Johnson ex rel. Johnson v. Board of Educ. of Cham., 00-1349.
| Decision Date | 29 January 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 00-1349.,00-1349. |
| Citation | 188 F.Supp.2d 944 |
| Parties | Sa'Da and Tyjuan JOHNSON, minors, by their parent and next friend Felicia JOHNSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CHAMPAIGN UNIT SCHOOL DISTRICT # 4, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Central District of Illinois |
Kathleen Mangold-Spoto, Robert C. Howard, Joan Matlak, Carol R. Ashley, Venita Hervey, Futterman & Howard Chtd., Chicago, IL, for Plaintiffs.
Erika Dillon, Patricia J. Whitten, Franczek Sullivan PC, Chicago, IL, for Defendant.
Before the Court is the parties' Joint Motion for Approval of the Proposed Second Revised Consent Decree [Doc. # 41]. Having conducted a fairness hearing in accordance with Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on November 13, 2001, and in consideration of the evidence adduced at that hearing comprising several hundred pages of documents and affidavits, the written and oral objections of several third parties, and having reviewed the pleadings in this case, the Court finds that the Proposed Second Revised Consent Decree is fair, reasonable, and adequate to the class. The Court further finds that the Proposed Second Revised Consent Decree meets all applicable legal standards for the entry of consent decrees in general and desegregation consent remedies in particular. The Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law and approves the Proposed Second Revised Consent Decree for the reasons discussed infra.
This action arises pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the deprivation of Plaintiffs' rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 codified as 42 U.S.C. § 2000(d), the regulations promulgated under the authority of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 34 C.F.R. § 100.3 et seq., 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution of the State of Illinois. This Court has jurisdiction to hear the claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3), and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202.
The individual Plaintiffs in this case are African-American public school students of Unit 4 Champaign Illinois School District.
Defendant, Board of Education Champaign Community Unit School District # 4 ("Unit 4" or "District"), is a body politic and school district of the State of Illinois organized and operating in Champaign County. The Board of Education is charged with and responsible for the operation of the public schools within the District.
In May and July 1996, several African-American families initiated complaints with the United States Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights ("OCR"), alleging race discrimination by Unit 4 schools. In October 1996, the law firm of Futterman & Howard, Chtd., on behalf of African-American students, amended the OCR complaints to include additional allegations of discrimination. CCM ¶¶ 2-3, Bates No. 1.
The initial complaints addressed student assignment and educational services provided to approximately 550 mandatorily bused African-American students. CCM ¶ 2, Bates No. 1.
The amended OCR complaints added four other issues: system wide discrimination in student assignment, within-school segregation practices and tracking, discipline, and staff hiring and assignment. EEM n. 2, Bates No. 12.
In September 1996, OCR initiated a proactive compliance review of Unit 4 to investigate the over-representation of minorities in special education and the under-representation of minorities in upper level courses. OCR also included the areas identified in the parents' complaints as part of their investigation. CCM ¶ 3, Bates No. 1; OCR 1, Bates No. 25.
Following a period of study and community input, the Board of Education of Unit 4 in November 1996 established a redistricting plan ("Redistricting Plan"). CCM ¶ 5, Bates No. 2.
Plaintiffs asserted that the Redistricting Plan did not reduce the disparate impact of educational practices, nor fully resolve their complaints, and that the Unit 4 student assignment system required additional modification to ensure diversity and educational equity. CCM ¶ 6, Bates No. 2.
Accordingly, in or around May 1997, Plaintiffs notified Unit 4 that they were contemplating the commencement of class action litigation against the District challenging, among other things, the student assignment methods used in 1968-97 and the Redistricting Plan. CCM ¶ 6, Bates No. 2.
On September 16, 1997, Unit 4 and Plaintiffs entered into an agreement, memorialized as the Champaign Controlled Choice Plan Memorandum of Understanding (the "Controlled Choice Memorandum"), which established a comprehensive plan and program for addressing Plaintiffs' complaints as to the assignment of African-American students among Unit 4 schools. CCM, Bates Nos. 1-11.
In June 1998, the District completed a comprehensive educational equity audit ("Education Equity Audit") with the assistance of Dr. Robert Peterkin and James Lucey to evaluate the performance of Unit 4 schools. EEA, Bates Nos. 63-162.
On June 15, 1998, the District entered into a Resolution Agreement with OCR resolving both the OCR proactive investigation and the Complaints filed by the African-American families. OCR, Bates. Nos. 25-62.
On July 6, 1998, Unit 4 and Plaintiffs entered into an agreement, memorialized as the Memorandum of Understanding of Civil Rights Issues Relating to Education Equity (the "Education Equity Memorandum"), which established a comprehensive plan and program for addressing certain additional complaints of Plaintiffs regarding alleged inequitable treatment of African-American students in Unit 4 schools. EEM, Bates Nos. 12-24.
In June 2000, Unit 4 adopted an Education Equity Implementation Plan ("Implementation Plan"), which included timetables and goals to fulfil the Controlled Choice, Equity, and OCR Resolution Agreements. IP, Bates Nos. 163-83.
At the time the OCR complaints were filed, the African-American parents and later Futterman & Howard, were aided in their efforts by the association "Of the People" (OTP), a predecessor of the association "Racial Justice Now" (RJN).
"[A] dispute arose," however, between OTP and Plaintiffs' counsel regarding implementation of the Controlled Choice Plan. 8/16/01 Ct. Order at 2. Thereafter, OTP became RJN. On July 28, 2000, RJN filed a school desegregation case against the School District. Plaintiffs then filed the instant action on October 4, 2000, and simultaneously with the filing of the complaint, submitted the Plaintiffs' and Defendant's Joint Motion for Approval of Consent Decree. Basically, the proposed Consent Decree adopts and incorporates the Controlled Choice Memorandum, the Resolution Agreement with OCR, and the Education Equity Memorandum and Implementation Plan.
RJN sought to intervene in the present case, alleging collusion between Plaintiffs and Defendant School District. The Court on August 16, 2001, denied the motion, finding that RJN had failed to allege sufficient facts to support its charge of collusion. 8/16/01 Ct. Order at 11.
On August 22, 2001, this Court certified the named Plaintiffs in the Johnson case as class representatives and approved Futterman & Howard as class counsel. 8/22/01 Ct. Order.
After proper public notice of the fairness hearing on the parties' joint motion for approval of the consent decree, written objections to the consent decree were received by the Court. See Public Notice, Tab 2 of the Proposed Consent Decree filed 10/15/01.
On November 13, 2001, the Court held a fairness hearing. The parties presented documentary evidence and affidavits in support of or in opposition to the proposed consent decree, and each supplemented the joint presentation with their own additional comments and evidence. In addition, oral objections were heard by the Court by all interested persons wishing to make such objections.
On September 16, 1997, the parties agreed to implement the Controlled Choice Plan which:
1. Guarantees racial diversity, provides individual choice regarding school enrollment within racial fairness guidelines, and promotes school reform CCM ¶ 9a, Bates No. 3.
2. Ensures equitable access and burdens by allocating the District's total basic school capacity to each part of the city in proportion to the number of students that reside there. CCM ¶ 9f, Bates No. 3.
3. Provides educational opportunities for individual students by permitting each student to choose, from a number of schools in the system, two or more schools that the student desires to attend, and to rank the schools by personal preference. CCM ¶ 9g, Bates No. 3.
4. Contains a flexibility range of a maximum of plus or minus 15% of those system-wide racial compositions to accommodate schools which are over-chosen by one group and under-chosen by another. The over-choosing group may exceed its fair share proportion within this range. System-wide racial composition and the applicable flexibility range shall be determined independently for elementary, middle, and high schools. CCM ¶ 9j, Bates No. 4.
5. May contain a sibling preference which provides a first preference, within racial fairness guidelines, to all students who have a brother or sister already attending the student's school of choice. CCM ¶ 9m, Bates No. 4.
6. Contains a neighborhood preference which provides a preference within racial fairness guidelines to students who can walk to their chosen school. CCM ¶ 9n, Bates No. 4.
7. Creates one or more Parent Information Centers ("PIC") with sufficient resources to perform the day-to-day operations of the Plan and provide outreach, information, and advocacy to parents. The PIC(s) shall be located and conducted in a manner which maximizes minority parent participation in the Controlled Choice Process. CCM ¶ 9o, Bates No. 4-5.
8. Requires all eligible students to fill out an application...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Leslie v. Board of Educ. for Ill. School Dist.
...No. 1, Denver, Colorado, et al., 413 U.S. 189, 198, 93 S.Ct. 2686, 37 L.Ed.2d 548 (1973); Johnson v. Bd. of Educ. of Champaign Unit School Dist. No. 4, 188 F.Supp.2d 944, 970 (C.D.Ill.2002). A. Throughout its briefs, as discussed above, defendant asks too much of plaintiffs' pleadings, insi......