United States v. School District of Ferndale, Mich.

• Decision Date: 03 July 1975
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 75-70958.
• Citation: 400 F. Supp. 1122
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. SCHOOL DISTRICT OF FERNDALE, MICHIGAN, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan

400 F. Supp. 1122

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. SCHOOL DISTRICT OF FERNDALE, MICHIGAN, et al., Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 75-70958.

United States District Court, E. D. Michigan, S. D.

July 3, 1975.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Edward H. Levi, Atty. Gen., J. Stanley Pottinger, Asst. Atty. Gen., Alexander C. Ross, Thomas M. Keeling, J. Gerald Hebert, Attys. U. S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., and Ralph B. Guy, U. S. Atty., E. D. Mich., Detroit, Mich., for plaintiff.

Burton R. Shifman, Philip J. Goodman, Southfield, Mich., for Ferndale School Dist.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., and Thomas F. Schimpf, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lansing, Mich., for State defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS

KENNEDY, District Judge

The Attorney General of the United States instituted this action against the School District of Ferndale, Michigan, and various Ferndale School District officials (Local defendants) and the State of Michigan, Michigan State Board of Education, and several state officers (State defendants), alleging, in essence, that the defendants built and have maintained the Grant Elementary School for the purpose and with the effect of segregating black elementary school students (K through 6th grades) and have assigned faculty to Grant on the basis of race Complaint, para. 10. In addition, the complaint charges that the State defendants have utilized federal financial assistance (Revenue Sharing) in a manner tending to support a racially discriminatory program through the "allocation of revenue sharing funds to the public school retirement system on behalf of Ferndale District employees." Complaint, para. 17.

Both groups of defendants have filed motions to dismiss the complaint insofar as its claims are based on the Equal Educational Opportunity Act of 1974, 20 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq., and on the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.¹

The Equal Educational Opportunity Act contains a list of practices deemed to be denials of equal educational opportunity, 20 U.S.C. § 1703; authorizes suits to remedy denials of equal educational opportunity, 20 U.S.C. § 1706; and establishes a system of remedy principles and procedures to govern court orders designed to correct denials of equal educational opportunity. 20 U.S.C. §§ 1712-18.

The motions to dismiss are based on the contention that The Attorney General has not properly brought the action under 20 U.S.C. § 1706. That section provides:

An individual denied an equal educational opportunity as defined by this part may institute a civil action in an appropriate district court of the United States against such parties, and for such relief, as may be appropriate. The Attorney General of the United States (hereinafter in this title referred to as the "Attorney General"), for or in the name of the United States, may also institute such a civil action on behalf of such an individual.

The basic question is the interpretation of "on behalf of such an individual." The complaint does not name or describe any "such individuals" that is, those denied equal educational opportunity, as being those on whose behalf the action is brought.² Defendants assert that the Attorney General must name, or at least describe, the individuals on whose behalf the action is brought.

The United States has responded that it believes that the only prerequisites to institution of a suit under the Act have been met. As required by 20 U.S.C. § 1710, the Attorney General has given notice to the appropriate educational agency of the alleged violations and certification to the Court that the educational agency has not taken appropriate remedial action.

Both sides have extensively briefed and argued the issue. Each cites a dictionary definition of "on behalf of." The United States asserts that the phrase means "in the interest of," quoting Webster's New World Dictionary. The State defendants counter with the American Heritage Dictionary, which contrasts "in behalf of" — defined as "in the interest of," with "on behalf of" — which means "as the agent for." Insofar as such authorities are helpful, the Court is of the opinion that the weight of lexicographical authority rests with the defendants. Webster's New International Dictionary says that "in behalf of" means "in the interest, support or defense of" while "on behalf of" is defined as "on account of; on the part of; in the name of; for." Unfortunately, these definitions are not completely satisfactory, since they are not free from ambiguity themselves, and since there is no way of knowing which shade of meaning was intended by Congress in adopting the "on behalf of" language.

The majority of court decisions are not too helpful, since most of the cases interpreting the critical phrase are cases dealing with contract and agency principles, presupposing the answer. See, e. g., White v. Transit Casualty Co., 402 S.W.2d 212, 215 (Tex.Civ.App.1966).

One of the few cases directly interpreting a legislative use of the phrase is Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Shamberg's Estate, 144 F.2d 998, 1006 (2d Cir. 1944). There, the Court was interpreting a treasury regulation prescribing certain tax treatment from securities issued by or "on behalf of" a state or political subdivision of a state. The Court concluded that bonds issued by the Port of New York Authority were issued "on behalf of" the states of New York and New Jersey. The import of such a decision is inconclusive. The two states were not obligated on the bonds issued by the authority; on the other hand, the authority performs public functions and was created by the states involved. Certainly, the case implies that there must be some direct connection between the issuing agency and the state.

Both sides also analogize to prior civil rights acts in an attempt to find a general pattern of Congressional enactments that would help to construe this Act. Defendants rely on the education provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, particularly 42 U.S.C. § 2000c-6.³ They argue that since this section requires a complaint before institution of an action by the Attorney General, and since certain other civil rights statutes, such as 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985 and 2000b require that the persons deprived of their rights bring the action that "this intent was obviously incorporated in the language of 20 U.S.C. § 1706 by the requirement that the Attorney General sue on behalf of such an individual." Brief of Local defendants at 3.

The response of the United States is that Congress has adopted a number of other civil rights statutes which do not impose such a complaint requirement. See, e. g., 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-6(a) (employment discrimination); § 3613 (housing discrimination); § 2000a-5 (discrimination in public accommodations); and §§ 1971(c), 1973h(b), 1973j, 1973aa-2 and 1973bb-2 (voting discrimination). The Government concludes that the omission of the complaint requirement signifies that inclusion of "aggrieved persons" is not required.

The analysis of prior civil rights enactments is of limited value here. Congress has adopted various schemes, some of which require involvement in an action brought by the Attorney General by those whose rights are denied, and some of which do not. The conclusion that a complaint is not required by section 1706 is clear, but since none of the other statutes contain the "on behalf of" language, it is difficult to draw any conclusion about the effect of the inclusion of that phrase in section 1706.

The legislative history of the Act is also not of much assistance in interpreting this section. In both houses of Congress the Equal Educational Opportunity Act was offered as an amendment from the floor to the Education Amendments of 1974. As a result, there are no committee reports or hearings on the measure during that session.⁴ However, the amendments proposed on the floor were essentially the same as the comparable provisions of the proposed Equal Educational Opportunity Act of 1972, H.R. 13915, 92d Cong., that was passed by the House but not the Senate in 1972. There were extensive hearings held on that measure during 1972, and the House Committee on Education and Labor reported the bill. Each house also conducted a substantial floor debate on the measure. The language of 20 U. S.C. § 1706 was contained in its present form in H.R. 13915. The Court believes that it is appropriate to consider the history of H.R. 13915 in interpreting section 1706.

The legislative history is striking for its scant concern for the enforcement provisions.⁵ Those references that can be found to the provisions authorizing suits generally do not mention the "on behalf of" language.⁶ The Court is of the opinion that little weight can be attached to such statements that do not appear to have been important to those making them.

The Local defendants urge that the rejection by the House of the so-called "Anderson Amendment," which was proposed as a substitute for the Esch Amendment, supports its position. That proposal had a different formulation of the civil actions section. It would have provided:

Sec. 1413. (a) Any person or persons alleging, or the Attorney General if he has reasonable cause to believe, that any policy or measure of a local educational agency violates section 1411 of this title which enumerates violations of equal educational opportunity may bring a civil action in the appropriate United States district court for equitable relief . . ..

120 Cong.Rec. H2167 (daily ed. March 26, 1974).

This proposal was rejected and the language of the corresponding section of the Esch Amendment was eventually adopted as part of the Act.

This sequence does not materially help in determining what Congress intended by this language. The Anderson Amendment was a complete substitute for the Esch Amendment, rather than a suggested revision of the civil actions section. Neither Representative Anderson's justification for his proposal⁷...