Samayoa by Samayoa v. Chicago Bd. of Educ., 85-1313

• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
• Writing for the Court: Before BAUER, WOOD, and FLAUM; HARLINGTON WOOD, Jr.
• Citation: 783 F.2d 102
• Parties: 30 Ed. Law Rep. 42 Marco SAMAYOA, by his mother Estela SAMAYOA, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CHICAGO BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
• Docket Number: No. 85-1313,85-1313
• Decision Date: 12 February 1986

Page 102

783 F.2d 102 30 Ed. Law Rep. 42 Marco SAMAYOA, by his mother Estela SAMAYOA, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
CHICAGO BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al., Defendants-Appellees. No. 85-1313. United States Court of Appeals,
Seventh Circuit. Argued Nov. 8, 1985.
Decided Feb. 12, 1986.

Yvon D. Roustan, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiffs-appellants.

Robert J. Shepard, Law Dept., Dept. of Educ. City of Chicago, Chicago, Ill., for defendants-appellees.

Before BAUER, WOOD, and FLAUM, Circuit Judges.

HARLINGTON WOOD, Jr., Circuit Judge.

The complaint was filed in August, 1981, alleging racial discrimination against Cubans, American Indians, and white students in the operation of the Walt Disney Magnet School, a Chicago public elementary school. Four amended complaints and four years later, a new set of plaintiffs, the original plaintiff children having outgrown this suit, filed a notice of appeal for interlocutory consideration of the district court's dismissal of Counts I and II, leaving the remaining Count III for trial. ¹ Plaintiffs have since dismissed the appeal as to Count II.

Present plaintiffs are children whose parents or guardians received letters in June, 1981, advising that they were accepted for enrollment in the prekindergarten program at Disney school the following September. Plaintiffs who were then three- or four-years old have now also grown out of the kindergarten category and enrolled in other schools, public or private. Shortly after the receipt of the letters of acceptance, the plaintiffs received letters of apology from the school board withdrawing the previous enrollment offers. The explanation was that in accordance with a desegregation plan the racial/ethnic quotas applicable for admission to magnet schools, including Disney, were modified for the benefit of blacks, Mexicans, and Puerto Ricans.

Count I of the current amended complaint, at issue in this appeal, charges that the Chicago Board of Education and others violated the civil rights of the plaintiffs secured by the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. Plaintiffs, as relief, sought a declaration that

Page 103

the acts of defendants were unconstitutional and that defendants be preliminarily and permanently enjoined from enforcing the desegregation plan quotas as applied to the Disney school. The district judge dismissed Count I by applying the rationale of United States v. Board of Education of Chicago (Johnson III), 567 F.Supp. 290 (N.D.Ill.1983). The approval of the desegregation plan for the entire school system having been approved, United States v. Board of Education of Chicago, 554 F.Supp. 912 (N.D.Ill.) aff'd, 717 F.2d 378 (7th Cir.1983), the district court held that collateral attack was precluded on separate aspects of the approved plan.

Count II, the appeal of which was withdrawn by plaintiffs, alleges that the terms and conditions of the deed conveying the Disney school property from the federal government to the City of Chicago which required compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibiting racial discrimination in federally-funded programs had been violated. Plaintiffs sought specific performance of the covenants contained in the deed so as to entitle plaintiffs to reinstatement in Disney school. Count II was dismissed by the district judge on the basis that the defendants had neither violated Title VI nor any other federal antidiscrimination statute by their actions alleged in Count II and therefore Count II failed to state a claim.

Count III, which remains in the district court for trial, alleges both a due process and an equal protection violation of the rights of the children plaintiffs. Plaintiffs complain that the school board held a "purported hearing" to consider the enrollment revocations which did not meet the minimal standards of procedural due process. After the hearing the school board reconsidered its holding...