Stanley v. Darlington County School Dist., Civ. A. No. 4:62-7749-22.

CourtUnited States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
Citation879 F. Supp. 1341
Decision Date01 March 1995
PartiesTheodore Whitmore STANLEY, Jesse Barber, Joyce Franklin, J.W. Mack; et al., Plaintiffs, United States of America; Intervenor-Plaintiff, v. DARLINGTON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, a public body corporate; The State of South Carolina; The Department of Education for the State of South Carolina; The Board of Education for the State of South Carolina; William P. Beckham, III, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Samuel M. Greer, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Joseph Peeler Stabler, Colonel, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Cleveland L. Sellars, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Austin Floyd, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Julian B. Wright, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Brenda K. Vernon, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Earl Bostick, Sr., In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Maxie Duke, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Laura M. Fleming, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Frank M. Hart, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Beth Pinson, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; W. Gregory Horton, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Robert W. Owen, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Ruby Matthews, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Celia Gettys, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Thomas E. McInville, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; David M. Beasley, in his Official Capacity as Governor of the State of South Carolina and as Chairman of the State Budget and Control Board; and Barbara S. Nielsen, in her Official Capacity as State Superintendent of Education for the State of South Carolina; The State Budget and Control Board for the State of South Carolina; Grady L. Patterson, Jr., Earle E. Morris, James M. Waddell, Jr., and William D. Boan, In Their Official Capacities as Members of the State Budget and Control Board for the State of South Carolina, Defendants. DARLINGTON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT; Cross-Claimant, v. The STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; The Department of Education for State of South Carolina; William P. Beckman, III, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Samuel M. Greer, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Joseph Peeler Stabler, Colonel, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Cleveland L. Sellars; In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Austin Floyd, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Julian B. Wright, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Brenda K. Vernon, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Earl Bostick, Sr., In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Maxie Duke, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Laura M. Fleming, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Frank M. Hart, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Beth Pinson, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; W. Gregory Horton, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Ruby Matthews, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Robert W. Owen, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Celia Gettys, In Official Capacity as Member of The State Board of Education; Thomas E. McInville, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; David M. Beasley, in his Official Capacity as Governor of the State of South Carolina and as Chairman of the State Budget and Control Board; Barbara S. Nielsen, in her Official Capacity as State Superintendent of Education for the State of South Carolina; The State Budget and Control Board; Grady L. Patterson, Jr.; Earle E. Morris; James M. Waddell, Jr.; William D. Boan; In Their Official Capacities as Members of the State Budget and Control Board for the State of South Carolina, Cross-Defendants.
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 4:62-7749-22.

879 F. Supp. 1341

Theodore Whitmore STANLEY, Jesse Barber, Joyce Franklin, J.W. Mack; et al., Plaintiffs,
United States of America; Intervenor-Plaintiff,
v.
DARLINGTON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, a public body corporate; The State of South Carolina; The Department of Education for the State of South Carolina; The Board of Education for the State of South Carolina; William P. Beckham, III, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Samuel M. Greer, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Joseph Peeler Stabler, Colonel, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Cleveland L. Sellars, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Austin Floyd, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Julian B. Wright, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Brenda K. Vernon, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Earl Bostick, Sr., In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Maxie Duke, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Laura M. Fleming, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Frank M. Hart, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Beth Pinson, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; W. Gregory Horton, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Robert W. Owen, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Ruby Matthews, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Celia Gettys, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Thomas E. McInville, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; David M. Beasley, in his Official Capacity as Governor of the State of South Carolina and as Chairman of the State Budget and Control Board; and Barbara S. Nielsen, in her Official Capacity as State Superintendent of Education for the State of South Carolina; The State Budget and Control Board for the State of South Carolina; Grady L. Patterson, Jr., Earle E. Morris, James M. Waddell, Jr., and William D. Boan, In Their Official Capacities as Members of the State Budget and Control Board for the State of South Carolina, Defendants.

DARLINGTON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT; Cross-Claimant,
v.
The STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; The Department of Education for State of South Carolina; William P. Beckman, III, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Samuel M. Greer, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Joseph Peeler Stabler, Colonel, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Cleveland L. Sellars; In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Austin Floyd, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Julian B. Wright, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Brenda K. Vernon, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Earl Bostick, Sr., In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Maxie Duke, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Laura M. Fleming, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Frank M. Hart, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Beth Pinson, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; W. Gregory Horton, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Ruby Matthews, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Robert W. Owen, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Celia Gettys, In Official Capacity

[879 F. Supp. 1342]

as Member of The State Board of Education; Thomas E. McInville, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; David M. Beasley, in his Official Capacity as Governor of the State of South Carolina and as Chairman of the State Budget and Control Board; Barbara S. Nielsen, in her Official Capacity as State Superintendent of Education for the State of South Carolina; The State Budget and Control Board; Grady L. Patterson, Jr.; Earle E. Morris; James M. Waddell, Jr.; William D. Boan; In Their Official Capacities as Members of the State Budget and Control Board for the State of South Carolina, Cross-Defendants

Civ. A. No. 4:62-7749-22.

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division.

March 1, 1995.


879 F. Supp. 1343
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
879 F. Supp. 1344
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
879 F. Supp. 1345
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
879 F. Supp. 1346
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
879 F. Supp. 1347
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
879 F. Supp. 1348
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
879 F. Supp. 1349
Gary Haugen, Michael S. Maurer, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Civ. Rights Div., Washington, DC, for U.S

Dennis D. Parker, N.A.A.C.P. Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., New York City, Arthur C. McFarland, Charleston, SC, for class plaintiffs.

State of S.C., J. Emory Smith, Jr., Office of Atty. Gen., Columbia, SC, for State of S.C. and all State defendants except State Dept. of Educ.

George C. Leventis, Office of General Counsel, Columbia, SC, for State of S.C. Dept. of Educ.

John M. Milling, Darlington, SC, Alfred A. Lindseth, Sutherland, Asbill and Brennan, Atlanta, GA, for defendant, Darlington County School Dist.

 I. BACKGROUND ...................................................... 1351
                 A. CASE HISTORY PRIOR TO 1970 ................................... 1351
                 B. THE 1970 DESEGREGATION ORDER ................................. 1352
                 C. CASE HISTORY SINCE THE 1970 ORDER ............................ 1353
                 D. INTERVENTION BY THE UNITED STATES ............................ 1355
                 II. MOTION TO DISMISS BY STATE DEFENDANTS ........................... 1356
                 A. GENERALLY .................................................... 1356
                 B. STANDING ..................................................... 1356
                 1. GENERALLY ................................................. 1356
                 2. DISTRICT'S STANDING TO SUE ON ITS OWN BEHALF .............. 1356
                 3. DISTRICT'S STANDING TO SUE ON BEHALF OF CHILDREN IN
                 DISTRICT ................................................. 1358
                 4. DISTRICT'S STANDING TO SUE UNDER FEDERAL STATUTES AND
                 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS ................................ 1359
                 C. ELEVENTH AMENDMENT IMMUNITY ISSUES ........................... 1360
                 1. GENERALLY ................................................. 1360
                

879 F. Supp. 1350
2. EX PARTE YOUNG EXCEPTION ................................... 1360 3. CONGRESSIONAL ABROGATION EXCEPTION .................... .... 1363 a. Generally ............................................... 1363 b. Title VI ................................................ 1364 c. EEOA .................................................... 1365 D. RES JUDICATA, COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, LAW OF THE CASE AND JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL ........................................... 1367 1. GENERALLY ................................................. 1367 III. PROPOSED CONSENT ORDER AND TRIAL ................................ 1368 A. GENERALLY .................................................... 1368 IV. ISSUES FOR TRIAL ................................................ 1369 A. GENERALLY .................................................... 1369 V. EVIDENTIARY ISSUES DURING TRIAL ................................. 1370 A. GENERALLY .................................................... 1370 VI. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT ORDER AND ISSUANCE OF INTERIM JUNE 23, 1994, ORDER ................................................ 1370 A. GENERALLY .................................................... 1370 B. PROCEDURES AND CONSIDERATIONS GOVERNING CONSENT ORDER ........ 1370 C. REASONABLENESS OF THE CONSENT ORDER .......................... 1371 D. NOTICE TO CLASS MEMBERS AND FAIRNESS HEARING ................. 1372 E. MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL/ALTER OR AMEND THE JUDGMENT ............. 1373 F. INTERIM JUNE 23, 1994, ORDER ................................. 1374 VII. MAYO HIGH SCHOOL AS A MAGNET .................................... 1375 A. GENERALLY .................................................... 1375 B. RETENTION OF RACIAL IDENTIFIABILITY .......................... 1375 1. GENERALLY ................................................. 1375 C. DISTRICT'S FAILURE TO ENFORCE SCHOOL ATTENDANCE ZONE LINES ....................................................... 1376 1. 1988-1991 ................................................. 1376 2. 1991-1994 ................................................. 1377 D. SCHOOL RESOURCES AND FACILITIES .............................. 1377 1. GENERALLY ................................................. 1377 2. FACILITIES ................................................ 1377 3. RESOURCES ................................................. 1379 4. CURRICULUM ................................................ 1379 5. INSTRUCTIONAL QUALITY ..................................... 1381 E. ASSIGNMENT OF PERSONNEL ...................................... 1381 1. PRINCIPALS ................................................ 1381 2. FACULTY ................................................... 1381 3. CLASSIFIED STAFF .......................................... 1382 F. CLOSING OF MAYO .............................................. 1382 1. GENERALLY ................................................. 1382 2. BURDEN ON BLACK COMMUNITY ................................. 1382 3. FAILURE OF DISTRICT TO SEEK PRIOR APPROVAL FOR PREVIOUS CLOSINGS ........................................ 1383 4. CLOSING OF BUTLER HIGH SCHOOL ............................. 1383 5. APPROPRIATENESS OF MAYO MAGNET ............................ 1384 G. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ........................................... 1386 1. GENERALLY ................................................. 1386 2. LEGAL AUTHORITY FOR ORDERING OF MAGNET AND APPROPRIATENESS OF DEDICATED MAGNET
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 practice notes
  • Collins v. Thurmond, F075781
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • August 27, 2019
    ...jurisdiction is precluded by the language of the EEOA.8 (See Stanley v. Darlington County School Dist. (U.S. Dist. Ct., D.S.C. 1995) 879 F.Supp. 1341, 1367, reversed in part (4th Cir. 1996) 84 F.3d 707 ( Stanley ).) Although dicta, as the court expressly noted it need not resolve the issue,......
  • Collins v. Thurmond, F075781
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • November 5, 2019
    ...is precluded by the language of the EEOA.8 (See 41 Cal.App.5th 907 Stanley v. Darlington County School Dist. (U.S. Dist. Ct., S.C. 1995) 879 F.Supp. 1341, 1367, reversed in part (4th Cir. 1996) 84 F.3d 707 ( Stanley ).) Although dicta, as the court expressly noted it need not resolve the is......
  • Lopez v. Webster Cent. Sch. Dist., No. 05-CV-6473-CJS
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court of Western District of New York
    • January 15, 2010
    ...funds." Id.; see also 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-4a (Supp.1996). Grimes, 929 F.Supp. at 1091 (quoting Stanley v. Darlington County School Dist, 879 F.Supp. 1341, 1365 (D.S.C.1995), rev'd in part on other grounds, 84 F.3d 707 (4th Cir.1996)). The omission of an allegation directed against the Board o......
  • Bradacs v. Haley, Civil Action No. 3:13–cv–02351–JMC.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • November 10, 2014
    ...evidence of discriminatory acts by the Governor's predecessors as well as a continuing failure to remedy the effects of the past acts.” 879 F.Supp. 1341, 1362 n. 9 (D.S.C.1995), rev'd in part on other grounds 84 F.3d 707 (4th Cir.1996). However, no such allegations of discriminatory acts by......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
12 cases
  • Collins v. Thurmond, F075781
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • August 27, 2019
    ...jurisdiction is precluded by the language of the EEOA.8 (See Stanley v. Darlington County School Dist. (U.S. Dist. Ct., D.S.C. 1995) 879 F.Supp. 1341, 1367, reversed in part (4th Cir. 1996) 84 F.3d 707 ( Stanley ).) Although dicta, as the court expressly noted it need not resolve the issue,......
  • Collins v. Thurmond, F075781
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • November 5, 2019
    ...is precluded by the language of the EEOA.8 (See 41 Cal.App.5th 907 Stanley v. Darlington County School Dist. (U.S. Dist. Ct., S.C. 1995) 879 F.Supp. 1341, 1367, reversed in part (4th Cir. 1996) 84 F.3d 707 ( Stanley ).) Although dicta, as the court expressly noted it need not resolve the is......
  • Lopez v. Webster Cent. Sch. Dist., No. 05-CV-6473-CJS
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court of Western District of New York
    • January 15, 2010
    ...funds." Id.; see also 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-4a (Supp.1996). Grimes, 929 F.Supp. at 1091 (quoting Stanley v. Darlington County School Dist, 879 F.Supp. 1341, 1365 (D.S.C.1995), rev'd in part on other grounds, 84 F.3d 707 (4th Cir.1996)). The omission of an allegation directed against the Board o......
  • Bradacs v. Haley, Civil Action No. 3:13–cv–02351–JMC.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • November 10, 2014
    ...evidence of discriminatory acts by the Governor's predecessors as well as a continuing failure to remedy the effects of the past acts.” 879 F.Supp. 1341, 1362 n. 9 (D.S.C.1995), rev'd in part on other grounds 84 F.3d 707 (4th Cir.1996). However, no such allegations of discriminatory acts by......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT