Young v. Pierce

685 F. Supp. 986, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17670, 1988 WL 45734
District Court, E.D. Texas·Decided March 3, 1988·No. Civ. A. P-80-8-CA·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

*987 INTERIM INJUNCTION

JUSTICE, Chief Judge.

An order, entered in the above-entitled and numbered action on July 31,1985, held that the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development and its officials (“HUD”) knowingly created, promoted, and funded racially segregated housing in East Texas in violation of the United States Constitution and federal civil rights laws. Young v. Pierce, 628 F.Supp. 1037 (E.D.Tex.1985). This finding of liability related to a class which included black residents of, and applicants for, HUD-assisted housing in the thirty-six class action counties. The court subsequently entered an injunction on July 3, 1986, 640 F.Supp. 1476, from which HUD appealed. On appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the parties agreed to limit the plaintiff class to applicants for, and residents of, all traditional low-rent housing programs owned by public housing authorities (PHAs) in the thirty-six class counties. They then jointly moved the Court of Appeals to vacate all findings of fact and conclusions of law to the extent they related to liability as to persons no longer in the class. Young v. Pierce, 822 F.2d 1368, 1373 & n. 7 (5th Cir.1987). The Court of Appeals approved this agreement and granted the motion. Id. at 1373. The parties also agreed, and the Court of Appeals ruled, that the injunction should be remanded for modifications to make more specific the obligations of HUD, and to make any other modifications to the injunction that were necessary or advisable in light of the parties’ settlement on the limitation of the class. Id. at 1374. On appeal, HUD did not contest its liability with respect to its prior actions in overseeing the low-rent public housing programs administered by the PHAs. Id. supra at 1373.

Pursuant to the direction of the Court of Appeals, and upon consideration of the arguments of the parties, the following interim remedial order will be entered against HUD pending final remedial orders in this case. A separate order, describing the role of the court-appointed special master in this phase of the litigation, also is filed herewith.

With respect to the plaintiff class members in this action, as modified by the agreement before the Court of Appeals, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, its officers, agents, servants, employees, successors, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, shall be, and they are hereby, ENJOINED, either directly, or through contractual or other arrangements:

1. From subjecting a class member to segregation or separate treatment in any matter related to his receipt of housing, accommodations, facilities, services, financial aid, or other benefits, under any of its programs or activities in the class action counties, on the ground of race or color. The “separate treatment” prohibitions of this provisions shall not include the affirmative and remedial provisions of this decree, which are designed to provide relief for the class.

2. To direct each public housing authority (PHA) operating a low-rent public housing project with federal financial assistance under the 1937 Federal Housing Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1401 et seq., in the class action counties to adopt, within ninety days of the date of this order, a tenant selection and assignment plan that contains the following procedures, in addition to those required by the terms of 24 C.F.R. 1.4(b)(2)(ii):

a) The pool of vacancies from which each applicant shall be assigned a unit shall include all appropriately sized units which are actually vacant and not the subject of an outstanding offer to another applicant as of the date of the assignment. The pool of vacancies shall include all vacant units in each project owned, operated, or managed by the PHA, whether or not that project is a low-rent public housing project.

b) The applicant at the top of the waiting list shall be offered a unit in a project site where the applicant’s race does not predominate, if such a unit is in the vacancy pool. An applicant’s race does not predominate in a project site if the project site is *988 occupied by less than 75% of the members of the same race as the applicant.

c) If the applicant refuses the offered vacancy, then the applicant shall be placed at the bottom of the waiting list, and shall not be offered another unit until either every other applicant eligible for the same size unit with the same or earlier application date has been offered an appropriate unit or has withdrawn his request, or six months has elapsed from the rejection of the offer, whichever time period is longer. An offer will be deemed rejected if not accepted within ten working days from the date of the offer.

d) The PHA will make available to class members the opportunity to transfer between housing programs operated, managed, or administered by the PHA, if such a transfer will result in a desegregated housing opportunity to that class member. To “make available” means to ascertain whether such a transfer would offer a desegregated housing opportunity, and to give notice to applicants describing the transfer opportunities and informing the applicants of the actions reasonably necessary to make use of the transfer.

e) The correction of “over-housed” situations (as that term is described at 628 F.Supp. at 1052 n. 7), or “under-housed” situations (where tenant families are placed in inappropriately small units), will be done as soon as possible after the PHA becomes aware of the condition. The transfers necessary to correct over-housed or under-housed situations will be made to units in projects or project sites where the transferee's race does not predominate, if such units are available in the vacancy pool. These transfers will have priority over the filling of vacancies from the waiting list.

f) The PHA shall adopt and implement a policy for effective monitoring of its compliance with the approved tenant selection and assignment policy. This policy shall include the record-keeping necessary to determine compliance with the tenant selection and assignment procedures.

g) The PHA will submit a written report to HUD 120 days after filing of this order, and every twelve months thereafter, describing: (1) the racial occupancy characteristics of each project site owned, operated, or managed by the PHA and of the immediate area or neighborhood within which each project site is located; (2) the racial occupancy characteristics of those on the PHA’s waiting list for each HUD-assisted program operated by the PHA; and (3) the racial occupancy characteristics of those receiving housing assistance through programs, other than low-rent public housing, that are operated, managed, or administered by the PHA, and the racial occupancy characteristics of the area or neighborhood within which that housing assistance is being received.

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

Young v. Pierce, 685 F. Supp. 986, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17670, 1988 WL 45734 (E.D. Tex. 1988).

685 F. Supp. 986 (Young v. Pierce) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related