People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ.
| Decision Date | 18 February 1994 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 89-C-20168. |
| Citation | 851 F. Supp. 905 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
| Parties | PEOPLE WHO CARE, an unincorporated association; Larry & Chasty Hoarde, minors, by their parent and next friend, Flossie Hoarde; Jonathan Hughes, a minor, by his parents and next friends, Sidella and Nathan Hughes; Sidney and Andre Malone, minors, by their parent and next friend, Rev. Louis E. Malone; Shaheed Saleem, a minor, by his parent and next friend, Christine Saleem; Anissa Tripplett, a minor, by her parent and next friend, Beulah Tripplett; Asia Eason, a minor, by her parent and next friend, Granada Williams; James and Kelly Curtin, minors, by their parents and next friends, Larry Curtin and Sue Belvoir; Leonardo Medrano, by his parent and next friend, Jesus Medrano; each individual suing as a class representative of the class certified by the court, Plaintiffs, v. ROCKFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION, SCHOOL DISTRICT # 205, Defendant, and Rockford Education Association, Rockford Building Maintenance Association, and Education Office Personnel Association, Intervenor-Defendants. |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Robert C. Howard, Futterman & Howard, Matthew J. Piers, Gessler, Flynn, Fleischmann, Hughes & Socol, Ltd., Chicago, IL, for plaintiffs.
Anthony G. Scariano, Scariano, Kula, Ellch & Himes Chtd., Chicago Heights, IL, for defendant.
Steven Katz, Katz and Buhai, South Barrington, IL, for intervenor-defendants.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PROCEDURAL HISTORY ............................................... 908
LEGAL STANDARDS .................................................. 909
STUDENT TRACKING AND ABILITY GROUPING ............................ 912
SEGREGATION OF STUDENTS BY RACE WITHIN SCHOOLS ................... 915
STUDENT ASSIGNMENT ............................................... 917
FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT DISPARITIES ............................. 919
1989 REORGANIZATION PLAN ......................................... 922
EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ........................................ 923
STAFF ASSIGNMENT ................................................. 924
INEQUITABLE ACCESS TO TRANSPORTATION ............................. 925
DISCRIMINATORY CONDITIONS IN THE COMPOSITION OF THE BOARD ........ 926
EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES ....................................... 928
BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND OTHER EDUCATIONAL DISCRIMINATION
ISSUES AFFECTING HISPANICS .................................... 929
SPECIAL EDUCATION ................................................ 929
CONCLUSION ....................................................... 930
ORDER ............................................................ 933
This matter comes before the court on the plaintiffs' motion for a permanent injunction. Hearing was held before Magistrate Judge P. Michael Mahoney, who issued a Report and Recommendation making extensive findings of fact and conclusions of law, ultimately concluding that the defendant had violated the plaintiffs' Fourteenth Amendment rights to equal protection under the law by separating public school children on the basis of race. The plaintiffs, the defendant, and the intervenor-defendants have all filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. The parties have all extensively briefed the issues and the court hereby makes its findings of fact and conclusions of law.
This lawsuit was filed on May 11, 1989. It was filed by the plaintiffs, People Who Care, et al., as a reaction to the 1989 Reorganization Plan that had been adopted by the defendant, Rockford Board of Education School District # 205, in January and February of 1989. The lawsuit not only attacks the 1989 Reorganization Plan, but also alleges that the school district historically has engaged in a pattern of intentional segregation and discrimination on a systemwide basis.
Approximately two months into the litigation, the parties entered into an Interim Settlement in response to the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. The Interim Settlement dealt mainly with the 1989 Reorganization Plan. The settlement was embodied in an Interim Agreed Order entered by the court on July 7, 1989. That order provided for certain modifications of the Reorganization Plan and for other remedial steps to be taken by the District.
A Second Amended Complaint was filed on November 9, 1989. On April 24, 1991, the plaintiffs and the defendant agreed to, and the court approved and entered, a Second Interim Order. The Second Interim Order was a more comprehensive interim remedial plan. The Second Interim Order did not resolve the plaintiffs' underlying liability claim and the District made no admission of liability in connection with either of the Interim Remedial Orders. Certain parts of the Second Interim Order were subsequently stricken by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. See People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., 961 F.2d 1335 (7th Cir.1992).
On June 29, 1992, this court, by Minute Order, referred all matters pertaining to the plaintiffs' motion for a supplemental remedial order to Magistrate Judge P. Michael Mahoney for ruling. By Order of September 8, 1992, this court, pursuant to Local Rule 1.71(c)(4) of the General Rules of the Northern District of Illinois, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(a), (b) and (c), transferred to the Magistrate Judge all "matters currently pending."
On April 8, 1993, this court reiterated the referral to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), and in April of 1993 the Magistrate Judge commenced hearing the motion for a permanent injunction.
The injunction hearing began April 2, 1993. Approximately thirty witnesses testified on behalf of the plaintiffs, and approximately nine witnesses testified on behalf of the defendant and the intervenor-defendants. Over 3,500 pages of testimony were taken over the twenty-four days of the hearing. In addition, the court has taken into consideration 150 depositions presented to the court as evidence in lieu of testimony, as well as the literally thousands of pages of documents that have been presented to the court.
Pursuant to an "Agreement of Plaintiffs, Defendant Rockford School District 205 and Intervenor-Defendants Concerning the Liability Hearing Adjudication Process and Certain Remedial Matters," dated May 5, 1993, all parties stipulated that the Magistrate Judge would make a Report and Recommendation to this court which would then rule upon the permanent injunction and liability issues. Pursuant to the May 5th Agreement, the parties agreed that all present and future remedial matters in this case, without limitation, would be referred to the Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) and (c)(3), and under the rules of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The Agreement also allowed the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint which conformed to the proofs presented. This Third Amended Complaint was filed June 23, 1993.
On May 5, 1993, pursuant to Rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Second Interim Order, and Paragraph 13 of the May 5 Agreement, this court appointed Dr. Eugene E. Eubanks as Special Master.
The permanent injunction hearing ended on May 13, 1993. The parties submitted post-hearing briefs as well as proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.
On November 3, 1993, Magistrate Judge P. Michael Mahoney issued his Report and Recommendation. The Magistrate Judge made extensive findings of fact and conclusions of law, recommending that the defendant be found liable for violating the Fourteenth Amendment rights of the plaintiff class, and that the court enter an appropriate injunction and declaratory order against the defendant. All parties have filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and have extensively briefed their objections.
Pursuant to Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), any party may serve and file written objections to a Magistrate Judge's proposed findings of fact and recommendation. The statute further provides, in pertinent part:
A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate. The judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate with instructions.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
The standard calls for a de novo determination, not a de novo hearing. United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 674, 100 S.Ct. 2406, 2411, 65 L.Ed.2d 424 (1980). In making its de novo determination of the record, the court is entitled to afford the Magistrate Judge's credibility findings "such weight as their merit commands and the sound discretion of the judge warrants." Id. at 683, 100 S.Ct. at 2416.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
This case is based upon the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The plaintiffs have alleged that the defendant has separated public school children by race and has discriminated against African-American and other minority school children because of their race. For almost forty years, federal law on this issue has been clear. Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 495, 74 S.Ct....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
County Collector of County of Winnebago, Ill., Application of
...had unlawfully segregated and discriminated against students on the basis of race and ethnic origin. See People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., 851 F.Supp. 905, 930-33 (N.D.Ill.1994). Based on this adjudication of liability, the district court, on March, 29, 1994, entered a Declaratory J......
-
Assisted Living Associates v. Moorestown Tp.
...U.S. 1030, 113 S.Ct. 1845, 123 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993); id. at 162 n. 12 (Politz, C.J., dissenting); People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Ed., School Dist. #205, 851 F.Supp. 905, 931-32 (N.D.Ill.1994), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other grounds, 111 F.3d 528 (7th Cir.1993); United States v. ......
-
People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., School Dist. No. 205
...discriminated against black and Hispanic students in violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 851 F.Supp. 905 (N.D.Ill.1994). That discrimination was not, of course, commanded or authorized by state or local law, like the school segregation invalidated in Brown ......
-
Citizens Concerned v. School Bd. of Broward, 95-6517-CIV-RYSKAMP.
...See e.g., Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717, 722 n. 2, 94 S.Ct. 3112, 3116 n. 2, 41 L.Ed.2d 1069 (1974); People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., 851 F.Supp. 905 (N.D.Ill.1994), affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, 111 F.3d 528 (7th Cir. 1997); N.A.A.C.P. v. Lansing Bd. of Edu......