Berry v. School Dist. of City of Benton Harbor, 4:67-CV-9.
| Decision Date | 04 April 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 4:67-CV-9.,4:67-CV-9. |
| Citation | 195 F.Supp.2d 971 |
| Parties | Barbara Jean BERRY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF BENTON HARBOR, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan |
Kathleen McCree Lewis, Dykema Gossett, PLLC, Detroit, MI, Steven Marchese, Larson King LLP, St. Paul, MN, for Plaintiff.
John D. Tully, Brian M. Kubicki, Warner, Norcross & Judd, LLP, Grand Rapids, MI, for Benton Harbor School District.
Edith C. Harsh, Jennifer M. Granholm, Atty. Gen., Executive Div., Lansing, MI, Jane Orris Wilensky, Jennifer M. Granholm, Atty. Gen., Educ. Div., Lansing, MI, Rocco E. Testani, John R. Munich, Alfred A. Lindseth, Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan, Atlanta, GA, for State Bd. of Educ.
Thomas A. Baird, White, Schneider, Baird, Young & Chiodini, PC, Okemos, MI, for Michigan Educ. Ass'n.
After operating nearly 22 years under a remedial order, the Benton Harbor Area School District ("BHASD") and the State of Michigan defendants move to terminate this 35-year-old school desegregation case by filing motions for unitary status. Defendants' motions have been vigorously opposed by the plaintiff class and intervenor Michigan Education Association ("MEA"). The court heard sixteen days of testimony, received hundreds of exhibits, and reviewed extensive briefs and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The court has carefully considered the facts presented as well as the governing law. For the reasons that follow, the motions of the BHASD and the State of Michigan defendants for unitary status are GRANTED.
This case began on November 16, 1967, with the filing of a complaint by plaintiffs Barbara Jean Berry, et al., as parents of African American children then attending the public schools of Benton Harbor, Michigan, against the School District of the City of Benton Harbor, the members of its Board of Education and its Superintendent. In the complaint, plaintiffs sought preliminary and permanent injunctive relief as to various acts and practices by the defendants, which plaintiffs deemed to be discriminatory or segregative. In July 1971, the district court found several practices carried out by the defendants to be constitutionally discriminatory. On November 1, 1974, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's findings that the practices were discriminatory and that plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case of de jure segregation.
On August 21, 1974 and September 25, 1975, plaintiffs added the following defendants to the case: the State of Michigan, the Attorney General of the State of Michigan, the Michigan State Board of Education, the Superintendent of Public Instruction (collectively, "the State of Michigan defendants" or "State defendants"), the Boards of Education of the Eau Claire Public Schools and the Coloma Community Schools, and the Berrien County Intermediate School District and its Superintendent ("BCISD").
On August 22, 1977, following a trial on the liability of Benton Harbor Area School District (Phase I trial), the district court (then Chief Judge Noel P. Fox) ordered that the case be certified as a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The class was identified as "all present and future students within the Benton Harbor Area School District." The court also found defendant Benton Harbor Area School District ("BHASD") guilty of acts of segregation in violation of the United States Constitution. See Berry v. School Dist. of City of Benton Harbor, 442 F.Supp. 1280 (W.D.Mich.1977).
On August 7, 1978, following a second liability trial (Phase II trial), the district court ruled against the State of Michigan defendants, the Berrien County Intermediate School District and its Superintendent, and the Coloma and Eau Claire School Districts and their Superintendents, finding that by their policies, practices, actions and inactions, defendants had helped to create, perpetuate or contribute to the unlawfully segregated conditions in the Benton Harbor Area School District. The district court issued an amended order requiring the defendants found liable in Phases I and II to formulate a plan to remedy the constitutional violations. See Berry v. School Dist. of City of Benton Harbor, 467 F.Supp. 630 (W.D.Mich.1978).
In February 1980, the case was reassigned to the undersigned for remedial proceedings. Following a remedy trial, the court entered its Opinion and Order on May 1, 1981, adopting and ordering the implementation of a desegregation plan. See Berry v. School Dist. of City of Benton Harbor, 515 F.Supp. 344 (W.D.Mich. 1981). In broad outlines, this plan: (1) ordered the Eaman residential area be returned to the Benton Harbor Area School District; (2) enjoined the transfer of the Sodus II residential area from the Benton Harbor Area School District to the Eau Claire Public School District; (3) ordered the Benton Harbor Area School District to eliminate racially identifiable schools; (4) ordered the creation of magnet programs in the Benton Harbor Area School District; (5) ordered a voluntary program for interdistrict transfers of students between the Benton Harbor, Coloma and Eau Claire School Districts; (6) ordered further remedies relating to curriculum, faculty and staff reassignment and affirmative action goals, in-service training, student discipline, community involvement, monitoring and reporting, and for financing of the court's remedial plan.
In addition, in its 1977 liability findings, the court found that individual student achievement of black students had been detrimentally affected by defendants' past segregative actions and inactions. The court therefore included an extensive "achievement and social skills component" in its remedial plan. 515 F.Supp. at 369-373.
On January 24, 1983, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the May 1, 1981, remedial order and the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari on October 11, 1983. Berry v. School Dist. of City of Benton Harbor, 698 F.2d 813 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 892, 104 S.Ct. 235, 236, 78 L.Ed.2d 227 (1983).
In September 1991, following ten years of implementation of the remedial plan, defendants Coloma, Eau Claire, the BCISD and the State defendants filed separate motions requesting the court to terminate court supervision and control and to declare the districts unitary. Plaintiffs and the BHASD opposed the motions. Thereafter, with the court's encouragement, the parties undertook settlement negotiations. On December 3, 1993, the court dismissed the motions, for administrative purposes only, while the parties continued settlement discussions. (Dkt. # 974.)
In 1996, this court considered a proposed partial settlement between plaintiffs and defendants Coloma, Eau Claire and the State. Following a preliminary approval hearing, notice and a fairness hearing, the court concluded that the 1996 proposed partial settlement was neither fair, adequate nor reasonable, and rejected the proposed agreement.
Thereafter, further settlement discussions ensued, resulting in new settlement agreements between plaintiffs and Coloma, Eau Claire and the BCISD. These agreements were signed and filed on June 23, 1998, and approved and adopted as consent judgments by this court on August 20, 1998, following notice to the class and a fairness hearing. On November 13, 2001, pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreements, the court terminated jurisdiction over Coloma, Eau Claire and the BCISD. However, under the terms of the consent judgments, Coloma and Eau Claire must continue to allow BHASD resident students who were enrolled in those districts in the 1998-99 school year under the interdistrict transfer program to complete their educations in those districts.1
Settlement discussions continued between the remaining parties, but ultimately were unsuccessful. On April 17, 2000, the BHASD filed a motion for unitary status and the State defendants renewed their earlier motion for unitary status. Meanwhile, plaintiffs filed a motion to modify the remedial order to include supplemental remedial measures. The parties proceeded with extensive discovery.
On February 2, 2001, this court bifurcated the hearing on the motions "horizontally," determining that it was proper for this court to decide the unitary status motion first, but concluding that it was most efficient to hear all evidence regarding the proposed school improvement plan, whether or not that evidence was strictly relevant to the issue of unitary status or to the proposed modification. Hearing on other aspects of the proposed modification of the remedial order was reserved until the court had decided the unitary status motions.
From July 24, 2001 to August 16, 2001, and again on October 24, 2001, the court heard lay and expert testimony regarding the motions for unitary status and the proposed school improvement plan. The principle issues at the hearing were (1) whether racial disparities in the areas of school operations known as the Green2 factors (i.e., student assignment, faculty and staff assignment, transportation, facilities, and extracurricular activities) continued to exist in the BHASD as vestiges of defendants' past segregative conduct or whether they had been eliminated to the extent practicable; (2) whether vestiges of segregation remain in areas outside the Green factors, particularly student achievement disparities, or whether such vestiges have been eliminated to the extent practicable; (3) whether the BHASD and the State defendants have complied in good faith with the court's remedial orders.
Following the hearing and the filing of the transcript of the proceedings, the parties submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, together with post-hearing briefs and responsive briefs. The matter presently is ripe for decision.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski Cty. Spec. Sch.
...unless there is evidence this achievement gap was caused by de jure segregation. See, e.g., Berry v. School District of City of Benton Harbor, 195 F.Supp.2d at 971, 996 (W.D.Mich.2002) ("I find no basis for concluding that the remaining gaps result from prior segregation in the BHASD. As a ......
-
Clark v. Richman, 4:00-CV-1306.
...done. See, e.g., Astra Aktiebolag v. Andrx Pharm., Inc., 222 F.Supp.2d 423, 486 (S.D.N.Y.2002); Berry v. School Dist., of City of Benton Harbor, 195 F.Supp.2d 971, 977 n. 3 (W.D.Mich.2002); Ekotek Site PRP Comm. v. Self, 1 F.Supp.2d 1282, 1296 n. 5 (D.Utah We do, however, make some prelimin......
-
U.S. v. Demjanjuk, 02-3529.
...to performing archival searches. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 594-95, 113 S.Ct. 2786. The Government relies on Berry v. School Dist. of Benton Harbor, 195 F.Supp.2d 971, 977 n. 3 (W.D.Mich.2002), to assert a court's discretion as to the admissibility of evidence, when weighed by a trier of fact, an......
-
In re Commercial Financial Services, Inc.
...essential in a case such as this where a district judge sits as the trier of fact in place of a jury"); Berry v. Sch. Dist. of Benton Harbor, 195 F.Supp.2d 971, 977 n. 3 (W.D.Mich.2002) ("the court's `gatekeeper' function under Kumho and Daubert is less critical when the court itself serves......
-
Assessing Chief Justice William Rehnquist.
...v. Duval County Sch., 273 F.3d 960, 962 (11th Cir. 2001) (ending the desegregation order for the Tampa schools); Berry v. Sch. Dist., 195 F. Supp. 2d 971, 999-1001 (W.D. Mich. 2002) (ending the desegregation efforts for the Benton Harbor public schools); Lee v. Butler County Bd. of Educ., 1......