Adams v. Rankin County Board of Education

524 F.2d 928, 13 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1250, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 11706, 11 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 10,612
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedDecember 1, 1975
DocketNo. 75-1991
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 524 F.2d 928 (Adams v. Rankin County Board of Education) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Adams v. Rankin County Board of Education, 524 F.2d 928, 13 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1250, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 11706, 11 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 10,612 (5th Cir. 1975).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

In conformance with our opinion in Adams v. Rankin County Board of Education, 5 Cir., 1973, 485 F.2d 324 which [929]*929ordered the implementation of a unitary school system in Rankin County, Mississippi, the District Court, upon remand, made a detailed report to the Fifth Circuit on July 10, 19741 which was supplemented by a report on December 23, 1974.2 By its order entered February 3, 19753 the District Court adopted these reports as its final judgment and this decree resolved all issues except the following: (i) whether the District Court erred in not reinstating three teachers who were dismissed during the time when the unitary system was being implemented, (ii) whether the District Court erred in not reinstating six nonprofessional staff members who were dismissed but later reemployed, and (iii) whether those teachers who were reinstated pursuant to the District Court’s order upon remand from this Court were entitled to back pay awards against the local school system.

Dealing with these issues seriatim, we find that the District Court had ample basis upon which to conclude that the teachers were properly discharged. There was no showing that the dismissals were the result of racial discrimination, United States v. Jefferson County Board of Education, 5 Cir., 1967, 380 F.2d 385, 394, and on the contrary there was substantial evidence from which the District Judge could conclude that the teachers were incompetent. See District Court’s report to the Fifth Circuit at p. 10, App. at 71.

Concerning the nonprofessional employees., in light of the District Court’s finding that all of these employees had been re-employed we deem this issue to be moot.

Finally, relying on our recent decision in Hander v. San Jacinto Junior College, 5 Cir., 1975, 519 F.2d 273, 279-80, we find that under the applicable Mississippi statutes the Rankin County School system is a locally controlled institution which is supported largely by local revenues4 and accordingly the Eleventh Amendment does not bar the award of back pay to those teachers who were reinstated since the suit is in reality not against the state itself but against what is primarily a local institution. Accordingly, we remand this case to the District Court with the instructions that it calculate and award back pay to those teachers who were reinstated in accordance with the stipulation of the parties concerning this subject which was filed April 12, 1974 (A. 40-58), or by order of the District Court (A. 87).

Affirmed and remanded with instructions.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
524 F.2d 928, 13 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1250, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 11706, 11 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 10,612, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adams-v-rankin-county-board-of-education-ca5-1975.