IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
OLD WASHINGTON DIVISION
No. 6:69-CV-702-H
RONDA EVERETT, MELISSA GRIMES,
CAROLINE SUTTON and CHRISTOPHER W.
TAYLOR, next friends of minor children
attending Pitt County Schools, and THE PITT
COUNTY COALITION FOR EDUCATING
BLACK CHILDREN,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
JUVENILE FEMALE 1 and THE GREENVILLE )
PARENTS ASSOCIATION,
)
)
Plaintiffs-Intervenors,
)
)
v.
)
)
THE PITT COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, )
public body corporate,
)
)
Defendant.
)
MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE
AND OTHER APPROPRIATE
RELIEF, ATTORNEY’S FEES
AND COSTS
Fed. R. Civ. P. 65
NOW COME Ronda Everett, Melissa Grimes, Caroline Sutton, Christopher W. Taylor,
and the Pitt County Coalition for Educating Black Children (together as “Plaintiffs”), through
their undersigned counsel, and respectfully move the Court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 for
injunctive and other appropriate relief, attorney’s fees and costs. Plaintiffs offer the following in
support of their Motion:
1. On July 9, 2008, this court reopened and consolidated two school desegregation cases
from the early 1970s, Teel v. Pitt County Board of Education, Civ. A. No. 569 and
Edwards v. Greenville City Board of Education, Civ. A. No. 702. The Court acted
pursuant to Defendant’s March 2008 motion to reopen the Greenville City Board of
Education case in order to seek judicial approval of Defendant’s 2006-2007 student
assignment plan and revisions to its school attendance area policy.1 PlaintiffsIntervenors responded to Defendant’s motion with a motion asking the court to deny
it and declare the Pitt County Schools2 unitary and no longer subject to this Court’s
1970 desegregation order.
2. The desegregation order at issue involved this Court’s rejection in July 1970 of both
the county and city schools boards’ desegregation plans, which had been submitted
for judicial approval. Judge John D. Larkins, Jr. found that both plans would
continue the operation of racially identifiable schools, and ordered the boards to
resubmit for judicial review amended plans that would remedy the racial imbalance
within a number of schools in both districts. Judge Larkins subsequently approved
the amended desegregation plan in Pitt County on August 10, 1970 and in Greenville
City on July 31, 1970. Judge Larkins’s August 10, 1970 order specifically required
Defendant to “locate any new school or addition with the objective of eradicating the
vestiges of the dual school system and of eliminating the effects of segregation,” and
to file two follow-up reports with the Court to ensure that the promised objectives
were being met.
1
In September 2007, Defendant revised its attendance policy to replace racial diversity goals with non-racial
factors—student achievement and socio-economic status—because the 2006-2007 plan had failed to produce the
desired effects of improving student diversity and academic performance, and sought judicial approval of these
revisions in its March 2008 motion. Plaintiff-Intervenors had filed a Title VI complaint in early 2006 with the
Office of Civil Rights at the United States Department of Education, alleging that Defendant’s 2006-2007 student
assignment plan was unconstitutional because it used racial balancing ratios in an effort to reduce the racial isolation
of elementary schools in the former Greenville City school district. Pursuant to a settlement between Defendant and
Plaintiffs-Intervenors of that complaint with the Office for Civil Rights, Defendant filed its motion to reopen the
Greenville City desegregation case.
2
The Defendant, the current consolidated Pitt County Board of Education, was formed following the merger of the
Greenville City Schools and Pitt County Schools by act of the General Assembly, H.R. 1487, 1985 Gen. Assem.,
Reg. Sess. (N.C. 1986), effective July 1, 1986.
2
3. Following the 1970 orders, the cases were administratively closed, subject to being
reopened.
4. This Court reopened the case in 2008 pursuant to Defendant’s Motion for Court
Approval of Student Assignment Plan and School Attendance Area Policy to
determine whether Defendant’s 2006-2007 student reassignment plan and revised
attendance policy were undertaken in good faith compliance with the remedial
desegregation plans approved by Judge Larkins in 1970. The Court invited all
interested parties to participate in a hearing on July 9, 2008. Subsequent to the
Court’s invitation, an individual parent, on behalf of her minor child, and a parents
association filed a motion for declaration of “Unitary Status”. [DE #19].
5. At the July 9, 2008 hearing, the Court granted the substitution of Ms. Everett, Ms.
Grimes, Ms. Sutton and Mr. Taylor on behalf of their minor children, and the Pitt
County Coalition for Educating Black Children (“Plaintiffs”) for the original
plaintiffs in the desegregation cases, and granted the intervention of an individual
parent on behalf of her minor child, and the parents association, as PlaintiffsIntervenors. [DE #37]. Parties of record now represent a spectrum of families whose
children are enrolled in Pitt County Schools.
6. At the July 9, 2008 hearing, the Court rejected the arguments of both PlaintiffsIntervenors and Defendant that the challenged issues could be decided solely on the
pleadings and the existence of the dormant desegregation orders, without any
evidence related to school operations between 1972, when the Court removed the
desegregation cases from its active docket, and 2005, when Defendant adopted an
assignment policy and redistricted the student attendance zones in the subsequent
3
year. The Court reasoned that it lacked sufficient evidence of the school conditions
that prompted the redistricting to rule on the merits of Defendant’s request. The
Court further concluded that it needed evidence about what actions have been taken
by Defendant between 1972 and 2005 to comply with the desegregation orders, as
well as evidence as to whether and why Defendant’s school system remains
segregated by race, in order to adjudicate whether the desegregation orders permit
Defendant to redistrict and revise its attendance area policy.
7. In its July 22, 2008 ruling following the hearing, the Court “order[ed] that discovery
be had … and direct[ed] the parties to comply with the Order for Discovery Plan,”
subsequently entered by the Court on October 6, 2008. [DE #s 37-38].
8. On August 4, 2008, Plaintiffs-Intervenors filed a Motion for Declaratory Judgment,
Injunctive Relief, and Attorney’s Fees and Costs. [DE #39]. On August 20, 2008,
Plaintiffs-Intervenors filed a Motion to Stay Discovery to which Defendant
consented. [DE #43].
9. On or about April 6, 2009, the parties reached a settlement as to all matters in dispute,
and sought the Court’s approval of that settlement. [DE #69]. As part of the
settlement, Defendant agreed to provide Plaintiffs with certain non-confidential data
concerning teachers and students, and involve Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs-Intervenors in
the planning and discussion stages of the next student assignment plan. In exchange,
Plaintiffs-Intervenors agreed to withdraw their motion for unitary status
determination and consent to entry of an order approving Defendant’s 2006-2007
plan and revised policy.
4
10. On November 4, 2009, the Court approved the settlement and granted the parties’
request for approval of the 2006-2007 plan and revised policy. [DE #73]. The Court
also ordered the parties to “work toward attaining unitary status so that the court may
relinquish jurisdiction over this case and restore to the School Board full
responsibility for the operation of its schools.” The Court specifically ordered the
parties to submit, on or before December 31, 2012, “a report detailing the School
Board’s efforts and progress in achieving unitary status and eliminating the vestiges
of past discrimination to the extent practicable.”
11. Throughout 2010, Defendant engaged in a process to develop a student reassignment
plan to accommodate the opening of a new K-5 elementary school (Lakeforest) in the
southwest quadrant of Greenville, and the conversion of Sadie Saulter Elementary, in
the northern part of Greenville, from a K-5 elementary school to a Pre-K program,
projected for Fall 2011. The plan was also to relieve overcrowding at A.G. Cox,
C.M. Eppes, and E.B. Aycock Middle Schools. Pursuant to the settlement agreement,
Defendant held “Board retreats” on July 1, 2010 and October 11, 2010, to which
Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs-Intervenors were invited, to discuss various reassignment
scenarios.
12. Prior to the first Board retreat, Defendant held a meeting on June 7, 2010, at which
representatives from Operations Research and Education Laboratory (OREd) (part of
the Institute of Transportation Research and Education at North Carolina State
University) explained the background, process and methodology for designing a
2011-2012 reassignment plan for Pitt County Schools (“2011-2012 reassignment
plan”). During this presentation, representatives from OREd explained that
5
Defendant had specified the following criteria for developing reassignment scenarios:
(1) proximity; (2) building utilization/capacity; (3) academic proficiency; and (4)
impact area, which Defendant specified would be the J.H. Rose High School
attendance area. (Ex. 1) Defendant’s building utilization goal was to populate each
school at 90% capacity. Defendant’s stated goal for the student reassignment process
was that each of the targeted schools have a proficiency index of at least 59.1%, the
district’s average Reading Proficiency for 2008-2009. Defendant expressed that
student achievement, not race, would be used to ensure school diversity. (Ex. 2)
13. On July 1, 2010, Defendant presented maps and statistics for two proposed
reassignment plans impacting the elementary and middle school target area. Maps
ES2/MS2 (“Scenario 1”) considered only proximity and capacity and produced a 43%
proficiency gap for the target elementary schools and a 28% proficiency gap for the
target middle schools. (Ex. 3) In other words, the plan which failed to include
proficiency in the assignment criteria resulted in certain elementary schools having a
projected 43% lower Reading Proficiency index than other elementary schools. Maps
ES4/MS3 (“Scenario 2”) considered proximity, capacity and reading proficiency and
produced a 13% proficiency gap for the target elementary schools and a 5%
proficiency gap for the target middle schools. (Ex. 4)
14. At the July 2010 retreat, Defendant also presented information about racial balance of
schools targeted for reassignment. Superintendent Beverley Reep acknowledged that
a reassignment plan that prioritized proximity would result in high concentrations of
minority and underachieving students in certain schools, and proposed a series of
remediation strategies to be implemented in these schools if Defendant chose a
6
proximity-based reassignment plan. (Ex. 5) At the July 1, 2010 retreat, both
Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs-Intervenors questioned the Defendant about the stated
objectives and methodology of the reassignment process. Plaintiffs-Intervenors in
particular questioned if a fair and reasonable reassignment plan was possible without
targeting the entire district. Id. Defendant responded that it would not target the
entire district. Id. Plaintiffs-Intervenors then asked whether the Court’s order
regarding unitary status required each and every school to represent the racial composition
of the school system as a whole. Defendant provided no response. Id.
15. Upon information and belief, Defendant cannot achieve a 59.1% reading proficiency
index in each school, nor can it achieve racial diversity in each school which is
comparable to the diversity of the whole district, without a reassignment of the entire
district.
16. Over the course of several months following the initial retreat through the end of
October 2010, Defendant’s staff proposed several different “compromise” assignment
maps. On August 16, 2010, Defendant’s staff presented Map ES5 (“Scenario 3”), in
which the 59% proficiency goal was lowered to below 50% and the proficiency gap
between the highest and lowest performing targeted schools could be reduced to 30%.
(Ex. 6) Defendant’s staff presented a Scenario 3 companion middle school map, Map
MS4, on September 13, 2010. (Ex. 7)
17. On October 11, 2010, the second Board retreat, Defendant’s staff presented Maps
ES5A and MS2B, which were revisions of the Scenario 1 and Scenario 3 plans. (Ex.
8) Plaintiffs repeatedly supported the reassignment plan which had the best projected
outcomes at each targeted school for all three criteria: Scenario 2, or Maps ES4/MS3,
7
which had the best student proficiency/diversity results. (Ex. 9) Maps prepared by
the Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity at The Ohio State University
at Plaintiffs’ request provide a visual representation of the degree of racial isolation
and proficiency gaps between and among the schools in the various reassignment
scenarios. 3 (Ex. 10)
18. On or about October 31, 2010, Superintendent Beverley Reep recommended plan
ES5Av1 and MS2B (revised versions of Maps ES5 and MS2) to Defendant. (Ex. 11)
Both of these plans projected poor results in terms of proficiency and racial diversity
at four of the thirteen targeted schools. Superintendent Reep included with her
recommendation a list of remediation strategies to be implemented at schools with
high percentages of underperforming students, similar to the list presented at the July
1, 2010 retreat. Defendant adopted Superintendant Reep’s recommendations as the
2011-2012 reassignment plan on November 15, 2010. (Ex. 12)
19. Defendant reported the demographics of the Pitt County Schools in 2009-2010 as
38.8% White and 61.1% non-White (48.5% Black, 7.7% Hispanic, 3.3% MultiRacial, 1.4% Asian, and 0.2% American Indian). (Ex. 13) Yet the projected student
demographics at Elmhurst Elementary, South Greenville Elementary and the new
Lakeforest Elementary are drastically different from the rest of the district. Under
ES5Av1, the approved elementary school reassignment plan, Elmhurst Elementary
has a non-White population of 77%; South Greenville Elementary has a non-White
population of 83%; and the new Lakeforest Elementary has a non-White population
of 88%. (Ex. 12) Reading proficiency projections (based on 2008-2009 test scores)
3
Plaintiffs provided copies of the Kirwan maps to both Defendant and Plaintiffs-Intervenors. See Affidavit of
Melissa Grimes. (Ex. 10)
8
are 46% for Elmhurst Elementary, 52% for South Greenville Elementary and 46% at
Lakeforest Elementary. Id. The approved 2011-2012 reassignment plan opens a new
school with greater than 50% of students designated as low academic achievers, and
an unusually high concentration of non-White students. This action will not only
have tangible negative impacts on the Lakeforest students, it will also stigmatize
those students and their non-White school as low achieving, furthering the vestiges of
racial discrimination.
20. Under MS2B, the approved middle school reassignment plan, C.M. Eppes Middle
School has a projected 75% non-White population and only a 53% proficiency index.
Id.
21. Defendant rejected a reassignment plan that would have resulted in much better
outcomes for racial balance and academic achievement. Under Scenario 1
(ES4/MS3), Elmhurst Elementary would have 68% non-White students and a reading
proficiency index of 59%, while South Greenville would have 67% non-White
students and a reading proficiency index of 65%. (Ex. 4) Lakeforest Elementary, the
district’s new school, would have a 76% non-White population and a 60%
proficiency index. Id. C.M. Eppes Middle School would have a projected 70% nonWhite population and a 61% proficiency index. Id.
22. The approved 2011-2012 reassignment plan also fails to address the imbalances in the
existing racially identifiable schools. The schools with the highest concentration of
White students—Chicod School (76% White), G.R. Whitfield School (58% White),
and Stokes School (59% White) —were not included in the reassignment target
group, despite the fact that at least one school, Chicod, is severely over-capacity
9
(projected capacity for next year is 111%). Id. Similarly, other schools with high
concentrations of non-White students—Northwest Elementary, Belvoir Elementary,
and Pactolus Middle—were not targeted for reassignment.
23. Following the Defendant’s approval of the 2011-2012 reassignment plan on
November 15, 2010, several new board members, elected in May 2010, were sworn
in at Defendant’s next meeting on December 6, 2010. Plaintiffs again expressed their
concerns about the 2011-2012 reassignment plan and its impacts on the district
reaching unitary status. (Ex. 14) Although Plaintiffs were hopeful that, based on
opposition voiced by some of the newly-elected Board members during the retreats,
the new Board members would request and obtain a new vote on the reassignment
plan, that hope was not fulfilled. Following the Defendant’s December 2010
meeting, Plaintiffs attempted to resolve with Defendant a potential due process
violation stemming from Defendant’s suspension of established policy at that
meeting. Id. The lack of a satisfactory resolution of this controversy has continued to
frustrate the hope that the Defendant will reconsider the reassignment decisions prior
to affirmatively moving forward with the plan.
24. In choosing Maps ES5Av1 and MS2B as the 2011-2012 reassignment plan,
Defendant rejected less-discriminatory alternative reassignment plans which would
have better accomplished the Defendant’s stated criteria. Defendant’s 2011-2012
reassignment plan will cause Lakeforest Elementary to open with a significantly
lower reading proficiency index (46%) and less diversity (88% non-White) than
possible under Map ES4 (60% reading proficiency, 76% non-White student
population), with only a few percentage points difference in capacity.
10
25. Maps prepared by the Kirwan Institute provide a visual representation of the
differences in racial demographics and reading proficiency resulting from the
approved plan. (Ex. 15)
26. Defendant’s stated goal for the student reassignment process was that each of the
targeted schools have a reading proficiency index of at least 59.1%, the district’s
average for 2008-2009. The district’s actual (reported by the North Carolina
Department of Public Instruction) average reading proficiency index for 2009-2010
rose to 62.2%. (Ex. 16) The actual report average reading proficiency indices for
Elmhurst Elementary, South Greenville Elementary and C.M. Eppes Middle are
66.1%, 49.6% and 63.7% respectively. (Ex. 16) Student proficiency projections
(based on 2008-2009 test scores) under Defendant’s plan are 46% for Elmhurst
Elementary, 52% for South Greenville Elementary, 46% at Lakeforest Elementary,
and 53% at C.M. Eppes Middle. (Ex. 16) In general, Defendant’s approved plan
results not only results in more racially-identifiable, non-White schools, the approved
plan will likely lower the academic achievement at these schools.
27. As a result, Defendant is not only opening a new school (Lakeforest Elementary) with
a racially-identifiable (non-White) student body, and increasing racial isolation of
non-White students at Elmhurst Elementary and South Greenville Elementary in
contravention of Judge Larkins’ August 1970 desegregation order, it is moving the
district further away from unitary status in contravention of this Court’s November 4,
2009 order.
28. In the interest of efficiency and economy both in terms of educational resources and
judicial oversight, Plaintiffs move to stop implementation of this regressive student
11
reassignment well in advance of the 2011-2012 school year. Plaintiffs had every
hope that the new Board would correct the steps taken by the old Board on November
15, 2010, and thus continued to try to work with Defendant towards unitary status
between November 2010 and the first part of 2011. However, Defendant has ignored
these efforts.
29. Plaintiffs also offer, in support of their Motion, the attached Memorandum of Law.
Plaintiffs also offer the attached proposed Order.
WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs ask the Court to:
1. Allow the parties an expedited hearing on this Motion;
2. Enjoin Defendant from implementing its 2011-2012 reassignment plan;
3. Order Defendant to submit for judicial review no later than ten (10) days from the
date of the Court’s order a student assignment plan which moves the district
towards unitary status;
4. Order Defendant to pay Plaintiffs’ reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in
bringing this Motion; and
5. Order other appropriate relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted, this the 15th day of April 2011.
/s/ Elizabeth Haddix
Elizabeth Haddix, N.C. State Bar No. 25818
Benita N. Jones, N.C. State Bar No. 40263
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
UNC Center for Civil Rights
CB#3380
University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599
emhaddix@unc.edu
Telephone: (919) 843-9807
Facsimile: (919) 843-8784
12
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing Motion for Injunctive and Other
Appropriate Relief, Attorney’s Fees and Costs was served upon the below listed individuals by
electronically filing the document with the Clerk of the Court on this date using the CM/ECF
system.
Charles L. McLawhorn, Jr.
John Warner Wells, II
P.O. Box 8188
Greenville, NC 27835
Attorney for Plaintiffs-Intervenors
Kenneth A. Soo
Curtis H. (“Trey”) Allen III
Eva DuBuisson
209 Fayetteville Street Mall
P.O. Box 1151
Raleigh, NC 27602-1151
Attorneys for Defendant
This the 15th day of April 2011.
/s/ Elizabeth Haddix
Elizabeth Haddix, N.C. State Bar No. 25818
13