Allen v. Alabama State Bd. of Educ.
Decision Date | 25 February 1986 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 81-697-N. |
Parties | Margaret T. ALLEN, etc., et al., Plaintiffs, Board of Trustees for Alabama State University; and Eria P. Smith, Plaintiff-Intervenors, v. The ALABAMA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama |
Donald V. Watkins, Watkins, Carter & Knight, Montgomery, Ala., James U. Blacksher, Gregory B. Stein, Blacksher, Menefee & Stein, Mobile, Ala., Solomon S. Seay, Jr., Terry G. Davis, Seay & Davis, Montgomery, Ala., for plaintiffs.
Charles Coody, Gen. Counsel, Montgomery, Ala., for defendants.
T.W. Thagard, Jr., David Boyd, Balch, Bingham, Montgomery, Ala. for Ala. State Bd. of Educ., Tyson, Creel, Cherry, Higginbotham, Poole, Martin, Allen, Roberts and Teague.
Algert Agricola, Patrick Robinson, Rosa Davis, Asst. Attys. Gen., Montgomery, Ala., for Bd. of Educ. and Teague.
This class action lawsuit charges, among other things, that the State of Alabama's teacher certification tests impermissibly discriminate against black persons seeking teacher certification. The plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenors are four black teachers and a predominantly black state university. The plaintiff class, as certified by the court to be represented by three of the plaintiff black teachers, consists of all black persons who have been or will be denied any level teacher certification because they failed to pass the tests. The defendants are the Board of Education for the State of Alabama, the members of the board, and the State Superintendent of Education.
In a series of orders, this court found that the parties had entered into an enforceable settlement and the court approved the settlement for the plaintiff class. This lawsuit is again before the court on the defendants' November 4, 1985, motion for rehearing, seeking to have the court reconsider its finding that the parties entered into a binding settlement. For reasons that follow, the court has concluded that the motion should be granted and the earlier orders enforcing and approving the settlement vacated.
The settlement provides for significant class-wide injunctive relief. It provides for a new certification process that allows the use of scores on newly developed subject area examinations as well as the candidates' grade point averages in their education programs. Under the proposed procedure, if candidates do not make the required cut-score on the tests, their grade point averages will be counted 50% and their test scores counted 50% to determine certification.
The new subject area examinations will be developed in accordance with several underlying provisions. First, the tests must meet applicable professional guidelines. Second, the development, administration, and continued review of the tests will be monitored by a three-person expert panel, whose members will be appointed by the court after nomination by the parties. Third, the test items will be subject to limits in permissible differences in result on the basis of race. Under the formula proposed, the tests would first use only items on which there was less than a 5% difference in performance by race. Where these items are not available, items on which there is a 10% or less difference in performance by race would be used. After the test is administered a number of times, items which were not thought to have a race difference of greater than 10% but did in practice have a difference of greater than 10% and less than 15% may be used so long as not more than 10% of the items fall into that category. Items which have a race difference of greater than 15% will not be used.
Defendants may continue to use the existing subject area examinations only until the new tests are developed and implemented, subject to the following strict controls: the cut-scores will be lowered 12 points; all class members who do not meet the lowered cut-scores will have their grade point averages counted 50% and the test counted 50% to determine certification; and finally, if the former two adjustments do not result in a black pass rate equal to 90% of the white pass rate, an additional number of the most highly qualified class members will be certified to make those pass rates come within 10%.
Further, use of a "basic professional studies" examination will be halted. Any candidates seeking advance certification in the same area as their basic certification will not be required to pass any examination.
In addition to these class-wide provisions, the settlement offers individual injunctive and monetary relief. The state board immediately will issue certifications to four categories of class members: (a) those who were denied certification on the basis of the previously administered basic professional studies examination; (b) class members who were denied a higher level of certification in the same field for which they held a basic certification; (c) class members who scored within 12 points of the cut-score on the prior examinations; and (d) class members who would have scored within 12 points of the cut-scores on the prior examinations if their grade point averages and test results had each been counted 50%.
Additionally, the settlement requires the state to pay $500,000 in liquidated compensatory damages to class members who were denied certification solely on the basis of the basic professional studies examination, who were denied higher certification in the same field for which they hold a basic certification, or who scored within 12 points of the cut-score or would have made such a score had their grade point averages been counted. The four individual named plaintiffs will be awarded $5,000 each, and then each class member, including the individual named plaintiffs, will take an equal, pro rata share of the remainder of the $500,000 fund.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Richardson v. Lamar County Bd. of Educ.
...Board of Education, 816 F.2d 575 (11th Cir.1987) (directing enforcement of the consent decree); see also Allen v. Alabama State Board of Education, 636 F.Supp. 64 (M.D.Ala.1986) (describing the consent decree), rev'd on other grounds, 816 F.2d 575 (11th 8 See also United States v. Jefferson......
-
Ibarra v. Texas Employment Com'n
...contract defenses. Allen v. Alabama State Bd. of Educ., 612 F.Supp. 1046, 1054 (M.D.Ala.1985), order vacated on other grounds, 636 F.Supp. 64 (M.D.Ala.1986), reversed, 816 F.2d 575 (11th Approval of a consent decree requires careful court scrutiny. As with a settlement of a class action, th......
-
Richardson v. Alabama State Bd. of Educ.
...by the State Board of Education for all state public schools, had an adverse impact upon black teachers. Allen v. Alabama State Bd. of Educ., 636 F.Supp. 64 (M.D.Ala.1986). The plaintiff class consisted of "all black persons who have been or will be denied any level teacher certification be......
-
Allen v. Alabama State Bd. of Educ.
...joint brief, they are collectively referred to as "plaintiffs." 7. Id. at 1049-50. 8. Id. at 1050, 1052. 9. Allen v. State Bd. of Educ., 636 F.Supp. 64 (M.D.Ala.1986) (Thompson, J.). 10. Allen v. State Bd. of Educ., 816 F.2d 575 11. 729 F.Supp. 806 (M.D.Ala.1989) (Thompson, J.). 12. Id. at ......