Liddell v. BD. OF ED., CITY OF ST. LOUIS, ETC., 72-100C(1).

• Court: United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Missouri)
• Writing for the Court: Charles Kunderer, Associate City Counselor, St. Louis, Mo., for City of St. Louis
• Citation: 469 F. Supp. 1304
• Parties: Craton LIDDELL, a minor, et al., Plaintiffs, and Earline Caldwell, et al., and The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and City of St. Louis, and Janice Adams, et al., and Mary Puleo, et al., representing the Involved Citizens Committee, and United States of America, Plaintiffs-Intervenors, v. The BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the CITY OF ST. LOUIS, STATE OF MISSOURI, and Daniel L. Schlafly et al., and the State of Missouri et al., Defendants.
• Docket Number: No. 72-100C(1).,72-100C(1).
• Decision Date: 12 April 1979

469 F. Supp. 1304

Craton LIDDELL, a minor, et al., Plaintiffs,
and
Earline Caldwell, et al., and The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and City of St. Louis, and Janice Adams, et al., and Mary Puleo, et al., representing the Involved Citizens Committee, and United States of America, Plaintiffs-Intervenors,
v.
The BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the CITY OF ST. LOUIS, STATE OF MISSOURI, and Daniel L. Schlafly et al., and the State of Missouri et al., Defendants.

No. 72-100C(1).

United States District Court, E. D. Missouri, E. D.

April 12, 1979.

469 F. Supp. 1305

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

469 F. Supp. 1306

Joseph S. McDuffie, William P. Russell, St. Louis, Mo., for plaintiffs Craton Liddell et al

469 F. Supp. 1307

John H. Lashly, Paul B. Rava, Lashly, Caruthers, Thies, Rava & Hamel, St. Louis, Mo., for defendants, Bd. of Education, City of St. Louis, its officials and members.

Charles Kunderer, Associate City Counselor, St. Louis, Mo., for City of St. Louis.

Sheila Hyatt, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Mo., for State of Missouri, Arthur Mallory, Com'r of Ed. of State of Missouri, The State of Missouri Bd. of Ed.

Robert J. Koster, King, Yusman, Koster & Buechner, St. Louis, Mo., for Janice Adams et al., and The Concerned Parents for Neighborhood Schools.

Anthony J. Sestric, St. Louis, Mo., for Mary Puleo et al., and Involved Citizens Committee.

David A. Lang, Clayton, Mo., for Earline Caldwell et al.

Drew S. Days, III, J. Gerald Hebert, Asst. Attys. Gen., Thomas D. Yannucci, W. W. Johnson, Civil Rights Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., Robert D. Kingsland, U. S. Atty., St. Louis, Mo., for the U. S.

Nathaniel R. Jones, Gen. Counsel, NAACP, New York City, Louis R. Lucas, Barbara B. Dickey, Richard B. Fields, Ratner, Sugarmon, Lucas, Salky & Henderson, Memphis, Tenn., for NAACP.

 TABLE OF CONTENTS
                 I. CASE HISTORY AND PROCEDURAL POSTURE
                 II. FINDINGS OF FACT
                 A. Stipulation of Facts
                 B. The Board of Education.
                 C. State of Missouri and the State Board of Education.
                 D. Pre-Brown Conditions.
                 1. Dual school system.
                 2. Discriminatory laws.
                 3. Demographics.
                 4. Board activities.
                 E. 1954-56 Desegregation Plan.
                 F. Resegregative Factors.
                 1. Socio-demographic changes in St. Louis.
                 2. Housing segregation.
                 3. Title I.
                 G. Resulting De Facto Resegregation.
                 1. Transitions in the schools.
                 2. Changing pattern in school enrollment
                 (excluding Harris Teacher's College).
                 3. Racial imbalance in the St. Louis public schools.
                 4. Schools referred to as vestiges.
                 H. Actions of the Board.
                 1. Adoption of the neighborhood school system.
                 2. Student transfers.
                 a. Transfers concomitant to desegregation.
                 b. Permissive transfers.
                 c. Special transfers.
                

469 F. Supp. 1308
                 3. Boundaries and feeder patterns.
                 4. Redistricting.
                 5. Transportation.
                 a. Intact busing.
                 b. Busing 1964-78.
                 6. School construction.
                 7. School closings.
                 8. Schools with city-wide enrollment.
                 a. The Technical high schools.
                 9. Staff.
                 a. Faculty.
                 b. Non-certificated personnel.
                 c. Administrators.
                 d. Pupil-teacher ratio.
                 10. Curriculum and facilities.
                 a. Curriculum.
                 b. Facilities.
                 c. Retentions and withdrawals.
                 11. Magnet schools.
                 a. Admissions to the magnet schools.
                III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
                 A. Governing Constitutional Principles.
                 B. Effectiveness of the 1954-56 Desegregation Plan.
                 C. Burden of Proof.
                 D. Racial Imbalance in the St. Louis Schools.
                 IV. POSITIONS AND PLANS OF THE PARTIES.
                 V. APPENDIX.
                 A. Racial Composition of the Enrollment in the
                 St. Louis Elementary and Secondary Schools
                 by District.
                 1. Year 1972-73.
                 2. Year 1975-76.
                 3. Year 1978-79.
                 B. Consent Judgment and Decree, December 24, 1975.
                

469 F. Supp. 1309

MEMORANDUM

MEREDITH, Chief Judge.

This matter was tried to the Court. The Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:

I. CASE HISTORY AND PROCEDURAL POSTURE.

This is a school desegregation case involving the public schools of the City of St. Louis, Missouri. On February 18, 1972, plaintiffs, who are representatives of the Concerned Parents of North St. Louis, filed their initial complaint. Plaintiffs represent school age children and their respective parents and next friends residing in the metropolitan school district of the City of St. Louis. Plaintiffs (hereinafter Liddell, et al.), each of whom is black, brought this action as a class action on behalf of themselves and all other school age children and their parents in that area. Plaintiffs named as defendants the Board of Education of the City of St. Louis, State of Missouri, and its members (hereinafter Board), in their official capacities, as well as the then Acting Superintendent of Schools and the District Superintendents of the Board of Education of the City of St. Louis, all in their official capacities.

In their initial complaint, Liddell, et al., alleged jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. ?? 1343(3) and 1343(4), 28 U.S.C. ? 2201, 42 U.S.C. ?? 1983, 1988, and 2000d, and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Liddell, et al., alleged that the defendants, by their methods of maintaining and operating the school system, have perpetuated racial segregation and discrimination in the St. Louis City School system. Liddell, et al., further alleged that the defendants have so acted as to incorporate segregated residential patterns into the schools, to allocate educational resources in a discriminatory manner, and to perpetuate a dual biracial school system, thus failing in their affirmative duty to establish and maintain unitary public schools.

Liddell, et al., prayed that defendants be enjoined to take all steps reasonably necessary to establish a nonsegregated, nondiscriminatory school system, and be required to submit a plan for the allocation of educational resources, geographical boundaries and transportation routes, as well as staff and pupil assignments which will satisfy the Fourteenth Amendment requirements. In addition, Liddell, et al., asked for costs, attorneys' fees, and other relief.

Defendants answered this complaint, denying the material allegations, on April 19, 1972.

On October 3, 1973, after discovery proceedings by the parties, the Court allowed this action to be maintained as a class action pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and notice of the pendency of the class action was duly published. The Court also, by public notice, invited other interested parties to intervene on or before December 1, 1973.

On October 30, 1973, defendants filed a motion to join as additional parties defendant the Governor, the Attorney General, the Commissioner of Education of the State of Missouri, the State Board of Education of Missouri, the St. Louis County Superintendent of Education, and the twenty school districts in St. Louis County which constitute the first two tiers of school districts adjoining the defendant school district of the City of St. Louis. The motion was denied on December 1, 1973.

On February 28, 1974, the Court requested that the parties file a written Stipulation of Facts. This was done on June 7, 1974. Exhibits filed with the stipulation have been supplemented to provide statistical material for the school years up to 1975-76.

On June 21, 1974, after proper publishing of notice to prospective members of the class and other interested parties, the Court, noting that no party had requested intervention, ordered that the cause might continue as a class action.

On December 24, 1975, the parties to this action entered into a consent judgment and

469 F. Supp. 1310

decree which the Court approved. (The consent decree is set out in full in Appendix B.) The consent decree was based on a denial by the Board of Education that plaintiffs' charges were true, and a recognition that there was racial imbalance in the school system despite the Board's efforts to integrate the system.

The Board agreed to take further affirmative action in order to overcome the effect of residential patterns and to alleviate racial imbalance in the City schools. The Board agreed to progressively increase the percentage of minority teachers in every school, so that, in 1976-77, 10%, in 1977-78, 20%, and in 1978-79, 30% of the teachers at each school would be of the race that was in the minority at that particular school. This was to be done by voluntary transfers if possible, but otherwise by mandatory assignment despite any contracts, tenure, or seniority agreements to the contrary. This goal has been substantially met even though all parties did not agree to the continuation of the program.

In addition, defendants agreed to strive to increase integration by their manner of providing classroom space, to study realignments of feeder schools, to consider elementary magnet schools and special subject high schools, both with city-wide enrollments, and to attempt to improve the curriculum, all in an effort to relieve the residence-based racial imbalance in the City schools.

On December 24, 1975, the Court ordered publication of the consent decree and notice was ordered to all interested parties that they might object to the consent judgment by filing a statement before Friday, January 16, 1976.

On January 16, 1976, objections to the consent decree were filed by the Missouri State Teachers Association, St. Louis District; the St. Louis Teachers Union, Local 420, American Federation of Teachers; and the St. Louis Teachers Association.

A group of black students and their parents and next friends, together with the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Caldwell, et al. (hereinafter NAACP), also filed their objections and applied to intervene as representatives of the class.

Both plaintiffs¹ and defendants objected to the intervention of the NAACP and moved to dismiss the objections and motion to intervene.

Liddell, et al., further argued that because of their intimate knowledge of the particulars of the St....