Thomas v. Sch. Bd. St. Martin Parish

• Citation: 544 F.Supp.3d 651
• Decision Date: 21 June 2021
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION NO. 65-11314
• Parties: Theresa D. THOMAS, et al. v. SCHOOL BOARD ST. MARTIN PARISH
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana

544 F.Supp.3d 651

Theresa D. THOMAS, et al.
v.
SCHOOL BOARD ST. MARTIN PARISH

CIVIL ACTION NO. 65-11314

United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lafayette Division.

Signed June 21, 2021

Gideon Carter III, Monique Lin-Luse, Deuel Ross, for Plaintiffs.

John Richard Blanchard, Pamela Wescovich Dill, Robert L. Hammonds, Courtney Terell Joiner, Hammonds Sills et al., Baton Rouge, LA, I. Jackson Burson, Jr., Eunice, LA, J. Phil Haney, DA's Office, New Iberia, LA, for School Board St. Martin Parish.

Kevin Eli Jason, Cara McClellan, NAACP Legal Defense & Educ Fund, New York, NY, for Genevieve Dartez.

Table of Contents

ELIZABETH ERNY FOOTE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

MEMORANDUM RULING...659

I. Background...660

A. Procedural History...660

B. The Superseding Consent Order...661

C. Areas of Supervision Previously Declared Unitary...661

D. The Pending Motions...661

E. The Hearing...662

II. Legal Standards...663

544 F.Supp.3d 658

A. Achieving Unitary Status...663

B. Interpretation of a Consent Order...663

C. Requirements for Further Relief...664

III. Unitary Status—Student Assignment...664

A. Background...664

B. Requirements of the Superseding Consent Order...665

1. Attendance Zone Modifications...666

2. Majority-to-Minority Transfers...667

3. The STEM Program...667

C. Facts...668

1. Student Demographics...668

2. The District's Actions—Zone Changes...670

3. The District's Actions—Majority-to-Minority Transfers...670

4. The District's Actions—Implementing a STEM Program...672

5. The District's Post-Unitary Status Plans...675

6. Expert Testimony...676

i. Michael Hefner...676

ii. Dr. Erica Frankenberg...677

D. The District is Not Entitled to Unitary Status...679

IV. Further Relief—Student Assignment...683

A. The Requested Relief...683

B. Facts...683

1. Testimony of Dr. Erica Frankenberg—Closing Catahoula and Implementing a Magnet Program...683

2. Testimony of Dr. Erica Frankenberg—Optional Attendance Zones...685

3. Testimony of Michael Hefner...685

4. Dr. Frankenberg's Response to Mr. Hefner...689

5. Other Evidence...689

C. Further Relief...691

V. Unitary Status—Faculty Assignment...693

A. Requirements of the Superseding Consent Order...693

B. Facts...694

1. Demographics...694

2. The District's Actions—Employment Procedures...696

3. The District's Actions—Recruitment Plan...697

4. Expert Testimony...699

C. The District is Not Entitled to Unitary Status...700

VI. Further Relief—Faculty Assignment...702

A. Requested Relief...702

B. Facts...702

1. Teacher Retention...702

2. Dr. Frankenberg's Recommendation—Teacher Retention...704

3. Dr. Frankenberg's Recommendation—Stephensville Elementary...704

4. Other Recommendations...705

C. Further Relief...706

VII. Unitary Status—Quality of Education—Discipline...707

A. Requirements of the Superseding Consent Order...707

B. Facts...709

1. The Data...709

2. The District's Actions—Positive Behavior Intervention Supports...713

3. The District's Actions—Monitoring...714

4. The District's Actions—Training...714

544 F.Supp.3d 659

5. The District's Actions—Discipline Plan...715

6. The District's Actions—Other Strategies...716

7. Expert Testimony...717

8. District Faculty and Staff Opinions...719

C. The District is Not Entitled to Unitary Status...720

VIII. Further Relief—Quality of Education—Discipline...725

A. Relief Requested...725

B. Expert Recommendations...725

C. Further Relief...725

IX. Unitary Status—Quality of Education—Academics...726

A. Requirements of the Superseding Consent Order...727

B. Facts...727

1. Data—Graduation Pathways...728

2. The District's Actions—Graduation Pathways...728

3. Data—Graduation Rates...731

4. Data—In-Grade Retention Rates...732

5. The District's Actions—Graduation Rates and In-Grade Retention...734

6. Expert Testimony...––735––

C. The Board is Entitled to Unitary Status as to Graduation Rates and In-Grade Retention...736

D. The Board is Not Entitled to Unitary Status as to Graduation Pathways...738

X. Further Relief—Quality of Education—Graduation Pathways...738

A. Requested Relief...738

B. Expert Recommendation...739

C. Further Relief...739

XI. Conclusion...739

MEMORANDUM RULING

Before the Court are two motions for unitary status filed by Defendant, the St. Martin Parish School Board ("Board" or "District"), in this school desegregation case. Record Documents 338 and 365. The pending motions seek unitary status in the remaining areas under Court supervision pursuant to the Superseding Consent Order—student assignment, faculty assignment, and quality of education. The Private Plaintiffs, Tracie Borel and Genevive Dartez on behalf of the Plaintiff class ("Plaintiffs"), oppose the motions regarding each area of supervision. Record Documents 285, 374-1, and 378. Plaintiffs have also filed motions for further relief related to all areas of supervision. Record Documents 342 and 374. Plaintiff-Intervenor, the United States, (with Plaintiffs, the "Plaintiff-Parties") opposed the District's motion for unitary status as to student assignment and as to certain aspects of quality of education. Record Document 373.

The Court held a hearing from March 22, 2021 to March 26, 2021 in which it heard testimony related to all motions. Record Documents 394, 395, 396, 397, and 398. The Court heard additional evidence on April 16, 2021. Record Document 407. After carefully considering the briefs filed in this matter and testimony from all witnesses and for the reasons stated herein, Defendant's motion for unitary status as to student assignment [Record Document 365] is DENIED . Plaintiffs’ motion for further relief as to student assignment [Record Document 374] is GRANTED . Defendant's motion for unitary status as to faculty assignment [Record Document 338] is DENIED . Plaintiffs’ motion for further relief as to faculty assignment [Record Document 342] is GRANTED . Defendant's motion for unitary status as to quality of education [Record Document

544 F.Supp.3d 660

365] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part . Plaintiffs’ motion for further relief as to quality of education [Record Document 374] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part .

I. Background

A. Procedural History

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and this Court have previously given a detailed procedural history of this case, and the Court therefore provides only a brief overview at this time. See Thomas v. St. Martin Par. Sch. Bd. , 879 F. Supp. 2d 535 (W.D. La. 2012), and Thomas ex rel. D.M.T. v. Sch. Bd. St. Martin Par. , 756 F.3d 380 (5th Cir. 2014). The St. Martin Parish School District is located in south Louisiana. The District, serving approximately 7,400 students and employing approximately 480 faculty in the 2020-2021 school year, primarily has its schools in the towns of St. Martinville, Catahoula, Parks, Breaux Bridge, and Cecilia, Louisiana.

In 1965, Judge Richard Putnam of the Western District of Louisiana ruled that the District was continuing to operate racially segregated schools in disregard of the law and ordered that the District desegregate its schools. Thomas v. St. Martin Par. Sch. Bd. , 245 F. Supp. 601 (W.D. La. 1965). In 1969, the Judge Putnam adopted a desegregation plan which required the District to "take affirmative action to disestablish all school segregation and to eliminate the effects of the dual school system." Record Document 25-3 at 20. Among other things, the plan required the District to establish new attendance zones, pair schools, permit desegregative transfers, and adopt nondiscriminatory employment policies. Record Document 25-3 at 20-23. It also required that all educational programs be conducted without regard to race and required that the District provide remedial educational programs to assist students who previously attended segregated schools. Id. In 1974, the case was placed on the court's inactive docket. Record Document 25-10 at 2-4.

In 2009, the Chief Judge of the Western District of Louisiana determined that the case was not closed and assigned the case to Judge Rebecca Doherty who asked the parties to brief whether the Court retained jurisdiction in the matter. Record Documents 2, 4, 10, and 39. The case was then reassigned to the undersigned. Record Document 24. In 2012, the Court ruled that it had jurisdiction over the matter, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed. Thomas v. St. Martin Par. Sch. Bd. , 879 F. Supp. 2d 535 (W.D. La. 2012), and Thomas ex rel. D.M.T. v. Sch. Bd. St. Martin Par. , 756 F.3d 380 (5th Cir. 2014).

Upon remand from the Fifth Circuit, the case returned to active litigation. The parties began evaluating whether the District was unitary in the areas of operation known as the " Green factors." Green v. Cnty. Sch. Bd. of New Kent Cnty. , 391 U.S. 430, 88 S.Ct. 1689, 20 L.Ed.2d 716 (1968). The Green factors are: (1) student assignment; (2) faculty assignment; (3) staff assignment; (4) extracurricular activities; (5) facilities; and (6) transportation. Id. at 435, 88 S.Ct. 1689. In addition to that, the parties considered ancillary factors such as "the quality of education." Freeman v. Pitts , 503 U.S. 467, 473, 112 S.Ct. 1430, 118 L.Ed.2d 108 (1992) ; Bd. of Educ. of Oklahoma City Pub. Sch. v. Dowell , 498 U.S. 237, 245, 111 S.Ct. 630, 112 L.Ed.2d 715 (1991) ; Tasby v. Estes , 643 F.2d 1103, 1107 (5th Cir. 1981). Between October 2015 and February 2016, the Court entered a series of consent orders governing student assignment, faculty assignment, staff assignment, facilities, transportation, and quality of education, including discipline and academic achievement. ¹

544 F.Supp.3d 661

Record Documents 166, 178, 193, and 194.

B. The Superseding Consent Order

In November 2016, the Court adopted the now-operative Superseding Consent Order which consolidated all of the consent orders adopted in 2015 and 2016 and included several additional provisions.² Record Document 211. In May 2017, the Court amended the Superseding Consent Order as to student assignment to approve the District's plan to implement a Science, Technology, Engineering and Math ("STEM") Program in the St. Martinville Attendance Zone to assist with the District's efforts to desegregate those...