Arthur v. Nyquist

415 F. Supp. 904, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15324
CourtDistrict Court, W.D. New York
DecidedApril 30, 1976
DocketCiv-1972-325
StatusPublished
Cited by32 cases

This text of 415 F. Supp. 904 (Arthur v. Nyquist) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Arthur v. Nyquist, 415 F. Supp. 904, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15324 (W.D.N.Y. 1976).

Opinion

CURTIN, Chief Judge.

INTRODUCTION

This court’s decision in this case comes after a long and arduous journey through a complex lawsuit, in which the plaintiffs charge the defendants with “creating, maintaining, permitting, condoning and perpetuating racially segregated public schools in the City of Buffalo and in the Buffalo Metropolitan area.” (Complaint, at 1). Plaintiffs allege a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 et seq. 1 and the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution. 2 They seek declaratory and injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 3 and claim jurisdiction in this court under 28 U.S.C. § 1343.

It hardly needs to be pointed out that the Constitution and the laws do not forbid all types of discrimination. The fourteenth amendment prohibits only discrimination carried out under color of law; private discrimination, however regrettable or reprehensible, is not actionable under it. Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, 11 [3 S.Ct. 18, 21, 27 L.Ed. 835, 839] (1883); Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 13 [68 S.Ct. 836, 92 L.Ed. 1161, 1180] (1948). This state action requirement presents no obstacle to the plaintiffs’ case, since there is no question but that all the defendants are state agencies within the ambit of the fourteenth amendment’s protection. See United States v. Texas Education Agency, 467 F.2d 848, 863 (5th Cir. 1972) (en banc); Oliver v. Kalamazoo Board of Education, 368 F.Supp. 143, 157-58 (W.D.Mich.), aff’d 508 F.2d 178 (6th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 963 [95 S.Ct. 1950, 44 L.Ed.2d 449] (1975).

At this point in the lawsuit, the only question before the court is whether or not any or all of the defendants have acted in such a manner as to segregate the Buffalo *910 Public School System [hereinafter BPSS]. The question of remedy, i. e., what action the court should take if it should find that the BPSS is segregated, is not before the court.

It should be emphasized that this court sits only as an arbiter of a legal dispute, not as a super-school board. It is this court’s duty to safeguard the fourteenth amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the laws for all residents of the United States. The late Judge Mur-rah’s words aptly describe the court’s function in this lawsuit:

We yet like to believe that wherever the Federal courts sit, human rights under the Federal Constitution are always a proper subject for adjudication.
Stapleton v. Mitchell, 60 F.Supp. 51, 55 (D.Kan.1945), appeal dismissed, 326 U.S. 690 [66 S.Ct. 172, 90 L.Ed. 406] (1945).

At the outset, the court gratefully acknowledges the consistently professional cooperation exhibited by all parties to this lawsuit. One of the beneficial consequences of this cooperation was a series of 161 stipulations 4 upon which all parties agreed before the trial in this action commenced. This, of course, considerably reduced the burden on this court once the trial actually began.

The complexity and scope of the issues before the court must not be understated, however. The question presented — whether or not the defendants intentionally committed segregative acts affecting the Buffalo public schools — is one that calls forth the strongest of emotions. 5 The final written record of this case gives some testimony to its complexity and to the fervor with which it was contested. Pretrial motions and discovery procedures consumed many months; the actual trial lasted ten days, with a transcript running 1,695 pages; parties submitted many pre-trial and post-trial briefs; some 180 exhibits 6 were admitted into evidence; and post-trial oral arguments were scheduled to facilitate a clear understanding of the positions and legal arguments of all parties.

It is, of course, the duty of this court to decide the facts from the evidence placed before it. Correlatively, it is the duty of this court to apply the law as it exists, both in the decisions of the Supreme Court and those of the Second Circuit in which this court sits. After carefully sifting through all the testimony, evidence, and argument, the court is now prepared to apply the applicable law to the facts as it finds them.

I. THE PARTIES AND THEIR POSITIONS

This suit was instituted as a class action, with the named individual plaintiffs, black and white parents of public school children in the Buffalo metropolitan area, attempting to represent all others similarly situated. Although a class action is appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2), the court believes that since little evidence was presented at trial regarding non-BPSS policies and practices, the certified class should be restricted to parents of children attending Buffalo public schools.

Also plaintiffs are the Citizens Council for Human Relations, Inc., a non-profit corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York, and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Buffalo branch, organizations which seek, among other things, equal opportunity in education.

The defendants are Ewald Nyquist, the Commissioner of Education in New York *911 State, The Board of Regents of the State of New York and its individual members [State defendants], Joseph Manch, Superintendent of Schools of the City of Buffalo at the time this suit was brought, and Eugene Reville, the present Superintendent, the Board of Education of the City of Buffalo and its members, the Common Council of the City of Buffalo and its members, and Stanley M. Makowski, Mayor of the City of Buffalo [City defendants].

Originally, the plaintiffs did not name the individual members of the Board of Education or the Board of Regents. By order of this court dated today, the plaintiffs’ motion to amend their complaint to include the individual members of these two Boards as parties defendant was granted.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants, by various actions and inactions, have caused the BPSS to become or remain severely segregated.

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

Related

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ.
851 F. Supp. 905 (N.D. Illinois, 1994)
Pride Communications Ltd. Partnership v. WCKG, Inc.
851 F. Supp. 895 (N.D. Illinois, 1994)
Arthur v. Manch
12 F.3d 377 (Second Circuit, 1993)
United States v. Yonkers Board of Education
624 F. Supp. 1276 (S.D. New York, 1985)
Arthur v. Nyquist
712 F.2d 809 (Second Circuit, 1983)
Quirk v. State of New York Office of Court Administration
549 F. Supp. 1236 (S.D. New York, 1982)
Arthur v. Nyquist
514 F. Supp. 1133 (W.D. New York, 1981)
Kirkland v. Buffalo Board of Education
487 F. Supp. 760 (W.D. New York, 1979)
Buffalo Teachers Federation v. Board of Education
477 F. Supp. 691 (W.D. New York, 1979)
Robert Anthony Reed, III v. James A. Rhodes
607 F.2d 714 (Sixth Circuit, 1979)
George Arthur v. Ewald P. Nyquist
573 F.2d 134 (Second Circuit, 1978)
Reed v. Rhodes
455 F. Supp. 546 (N.D. Ohio, 1978)
Berry v. School Dist. of Benton Harbor
442 F. Supp. 1280 (W.D. Michigan, 1977)
Ostrer v. Aronwald
434 F. Supp. 379 (S.D. New York, 1977)
Cicatello v. Brewery Workers Pension Fund
434 F. Supp. 950 (W.D. New York, 1977)
Guerra v. Roma Independent School District
444 F. Supp. 812 (S.D. Texas, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
415 F. Supp. 904, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15324, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arthur-v-nyquist-nywd-1976.