Anderson v. Banks

520 F. Supp. 472, 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15463
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Georgia
DecidedJune 17, 1981
DocketCV478-138, CV479-323
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 520 F. Supp. 472 (Anderson v. Banks) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Anderson v. Banks, 520 F. Supp. 472, 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15463 (S.D. Ga. 1981).

Opinion

OUTLINE

I. Background of the Cases......................

II. Jurisdiction................................. .

III. Historical Background......................... .

A. Tattnall County..........................

B. The School System.........................

C. The History of Segregation in Tattnall County .. -

D. The Tracking System.......................

IV. The Test................................... .

A. Its Inception............................. .

B. Its Implementation ....................... .

C. The Racial Impact of the CAT Requirement------

D. The CAT Itself........................... .

E. The CAT in Tattnall County................ .

P. The Benefits............................. .

V. Special Placement............................ .

VI. The Legal Conclusions..........................

A. The Racial Discrimination Claims............ .

1. The Equal Protection Claims............. .

2. Statutory Claims.......................

B. The Due Process Claims.................... .

C. The Claims of Those Students Classified as Mentally Retarded ............................

1. The Effect of the Diploma Policy on Children

Accurately Classified....................

2. The Effect of the Diploma Policy on Those

Misclassified as Mentally Retarded.........

3. The Equal Protection Claims of the Handicapped .............................. .

VII. Summary................................... .

ORDER

B. AVANT EDENFIELD, District Judge.

I. Background of the Cases, the Claims and Causes Involved

The impetus for this litigation was the institution by the Tattnall County School District of an exit examination. Beginning with the graduating class of 1978, all diploma candidates have been required, in addition to other already existing diploma requirements, to achieve a grade equivalency score of 9.0 on both the mathematics and reading sections of the California Achievement Test (CAT). Claims were initially raised in an administrative proceeding which progressed from the local school board, to the State Board of Education, and ultimately to the Georgia Court of Appeals. The issues raised in that proceeding were: (1) whether the Tattnall County School Board had the authority under state law to adopt an additional graduation requirement; and (2) whether a violation of the equal protection clause had occurred since a greater burden was placed on the students of Tattnall County than on the students in other Georgia counties. The first suit in this Court challenging the exit exam, styled as Wells v. Banks, CV478-138, was then filed asserting due process and equal protection claims as well as the state law claims. An additional claim concerning irregularities in the School Board voting districts was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs before trial. While the case was pending here, the authority of the School Board to require the examination was upheld in the Georgia courts. The Georgia courts also found no equal protection violation in the fact that children in other counties were not subjected to the requirement. There were no black plaintiffs remaining in the case in this Court at time of trial. The case was restyled Anderson v. Banks. In addition, plaintiff’s counsel adopted in his proposed pretrial order the outline of legal issues set forth by plaintiff’s counsel in Johnson v. Sikes, thus further narrowing the scope of issues in this case to the due process claim. Since Anderson v. Banks is a suit for damages, it was agreed among all *477 counsel and the Court that liability only would be tried presently and a separate trial on the issue of damages would be held later if necessary.

2. The second action here consolidated for trial was filed in October, 1979, by Kathy Norris Johnson. In October, 1979, she moved to proceed in forma pauperis and to consolidate her case with Wells v. Banks. The motions were granted. The Court certified the following classes:

1. All black children who have attended, are attending, or will attend public schools in Tattnall County, Georgia, and who have completed, will complete, or are eligible to complete all valid and legal requirements for receipt of a high school diploma established by Defendant Board of the Georgia State Board of Education,' but who did not or will not achieve a particular score on the California Achievement Test, and who, as a result of having failed to achieve a certain score on said test, have been or will be denied a high school diploma by Defendants.
1. a. All black children who have attended, are attending, or will attend public schools in Tattnall County, Georgia; and who have completed, or will complete all requirements for receipt of a high school diploma established by Defendant Board or the Georgia State Board of Education, other than achieving a particular score on the California Achievement Test, and who, solely as a result of having failed to achieve a certain score on said test, have been or will be denied a high school diploma by Defendants.
2. All children who have attended, are attending, or will attend public schools in Tattnall County, Georgia, who have been or will be classified by the Tattnall County School District or Board as Educable Mentally Retarded, and who have been or will be foreclosed from receiving a high school diploma by Defendants because of said classification.

The issues in the Johnson case are as follows: (1) whether the exit exam violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; (2) whether the diploma requirement is violative of due process; (3) whether the policy violates Title VI; (4) whether the policy violates 20 U.S.C. §§ 1703,1706; and (5) whether the policy of excluding educably mentally retarded (EMR) students from the possibility of obtaining a diploma violates Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

The case was brought to trial on August 7, 1980.

After a thorough analysis of the issues, the Court sent a copy of its proposed order to the parties for comment. The Court then reworked the order in light of these very helpful comments.

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

Related

O'CONNELL v. Superior Court
47 Cal. Rptr. 3d 147 (California Court of Appeal, 2006)
Rene Ex Rel. Rene v. Reed
751 N.E.2d 736 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 2001)
Powers v. MJB Acquisition Corp.
993 F. Supp. 861 (D. Wyoming, 1998)
Stanley v. Darlington County School District
879 F. Supp. 1341 (D. South Carolina, 1995)
Pandazides v. Virginia Board of Education
804 F. Supp. 794 (E.D. Virginia, 1992)
Fairchild v. Lockhart
744 F. Supp. 1429 (E.D. Arkansas, 1989)
Johnson v. Sikes
730 F.2d 644 (Eleventh Circuit, 1984)
No.
Colorado Attorney General Reports, 1983
Board of Education of Northport-East v. Ambach
90 A.D.2d 227 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)
Anderson v. Banks
540 F. Supp. 761 (S.D. Georgia, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
520 F. Supp. 472, 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15463, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anderson-v-banks-gasd-1981.