Adams v. Richardson, Civ. A. No. 3095-70.

Decision Date16 February 1973
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 3095-70.
Citation356 F. Supp. 92
PartiesKenneth ADAMS et al., Plaintiffs, v. Elliot L. RICHARDSON, Individually, and as Secretary of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Columbia

Joseph L. Rauh, Jr. and John Silard, Washington, D. C., for plaintiffs.

Joseph Hannon, Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., Robert Beale, Bateman, West & Beale, Newport News, Va., for defendants.

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND INJUNCTION ORDER

JOHN H. PRATT, District Judge.

This cause came before this Court upon plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and defendants' combined motion to dismiss and cross-motion for summary judgment. Upon the entire record before this Court including the pleadings, depositions and affidavits, and upon the Memorandum Opinion of this Court dated November 16, 1972, 351 F. Supp. 636, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion is granted, defendants' motions are denied and plaintiffs are granted the following declaratory and injunctive relief on each of the six separate causes of action:*

I. HEW's Functions Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Concerning Public Higher Education

A. Declaratory Judgment

(1) In January, 1969 HEW concluded that the State of Louisiana was operating a racially segregated system of higher education in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.). Between January, 1969 and February, 1970, HEW made the same administrative determination regarding the systems of higher education of the states of Mississippi, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Florida, Arkansas, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Maryland and Virginia. In letters to the ten states, HEW requested each of them to submit a desegregation plan within 120 days or less. Appendix A gives the dates of letters to each of said states.

(2) The states of Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, North Carolina and Florida have totally ignored HEW's requests of three to four years ago and have never submitted a desegregation plan.

(3) Although the other five states, Arkansas, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Maryland and Virginia, submitted to HEW between 24 and 38 months ago desegregation plans which were found unacceptable, HEW has failed formally to comment on any of these submissions in the intervening years. Appendix A lists the dates of submission of these five states.

(4) HEW has not commenced an administrative enforcement action against any of these ten states. Nor have these matters been submitted to the Justice Department for the filing of suits against any of the ten states.

(5) HEW has advanced and continues to advance Federal funds in substantial amounts for the benefit of institutions of higher education in the ten states.

(6) HEW has attempted to justify its failure to commence enforcement action on the grounds that negotiations with the ten states are still pending, the desegregation of state-wide systems is complex, and the Supreme Court standard of desegregation "at once" does not apply to public higher education.

(7) The time permitted by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to delay the commencement of enforcement proceedings against the ten states for the purpose of securing voluntary compliance has long since passed. The continuation of HEW financial assistance to the segregated systems of higher education in the ten states violates the rights of plaintiffs and others similarly situated protected by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Having once determined that a state system of higher education is in violation of Title VI, and having failed during a substantial period of time to achieve voluntary compliance, defendants have a duty to commence enforcement proceedings.

B. Injunction

(1) Defendants, their successors, agents and employees, are required and enjoined within 120 days from the date of this Order to commence enforcement proceedings by administrative notice of hearing, or to utilize any other means authorized by law, in order to effect compliance with Title VI by the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Florida, Arkansas, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Maryland and Virginia.

(2) Defendants, their successors, agents and employees, are required and enjoined to provide in verified form the following data to counsel for the plaintiffs on the dates indicated:

a. Within 150 days of the date of this Order, a report of all steps they have taken to comply with the injunctive provision set forth in the preceding paragraph, including a description of what action the Justice Department has taken in any public higher education violation defendants may have referred to that Department.
b. Every sixth month after the issuance of this Order for a period of three years, so as to permit evaluation of the reasons for any delays by defendants in bringing enforcement proceedings:
1. A description of each complaint (without identification of complainants) or other information of racial segregation or discrimination in public higher education received by defendants;
2. Whenever within 120 days of receipt of such complaint or other information no administrative determination as to racial segregation or discrimination was made by HEW, an explanation of the specific reasons for the failure to make such determination;
3. Based on each such complaint or or other information, any findings by defendants as to the presence or absence of racial segregation or discrimination and the specific reasons therefor;
4. Whenever enforcement proceedings have not been commenced within 90 days of an HEW finding of racial segregation or discrimination, the specific reasons for the failure by defendants to commence such proceeding.

II. HEW's Functions Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Concerning Renege or Noncompliance Districts

A. Declaratory Judgment

(1) As of the school year 1970-71, 113 elementary and secondary school districts were found by HEW to have reneged on prior approved desegregation plans or to be otherwise out of compliance with Title VI.

(2) HEW referred eight of the 113 districts to the Justice Department (only three districts have been sued by the Justice Department) and initiated seven administrative enforcement proceedings. But although HEW has known of the noncompliance of most of the remaining 98 districts since early in the 1970-71 school year, some 74 school districts remain out of compliance with Title VI without the commencement of enforcement proceedings against them.

(3) These 74 noncomplying districts have received and continue to receive substantial Federal assistance from HEW.

(4) HEW has attempted to excuse its administrative inaction on the grounds that it is still seeking voluntary compliance through negotiation and conciliation.

(5) The time permitted by Title VI for securing voluntary compliance for these districts before commencing enforcement proceedings has long since passed. The continuation of HEW financial assistance to these noncomplying school districts violates the rights of plaintiffs and others similarly situated protected by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Having once determined that a school district is in violation of Title VI, and having failed during a substantial period of time to achieve voluntary compliance, defendants have a duty to commence enforcement proceedings.

B. Injunction

(1) Defendants, their successors, agents and employees, are required and enjoined within 60 days of the date of this Order to commence enforcement proceedings by administrative notice of hearing or to utilize any other means authorized by law, in order to effect compliance with Title VI by each of the school districts HEW found to be out of compliance with Title VI during the 1970-71 school year, unless defendants thereafter and prior to this Court's November 16, 1972 Memorandum Opinion have made an administrative determination of compliance by the school district.

(2) Defendants, their successors, agents and employees, are required and enjoined to provide in verified form the following data to counsel for the plaintiffs on the dates indicated:

a. Within 150 days of the date of this Order, a report of all steps they have taken to comply with the injunctive provision set forth in the preceding paragraph, including a description of what action the Justice Department has taken concerning any school district defendants may have referred to the Department.
b. Every sixth month after the issuance of this Order for a period of three years, so as to permit evaluation of the reasons for any delays by defendants in bringing enforcement proceedings:
1. A description of each complaint (without identification of complainant) or other information of racial segregation or discrimination in public elementary and secondary schools received by defendants;
2. Whenever within 90 days of receipt of such complaint or other information no administrative determination as to racial segregation or discrimination was made by HEW, an explanation of the specific reasons for the failure to make such determination;
3. Based on each such complaint or other information, any finding by defendants as to the presence or absence of racial segregation or discrimination and the specific reasons therefor;
4. Whenever enforcement proceedings have not been commenced within 60 days of an HEW finding of racial segregation or discrimination, the specific reasons for the failure by defendants to commence such proceeding.

III. HEW's Functions Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Concerning Compliance by Public Educational Institutions With New Supreme Court Desegregation Decisions

A. Declaratory Judgment

(1) In Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, 396 U.S. 19, 90 S.Ct. 29, 24 L.Ed.2d 19 (1969), the Supreme Court required desegregation "at once" of all dual school systems. At the time of that decision (October 29, 1969), 87 school districts had HEW-approved...

To continue reading

Request your trial
38 cases
  • Kiper v. LA. STATE BD. OF ELEMENTARY EDUC., Civ. A. No. 81-204-A.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Louisiana
    • August 1, 1984
    ...the desegregation of the Louisiana schools for the blind occurred as a result of HEW pressure and title VI enforcement in Adams v. Richardson, 356 F.Supp. 92 (D.D.C.), modified, 480 F.2d 1159 (D.C.Cir.1973) (en banc). In Adams v. Richardson, certain black students, citizens, and taxpayers f......
  • NAACP v. Wilmington Medical Center, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Delaware
    • April 7, 1978
    ...(emphasis added). 63 Adams v. Richardson, supra; Gautreaux v. Romney, 448 F.2d 731 (C.A. 7, 1971); Hardy v. Leonard, supra. 64 356 F.Supp. 92 (D.D.C.), aff'd, 156 U.S.App. D.C. 267, 480 F.2d 1159 (1973) (en banc). 65 356 F.Supp. at 94-100. The district court's opinion indicates that HEW had......
  • Uzzell v. Friday
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of North Carolina
    • August 23, 1984
    ...as several other states). Adams v. Richardson, 351 F.Supp. 636 (D.D.C.1972) (findings of fact and conclusions of law as amended), 356 F.Supp. 92 (D.D.C.) (order granting judgment and injunction), aff'd, 480 F.2d 1159 (D.C.Cir. 1973) (en banc). The court in Adams responded on February 16, 19......
  • Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Mathews
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • August 9, 1977
    ...that, from the inception of HEW's Title VI enforcement effort against Maryland and Baltimore City, beginning with Adams v. Richardson, 356 F.Supp. 92 (D.D.C.1973), aff'd. as modified, 480 F.2d 1159 (D.C.Cir.1973), the central, and really the only, theme has been the attainment of a racial b......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Disparate Limbo: How Administrative Law Erased Antidiscrimination.
    • United States
    • Yale Law Journal Vol. 131 No. 2, November 2021
    • November 1, 2021
    ...an abdication of its statutory duty'" (quoting Adams v. Richardson, 480 F.2d 1159, 1162 (D.C. Cir. 1973))). an. Adams v. Richardson, 356 F. Supp. 92, 98 (D.D.C.), modified, 480 F.2d 1159 (D.C. Cir. (212.) Women's Equity, 906 F.2d at 745. (213.) Id. at 751. (214.) Id. at 746. (215.) Adams v.......

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