664 F.3d 738
8th Cir.2011Background
- This is a consolidated Eighth Circuit appeal challenging desegregation unitary status for LRSD-related districts and funding obligations under prior consent decrees.
- NLRSD and PCSSD seek unitary status in various areas stemming from 1992 Plan and 2000 Plan; Joshua Intervenors represent black students harmed by segregation.
- District court partially granted NLRSD unitary status in all areas except staff recruitment, and denied PCSSD unitary status in nine Plan 2000 areas, while terminating most state funding obligations.
- The court emphasized good-faith compliance and vestiges of past discrimination as the standards for unitary status, reviewing de novo legal conclusions and factual findings for clear error.
- This court reverses in part for NLRSD, affirms in part for PCSSD, and vacates the state funding termination, remanding for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| NLRSD staff recruitment unitary status | NLRSD argues good faith and substantial compliance with recruitment goals. | Joshua Intervenors contend insufficient documentation and record-keeping to prove good faith. | NLRSD granted unitary status in staff recruitment |
| PCSSD unitary status in student assignment | PCSSD contends assignment reporting and student placement complied with Plan 2000. | Intervenors/defendants argue continued noncompliance with one-race reporting and related duties. | Denial of unitary status affirmed for student assignment |
| PCSSD unitary status in advanced placement | PCSSD asserts better outcomes than other districts justify unitary status. | Lack of implementing the eight recruitment strategies under the 1998-1999 Guidelines shows failure of good faith. | Denial of unitary status affirmed for advanced placement |
| PCSSD unitary status in monitoring and other areas (collectively) | PCSSD argues outcomes suffice despite some plan deficiencies. | Evidence shows lack of good-faith compliance across several Plan 2000 elements (discipline, facilities, scholarships, etc.). | Denial of unitary status affirmed in monitoring and multiple areas |
| State funding obligations termination | Districts argue funding termination is unwarranted without a formal hearing. | State contends the funding obligations can be terminated as a remedy. | District court's termination vacated; remanded for formal evidentiary hearing and detailed findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467 (1992) (good-faith compliance and vestiges of discrimination standard)
- Bd. of Educ. of Okla. City Pub. Sch. v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237 (1991) (longevity of desegregation remedies and vestiges)
- Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70 (1995) (federal supervision as temporary remedy)
- Liddell ex rel. Liddell v. Bd. of Educ. of City of St. Louis, 121 F.3d 1201 (1997) (twelve-goal plan and unitary status considerations in dual system)
- Pure Country, Inc. v. Sigma Chi Fraternity, 312 F.3d 952 (2002) (contract-like interpretation of consent decrees in enforcement)
- Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v. United States, 433 U.S. 299 (1977) (statistical comparisons and proper use of demographics in desegregation)
- EEOC v. N.Y. Times Co., No official reporter citation provided in opinion (1999) (court may not replace consent decree terms with its own terms)