Mollere v. Southeastern Louisiana College, Civ. A. 69-2037.
| Decision Date | 15 September 1969 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. 69-2037. |
| Citation | 304 F. Supp. 826 |
| Parties | Loys A. MOLLERE, on behalf of her minor daughter, Bertha Jane Mollere, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SOUTHEASTERN LOUISIANA COLLEGE, Dr. Clea E. Parker and the Louisiana State Board of Education, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana |
John P. Nelson, New Orleans, La., for plaintiffs.
William P. Schuler, New Orleans, La., Thomas McFerrin, Baton Rouge, La., for defendants.
This case poses the question whether state college girls under the age of 21 can constitutionally be required to pay more than other students to support the College's housing system.
The plaintiffs are upperclass women under 21 who have attended and who plan to continue to attend Southeastern Louisiana College located in Hammond, Louisiana. This is a four-year coeducational state college under the general direction and supervision of the Louisiana State Board of Education. Many on-campus dormitories have been constructed in recent years with federal financing. A portion of the rent paid by students is used to meet the dormitory debt obligation to the federal government. In recent years male students have used the dormitories in diminishing numbers so that the State Board of Education and College officials have become concerned about meeting the principal and interest obligations to the government. As a result the State Board of Education recently resolved that Southeastern Louisiana College require a sufficient number of students to live in the dormitories to meet the payments to the United States. In compliance with this resolution Southeastern Louisiana College promulgated a rule to be effective in the 1969-1970 academic year which, among other things, required unmarried women students under 21 not living with their parents or a close relative, to live in campus residence halls unless exception was granted by the Dean of Women. At the same time other rules required that any freshman male student, not living with his parents or a close relative, live on-campus unless exception was granted by the Dean of Men. Plaintiffs have not questioned the legality of requiring freshman boys and girls to live on-campus and both sides have agreed that that is not in issue in this case. As a matter of fact, no evidence was taken on that issue.
It is undisputed that the College's sole reason for requiring that women under 21 and freshmen men live in college residence halls was to meet the financial obligations which arose out of the construction of those dormitories. When the Court specifically asked Mrs. Parker, the Dean of Women, the reason for the requirement, she testified that the sole and only reason was to increase the revenue of the housing system. Indeed, when she was asked why this particular category of students was chosen she replied that the girls in this group together with the freshman boys comprised the precise number needed to fill the dormitory vacancies.1 This was confirmed by the Auditor of the University, and their testimony was not contradicted by any other College official.
For purposes of this case it might be conceded that a state university may require all or certain categories of students to live on-campus in order to promote the education of those students. It might reasonably be felt that on-campus living brings students together, promotes discussion and intellectual exchange, and so on. It might also be reasonable...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Prostrollo v. University of South Dakota
...connection to the purpose of the regulation and therefore denied plaintiffs equal protection of the law. Cf. Mollere v. Southeastern Louisiana College, 304 F.Supp. 826 (E.D.La.1969). Our decisions do not authorize courts to pick and choose among legitimate legislative aims to determine whic......
-
Cooper v. Nix
...living with their parents or a close relative, live on campus. These regulations were challenged in Mollere et al. v. Southeastern Louisiana College et al., 304 F.Supp. 826 (E.D.La., 1969) and held invalid. Judge Cassibry in striking down those regulations specifically "It is undisputed tha......
-
Hanson v. Hutt
...attempts at sexual discrimination. Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71, 92 S.Ct. 251, 30 L.Ed.2d 225 (1971); See also Mollere v. Southeastern La. College, 304 F.Supp. 826 (E.D.La.1969); Gates v. Foley, 247 So.2d 40 (Fla.1971). In Sail'er Inn, Inc. v. Kirby, 5 Cal.3d 1, 18--20, 95 Cal.Rptr. 329, 340, ......
-
Texas Woman's University v. Chayklintaste
...of South Dakota, 507 F.2d 775 (8th Cir. 1974); Poynter v. Drevdahl, 359 F.Supp. 1137 (W.D.Mich.1972); Mollere v. Southeastern Louisiana Polytechnic Institute, 304 F.Supp. 826 (E.D.La.1969). The cases seem to turn on the question of whether or not the universities implemented the rules for a......