Vaughns by Vaughns v. Board of Educ. of Prince George's County

• Decision Date: 28 March 1985
• Docket Number: Nos. 83-2048,s. 83-2048
• Citation: 758 F.2d 983
• Parties: 23 Ed. Law Rep. 1291 Sylvester J. VAUGHNS, Jr., by his father and next friend, Sylvester J. VAUGHNS, et al., Appellees, and Jesse Alexander Eller, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, et al., Appellants, and Thomas John Grenchik, et al., Defendants. Sylvester J. VAUGHNS, Jr., by his father and next friend, Sylvester J. VAUGHNS, et al., Appellants, and Jesse Alexander Eller, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, et al., Appellees, and Thomas John Grenchik, et al., Defendants. (L), 83-2049.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

Page 983

758 F.2d 983

23 Ed. Law Rep. 1291

Sylvester J. VAUGHNS, Jr., by his father and next friend, Sylvester J. VAUGHNS, et al., Appellees, and Jesse Alexander Eller, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, et al., Appellants, and Thomas John Grenchik, et al., Defendants.

Sylvester J. VAUGHNS, Jr., by his father and next friend, Sylvester J. VAUGHNS, et al., Appellants, and Jesse Alexander Eller, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, et al., Appellees, and Thomas John Grenchik, et al., Defendants.

Nos. 83-2048(L), 83-2049.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued Jan. 9, 1985.

Decided March 28, 1985.

Joseph M. Hassett, Washington, D.C. (David S. Tatel; John C. Keeney, Jr., Patricia A. Brannan, Daniel S. Cohen, Hogan & Hartson, Michael Sussman, Teresa Demchak, Washington, D.C., NAACP Special Contribution Fund on brief), for appellants.

Paul M. Nussbaum, Greenbelt, Md. (Andrew W. Nussbaum; Reichelt, Nussbaum & Brown, Greenbelt, Md., on brief), and George D. Solter, Baltimore, Md. (Gerson B. Mehlman; Whiteford, Taylor, Preston, Trimble & Johnston, Baltimore, Md., on brief), for appellees.

Before WINTER, Chief Judge, and PHILLIPS and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges.

HARRISON L. WINTER, Chief Judge:

This appeal and cross-appeal are the latest round in the Prince George's County school desegregation litigation begun in 1972. Plaintiffs and the Board of Education (Board) appeal from an order of the district court directing the Board to take further specific steps to desegregate its schools upon the finding that the Board had failed to discharge all of its obligation to achieve a unitary school system. Vaughns v. Board of Education of Prince George's County, 574 F.Supp. 1280 (D.Md.1983). The Board contends that the district court had no jurisdiction in the case both because the school system had achieved unitary status when the Board implemented a racially neutral school assignment plan, and because the district court had relinquished jurisdiction in 1974 and 1975 and had found in 1975 that the Board had achieved unitary status.

The district court declined to grant other relief sought by plaintiffs because it found that although the Board unilaterally cancelled a portion of its busing plan, thereby violating the district court's 1973 desegregation order, it did not act with discriminatory intent or with the purpose to cause resegregation. Additionally, the district court found that racial disparities in assignment of pupils to the County's special education and talented and gifted (TAG) education programs were not causally connected to prior segregation. These findings are the subject of plaintiffs' appeal. They contend that the district court misapplied the law in finding that the Board had no discriminatory intent and that the district court misplaced the burden of proof in requiring plaintiffs to show a causal relationship between past segregation and present racial disparities in the special education and TAG programs. Finally, plaintiffs contend that they are entitled to more extensive relief than that granted by the district court even where they prevailed.

We find no merit in the Board's arguments that the district court lacked jurisdiction to grant additional relief and that the system had attained unitary status. We similarly find no merit in plaintiffs' arguments that the district court erred in finding no intentional discrimination and that it granted inadequate relief. We conclude, however, that the district court erred in making its findings regarding the special education and TAG programs, since it failed to give effect to the presumption to which plaintiffs were entitled and which it was the Board's burden to overcome that present racial disparities are causally related to the prior unconstitutional segregation. Even though the district court found that the Board had taken substantial affirmative steps to guard against racially discriminatory placement and that placement was not tainted by prior unlawful segregation, we think that these findings must be set aside and the case remanded to the district court to make new findings under the proper rule as to burden of proof and giving effect to the presumption.

We therefore affirm in part and reverse and remand in part.

I.

On March 29, 1972, parents of black Prince George's County schoolchildren brought a class action suit seeking a declaratory judgment that the County's school system did not meet constitutional standards for school desegregation. In that first case, the district court, with Judge Frank A. Kaufman presiding, found that the County had maintained a dual school system segregated by state law until 1954 and that the county had since failed to dismantle that dual system. Vaughns v. Board of Education of Prince George's County, 355 F.Supp. 1034, 1035, 1037 (D.Md.1972). ¹ The district court ordered the Board to submit a plan for student attendance and other matters that would bring the system into total compliance with constitutional standards as quickly as possible. Id. at 1037. On December 29, 1972, the district court ordered implementation of a desegregation plan, which required the realignment of school attendance areas and the creation of noncontinguous attendance areas to be accomplished, in part, by student busing. 355 F.Supp. 1051 (D.Md.1972), aff'd, No. 73-1024 (4 Cir. Jan. 23, 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 999, 94 S.Ct. 352, 38 L.Ed.2d 235 (1973) (the 1973 Order). ² The district court reserved for later determination such other issues as faculty and administration hiring and assignment and school construction. It also retained jurisdiction as mandated by Raney v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 443, 88 S.Ct. 1697, 20 L.Ed.2d 727 (1968), to supervise implementation of the student attendance plan.

The 1973 order contained flexible guidelines that no school should be less than 10% or more than 50% black. ³ These guidelines were to be met by coupling contiguous areas in a school district with noncontiguous "off areas" in the same sector. The plan required some additional busing. Because 48% of the student population was already riding buses to school, and because the court limited court-ordered busing to those trips that could be completed in 35 minutes, the plan put only an additional 8% of the student population on wheels.

By orders of November 27, 1974, and March 13, 1975, the district court relinquished its jurisdiction over the case with the following proviso:

(3) Further, this court will entertain at any time a request from any one or more of the plaintiffs or defendants in this case to assume jurisdiction over any and all aspects of this case and of the decree and decrees set forth herein, and in connection with consideration of any such request and the determination of any of the issues raised therein, will consider and determine whether to reopen this case in its entirety or in part and to assume jurisdiction in full or in part over the subject matter of this case and the parties thereto at such time.

During the period prior to the March 13, 1975 order, the district court and all parties understood and agreed that modifications in the plan might be necessary in order to ensure effective desegregation and that the court would continue to monitor the plan's implementation. The Board submitted four status reports to the district court during this period. In them, the Board recognized that many schools had slipped out of compliance with the desegregation plan's guidelines and that other schools were in danger of "tipping," of reacquiring one-race status. The reports indicated a willingness to modify the plan to guard against tipping.

The March 13, 1975 order grew out of a hearing held nine days earlier to consider the request by a single community, Dresden Green, for modification of part of the 1973 order as it affected that community. Plaintiffs were not present at that hearing, though they did have notice of it. In rejecting Dresden Green's request for modification, Judge Kaufman said in colloquy with counsel that he declined to act as a "super school board" and that the County's plan was meeting "constitutional obligations and standards." No evidence on the issue of unitary status was adduced at that hearing. Nor did the district court explicitly find that the school system had achieved unitary status. Further, as it did in both the November 1974 and the March 1975 orders, the district court stated at the hearing that it reserved the right to resume jurisdiction as appropriate upon the motion of any party.

Once the district court relinquished an active supervisory role over the operation of the school system, the Board took no further affirmative steps to eliminate the effects of pre-1973 discrimination, or to stabilize the system in the face of the threats that several schools would soon tip. However, the Board did consider impact on racial balance as a factor in making such decisions as those involving school construction or closings, and usually the Board avoided making decisions that would have serious resegregative effect.

The most important exception was the busing changes made in 1980. Prompted by parents' complaints and by a recognition that demographic changes were altering the impact and effectiveness of certain portions of the desegregation plan's busing scheme, the Board began to consider the issue of "unnecessary busing." The Board did not seek court approval for modification of the busing plan. Instead, it first approached plaintiffs seeking their acquiescence in such changes. When unsuccessful, it created the Citizens Advisory Committee on Busing (CAC) in November 1979, and instructed it to study every "off area" to determine where busing might be eliminated. The CAC was charged with ensuring that any recommended changes would not "significantly" alter the racial makeup of the schools, but the Board did not instruct the CAC on...