Bradley v. Milliken, Civ. No. 35257.

• Decision Date: 26 February 1979
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 35257.
• Citation: 466 F. Supp. 307
• Parties: Ronald BRADLEY et al., Plaintiffs, v. William G. MILLIKEN, Governor of the State of Michigan, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan

466 F. Supp. 307

Ronald BRADLEY et al., Plaintiffs, v. William G. MILLIKEN, Governor of the State of Michigan, et al., Defendants.

Civ. No. 35257.

United States District Court, E. D. Michigan, S. D.

February 26, 1979.

Louis R. Lucas, Memphis, Tenn., Thomas I. Atkins, Boston, Mass., for plaintiffs.

George T. Roumell, Jr., Theodore Sachs, Detroit, Mich., George L. McCarger, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Lansing, Mich., for defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

DeMASCIO, District Judge.

The defendant Detroit Board of Education has submitted pursuant to our August 7 and October 23, 1978 Orders, D.C., 460 F.Supp. 299 and D.C., 460 F.Supp. 322, a faculty reassignment plan which calls for the transfer of 546 teachers. The plan identifies the schools involved and explains how specific teachers to be transferred will be identified. The intervening defendant Detroit Federation of Teachers (DFT) filed a critique containing numerous objections to the Detroit Board's plan. The defendant Detroit Board and the plaintiffs filed responses to the DFT critique.

The DFT argues that the Detroit Board's submission is not a true plan because it fails to identify the teachers to be transferred. The DFT is concerned that the actual selection of teachers might not be in accordance with the court's orders. The Detroit Board argues that the identification of the schools and the criteria for the selection of teachers are sufficient at this time, but promises, nevertheless, that it will submit the names of the teachers to be transferred to the DFT by June 1, 1979. The Detroit Board indicates that the actual selection of teachers will conform to this court's guidelines. We agree with the Detroit Board that the DFT seems to be requesting the full details of implementation rather than the plan ordered. It seems to us that there will be sufficient time for the DFT to interpose objections to the selection of teachers in the interval from June 1 to September 1979.

The DFT contends that the plan unnecessarily disturbs schools already in compliance with the court's guidelines and requires transfers although a school is merely a fractional teacher over the 60% guideline. The DFT argues that it makes no sense to transfer one teacher to alleviate non-compliance due to a fractional teacher. The Detroit Board points out that the thrust of the DFT's objections to the plan merely amounts to a general objection to the court's 60% order. We agree that the DFT's arguments are directed toward the implementation of our order. We have already considered those arguments, however, and...