Hoots v. Com. of Pennsylvania
| Decision Date | 01 February 1982 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 81-1691,s. 81-1691 |
| Citation | 672 F.2d 1107 |
| Parties | 3 Ed. Law Rep. 244 Dorothy HOOTS, individually and as mother of her children, Janelle Hoots and Jamie Hoots; Mrs. Addrallace Knight, individually and as mother and natural guardian of her children Ronald Knight, Loretta Knight, Terrance Knight, Marc Knight and Byron Knight; Barbara Smith, individually and as mother and natural guardian of her children Tawanda Smith, Tevela Smith, Joseph Smith, Wesley Smith and Eric Smith; on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; Mae Helen Woody, Juanita Jordan v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA; Edward X. Hallenberg, President of the AlleghenyCounty Board of School Directors; the Allegheny County Board of SchoolDirectors; W. Deming Lewis, Chairman of the Pennsylvania State Board ofEducation; MichaelSullivan, President of the School District of the Borough of Braddock, theSchool District of the Borough of Braddock, Andrew Lisyak, President of theSchool Board of the School District of the Borough of Rankin; the SchoolDistrict of the Borough ofRankin, Leo Campbell, President of the School Board of the School District ofthe Borough of North Braddock; and the School District of the Borough of NorthBraddock; the Allegheny Intermediate Unit Board of School Directors and EdwardX. Hallenbergas President of the Allegheny Intermediate Board of School Directors, ChurchillArea School District, Edgewood School District, Swissvale Area School District,Turtle Creek Area School District. Appeal of SCHOOL DISTRICT OF EDGEWOOD, in 81-1691. Appeal of SCHOOL DISTRICT OF CHURCHILL AREA, in 81-1692. Appeal of SCHOOL DISTRICT OF SWISSVALE AREA, in 81-1693. Appeal of SCHOOL DISTRICT OF TURTLE CREEK AREA, in 81-1694. Appeal of SWISSVALE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, Churchill Area School District, Edgewood School District and Turtle Creek Area School District, in 81-1695. Appeal of SCHOOL DISTRICTS OF CHURCHILL AREA, EDGEWOOD, SWISSVALE AREA ANDTURTLE CREEK AREA, in 81-1790. Appeal of ALLEGHENY COUNTY INTERMEDIATE UNIT and Allegheny County School Boar |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Thomas A. Gottschalk (argued), Washington, D. C., for School Dist. of Edgewood and Turtle Creek Area.
Carl W. Brueck, Brueck & Houck, Pittsburgh, Pa., for School Dist. of Edgewood.
Philip B. Kurland (argued), Chicago, Ill., John J. Coffey, Philadelphia, Pa., Rothschild, Barry & Myers, Chicago, Ill., J. Robert Maxwell, Maxwell & Huss, Pittsburgh, Pa., for School Dist. of Churchill Area.
Frank Goodman (argued), Philadelphia, for Swissvale Area School Dist.
Allen C. Warshaw, Deputy Atty. Gen., Chief, Civ. Litigation (argued), Harrisburg, Pa., Alton P. Arnold, Jr., William A. Webb, Deputy Atty. Gen., LeRoy S. Zimmerman, Atty. Gen. for the Com. of Pa., Harrisburg, Pa., for Com. of Pa., State Bd. of Ed. and W. Deming Lewis.
Anton W. Bigman (argued), Pittsburgh, Pa., Linda A. Blumkin, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, New York City, for General Braddock Area School Dist.
Thomas J. Henderson (argued), Pittsburgh, Pa., Jack Greenberg, James M. Nabrit, III, James S. Liebman (argued), Neighborhood Legal Services, New York City, for Dorothy Hoots, etc., et al.
G. N. Evashavik, Evashavik, Capone, Evans & Della Vecchia, Pittsburgh, Pa., Robert H. Bork, New Haven, Conn., Kirkland & Ellis, Washington, D. C., for Turtle Creek Area School Dist.
J. Frank McKenna, III, Thorp, Reed & Armstrong, Pittsburgh, Pa., for East Allegheny School Dist.
Michael I. Levin, Cleckner & Fearen, Harrisburg, Pa., amicus curiae, Pa. School Boards Assn.
Thomas Rutter, William C. Andrews, Goehring, Rutter & Boehm, Pittsburgh, Pa., for Edward X. Hallenberg and Allegheny Intermediate Unit, Allegheny County School Bd.
Before GIBBONS, HUNTER and GARTH, Circuit Judges.
This decision is the ninth chapter in the history of this decade-old school desegregation case. 1 The plaintiff class consists of Defendants' present appeal is based on two contentions. First, they argue that Hoots II, in which the district court found a constitutional violation, was incorrectly decided, in that the district court did not find intentional or purposeful segregative acts on the part of state officials. Second, defendants contend that the district court erred in fashioning the multidistrict remedy that it ultimately chose.
parents of children who attend public schools in the General Braddock Area School District ("GBASD") in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Defendants are the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania State Board of Education (the "State Board"), the Allegheny Board of Education (the "County Board," later succeeded by the "Intermediate Unit"), and several of the Boards' officers. Plaintiffs filed a complaint on June 9, 1971, alleging that the consolidation of various school districts in Allegheny County by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, acting through the State and County Boards, had resulted in the creation of racially segregated schools. The district court, in Hoots II, held that the creation of GBASD by the State and County Boards was "an act of de jure discrimination in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment." Hoots II, 359 F.Supp. at 823. Various plans were considered by the district court as possible remedies for the continuing violations of plaintiffs' constitutional rights. In March 1981, the court decided which of numerous school districts could be included in any multidistrict remedy under the guidelines of Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717, 94 S.Ct. 3112, 41 L.Ed.2d 1069 (1974). Hoots VI, 510 F.Supp. at 619. In April 1981, the district court approved the consolidation plan presently under appeal. 2
We find defendants' arguments unpersuasive and we affirm the rulings of the district court.
The facts of this case, especially those which lead to the initial filing of the complaint in this action, are ably and extensively set forth in the district court's May 1973 opinion. See Hoots II, 359 F.Supp. 807. The procedural posture of the case has been recited on numerous occasions by this court: Hoots IV, 587 F.2d 1340; Hoots V, 639 F.2d 972. Here, we will summarize those accounts and then supplement them with a recital of subsequent events leading to the instant appeal.
During the 1960's, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on three occasions enacted legislation to reorganize the school districts in Pennsylvania's public school system. The Act of September 12, 1961, P.L. 1283, No. 561, 24 P.S. § 2-281 et seq. ("Act 561"), directed each county board of school directors to prepare a plan of organization of school districts for the county for review by the State Board of Education. This Act was superseded, although not substantively altered, by the Act of August 8, 1963, P.L. 564, No. 299, 24 P.S. § 2-290 et seq. ("Act 299"), and the Act of July 8, 1968, P.L. 299, No. 150, 24 P.S. § 2400.1 et seq. ("Act 150"). Act 299 instructed the county boards to prepare on or before July 1, 1964 a plan of organization of school districts for the county and directed the State Board of Education to review organization plans prepared by the county boards and to approve such plans as it deemed wise and in the best Acts 299 and 150 provided for the plans of organization of school districts to conform to standards which were to be prepared by the State Board. In preparing these standards, the State Board was instructed to take into account: topography, pupil population, community characteristics, transportation of pupils, use of existing buildings, existing administrative units, potential population changes and the capability of providing a comprehensive plan of education. 24 P.S. §§ 2400.1, 2400.2; 24 P.S. §§ 2-291, 2-292. Both Acts also stipulated that no school district should, as a general rule, have a pupil population of fewer than 4,000 students. 3
interest of the educational system of Pennsylvania.
The State and County Boards, pursuant to these statutes, established GBASD (63% black) on July 1, 1971, in the central eastern area of Allegheny County, east of Pittsburgh and north of the Monongahela River. The boards also created the predominately or all-white school districts of Turtle Creek (98.1% white), Swissvale (87.3% white), and Churchill (99.2% white), which border on GBASD, and the Edgewood School District (97.8% white), which is situated within approximately one mile of the GBASD. Appendix at 3233a. GBASD served the area consisting of the geographic limits of the Boroughs of Braddock, North Braddock and Rankin. Braddock, North Braddock and Rankin are economically depressed, declining communities. The residents of these municipalities are poor and less educated than those of the other school districts in question. The recreational and shopping facilities within these communities have been rapidly declining and becoming increasingly older in average age. The boroughs of Braddock, North Braddock and Rankin have no characteristics that will attract or retain persons who have the financial means and opportunity to live elsewhere. Finally, the populations of these three communities are becoming increasingly non-white at an accelerated pace. Hoots II, 359 F.Supp. at 814 (Findings of Facts 20-27).
Plaintiffs filed this action on June 9, 1971. In December 1971, the district court The district court also rejected motions by defendants seeking to join involuntarily as defendants the five school districts discussed in the complaint. However, the court stated that it would permit the school districts to intervene voluntarily in the action if they so desired. Hoots I, 334 F.Supp. at 823. The school...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jenkins by Agyei v. State of Mo.
... ... 1267, 1276, 28 L.Ed.2d 554 (1971)); see also General Building Contractors v. Pennsylvania, 458 U.S. 375, 399, 102 S.Ct. 3141, 3154-55, 73 L.Ed.2d 835 (1982) (a remedial decree should ... Id. at 1108 ... In Hoots v. Pennsylvania, 672 F.2d 1107 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 824, 103 S.Ct. 55, 74 L.Ed.2d 60 ... ...
-
U.S. v. Yonkers Bd. of Educ., s. 832-834
... ... denied, 435 U.S. 908, 98 S.Ct. 1457, 55 L.Ed.2d 499 (1978); Hoots v. Pennsylvania, 672 F.2d 1107, 1115 (3d Cir.) (holding that " '[s]chool authorities may not, ... ...
-
Bronson v. BOARD OF EDUC. OF CITY SCHOOL DIST.
... ... having a multi-district segregative effect serve as the basis for an interdistrict remedy in Hoots v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 672 F.2d 1107 (3rd Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 824, 103 ... ...
-
Hoots v. Com. of Pa.
... ... and as mother and natural guardian of her children Tawanda ... Smith, Tevela Smith, Joseph Smith, Wesley Smith and Eric ... Smith; on behalf of themselves and all others similarly ... situated Mae Helen Woody, Juanita Jordan ... COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA; Edward X. Hallenberg, ... President of the Allegheny County Board of School Directors; ... the Allegheny County Board of School Directors; W. Deming ... Lewis, Chairman of the Pennsylvania State Board of ... Education; Michael Sullivan, President of the School ... District of the Borough of ... ...
-
Mapped out of local democracy.
...whose shape can be understood only as an effort to segregate voters into separate districts on the basis of race); Hoots v. Pennsylvania, 672 F.2d 1107, 1110, 1120 (3d Cir. 1982) (affirming the consolidation of five of the school districts surrounding Pittsburgh into a single district based......
-
No-drop prosecution of domestic violence: just good policy, or equal protection mandate?
...emerges from the effect of the state action even when the governing legislation appears neutral on its face."); Hoots v. Pennsylvania., 672 F.2d 1107, 1114 (3d Cir. 1982) (holding that when official action affects one race or class differently from another, discriminatory intent can be infe......