders, met the remaining obligations (including the 16% Black Category 1 workforce goal), and corrected vestiges of segregation | Court granted unitary status and terminated litigation as to the Board, finding vestiges eliminated to the extent practicable and good‑faith compliance established |
| Compliance with faculty/staff workforce goal (16% Black Category 1 employees) | Plaintiffs and objectors argued continued problems in hiring, tenure, and promotion of Black employees; specific instances of alleged improper selection | Board presented recruitment efforts, HBCU outreach, consultant engagement, revised hiring policies, and reported Category 1 percentages reaching and exceeding 16% for required years | Court held the district met the 16% Category 1 workforce goal, maintained it, and satisfied hiring/retention obligations under the orders |
| Compliance with student assignment and discipline requirements | Plaintiffs previously identified discipline disparities; objectors raised general concerns about disparate treatment | Board showed attendance‑zone assignments based on residence, adopted revised discipline policies, equity consultant work, monthly reporting, and no recent assignment complaints | Court found nondiscriminatory student assignment and that discipline obligations were satisfied; unitary as to student assignment and discipline |
| Facilities, transportation, extracurriculars | Plaintiffs/community had no substantive ongoing legal challenge to these Green factors | Board showed facilities improvements based on need, bus routes generated by address/efficiency (no race factor), nondiscriminatory extracurricular eligibility | Court held district unitary on facilities, transportation, and extracurricular activities |
| Adequacy of compliance reporting and data accuracy | Objectors questioned validity of submitted data and monitoring sufficiency | Board produced monthly and annual reports, exhibits, and witness testimony explaining procedures and data collection | Court credited the reporting and evidence as sufficient to determine compliance; concerns without evidence did not defeat unitary finding |
| Whether community objections required continued judicial oversight | Objectors urged that past discrimination and reports of employee complaints/retaliation warrant ongoing court supervision | Board argued statutory and consent‑order obligations were met and future claims can be addressed by ordinary federal remedies (Title VII, §1981); continued supervision not warranted absent evidence of ongoing constitutional violations | Court ruled it cannot continue supervision merely to guard against possible future discrimination; ordinary remedies suffice; terminated supervision but warned local authorities they remain accountable |
Key Cases Cited
- Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430 (sets the six Green factors and goal of eliminating dual school systems)
- Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467 (addresses standard for returning control to local school authorities and good‑faith compliance)
- Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70 (remedies and standard for terminating desegregation supervision)
- NAACP Jacksonville Branch v. Duval County School Board, 273 F.3d 960 (11th Cir.) (discusses standards for unitary status and limits on continued supervision)
- Lockett v. Board of Education of Muscogee County, 111 F.3d 839 (11th Cir.) (application of Green factors)
- Manning v. School Board of Hillsborough County, Fla., 244 F.3d 927 (11th Cir.) (good‑faith compliance and standards for unitary status)
- Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate School District, 419 F.2d 1211 (5th Cir.) (faculty assignment principle to avoid racially identifiable schools)
- Lee v. Macon County Board of Education, 267 F. Supp. 458 (M.D. Ala.) (early Lee litigation precedent relied on for intervention and remedial orders)