Kathy Sue Johnson, Etc., and Darcel Milton, Etc. v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago

604 F.2d 504
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
DecidedDecember 6, 1979
Docket78-1215
StatusPublished
Cited by29 cases

This text of 604 F.2d 504 (Kathy Sue Johnson, Etc., and Darcel Milton, Etc. v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Kathy Sue Johnson, Etc., and Darcel Milton, Etc. v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago, 604 F.2d 504 (7th Cir. 1979).

Opinion

BAUER, Circuit Judge.

The principal issue presented by this appeal is whether the Constitution permits local school authorities to impose racial quotas on enrollments in connection with a desegregation plan voluntarily enacted to prevent de facto segregation in the public schools. Plaintiffs-appellants appeal from •the order of the district court upholding the challenged desegregation plan as constitutional and enjoining the defendants-appel-lees to maintain and to continue the plan, as modified to provide for the voluntary busing of students excluded from admission to their neighborhood high schools to alternative integrated high schools. Appellants further appeal from the order of the district court denying their petition for attorneys fees. We affirm the judgments appealed from for the reasons set forth below.

I

These consolidated civil rights actions for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief were filed on March 15,1976, challenging as unconstitutional a desegregation plan adopted voluntarily by the Board of Education of the City of Chicago in an effort to arrest the trend toward segregated enrollments at two Chicago public secondary schools. The challenged desegregation plan, commonly referred to as the “Student Racial Stabilization Quota Plan” (“Plan”), established a ceiling on enrollments and im *508 posed racial quotas with respect to admissions at Morgan Park and Gage Park High Schools. Plaintiffs-appellants in Johnson v. Board of Education are black children and their parents residing in the Morgan Park High School attendance area. 1 Plaintiffs-appellants in Milton v. Board of Education are black children and their parents residing in the Gage Park High School attendance area. Plaintiffs’ complaints alleged that the Plans, as instituted at Morgan Park and Gage Park High Schools, deprived them of their rights under the Constitution and under Title 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983, and under Title 20 U.S.C. § 1703(c) because the Plans restricted the admission of minority students to these high schools solely on the basis of race.

Defendants-appellees named in these actions are the Board of Education of the City of Chicago, the individual members of the Board of Education, and Dr. Joseph P. Han-non, General Superintendent of Schools. Deféndants filed answers to the complaints, denying the Plans were unconstitutional and denying plaintiffs were deprived of any rights under federal law. Defendants fur-, ther alleged that plaintiffs had no constitutional right to attend Morgan Park or Gage Park High School since the Board of Education, vested by state statute with the supervision and management of the public school system of the City of Chicago, is empowered to divide the city into attendance areas and to apportion the pupils to the several schools, taking into consideration the prevention of racial segregation in the public schools. In the performance of these statutory duties, the Board contended the Plans were necessary to alleviate overcrowding and to promote integration at Morgan Park and Gage Park High Schools, both of which had experienced an accelerated change in the size and racial composition of their enrollments as a result of a concomitant demographic change in the residential neighborhoods encompassing the attendance areas of these schools.

On April 29, 1976, three days after the filing of defendants’ answer, plaintiffs in Johnson presented a motion for a temporary restraining order seeking to enjoin the implementation of the Plan at Morgan Park High School, which was scheduled to begin the next day with a lottery drawing to select the incoming freshman class for the fall of 1976. The district court denied the motion. On August 17, 1976, after extensive discovery by means of interrogatories and document production, plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction or in the alternative for summary judgment. On September 27, 1976, the district court denied the alternative motion for summary judgment, but deferred ruling on plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction, stating its preference for a modification of the Plans to include a voluntary busing program for students excluded from these two schools to attend alternative integrated high schools.

At the conclusion of discovery, entry of a final pretrial order, stipulation of additional facts and admission of exhibits into evidence, and after both parties agreed to withdraw objections, the parties rested on June 27,1977. At that time, counsel for the Board advised the court of a pending modification of the Plans to be acted upon at the next Board meeting. The district court then stated it was prepared to find the Plans as originally adopted to be unconstitutional, but would reserve final ruling pending any modification the Board might wish to present.

On July 13, 1977, the Board adopted a modification of the Plans, which provided bus transportation to white or integrated schools from a convenient point near the residences of all students in the Gage Park and Morgan Park attendance areas who were not selected for admission to these two schools under the Plans. By an order *509 of the district court entered August 12, 1977, the Board was directed to implement procedures for publicity and student counseling with respect to the Plans, as modified, and further, to provide that designated spaces at the alternative schools which were not filled by students excluded from one school (e. g., Gage Park) would be made available to students excluded from the other school (e. g., Morgan Park).

On December 30, 1977, the district court entered its findings of fact and conclusions of law, and granted judgment in favor of the defendants. The court held that the Plans, as modified to include bus transportation to primarily white or integrated schools for those students not admitted to Gage Park or Morgan Park High Schools, restored to plaintiffs their constitutional rights in that plaintiffs had a meaningful opportunity to attend a Chicago public high school in an integrated setting. The court further ordered that defendants be enjoined to continue the Plans, as modified. On January 23, 1978, the district court granted plaintiffs’ petition for costs, but denied their request for attorneys fees.

Plaintiffs subsequently appealed from these adverse judgments to this Court. First, appellants contend the Plans, as modified, violate their rights secured by the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Second, appellants contend that the district erred in denying their request for attorneys fees.

II

Before addressing the merits of the appellants’ contentions, however, it is necessary to explicate in appropriate detail the development and implementation of the challenged desegregation plan, as supported by the record before this Court.

Gage Park and Morgan Park High Schools Prior to the Adoption of the Plans

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

Related

Hampton v. Jefferson County Board of Education
102 F. Supp. 2d 358 (W.D. Kentucky, 2000)
Brewer v. West Irondequoit Central School District
212 F.3d 738 (Second Circuit, 2000)
Wessmann v. Gittens
160 F.3d 790 (First Circuit, 1998)
Willan v. Menomonee Falls School Board
658 F. Supp. 1416 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1987)
Riddick v. School Board Of The City Of Norfolk
784 F.2d 521 (Fourth Circuit, 1986)
Riddick v. School Board of Norfolk
784 F.2d 521 (Fourth Circuit, 1986)
Riddick by Riddick v. Sch. Bd. of City of Norfolk
627 F. Supp. 814 (E.D. Virginia, 1984)
United States v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Chicago
567 F. Supp. 290 (N.D. Illinois, 1983)
United States v. Board of Educ. of City of Chicago
554 F. Supp. 912 (N.D. Illinois, 1983)
Burney v. Housing Authority of County of Beaver
551 F. Supp. 746 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 1982)
Burney v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF CTY. OF BEAVER
551 F. Supp. 746 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 1982)
Johnson v. Board of Ed. of Chicago
457 U.S. 52 (Supreme Court, 1982)
Rybicki v. STATE BD. OF ELECTIONS OF STATE OF ILL.
574 F. Supp. 1082 (N.D. Illinois, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
604 F.2d 504, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kathy-sue-johnson-etc-and-darcel-milton-etc-v-board-of-education-of-ca7-1979.