ANTHONY T. LEE, et al., Plaintiffs, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Intervenor and Amicus Curiae, NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, INC., Plaintiff-Intervenor, v. RANDOLPH COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al., Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:70cv847-MHT (WO)
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, EASTERN DIVISION
June 22, 2021
This is a longstanding school desegregation case that began in 1963. The plaintiffs, a class of Black students, sought and obtained relief from race-based discrimination in the operation of a de jure segregated school system. The defendants are the Randolph County Board of Education, its members, and its
I. BACKGROUND
A. Early Litigation
This case began in 1963, when several Black students and their parents sued the Macon County Board of Education and its superintendent seeking relief from the continued operation of a racially segregated school
B. The 1994 Consent Decree
On December 15, 1994, the court entered a consent decree outlining the steps the Randolph County school district was obligated to take to discharge its
C. Subsequent Consent Orders
On March 31, 2009, the court entered an order requiring all parties to address what issues remained in the litigation. In a joint status report filed on October 15, 2009, the parties identified two remaining
In March 2013, the parties agreed in a telephonic status conference that the school district had met its obligations with regard to student discipline. Shortly thereafter, in 2013, the court entered another consent order memorializing the parties’ agreement. The 2013 consent order identified the only remaining
On May 9, 2016, the court entered the final consent order in this case. The 2016 consent order required the district to work with a faculty equity consultant to revise its recruitment, hiring, and retention practices, policies, and procedures; submit detailed monthly reports on its work with the consultant; recruit and interview at HBCUs; and send notice of all
D. The 2021 Motion for Declaration of Unitary Status
The school district filed its motion for declaration of unitary status and termination of this litigation on February 26, 2021. On March 15, the United States filed a response indicating that it had no objection to the district‘s request for a declaration of unitary status subject to any concerns raised at a fairness hearing. Private plaintiffs filed a response the same day, noting that they did not have a legal objection to the district‘s motion, subject to the comments, objections, documents and testimony provided at a fairness hearing. Private plaintiffs asserted that the district was obligated to prove that it had attained unitary status at that fairness hearing and noted that they reserved the right to present
Consistent with the court‘s requirements, the school district published notice of the fairness hearing and the proposed termination of this litigation on its website, in the local newspaper, at all district schools (and on their websites) and the Central Office, and on the district‘s Twitter page once a week for three consecutive weeks beginning on April 7, 2021. The district sent every parent or guardian of each district student notice of the hearing by email. The notice included procedures for the public to file comments and objections with the court regarding the proposed dismissal of the lawsuit. The notices also
The court concludes that the Randolph County Board of Education complied with the court‘s directives in providing adequate notice of the proposed dismissal to the community. As a result of the notice provided, community members filed eight written objections to the motion for unitary status with the court. These
The court held a fairness hearing on the district‘s motion for declaration of unitary status on May 14, 2021, as scheduled. In addition to oral testimony and evidence presented by the parties, members of the public had an opportunity to provide and provided public comments at the hearing.
II. DISCUSSION
“The goal of a school desegregation case is to convert promptly from a de jure segregated school system to a system without ‘white’ schools or ‘black’ schools, but just schools.” Lee v. Autauga Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 2004 WL 1699068, at *5 (M.D. Ala. July 30, 2004) (Thompson, J.) (citing Green v. Cnty. Sch. Bd., 391 U.S. 430, 442, (1968)). Once this goal has been attained, control of the school system is returned to the local school board, as “local autonomy of school districts is a vital national tradition.” Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467, 490 (1992) (quoting Dayton Bd. of Educ. v. Brinkman, 433 U.S. 406, 410 (1977)). “Returning schools to the control of local authorities at the earliest practicable date is essential to restore their true accountability in our governmental system.” Id.
In determining whether a school district operating under an order to dismantle a de jure segregated school system should be declared unitary, a court must inquire
In addition to meeting the aforementioned constitutional standard, the district must have complied in good faith with the terms of the 2016 consent order and the portions of the 1994 consent decree, 2011 consent order, and 2013 consent order that
B. Compliance
1. Student Assignment
a. Between and Within School Student Assignment
To achieve unitary status in the area of student assignment, the district must establish that it assigns students to schools and classes on a nondiscriminatory basis. In addition, the 1994 consent decree required the district to review its policies and procedures with regard to student assignment and file annual reports with the court including relevant data and information.
| School | Black | White | Other | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wedowee Elementary School (K-3) | 57 (21 %) | 153 (58 %) | 55 (21 %) | 265 |
| Wedowee Middle School (4-6) | 38 (20 %) | 131 (70 %) | 18 (10 %) | 187 |
| Rock Mills Junior High School (K-8) | 10 (6 %) | 142 (92 %) | 3 (2 %) | 155 |
| Randolph County High School (7-12) | 80 (19 %) | 304 (72 %) | 39 (9 %) | 423 |
| Wadley High School (K-12) | 74 (19 %) | 273 (70 %) | 42 (11 %) | 389 |
| Woodland Elementary School (K-6) | 19 (6 %) | 283 (87 %) | 23 (7 %) | 325 |
| Woodland High School (7-12) | 16 (6 %) | 238 (85 %) | 27 (9 %) | 281 |
| TOTAL | 294 (15 %) | 1,524 (75 %) | 207 (10 %) | 2,025 |
The parties agreed in a 2009 joint status report that the district had met its student assignment-related desegregation obligations. The 2011 consent order memorialized that agreement. Based on the evidence submitted, the district has continued to
b. Student Discipline
In addition to student assignment between and within schools, the student assignment Green factor encompasses student discipline. The 1994 consent decree and the 2011 consent order specifically required the district to address discipline disparities between Black and White students. The 1994 consent decree required each school‘s Discipline Coordinator to meet
In 2013, after the district met the requirements outlined above, the parties agreed that the district had satisfied its discipline-related desegregation obligations. The evidence in the record indicates that the district continues to follow the revised discipline policies and train its employees on those policies with the goal of administering discipline without regard to race.
2. Facilities
To attain unitary status in the area of facilities, the district must ensure that its facilities are maintained equitably without regard to race. In a 2009 joint status report, the parties agreed that the district had met its facilities-related desegregation obligations. Since 2009, the district has continued to address the needs of its facilities without regard to the race of the students utilizing those facilities.5
3. Faculty and Staff Assignment
To meet its desegregation obligations in the area of faculty and staff, a school district must “develop policies and procedures to ensure that faculty and staff [a]re assigned to schools across the district so that no school would be identified as a white or black school by the race of the school‘s faculty.” Lee v. Butler Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 183 F. Supp. 2d 1359, 1365 (M.D. Ala. 2002) (Thompson, J.) (citing Singleton v. Jackson Mun. Separate Sch. Dist., 419 F.2d 1211, 1218 (5th Cir. 1969), rev‘d on other grounds, 396 U.S. 290 (1970)).
In this case, the district‘s Category 1 faculty and staff are assigned to schools across the
| School | Black | White | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Central Office | 2 (20 %) | 8 (80 %) | 10 |
| Randolph-Roanoke Career Technology Center | 1 (11 %) | 8 (89 %) | 9 |
| Randolph County High School | 6 (21 %) | 23 (79 %) | 29 |
| Rock Mills Junior High School | 4 (22 %) | 14 (78 %) | 18 |
| Wadley High School | 2 (6 %) | 29 (94 %) | 31 |
| Wedowee Elementary School | 5 (20 %) | 20 (80 %) | 25 |
| Wedowee Middle School | 3 (20 %) | 12 (80 %) | 15 |
| Woodland High School | 3 (14 %) | 19 (86 %) | 22 |
| Woodland Elementary School | 3 (13 %) | 21 (87 %) | 24 |
| TOTAL | 29 (16 %) | 154 (84 %) | 183 |
2019-20
| School | Black | White | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Central Office | 3 (30 %) | 7 (70 %) | 10 |
| Randolph-Roanoke Career Technology Center | 1 (11 %) | 8 (89 %) | 9 |
| Randolph County High School | 7 (24 %) | 22 (76 %) | 29 |
| Rock Mills Junior High School | 4 (22 %) | 14 (78 %) | 18 |
| Wadley High School | 3 (10 %) | 28 (90 %) | 31 |
| Wedowee Elementary School | 4 (15 %) | 22 (85 %) | 26 |
| Wedowee Middle School | 3 (21 %) | 11 (79 %) | 14 |
| Woodland High School | 3 (13 %) | 20 (87 %) | 23 |
| Woodland Elementary School | 3 (13 %) | 20 (87 %) | 23 |
| TOTAL | 31 (17 %) | 152 (83 %) | 183 |
| School | Black | White | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Central Office | 3 (30 %) | 7 (70 %) | 10 |
| Randolph-Roanoke Career Technology Center | 2 (20 %) | 8 (80 %) | 10 |
| Randolph County High School | 6 (21 %) | 22 (79 %) | 28 |
| Rock Mills Junior High School | 4 (24 %) | 13 (76 %) | 17 |
| Wadley High School | 3 (10 %) | 28 (90 %) | 31 |
| Wedowee Elementary School | 7 (24 %) | 22 (76 %) | 29 |
| Wedowee Middle School | 1 (8 %) | 12 (92 %) | 13 |
| Woodland High School | 2 (11 %) | 17 (89 %) | 19 |
| Woodland Elementary School | 3 (14 %) | 19 (86 %) | 22 |
| TOTAL | 31 (17 %) | 148 (83 %) | 179 |
See Exhibit to Annual Report for 2018 (Doc. 459-1); Exhibit to Annual Report for 2019 (Doc. 482-1); Exhibit to Annual Report for 2020 (Doc. 500-1).
In addition to its obligation to ensure that the assignment of faculty and staff does not identify a school as a Black school or a White school, the district was obligated to take additional action in the area of faculty and staff under the terms of the operative desegregation orders. Specifically, the district was required to (1) reach 16 % Black Category
In accordance with the 2016 consent order requirements, the district has recruited on-campus at HBCUs, sent notices of employment vacancies to public universities and HBCUs in Alabama, and submitted the required compliance reports to the court, including all of the necessary information and descriptions regarding its recruitment efforts. It has also retained a faculty equity consultant to assist it with recruiting, hiring, and retaining Black faculty members by revising its hiring policies and practices. The district continued to consult with the faculty consultant on a regular basis after completing the revised hiring policies and practices to further improve its recruitment and retention of Black employees. The district‘s monthly compliance reports to the court
The district has continued to follow its revised hiring policies, including those governing interim employment of teachers, and has also submitted the required annual compliance reports to the court reporting information regarding employment, recruitment, and retention of employees by race. The district‘s efforts in this respect have produced results. In 1994, only 10 % of the district‘s teachers were Black, and all of the counselors, teacher aides, assistant principals, principals, and assistant superintendents were White. By the time of its November 2017 annual compliance report, the district reported 15 % Black Category 1 faculty. In 2018, 2019, and 2020, the district reported 15.85 %, 16.94 %, and 17.12 % Black Category 1 faculty, respectively. In light of this evidence, the district has complied with the Black Category 1 workforce goal set forth in the 2016 consent order.
4. Transportation
To establish its entitlement to a declaration of unitary status in the area of transportation, the district must establish that it “provide[s] transportation in a non-discriminatory fashion.” NAACP v. Duval Cnty. Sch., 273 F.3d 960, 967 (11th Cir. 2001). The district may not use “race as a basis for assigning students to school buses” or implement “overlapping and duplicative bus routes based on race.” Lee v. Lee Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 963 F. Supp. 1122, 1126 (M.D. Ala. 1997) (Thompson, J.); see also Lee v. Macon Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 267 F. Supp. at 481. Consistent with these standards, the 1994 consent decree requires the district to implement policies to ensure that buses
In 2009, the parties reported to the court that the district‘s compliance with its transportation-related desegregation obligations was no longer an issue in this case. Consistent with the parties’ reporting, the district has established that it offers transportation to students enrolled in the district without regard to race. At the time of their enrollment, students provide the district with their home addresses. Student transportation, including any assignment to a particular bus route, is based on the home address that a student provides. When generating bus routes and assigning students to those routes, the district is guided by a computer program that generates routes based on students’ places of residence and efficiency.6 Race is not a factor in this process. The district has
5. Extra-Curricular Activities
The 1994 consent decree required that the district “implement uniform policies and procedures to ensure that all students, regardless of race, have equal opportunities to take advantage of all extra- and co-curricular offerings.” Consent Decree (Doc. 89) at 31. In the 2009 joint status report, the parties agreed that the district‘s compliance with its desegregation obligations in the area of extracurricular activities was no longer an issue in this case. Since that time, the district has continued to follow its nondiscriminatory policies for extracurricular activities. The court concludes that the district has satisfied its obligations in the area
C. May 14, 2021, Fairness Hearing
As previously noted, after the Randolph County Board of Education filed its motion for declaration of unitary status and termination of this litigation, the court scheduled a fairness hearing, required publication and notice of the hearing and the proposed dismissal of this case, and established procedures for community members to file comments and objections.
The district filed a response to the eight objections stating that it currently employs two Black principals (both of whom were hired after 2017), two Black Central Office employees, and 21 tenured Black Category 1 employees. The district noted that since 2015, only six Black Category 1 employees have been nonrenewed, preventing those employees from achieving tenure. It also noted that it has followed the
At the fairness hearing, the court heard testimony offered by the Randolph County Board of Education. Four witnesses testified on behalf of the district and were cross-examined by counsel for private plaintiffs and the United States. The testimony of the witnesses confirmed the information outlined above, as well as the information contained in the annual report filed by the Randolph County Board of Education on November 2, 2020.
On cross examination, Superintendent Jacobs testified that there were three instances where teachers or administrators in the school system made complaints of racial discrimination in the area of employment. The complaints were made either internally, with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or by lawsuit. All claims of employment discrimination were resolved either by dismissal or settlement. He also testified that the district dismissed a high school principal in 2018 for showing a racially insensitive film at a faculty meeting that included a Black assistant principal and Black teachers. The action of the principal resulted in verbal complaints from nearly every employee at the school, including all the Black teachers at the school.
Principal of Randolph County High School Clifton Drummonds testified about the district‘s Code of Conduct and the manner in which student discipline is administered. He also explained his roles on the Employment Committee, in recruiting Black employees
District witness Lucille Burns was employed by the district for 41 years and served as a teacher, assistant principal, principal, and curriculum coordinator before retiring. She also served on the Employment Committee and a Local School Committee. In 2013, her service on the Employment Committee was as a member appointed by plaintiffs. Ms. Burns currently works on contract to staff the district‘s parent hotline for general issues. She has been a mentor for Black teachers for the last two years and still serves on the Employment Committee as a member appointed by the district. In the course of her testimony, she explained her role as curriculum coordinator from 1994-2013 under the operative desegregation orders, her role in student assignment when she was principal at Wedowee Elementary, and her assistance in the district‘s efforts to address disparities in student discipline.
In his response to the comments made by the second objector, Superintendent Jacobs denied that nepotism is an issue in hiring but noted that, in a small school system such as Randolph County, some employees are related to one another. He also explained that the bonuses for Black teachers were only for those hired in or after 2017 and attested that there are no lawsuits charging race discrimination currently pending against the school system. Plaintiffs’ attorney Mr. Gray clarified that Ms. Burns is not currently a representative of the minority community, but rather is a community liaison for the school board.
III. CONCLUSION
On the basis of the record evidence, witness testimony, and averments of counsel, the court finds that the Randolph County Board of Education and its
While the court acknowledges and takes seriously the concerns expressed by the community members who filed written objections with the court and those who made verbal objections on the record during the fairness hearing, the court finds that unitary status is still warranted. The community speakers have made serious charges of employment discrimination by the district--charges that may very well have merit. The court does not pass on their merit today. Rather, the important question is whether the Randolph County School System has reached the critical point where claims of race discrimination can be adequately addressed through traditional federal remedies, such as
More generally, to the extent that community members expressed broader concerns about the prospect of the district reverting to past discriminatory practices in the absence of continued court supervision, the court notes that it cannot maintain federal supervision in the absence of evidence of continuing discrimination simply to guard against the possibility of discriminatory practice in the future. As the Eleventh Circuit stated in Duval County Schools, “The Board, and the people of [Randolph County] who, in the end, govern their school system, must be aware that the door through which they leave the courthouse is not locked behind them. They will undoubtedly find that this is so if they fail to maintain the unitary system [the court] conclude[s] exists today.” NAACP Jacksonville Branch v. Duval County Schools, 273 F.3d 960, 976-77 (11th Cir. 2001).
In sum, the plaintiff parties have succeeded in the
DONE, this the 22nd day of June, 2021.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE