Monroe v. Board of Education, Madison County, Tennessee, Civ. No. 1327.

• Decision Date: 02 August 1965
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 1327.
• Citation: 269 F. Supp. 758
• Parties: Brenda Kay MONROE et al. v. BOARD OF EDUCATION, MADISON COUNTY, TENNESSEE et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Tennessee

269 F. Supp. 758

Brenda Kay MONROE et al. v. BOARD OF EDUCATION, MADISON COUNTY, TENNESSEE et al.

Civ. No. 1327.

United States District Court W. D. Tennessee, E. D.

August 2, 1965.

Z. Alexander Looby and Avon N. Williams, Jr., Nashville, Tenn., J. Emmett Ballard, Jackson, Tenn., Jack Greenberg, Constance Baker Motley, James M. Nabritt, III, New York City, for plaintiffs.

Jack Manhein, Sr., Jackson, Tenn., for defendants.

MEMORANDUM DECISION

BAILEY BROWN, District Judge.

Plaintiffs have filed a motion for additional relief, which raises these issues:

1. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to an order requiring the integration of faculty, administrative and supporting personnel.

2. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to an order requiring the integration of teacher in-service training and professional activities.

3. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to an order requiring more advance notice of registration dates and more time for registration.

4. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to an order requiring abolition of segregation in extra-curricular activities.

5. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to an order requiring an abolition of the "split season."

6. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to recover attorneys' fees.

Inasmuch as we have just filed a memorandum decision in the case involving the City of Jackson, (D.C., 244 F.Supp. 353) in which we deal with several of the issues raised by this motion, we will refer to what we said in that decision as well as the authorities cited therein and thereby shorten this opinion.

With respect to integration of faculty, administrative, and supporting personnel, plaintiffs are entitled to press only a claim for integration of faculty and principals and, as to faculty and principals, only to the extent that such action is necessary to abolish discrimination against plaintiffs as pupils. Mapp v. Board of Ed. of City of Chattanooga, 319 F.2d 571, 576 (6th Cir. 1963). We believe that on the proof presented plaintiffs are entitled to the same relief as that given to plaintiffs in the City case, i. e., white teachers and Negro teachers must not be barred, because of race, from teaching in schools in which all or a majority of the pupils are of the other race. This would mean that white and Negro teachers, who so desire, would not be prevented, because of his or her race, from teaching pupils all or a majority of whom were of the other race, but that all of the other usual factors may be considered in determining the assignment of teachers. The fact that this policy has been rescinded must be publicized so that all teachers, white and Negro, will be aware of this change of policy. (We plan to insert such a requirement as to publication in the order to be entered in the City case.)

As to teacher in-service training and professional activities, the proof indicates that the only segregation that remains results from the fact that the teachers have separate professional organizations over whose policies defendants have no control. In any event, for reasons set out in our opinion in the City case, plaintiffs are not entitled to relief in this case.

Defendants have consented to hold a supplementary registration in July, 1965, and have consented, in the future, to give 30 days rather than 10 days advance notice of the registration dates. The proof shows that,...