Caulfield v. Board of Educ. of City of New York

Decision Date22 September 1980
Docket NumberNos. 733,734 and 1000,D,s. 733
Citation632 F.2d 999
Parties26 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 553, 24 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 31,270 William CAULFIELD et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, and Albert Shanker et al., Intervenors-Plaintiffs-Appellants, and Theodore Elsberg et al., Intervenors-Plaintiffs, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the CITY OF NEW YORK, Irving Anker, Defendants-Appellees, and Joseph Califano, Jr., et al., Defendants-Appellees, and Gordon Ambach, Commissioner of Education, Defendant-Appellee, and Coalition of Concerned Black Educators, et al., Intervenors-Defendants- Appellees, and Ronald Ross, Intervenor-Defendant-Appellee. ockets 79-6191, 79-6193 and 79-6201.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

Morris Weissberg, New York City (Harold F. Hay, New York City, on brief), for plaintiffs-appellants.

James R. Sandner, New York City (Jeffrey S. Karp, Susan Bloom Jones, New York City, on brief), for intervenors-plaintiffs-appellants.

Allen G. Schwartz, Corp. Counsel, New York City (L. Kevin Sheridan, Deborah G. Rothman, New York City, on brief), for defendants-appellees Board of Ed. of the City of New York, Irving Anker.

Richard P. Caro, Asst. U.S. Atty., Brooklyn, N. Y. (Edward R. Korman, U.S. Atty. for the Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, N. Y., Drew S. Days, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jessica Dunsay Silver, Mildred M. Matesich, Irving L. Gornstein, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., Albert T. Hamlin, Lois Hochhauser, Dept. of Health, Ed. and Welfare, Washington, D. C., on brief), for defendants-appellees Joseph Califano, Jr., et al.

James I. Meyerson, N. A. A. C. P., New York City, on brief, for intervenor-defendant-appellee Ronald Ross.

Arthur N. Eisenberg, New York Civil Liberties Union, New York City (E. Richard Larson, American Civil Liberties Union, Jeanne Silver Frankl, Public Education Association, New York City, on brief), for intervenors-defendants-appellees Coalition of Concerned Black Educators.

Before LUMBARD, OAKES and MESKILL, Circuit Judges.

OAKES, Circuit Judge.

This appeal, yet another chapter in the litigation concerning hiring, assignment and promotion practices in the New York City school system, 1 is from a final judgment entered on July 17, 1979, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Jack B. Weinstein, Judge, dismissing a complaint raising constitutional and statutory objections to a "Memorandum of Understanding" (Memorandum) between the Board of Education of the City of New York (Board) and the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW). The challenged Memorandum, executed on September 7, 1977, obligated the Board to change its teacher employment and assignment policies in order to remedy the discrimination found by an OCR investigation conducted pursuant to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d to 2000d-6, and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1686. Shortly after the Memorandum was signed, plaintiffs-appellants, including a local school board and teachers allegedly affected by the agreement, filed suit against the Board, the State Commissioner of Education, and OCR, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against certain provisions of the Memorandum as violative of the fifth and fourteenth amendments and Titles VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d, 2000e-2. The district court permitted the United Federation of Teachers, the Council of Supervisors and Administrators, and others to intervene as plaintiffs and permitted the Coalition of Concerned Black Educators, and Ronald Ross to intervene as defendants.

In a previous chapter in the history of this litigation, this court affirmed a denial of injunctive relief against the enforcement of a provision of the Memorandum requiring the collection of racial and ethnic data by the Board. At the same time this court reversed the district court's order remanding the case to HEW for further proceedings in which plaintiffs-appellants would be permitted to participate. Caulfield v. Board of Education (Caulfield I ), 583 F.2d 605 (2d Cir. 1978). We found in that case that the Memorandum was "voluntary" and that HEW in seeking voluntary compliance with Title VI before resorting to fund termination, was not required to allow the plaintiffs-appellants to participate in formulating the Memorandum. Id. at 612-15; see 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-1. We then remanded for a hearing on the merits of the plaintiffs' constitutional and statutory challenges to the Memorandum. The present appeal is from the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' complaints and the court's determination that the Memorandum is valid.


As a recipient of federal funds, the Board must comply with the nondiscrimination provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d, 2 Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681, 3 and their implementing regulations; 4 it may not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin or sex in education programs that receive federal funds. OCR has the responsibility of ensuring compliance through reviews, investigations and complaint resolution. As we recounted in Caulfield I, see 583 F.2d & n.3, the director of OCR advised the Board by letter dated November 9, 1976, that the Board was not in compliance with Title VI, because it had (1) "denied minority teachers full access to employment opportunity" by using racially discriminatory selection and testing procedures and by using racially identifiable employment pools in a way that restricted placement, (2) assigned teachers and principals in a manner that created, confirmed and reinforced racial identifiability of the system's schools, and (3) "assigned teachers with less experience, lower average salaries and fewer advanced degrees to schools with higher percentages of minority students." OCR also found the Board in violation of Title IX because it had denied females equal access to supervisory positions, provided less financial support for female athletic programs, and deprived female teachers of seniority rights and other compensation by failing to eliminate the effects of past discriminatory leave policies.

Ten months of negotiation ensued. During this time the Board's Deputy Chancellor Bernard Gifford chaired an internal committee reviewing and evaluating OCR's allegations. What is known as "the Gifford Report" substantiated and confirmed many of OCR's findings, although it denied any discriminatory intent on the part of the Board. See Caulfield I, 583 F.2d at 609 n.5. The Board itself on April 22, 1977, suggested affirmative efforts to equalize employment opportunities. See id. at 608. OCR rejected this proposed compliance plan but further negotiations resulted in the promulgation of the September Memorandum of Understanding challenged in this lawsuit. The Memorandum establishes a three-year plan to comply with Title VI and Title IX through affirmative action. We have set out in the margin key provisions of the agreement as they are reported in Judge Weinstein's memorandum opinion, 486 F.Supp. 862 (D.C.). 5


In appellants' complaint they alleged that HEW lacked Title VI jurisdiction to investigate the Board's employment practices because under 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-3 6 HEW can take such action only with respect to programs in which providing employment is a "primary objective of the Federal financial assistance." They further alleged that the agreement's remedial measures are impermissible absent a formal administrative or judicial finding of intentional discrimination and that the evidence does not support a finding of intentional discrimination. Cf. Lora v. Board of Education, 623 F.2d 248 (2d Cir. 1980) (intentional discrimination required to make out a violation of Title VI). Appellants also contended that the Memorandum, by requiring teacher assignments on the basis of race, established a "quota system" in violation of a number of statutes, including Titles VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the fifth and fourteenth amendments.

The district court held that HEW had jurisdiction to investigate and seek compliance under the authority of 45 C.F.R. § 80.3(c)(3) (1979), 7 a Title VI regulation authorizing oversight of the employment practices of a recipient of federal funds when such practices have a discriminatory impact upon direct beneficiaries of the federal funds, in this case, the students themselves. Here, HEW had alleged that the Board's employment practices have such an effect because discrimination in teacher hiring and assignment has deprived students of equal educational opportunity both by reinforcing the racial identifiability of schools and, in some cases, by resulting in the assignment of less qualified or experienced teachers to predominantly minority schools. The district court found that discrimination by race in the hiring and assignment of teachers or supervisors constitutes discrimination against students. In addition, the court rejected the argument that the Memorandum must be invalidated in the absence of a finding of intentional discrimination. Instead, it upheld the agreement, stating that the issue was really whether the parties entering into a Title VI or Title IX remedial plan had a reasonable belief that the practices at issue might result in liability, whether the remedial measures adopted are reasonable in view of the perceived liability, and whether the measures violate statutory or constitutional rights.


We agree with the court below that Title VI enforcement procedures apply to the Board's teacher hiring and assignment practices and that HEW therefore had jurisdiction to investigate and seek compliance. Appellants rely upon section 604 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-3, the section which authorizes administrative action under Title...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • Podberesky v. Kirwan
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • 15 mai 1991
    ... ... and immediate,' not `conjectural' or `hypothetical.'" City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 103 S.Ct. 1660, ... III were met." See also Sharif v. New York State Educ. Dep't, 709 F.Supp. 345, 356 (S.D.N.Y.1989); C ... Board of Educ., 610 F.2d 661 (9th Cir.1979) (similar history ... Croson by over eight years) (emphasis added); Caulfield v. Board of Educ., 632 F.2d 999, 1006 (2d Cir.1980), ... ...
  • Thomas v. Haslam
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee
    • 2 juillet 2018
    ... ... Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC, Josh Spickler, Just City, Memphis, TN, Charles Gerstein, Edward P. Krugman, Jonas ... Lau, National Center for Law and Economic Justice, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs. Alexander Stuart Rieger, Andrew B ... of Educ. v. LaFleur , 414 U.S. 632, 653 [94 S.Ct. 791, 39 L.Ed.2d ... any clerk of a court, present such information to the board of judicial conduct, which court shall take appropriate ... demographic facts about its workforce, see Caulfield v. Bd. of Educ. of City of N.Y. , 486 F.Supp. 862, 885 ... ...
  • Robinson v. Purkey
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee
    • 11 juin 2018
    ... ... Juliet, Tennessee, ("City Defendants") have filed a Motion to Dismiss (Docket No ... action of a municipal legislative body, agency, or board; [2] a policymaking decision by an individual with final ... Tenn. 2012) (Sharp, J.) (citing Monell v ... New York City Dep't of Soc ... Servs ., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978); ... Cf ... Cleveland Bd ... of Educ ... v ... LaFleur , 414 U.S. 632, 653 (1974) (Powell, J., ... known demographic facts about its workforce, see Caulfield v ... Bd ... of Educ ... of City of N ... Y ., 486 F. Supp. 862, ... ...
  • Robinson v. Purkey
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee
    • 16 octobre 2018
    ... ... Short , 401 U.S. 395 (1971); Mayer v ... City of Chicago , 404 U.S. 189 (1971); Bearden v ... Georgia , ... 620, 632 (1996); see also Cleveland Bd ... of Educ ... v ... LaFleur , 414 U.S. 632, 653 (1974) (Powell, J., ... 348 U.S. 483, 487 (1955). The Kotch v ... Board of River Port Pilot Commissioners for Port of New Orleans ... Tenn. 2012) (Sharp, J.) (citing Monell v ... New York City Dep't of Soc ... Servs ., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978); ... known demographic facts about its workforce, see Caulfield v ... Bd ... of Educ ... of City of N ... Y ., 486 F. Supp. 862, ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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