Liddell v. BD. OF ED., CITY OF ST. LOUIS, ETC.
Citation | 469 F. Supp. 1304 |
Decision Date | 12 April 1979 |
Docket Number | No. 72-100C(1).,72-100C(1). |
Parties | Craton LIDDELL, a minor, et al., Plaintiffs, and Earline Caldwell, et al., and The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and City of St. Louis, and Janice Adams, et al., and Mary Puleo, et al., representing the Involved Citizens Committee, and United States of America, Plaintiffs-Intervenors, v. The BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the CITY OF ST. LOUIS, STATE OF MISSOURI, and Daniel L. Schlafly et al., and the State of Missouri et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Joseph S. McDuffie, William P. Russell, St. Louis, Mo., for plaintiffs Craton Liddell et al.
John H. Lashly, Paul B. Rava, Lashly, Caruthers, Thies, Rava & Hamel, St. Louis, Mo., for defendants, Bd. of Education, City of St. Louis, its officials and members.
Charles Kunderer, Associate City Counselor, St. Louis, Mo., for City of St. Louis.
Sheila Hyatt, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Mo., for State of Missouri, Arthur Mallory, Com'r of Ed. of State of Missouri, The State of Missouri Bd. of Ed.
Robert J. Koster, King, Yusman, Koster & Buechner, St. Louis, Mo., for Janice Adams et al., and The Concerned Parents for Neighborhood Schools.
Anthony J. Sestric, St. Louis, Mo., for Mary Puleo et al., and Involved Citizens Committee.
David A. Lang, Clayton, Mo., for Earline Caldwell et al.
Drew S. Days, III, J. Gerald Hebert, Asst. Attys. Gen., Thomas D. Yannucci, W. W. Johnson, Civil Rights Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., Robert D. Kingsland, U. S. Atty., St. Louis, Mo., for the U. S.
Nathaniel R. Jones, Gen. Counsel, NAACP, New York City, Louis R. Lucas, Barbara B. Dickey, Richard B. Fields, Ratner, Sugarmon, Lucas, Salky & Henderson, Memphis, Tenn., for NAACP.
This matter was tried to the Court. The Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
I. CASE HISTORY AND PROCEDURAL POSTURE.
This is a school desegregation case involving the public schools of the City of St. Louis, Missouri. On February 18, 1972, plaintiffs, who are representatives of the Concerned Parents of North St. Louis, filed their initial complaint. Plaintiffs represent school age children and their respective parents and next friends residing in the metropolitan school district of the City of St. Louis. Plaintiffs (hereinafter Liddell, et al.), each of whom is black, brought this action as a class action on behalf of themselves and all other school age children and their parents in that area. Plaintiffs named as defendants the Board of Education of the City of St. Louis, State of Missouri, and its members (hereinafter Board), in their official capacities, as well as the then Acting Superintendent of Schools and the District Superintendents of the Board of Education of the City of St. Louis, all in their official capacities.
In their initial complaint, Liddell, et al., alleged jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. ?? 1343(3) and 1343(4), 28 U.S.C. ? 2201, 42 U.S.C. ?? 1983, 1988, and 2000d, and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Liddell, et al., alleged that the defendants, by their methods of maintaining and operating the school system, have perpetuated racial segregation and discrimination in the St. Louis City School system. Liddell, et al., further alleged that the defendants have so acted as to incorporate segregated residential patterns into the schools, to allocate educational resources in a discriminatory manner, and to perpetuate a dual biracial school system, thus failing in their affirmative duty to establish and maintain unitary public schools.
Liddell, et al., prayed that defendants be enjoined to take all steps reasonably necessary to establish a nonsegregated, nondiscriminatory school system, and be required to submit a plan for the allocation of educational resources, geographical boundaries and transportation routes, as well as staff and pupil assignments which will satisfy the Fourteenth Amendment requirements. In addition, Liddell, et al., asked for costs, attorneys' fees, and other relief.
Defendants answered this complaint, denying the material allegations, on April 19, 1972.
On October 3, 1973, after discovery proceedings by the parties, the Court allowed this action to be maintained as a class action pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and notice of the pendency of the class action was duly published. The Court also, by public notice, invited other interested parties to intervene on or before December 1, 1973.
On October 30, 1973, defendants filed a motion to join as additional parties defendant the Governor, the Attorney General, the Commissioner of Education of the State of Missouri, the State Board of Education of Missouri, the St. Louis County Superintendent of Education, and the twenty school districts in St. Louis County which constitute the first two tiers of school districts adjoining the defendant school district of the City of St. Louis. The motion was denied on December 1, 1973.
On February 28, 1974, the Court requested that the parties file a written Stipulation of Facts. This was done on June 7, 1974. Exhibits filed with the stipulation have been supplemented to provide statistical material for the school years up to 1975-76.
On June 21, 1974, after proper publishing of notice to prospective members of the class and other interested parties, the Court, noting that no party had requested intervention, ordered that the cause might continue as a class action.
On December 24, 1975, the parties to this action entered into a consent judgment and decree which the Court approved. (The consent decree is set out in full in Appendix B.) The consent decree was based on a denial by the Board of Education that plaintiffs' charges were true, and a recognition that there was racial imbalance in the school system despite the Board's efforts to integrate the system.
The Board agreed to take further affirmative action in order to overcome the effect of residential patterns and to alleviate racial imbalance in the City schools. The Board agreed to progressively increase the percentage of minority teachers in every school, so that, in 1976-77, 10%, in 1977-78, 20%, and in 1978-79, 30% of the teachers at each school would be of the race that was in the minority at that particular school. This was to be done by voluntary transfers if possible, but otherwise by mandatory assignment despite any contracts, tenure, or seniority agreements to the contrary. This goal has been substantially met even though all parties did not agree to the continuation of the program.
In addition, defendants agreed to strive to increase integration by their manner of providing classroom space, to study realignments of feeder schools, to consider elementary magnet schools and special subject high schools, both with city-wide enrollments, and to attempt to improve the curriculum, all in an effort to relieve the residence-based racial imbalance in the City schools.
On December 24, 1975, the Court ordered publication of the consent decree and notice was ordered to all interested parties that they might object to the consent judgment by filing a statement before Friday, January 16, 1976.
On January 16, 1976, objections to the consent decree were filed by the Missouri State Teachers Association, St. Louis District; the St. Louis Teachers Union, Local 420, American Federation of Teachers; and the St. Louis Teachers Association.
A group of black students and their parents and next friends, together with the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Caldwell, et al. (hereinafter NAACP), also filed their...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Liddell v. State of Mo.
... Page 1294 ... 731 F.2d 1294 ... 76 A.L.R.Fed. 435, 17 Ed. Law Rep. 86 ... Craton LIDDELL, et al., Plaintiffs/Appellees, ... Craton LIDDELL, et al., Plaintiffs/Appellees, ... CITY OF ST. LOUIS, Plaintiff-Intervenor/Appellant ... In re CITY OF ST ... ...
-
Adams v. U.S.
... ... Board of Education of the City of St. Louis, and Daniel L ... Schlafly, FrederickE ... Craton LIDDELL, a minor, by Minnie Liddell, his mother and ... next ... Pratzel, St. Louis, Mo., on brief, for appellee, Bd. of Ed ... Sheila K. Hyatt, Legal Counsel, ... Liddell v. Bd. of Ed., City of St. Louis, Etc., 469 F.Supp. 1304 (E.D.Mo.1979). It found no ... ...
-
Jenkins by Agyei v. State of Mo.
...942 F.2d 487 ... 69 Ed. Law Rep. 705 ... Kalima JENKINS, by her friend, Kamau ... Missouri, Appellants, ... School District of Kansas City, Missouri and Claude C ... Perkins, Superintendent ... Louis desegregation case, and Fred Linhardt, Director of ... 2 Liddell v. Board of Educ., 469 F.Supp. 1304, 1327 (E.D.Mo.1979), ... ...
-
Concerned Jewish Youth v. McGuire
... ... in his official capacity as Police Commissioner of the City of New York, Edward Koch, in his official capacity as the ... Florida, 385 U.S. 39, 48, 87 S.Ct. 242, 247, 17 L.Ed.2d 149 (1966) ... In assessing the ... ...
-
Hostile takeover: the State of Missouri, the St. Louis School District, and the struggle for quality education in the inner-city: Board of Education of the City of St. Louis v. Missouri State Board of Education.
...Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409 (1968). (10.) Missouri v. Jenkins, 491 U.S. 274 (1989). (11.) Liddell v. Bd. of Educ. of St. Louis, 469 F. Supp. 1304, 1309 (E.D. Mo. 1919). (12.) Liddell v. Bd. of Educ. of St. Louis, 561 F. Supp. 1037, 1040 (E.D. Mo. 1983). (13.) Liddell v. Bd. of Educ. o......