Amos v. Board of School Directors of City of Milwaukee, Civ. A. No. 65-C-173.

Citation408 F. Supp. 765
Decision Date19 January 1976
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 65-C-173.
PartiesCraig AMOS et al., Plaintiffs, v. BOARD OF SCHOOL DIRECTORS OF the CITY OF MILWAUKEE et al., Defendants.
CourtUnited States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court of Eastern District of Wisconsin

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Lloyd A. Barbee, Milwaukee, Wis., for plaintiffs.

L. C. Hammond, Jr., Ross R. Kinney, Ronald E. Klipsch, James P. Brennan and Carl F. Kinnel, Milwaukee, Wis., for defendants.

Curry First and Richard P. Perry, Milwaukee, Wis., and Wayne Schwartzman, Acting Gen. Counsel, Wisconsin Ed. Assoc. Council, Madison, Wis., for Wisconsin Ed. Assoc. Council, amicus curiae.

                                  TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                                                                       Page
                 I.  PRELIMINARY MATTERS ............................................  771
                     A. Introduction ................................................  771
                     B. Appointment of Class Counsel, Class Certification
                         and Dismissal of Mooted Plaintiffs .........................  771
                     C. Dismissal of the Defendant Board ............................  776
                II.  FINDINGS OF FACT ...............................................  777
                     A. General Background ..........................................  777
                        1. Introduction to the Findings of Fact .....................  777
                        2. Definitions and Symbols ..................................  778
                        3. System Government ........................................  779
                        4. System Growth ............................................  779
                        5. Black Population Growth ..................................  779
                        6. Black Residential Patterns ...............................  780
                        7. The Neighborhood School Policy ...........................  780
                     B. System Growth and Overcrowding ..............................  781
                     C. Boundary Changes ............................................  782
                     D. Facilities ..................................................  784
                        1. School Construction, Building Additions
                            and Modernization .......................................  784
                        2. Playground Space .........................................  787
                        3. Substandard Classrooms ...................................  787
                     E. Bussing Programs ............................................  787
                     F. Student Transfer Policies ...................................  791
                     G. Personnel Practices .........................................  794
                        1. Teacher Hiring ...........................................  794
                        2. Substitute Teachers ......................................  795
                        3. Teacher Placement ........................................  795
                        4. Teacher Quality ..........................................  798
                        5. Social Workers ...........................................  800
                        6. Principals and Administrators ............................  800
                     H. The Impact of Socio-Economic Variables on
                         Educational Achievement ....................................  801
                     I. The Compensatory Educational Program ........................  802
                        1. Special Staffing .........................................  803
                        2. Curricular Materials .....................................  803
                        3. Social Services ..........................................  804
                        4. Psychological Services ...................................  804
                     J. Special Programs ............................................  804
                        1. The Reading Services Program .............................  804
                        2. The Special Class Program ................................  805
                        3. The Superior Ability Program .............................  805
                        4. Trade and Technical Program ..............................  806
                     K. Financial Expenditures ......................................  806
                        1. Operating Expenditures ...................................  807
                        2. Construction Expenditures ................................  807
                     L. Board Attitudes and Intent ..................................  808
                     M. Racial Imbalance ............................................  810
                     N. Causes of Racial Imbalance ..................................  812
                III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW .............................................  813
                
                IV.  FINAL MATTERS ..................................................  821
                     A. Remaining Issues ............................................  821
                     B. Appointment of a Special Master .............................  822
                     C. Entry of Partial Judgment and Certification
                         of Appeal ..................................................  824
                

DECISION AND ORDER

(Including Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law)

REYNOLDS, Chief Judge.

I. PRELIMINARY MATTERS
A. Introduction

In this school desegregation case, plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief against acts of the defendants allegedly violative of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

On March 28, 1968, plaintiffs were granted leave to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint names forty-one minor plaintiffs who bring the action by their parents and next friends on behalf of themselves and two classes. Named as defendants are the Board of School Directors of the City of Milwaukee and sixteen individuals sued in their official capacities as members or servants and agents of the defendant Board. Federal jurisdiction is invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1343, the jurisdictional counterpart of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

The amended complaint claims that the defendants have acted to create and maintain unlawful racial segregation in the Milwaukee public school system. I have concluded that segregation exists in the Milwaukee public schools and that this segregation was intentionally created and maintained by the defendants. Such segregation is violative of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed to all Americans by the Fourteenth Amendment and cannot lawfully be allowed to continue. I shall accordingly order that the Milwaukee school system be integrated; that the defendants forthwith begin the formulation of plans to effectively achieve that goal; and that a master be appointed to make recommendations to the Court with respect to the question of an appropriate remedy. In addition, the Court has determined that this action may be maintained as a class action on behalf of two plaintiff classes, and has concluded that these classes should be represented in all further proceedings by appointed counsel.

B. Appointment of Class Counsel, Class Certification, and Dismissal of Mooted Plaintiffs

The amended complaint alleges that thirty of the minor plaintiffs are socio-economically disadvantaged Negroes and members of a class which they seek to represent, described in the amended complaint as "Negro students attending certain public schools of the City of Milwaukee * * * who are subjected to socio-economic disadvantages, and who are denied their rights to equal educational opportunity by virtue of defendants' practices, rules, and regulations which bar the maintenance of racially integrated schools." The remaining eleven minor plaintiffs are alleged to be socio-economically favored non-Negroes and members of a class which they seek to represent, described in the amended complaint as "non-Negro students attending certain public schools of the City of Milwaukee * * * who are being denied their rights to equal educational opportunity by virtue of defendants' practices, rules, and regulations which bar the maintenance of racially integrated schools."

The amended complaint in this action was filed over seven years ago. Neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants, however, have ever made a Rule 23(c)(1) motion for a determination of whether or not the action can be maintained on behalf of the alleged classes. This oversight on the part of counsel and the Court with respect to the question of class action certification is unfortunate; at this juncture in the proceedings, however, such a determination is both necessary and appropriate. Jeffery v. Malcolm, 353 F.Supp. 395, 396 (S.D.N.Y. 1973).

In light of the rather substantial passage of time since the filing of the amended complaint, the Court made inquiries of counsel with respect to the issue of mootness. See generally, Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U.S. 393, 95 S.Ct. 553, 42 L.Ed.2d 532 (1975), and Indianapolis School Commissioners v. Jacobs, 420 U.S. 128, 95 S.Ct. 848, 43 L.Ed.2d 74 (1975). In response to the Court's inquiry, counsel for the plaintiffs filed three affidavits on December 2, 1975. On December 29, 1975, the Court received a letter from the defendants' counsel reciting the results of an examination of the school system's records. From the affidavits and letter, the following appears: Of the 30 black plaintiffs, 5 are presently enrolled in the Milwaukee public school system, 10 have graduated from the system, 1 has moved out of the system, and the present enrollment statuses of 14 are unknown. Of the 11 nonblack plaintiffs, 3 are presently enrolled in the Milwaukee public school system, 1 has graduated, 1 has moved out of the system, and the present enrollment statuses of 6 are unknown.

It is well established that class certification is appropriate in cases challenging segregation in public schools. See e. g., Vaughns v. Board of Education of Prince George's County, 355 F.Supp. 1034 (D.Md.1972), supplemented, 355 F.Supp. 1038 (D.Md.1972), remanded on other grounds, 468 F.2d 894 (4th Cir. 1972), on remand, 355 F.Supp. 1044 (D.Md.1972); Potts v. Flax, 313 F.2d 284 (5th Cir. 1963). Such suits are particularly appropriate for certification under the provisions of Rule 23(b)(2) which is available in situations where "the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate...

To continue reading

Request your trial
33 cases
  • Armstrong v. O'CONNELL, Civ. A. No. 65-C-173.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin
    • 8 Febrero 1979
    ...the finding of liability made by this court on January 19, 1976, in the above-entitled action. See Amos v. Board of School Directors of the City of Milwaukee, 408 F.Supp. 765 (E.D.Wis.1976). The Supreme Court remanded the case to the court of appeals for reconsideration in light of Village ......
  • Armstrong v. Board of School Directors of City of Milwaukee
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • 28 Abril 1980
    ...program of faculty and student segregation and had created and maintained a dual school system. Amos v. Board of School Directors of the City of Milwaukee, 408 F.Supp. 765, 821 (E.D.Wis.1976). In its decision and order, the district court also certified the litigation as a class action purs......
  • Cullen v. NEW YORK STATE CIVIL SERV. COMN.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • 29 Julio 1977
    ...additional counsel. E. g., Armstrong v. O'Connell, 416 F.Supp. 1325, 1340-42 (E.D.Wis.1976); Amos v. Board of School Directors of City of Milwaukee, 408 F.Supp. 765, 775 (E.D.Wis.), aff'd, Armstrong v. Brennan, 539 F.2d 625 (7th Cir. 1976). See Gonzales v. Cassidy, 474 F.2d 67, 75-76 (5th C......
  • One Wis. Inst., Inc. v. Thomsen
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Wisconsin
    • 29 Julio 2016
    ...Brown v. Board of Education —a federal judge concluded that Milwaukee's schools were illegally segregated. Amos v. Bd. of Sch. Dirs. of Milwaukee , 408 F.Supp. 765 (E.D.Wis.), aff'd sub nom. , Armstrong v. Brennan , 539 F.2d 625 (7th Cir.1976), vacated , 433 U.S. 672, 97 S.Ct. 2907, 53 L.Ed......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Housing, Schools, and Incremental Segregative Effects
    • United States
    • Sage ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, The No. 441-1, January 1979
    • 1 Enero 1979
    ...of Education et al. v.Brinkman, 45 U.S.L.W. 4910, 4915 (U.S. June28, 1977).3. Amos v. Board of School Directors of theCity of Milwaukee, 408 F. Supp. 765, 818(E.D. Wis. 160tion.’ Judge Reynolds divided re-consideration into three parts, takingup sequentially the three com-ponents of the Day......

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