Comfort ex rel. Neumyer v. Lynn School Committee
| Decision Date | 31 May 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. C.A.99-11811-NG.,C.A.99-11811-NG. |
| Citation | 100 F.Supp.2d 57 |
| Parties | Samantha J. COMFORT, on Behalf of her minor child and friend, Elizabeth NEUMYER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. LYNN SCHOOL COMMITTEE, et al., Defendants, and, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Defendant-Intervenor. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
Chester Darling, Boston, MA, for Plaintiffs.
John C. Mihos, Lynn, MA, for the Lynn School Committee and its members, Defendants.
James Lamanna, Lynn, MA, for the City of Lynn, Defendants.
John R. Hitt, Richard Cole, Judith Yogman, Jacinta Ma, Assistant Attorneys General, Boston, MA, for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Defendant.
Bill Lann Lee, Jeremiah Glassman, Ross Wiener, Assistant Attorneys General Washington, DC, submitted Brief of the United States as Amicus Curiae.
AMENDED MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. STANDARD FOR GRANTING A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ............... 60
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ........................................... 61
A. The Lynn Plan ............................................. 61
B. The State Laws at Issue ................................... 62
C. The Plaintiffs ............................................ 62
III. LEGAL ANALYSIS ............................................... 63
A. Threat of Irreparable Harm to Plaintiffs .................. 63
B. Likelihood of Success on the Merits ....................... 64
1. Wessman Assumed Diversity Could be a Compelling ........ 65
2. Wessman Suggests that the Outcome is Fact-Bound ........ 65
C. Balance of Harms and the Public Interest .................. 68
IV. CONCLUSION ................................................... 69
The plaintiffs, five parents of students residing in Lynn, Massachusetts, challenge the validity of "A Voluntary Plan for School Improvement and the Elimination of Racial Isolation" ("Lynn Plan") in effect in the Lynn School District, as well as the "use of racial balancing as a pre condition [sic] for the receipt of any form of state education aid."
The defendants are the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the city of Lynn, the Lynn School Committee, and the following local Lynn officials who are sued in their official capacities only: the Mayor of Lynn, the Superintendent of the Lynn Public Schools, and each member of the Lynn School Committee.1
The Lynn Plan is essentially a plan for neighborhood schools. Any child may attend a neighborhood school without interference by any school official. It is only when a student applies to transfer out of a neighborhood school to another school in the district that the plan takes race into account.2 A student's ability to transfer out of a neighborhood school may be limited if the transfer has the effect of increasing racial isolation or racial imbalance, as defined by the plan. Moreover, the implementation of the Lynn Plan qualifies the Lynn Public Schools for certain additional educational aid from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Plaintiffs challenge the plan itself and the state statute which conditions these funds on its implementation.
The plaintiffs argue that the consideration of race (both in the transfer policy and in state laws regulating the distribution of state education funding) violates the constitutions of the United States and Massachusetts, as well as various federal and state statutes.3 They seek a preliminary injunction invalidating the plan and enjoining the operation of the state laws pending the outcome of litigation. For reasons which I explain below, I DENY plaintiffs' application for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs cannot show any threat of irreparable harm, and as the record stands now, their likelihood of success on the merits remains unclear. Plaintiffs have indicated that they will not be seeking transfer requests in the upcoming assignment process. Even if the transfer policy were clearly unconstitutional, the plaintiffs face no threat of any harm from the plan's continued operation. Nor can they show the likelihood of success on the merits.
While there has been a rising tide of litigation challenging government use of racial classifications and preferences, both in and outside the school context, plaintiffs' challenge sweeps far more broadly than most, and — at least on this abbreviated record — too far. Although courts have become increasingly suspect of programs and policies that involve racial classifications, it cannot be said — as the plaintiffs do — that any government consideration of race in devising school assignment policies is unconstitutional. The answer is "it depends." It depends upon the actual operation of the plan, the context in which it is administered, and the purposes it serves.
Without an evidentiary hearing, without the development of the facts, I cannot forecast that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits.
Indeed, on May 11, 2000, the Second Circuit, facing a nearly identical issue involving a race-conscious transfer policy, decided precisely as I do now. See Brewer v. The West Irondequoit Central School District, 212 F.3d 738 (2nd Cir.2000). (This decision has been called to the Court's attention in the course of writing this opinion.) In Brewer, the court vacated a District Court decision granting a preliminary injunction. It noted that there were serious questions as to whether the plan's goal of reducing racial isolation was sufficiently compelling to justify a race based classification. Id. (). While the decision is based in part on Second Circuit precedent not binding on this Court, the Second Circuit also found cases such as Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 98 S.Ct. 2733, 57 L.Ed.2d 750 (1978) and Wessmann v. Gittens, 160 F.3d 790 (1st Cir.1998) distinguishable from cases similar to the one before this Court — elementary and secondary school transfer policies that do not deny a benefit altogether to the complaining party because they offer an "equivalent alternative education," id., cases about transfers or assignments not admissions or rejections.4
As this Court has previously stated,
A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary equitable remedy. It requires intervention by the Court on an emergency basis, without the usual careful procedures and litigation methods — the exchange of information in discovery, evidentiary hearings, the full and complete briefing of the issues. As such the law imposes on plaintiffs the substantial burden of convincing the Court that they are likely to succeed ultimately and further, that if emergency relief is not granted, they will be `irreparably' harmed.
Boston's Children First v. City of Boston, 62 F.Supp.2d 247, 253 (D.Mass.1999) (citations omitted). The test is a four part one:
The Court must find: (1) that plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted; (2) that such injury outweighs any harm which granting injunctive relief would inflict on the defendant; (3) that plaintiff has exhibited a likelihood of success on the merits; and (4) that the public interest will not be adversely affected by the granting of the injunction.
Planned Parenthood League v. Bellotti, 641 F.2d 1006, 1009 (1st Cir.1981) (citations omitted). While the "likelihood of success at trial is particularly influential in the preliminary injunction calculus," none of the four factors "should be slighted" in the analysis. Cohen v. Brown University, 991 F.2d 888, 903 (1st Cir.1993); LeBeau v. Spirito, 703 F.2d 639, 642 (1st Cir.1983) (citations omitted).
The Lynn Plan was originally adopted in 1988 and has been amended several times, most recently in September of 1999. Under the plan, all students in the Lynn Public School system are guaranteed the right to attend their neighborhood school. Students may also request a transfer to a non-neighborhood school. The transfer is generally allowed, space permitting, except when it would increase racial isolation (too low a minority percentage) or racial imbalance (too high a minority percentage) in the particular schools involved.
The Lynn Plan defines racial balance as the condition in which a particular elementary school's white-minority ratio is within 15 percent of the white-minority ratio of the students in the school system, and in the case of a middle or high school, when the ratio is within 10 percent of the white-minority ratio of the students in the school system.
Transfers may be obtained freely between schools which are racially balanced. The Lynn Plan only applies to schools which are not racially balanced. Because each of the high schools in Lynn is racially balanced, the Lynn Plan does not apply at all to these schools. Students may transfer to non-neighborhood high schools without regard to their race.
Of the remaining schools in the district, only two of the five middle schools, and none of the elementary schools, are racially balanced. Transfers among the schools which are not racially balanced can be restricted because of race. For example, a white student attending the Harrington elementary school, which is 80% minority, generally cannot transfer out of the school because it would increase racial imbalance at the school. Similarly, a minority student attending the Lynn Wood elementary school, which is 81% white, generally cannot transfer out of the school because it would increase racial isolation. The most racially isolated and racially imbalanced middle schools would similarly restrict minority and white transfers respectively.
These schools, however, represent the extremes of the spectrum. Students attending all other schools are always eligible to transfer to at least one non-neighborhood school. For example, a white student attending any elementary school would always be eligible to transfer to the Harrington elementary school because...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Comfort v. Lynn School Committee, 03-2415.
...285 (D.Mass.2001) (Comfort III); Comfort v. Lynn Sch. Comm., 131 F.Supp.2d 253 (D.Mass.2001) (Comfort II); Comfort v. Lynn Sch. Comm., 100 F.Supp.2d 57 (D.Mass.2000) (Comfort I). We set forth only those facts necessary to put this case into context, drawing upon the largely unchallenged fin......
-
Comfort ex rel. Neumyer v. Lynn School Committee
...its flexibility, the level of coercion involved, its history, its administration. On both axes—the setting and the nature of the plan—the Lynn Plan is different from race-conscious plans that have been successfully challenged. In constitutional parlance, the Lynn Plan passes muster even und......
-
Comfort ex rel. Neumyer v. Lynn School Committee
...its flexibility, the level of coercion involved, its history, its administration. On both axes—the setting and the nature of the plan—the Lynn Plan is different from race-conscious plans that have been successfully challenged. In constitutional parlance, the Lynn Plan passes muster even und......
-
Comfort v. Lynn School Committee
...of success on the merits was, at that early stage in the litigation, unclear. See Comfort ex rel. Neumyer v. Lynn School Committee, 100 F.Supp.2d 57, 60 (D.Mass. 2000) [hereinafter "Comfort I"]. III. LEGAL A. Plaintiffs' Standing to Prosecute this Action 1. Evidentiary Standard Litigants wh......