Everett v. Pitt Cnty. Bd. of Educ.

Decision Date03 June 2015
Docket NumberNo. 13–2312.,13–2312.
Citation788 F.3d 132
PartiesRonda EVERETT; Melissa Grimes ; Caroline Sutton; Christopher W. Taylor, next friends of minor children attending Pitt County Schools; Pitt County Coalition for Educating Black Children, Plaintiffs–Appellants, and Juvenile Female 1; The Greenville Parents Association, Intervenors/Plaintiffs, v. PITT COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, public body corporate, Defendant–Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

ARGUED:Mark Dorosin, University of North Carolina Center for Civil Rights, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, for Appellants. Kenneth Alexander Soo, Tharrington Smith LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. ON BRIEF:Ezra D. Rosenberg, Princeton, New Jersey, Lauren Kurtz, New York, New York, C.B. Buente, Dechert LLP, Washington, D.C.; Brenda Shum, Lawyers' Committee For Civil Rights Under Law, Washington, D.C., for Appellants. Deborah R. Stagner, Tharrington Smith LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge DIAZ wrote the majority opinion, in which Judge NIEMEYER joined. Judge WYNN wrote dissenting opinion.

DIAZ, Circuit Judge:

This appeal arises from two desegregation orders entered in 1970 by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. The district court determined then that the Greenville City and Pitt County Boards of Education were operating racially segregated schools and directed them to submit desegregation plans that would establish a nonracial, unitary school district. Following the school boards' initial compliance with the orders, the cases were administratively closed and lay dormant for over thirty-five years.

In 2008, a dispute arose between the Pitt County Board of Education (the Board)1 and the Greenville Parents Association (the Association) concerning the Board's explicit consideration of race when devising student assignment plans. The parties ultimately settled, and the district court entered a consent order approving the settlement and directing the parties to work together toward attaining unitary status for the school district.

Three years later, a group of parents and the Pitt County Coalition for Educating Black Children (Plaintiffs) moved to enjoin the implementation of the Board's 2011–12 student assignment plan, arguing that it failed to move the school district toward unitary status. The district court denied relief, but we vacated that ruling, holding that the district court erred when it failed to place the burden on the Board to show that the 2011–12 student assignment plan moved the school district toward unitary status. On remand, the Board filed a motion requesting that the district court declare the school district unitary. After a five-day bench trial, the district court granted the Board's motion and dismissed Plaintiffs' request for an injunction as moot.

We conclude that the district court acted within its discretion in choosing to address the Board's motion for declaration of unitary status before ruling on Plaintiffs' motion for injunctive relief. And because the court did not clearly err in determining that the school district is unitary, we affirm.

I.
A.

In January 1965, a group of plaintiffs representing black students filed suit against the Pitt County Board of Education, alleging that the board unlawfully operated and maintained racially segregated schools. Teel v. Pitt County Board of Education, No. 6:65–CV–569 (E.D.N.C. filed Jan. 4, 1965). The district court entered an injunction restraining the Board from refusing admission, assignment, or transfer of any student on the basis of race. The Board attempted to comply with the court order by adopting a freedom-of-choice plan, which allowed students to choose the school they wished to attend. The plan, however, resulted in only a small percentage of black students attending predominantly white schools. As a result, the district court rejected it, ruling that it failed to advance the Board's constitutional duty to establish a unitary school district. It took several more years for the Board to devise a desegregation plan that met with the district court's approval.

A separate but substantially similar action came before the district court in November 1969. Like Teel, Edwards v. Greenville City Board of Education, No. 6:69–CV–702 (E.D.N.C. filed Nov. 12 1969), involved representatives of black students asking the district court to enjoin the Greenville City school board's continued operation of a racially segregated school system. Again, the district court granted the injunction. The court rejected the board's first proposed desegregation plan and ordered it to submit a plan that achieved racial integration in not only student assignment, but also faculty and staff assignment, extracurricular activities, and transportation. Shortly thereafter, the board submitted an amended plan that met with both the plaintiffs' and the court's approval.

The district court continued to monitor the progress of the desegregation plans until January 1972, when it issued orders determining that the cases had been decided on the merits and removed them from the pending docket, subject to being reopened as circumstances warranted. The cases remained administratively closed for thirty-five years. In the meantime, the two school districts merged in 1986 and their separate boards of education were replaced by a single, consolidated Board.

The consolidated Board sought to reopen Teel and Edwards in 2008. The impetus was the Board's adoption, three years earlier, of a new student assignment plan for the 2006–07 academic year.2 Under the then-existing attendance area policy, the assignment plan considered students' race, with the goal of achieving a 70/303 racial balance in each school. To achieve this balance, the new plan relied on satellite attendance areas4 and busing.

Objecting to the explicit use of race in student assignment, the Association filed a discrimination complaint with the United States Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (the “OCR”). While the complaint was pending, the Board revised its attendance area policy, adding student achievement and socioeconomic status as factors that, along with race, the Board would consider when establishing student attendance areas.

Ultimately, the Board and the OCR settled the complaint. The settlement required the school district to seek a ruling from the district court as to whether the desegregation orders in Teel and Edwards authorized the Board to consider race in its student assignment plan. In accordance with the settlement, the Board asked the district court to approve its 2006–07 student assignment plan as well as its revised attendance area policy.

In response, the district court reopened and consolidated Teel and Edwards and re-captioned the new action under its current name. In addition, the court allowed the Association to intervene. The Association then asked the district court to reject both the 2006–07 student assignment plan and the revised attendance area policy, and instead declare the school district unitary. Plaintiffs joined the Board in opposing the motion.

After court-ordered mediation, the parties reached a settlement. The Board agreed to involve Plaintiffs and the Association in developing the next student assignment plan. In exchange, the Association withdrew its motion for a declaration of unitary status, and consented to the Board's motion for approval of the 2006–07 student assignment plan and the revised attendance area policy. The parties also “pledge[d] to work together to achieve” unitary status for the school district. J.A. 195.

The district court approved the settlement and entered a consent order in November 2009. The court's order directed “the parties to work toward attaining unitary status so that the court may relinquish jurisdiction over this case and restore to the School Board full responsibility for the operation of its schools.” J.A. 204.

B.

In 2010, the Board began developing a student assignment plan for the 2011–12 school year to accommodate the opening of a new elementary school and the closing of an existing one. The Board worked with the Operations Research and Education Laboratory of North Carolina State University (“OREd”)5 to draw up proposed attendance area maps. In designing the maps, the Board and OREd considered: (1) students' proximity to their assigned schools; (2) building capacity; (3) academic proficiency; and (4) impact area6 . Notably, academic proficiency was the sole diversity input factor the Board used when designing the maps, even though the Board's attendance area policy permitted it to consider student race.

The Board invited the Association and Plaintiffs to attend two workshop retreats to solicit their input regarding the proposed maps. During the first retreat, the Board presented two proposals. The first proposed map considered only student proximity and school capacity in developing attendance boundaries (“Scenario 1”). This map resulted in an increase in racially identifiable schools, with six impacted schools falling short of the Board's target student proficiency index. The second proposed map factored in student proficiency along with proximity and school capacity (“Scenario 2”). It resulted in increased student diversity, and a greater balance of student proficiency levels across the impacted schools. Scenario 2, unlike Scenario 1, required the use of satellite attendance areas and busing.

After receiving input from the parties, the Board directed OREd to generate a new map. This map (“Scenario 3”) aimed to limit satellite attendance areas, but still considered student proficiency in an attempt to increase diversity. The proposed map was then further modified based on community input. The final Scenario 3 map resulted in schools that were more racially diverse than in Scenario 1, but less diverse than Scenario 2. It also...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • Crump v. U.S. Dept. of Navy
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • September 8, 2016
    ...the opposing party from its burden to prove the facts necessary to establish the waived conclusion of law.' " Everett v. Pitt Cty. Bd. of Educ. , 788 F.3d 132, 141 (4th Cir.2015) (quoting Minter v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. , 762 F.3d 339, 347 (4th Cir.2014) ). "A purported judicial admission ......
  • Congaree Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Carolina Water Serv., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • March 29, 2017
    ...However, a judicial admission is only binding if the statement is "deliberate, clear, and unambiguous." Everett v. Pitt. Cty. Bd. of Educ. , 788 F.3d 132, 141 (4th Cir. 2015) ; see Fraternal Order of Police Lodge No. 89 v. Prince George's Cty. , 608 F.3d 183, 189–90 (4th Cir. 2010) (finding......
  • Chase v. Dep't of Pub. Safety & Corr. Servs.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • April 20, 2020
    ...the prior decision was clearly erroneous and would work manifest injustice.See also Carlson, 856 F.3d at 325; Everett v. Pitt Cty. Bd. of Educ., 788 F.3d 132, 142 (4th Cir. 2015); Sejman, 845 F.2d at 68. In this setting, the Fourth Circuit has colorfully explained that to be clearly erroneo......
  • Certusview Techs., LLC v. S&N Locating Servs., LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • August 2, 2016
    ...the opposing party from its burden to prove the facts necessary to establish the waived conclusion of law.’ " Everett v. Pitt Cty. Bd. of Educ., 788 F.3d 132, 141 (4th Cir.2015) (quoting Minter v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 762 F.3d 339, 347 (4th Cir.2014) ); see Martinez v. Bally's La., Inc.,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Positive Education Federalism: the Promise of Equality After the Every Student Succeeds Act
    • United States
    • Mercer University School of Law Mercer Law Reviews No. 68-2, January 2017
    • Invalid date
    ...See, e.g., Parents Involved in Cmty. Sch. v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 551 U.S. 701, 736 (2007); Everett v. Pitt Cty. Bd. of Educ., 788 F.3d 132, 147 (4th Cir. 2015); Robinson v. Shelby Cty. Bd. of Educ., 566 F.3d 642, 652 (6th Cir. 2009); Anderson v. Sch. Bd. of Madison Cty., 517 F.3d 292,......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT