Arlene Flax, Etc. v. W.S. Potts, Fort Worth Independent School District, a Corporation

915 F.2d 155, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 18531, 1990 WL 149215
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedOctober 24, 1990
Docket89-7006
StatusPublished
Cited by37 cases

This text of 915 F.2d 155 (Arlene Flax, Etc. v. W.S. Potts, Fort Worth Independent School District, a Corporation) 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
Arlene Flax, Etc. v. W.S. Potts, Fort Worth Independent School District, a Corporation, 915 F.2d 155, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 18531, 1990 WL 149215 (5th Cir. 1990).

Opinion

WIENER, Circuit Judge:

In this school desegregation case, the Fort Worth Branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) appeals the district court’s order declaring the Fort Worth Independent School District (FWISD) “unitary in every respect, except for the existence of a homogeneous student population.” (Flax v. Potts, 725 F.Supp. 322, 330 (N.D.Tex.1989) Such a population is not constitutionally required, the court explained, *157 “when the school district has made intensive efforts to eliminate one-race schools and further measures would be both impractical and detrimental to education.” Id. Based on its findings of fact and conclusions of law, the district court declared that the FWISD had no policy or practice of discrimination in student, faculty, or staff assignments; in transportation; in extra-curricular activities; or in school facilities. Stating that the declaration of unitary status required the federal court soon to cease supervising the FWISD, the court, nevertheless, retained jurisdiction for a further three years as this court mandated in Youngblood v. Board of Pub. Instruction, 448 F.2d 770 (5th Cir.1971). The district court also assured the plaintiffs that it would not dismiss the case without providing them both notice and an opportunity to show cause why the court should further delay dismissing the case. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

I

Because our most recent opinion in this litigation comprehensively related the facts and proceedings in the thirty years from filing to termination of busing, we see no need to repeat that narrative. 1 To bring it up to date, however, we provide the facts and proceedings bearing only on this latest dispute. 2

In 1988 when it resolved the busing issue, the district court indicated that it intended to reexamine the entire desegregation plan. See Flax v. Potts, 680 F.Supp. 820 (N.D.Tex.1988), aff'd, 864 F.2d 1157 (5th Cir.1989). To that end, the court sua sponte entered an order on March 2, 1988, designating a period for filing motions for any modification, revision, or amendment to the School District’s plan. Order dated Mar. 2,1988, Flax v. Potts, Civil Action No. 4205-E. On July 26, 1988, the court granted the parties’ requests for changes in the use and allocation of quality funds and for adjustments in school boundary lines and attendance zones. Order dated July 26, 1988, Flax v. Potts, Civil Action No. 4205-E. While denying the proposed modifications regarding black-to-white faculty ratios, the court modified the plan to allow a 20%, rather than a 10%, variance in the faculty ratio requirements in any one school. Id.

In its July 26, 1988, order, the district court also scheduled a hearing on both the FWISD motion for a declaration of unitary status and the plaintiffs’ and intervenors’ motions for additional modifications to the desegregation plan. On April 12-13 and 17-20, 1989, the court held an evidentiary hearing on the motion to declare the FWISD unitary. 3 Its Memorandum Opinion and Order, entered on Sept. 27, 1989, declared “that the former dual school system has been dismantled and that the vestiges of de jure segregation have been removed ‘root and branch.’ ” Flax v. Potts, 725 F.Supp. 322, 323. The plaintiffs timely filed notice of appeal on October 25, 1989.

II

Unitariness is a finding of fact which we review under the clearly erroneous standard. Ross v. Houston Indep. School Dist., 699 F.2d 218, 225-26 (5th Cir.1983) (citing Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 102 S.Ct. 1781, 72 L.Ed.2d 66 *158 (1982)). Factual findings in school desegregation cases are entitled to great deference on review, especially when, as in this case, the presiding judge has supervised the case for many years. See Columbus Bd. of Educ. v. Penick, 443 U.S. 449, 457 n. 6, 99 S.Ct. 2941, 2946 n. 6, 61 L.Ed.2d 666 (1979). Furthermore, this court stressed in an earlier opinion in this case that deference is also “particularly appropriate where, as here, the implementation of the desegregation plan has continued for fifteen years without any allegations of intentional segregation on the part of the FWISD. In fact, the School District has been commended many times by the courts for its dedication to the elimination of inequality in its schools.” Flax, 864 F.2d at 1160.

In a unitary school district, “schools are not identifiable by race[,] and students and faculty are assigned in a manner that eliminates the vestiges of past segregation.” Monteilh v. St. Landry Parish School Bd., 848 F.2d 625, 629 (5th Cir.1988) (quoting United States v. Lawrence County School Dist., 799 F.2d 1031, 1034 (5th Cir.1986)). A district court in this circuit does not dismiss a school desegregation case until at least three years after it has declared the system unitary. Youngblood v. Board of Pub. Instruction, 448 F.2d 770, 771 (5th Cir.1971).

On appeal the NAACP claims that the “totality of deficiencies” within the FWISD indicates that the system is not yet a unitary one. The NAACP challenges the district court’s findings on student, faculty, and staff assignments. It also argues that the FWISD’s practice of building too many new schools in black neighborhoods, when the District knows that these schools will be more than 98% one-race schools, causes racial imbalance.

Totality of Deficiencies

Before we turn to those individual aspects of the unitariness question which the NAACP raises, we address the NAACP’s charge that the “totality of deficiencies” in the desegregation plan precludes a finding of unitary status. The NAACP’s contention resembles that which this circuit and the tenth and first circuits have explicitly rejected—that a school system cannot achieve unitary status incrementally. United States v. Overton, 834 F.2d 1171 (5th Cir.1987); Ross v. Houston Indep. School Dist., 699 F.2d 218 (5th Cir.1983); Keyes v. School Dist. No.

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

Related

Thomas v. St Martin Parish
W.D. Louisiana, 2024
Boudreaux v. St Mary Parish
W.D. Louisiana, 2022
M. Moore v. Tangipahoa Parish School Board
921 F.3d 545 (Fifth Circuit, 2019)
Cowan ex rel. Johnson v. Bolivar County Board of Education
186 F. Supp. 3d 564 (N.D. Mississippi, 2016)
Diane Cowan v. Bolivar County Bd of Education
748 F.3d 233 (Fifth Circuit, 2014)
Thomas v. St. Martin Parish School Board
879 F. Supp. 2d 535 (W.D. Louisiana, 2012)
Fisher v. Tucson Unified School District
652 F.3d 1131 (Ninth Circuit, 2011)
Smiley v. Blevins
626 F. Supp. 2d 659 (S.D. Texas, 2009)
Anderson v. School Board of Madison County
517 F.3d 292 (Fifth Circuit, 2008)
Tasby v. Moses
265 F. Supp. 2d 757 (N.D. Texas, 2003)
NAACP, Jacksonville Branch v. Duval County School
273 F.3d 960 (Eleventh Circuit, 2001)
Hoots v. Pennsylvania
118 F. Supp. 2d 577 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 2000)
Capacchione v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools
57 F. Supp. 2d 228 (W.D. North Carolina, 1999)
United States v. City of Yonkers
181 F.3d 301 (Second Circuit, 1999)
Chinyere Jenkins v. State of Missouri
122 F.3d 588 (Eighth Circuit, 1997)
Chinyere Jenkins, by Her Next Friend, Joi Jenkins Nicholas Paul Winchester-Rabelier, by His Next Friend, Paula Winchester Margo Vaughn-Bey, by Her Next Friend, Franklin Vaughn-Bey Nicholas C. Light, by His Next Friend, Marian Light Stephon D. Jackson, by His Next Friend, B.J. Jones Travis N. Peter, by His Next Friend, Debora Chadd-Peter Leland Guess, by His Next Friend, Sharon Guess, American Federation of Teachers, Local 691, Intervenor Below--Appellee v. State of Missouri Mel Carnahan, Governor of the State of Missouri Bob Holden, Treasurer of the State of Missouri Missouri State Board of Education Peter Herschend, Member of the Missouri State Board of Education Thomas R. Davis, Member of the Missouri State Board of Education Robert E. Bartman, Commissioner of Education of the State of Missouri Gary D. Cunningham, Member of the Missouri State Board of Education Rice Pete Burns, Member of the Missouri State Board of Education Sharon M. Williams, Member of the Missouri State Board of Education Betty Preston, Member of the Missouri State Board of Education Jacquelline Wellington, Member of the Missouri State Board of Education Russell Thompson, Member of the Missouri State Board of Education School District of Kansas City Dr. Henry D. Williams, Superintendent Thereof Terry M. Riley, Member of the Board of Directors Lance Loewenstein, Member of the Board of Directors Marilyn Simmons, Member of the Board of Directors Sandy Aguire Mayer, Member of the Board of Directors John A. Rios, Member of the Board of Directors Darwin Curls, Member of the Board of Directors Patricia Kurtz, Member of the Board of Directors Edward J. Newsome, Member of the Board of Directors Dr. Julia H. Hill, Member of the Board of Directors John W. Still, Member of the Board of Directors, Chinyere Jenkins, by Her Next Friend, Joi Jenkins Nicholas Paul Winchester-Rabelier, by His Next Friend, Paula Winchester Margo Vaughn-Bey, by Her Next Friend, Franklin Vaughn-Bey Nicholas C. Light, by His Next Friend, Marian Light Stephon D. Jackson, by His Next Friend, B.J. Jones Travis N. Peter, by His Next Friend, Debora Chadd-Peter Leland Guess, by His Next Friend, Sharon Guess, American Federation of Teachers, Local 691, Intervenor Below--Appellee v. State of Missouri Mel Carnahan, Governor of the State of Missouri Bob Holden, Treasurer of the State of Missouri Missouri State Board of Education Peter Herschend, Member of the Missouri State Board of Education Thomas R. Davis, Member of the Missouri State Board of Education Robert E. Bartman, Commissioner of Education of the State of Missouri Gary D. Cunningham, Member of the Missouri State Board of Education Rice Pete Burns, Member of the Missouri State Board of Education Sharon M. Williams, Member of the Missouri State Board of Education Betty Preston, Member of the Missouri State Board of Education Jacquelline Wellington, Member of the Missouri State Board of Education Russell Thompson, Member of the Missouri State Board of Education, School District of Kansas City Dr. Henry D. Williams, Superintendent Thereof Terry M. Riley, Member of the Board of Directors Lance Loewenstein, Member of the Board of Directors Marilyn Simmons, Member of the Board of Directors Sandy Aguire Mayer, Member of the Board of Directors John A. Rios, Member of the Board of Directors Darwin Curls, Member of the Board of Directors Patricia Kurtz, Member of the Board of Directors Edward J. Newsome, Member of the Board of Directors Dr. Julia H. Hill, Member of the Board of Directors John W. Still, Member of the Board of Directors
122 F.3d 588 (Eighth Circuit, 1997)
Tasby v. Gonzalez
972 F. Supp. 1065 (N.D. Texas, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
915 F.2d 155, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 18531, 1990 WL 149215, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arlene-flax-etc-v-ws-potts-fort-worth-independent-school-district-a-ca5-1990.