Case 2:64-cv-14801-KDE-JCW Document 261 Filed 08/02/11 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LENA VERN DANDRIDGE, ET AL., Plaintiffs,

vs.

Civil Action No. 2:64-cv-14801-KDE-JCW

JEFFERSON PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL.,
Defendants.

ORDER

Considering the f oregoing joint m otion of the parties for dismissal with prejudice o f the

above numbered and captioned civil action,

IT IS ORDERED, ADJ UDGED AND DECREED that as counsel of record for plaintiffs

herein, said counsel is authorized to execute al l documents and pleadings for, and in connection

with, the dismissal of this case.

IT IS FUR THER OR DERED, ADJUDGED AND DE CREED the Jefferson Parish

School System is hereby declared unitary. Any a nd all injunctions and orde rs entered herein are

hereby vacated. The su pervision of this court o ver facets o f operations of the Jefferson Parish

School System is hereby relinquished and the responsibility for such supervision is hereby

returned to the Jefferson Parish School Board.

IT IS FURT HER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED this school desegregation

lawsuit is hereby dismissed with prejudice. Such dismissal shall be without prejudice only to the

extent tha t plain tiffs may, with th e excep tion of Paragraph B (5) of the Final Settlem ent

Agreement, file a separa te action in the United St ates District Court for the Eastern District of

Louisiana seeking to enforce terms of said Final Settlement Agreement.

Page 1 of 2

Case 2:64-cv-14801-KDE-JCW Document 261 Filed 08/02/11 Page 2 of 2
Signed at New Orleans LA, on this __2_n_d__ day of August 2011.

___________________________________________ KURT D. ENGELHARDT, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT (EDLA)

Respectfully submitted, BY ATTORNEYS:

/s/ Gideon T. Carter, III

Gideon T. Carter, III, T.A. (LA Bar #14136)

Attorney at Law

GRANT

PO Box 80264 PO

10523 N Oak Hills Pkwy Ste A (70810-2858)

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70898-0264

Telephone: 225-343-1111

Facsimile: 225-334-7824

Email: gideon.carter@lawyer4u.com

Attorney for Plaintiffs

/s/ Michael G. Fanning Michael G. Fanning (LA Bar #05440)
& BARROW, P.L.C. Box 484 238 Huey P. Long Ave (70053-5816) Gretna, Louisiana 70054-0484 Telephone: 504-368-7888 Facsimile: 504-368-7263 E-mail: jgrant@grantbarrow.com Attorney for Defendant

/s/ Charles L. Patin, Jr. Charles L. Patin, Jr., T.A. (LA Bar #10338) KEAN, MILLER, HAWTHORNE, D’ARMOND,
McCOWAN & JARMAN, L.L.P. PO Box 3513 400 Convention St Ste 700 (70802-5628) Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70821-3513 Telephone: 225-387-0999 Facsimile: 225-388-9133 E-mail: charlie.patin@keanmiller.com Attorney for Defendant

Page 2 of 2

Case 2:64-cv-14801-KDE-JCW Document 261-1 Filed 08/02/11 Page 1 of 14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LENA VERN DANDRIDGE, ET AL., Plaintiffs,

vs.

Civil Action No. 2:64-cv-14801-KDE-JCW

JEFFERSON PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL.,
Defendants.

FINAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

This Final Settlem ent Agreem ent (the “Agr eement”) between the P laintiffs and the

Defendants (the “Schoo l Board”) p rovides f or the reso lution and term ination of th is litig ation

following its acknowledgm ent by th is court. The parties to Lena Vern Dandridge, et al. v.

Jefferson Parish School Board, et al. , No. 64-14801 (EDLA) (the “Lawsuit”), and the Jefferson

Parish School Board (the “School Board”) jo

intly stipula te and agree, su bject to th e

acknowledgment of the court, that upon court acknow ledgment of this Final Settlem ent

Agreement, the court m ay make a finding of fu ll unitary status based on prior actions and

enforceable commitments in the Consent Order [164], as amended, and the Agreement, vacate all

prior orders and injunctions in the Lawsuit, and enter a Final Judgment and Order dismissing the

Lawsuit with prejud ice. Such dis missal shall be without prejudice onl y to the exten t th at

plaintiffs may, with the exception of Paragraph B(5) of this Agreement, file a separate action in

the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana seeking to enforce the terms

of this Agreement.

A. Background

This suit w as originally filed on July 30, 1964, to desegregate the public schools of

Jefferson Parish and to elim inate the vestiges of the prior dual school system . After various

1

Case 2:64-cv-14801-KDE-JCW Document 261-1 Filed 08/02/11 Page 2 of 14
judicial pro ceedings an d decrees, by Consen t Order [164 ] entered May 15, 200 8, the court approved num erous unopposed m odifications of the previously ope rative Orders covering all phases of school district operation.
The Consent Order [164], as am ended, and the plan therein requi red the School B oard, inter alia , to m odify at tendance zones, and upgrade faci lities consistent w ith its desegregation obligations. Beginning with th e 2008-2009 school year, the School Board began to operate the Jefferson Parish public schools consistent with the terms of the Consent Order [164].
Following the court’s approval and entry of the Consent Order [164], as am ended, counsel for the parties have c onferred and m et on sev eral occasi ons to discuss the rem aining issues in this litiga tion and to exp lore the po ssibility of reaching a negoti ated resolution of this matter consistent with g overning legal s tandards. The parties have no w reached an agreem ent within that framework, pursuant to which they will jointly request the court:
(a) acknowledge this Agreement and schedule such further proceedings as may be necessary to give final authority to the Agreement;
(b) in conjunction with such acknowledge ment, find that the actions taken by the School Board in this litig ation to date together with the comm itments contained in this Agreem ent, provide an appropriate basis for judicial determination that the school system has achieved unitary status because the steps requ ired by this Agreem ent are nece ssary to and will elim inate all remaining vestiges of the original dual system to the extent practicable, and
(c) dism iss the case an d vacate all prior ord ers and injun ctions en tered herein, acknowledging this Agreement as part of the dismissal order.
B. Areas Covered by the Final Settlement Agreement This Agreement is predicated upon and reflects the fact that it has not been possible, in
the tim e that has elapsed since the entry of th e Consent Or der [164], to resolve all rem aining issues affecting the School Board’s achievement of “unitary status” that were identified either in the court’s various Orders or in discussions among counsel prior or subsequent to issuance of the
2

Case 2:64-cv-14801-KDE-JCW Document 261-1 Filed 08/02/11 Page 3 of 14
Consent Order [164]. This Agreem ent does recognize that the School Board has developed and begun to implem ent specific plans and courses of action intended to confront and resolve those issues. Th ese plans include, inter alia , the creation of new m agnet school program s and Academic Academ ies, school m odifications, m odification of attendance z ones, operation of a Majority-to-Minority T ransfer Program , and implementation of other special educational programs and services.
The Plaintiffs have evaluated the cont ent of the plans thus far developed and implemented, and have concluded, as m emorialized in this Agreem ent, that the S chool Board should continue to implement and evaluate the effectiveness of those plans as provided for below during the term of this Agreem ent without the n ecessity of continuing fe deral court supervisio n over its ac tivities. Und er the se c ircumstances, the pa rties are s atisfied that d ismissal of th is action and vacation of prior outstand ing orders and injunctions in accordan ce with this Agreement is legally appropriate.
1. Programs To Improve Black Participation In Certain Programs The School Board, in cooperation with plainti ffs, have devised plans that are aim ed at increasing participation of Black students in magnet programs, gifted study programs, Advanced Placement and honors courses, and Intern ational Baccalaureate program s (Consent Order [164], as am ended). All su ch plans sha ll r emain in full force and effect fo r the duration of this Agreement. Am ong the specific steps that the S chool Board will take to attract Black students ’ applications to these programs for the 2011-12 and succeeding school years are the following: (a) accomplishing earlier a nd broader dissem ination --- no late r than Janua ry of
each school year --- of notices to p arents of pu pils currently enro lled in the school system of an updated written flyer describing programs to be offered in the following year;
3

Case 2:64-cv-14801-KDE-JCW Document 261-1 Filed 08/02/11 Page 4 of 14

(b) assuring that such information is posted continuously on information boards in all feeder schools in the school system;

(c) expanding outreach to local businesses and in programs;

stitutions regarding these

(d) scheduling Open House opportunities for parents, especially parents of students eligible to apply, during the sp ring of each school year, to visit these programs and to observe and receive information about the programs;

(e) making presentations about these program s during the sp ring semester of the each school year for parents;

(f) maintaining prom inently on the School Board’s w

ebsite com plete

information, updated promptly and regularly, about these programs; and

(g) providing com prehensive inform ation during the sp ring sem ester of each school year about these program s, togeth er with details about and deadlines for subm ission of applications, to all pr incipals at schoo ls e nrolling s tudents eligible to apply and conducting appr opriate follow-up to assure that principals support and encourage intere st in these program s a mong their students.

(h) the School Board shall m ake public service media announcements advertising magnet program s, gifted study p rograms, Advanced Placem ent courses, honors courses, and International Baccalaureate programs.

2.

Facilities

With respect to the provision of facilities, the School Board has undertaken a Facilities

Policy. The School Board agrees to com plete the implementation of that process in as tim ely a

manner as practicable.

The School Board is presently reviewing faci lities to determ ine whether any current

school(s) should be closed. In determ ining whet her a school should be closed, the following

non-exclusive considerations shall be considered and procedures shall be followe d prior to the

closure of any school:

(a) A recent h istory of declin ing stud ent en rollments resulting in a sig nificant underutilization of classrooms;

4

Case 2:64-cv-14801-KDE-JCW Document 261-1 Filed 08/02/11 Page 5 of 14
(b) Proximity of schools to a school to be closed that have sufficient capacity to enroll all or significant portions of students displaced by a school closure;
(c) Inferior physical plant of a school wa rranting closure as recomm ended by the School Board’s architects and/or engineers; and/or
(d) Excessively high operating cost due to a school’s age or physical condition. In all instances in which it is practicable, the redrawing of contiguous student attendance
zones following a school closure sha ll not result in increasing in nu mber the m ajority race of a racially ide ntifiable rec eiving scho ol or resu lt in a deseg regated receiving schoo l becom ing racially identifiable. Where in is n ot practicable to redraw student attendance zones following closure of a school so as to avoid an increase in the m ajority race o f a racially identifiable receiving school or a desegregated school becoming racially identifiable, all reasonable measures will be taken to minimize such results.
In the absence of com pelling reasons, school cl osures shall not disproportionately affect one racial group as opposed to another racial group.
In the event a school is closed which was to receive funding for repairs o r renovations or other capital im provements under the School Boar d’s Facilities Policy, such funds shall be utilized to fund any unbudgeted cost overruns for othe r projects in the said Facilities Policy or if not needed for unbudgeted cost overruns such funds shall revert the appropriate fund for other uses by the School Board.
Prior to consideration by the School Board as to whether a school should be closed, public notice thereof shall be m ade by advertisem ent in the School Board’s official journal and on the school system ’s website not less than 30 days prior to such consideration. The public notice shall identify the school or schools to be considered for cl osure, the tim e and location of
5

Case 2:64-cv-14801-KDE-JCW Document 261-1 Filed 08/02/11 Page 6 of 14
all m eetings in connection therewith, and advise that public comm ent shall be available to
persons wishing to be heard.
3. Resource Allocations
With respect to allocations for school equipm ent and m aterials of instruction the School
Board has adopted and implem ented a resource a llocations policy. The School Boa rd agrees to
continue that process throughout the term of this Agreement.
4. Additiona l commitments
The School Board agrees to the continuation and maintenance of the following elements
of prior decrees in this litigation:
(a) Attendance zones established in the C onsent Order [164], a s a mended, shall not be modified so as to result in a rese gregation of the school system . In the event it should becom e necessary to ad just attendance zones or close schools during the term of this Agreem ent, the School Board shall provide plaintiffs with such attendance zo ne adjustments and projected student enrollments by race and/or schools to be closed and the rationale for such closure. Sim ilarly, the School Board m ay expand choice oppor tunities in any nondiscrim inatory manner that does not result in resegregation of the school system.
(b) The School Board shall continue to verify addresses and to enforce its attendance zones, procedures, and requi rements in substa ntially the sam e manner as it has done under the prior or ders of the court in this m atter, including by continuing to require school principals to certify by affidavit, each fall, th at they have exam ined the “911” addresses of students reg istered and enrolled in their school and that those addresses are accurate.
(c) Assig nments to m agnet prog rams shal l be m ade in the sam e fashion as has been required by prior orders of th e court, as am ended. Any proposed modifications to policies or procedures applicable to such program s shall be communicated to plaintiffs prior to implementation.
(d) The School Board agrees to continue it s affirmative efforts, in recruiting and outreach, to encourage applications for instructional and adm inistrative positions from qualified Black applicants.
(e) The School Board agrees to continue to encourage desegregated student participation in the school system’s gifted and talented programs.
6

Case 2:64-cv-14801-KDE-JCW Document 261-1 Filed 08/02/11 Page 7 of 14
The parties further agree that during the term of this Agreem ent the School Board shall continue to follow the following current practices and policies (or their substantial equivalents):
(a) use of the Dandridge Desegregation Task Force; (b) student transfers in accordance with established Policy; (c) facility improvement/expansion in accordance with established Policy; (d) discipline and drop-out prevention in accordance with established Policy, (f) the Com pliance Offic e or other such offi ce shall h ave m onitoring
responsibilities and m ay m ake com pliance recomm endations to the superintendent of schools, and (g) implementation of the attached post-unitary policies. 5. Appointment of administrative, faculty and non-instructional support staff The superintendent shall recomm end for appoi ntment and/or e mployment all school-site administrative and faculty personnel subject to the concurrence of the School B oard whose concurrence shall not be unreasonably withheld. With respect to all assistant principal, dean, and teaching position s, th e superin tendent’s re commendation m ay be inform ed by the recommendation of the school’s principal. Subj ect to any future m odification of School Board policy, the princ ipal sh all hav e, with the ex ception of the diversity goal in Paragraph B(6), unfettered discretion when making recommendations for assistant principals, deans, and teachers to recommend for employment the person deemed best suited, regardless of other considerations, to further th e schoo l’s academ ic m ission and th e at tainment of a satisfactory or higher school performance rating. The Board agrees to continue its affir mative efforts, in recr uiting and outreach, to encourage applications for instructional and ad ministrative positions, including central office or administration, area supervisory, and school site personnel, from qualified m inority applicants
7

Case 2:64-cv-14801-KDE-JCW Document 261-1 Filed 08/02/11 Page 8 of 14
and shall periodically compare the results of its efforts with the available qualified labor pool in the local area and in the State of Louisiana.
The courts of the state of Louisiana shall ha ve jurisd iction to hear an d determ ine any disputes that may arise in connection with this provision of this Agreement.
6. Racial Composition The School Board is committed to the concept of preserving racial diversity in its teacher ranks assigned to the school syst em’s schools. The Board agrees to continue its affir mative efforts, in recruiting and outreac h, to encourage applications for instructional, professional and administrative staff (position s, including cen tral office), s hould reflect th e bro ad d iversity of backgrounds and experiences that charact erize Jefferson Parish or administration, area supervisory, and Louisiana. Furthermore, one means of achieving a diverse workplace is to e ncourage, recruit, and seek to a ttract applications, for all vacant pos itions, s chool site personnel, f rom individuals of widely diverse backgrounds qualified m inority a pplicants a nd s hall p eriodically compare the results of its efforts with the availa ble qualified labor pool in the lo cal area and in the State of Louisiana. The Superintendent sha ll direct staff to carry out ongoing recruitment activities w ithin the Human Resources Department which should focus on widely d isseminating information about vacancies so as to reach a group of potential applicants broadly reflecting geographic, gender, racial, and ethnic diversity. If such activities include recruitment trips or visits by School System staff to community and/or educational institutions, they should include visits to institutions and locations that, taken as a whole, reflect that broad diversity. The Superintendent, or his or her designee, shall: (a) Take ap propriate s teps to inf orm all s taff of the Scho ol Sy stem who ar e
involved in the em ployment process of the Board’s support for, a nd commitment to, achieving dive rse staffs of well-qu alified em ployees from
8

Case 2:64-cv-14801-KDE-JCW Document 261-1 Filed 08/02/11 Page 9 of 14
widely varying backgrounds. This provision applies in particular to school site personnel who review applications f or instruc tional staf f positions, conduct interviews, and make hiring recommendations;
(b) Direct t he Depart ment of Human Re sources to provi de guidance to staff involved in the employment and promotional processes concerning appropriate, educationally sound and legally valid m ethods to evaluate applicants that take into account a candidate’s potential contribution to staff diversity at a particular school, program or location;
(c) Require that an an nual writte n report be prepared c ontaining i nformation and conclusions regarding the School Syste m’s staff diversity, i ncluding diversity in classified instructional, professional and a dministrative personnel, including central office, and at th e school system level. At a m inimum, the written annual report shall contain the following information:
(i) Information concerning the num bers of instructional, professional, adm inistrative, including central office, and clas sified personnel at each s chool. The information c ollected s hall c ontain t he gender, racial and ethnic identification of these employees;
(ii) Inform ation on those em ployees identi fied as t welve-month employees w ho w ork i n t he a dministrative o ffices o f t he School System;
(iii) Staff who are in the s chool system’s Assistant Principal and Principal pools;
(iv) The rep ort m ay als o m ake r ecommendations to guide and assist instructional personnel who desire to gain the experience and training that will qualify them for entrance into promotional pools;
(v) Inf ormation reg arding the r ecruitment activ ities of the Hum an Resources Department as provided for in this policy;
(vi) A comparison of the diversity of the staff with the previous years, including the diversity in classifi ed instru ctional, p rofessional, central office and administrative personnel at the school level; and,
(d) P resent the f indings of the ann ual wr itten repo rt to th e Schoo l B oard at a public meet ing of the Boar d re garding t hese m atters, along w ith any recommendations the Superintendent may have;
(e) Provide the Cabinet and any other such individuals as may be necessary with a copy o f t he a nnual w ritten r eport f or t he p urpose of conducting meetings, as necessary, to address any findings or conclusions contained in the report regarding
9

Case 2:64-cv-14801-KDE-JCW Document 261-1 Filed 08/02/11 Page 10 of 14
staff diversity; and
(f) Ensure the annual writt en report to the Board shall be m ade p ublicly available t o a ny pe rson or or ganization via the School S ystem’s websit e and through other reasonable means, upon request.
This Recruitment Policy is in tended to produ ce a pool of applicants for vac ant positions
advertised by the Sc hool System that is as divers e as pos sible and it is not i ntended to require,
establish, or support racial or ethnic quotas in the e mployment process nor does it confer
any a dditional l egal r ights o n a ny applicant, employee or prospective applicant than is otherwise
prescribed by law.
7. Provision of information
Finally, the parties agree that the School Board shall develop and implem ent internal
procedures to m onitor its effect uation of this Agreem ent and sh all provide to plaintiffs the
following in formation for each sch ool year du ring the term of this Agreem ent, no later than December 1st of that school year:
(a) The number of students enrolled in th e Magnet Schools, Academ ies, and IB Schools, by race, ethn icity (using th e census reporting categories required by the Louisiana Department of Education), grade level and school;
(b) Total certificated positions filled by new hiring f or the preceding school year, by race and ethnicity (u sing the cen sus reporting catego ries required by the Louisiana Departm ent of Education) , and cross-tabulated by work site category (central office or adm inistration, area supe rvisory, and school site, respectively).
(c) Individual school staffing by race and ethnicity (using the census rep orting categories required by the Louisiana Depa rtment of Education) for regular classroom teachers, o ther instru ctional personnel, p rincipals, assistan t principals, other administrators, and non-certificated staff groupings.
C. Consultation and Enforcement
The parties agree to confer and consult periodically concerning the School Board’s
implementation of this Agreem ent in order to identify any problem s or concerns that m ay arise
10

Case 2:64-cv-14801-KDE-JCW Document 261-1 Filed 08/02/11 Page 11 of 14

so that they m ay be resolved am icably without th e need to resort to judicial enforcem ent of the

provisions of the Agreem ent. Re medies for alleged non-compliance that cannot be resolved

through consultation shall be lim ited, with the ex ception of the provisions in Paragraph B(5), to

specific performance.

1. Written Notification of Alleged Violations and Voluntary Correction.

If Plaintiffs believe that Defendants have breached the terms of this Agreement, Plaintiffs

will notif y Def endants of the provision of the Agreem ent with which they allege Def endants

have not complied, and with a written explana tion of the nature of the alleged bre ach. Said

notification shall be within f ifteen (15) business days of discovering such alleged breach. Upon

receipt of this written notice and explanation ("Notice"), Defendants will conduct an appropriate

investigation and respond, in wri ting, within fifteen (15) busin ess days. However, if the

termination date f or this Agreem ent is less th an fifteen business days away, Defe ndants will

respond by the termination date. The Parties may, if warranted, take voluntary corrective action.

2. Mediation.

If

Plaintiffs reasonably believe that the response provided by Defendants does not resolve

the issue(s) or alleged violati on(s) raised in the Notice, th e Parties m ay invoke a m ediation

process ("Mediation") to resolve the dispute. Mediation shall ta ke place in Jefferson Parish; the

mediator need not be from that Parish, however. The costs of Mediati on shall be Defendants '

responsibility. Unless otherwise agreed in writing between the Parties, Mediation m ust

commence within forty -five (45) calendar day s fr om receipt of Notice. For alleg ed violation s

which Plaintiffs, in good faith, reasonably believ e may result in immediat e and irreparable harm

to Plaintiffs, the Notice shall so indicate this belief, and Mediat ion must then commence with in

five (5) business days, if at all practicable. Howe ver, should Plaintiffs learn of an alleged breach

11

Case 2:64-cv-14801-KDE-JCW Document 261-1 Filed 08/02/11 Page 12 of 14

at a tim e that is f ive (5) days or les s prior to th e termination date of this Agreem ent, they shall

promptly notify Defendants of the alleged breach , and Defendants shall m ake a good faith effort

to correct the alleged breach within 24 hours thereof. The P arties shall conduct the Mediation in

good faith in an attempt to resolve the matter(s) contained in the Notice.

3. Performance of this Agreement.

If the issue(s) of noncom pliance raised in the Notice is/are not re solved through

Mediation, then Plaintiffs' sole remedy is to file a separate action to enforce perform ance of this

Agreement in the United States Dis trict Court fo r the Eastern District o f Louisiana. An action

seeking such specific performance shall be filed as a new and separate action in the United States

District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana not later than sixty (60) days following the

expiration of this Agreem ent. In any action for specific perform ance in which plaintiffs shall

prevail in whole or in part, plaintiffs may petition the court for an award of reasonable attorney’s

fees. Defendants will not object to the filing

of such a case on the grounds of lack of

jurisdiction. Strict compliance with Paragraphs C(1) and (2) above is agreed by the Parties to be

a condition precedent to the filing of any such action.

D. Notice

All notices, notifications, and required provisions of infor mation or data provided for in

this Agreement shall be deem ed made by forwardi ng the same to a party’ s counsel of record by

certified mail or e-mail transmission for which an acknowledgement of receipt is received by the

sender from the addressee.

E. Term of Agreement

This Agreem ent shall becom e effective upon its acknow ledgment by the court, after

being app roved by th e parties. W ith the excep tion of the post-unitary st atus policies of the

12

Case 2:64-cv-14801-KDE-JCW Document 261-1 Filed 08/02/11 Page 13 of 14

School Board attached to this Agreem ent, this Agreem ent shall term inate either on July 1, 2014

or at the end of the 2013-14 school year whichever is earlier.

F. Modification of Agreement

The provisions of this Agreem ent may be modified during the term of the Agreement by

a written document executed by counsel for the parties.

G. Understanding of the parties

Each term of this Agr eement is dee med by th e parties as es sential to its perfection and

ongoing validity with respect to the declaration of unitary status and term ination of federal

judicial sup ervision ov er th e facets of the op erations of the Jefferso n Parish Public Schoo l

System.

H. Entire Agreement

This Agreement constitutes th e entire agreem ent between th e parties an d supersedes any

prior understanding or repr esentation of any kind preceding th e date of its execu tion. There are

no other prom ises, conditions, understandings, cont racts or other Agreem ents, whether oral or

written, relating to the subject matter of this Agreement.

Dated this 2nd day of August, 2011.

Respectfully submitted, BY ATTORNEYS:

/s/ Gideon T. Carter, III

Gideon T. Carter, III, T.A. (LA Bar #14136)

Attorney at Law

GRANT

PO Box 80264 PO

10523 N Oak Hills Pkwy Ste A (70810-2858)

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70898-0264

Telephone: 225-343-1111

Facsimile: 225-334-7824

Email: gideon.carter@lawyer4u.com

Attorney for Plaintiffs

/s/ Michael G. Fanning Michael G. Fanning (LA Bar #05440)
& BARROW, P.L.C. Box 484 238 Huey P. Long Ave (70053-5816) Gretna, Louisiana 70054-0484 Telephone: 504-368-7888 Facsimile: 504-368-7263 E-mail: jgrant@grantbarrow.com Attorney for Defendant

13

Case 2:64-cv-14801-KDE-JCW Document 261-1 Filed 08/02/11 Page 14 of 14
/s/ Charles L. Patin, Jr. Charles L. Patin, Jr., T.A. (LA Bar #10338) KEAN, MILLER, HAWTHORNE, D’ARMOND,
McCOWAN & JARMAN, L.L.P. PO Box 3513 400 Convention St Ste 700 (70802-5628) Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70821-3513 Telephone: 225-387-0999 Facsimile: 225-388-9133 E-mail: charlie.patin@keanmiller.com Attorney for Defendant
14

 
 ,.,. .-- --~"!=ill·-·-

..: .·...

. Ca$e 2:64-- 14801-KDE-JCW Docum' t 1-6 Filed 02122108 age 2 of83 !·

· .C 0 M P L A IN T
I.
The jurisdiction •f this Court is invoked under Title'
28, United States Code, 1343()). This is a suit in equity
authorized by law, Title 42, United States Code, 1983, to be commenc.ed by any eitizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to redre.ss the deprivation. under color of state statue, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage of rights, privileges and immunities secured by the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Ame~dment to the Constitution o£ the United States, as hereinafter more fully appears.
II. This is a proceeding for a.preliminary and p~rmanent injunction enjoining the defendants, the School Board of Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, 'and the Superintendent of Schools of Jefferson Parish, L•uisiana, their agents, representatives, employees and successors from continuining their policy, practice custem and usage of maintaining and operating a compulsory biracial school system in the Parish and of assigning students, teachers and other school personnel.to the schools operated and controlled by them on the basis of race.
III. Plainti£s brings this action as a class suit pursuant to Rule 23(a)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on .behalf of themselves'and on behalf of other Negro children and their parents in Jefferson Parish, similarly situated, all of whom are affected by the policy, practice, custom and usage complained of herein as more fully appears. The members of the
class on behalf of which plaintiffs sue are so ~umerous as to
2

-KDE-JCW Docum' t 1-6 __ Filed 02122108

3 of83

make i~ impractical to bring them all individually before this Ceurt, but there are co~on question-s of law and fac~ involvec;l; common grievances arising out of common wrongs and cemmon re- . lief is sought for each of the plaintiffs individually and for :each member of the class. Plaintiffs fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class.
·rv.
Infant and adult plaintiffs are Negro citizens of the United States and of the State_of Louisiana presently residing in Jefferson Pa~ish, Louisiana. The minor plaintiffs a~lege that they, and.each of them, are either currently attending the public free schools of Jefferson Parish or are in all material respects eligible to_ register, enroll, ·enter, attend classes and receive instruction in the public free schools of Jefferson Parish. The schools which minor plaintiffs currently attend are all limited by d~fendants to attendance by Negro children pursuant to the policy, practice, custom and usage of defendants. of operatin~ a compuls·ory biracial school system and assigning schooi children therein and other personnel on the grounds of race. The_minor plaintiffs bring this action by their parents, grandparents or legal guardians, as next friends, pursuant to Rule l?(c)_of the Federal Rules o£ Civil Proc.edure·.
v.
Defendants are the ·school Board of Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, a publi~ body corporate, organized and existing
_under the laws of the State of Louisiana, and Paul J. Solis,
Superintendent o£ the public schools of Jefferson Parish, Louisiana• .Paul J. Solis is the chief administrative offi~er
- 2-

3

. ·. case 2.:~-14ao1-KOE..JCW Docu~ 1-6 Flied 02122108

. ... of 'the Scho.o'l Beard. The said Board is charged by the laws of the State of Louisian~ with .the duty of operating ~ system of free -public schools in the. Parish o and is presentl y operating the public sohoGls in the aforesaid Parish pursuant t o thdse laws. The School Board is sued in its corporate capacity; the Superintendent of Schools is sued in his official and individual capacities .

VI.

Defendants, acting under color of the l aws of Louisiana,
have pursued for some time and are presently pursuing a p•liey,

practice, custom and usage of operating '2-he public school systein

in ·Jefferson Parish, Louisiana on a racially· segregated basis.

Defendants maintain and ope~ate a compulsory biracial school

system by the use · of .dual . school zon~ or attendance areas , de-

fendants make initial assignments of students to the publ ic schools under their om:itrol ...~n the grounds ·or race and color.

Principals , ~eache~.s and ot;her professional personnel :under

defEmdants ' jurisdiction are likewise assigned to the schools

on the basis of race and color.. Students initially assigned ta

elementary schools designated as '"white" are thereafter assigned

.

.

solely t o high schools· similarly designed. Students assigned

as initially to elementary schools denominated Negro, are t here-

after ~ssigned solely to high schools similarly designated . In

no case· are t he assignments of either· students, teachers, prin-

cipals or other professional personnel of the white race made

to schools designated as Negro nor are assignments of· students,

teachers, principals or other personnel of the Negro race assi~ed t~ schools desi gnated as white~ Defend~ts alse dis-

criminate against .plaintiffs herein and the members of the class

represented by them in school construction, the formulation of

budgets, and the disbursement ofschoel funds . SpecifiQally ,

- .3 -

. '

4of83

~ C~e 2:64-.4801-K~E-JCW Docum' 1-6 Filed 02/22108

5of83

defendants construct elementary and high schools with reference to the maintenance of a compulsory biracial school system. Defendants herein also lim~tparticipation in extracurricular ac.tivities in the schools to one or the other race, separately.
VII. {a) On or about July 15, 1964, a group of Negroes attempted to register at West Jefferson High School in Harvey, Louisiana where they were advised by Mr. Joseph J. Martina, Principal of West Jefferson High School, that they would have to go to the Jefferson Parish School Board Office in Gretna; the Negroes imme~iately left West Jefferson High School and went to the Jefferson Parish Schoel Board Office in Gretna, where they were advised that under the present laws of Louisiana they could no~ be registered at West Jefferson High School. (b) On or about July 18, 1964, Lionel R. Cellins, attorney for plaintiffs wrote the defendant, Jefferson Parish School Board on b.ehalf of Negro children and their parents in Jefferson Parish requesting that the defendant school board cease operating the schools under their supervision on a racially· segregated basis and permit attendance thereat without distinction on the basis of race of color. This letter is attached
to the complaint as EXhibit A.
(c) Since the letter of July 18, 1964 from the attorney for the plaintiffs to the Jefferson Parish School Board no communication has been received from the said School Board nor have any steps been taken by ~he defendants toward desegregation of the parish's public schools as r,equested.
. VIII. Plaintiffs and the members of the class which they represent are irreparably injured by the acts'of defendants complained of herein. The continued operation by.defendants of a
4 -
5

OJ
c~.e 2:64-,14801~KDE-JCW Docum~t 1-6 Filed 02/22/08

6 of83

compu1&ory bi~acial sehool system in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana including the assignment of pupils, teachers, principals and o~her administrative personnel .on the ground of race, Lhe mainten~ae of dual zone ' lines or attendance areas baaed on race;
the operation of the budget for the. schools on the basis of race; the construction of schools on the basis of race; and the progranuning and plann-ing of extracurricular acti'lfitie·s on the basis of race violate the.rights of the plaintiffs and the·
members ~f the class secured to them by the· equal protection
clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States . This irrepa~able injury to plaintiffs and their class Will GOntinue unl~SS and until defendants are enjOLnad by this Court . Any other relief to which plaintiffs and those
, similarly situated might be remitted would be attended by un-
certainly and delay, would involve .a multiplicity of suits, cause
furth er ~rrepara,ble injury and occasion damage, vexation and
inconvenience and deny to plaintiffs and those similarly situated substantial relief.

IX.

By pr~or sc~ool . desegregation suits i n the State ef

Louisiana, all state laws requiring compulsory racial school segregation were declared unco~stitutional, ·null and viod. In

addition, the unconstitutionallity of compulsory racial school

segregation as a general principle was judicially established

over ten (10) years ago in the Br• wn case . Notwithstanding,

·the

Jeffe rson

Parish

Scho• l

.
Board,

with ten

(10)

.
years of

.
notice

•f the unconstitutionality of Louisiana 's laws ~equiring com-

pulsory racial school segregation pius the actual invalidating
Qf those l aws in prior Louisiana c~ses, has not made any ·start · toward the·. de~egre@atio~ of its school system thereby occasioning

~. .

~

5

6

~11.1.1,,'..../1.·~.'•·..·~- . ,_---C~e 2:~ · -14801-KDE-JCW Docu11t 1-6 Filed 02/22/08 P e7of83
the costly nece~sity os suit by the plain~iffs. Thus, for having to sue, plaintiffs should be allowed to recover court costs and attorneys fees.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully pray that the Court advance this cause on the docket and order a speedy hearing of this action according to law and after such he~ring:
1. Enter a preliminary and per~ent injunction ' enjoining defendants, their agents, representatives, employees and successors and all person~ in active concert and ~articipati• with them from continuing to operate a compulsory biracial school system in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana,
2. Enter a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining defendants, their agents, representatives, employees and successors and all persons in active concert and participatio with them from continuing to. maintain a dual scheme or patte~n of school zone lines or attendance area lines based en race or .color.
3. Enter a preliminary and permanent injunction en-
j oining defendants, their agents, representatives,. employees and successors and all persom in active concert aqd participation with them from making initial · assignments of ·pupils to the public scho.ols of Jefferson Parish, Louisiana on the basis •f race or color.
4. Enter a preliminary and permanent injunction en-
Joining defendants, their agents, representatives, employees and s uccessors and all persons in act ive concert and participation · wit h them from assigning teachers, principals and other professional personnel to the public ·schools under their jurisdic-· tion on the basis of race or col•r.
5. Enter a ·preliminary and permanent injunction enj eining defendants, ~heir agents, representatives, employees and successors and all persons in active cenc·ert and participati.:n

6
7

.•~ ,;··· .,,
. ·'~:'· '

, . C8;Se 2:64-.14~01-KDE--:JCW Docum~ 1-6 Filed 02/22/08

e8of83

wit.h them from approving contracts, budgets and disbursing funds on the basis of race or. color.•
6. .Enter preliminary and permanent injunction en-
joining defendants, their. agents, representatives, employees and successors and all persons in active concert and partic·ipat with them from constructing elementary and high schools in Jef ferson Parish, Louisiana on the ba sis ·of the dual attendance areas based on race or color.
7. Enter preliminary and permanent injunction en-
joining defendants, their agents, repres~ntatives, employee? and s~ccessors and all persons in active concert and partioipati with them from programming and supporting extracurricular activities which are limited soley to ane or • ther of the races .
4 g. Enter preli~inary. and permanent i~j~ction en-
joining defendants, their agents, representatives , employees and successors and all persons in aotive concert and with them from programming continuing to make any other distinctions . in the 0peration of the school under their jurisdiction w~ich are based· solely on race or color.
9. That this Court enter its order allowi ng,. granting
and awarding unto plai·ntiffs court ·cos.ts and attorneys fees. In the alternative , plaintiffs pray that this court en-·
ter a decree directing defendants to present a comp~.ete plan in a period of time to be determined by this Court for the re:organization of the entire school system of Jefferson Parish, Louisiana ~nto a unitary , nonracial system which shall include a plan for the assignment of pupil s, teachers , principals and other professional school personnel on a ·nonracial basis; the drawing of schoel zone or attendance area l ines on a nonracial basis; the allotment of funds, the construction of sch••ls, the approval of budgets on a nonracial basos and the elimination ·of any other discrimination in the aperation of the school

7

,~.·j -
/

. -,
I .
! •
.t' ' -

C~e 2:64--14801-~DE-JCW Oocuml t 1-6 Filed 02/22/08 P e9of83

system or curricula which are based solely on race or color. Plaintiffs further pray that i n it~ decree directing
def endants t o present ~ plan, this Court will require the submis-sion of a plan for _completion of t he desegregation process in a period of t i me c·onsi derably shorter than twelve ye_ars and that this Court will make it ·clear that any 11grade-a-year1~ plan is not acceptable ten years.after the dec1s1•n in Br own v . Board
. of Education , 347 u. S. 483.
Pl aintiffs pray that if this Court directs defendants to produce. a ·desegregation plan that this Court will retain jurisdiction on this case pending court approval and f ull and complete i mplementation of·defendants' plan.
Pla;int iffs pray that this Court will grant such other, further and _additional or alternative relief as may appear to the Co~t from time to time to be equitable, just ~nd pr oper.

-......._... 713 13th Street Gretna, Louisiana A. P. Tureaud A. M. Trudeau , Jr . Ernest. N.. Morial 1821 Orleans Avenue New Orleans 16 , La .
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
PLEASE SERVE: JEFFERSON PARI SH SCHOOL BOARD 519 HUEY ·P. LONG AVENUE . . GRETNA, LOUISIANA · MR. PAUL· J . SOLI S, SUPERINTENDENT 519 HUEY P. LONG AVENUE .
GRE~N~ , - LOUIS1ANA

9

 
 January 25, 1965 Christenberry: J.
LENA VERN DANDRIDGE, et al

i
I
Civil Action No~ 14801

vs.

JEFFERSON PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, a corporation, and Paul J. Solis, Superintendent

ru::p A. 0,)L~ilii O'BR~~.~

·

CLEft~

This cause came on for hearing on August 10,

1964 on plaintiffs' application for preliminary injunction

and after hearing some evidence the Court referred the

matter to a conference to be held by the court with counsel

on a later date.

Pursuant to this reference a conference was

held on August 24th. 1964 a:t which .the Court.and Counsel

for the parties were present.

At the conference after discussion of the facts

counsel wer~:informed that after careful consideration it

appeared.to the Court that the plaintiffs were entitled to

a preliminary injunction as prayed for but that because of

the short time remaining before the opening of the Jefferson

Parish schools for the 1964-65 session and the many problems

involved an Order entered at that time Which would require

the Jefferson Parish School Board to discontinue the opera- •

tion of a· compulsory bi-racial school system in Jefferson

Paris~, Louisiana beginning with the 1964-65 term of

school could not be complied with without seriously dis-

rupting the school system to the detriment of the pupils

of both races.

The Court further informed counsel that instead

of entering an order at that time the.court would on or about

t..ie~..J<:I ~ .. C.,lii..>Ji
A.?./!.!~~ At-. J
~·AaK '?.;:: C.-z..:-: •I

.....,. ·~"':'f'.:·; ....~.~·..:. ... .

T· · ' . -"~ case 2~64-ev-148-.KDE-JCW

-,~;,- •.. J

•

....,.

Do~ument 1-6f

-.....
i1ed 0212~08. t Page 40 of 83
I
!

January 15, 1965 enter an crder granting .the preliminary

injunction and requiring the Jefferson Parish School Board· to submit to the Court on or about March 15,-.1965 a plan for. the desegregatian·of the public schools, primary, and se.condary, of· Jefferson Parish.

It is now ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DEC~ED, that effective with the opening of_ the 1965--66 school term the Jefferson Parish ~chool Board and Paul J. Solis, Superintendent, their agents, representatives, employees and succes.sors, and

all persons. in a.c.tive concert. and pal;'ticipation with them be, and they are, preliminarily enjoined from continuing to

operate a compulsory bi-racial school system in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, and

It. is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED,

that. the Jefferson Parish School Board and Paul J. Solis,

Superintendent, submit to the Court' and file in this record, not later than March. 31st, 1965, a plan which will provide

for the discontinuance of the compulsorybi-racial school . system. in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana.

 
 . :-: .··.~ '?
•'f _.;;.-.•
..

case 2:64-.~4801-KDE-JCW Docu¥ 1-8 Filed o2f22/08 Page 66 of 78

•:
r !; :. : ~; ·: ~ .. \::c::-
. .: •.:: :·. ". . l.'':O ;:.:: t. \ .

UNJ:TED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DJ:STRJ:CT OF LOUISIANA
NEW ORLEANS DIVISJ:ON

· 3~ NJA~·~ :i~ ~:1. EElS CN

.

. "\CLEi!K

LENA VERN DA~TDRJ:DGE

I ,
SECTioN "A"

vs.

JEFFERSON PARI~H SCHOOL BOARD ET AL

CIVIL ACTION

Q R DE R

On May 10, 1971, plaintiffs in this action moved for

further relief in their continuing effort to have a truly unitary school system established in Jefferson Par.ish, Louisian~.

The basis of their position is that at present there remain

four

all-black

s

ch

1 ools

/and

fifteen

all-white,

or

virtually

all-

white schools2/ in the Jeff~rson Parish School Syste m whic~ com-

prises 75 s chools. The relief sought is that this court direct

the Jefferson Parish sc~ool Board to formulate a new desegre-

gation plan which, through racial b~lance , would eliminate the

racial identification of any particular school. I n addition,

plaintiffs ask that the ~~ulty~ach school be ~ntegrated

in substantially the same ratio of white to black teachers as

exists between white and black teachers throughout the ~cbool

system and that the School Board henceforth hire new teachers

on a nonracial basis.

In t he seven years that this court bas had jurisdiction

over this case, several desegregation orders have been issued

to the J e fferson Parish School Board and the school system has

made significant accomplishments . During this period the Supreme

Court has continued to ru1e on the meaning and implementation

of the equa l educational opportunity doctrine require d by the

Fourteenth Amendment and enunciated in Brown v . Board of Educa-

tion, 347 u.s. 483 (1954).

JUL 1(~·

.

' '

Case 2:64-, .14801-KDE..JCW

ooc.u~ 1-8

Filed 02/22/08

Page 67 of 78

-2-

In Green v. County School Board, 391 u.s. 430 {1968} ,

·the Supreme Court comroande~ school boaras to formulate desegregation plans that would rea~istically and effectively remove

de jure school segregation. The immediacy of this command wa s

reiterated in Alexander v. Holmes,County Board of Education,

396 u.s . i9 (1969).

It was not until April 20, 1971, however, that the

Supreme Court specifically answered the question .of what means

. might be constitutionally ut ilized "to e1fminate from the public schools all vestiges of state-imposed segregation." SWann v.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 91 s. Ct. 1267,1275

{1971) • The evidenc.e, .a.dduced since this case was r eopened in--

dicates that the Jefferson Parish School System served almost

6?,000 P.UPils in 75 ~chools during the 1970-1971 school
"1,._,.._ _... ~4'
year. Approximately_a(·L..·percent of the pupils are ,white a nd
20 percent are black. Pre sently more than 25 percent of the

Jefferson Parish public schools are sc~eduled to remai n segre-

gated or vir ~ua l~y seg~egated in the 1971-1972 school year . These 19 one-;-race schools (four. a ll~black a ·nd 15 all-White. or
I
virtually· all-:white) will e~compass appro.ximately 1~, 000--~~~~~ s,

·.- - - - - roughly

21

percent .. .. ..

of

the totaL ~ --·- -..._....,.

While the court feels that the Parish has increasingly

realized its legal duty to provide an equal educational opportunity

to pupils of all races and that a sp~rit of cooperation has

generally prevailed , .the present situation must now be examined in light o~ ~· The School Board has asserted that a unitary system h as been adopted and that fur ther relief is unwarranted because

of r esidential patterns that would necessitate the daily busing

of young children over lengthy and unsafe routes in the Parish.

Case 2:64-fl480~-KDE-JCW Docu"'fi. l-8 Filed 02122/08 Page 68 of 78

-3-

In the hearing and conferences thus far held, however, plain-

tiffs have demonstrated that massive busing is not the only solution available to overcom~ng the vestiges of the dual school system that previous ly existed in Jefferson Parish. Plaintiffs have suggested rezoning the present school districts and/or pairing schools in adjacent districts where possible.

The ~ decision endorsed various m~s for the in-

stitution of a genuinely unitary system, leaving the means selected

- - - - · - _ within

the ~udge.'s

d

i

s

c

r...e.

t..i...o......n....__..s~-"o'-

lo....~-g·........a_...s........t.

J

l

e

...

m. :

e....a.....n....s.. .

ad
:·· ·

o

p

t

e

d

i.s. _an_e-f!;_q~~medy. Concerning situations where some integra\
tio~ has taken place but where segregated scho6 ls remain, Mr.

Chief Justice Burger stated:

"[IJt. should ·be clear that the e:x:istemce of some small

number of one-race, or virtually one-race, schools

with.in a· d;i.strict is not i n and of itself the mark

of q system which still practices segregation by law.

The district judge or school authorities should

make degr

every effo ee of actua

r l

t 'to achieve th . desegregat~on

e a

n.gd/rtWeh~auTtseIsnt

p ec

ossi essa

ble r 1' ly

se be concerned with the elimination of one-race schools.
No ~er rule can adequately embrace all the diffi-

culties of reconciling the competing interests in-

volved; but in a system with a history of segregation

the need for remedial criteria of sufficient specificity

to assure a school authority's compliance with its

constitutional duty warrants a presumption against

schObls that are substantially disproportionate in

their racial composition. Where the school authority's

·proposed plan for conversion from a .dual to a unitary

system contemplates the continued e.xistence of some

schools that are all or predomina tely of one race,

they have the burden .of showing that such school assign-

ments are genuinely nondiscriminatory. The court

should scrutinize such schools, and the burden upon

the school authorities will be to satisfy the court

that their racial composition is not the · ;result of

present or past discriminatory a~tion on their part.u

91 S. Ct. at 1281.
It is the view of this court that the School Board has
not met its burden of justifying the continued existence of such
,
a substantial nC~ber of. one-race schools. It is therefore
necessary that the School Board officials of Jefferson Parish

Case 2:~14801-KDE-JCW Documw, l-8 Filed 02/22108 Page 69 of 78
-4devise a remedial desegregation plan that will fully satisfy the constitutional requirements of a unitary system.
While it is the duty and responsibility of the School Board to formulate a constitutionally sound plan, the court suggests that the parties enter into cooperative consultation in order to resolve the current deficiencies as expeditious·ty as possible. The School Board is to be guided by the racial· balance concept, but, in doing so, careful a~aly~is should be given to the neighborhoods of each school district and every effort should be made to preserve geographic.zoning criteria where there is no conflict with constitutional requirements. While busing is a permissible tool for school desegregation, and undoubtedly will be necessary to some extent, all parties have stated that there are practical limitations on the extent of any additional busing which might be required. In. other words this court feels that busing should be a last resort remedy.
The School Board should therefore consider.the modification of existing boundaries of school zones, pairing, and, if necessary, general rezoning. In the future, it might be added, new schools should be strategically located to enhance desegregation.
IT IS T.BEREFORE ORDERED that the Jefferson Parish School Board, in cooperative consultation with counsel for plaintiffs, formulate a desegregation plan for the public schools of Jefferson Parish. This plan is to comport with the requirements of Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of ~ducation, 91 S.Ct. 1267 (1971), and with the guidelines set forth hereinabove.
The new plan is to be submitted by the School Board to the court for approval not later than August 2, 1971, and it

Case 2:64-, .14801-KDE..JCW Docum• .l-8 Filed 02122/08 Page 70 of 78
-5is to be implemented in the forthcoming (1971-1972) school year.
on While this may place a temporary burden the School Board, the
time for delay is past. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Jefferson Parish School
Board integrate the faculty of each school so that the ratio of white to b.lack teachers .in an individual school reflects the ratio of white to black teachers in the school system as a whole •
..
New Orleans; Louisiana, this 9th day of July, 1971~ ·

...

CLERK'S OFFICE

. A TRUE COPY

., ~ERJ1W%
&~ ~ -~.~ ... ... ~ Cwt. U. 8. Dletrlc:t Cowt ~ut«:Q Disu!ot cf LOuldt.n"' Hew Oslo=s, .to.

Case 2:64-, -:14801-KDE-JCW Doc~m. . l-8 Filed 02/22108 Page 71 of 78

LENA VERN DANDRIDGE
vs.
JEFFERSON P~SH SCHOOL BOARD, .ET AL

SECTION· "An
NO. 14,801
CIViL ACTION

FOOTNOTES

1/ The all-black public schools and their enrollments are:

;.t>t / Fourth Ward Elementary School (867) , Granville T. Woods Ele-

r~~~~~

mentary School (380), Percy Julian Elementary School (580),

_and washington Elementary School '(697).

Another all-black school, Avondale Gardens, has been discontinued as of the clo~e of ~his p~st school year.

2/ The all-white or substantially all-white schools and their enrollments are:

John Quincy Adams Junior High school (i060), T. H. Harris Junior High School (17.37), Airline Park Elementary..School (915), Alice Birney Elementary School (867), Alexander Elementary school (586), George A. cox Elementary School (957), J. c. Ellis Elementary scliool (710), Harvey Elementary School (748), Phoebe Hearst Elementary School (923), Madison Elementary School (1101), Metairie Grammar School (4Ql), Terrytown Elementary School (892), Wes~gate Elementary School (693), Bissonet Plaza Elementary Schooi· (1038) and East End Elementary School
(61.,3) •

The public school superintendent of Jefferson Parish stated
that two other schools, John Clancy Elementary School (848) and Catherine Strehle.Elementa,ry School (956), are alr~ady scheduled
to be substantially .. i~egrat~~...!.~-~0~ l~1l::.l97.2,-.51~hool year.

 
 Case: 2:64-cv-14801 As of: 07/02/2019 09:22 AM CDT 1 of 14
U.S. District Court Eastern District of Louisiana (New Orleans) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:64−cv−14801−KDE−JCW

CLOSED

Dandridge et al v. Jefferson Parish School Board et al Assigned to: Chief Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt Referred to: Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson, Jr Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 07/30/1964 Date Terminated: 09/19/1974 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Arthur Dandridge as father and next friend to minors Lena Vern Dandridge, Dora Lee Dandridge, Barbara Ann Dandridge

represented by Gideon Tillman Carter , III 4962 Florida Blvd Fl. 4 Baton Rouge, LA 70806−4031 225−214−1546 Fax: 225−341−8874 Email: gideontcarter3d@gmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Mary R. Landry as mother and next friend to minor Patricia Landry and Leroy Landry

represented by Gideon Tillman Carter , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Robert Vance as father and next friend to minors Theo Vance and Emile Vance

represented by Gideon Tillman Carter , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hervert Pope as father and next friend to minor Ronald Pope

represented by Gideon Tillman Carter , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Harold W. Porter as afther and next friend to minor Cheryl Ann Porter

represented by Gideon Tillman Carter , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Moses Hill as father and next friend to minor Francine L. Hill

represented by Gideon Tillman Carter , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Elmo Peters as father and next friend to minor Jeanette Peters

represented by Gideon Tillman Carter , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

Case: 2:64-cv-14801 As of: 07/02/2019 09:22 AM CDT 2 of 14

August Edwards as father and next friend to minor Ralph Edwards

represented by Gideon Tillman Carter , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Eli Jackson as father and next friend to minor Shirley Mae Jackson, Eddie Louis Jackson, and Gladys Marie Jackson

represented by Gideon Tillman Carter , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Walter Washington, Sr. as father and next friend to minor James A. Washington

represented by Gideon Tillman Carter , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Intervenor Plaintiff
Mr. Ronald Edler TERMINATED: 03/16/2009

represented by Ronald Edler Law Offices of Richard G. Perque, LLC 700 Camp Street New Orleans, LA 70130 504−681−2003 Fax: 504−681−2004 Email: richard@perquelaw.com PRO SE

V.
Defendant
Jefferson Parish School Board a corporation

represented by Charles L. Patin , Jr. Kean Miller, LLP (Baton Rouge) II City Plaza 400 Convention St. Suite 700 PO Box 3513 (70821−3513) Baton Rouge, LA 70802 225−387−0999 Email: charlie.patin@keanmiller.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gideon Tillman Carter , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jack A. Grant Grant & Barrow, APLC 238 Huey P. Long Ave. P. O. Box 484 Gretna, LA 70054 (504) 368−7888 Email: jjg7@cox.net ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael George Fanning Grant & Barrow, APLC 238 Huey P. Long Ave.

Case: 2:64-cv-14801 As of: 07/02/2019 09:22 AM CDT 3 of 14

P. O. Box 484 Gretna, LA 70054 (504) 368−7888 Email: MFanning@grantbarrow.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Paul J. Solis Superintendent

Interested Party Kelly Frels

represented by Kelly Frels Bracewell & Giuliani, LLP (Houston) 1100 Louisiana St. Suite 4000 Houston, TX 77002−2781 713−221−1203 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant
Jefferson Federation of Teachers TERMINATED: 03/13/2008

represented by Charles M. Samuel , III Rittenberg & Samuel, LLC 715 Girod St. New Orleans, LA 70130−3505 504−524−5555 Email: samuel@rittenbergsamuel.com LEAD ATTORNEY

William E. Rittenberg Rittenberg & Samuel, LLC 715 Girod St. New Orleans, LA 70130−3505 504−524−5555 Email: rittenberg@rittenbergsamuel.com

Movant
Ronald Elder individually, as parents and curators of the minor child, Aston Elder TERMINATED: 03/13/2008

represented by Richard Gerard Perque Law Office of Richard G. Perque, LLC 700 Camp St. New Orleans, LA 70130 504−681−2003 Fax: 504−681−2004 Email: richard@perquelaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY

Movant
Nicole Elder individually, as parents and curators of the minor child, Aston Elder TERMINATED: 03/13/2008

represented by Richard Gerard Perque (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Movant
Shane Granier individually, as parents and curators of the minor child, Matthew Granier TERMINATED: 03/13/2008

represented by Richard Gerard Perque (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Movant
Angelle Granier individually, as parents and curators of the minor child, Matthew Granier

represented by Richard Gerard Perque (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:64-cv-14801 As of: 07/02/2019 09:22 AM CDT 4 of 14 TERMINATED: 03/13/2008

Date Filed 02/22/2008 02/22/2008 02/22/2008
02/26/2008 02/26/2008 03/05/2008 03/10/2008 03/10/2008
03/10/2008
03/10/2008
03/11/2008 03/11/2008 03/11/2008
03/12/2008 03/13/2008

# Docket Text
1 DOCKET SHEET of CA 14801, documents numbers 1−120. (cab) Additional attachment(Documents 1−120 have been added to the record) added on 3/18/2008 (cab, ). (Entered: 02/26/2008)
121 ORDER that this matter is reallotted to Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey. (Originally dktd 2/22/08) (cab) (Entered: 02/26/2008)
132 Joint MOTION for Court Approval of Consent Order by Harold W. Porter, Moses Hill, Elmo Peters, August Edwards, Eli Jackson, Jefferson Parish School Board, Arthur Dandridge, Mary R. Landry and Hervert Pope. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Consent Order# 2 Exhibit Part 1 of 2# 3 Exhibit Part 2 of 2)(cab) (Entered: 03/12/2008)
122 ORDER that docket number CA 14801 has been changed to CA 64−14801. All submissions to this case shall be filed electronically. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 2/26/08.(cab) (Entered: 02/26/2008)
123 ORDER − Fairness Hearing set for 3/14/2008 09:00 AM before Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 2/25/08.(cab) (Entered: 02/26/2008)
124 ORDERED that a telephone status conference is SET for Monday, March 10, 2008, at 10:00 a.m. The Court will initiate the call. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 3/5/08.(cab) (Entered: 03/05/2008)
125 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt : Status Conference held on 3/10/2008. (cab) (Entered: 03/10/2008)
126 ORDER − On March 10, 2008, the Court held a telephone status conference with the following counsel participating: Gideon T. Carter, III, Charles L. Patin, Jr., and Jack A. Grant. The fairness hearing, set for March 14, 2008, was discussed. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 3/10/08.(cab) (Entered: 03/10/2008)
128 MOTION for Leave to Intervene to Modify one paragraph in Proposed Consent Order by Jefferson Federation of Teachers. Motion Hearing set for 3/26/2008 09:30 AM before Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support # 2 Notice of Hearing # 3 Proposed Order # 4 Proposed Pleading)(cab) (Entered: 03/11/2008)
129 MOTION to Intervene as Third−Party Plaintiff by Ronald Elder, Nicole Elder, Shane Granier and Angelle Granier. Motion Hearing set for 3/26/2008 09:30 AM before Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Counsel Notification# 2 Memorandum in Support # 3 Exhibit A − C# 4 Notice of Hearing)(cab) (Entered: 03/11/2008)
127 Request/Statement of Oral Argument by Jefferson Federation of Teachers regarding 128 MOTION to Intervene. (Samuel, Charles) Modified on 3/11/2008 to add linkage (cab, ). (Entered: 03/11/2008)
130 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by all parties re 129 MOTION to Intervene as Third−Party Plaintiff. (Carter, Gideon) (Entered: 03/11/2008)
131 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Jefferson Parish School Board, Arthur Dandridge re 128 MOTION for Leave to Intervene to Modify one paragraph in Proposed Consent Order. (Patin, Charles) Modified on 3/13/2008 to edit linkage (cab, ). (Entered: 03/11/2008)
134 Request/Statement of Oral Argument by Ronald Elder, Nicole Elder, Shane Granier and Angelle Granier regarding 129 MOTION to Intervene. (cab) (Entered: 03/13/2008)
133 ORDERED that a telephone status conference is SET for Thursday, March 13, 2008, at 9:30 a.m. The Court will initiate the call. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 3/12/08.(cab) (Entered: 03/13/2008)

Case: 2:64-cv-14801 As of: 07/02/2019 09:22 AM CDT 5 of 14

03/13/2008 03/13/2008 03/13/2008
03/14/2008
03/25/2008 03/31/2008 03/31/2008 03/31/2008 03/31/2008 04/01/2008 04/07/2008 04/14/2008 04/15/2008 04/15/2008 04/15/2008 04/16/2008

135 ORDER − On March 13, 2008, the Court held a telephone status conference with the following counsel participating: Gideon T. Carter, III, Charles L. Patin, Jr., and Jack A. Grant. The fairness hearing, set for March 14, 2008, was discussed. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 3/13/08.(cab) (Entered: 03/13/2008)
136 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt : Status Conference held on 3/13/2008. (cab) (Entered: 03/13/2008)
137 ORDER and REASONS − ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to Intervene to Modify One Paragraph in Proposed Consent Order Under F.R.C.P. Rule 24 by Jefferson Federation of Teachers 128 is hereby DENIED without prejudice to the right of the Union to re−urge this motion if this matter is later placed on the Court's trial docket. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Intervene as Third−Party Plaintiff 129 is hereby DENIED without prejudice to the right of the parents to re−urge this motion if this matter is later placed on the Court's trial docket. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 3/13/08. (cab) (Entered: 03/13/2008)
138 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt : In Chambers Conference held on 3/14/2008. ORDERED that Paragraph F of the Order signed herein on March 8, 2007, which addressed magnet school attendance zones, is VACATED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Joint Motion for Court Approval of Consent Order 132 is hereby DENIED (Court Reporter Jodi Simcox.) (cab) (Entered: 03/18/2008)
139 ORDER − Upon the request of counsel, IT IS ORDERED that a status conference will be held in chambers on Monday, March 31, 2008 at 9:00 a.m.. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 3/25/08.(cab) (Entered: 03/26/2008)
140 EXPARTE/CONSENT Joint MOTION for Clarification of Judgment by Jefferson Parish School Board and Arthur Dandridge. (Grant, Jack) Modified on 4/1/2008 to edit text (cab, ). (Entered: 03/31/2008)
141 ORDER − On March 31, 2008, the Court held a status conference in chambers, with the following counsel present: Gideon T. Carter, III, Charles L. Patin, Jr., and Jack A. Grant. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 3/31/08.(cab) (Entered: 03/31/2008)
142 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt : Status Conference held on 3/31/2008. (cab) (Entered: 03/31/2008)
143 EXPARTE/CONSENT Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(c) by Jefferson Parish School Board, Arthur Dandridge. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Grant, Jack) (Entered: 03/31/2008)
144 ORDER granting 143 Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion for Reconsideration under Rule 59(c) as stated herein. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 4/1/08. (cab) (Entered: 04/01/2008)
145 ORDER on 140 Joint MOTION for Clarification of Judgment filed by Arthur Dandridge and Jefferson Parish School Board. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 4/7/08. (Attachments: # 1 Transcript)(cab) (Entered: 04/07/2008)
146 Third Party MOTION to Intervene by Jefferson Federation of Teachers. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Intervention# 2 Memorandum in Support # 3 Appendix # 4 Appendix # 5 Notice of Hearing # 6 Supplement Request for Oral Argument# 7 Proposed Order)(Samuel, Charles) (Entered: 04/14/2008)
147 ORDER − On April 15, 2008, the Court held a status conference in chambers, with the following counsel present: Gideon T. Carter, III, Charles L. Patin, Jr., and Jack A. Grant. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 4/15/08.(cab) (Entered: 04/15/2008)
148 ORDERED that the Motion of Jefferson Federation of Teachers for Leave to Intervene as Third−Party Plaintiffs Under F.R.C.P. Rule 24 146 is DENIED. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 4/15/08. (cab) (Entered: 04/15/2008)
149 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt : Status Conference held on 4/15/2008. (cab) (Entered: 04/17/2008)
150 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt : Status Conference held on 4/16/2008. (cab) (Entered: 04/17/2008)

Case: 2:64-cv-14801 As of: 07/02/2019 09:22 AM CDT 6 of 14

04/17/2008 04/21/2008
04/21/2008 04/22/2008
04/22/2008
04/22/2008
04/22/2008 04/24/2008 04/25/2008
04/28/2008 04/30/2008 05/08/2008 05/08/2008 05/14/2008

151 ORDER − On April 16, 2008, the Court held a status conference in chambers, with the following counsel present: Gideon T. Carter, III, Charles L. Patin, Jr., and Jack A. Grant. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 4/16/08.(cab) (Entered: 04/17/2008)
152 Third Party MOTION to Intervene by Jefferson Federation of Teachers. Motion Hearing set for 5/21/2008 09:30 AM before Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Intervention# 2 Memorandum in Support# 3 Supplement Appendix B# 4 Appendix Appendix C,D,E# 5 Notice of Hearing)(Samuel, Charles) Modified on 4/22/2008 to edit text (cab, ). (Entered: 04/21/2008)
153 Request/Statement of Oral Argument by Jefferson Federation of Teachers regarding 152 Third Party MOTION to Intervene. (cab) (Entered: 04/22/2008)
154 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 152 Third Party MOTION to Intervene; Filing attorney incorrectly changed 'N' to 'Y' at the question 'Is this motion to be decided by the Magistrate Judge Y/N?'. This motion will be decided by the district judge. Also, attachments have duplicate descriptions. Filing attorney must select either a category OR enter a description when attaching documents to the main document. Clerk took corrective action. (cab) (Entered: 04/22/2008)
155 ORDER − On April 22, 2008, the Court held a status conference in chambers, with the following counsel present: Gideon T. Carter, III, Charles L. Patin, Jr., and Jack A. Grant. During the conference, the Court ORDERED that a telephone status conference is SET for Thursday, May 8, 2008 at 9:30 a.m. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 4/22/08.(cab) (Entered: 04/22/2008)
156 ORDERED that the Motion of Jefferson Federation of Teachers for Leave to Intervene as Third−Party Plaintiff Under F.R.C.P. Rule 24 152 is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any more requests to intervene filed in contravention of the foregoing will result in SANCTIONS being imposed upon Movant and its counsel, pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 4/22/08. (cab) (Entered: 04/23/2008)
157 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt : Status Conference held on 4/22/2008. (cab) (Entered: 04/23/2008)
158 EXPARTE/CONSENT Joint MOTION for Court Approval of Consent Order by Jefferson Parish School Board and Arthur Dandridge. (Attachments: # 1Proposed Order# 2Proposed Consent Order# 3Exhibit# 4 Exhibit#(5) Exhibit# 6 Exhibit)(Grant, Jack) Modified on 4/25/2008 to edit text and add exparte (cab, ). (Entered: 04/24/2008)
159 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 158 Joint MOTION for Court Approval of Consent Order; Filing attorney should have changed 'N' to 'Y' at the question 'Is this an Exparte/Consent Motion Y/N?' before clicking the Next button. Clerk modified docket text to reflect 'Exparte'. Also, attachments were not described. Filing attorney must select either a category or enter a description when attaching documents to the main document. Clerk took corrective action. (cab) (Entered: 04/25/2008)
160 ORDER re 158 Joint MOTION for Court Approval of Consent Order filed by Arthur Dandridge and Jefferson Parish School Board : ORDERED that a fairness hearing is hereby SET on May 14, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 4/25/08.(cab) (Entered: 04/28/2008)
161 ORDERED that the telephone status conference previously set for Thursday, May 8, 2008, at 9:30 a.m. is CHANGED to Thursday, May 8, 2008, at 10:30 a.m. The Court will initiate the call. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 4/30/08.(cab) (Entered: 05/01/2008)
162 ORDER − On May 8, 2008, the Court held a telephone status conference, with the following counsel participating: Gideon T. Carter, III, Charles L. Patin, Jr., and Jack A. Grant. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 5/8/08.(cab) (Entered: 05/08/2008)
165 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt : Status Conference held on 5/8/2008. (cab) (Entered: 05/16/2008)
163 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt : Fairness Hearing held on 5/14/2008. (Court Reporter Jodi Simcox.) (cab) (Entered: 05/15/2008)

Case: 2:64-cv-14801 As of: 07/02/2019 09:22 AM CDT 7 of 14

05/15/2008 05/27/2008 06/04/2008 06/05/2008 06/06/2008
06/06/2008 06/09/2008 06/09/2008 06/09/2008 06/20/2008 06/26/2008 06/30/2008 06/30/2008
06/30/2008 07/03/2008
07/08/2008

164 CONSENT ORDER. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 5/14/08.(cab) (Entered: 05/15/2008)
166 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE as to Jefferson Parish School Board. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 5/27/08. (Attachments: # 1 Transfer Request Form)(cab) (Entered: 05/27/2008)
167 Response/Reply by Jefferson Parish School Board to 166 Order to Show Cause (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit (s) A & B)(Patin, Charles) (Entered: 06/04/2008)
168 ORDER − Considering Paragraph 5 of the Consent Order entered herein on May 14, 2008, IT IS ORDERED that as stated herein. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 6/5/08.(cab) (Entered: 06/05/2008)
169 ORDERED that, although this Court's "Order to Show Cause" of May 27, 2008 is deemed satisfied, the defendant JPSB, members of the JPSB, and administrators of the Jefferson Parish school system, are cautioned that any invocation of the authority of this Court's Consent Order be careful and accurate as stated herein. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 6/6/08.(cab) (Entered: 06/06/2008)
170 ORDERED that a telephone conference is SET for Monday, June 9, 2008, at 9:00 a.m. The Court will initiate the call. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 6/6/08.(cab) (Entered: 06/06/2008)
171 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt: Status Conference held on 6/9/2008. (cab) (Entered: 06/09/2008)
172 Response/Reply by Jefferson Parish School Board, Arthur Dandridge to 164 Order , Letter to Judge to Nominate Three (3) Monitors per Paragraph 33 of Order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Bartz Vita, # 2 Exhibit Stevens Resume, # 3 Exhibit Chenevert Resume)(Patin, Charles) (Entered: 06/09/2008)
173 ORDER − On June 9, 2008, the Court held a telephone status conference, with the following counsel participating: Gideon T. Carter, III, Charles L. Patin, Jr., and Jack A. Grant. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 6/9/08.(cab) (Entered: 06/09/2008)
174 Response/Reply by Jefferson Parish School Board, Arthur Dandridge to 168 Order Response to Court Order dated 6−5−08 (Attachments: # 1 Verification of K. Labruzzo, # 2 Chart 1, Magnet Ethnicity, # 3 Verification of R. Ceruti, # 4 Chart 2, Magnet Faculty, # 5 Chart 3, JPPSS Ethnicity)(Patin, Charles) (Entered: 06/20/2008)
175 ORDER: Telephone Status Conference set for 6/30/2008 09:30 AM before Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 6/26/08.(sek, ) (Entered: 06/26/2008)
176 ORDER − On June 30, 2008, the Court held a telephone status conference, with the following counsel participating: Gideon T. Carter, III, Charles L. Patin, Jr., and Jack A. Grant. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 6/30/08.(cab) (Entered: 06/30/2008)
177 ORDER − Considering this Courts Order of June 5, 2008, and the submissions made by the parties on June 20, 2008, IT IS ORDERED that the parties supplement these responses to provide the following additional information and documentation on or before July 28, 2008 as stated herein. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 6/30/08.(cab) (Entered: 06/30/2008)
178 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt: Status Conference held on 6/30/2008. (cab) (Entered: 06/30/2008)
179 TRANSCRIPT of excerpt of Fairness Hearing held on March 14, 2008 before Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt. Court Reporter/Recorder Jodi Simcox, Telephone number (504) 589−7780. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/1/2008. (clu, ) Modified docket text on 7/8/2008 (jtd). (Entered: 07/03/2008)
180 ORDER − The Court has considered the three names submitted by the parties as possible selections for the position of Monitor, as well as other qualified individuals

Case: 2:64-cv-14801 As of: 07/02/2019 09:22 AM CDT 8 of 14

07/14/2008
07/17/2008 07/22/2008 07/22/2008 07/28/2008 10/30/2008 11/03/2008 12/12/2008
12/18/2008
01/05/2009
01/07/2009

who might serve in this capacity. IT IS ORDERED that Mr. Kelly Frels is hereby APPOINTED as the Monitor charged with coordinating and overseeing the implementation of this Consent Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Frels and the parties shall immediately commence discussions relative to the creation and implementation of a contract of hire to be completed by Friday, August 29, 2008, pursuant to Paragraphs 32−33 of the Consent Order 164 . Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 7/7/08.(cab) (Entered: 07/08/2008)
181 ORDER − On July 7, 2008, this Court entered an Order appointing Mr. Kelly Frels as the Monitor charged with coordinating and overseeing the implementation of this Consent Order 180 . Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerks Office shall add Mr. Frels to the docket sheet as an interested party, and shall copy Mr. Frels on all filings made into the record herein. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 7/14/08.(cab) (Entered: 07/14/2008)
182 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Court Approval of New Magnet Programs by Jefferson Parish School Board. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Patin, Charles) (Entered: 07/17/2008)
183 ORDER − On July 22, 2008, the Court held a telephone status conference, with the following counsel participating: Gideon T. Carter, III, Charles L. Patin, Jr., and Jack A. Grant. During the conference, the Court ORDERED as follows as stated herein. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 7/22/08.(cab) (Entered: 07/23/2008)
184 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt: Telephone Conference held on 7/22/2008. (cab) (Entered: 07/23/2008)
185 Response/Reply by Jefferson Parish School Board to 177 Order, of 6/30/08 (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit A−1, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit B−1, # 6 Exhibit C, # 7 Exhibit C−1)(Grant, Jack) Modified on 7/29/2008 to edit text (cab). (Entered: 07/28/2008)
186 Response/Reply by Jefferson Parish School Board to 164 Order Submission of Advanced Studies Magnet Plan Pursuant to Paragraph 6 of Consent Order dated May 14, 2008 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Patin, Charles) (Entered: 10/30/2008)
187 ORDER − Considering the Motion for Court Approval of New Magnet Programs 182 , IT IS ORDERED that a fairness hearing is hereby SET for Friday, December 12, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 11/3/08.(cab) (Entered: 11/04/2008)
188 Minute Order. Proceedings held before Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt: Motion Hearing held on 12/12/2008 re 182 MOTION for Court Approval of New Magnet Programs filed by Jefferson Parish School Board. Counsel shall submit to the Court within 10 days, information regarding the effect of the plan on racial breakdown of neighboring schools. Matter SUBMITTED. (Court Reporter Karen Ibos.) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits) (gec, ) (Entered: 12/12/2008)
189 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION Supplement Hearing Record by Jefferson Parish School Board. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit #18 − Proposed New Districts, # 2 Exhibit #19 − Hazel Park Special Education Numbers, # 3 Exhibit #20 − Affidavit of Richard Carpenter, Depty Supt.)(Patin, Charles) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/19/2008: # 4 Exhibit 19 − Hazel Park Special Education Numbers, # 5 Exhibit 20 − Affidavit of Richard Carpenter) (cab). (Entered: 12/18/2008)
190 ORDER and REASONS − Before the Court are two motions: the "Advanced Studies Magnet Plan" 186 (hereinafter "Magnet Plan") and the the Motion for Approval of New Magnet Programs 182 (hereinafter "New Magnet Programs Motion"), both submitted by the Jefferson Parish School Board ("JPSB"). IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Approval of New Magnet Programs 182 is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Approval of the Advanced Magnet Studies Plan 186 is hereby DENIED as stated herein. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 1/5/09. (cab) Modified on 1/5/2009 to edit document type (cab). (Entered: 01/05/2009)
191 TRANSCRIPT of Fairness Hearing held on December 12, 2008 before Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt. Court Reporter/Recorder Karen Ibos, Telephone number (504) 589−7776. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court

Case: 2:64-cv-14801 As of: 07/02/2019 09:22 AM CDT 9 of 14

01/07/2009 01/13/2009 01/16/2009
01/20/2009 01/22/2009 01/22/2009 01/23/2009
01/29/2009 01/29/2009
01/30/2009

Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/7/2009. (clu, ) (Entered: 01/07/2009)
192 ORDER granting 189 Motion to Supplement Hearing Record by Jefferson Parish School Board. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 1/6/09. (Exhibits attached to doc #189) (cab) (Entered: 01/07/2009)
193 Response/Reply by Jefferson Parish School Board to 190 Order on Motion Unopposed Submission of West Bank Advanced Studies Magnet Plan and Request for Expedited Consideration (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Patin, Charles) Modified on 1/14/2009 to edit text (cab). (Entered: 01/13/2009)
194 ORDER − Considering the Unopposed Submission of West Bank Advanced Studies Magnet Plan and Request for Expedited Consideration 193 , IT IS ORDERED that a fairness hearing is hereby SET for Thursday, January 29, 2009 at 8:30 a.m. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a telephone status conference with counsel of record is SET for Friday, January 23, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. The Court will initiate the call. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 1/16/09.(cab) (Entered: 01/16/2009)
195 ORDER − At the request of counsel, the telephone conference presently scheduled in this matter on Friday, January 23, 2009, at 9:00 a.m., is being moved to Thursday, January 22, 2009, at 9:00 a.m.. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 1/20/09.(cab) (Entered: 01/20/2009)
196 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt: Telephone Status Conference held on 1/22/2009. (cab) (Entered: 01/22/2009)
197 Response/Reply by Jefferson Parish School Board to 190 Order on Motion Amended West Bank Advanced Studies Magnet Plan Pursuant to Paragraph 6 of Consent Order Dated May 14, 2008 and Court Order Entered in Document No. 190 and Request for Expedited Consideration (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Patin, Charles) Modified on 1/23/2009 to edit text (cab). (Entered: 01/22/2009)
198 TRANSCRIPT of Fairness Hearing held on December 12, 2008 before Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt. Court Reporter/Recorder Karen Ibos, Telephone number (504) 589−7776. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/23/2009. (clu, ) (Entered: 01/23/2009)
199 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt: In Chambers Conference held on 1/29/2009. (Court Reporter Cathy Pepper.) (cab) (Entered: 01/29/2009)
200 ORDER − Considering the Amended West Bank Advanced Studies Magnet Plan Pursuant to Paragraph 6 of Consent Order Dated May 14, 2008 and Court Order Entered in Document No. 190 and Request for Expedited Consideration 197 , IT IS ORDERED that the West Bank advanced studies magnet plan submitted herein by Defendant Jefferson Parish School Board and docketed as Record Document No. 197 is hereby approved for implementation for commencement of School Year 2009 through 2010; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this order shall terminate on the date fixed in the Consent Order entered herein by the court on May 14, 2008. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 1/29/09.(cab) (Entered: 01/29/2009)
201 ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that (1) any party or representative of a party who makes representations or assertions contrary to that which is set forth herein, or contrary to the record in these proceedings, or contrary to the transcript of the fairness hearing of 1/29/2009, will CEASE AND DESIST from such representation; (2) within 72 hours after it appears in the record of this case, the transcript of the 1/29/2009 fairness hearing shall be provided to the public by the JPSB on its website or linked to that website in some accessible fashion. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 1/30/09.(tbl) (Entered: 01/30/2009)

Case: 2:64-cv-14801 As of: 07/02/2019 09:22 AM CDT 10 of 14

02/02/2009
02/03/2009 02/03/2009 02/04/2009
02/11/2009 02/12/2009 02/17/2009 02/18/2009
02/23/2009 03/16/2009
03/23/2009 03/24/2009 06/09/2009

202 SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER − Supplemental to this Court's Order of January 30, 2009, IT IS ORDERED that within 48 hours of issuance of this Order, the Jefferson Parish School Board shall make available in some conspicuous place on its website the full text of this Court's Order of January 30, 2009, or otherwise provide a conspicuous link on its website to that Order. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 2/2/09.(cab) (Entered: 02/02/2009)
203 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Intervene as Third−Party Plaintiff by Ronald Elder and Nicole Elder. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Hearing, # 3 Proposed Order, # 4 Statement of Counsel Notification)(cab) (Entered: 02/04/2009)
204 Request/Statement of Oral Argument by Ronald Elder, Nicole Elder regarding 203 MOTION to Intervene (cab) (Entered: 02/04/2009)
205 ORDER − The Court has received the Motion to Intervene by Plaintiff−Intervenor Ronald Edler and Nicole Edler. IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk will file the motion into the record as Record Document 203 . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion shall be heard on February 25, 2009 at 9:30 a.m. without oral argument. Parties wishing to oppose the motion shall file their objections to the motion to intervene on or before February 17, 2009, and the Plaintiff−Intervenor may respond to any oppositions as per the Local Rules prior to the hearing date. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 2/4/09.(cab) (Entered: 02/04/2009)
206 ORDERED that within 48 hours of issuance of this Order, the Jefferson Parish School Board shall make available in some conspicuous place on its website the full text of this Order as stated herein. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 2/10/09.(cab) (Entered: 02/11/2009)
207 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Jefferson Parish School Board re 203 MOTION to Intervene as Third Party Plaintiff by Ronald Edler and Nicole Edler. (Patin, Charles) (Entered: 02/12/2009)
208 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by all plaintiffs re 203 MOTION to Intervene As Third−Party Plaintiff. (Carter, Gideon) (Entered: 02/17/2009)
209 TRANSCRIPT of Motion Hearing held on January 29, 2009 before Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt. Court Reporter/Recorder Cathy Pepper, Telephone number (504) 589−7779. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/19/2009. (clu, ) (Entered: 02/18/2009)
210 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Ronald Edler re 203 MOTION to Intervene. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − JEDCO Report, # 2 Exhibit B − Congressional Record & Sec. 5301)(Perque, Richard) (Entered: 02/23/2009)
211 ORDER and REASONS − Considering the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Intervene as Third− Party Plaintiff 203 is hereby DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to the right of the Edlers or others similarly situated to re−urge this motion if this matter is later placed on the Court's trial docket. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 48 hours of issuance of this Order, the Jefferson Parish School Board shall make available in some conspicuous place on its website the full text of this Order as stated herein. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 3/16/09. (cab) (Entered: 03/16/2009)
212 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Time to File East Bank Advanced Studies Academies Plan by Jefferson Parish School Board. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Patin, Charles) (Entered: 03/23/2009)
213 ORDER granting 212 Motion for Extension of Time to File East Bank Advanced Studies Academies Plan as stated herein. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 3/24/09. (cab) (Entered: 03/24/2009)
214 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Court Approval to Change Student Attendance Zones to Address School Overcrowding by Jefferson Parish School Board. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Proposed Order)(Patin, Charles)

Case: 2:64-cv-14801 As of: 07/02/2019 09:22 AM CDT 11 of 14

06/12/2009
06/23/2009 06/29/2009
07/01/2009 07/01/2009 07/06/2009
07/21/2009 07/22/2009 07/22/2009 07/22/2009 07/23/2009 07/23/2009 08/25/2009

(Entered: 06/09/2009)
215 ORDER − Before the Court is the Motion for Court Approval to Change Student Attendance Zones To Address School Overcrowding 214 . IT IS ORDERED that within 48 hours of issuance of this Order, the Jefferson Parish School Board shall make available in some conspicuous place on its website the full text of both Record Document 214 and this order as stated within document. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 6/12/09.(cab) (Entered: 06/12/2009)
216 ORDER − Upon request of the Court−Appointed Monitor, the deadline for the receipt of the July 2009 Monitor's Report is EXTENDED by 15 days. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 6/23/09.(cab) (Entered: 06/23/2009)
217 ORDER that (1) by 3:00 pm on June 30, 2009, the school board place this Order, the June 12, 2009 order, & the Motion for Court Approval in a conspicuous place on its website & confirm the compliance to the Court in writing; (2) by 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, the School Board is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing why the Court should not extend the comments period an additional three weeks and/or set a fairness hearing; and (3) by 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, July 1, 2009, the school board is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing as to why the Court should not impose an appropriate monetary sanction on it and/or its counsel of record faor failure to comply with the Court's June 12th Order. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 6/29/09.(tbl) (Entered: 06/29/2009)
218 RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Jefferson Parish School Board re 217 Order,, (Grant, Jack) (Entered: 07/01/2009)
219 RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Jefferson Parish School Board re 217 Order,, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Grant, Jack) (Entered: 07/01/2009)
220 ORDERED that (1) the period of time in which the Court will entertain written comments on the 214 MOTION for Court Approval to Change Student Attendance Zones to Address School Overcrowding is EXTENDED to 5 p.m. on 7/17/2009 as set forth in document; (2) future failures to post the Orders of the Court as ordered will result, without further notice, in sanctions as set forth in document; and (3) by 4 p.m. on 7/27/2009, the Jefferson Parish School Board shall make available in some conspicuous place on its website the full text of this Order. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt.(gec, ) (Entered: 07/06/2009)
221 ORDERED that a telephone conference in this matter is SET for Wednesday, July 22, 2009, at 3:00 p.m. The Court will initiate the call. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 7/21/09.(cab) (Entered: 07/21/2009)
222 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Enroll Michael G. Fanning as Counsel of Record by Jefferson Parish School Board. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE)(Grant, Jack) Modified on 7/23/2009 to edit text (cab). (Entered: 07/22/2009)
223 ORDER granting 214 Motion for Court Approval to Change Student Attendance Zones to Address School Overcrowding as stated within document. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that by 5 p.m. on Thursday, July 23, 2009, the school board shall post this Order in a conspicuous place on its website. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 7/21/09. (cab) (Entered: 07/22/2009)
224 ORDERED that the telephone conference in this matter set for Wednesday, July 22, 2009, at 3:00 p.m. is CONTINUED until Thursday, July 23, 2009, at 1:30 p.m. The Court will initiate the call. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 7/21/09.(cab) (Entered: 07/22/2009)
225 ORDER granting 222 Motion to Enroll Attorney Michael George Fanning as Counsel of Record for Jefferson Parish School Board. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 7/23/09. (cab) (Entered: 07/23/2009)
226 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt: Telephone Conference held on 7/23/2009. (caa, ) (Entered: 07/24/2009)
227 ORDERED that Gideon T. Carter, III is enrolled as "Trial Attorney" for the Dandridge plaintiffs. This order is retroactive to January 1, 2007. Signed by Judge Kurt D.

Case: 2:64-cv-14801 As of: 07/02/2019 09:22 AM CDT 12 of 14

10/09/2009 10/30/2009
11/03/2009
12/04/2009
12/04/2009 12/04/2009 03/09/2010
03/04/2011 03/04/2011 03/04/2011 04/12/2011 04/20/2011 04/21/2011 04/25/2011

Engelhardt on 8/25/09.(cab) (Entered: 08/26/2009)
228 ORDERED that on or before 10/16/2009, the Jefferson Parish School Board shall deliver to chambers a complete copy of the new contract entered into with the teachers's union. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt.(gec, ) (Entered: 10/09/2009)
229 MOTION for Court Approval for Opening of New East Bank Elementary Academy for Advanced Studies Magnet School by Jefferson Parish School Board. Motion Hearing set for 12/2/2009 09:30 AM before Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Memorandum in Support, # 3 Notice of Hearing)(Patin, Charles) (Entered: 10/30/2009)
230 ORDERED that the hearing on the Motion for Court Approval for Opening of New East Bank Elementary Academy for Advanced Studies Magnet School 229 , which is currently noticed for December 2, 2009 is CANCELLED. Instead, this motion is SET for a fairness hearing on Friday, December 4, 2009, at 9:00 a.m.. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 11/3/09.(cab) (Entered: 11/04/2009)
231 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt: Motion Hearing held on 12/4/2009 re 229 MOTION for Court Approval for Opening of New East Bank Elementary Academy for Advanced Studies Magnet School filed by Jefferson Parish School Board. Motion is ORDERED GRANTED. (Court Reporter Jodi Simcox.) (Attachments: # 1 Witness and Exhibit List, # 2 Exhibit 1−4) (cab) (Entered: 12/04/2009)
232 Statement of Dr. Juantina Johnson of 12/4/2009. (cab) (Entered: 12/04/2009)
233 ORDER re 229 MOTION for Court Approval for Opening of New East Bank Elementary Academy for Advanced Studies Magnet School filed by Jefferson Parish School Board as stated within document. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 12/4/09.(cab) (Entered: 12/04/2009)
234 ORDER − It has come to the Court's attention that inaccurate (and perhaps even incorrect) information may have been provided to some parents of students enrolled in the Jefferson Parish School System regarding the magnet school application procedure. In order to eliminate any confusion or misunderstanding, IT IS ORDERED as stated within document. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 3/9/2010. (Attachments: # 1 Transcript)(cab) (Entered: 03/09/2010)
235 MOTION for Modification of Order by Jefferson Parish School Board. Motion set for 4/20/2011 09:30 AM before Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Memorandum in Support, # 4 Notice of Submission)(Patin, Charles) (Entered: 03/04/2011)
236 Request/Statement of Oral Argument by Jefferson Parish School Board regarding 235 MOTION for Modification of Order (Patin, Charles) (Entered: 03/04/2011)
237 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 235 MOTION for Modification of Order. The title of the attached Notice should reflect Notice of Submission instead of Notice of Hearing on the actual document, pursuant to the Local Rules. (gec, ) (Entered: 03/04/2011)
238 MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by All Plaintiffs re 235 MOTION for Modification of Order. (Carter, Gideon) Modified on 4/13/2011 to edit text (cab). (Entered: 04/12/2011)
239 Minute Order. Proceedings held before Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt: Motion Hearing held on 4/20/2011 re 235 MOTION for Modification of Order filed by Jefferson Parish School Board. ORDERED that this matter is SUBMITTED on the briefs. (Court Reporter David Zarek.) (cab) (Entered: 04/20/2011)
240 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Memorandum by Jefferson Parish School Board. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Statement of Contested/Uncontested Facts, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Proposed Order)(Fanning, Michael) (Entered: 04/21/2011)
241 Supplemental Memorandum filed by All Plaintiffs, in Opposition of 235 MOTION for Modification of Order. (Carter, Gideon) Modified on 4/26/2011 to edit text (cab).

Case: 2:64-cv-14801 As of: 07/02/2019 09:22 AM CDT 13 of 14

04/25/2011 04/25/2011 04/25/2011 06/10/2011
06/30/2011
06/30/2011 06/30/2011 07/01/2011
07/12/2011 07/13/2011
07/14/2011 07/14/2011

(Entered: 04/25/2011)
242 ORDER granting 240 Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Memorandum. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 4/25/2011. (cab) (Entered: 04/25/2011)
243 Supplemental Memorandum filed by Jefferson Parish School Board re 235 MOTION for Modification of Order. (cab) (Entered: 04/25/2011)
244 ORDER and REASONS − IT IS ORDERED that the School Board's Motion for Modification of Order 235 is DENIED as stated within document. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 4/25/2011. (cab) (Entered: 04/25/2011)
245 ORDER − The Consent Order 164 in place in this matter terminates under its own terms on June 30, 2011. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that any motions asserting objections to the expiration of this Consent Order shall be filed on or before Thursday, June 30, 2011, at 5:00 p.m.. Any such motions shall be noticed/set for hearing (either with or without oral argument) on Wednesday, July 20, 2011, at 8:30 a.m.. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 6/10/2011.(cab) (Entered: 06/10/2011)
246 MOTION to Extend the Consent Order and for Further Remedies or Specific Performance Pursuant to Paragraph 37 of the Consent Order and Further for Contempt and Meaningful and Appropriate Sanctions, and to Continue the Hearing Set by the Court by Arthur Dandridge, August Edwards, Moses Hill, Eli Jackson, Mary R. Landry, Elmo Peters, Hervert Pope, Harold W. Porter, Robert Vance, Walter Washington, Sr. Motion set for 7/20/2011 08:30 AM before Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Carter, Gideon) Modified on 6/30/2011 (cab). (Entered: 06/30/2011)
247 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION To Temporarily Extend the Consent Order by Arthur Dandridge, August Edwards, Moses Hill, Eli Jackson, Mary R. Landry, Elmo Peters, Hervert Pope, Harold W. Porter, Robert Vance, Walter Washington, Sr. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Carter, Gideon) Modified on 6/30/2011 to edit text (cab). (Entered: 06/30/2011)
248 ORDER granting 247 Motion to Temporarily Extend the Consent Order as stated within document. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 6/30/2011. (cab) (Entered: 06/30/2011)
249 ORDER re 246 MOTION to Extend the Consent Order and for Further Remedies or Specific Performance Pursuant to Paragraph 37 of the Consent Order and Further for Contempt and Meaningful and Appropriate Sanctions, and to Continue the Hearing Set by the Court ; IT IS ORDERED that the request to continue the July 20, 2011 hearing to allow time "to conduct limited discovery" (see Rec. Doc. 246, p. 5) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any opposition to this motion (Rec. Doc. 246) shall be filed on or before Tuesday, July 12, 2011 as stated within document. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 7/1/2011.(cab) (Entered: 07/01/2011)
250 MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Jefferson Parish School Board re 246 MOTION to Continue the Consent Order . (Fanning, Michael) Modified on 7/13/2011 to edit text (cab). (Entered: 07/12/2011)
251 ORDER − Regarding the Wednesday, July 20, 2011 hearing set for 8:30 a.m. on the Motion to Extend the Consent Order 246 , IT IS ORDERED that parties must file definitive witness and exhibit lists for the July 20, 2011 hearing on or before Thursday, July 14, 2011, at noon. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply memorandum from Plaintiffs is due by Friday, July 15, 2011, at 9:00 a.m.. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that stipulations for the July 20, 2011 hearing shall be filed by Friday, July 15, 2011, at 4:00 p.m.. These must signed by all counsel as stated within document. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 7/13/2011.(cab) (Entered: 07/13/2011)
252 ***ERROR: WRONG EVENT*** Response/Reply by Jefferson Parish School Board Witness List for July 20, 2011 Hearing (Fanning, Michael) Modified on 7/15/2011 (cab). (Entered: 07/14/2011)
253 ***ERROR: WRONG EVENT*** Response/Reply by Jefferson Parish School Board Exhibit List for July 20, 2011 Hearing (Fanning, Michael) Modified on 7/15/2011 (cab). (Entered: 07/14/2011)

Case: 2:64-cv-14801 As of: 07/02/2019 09:22 AM CDT 14 of 14

07/14/2011 07/14/2011 07/14/2011 07/15/2011
07/15/2011 07/20/2011
08/02/2011
08/02/2011

254 Witness and Exhibit List by All Plaintiffs. (Carter, Gideon) (Entered: 07/14/2011)
256 Witness List by Jefferson Parish School Board. (cab) (Entered: 07/15/2011)
257 Exhibit List by Jefferson Parish School Board. (cab) (Entered: 07/15/2011)
255 REPLY to Motion filed by All Plaintiffs re 246 MOTION to Extend the Consent Order and for Further Remedies or Specific Performance Pursuant to Paragraph 37 of the Consent Order and Further for Contempt and Meaningful and Appropriate Sanctions, and to Continue the Hearing Set by the Court. (Carter, Gideon) Modified on 7/18/2011 to edit text (cab). (Entered: 07/15/2011)
258 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 253 Response/Reply, 252 Response/Reply; Filing attorney selected incorrect event. Correct event is Witness List and Exhibit List which are located under the event "Other Filings − Trial Documents". Clerk took corrective action by re−docketing the event. (cab) (Entered: 07/15/2011)
259 ORDER − The Court has been advised that counsel for the parties in this case have reached an amicable resolution, subject to final approval by their respective clients. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Wednesday, July 20, 2011 hearing on the Motion to Extend the Consent Order 246 is CONTINUED to Wednesday, August 3, 2011, at 8:30 a.m. to allow the parties time to obtain such final approval. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 7/20/2011.(cab) (Entered: 07/20/2011)
260 EXPARTE/CONSENT Joint MOTION to Dismiss and Acknowledge Final Settlement Agreement by Arthur Dandridge, August Edwards, Moses Hill, Eli Jackson, Jefferson Parish School Board, Mary R. Landry, Elmo Peters, Hervert Pope, Harold W. Porter, Paul J. Solis, Robert Vance, Walter Washington, Sr. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Order, # 2 Exhibit Final Settlement Agreement)(Carter, Gideon) (Entered: 08/02/2011)
261 ORDER − Considering the foregoing joint motion of the parties for dismissal with prejudice of the above numbered and captioned civil action, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that as counsel of record for plaintiffs, said counsel is authorized to execute all documents and pleadings for, and in connection with, the dismissal of this case. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED the Jefferson Parish School System is hereby declared unitary. Any and all injunctions and orders entered herein are hereby vacated. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED this school desegregation lawsuit is hereby dismissed with prejudice as stated within document. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 8/2/2011.(cab) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/3/2011: # 1 Final Settlement Agreement) (cab). (Entered: 08/02/2011)

 
 Case 2:64-cv-14801-KDE-JCW Document 1 Filed 02/22/08 Page 1 of 9

Case 2:64-cv-14801-KDE-JCW Document 1 Filed 02/22/08 Page 2 of 9

Case 2:64-cv-14801-KDE-JCW Document 1 Filed 02/22/08 Page 3 of 9

Case 2:64-cv-14801-KDE-JCW Document 1 Filed 02/22/08 Page 4 of 9

Case 2:64-cv-14801-KDE-JCW Document 1 Filed 02/22/08 Page 5 of 9

Case 2:64-cv-14801-KDE-JCW Document 1 Filed 02/22/08 Page 6 of 9

Case 2:64-cv-14801-KDE-JCW Document 1 Filed 02/22/08 Page 7 of 9

Case 2:64-cv-14801-KDE-JCW Document 1 Filed 02/22/08 Page 8 of 9

Case 2:64-cv-14801-KDE-JCW Document 1 Filed 02/22/08 Page 9 of 9

United States District Court Eastern District of Louisiana (New Orleans)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE # 14801-N

Date Filed Doc. #

Docket Text

3/8/2007 116 JOINT MOTION to Supplement Desegregation Plan. (jrc)

3/8/2007 117

AGREED ORDER granting (#116) Joint Motion to Supplement Desegregation Plan. Joint Report due no later than 4/1/2008. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey. Entered 3/8/07. (jrc)

3/8/2007 118

MINUTE ENTRY Status Conference held 3/8/07 before Judge Zainey. Agreed Order to Supplement Desegregation Plan (#116) was signed. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey. Entered 3/8/07. (jrc)

12/10/2007 119

MINUTE ENTRY Status Conference held 12/10/07 before Judge Zainey. A followup telephone conference is set for 1/23/08 at 2:30 p.m. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey. Entered 12/12/07. (jrc)

1/23/08

120 MINUTE ENTRY Status Conference held 1/23/08 before Judge Zainey. A fairness hearing is set for 3/14/08 at 10:00 a.m. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey. Entered 1/24/08. (jrc)

2/22/08

121 ORDER that this matter is reallotted to Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey. Entered 2/22/08. (jrc)

 
 Dandridge v. Jefferson Parish School Bd., 404 U.S. 1219 (1971) 92 S.Ct. 18, 30 L.Ed.2d 23

92 S.Ct. 18 Supreme Court of the United States
Lena Vern DANDRIDGE et al., v.
JEFFERSON PARISH SCHOOL BOARD et al.
No. —-. |
Aug. 30, 1971.
Synopsis Proceeding upon application for stay of an order of the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, 332 F.Supp. 590, Mr. Justice Marshall, as Circuit Justice, held that where the schools involved had been mired in litigation for seven years and whatever progress had been made toward desegregation derived only from judicial action initiated by plaintiffs and no unusual circumstances appeared, the district court’s order to implement a plan for desegregation of the public schools would not be stayed.
Stay denied.
Opinion
**19 *1219 Mr. Justice MARSHALL, Circuit Justice.
On August 10, 1971, the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, 332 F.Supp. 590, ordered the Jefferson Parish School Board to implement, beginning on August 31, 1971, the plan for desegregation of the public schools of said parish which had been submitted to the court eight days earlier. Having been denied stays of that order by the District Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the Board seeks a stay here. Hearing was had in the District Court on the feasibility of beginning the desegregation process without delay. The evidence there adduced demonstrated that the parish would undoubtedly experience those difficulties normally incident to the transition from a dual to a unitary school system. Recognizing the existence of these difficulties, the District Court nonetheless correctly applied the law as
End of Document

developed by this Court in concluding:
‘The fact that a temporary, albeit difficult, burden may be placed on the School Board in the initial administration of the plan or the fact that some schools may not begin the school year in a routinely smooth fashion does not justify in these circumstances the continuation of a less than unitary school system and the resulting denial of an equal educational *1220 opportunity to a certain segment of the Parish school children.’
The devastating, often irreparable, injury to those children who experience segregation and isolation was noted 17 years ago in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S.Ct. 686, 98 L.Ed. 873 (1954). This Court has repeatedly made it clear beyond any possible doubt that, absent some extraordinary circumstances, delay in achieving desegregation will not be tolerated. See, e.g., Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, 396 U.S. 19, 90 S.Ct. 29, 24 L.Ed.2d 19 (1969); Carter v. West Feliciana Parish School Board, 396 U.S. 226, 90 S.Ct. 467, 24 L.Ed.2d 382 (1969); Keyes v. School District No. 1, 396 U.S. 1215, 90 S.Ct. 12, 24 L.Ed.2d 37 (1969) (Brennan, J., vacating stay).
There are no unusual circumstances in this case. The schools involved have been mired in litigation for seven years. Whatever progress toward desegregation has been made apparently, and unfortunately, derives only from judicial action initiated by those persons situated as perpetual plaintiffs below. The rights of children to equal educational opportunities are not to be denied, even for a brief time, simply because a school board situates itself so as to make desegregation difficult.
The stay is accordingly denied.
All Citations
404 U.S. 1219, 92 S.Ct. 18, 30 L.Ed.2d 23
1

 
 Dandridge v. Jefferson Parish School Bd., 456 F.2d 552 (1972)

456 F.2d 552 United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.
Lena Vern DANDRIDGE et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.
JEFFERSON PARISH SCHOOL BOARD et al., Defendants-Appellants.
No. 71-2542. |
Feb. 11, 1972.
Synopsis School desegregation suit. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, Herbert W. Christenberry, J., 332 F.Supp. 590, ordered implementation of desegregation plan, and the school board appealed. The Court of Appeals, Gewin, Circuit Judge, held, inter alia, that no abuse of discretion was shown with respect to adoption of desegregation plan involving busing of 3,000 students over average daily round trip of approximately seven miles.
Affirmed.
Procedural Posture(s): On Appeal.
Attorneys and Law Firms
*552 Wallace C. LeBrun, Metairie, La., Hendrik Uiterwyk, New Orleans, La., for defendants-appellants.
George R. Blue, Denis A. Barry, II, New Orleans, La., for intervenors.
Lionel R. Collins, Gretna, La., Marcel Trudeau, Jr., A. P. Tureaud, New Orleans, La., for plaintiffs-appellees.
Before GEWIN, GOLDBERG and DYER, Circuit Judges.
Opinion
GEWIN, Circuit Judge:
Upon a motion for further relief by Lena Dandridge and the other members of her plaintiff class, the district court,

332 F.Supp. 590, ordered the implementation of a new desegregation plan in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana. The Jefferson Parish School Board appeals from that order. We affirm.
*553 In 1969 the district court approved a desegregation plan for Jefferson Parish. In 1971, following the decision in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education,1 plaintiffs filed a Motion for Further Relief. At that time there remained in Jefferson Parish 19 one race schools–4 all black schools with 2,434 students or 19% of all black students, and 15 all white schools. At the beginning of the 1971-72 school year there were 75 schools and approximately 63,000 students, 80% white and 20% black. In their Motion for Further Relief the plaintiffs asked that every school be required to achieve a white-black ratio more nearly proportionate to the ratio of the entire system and that assignment of faculty members be on a ratio comparable to the system wide faculty composition.
After a hearing on plaintiffs’ motion the district court ordered the Jefferson Parish School Board to submit a plan in accordance with Swann to be implemented in the 1971-72 school year. In compliance, the School Board submitted a plan to the court, but without recommending that it be adopted. On August 10, 1971, the district court approved the plan submitted by the school board and ordered that it be implemented. The plaintiffs are fully satisfied with the court’s order. The order provides for the integration of all 19 formerly one race schools by altering boundaries for elementary and middle school attendance zones and by bussing some 3,000 students. Evidence presented at the hearing showed that the average daily round-trip distance for the students to be bussed would be approximately 7 miles. The longest round trip distance for any child was shown to be 14 miles. The plan also provides for the assignment of faculty so that the racial composition of the faculty in each school will be comparable to the system wide ratio.
The School Board contends that the district court erred in requiring “forced bussing” to achieve racial balance and in concluding that the one race schools involved were “vestiges” of the previously operated dual school system rather than the product of voluntary housing patterns. Swann made clear that bussing is an available tool for use by district courts in achieving school desegregation. In Swann 23,000 students were to be bussed,2 in Jefferson Parish only 3,000; and in Swann the average daily round trip was 15 miles,3 in Jefferson Parish only 7 miles. No serious argument was made or evidence presented which would support a finding that the bussing required here would adversely affect the health of the children or significantly impinge on the educational process.4 We find
1

Dandridge v. Jefferson Parish School Bd., 456 F.2d 552 (1972)

no abuse of the district court’s equitable discretion with

Swann held that one race schools, as here, which have

respect to bussing.

always been one race schools in a system with a history of

segregation are suspect.7 Seeking to justify the remaining

Swann placed the burden on school authorities to show

19 one race schools the intervenors state in their brief:

that one race schools are “genuinely nondiscriminatory.”5

The district court found that the only evidence presented

The few remaining one-race schools exist solely because

by the School Board to justify the presence of 19 one race

of housing patterns prevalent in Jefferson Parish for many

schools in this case “was an allusion to housing patterns.”

years before Brown I was rendered.

In view of the history of officially sanctioned school

It is unquestioned that before Brown I there was state

segregation in Jefferson Parish, the court concluded that

imposed segregation in Jefferson Parish. As the district

such a bare allegation was without merit. The real thrust

court noted we do not have here schools which have been

of the School Board’s argument is a plea for

desegregated and then resegregated by shifting population

neighborhood schools. But Chief Justice Burger reminded

trends. The argument of the intervenors thus lends support

the litigants in Swann that, “Desegregation plans cannot

to the district court’s finding that the 19 one race schools

be limited to the walkin *554 school.”6 The district court

are in fact “vestiges” of former school segregation.

did not commit error in concluding that the School Board

had not met its burden under Swann to show that the 19

The intervenors also suggest that 20 U.S.C.A. § 1232a8

schools were genuinely nondiscriminatory.

(Supp.1971) supports their position. A similar argument

was made under 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000c-69 and rejected in

The district court permitted Albert B. Eason and others

Swann.10 The result we reach here is not based on § 1232a

of his class to intervene on behalf of the School Board.

or on our construction of other federal statutes. As stated

Their brief on appeal raises substantially the same issues

by the Supreme Court in Swann:

as those raised by the School Board. They emphasize that

the district judge who granted the motion for further relief

The basis of our decision must be the prohibition of the

was the same judge who in 1969, ordered a plan

Fourteenth Amendment *555 that no State shall “deny to

implemented which he held would establish a unitary

any person with its jurisdiction the equal protection of the

school system. Thus, Eason contends that Jefferson Parish

laws.”11

already has a unitary school system and that no further

relief is required. At the time of the 1969 order the

Supreme Court had not made clear the extent of the

The order of the district court is affirmed.

remedial power available to district courts in dealing with the vestiges of a dual and unconstitutional school system.

All Citations

Swann has since provided additional guidance. Whether either the parties or the district court thought the Jefferson

456 F.2d 552

Parish system in 1969 was a unitary one is not controlling.

Footnotes

1

402 U.S. 1, 91 S.Ct. 1267, 28 L.Ed.2d 554 (1971).

2

Id. at 29, 91 S.Ct. at 1282, 28 L.Ed.2d at 574 n. 11.

3

Id.

4

In memoranda submitted to this court in support of the School Board’s motion for a stay pending appeal the Board

claimed that the logistical problems involved in obtaining the buses necessary to implement the new plan were

insurmountable. We denied the stay. The briefs on appeal add nothing to those arguments.

5

402 U.S. at 26, 91 S.Ct. at 1281, 28 L.Ed.2d at 572.

6

Id. at 30, 91 S.Ct. at 1283, 28 L.Ed.2d at 575.

2

Dandridge v. Jefferson Parish School Bd., 456 F.2d 552 (1972)

7

Id. at 26, 91 S.Ct. at 1281, 28 L.Ed.2d at 572.

8 Section 1232a provides: No provision of the Act of September 30, 1950, Public Law 874, Eighty-first Congress; the National Defense Education Act of 1958; the Act of September 23, 1950, Public Law 815, Eighty-first Congress; the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963; the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965; the Higher Education Act of 1965; the International Education Act of 1966; or the Vocational Education Act of 1963 shall be construed to authorize any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system, or over the selection of library resources, textbooks, or other printed or published instructional materials by any educational institution or school system, or to require the assignment or transportation of students or teachers in order to overcome racial imbalance.

9

Section 2000c-6 authorizes the Attorney General to initiate federal desegregation suits. The portion of the statute

relied upon in Swann is found in § 2000c-6(a) (2):

nothing herein shall empower any official or court of the United States to issue any order seeking to achieve a racial

balance in any school by requiring the transportation of pupils or students from one school to another or one school

district to another in order to achieve such racial balance, or otherwise enlarge the existing power of the court to

insure compliance with constitutional standards.

10 402 U.S. at 17, 91 S.Ct. at 1277, 28 L.Ed.2d at 567.

11

Id.

End of Document

3

 
 Case 2:64-cv-14801-KDE-JCW Document 1-15 Filed 02/22/08 Page 1 of 4
•

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LENA VERN DANDRIDGE, ET AL., Plaintiffs,

CIVIL ACTION NO.:

VERSUS

SECTION: "A"

JEFFERSON PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ETAL.
Defendants.

JUDGE: JAY C. ZAINEY

AGREED ORDER

Considering the foregoing joint motion to supplement desegregation plan;

IT IS ORDERED that the outstanding desegregation plan in the instant lawsuit is hereby

supplemented in the following manner:

A. Defendant JeffersonParish School District (the "School District")
is hereby authorized to utilize magnet programs as a voluntary desegregation methodology and to make application to the United States Department ofEducation. Magnet Schools Assistance Program (the "Magnet Schools Assistance Program''), for grant funding to establish magnet schools.

B. The superintendent of schools of the Jefferson Parish School System (the "Superintendent'1 is hereby authorized to assign those school-site administrators, teachers and support personnel who express or otherwise demonstrate an interest and dedication to the
magnet program orprograms assigned to each school receiving grant
proceeds through the Magnet Schools Assistance Program.

C. Teachers assigned to each school receiving grant proceeds through the Magnet Schools Assistance Program shall hold an appropriate certification through the Louisiana Department of Education for the grade level they will be assigned to teach.

D. The faculties assigned to each school receiving grant proceeds through the Magnet Schools Assistance Program shall have at a minimum the same percentage, with a plus or minus five percent deviation, of the teachers who hold post~gra.duate degrees and/or specialist certifications as of the commencement of School Year

1133340_\

-I -
DATE OF ENTRY
MAR - 8 Z007

_Fee,_ _ __
_ Proce~
_lL Dkld
117 _ C!Rm ep·~==-­
_Doc.No

Case 2:64-cv-14801-KDE-JCW Document 1-15 Filed 02/22/08 Page 2 of 4

ll33340_1

2007-2008 as does the group of teachers employed throughout the School District as a whole.
E. The racial composition of the teachers assigned to each school receiving grant proceeds through the Magnet Schools Assistance Program shall reflect the ratio ofwhite to black teachers in the school system with a deviation ofnot greater or lesser than a plus or minus five percent.
F. Consistent with the requirements of the grant through the Magnet Schools Assistance Program, admissions to magnet schools funded through the Magnet Schools Assistance Program for students residing outside a magnet school's student attendance zone shall be limited in such a manner that such students residing on the east side of the Mississippi River shall be eligible for enrollment in magnet schools situated on the east side ofthe river and such students residing on the west side of the Mississippi River shall be eligible for enrollment in magnet schools on the west side of the river, such that the School District will not be tmder an obligation to provide transportation for magnet transfer students from one side ofthe Mississippi River to the other side.
G. Consistent with the limitation stated in Paragraph F above, the School District shall provide transportation at its cost to all students enrolled in magnet schools funded through the Magnet Schools Assistance Program who would otheiWise be entitled to such transportation based upon existing policies ofthe School District and applicable state laws and/or regulations.
H. The School District shall refrain from, aud shall not permit, the duplication of a magnet program funded through a graut from the Magnet Schools Assistance Program at any other school operated by the School District serving any of the grades served by magnet program schools receiving funding through a grant from the Magnet Schools Assistance Program.
I. The membership of the Jefferson Parish Public School System Task Force are hereby authorized to select a monitoring committee comprised ofnot less than three and not more than five persons with either prior teaching or education supervisory experience or parents with children enrolled in the Jefferson Parish School System at the time of selection who shall be authorized to monitor implementation of the magnet programs funded through the Magnet Schools Assistance Program. The monitors shall receive monthly reports from the School District regarding the implementation ofthe magnet
-2-

Case 2:64-cv-14801-KDE-JCW Document 1-15 Filed 02/22/08 Page 3 of 4

programs, and be entitled to offer suggestions and comments to, and to periodically meet with, the Superintendent and School District personnel charged with the implementation ofthe magnet programs.
IT IS FURTI!ER ORDERED that the parties herein are directed, if at all possible, to file a
joint report with the court not later than April I, 2008, that will:
(A) identify conditions or facets of the operations of the Jefferson Parish School System (the "School System") in which pockets of inequality no longer exist and in which the School System•s operations are in compliance with the Constitution;
(B) identifY conditions or facets of the operations of the School System where further remedial action may be required to bring the School System into compliance with the Constitution; and
(C) provide the court with a proposed plan in the form ofa consent order, prepared through good faith efforts conducted in close cooperation, that when fully implemented by the School District will bring the remaining facets of the operations of the School System into compliance with the Constitution.
In the event the parties are unable to arrive at agreements in principle by December 1. 2007,
they shall by that date request a status conference with the court for the purpose of establishing a
discovery schedule and framework for litigating the remaining issues as to which agreement cannot
be reached.
IT IS FURTiiER ORDERED that counsel for the Dandridge Plaintiffs may submit periodic
billing invoices to the School District for the payment of legal fees and costs incurred in the
representation of plaintiffs. The invoices must contain sufficient descriptions of legal services
rendered and costs incurred. billable in quarter-hour segments, at an hourly rate not to exceed the
hourly rate applicable for attorneys with similar years of legal experience as provided for by the
Louisiana Attorney General's Hourly Fee Schedule. In the event of any dispute as to an invoice
entry, resort to the court may be had for resolution by the plaintiffs.

1133340_1

-3-

Case 2:64-cv-14801-KDE-JCW Document 1-15 Filed 02/22/08 Page 4 of 4

/1"-",)., g THUS DONE AND SIGNED this <;'day of
Orleans.

, 2007, in the cityofNew

Jlt Respectfully s u b m i h

.

.a.j. .

GideOI!T.Carter, III, T.A. (La. Bar No. L '·

123 St. Ferdinand Street

IYl~"

n .. Baton Rouge, Louisiana '>9969 • 7118

Telephone: 225-343-1111

Facsimile: 225·334-7824

E-mail: gideon.carter&lawyer4u.com

Attorneyfor PlaintiffLena Vern Dandridge, eta/.
~
Charles L. Patin, Jr., T.A. (La. Bar No. 10338) KEAN, MILLER, HAWTIIORNE, D'ARMOND,
McCOWAN & JARMAN, L.L.P. Post Office Box 3513 (70821)
One American Place, 22"' Floor Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70825 Telephone: 225-387-0999 Facsimile: 225-388-9133
E- ~har~li~~~~. Grant (La. Bar No. 6222) ~,<,"~ & BARROW, P.L.C.
P. O.Box484
Gretna. Louisiana 70054 Telephone: 504-368-7888 Facsimile: 504-368-7263 E-mail: jrgant@grantbarrow.com

Attorneys for Defendant Jefferson Parish School Board

1133340_1

-4.

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LENA VERN DANDRIDGE, ET AL., Plaintiffs,

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 64-14801

VERSUS

SECTION: “N”

JEFFERSON PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL.
Defendants.

JUDGE: KURT D. ENGELHARDT

CONSENT ORDER

On March 8, 2007 the court issued an order directing the parties to jointly (a) identify

conditions or facets of the operations of the Jefferson Parish Public School System (the “School

System”) in which pockets of inequality no longer exist and in which the School System’s

operations are in compliance with the Constitution; (b) identify conditions or facets of the operations

of the School System where further remedial action may be required to bring the School System into

compliance with the Constitution; and (c) provide the court with a proposed plan in the form of a

consent order, prepared through good faith efforts conducted in close cooperation, that when fully

implemented by the Jefferson Parish School Board (the “School Board”) will bring the remaining

facets of the operations of the School System into compliance with the Constitution.

Pursuant to the March 8, 2007 order of the court, the parties have conferred in good faith and

in close cooperation with one another and jointly present to the court a list of suggestions for

modifications to existing orders of the court in the form of this Consent Order.

On March 14, 2008, the court approved portions and rejected other portions the proposed

Consent Order with instructions to revise the Order and report back to the Court with a specified

time (Minute Entry, Document 138). Pursuant to the said Minute Entry, the parties have conferred

1

in good faith and met with the Court to review and revise the rejected portions of the Order. The parties submit this Consent Order for the Court’s consideration at this time to allow the orderly changes in school attendance zones and to address other matters in an effort to implement certain changes in the upcoming school year of 2007/08.
Upon review, the court has determined the provisions of this Consent Order are consistent with applicable federal law, and that its provisions are reasonable, equitable, constitutional, and consistent with public policy. These determinations are based upon evidence produced at the fairness hearing, representations of counsel made to the court pursuant to a review of documents, and other information provided by the School System on numerous prior occasions and discussions held among counsel and with Dr. Diane Roussel, Superintendent of Schools, Jefferson Parish Public School System, and members of her staff; discussions also were had with, and input received from, members of the Jefferson Parish Public School System Task Force as well as other interested members of the public residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the Jefferson Parish School District (the “School District”).
The parties agree and the court further finds that although progress has been made in other areas of the operations of the School System, and in certain of them to a substantial degree, there remains a need for additional progress to be made in order to bring the School District into full compliance with the Constitution.
2

Therefore, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED as follows: STUDENT ASSIGNMENTS:
1. The contiguous student attendance zones in Attachment “A” to this Consent Order are hereby approved for implementation for grades kindergarten through twelve, inclusive, the commencement of School Year 2008-09. The School System shall devise appropriate procedures to verify residency of students to assure that each student, other than those attending a school pursuant to a transfer authorized by this Consent Order, are enrolled in the school zoned for the domicile of their parent or guardian (where the parent or guardian is domiciled in the School District) or place of principal residence (where the parent or guardian’s domicile is outside the School District). Residency may not be based upon an order entered by a state court granting a person other than a student’s parent provisional custody of the student.
The School Board shall review student attendance zones once every three years to determine whether its desegregation aims are being met and shall provide student enrollment information by race by school based upon October enrollments in the year of review to plaintiffs. Recommendations may be made to the court by the parties or either of them for adjustments to student attendance zones based upon the review.
At any point in time that a school should become overcrowded in the judgment of the superintendent of schools, the School Board may petition the court for such changes to student attendance zones as may be required to alleviate the overcrowding condition, or it may establish, with court approval, one or more overflow grades at a school in a student attendance zone school in reasonable proximity to accommodate a grade overflow as determined by state law or regulation establishing maximum student grade enrollments. Assignments to an overflow receiving school
3

shall not result in a desegregated school becoming racially identifiable or in increasing the race in the majority in a racially identifiable school.
During the period of time in which this Consent Order is in effect with respect to student assignments no adjustments to the student attendance zones in Attachment “A” to this Consent Order shall be made without first obtaining the approval of the court.
2. Subject to the exceptions provided for in Paragraph 11 of this Consent Order, each student shall be assigned to attend the school zoned for the domicile of his/her parents, custodial parent as specified in an order of a court of competent jurisdiction, or his legal guardian, as the case may be, unless enrolled in a school other than his/her attendance zone school pursuant to a transfer or election option provided for in this Consent Order. Principals shall take such measures as may be reasonably prudent to assure compliance with this requirement including, but not limited to, requiring reasonable documentation to verify domicile whenever there may be any reasonable doubt or question as to domicile.
Where homeless status is claimed, the student shall be enrolled. Within 15 days of enrollment, the student's parent, custodial relative, or custodial friend shall execute a sworn affidavit attesting to the student's homeless status on a form provided by the School System which shall recite in boldfaced print that any person making false attestations in the affidavit will be reported to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana for such action as the court may take for a false attestation made in violation of this Consent Order's student assignment plan. In addition to the execution of the affidavit provided for in this paragraph, an affidavit shall be required within the same time period from any person or facility with or in which the homeless student's parent, custodial relative, or custodial friend claims to reside or provisionally reside on a form
4

provided by the School System which shall recite in boldfaced print that any person making false attestations in the affidavit will be reported to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana for such action as the court may take for a false attestation made in violation of this Consent Order's student assignment plan. Failure to timely submit the affidavits required in this paragraph shall result in removal of the student from enrollment in the school. A copy of each of the affidavits required in this paragraph shall be submitted to counsel for the parties within 10 days of receipt by the principal. Either party for good cause shown to the court may challenge a student's homeless status.
The parties agree and so stipulate that, in the court’s consideration of compliance with this Consent Order, no party shall cite, as an objection to the failure to achieve “unitary status”, the fact that a particular school(s) situated on the east side of the Mississippi River is desegregated based upon total student enrollment on the east side of the river within plus or minus 15 percent.
The parties further agree and so stipulate that, in the court’s consideration of compliance with this Consent Order, no party shall cite, as an objection to the failure to achieve “unitary status”, the fact that a particular school(s) situated on the west side of the Mississippi River is desegregated based upon total student enrollment on the west side of the river within plus or minus 15 percent. This shall exclude any student(s) residing in and in proximity to the towns of Grand Isle and Lafitte (as inclusive of the areas of Crown Point and Barataria, hereinafter collectively referred to as “Lafitte”). The towns of Grand Isle and Lafitte are excepted because of their remoteness from other west side areas of the School District.
3. The School System shall provide gifted and talented services for students identified as gifted or talented at the school they attend.
5

4. The School District is authorized to continue to utilize all existing regular and comprehensive schools and special schools in the School System.
5. Subject to the exception in Paragraph 11 of this Consent Order, the School District is authorized to continue to utilize the School System’s previously existing magnet schools. Where admissions to previously existing magnet schools utilize entrance and/or retention requirements the same shall be based on non-discriminatory, race neutral requirements and criteria, and a recruitment plan shall be devised by the School System, in cooperation with plaintiffs, that shall seek to assure, to the extent practicable, a desegregated student enrollment in such schools.
The School System shall devise appropriate forms for students seeking a magnet school transfer and for students enrolled in magnet schools seeking to return to their attendance zone school. All such transfers for students in grades pre-kindergarten through seven shall be made at least 30 days prior to the commencement of a school year or, where permitted by a particular magnet program with sufficient grade level capacity to accept a transferring magnet student, at least 30 days prior to the beginning of the second semester of a school year. Students in grades pre-kindergarten through seven wishing to return to their student attendance zone school shall submit the appropriate form prior to the end of the school year of enrollment in a magnet school. Students in grades 8 through 12 seeking enrollment in a magnet school shall submit the appropriate transfer form at least 30 days prior to the commencement of a school year. Students in grades 8 through 11 wishing to return to their student attendance school shall submit the appropriate form prior to the end of school year of enrollment in a magnet school.
Students entering into the School System for the first time may seek enrollment in a magnet school upon entering into the School System from another school district or from a private or home
6

school situated within the Parish of Jefferson where such in-term enrollment is permitted by a magnet program and neither grade level nor school overcrowding will result.
Each magnet transfer shall be approved by the person employed or designated in accordance with Paragraph 32 of this Consent Order and no magnet transferring student shall be permitted enrollment in a receiving school in absence of such approval.
6. The School Board shall prepare a plan, including student attendance zones and objective criteria, that will assure that all magnet schools in the system are or will be substantially equal to the extent feasible in all the appropriate areas, including but not limited to, such areas as core and elective course offerings, facilities, and faculties. This plan shall be submitted to the Court for its review no later than November 1, 2008 with the intent of being implemented, upon Court approval, in the 2009/10 school year.
Until further orders from this Court, the students presently attending the existing magnet schools and those accepted for attendance during the 2008/09 school year shall be allowed to attend magnet school(s) as follows: students domiciled on the west bank of the Mississippi River who are enrolled in an east bank magnet school and students domiciled on the east bank who are enrolled in a west bank magnet school shall be provided with the option to elect to continue enrollment in such magnet school through the last grade offered at the magnet school. Upon the entry of an order by the court declaring that west bank magnet schools offer substantially equal educational opportunities as magnet schools situated on the east side of the Mississippi River, no student domiciled on the west bank of the river shall be permitted to enroll in an east bank magnet school and no student domiciled on the east bank of the river shall be permitted to enroll in a west bank magnet school beyond the last grade offered at the magnet school of current enrollment. However,
7

the applicable transfer provisions of Paragraphs 11 and 12 shall apply. 7. The School District shall utilize majority-to-minority (“M-to-M”) transfers to further
facilitate the desegregation of the School System. An M-to-M transfer shall permit a student whose race is in the majority at his/her attendance zone school to attend a school in which his/her race is in the minority. The School District shall establish one or, when practicable in terms of travel distance and transportation costs, more M-to-M transfer receiving schools for M-to-M transfer sending schools for the purpose of complying with the requirement of establishing an M-to-M transfer plan to further the desegregation of the School System. M-to-M transfers for students enrolled in grades pre-kindergarten through eighth shall be made at least 30 days prior to the commencement of a school year or at least 30 days prior to the beginning of the second semester of a school year. M-to-M transfers for students enrolled in grades nine through twelve shall only be made at least 30 days prior to the commencement of a school year because of differing class scheduling formats among schools at the high school level. An election by an M-to-M transfer student enrolled in grades pre-kindergarten through eighth to return to his/her attendance zone school may be made at least 30 days prior to the commencement of a school year or at least 30 days prior to the beginning of the second semester of a school year. An election by an M-to-M student enrolled in grades nine through twelve to return to his/her attendance zone school shall be made at the end of a school year.
Students entering into the School System for the first time may seek enrollment in an M-toM receiving school in the same manner and within the same time frame as students already enrolled in the School System.
No M-to-M transfer shall be denied based upon lack of capacity of the receiving school
8

where the transfer request is made 30 days or more prior to the commencement of a school year. M-to-M transfer requests made 30 or more days prior to the beginning of a second semester of a school year may be denied where the transfer would result in grade overcrowding as determined by state law or regulation on class size. In such an event, the student shall be permitted to make an alternate receiving school selection that would not result in grade overcrowding.
The School System shall devise appropriate forms for students seeking enrollment in M-to-M transfer receiving schools and for students enrolled in M-to-M transfer receiving schools seeking to return to their attendance zone school.
Each M-to-M transfer shall be approved by the person employed or designated in accordance with Paragraph 32 of this Consent Order and no M-to-M transferring student shall be permitted enrollment in a receiving school in absence of such approval.
Once enrolled in an M-to-M transfer receiving school, a student shall continue such enrollment from grade level to grade level served by the M-to-M transfer receiving school unless a timely notice is given of a decision to return to the student’s attendance zone school.
The School System shall undertake steps to recruit students for M-to-M transfers. 8. The School District shall permit academic transfers at the high school level (grade levels nine through twelve) for students wishing to attend a school on the same side of the river other than their attendance zone school for the purpose of enrolling in a course or courses of study required for eligibility for TOPS’ scholarships that are not offered at their attendance zone school, to participate in an International Baccalaureate program, or for enrollment in specialty courses as defined by the superintendent of schools and concurred in by counsel for plaintiffs. The option to elect an academic transfer may only be exercised at the commencement of a school year by
9

submitting an appropriate academic transfer form at least 30 days prior to commencement of a school year. An election by a student enrolled in a receiving school on an academic transfer to return to his/her attendance zone school may only be made at the end of a school year.
Each academic transfer shall be approved by the person employed or designated in accordance with Paragraph 32 of this Consent Order and no academic transferring student shall be permitted enrollment in a receiving school in absence of such approval.
9. With the exception of students enrolled in, or electing to become enrolled in, an elementary, middle, or high school pursuant to a magnet (inclusive of participation in an International Baccalaureate program), M-to-M, or, at the high school level, an academic transfer, students entering into their last year of elementary school, the eighth grade of middle school, and eleventh and twelfth grade in School Year 2008-09 and who otherwise would be assigned to an attendance zone school other than their school of enrollment during School Year 2007-08 shall be afforded an option, to be exercised prior to the end of School Year 2007-08, to continue enrollment in such school.
Each such option election shall be approved by the person employed or designated in accordance with Paragraph 32 of this Consent Order and no student electing such option shall be permitted enrollment in absence of such approval.
In the event of school or grade overcrowding, in the inverse order of receipt of election option forms, students electing the option will be required to enroll in their respective student attendance zone schools until such time as the number of students electing the option shall equal the number of students necessary to assure that school or grade overcrowding shall not occur.
10. Commencing with School Year 2008-09, high school interscholastic athletic
10

eligibility shall be governed by rules of the Louisiana High School Athletic Association with the following exceptions:
A. M-to-M, magnet, and academic transfer students, regardless of their grade level at the time of transfer, shall be eligible to participate in all interscholastic athletic programs in the year of the initial transfer except those for which a regular competitive season is then in progress. This exception is only applicable where transfers made pursuant to it will improve in number or percentage the enrollment of students in the receiving school’s minority race (whether white, black or other race) population.
B. M-to-M, magnet, and academic transfer students electing to return to their attendance zone school shall be immediately eligible to participate in all interscholastic athletic programs.
C. Nothing in this Paragraph shall affect athletic eligibility as provided for in the School Board’s “Pass to Play” policy.
11. Children of principals, assistant principals, guidance counselors, teachers, coaches and other certificated school employees, and classified personnel (comprised of all non-certified employees) enrolled in grades kindergarten through twelfth grade may attend the regular or comprehensive school in which their parent or legal guardian is assigned or employed. With respect to magnet schools, such children must meet the admissions standards established for enrollment in a particular magnet school and thereafter comply with such enrollment standards as may be prescribed for continued enrollment.
Regardless of a student's domicile, enrollment in the Patrick Taylor School for Science and Technology Magnet School shall be available to all students meeting entrance requirements for
11

attendance at the school. 12. Commencing with School Year 2008-09, student transfers not specifically provided
for in this Consent Order are eliminated; except that in extraordinary circumstances a transfer request may be granted at any time during a school year upon written application of a parent, guardian, or custodial relative where the reason for the transfer is described to plaintiffs prior to the effective date of the transfer and the transfer request is thereafter jointly approved by the School System and plaintiffs through their respective legal counsel.
In the event that an extraordinary circumstances transfer is not approved, the parent may appeal to the Transfer Committee within ten (10) days of date of the notice of denial. The decision of the Transfer Committee shall be final.
The Transfer Committee shall consist of three persons; a person appointed by the School System and a person appointed by the plaintiffs. These two appointees shall select a third person to also serve on the committee.
Each extraordinary circumstance transfer request must be accompanied by supporting documentation provided by a non-related person such as a treating physician, social worker, or other person unrelated to the person submitting the request and the student on whose behalf the request is made.
Approval of an extraordinary circumstance transfer request shall not be unreasonably withheld.
An extraordinary circumstance transfer shall be approved to permit a sibling to enroll in the school of enrollment of a student receiving severe handicap services when such services are not available at the severely handicapped student's attendance zone school.
12

No extraordinary circumstance transfer shall be approved where the reason in support of the transfer is exclusively based upon pre and/or post-school child care considerations.
In cases where an extraordinary circumstance transfer request is based upon the safety of a student at a particular school, a provisional transfer may be unilaterally granted by the School System. No provisional transfer may become permanent until approved by plaintiffs or the Transfer Committee.
In the event that a provisional transfer is not approved, the parent may appeal to the Transfer Committee within ten (10) day of date of the notice of denial. If timely approval is sought, the provisional transfer shall remain in effect pending a ruling by the Committee. If timely approval is not sought, the provisional transfer shall be revoked.
With the exception of extraordinary circumstance transfer requests based upon compelling medical considerations, no extraordinary circumstance transfer shall be approved for attendance at a particular school where enrollment in the school or a grade level therein would result in overcrowding or where enrollment would result in a desegregated school becoming racially identifiable.
13. The School System, in cooperation with plaintiffs, shall devise plans to be implemented for the commencement of School Year 2008-09 that are aimed at increasing participation of black students in magnet programs, gifted study programs, Advanced Placement and honors courses, and International Baccalaureate programs. In the event the parties are unable to agree upon such plans, either or both of the parties may present their plan or plans to the court for approval.
14. Student discipline shall be administered on a non-discriminatory basis. The School
13

District shall implement a policy to satisfy this provision. INTER-DISTRICT TRANSFERS:
15. Except in cases in which an order authorizing inter-district transfers has been entered by a federal district court with supervision over the sending school system in a pending school desegregation lawsuit, no such inter-district transfer shall be permitted for an inter-district transferring student seeking to attend a school operated by the School System. In cases in which such an order is entered, inter-district transfers shall be subject to the following conditions:
A. Any applicable state law requirements have been met for inter-district student transfers between the School System and the sending school system.
B. No inter-district transfer shall be permitted that would serve to increase the majority race enrollment in a racially identifiable school or result in a desegregated school becoming racially identifiable.
16. Inter-district transfers shall be permitted where the sending school district is not under federal judicial supervision in a school desegregation lawsuit under the following conditions:
A. Any applicable state law requirements have been met for inter-district student transfers between the School System and the sending school system.
B. No inter-district transfer shall be permitted that would serve to increase the majority race enrollment in a racially identifiable school or result in a desegregated school becoming racially identifiable.
17. With the exception of special education students whose sole exceptionality consist in their identification as “gifted” and/or “talented,” a special education student residing outside the School District may be enrolled in the School System where the sending school system
14

does not provide the special educational services required by such special education student. ADMINISTRATIVE, FACULTY AND NON-INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT STAFF ASSIGNMENTS:
18. Consistent with current School Board policy, principals, assistant principals, and deans of schools shall be recommended for appointment on a non-discriminatory basis by the superintendent of schools subject to the approval of the School Board, whose approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. School assignments for principals, assistant principals, and deans shall be made without regard to the historical racial identification of a school. The historical racial identification of schools references the four racially identifiable black schools and the fifteen racially identifiable white schools referred to in the 1971 Order of this court in this lawsuit.
19. Upon court approval of this Consent Order, Guidance counselors, teachers, coaches and other certificated school employees, and classified personnel shall be recommended for employment on a non-discriminatory basis applicable to such employees and positions by the superintendent of schools subject to the approval of the School Board, whose approval shall not be unreasonably withheld.
Upon court approval of this Consent Order, school assignments for guidance counselors, teachers, coaches and other certificated school employees, and classified personnel shall be made by the superintendent of schools. Upon court approval of this Consent Order, no guidance counselors, teachers, coaches and other certificated school employees, or classified personnel may transfer from their assigned school to another school within the School System without the express written approval of the superintendent of schools.
Those terms and conditions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between the School Board and the Jefferson Federation of Teachers (JFT) in conflict with this Order shall be
15

without effect and shall be superseded by this Order. In particular, Article 18 of the CBA is declared to be superseded and without effect during the term of this Order because it interferes with the ability of the School Board and the superintendent of schools to timely, efficiently and effectively balance and maintain the stability of the faculties based on race, certification, educational experience and other aspects of this Order.
With respect to Article 18 and any other article determined by the superintendent to be in conflict with this Order, the superintendent, or her designee, shall meet, confer, discuss and receive input from representatives of the JFT on the establishment of a procedure to be implemented by the superintendent in lieu Article 18 or any other article in conflict. The procedures established by the superintendent shall be reduced to writing but may be amended if necessary at any time. To the extent the above procedure conflicts with Article 7, said article is also hereby declared to be superseded.
20. The School District is divided by the Mississippi River and portions of the southerly most areas of the School District, comprised of the towns of Grand Isle and Lafitte are remote and of considerable distance from the areas of the School District in proximity to the Mississippi River. This geography poses significant obstacles with respect to the assignment of school personnel and renders impracticable faculty and classified personnel assignment plans based upon the employment of teachers and classified personnel on a school system-wide basis. For these reasons, the faculty and classified personnel assignment plans applicable for this Consent Order do not address the towns of Grand Isle and Lafitte (as defined herein) and will be based instead upon the following considerations:
A. Faculty assignments (inclusive of guidance counselors, librarians, teachers, coaches and other certificated school
16

employees other than military officers and non-commissioned officers assigned to a school) on the east side of the Mississippi River shall be comprised of not more than ninetyfour (94) and not less than seventy-eight (78) percent white teachers, and not more than twenty (20) and not less than four (4) percent black teachers.
B. Faculty assignments (inclusive of guidance counselors, librarians, teachers and other certificated school employees other than military officers and non-commissioned officers assigned to a school) on the west side of the Mississippi River shall be comprised of not more than seventy-six (76) and not less than fifty-six (56) percent white teachers, and not more than forty (40) and not less than twenty (20) percent black teachers.
C. To the extent practicable, the School System shall assign classified personnel at schools on the east side of the Mississippi River in proportion to the total number of white and black classified personnel presently employed with a deviation of twenty (20) percent by means of striving to fill vacancies as the same arise at a particular school. Accordingly, where meeting this assignment criterion requires employment of a white classified employee, preference shall be given to a qualified white applicant and where this assignment criterion requires employment of a black classified employee, preference shall be given to a qualified black applicant. Where no qualified applicant applies of the race needed to meet this assignment criterion, a qualified applicant of the race not needed to meet this assignment criterion may be employed by the School System.
D. To the extent practicable, the School System shall assign classified personnel at schools on the west side of the Mississippi River in proportion to the total number of white and black classified personnel presently employed with a deviation of twenty (20) percent by means of striving to fill vacancies as the same arise at a particular school. Accordingly, where meeting this assignment criterion requires employment of a white classified employee, preference shall be given to a qualified white applicant and where this assignment criterion requires employment of a black classified employee, preference shall be given to a qualified black applicant. Where no qualified applicant
17

applies of the race needed to meet this assignment criterion, a qualified applicant of the race not needed to meet this assignment criterion may be employed by the School System. “Classified personnel” includes collectively all non-certificated School System employees with the exception non-certificated employees serving in an instructional capacity such as military officers or retirees employed in connection with JROTC programs, persons employed in connection with vocational training programs, and any other such School System employees. Full implementation by the School District of the faculty assignment/classified personnel assignment plans in this Paragraph shall be deemed for purposes of this Consent Order as in satisfactory compliance with the faculty and classified personnel assignment requirements in Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate School District, 419 F.2d 1211 (5th 1969). The faculty assignment plan shall be fully implemented by the School District not later than the commencement of School Year 2010-2011. The School District shall strive to implement to the extent practicable the classified personnel assignment plan by the commencement of School Year 2010-2011. 21. In order to encourage a greater degree of racial diversity of faculties assigned to east and west side schools, the School District is authorized to offer financial stipends to white teachers residing on the east side of the Mississippi River to teach at schools situated on the west side of the river and to offer such stipends to black teachers residing on the west side of the river to teach at schools situated on the east side of the river. This authorization is not mandatory but may be utilized by the School Board in its discretion where sufficient unencumbered funding may be available. 22. The School District shall implement a policy to promote the recruitment and retention of black certified employees.
18

23. The School District may move the court for a declaration of unitary status individually or collectively or in any combination in regard to Singleton compliance with respect to faculty and non-instructional support staff personnel assignments at any point in time compliance is achieved with respect to the school staffing requirements in this Consent Order, and, in regard to school-site administrative assignments, unitary status may be sought when compliance is achieved with respect to legal requirements pertaining to non-discriminatory assignments of administrative personnel. For purposes of this Consent Judgment, “administrative personnel” means principals and assistant principals. RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS FOR SCHOOL EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS OF INSTRUCTION:
24. Within sixty (60) days of the court’s approval of this Consent Order, the School Board shall adopt and the School System shall implement the resource allocation policy attached as Attachment “B” to this Consent Order. FACILITIES:
25. The School Board shall adopt and the School System shall implement the facilities policy and plan attached as Attachment “C” to this Consent Order. QUALITY OF THE EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCE:
26. With the exception of special education, Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps instructors, or persons who may offer instruction in specialized areas of learning or skill such as physicians, nurses, attorneys, or persons providing training in highly skilled vocational areas, consistent with current School Board policy all classroom teachers, coaches, guidance counselors, librarians, and resource teachers assigned to faculties of magnet schools shall be certified to teach at the grade level/course of instruction to which they are assigned.
19

27. With the exception of special education, Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps instructors, or persons who may offer instruction in specialized areas of learning or skill such as physicians, nurses, attorneys, or persons providing training in highly skilled vocational areas, the School System shall undertake to assure the equal assignment of certified teachers, inclusive of speech therapists, on a percentage basis, to each regular and comprehensive and special school.
“Teacher” means classroom teachers, coaches, guidance counselors, librarians, and resource teachers assigned to faculties of regular and comprehensive, and special schools.
28. With the exception of magnet schools, the School System shall undertake steps to assure to the extent practicable an equal assignment of teachers, as defined in Paragraph 27 of this Consent Order, holding post-graduate degrees and specialist certificates in each regular and comprehensive, and special school.
29. In order to assure the stability of the faculty at each magnet, regular and comprehensive, and special school, teachers, as defined in Paragraph 27 of this Consent Order, once assigned to the faculty of a school shall continue in the position of assignment for six consecutive semesters following full implementation of the faculty assignment plan as contained in Paragraphs 20 (A) and (B), and 26 through 29 of this Consent Order. In exceptional circumstances, or in order to assure compliance with other requirements of this section of this Consent Order, the superintendent of schools may reassign one or more teachers on the faculty of a school.
30. The faculty assignment requirements stated in Paragraphs 26, 27, 28, and 29 of this Consent Order address the quality of the educational experience and shall be fully implemented not later than the commencement of School Year 2010-2011. Once the faculty assignment requirements are fully implemented, teacher assignments shall be reviewed every other year by the superintendent
20

of schools to assure continuing compliance to the extent practicable with said faculty assignment requirements. Following such review, a report shall be provided to plaintiffs’ counsel addressing the review of said faculty assignments.
31. The School District is committed to reducing the number of student drop-outs. The superintendent of schools shall review the School District’s current drop-out prevention policy and if necessary make such revisions therein to implement the drop-out intervention program provided for in this Paragraph for the commencement of School Year 2008-09. The drop-out prevention policy to be implemented for the commencement of School Year 2008-09 shall:
A. Provide preventive counseling and such other forms of intervention deemed feasible and appropriate for students who appear at-risk of dropping-out of school.
B. To the extent feasible in terms of the School System’s human and financial resources, provide for follow-up services for non-returning students suspected of dropping-out (e.g., students withdrawing from a school where no request is received from another school for student transcripts) aimed at assisting them to satisfy alternative high school diploma requirements.
C. Review special education course offerings to determine whether they address student needs in the sense of assuring to the extent feasible that special education course offerings are designed to place students with special education designations in a position to become employable upon completion of high school and/or eligible for post-high school training or other educational opportunities.
D. Collect and compile statistical data on drop-outs at each middle and high school for annual presentation to the School Board. The annual report shall include the number of drop-outs for each school, the race of the student, the grade of the student, a description of any pre-
21

drop-out intervention services offered to the student, and a description of any follow-up, post dropout services rendered by the school, if any. Where post drop-out services are performed by the School System as opposed to individual schools, a separate report shall be provided to the School Board. ADMINISTRATION/IMPLEMENTATION/MONITORING:
32. The superintendent of schools shall employ or designate a person to coordinate and oversee the implementation of this Consent Order on a full-time basis until modified by the court on joint motion of the parties or upon contradictory motion brought by either of the parties. The person so employed or designated shall report directly to the superintendent of schools. A copy of any written reports made by such person to the superintendent of schools shall be provided to the court and counsel for the parties.
Once employed or designated, such person may only be terminated for good cause shown to the court. The person so employed or designated may be suspended with pay during the pendency of any motion filed by the superintendent of schools seeking such person’s termination for good cause shown to the court.
33. The parties shall jointly select three (3) individuals and nominate them to the Court for the Court to appoint one of them to serve, at the Court’s discretion and pleasure, as monitor to perform the duties listed below and any other duties the Court may require. The monitor shall review the School District’s implementation of this Consent Order, offer suggestions to the School District as to possible methods or procedures which might be implemented to further enhance desegregative aims, and prepare an annual report to the parties and the court addressing each provision of this Consent Order as to the progress of the School District’s implementation.
22

The annual report shall be filed with the court and a copy submitted to the School District’s counsel and plaintiffs’ counsel at the conclusion of each school year commencing on July 1, 2009, and thereafter on that date of each succeeding calendar year during the period this Consent Order or any portion of it shall remain in force and effect.
Within ninety days (90) of receipt of the monitor’s annual report plaintiffs shall submit a written report to the School District identifying any area or areas of material non-compliance by the School System with any of the provisions of this Consent Order, if any are deemed to have occurred. If a report of material non-compliance is submitted by plaintiffs to the School District, a copy of the report shall be concurrently filed with the court.
In the event a written report of material non-compliance is submitted by plaintiffs, the School System shall either undertake corrective action during the next school year or submit to plaintiffs a response contesting any area or areas of asserted material non-compliance contained in the report submitted by plaintiffs. A copy of the School District’s response report shall be concurrently filed with the court.
Where the School District undertakes corrective action in response to an area or areas of material non-compliance, the nature of the corrective action shall be described in writing and submitted to plaintiffs and the monitor, together with an implementation schedule for the coming school year where appropriate. If the School District submits a corrective response report to plaintiffs and the monitor, a copy of it shall be concurrently filed with the court. At the conclusion of the school year in which corrective action is taken a report detailing the action shall be filed by the School District with the court and a copy shall be submitted to plaintiffs and the monitor. Thereafter, plaintiffs shall, within ninety (90) days of receipt of the report on the corrective action,
23

respond in a writing advising the School District and the court as to whether the corrective action is deemed to have brought the School System into compliance with this Consent Order. In the event of disagreement among the parties as to whether the corrective action is sufficient to effect compliance with this Consent Order, the School District may resort to the court for a declaration as to whether the corrective action taken was sufficient to effect compliance with this Consent Order.
Where the School District submits a response report contesting an area of material noncompliance contained in a report of material non-compliance submitted by plaintiffs, either party may resort to the court for a declaration as to whether the School System is or is not in material noncompliance with any provision of this Consent Order.
In the event a report of material non-compliance is not timely submitted by plaintiffs, the omission to timely submit the report of material non-compliance shall serve as a conclusive presumption of material compliance by the School System as to all provisions of this Consent Order for the preceding year covered by the monitor’s July 1 report.
A conclusive presumption of material compliance also shall attach to those provisions of this Consent Order not specifically addressed by plaintiffs in any written report of material noncompliance.
A conclusive presumption of material compliance by the School System shall further attach with respect to a failure by plaintiffs to timely submit and file a written response to a School District report on corrective action taken in response to a prior year’s report of material non-compliance by plaintiffs.
Fees and expenses of the monitor shall be paid by the School District pursuant to terms of a contract entered into between the monitor and the School Board. The monitor may be terminated
24

at the pleasure of the Court, with or without prior notice, and upon such termination, the School
Board shall no longer be obligated under said contract. The contract shall provide for at least four
visits into the School District by the monitor each school year during which any portion of this
Consent Order remains in force and effect.
34. The School District shall consult with the Intercultural Development Research
Association, a similar organization, or engage the services of one or more consultants in connection
with training and related issues required in this Consent Order, and seek such assistance as may be
available from the Louisiana Department of Education or other organizations or entities (including,
but not limited to, grant assistance) as needed to implement this Consent Order.
35. Submissions provided for in this Consent Order shall be delivered via first class mail
and addressed as follows:
For Dandridge Plaintiffs – Gideon T. Carter, III, Esq. Attorney at Law P. O. Box 80264 123 St. Ferdinand Street (70802-5737) Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70898-0264
For Jefferson Parish School District – Charles L. Patin, Jr., Esq. KEAN, MILLER, HAWTHORNE, D’ARMOND, McCOWAN & JARMAN, L.L.P. Post Office Box 3513 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70821
36. Prior orders or portions of orders of the court presently in effect and in conflict with
the provisions of this Consent Order are hereby vacated.
Prior orders or portions of orders of the court presently in effect and not in conflict
with the provisions of this Consent Order shall remain in force and effect.
25

37. This Consent Order shall terminate on June 30, 2011. In the event the school district has not substantially complied with one or more provisions of this Consent Order at the time of its termination, such provisions may be continued by the Court or further remedies may be ordered. Any party or the Court, ex proprio motu, may move at any time to have the School Board declared unitary in whole or in any of the particular areas covered by this Consent Order.
SIGNED in open court following conduct of a fairness hearing in the city of New Orleans, Hello This is a Test
Louisiana, this __1_4_t_h__ day of _____M__a_y________, 20_0_8_.

__________________________________________ JUDGE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Gideon T. Carter, III

/s/ Jack A. Grant

Gideon T. Carter, III, T.A. (La. Bar No. 14136) Jack A. Grant (La. Bar # 6222)

Attorney at Law

GRANT & BARROW, P.L.C.

P. O. Box 80264

P. O. Box 484

123 St. Ferdinand Street (70802)

Gretna, Louisiana 70054

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70898-0264

Telephone: 504-368-7888

Office Phone: 225-343-1111

Facsimile: 504-368-7263

Office Facsimile: 225-334-7824

E-mail: jgrant@grantbarrow.com

Home Phone/Facsimile: 225-926-1760

Email: gideon.carter@lawyer4u.com

Attorney for Defendant Jefferson Parish

School Board

Attorney for Plaintiff Lena Vern Dandridge, et al.

/s/ Charles L. Patin, Jr.

Charles L. Patin, Jr., T.A. (La. Bar No. 10338)

KEAN, MILLER, HAWTHORNE, D’ARMOND,

McCOWAN & JARMAN, L.L.P.

Post Office Box 3513 (70821)

One American Place, 18th Floor

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70825

Telephone: 225-387-0999

Facsimile: 225-388-9133

E-mail: charlie.patin@keanmiller.com

Attorneys for Defendant Jefferson Parish School Board

26

ATTACHMENT “A” STUDENT ATTENDANCE ZONES The attached student attendance zones shall be implemented for the commencement of School Year 2008-09. With the exception of the student transfer options expressly provided for in the Consent Order, students shall attend the school zoned for the domicile of their parent or guardian (where the parent or guardian is domiciled in the Jefferson Parish School District) or the principal residence of the student’s parent or guardian (where the parent or guardian’s domicile is outside the Jefferson Parish School District). Students enrolled in the Jefferson Parish School System who are domiciled or otherwise reside outside the Jefferson Parish School District shall be permitted to attend schools operated by the school district only in conformity with Paragraphs 11 and 19 of this Consent Order. Attached also is a summary chart identifying each school by grade level and specifying its status to the extent of the desegregation of its student body based on projected School Year 2008-09 enrollment.
27

ATTACHMENT “B”
RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS POLICY
The following Resource Allocations Policy is hereby adopted by the Jefferson Parish School Board:
With the exception of federal and/or state specially earmarked and/or dedicated funds; private grants or donations of things earmarked for a particular school or class or grouping of schools; insurance payments earmarked for a particular school, grouping of schools or other school district facilities; funding for magnet schools irrespective of source, and remediation funding for racially identifiable black elementary schools at which no magnet program is housed, expenditures by the school district for supplies and materials of instruction shall be budgeted on a per pupil basis.
1. The superintendent of schools shall approve, prior to submission, all grant applications for federal, state, or private entity or foundation funds submitted by any teacher, administrator, or employee of the school district.
Grant revenues shall be accounted for by the school district in accordance with the school district’s financial accounting and reporting procedures.
The school system shall provide necessary support to schools in need of assistance in connection with the making grant applications. Schools in need of assistance shall be responsible for contacting the superintendent of schools or his/her designee for grant application support.
2. All non-budgeted funds collected or received at the school level for any reason and all expenditures of such funds shall be accounted for by the school district in accordance with the school district’s financial accounting and reporting procedures. Funds included under this Paragraph include, but are not limited to, all monies raised by parent groups and organizations, athletic booster and support clubs or organizations, music (band or choral) booster or support clubs or organizations, school-based fund-raising activities including those of school sponsored or approved clubs and organizations, or monies received from other sources or through other fund-raising activities by a particular school or grouping of schools.
With the exception of federal and/or state specially earmarked and/or dedicated funds, insurance payments earmarked for a particular school, grouping of schools or other school district facilities, and funding for magnet schools irrespective of source, prior to an expenditure of non-budgeted funds by a school in excess of $10,000.00, written approval of the superintendent of schools or his/her designee shall be obtained by the principal of the school. Such purchases shall
28

not be divided into increments below $10,000.00 for the purpose or result of avoiding the requirements of this Paragraph of this policy. A report as to approved expenditures of non-budgeted funds shall be provided to plaintiffs’ counsel at least once during each school semester.
With the exception of federal and/or state specially earmarked and/or dedicated funds, insurance payments earmarked for a particular school, grouping of schools or other school district facilities, and funding for magnet schools irrespective of source, prior to an expenditure of non-budgeted funds by a school for the procurement of computer hardware or software written approval of the superintendent of schools or his/her designee shall be obtained. Prior to acceptance of a donation of any computer hardware or software, written approval of the superintendent of schools or his/her designee shall be obtained to assure that such donation shall not result in a duplication of magnet programs or gifted courses of study offered by the school system, or establishment of a magnet program. A report as to approved donations of computer hardware or software shall be provided to plaintiffs’ counsel at least once during each school semester.
It is the policy of the school board that equity be maintained in connection with supplies and materials of instruction available to each regular and comprehensive and special school to the extent practicable. The superintendent of schools or his/her designee shall monitor each such school’s non-budgeted fund accounts to assure that expenditures of such funds are not used to duplicate, or otherwise result in a duplication of, magnet program courses of study or gifted courses of study or establishment of a magnet program, and that expenditures of such funds do not create inequities with respect to supplies and materials of instruction. A copy of the monitoring report assuring that non-budgeted funds are not being expended to duplicate, or result in duplication of, magnet program courses of study or gifted courses of study, or for establishment of a magnet program without court approval shall be provided to plaintiffs’ counsel at least once during each school semester.
Non-budgeted funds shall not be used for construction or other permanent structural additions to school facilities, major renovations or repairs of school facilities, or employment or payment of any personnel at a school where such funding is used to compensate a person for instructional, technical and/or support services rendered on a regular basis during regular hours of a school day.
Non-budgeted funds may be used to compensate teachers or other persons employed by the school system who act or serve as assistant coaches where the major portion of such service occurs after regular hours of a school day.
Non-budgeted funds may be used on an intermittent basis to engage contractual services for maintenance of computer laboratories and for other academic and non-academic purposes. Non-budgeted funds also may be used for other activities and in payment of persons providing services in connection therewith where the activity is conducted after regular hours of a school day for the purpose of providing an enhancement for participating students. Participation shall be open to all students interested in participation in such activities.
29

Cooperative fund raising endeavors between schools are permitted and encouraged subject to guidelines promulgated by the superintendent of schools.
30

ATTACHMENT “C”
FACILITIES POLICY
With the exceptions of (a) insurance proceeds specifically earmarked for a particular school, structure, or facility, (b) funds derived from or through a department or agency of the state or the United States that are earmarked for a particular school, structure, or facility, and/or (c) funds earmarked for a usage prior to the effective date of this Consent Order, all expenditures of funds for the renovation, repair and maintenance of schools and school related structures shall be prioritized and expended in accordance with the following guidelines:
1. Within 180 days of court approval of this Consent Order, the School Board shall conduct a comprehensive facilities assessment of all of its schools and school related structures that shall prioritize the repair, renovation, and maintenance needs of each school and school related structure. The comprehensive facilities assessment shall be reviewed and updated on an annual basis.
2. Upon completion of the comprehensive facilities assessment, all expenditures of all repair, renovation, and maintenance funds of the School District, less a reasonable amount set aside as a reserve, shall be expended in accordance with this policy for such period of time as may be required to complete all repairs, renovations, and maintenance needs identified in the comprehensive facilities assessment.
3. The comprehensive facilities assessment shall include an assessment and prioritized ranking of schools and school related structures based upon the following categories: (a) major structural needs of schools and school related structures such as roofs, major structural walls and supports, (b) repair or replacement of HVAC systems, (c) restroom and plumbing repairs and replacements, and (d) repair or replacement of electrical systems.
4. In the event the court should approve any new magnet schools for purposes of further desegregating the School System, the schools at which such magnet programs will be housed shall receive a first priority for expenditures for such improvements as may be required to accommodate the program or programs constituting the magnet and any such further improvements as discussed in Paragraph 3 of this policy.
5. Construction of new schools or the expansion of an existing school’s capacity shall be undertaken with a view to further the desegregation of the school system and such construction or expansions shall first obtain the approval of the court in the Dandridge Lawsuit.
6. Unanticipated major facilities replacements, repairs, or renovations caused by fire, storm, flooding, or other disasters may be immediately addressed without regard to priority based
31

upon the comprehensive facilities assessment upon the approval of the court in the Dandridge Lawsuit where insurance or other non-school district funding is inadequate to address damage to a school or school related structure, or other school district facility.
32

 
 Case 2:64-cv-14801-KDE-JCW Document 190 Filed 01/05/09 Page 1 of 16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LENA VERN DANDRIDGE, et al.

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 64-14801

vs.

SECTION: N(2)

JEFFERSON PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, et al. JUDGE: KURT D. ENGELHARDT

O R D E R and R E A S O N S
Before the Court are two motions: the “Advanced Studies Magnet Plan” (Rec. Doc. 186) (hereinafter “Magnet Plan”) and the the Motion for Approval of New Magnet Programs (Rec. Doc. 182) (hereinafter “New Magnet Programs Motion”), both submitted by the Jefferson Parish School Board (“JPSB”).
The unopposed New Magnet Programs Motion was filed on July 17, 2008. By order of this Court, consideration of this motion was deferred until the entire Magnet Plan could be considered. See Order of July 22, 2008 (Rec. Doc. 183). The motion to approve the Magnet Plan is also unopposed but went to a fairness hearing on December 12, 2008, at which several members of the community spoke against the proposal. The Court has also received several dozen letters concerning the Magnet Plan, generally opposed but with many favorable comments, as well as supplemental memoranda requested by the Court at the hearing on the 12th. After considering both motions, original and supplemental memoranda, and the comments offered at the hearing and submitted by the public in writing, the Court rules as set forth herein.
1

Case 2:64-cv-14801-KDE-JCW Document 190 Filed 01/05/09 Page 2 of 16
I. BACKGROUND The long history of this case was adequately described by the Court in its ruling from the bench on March 14, 2008, and need not be recounted here. See Tr. at 3-7 (Hearing of March 14, 2008). For present purposes, it is enough to note that on March 8, 2007, the Court issued an order directing the parties to jointly (a) identify conditions or facets of the operations of the Jefferson Parish Public School System (the “school system”) in which pockets of inequality no longer exist and in which the school system’s operations are in compliance with the Constitution; (b) identify conditions or facets of the operations of the school system where further remedial action may be required to bring the school system into compliance with the Constitution; and (c) provide the Court with a proposed plan in the form of a consent order, prepared through good faith efforts conducted in close cooperation, that when fully implemented by the JPSB will bring the remaining facets of the operations of the school system into compliance with the Constitution. See Order of March 8, 2007 (Rec. Doc. 117) (Zainey, J.). Pursuant to that order, the parties jointly presented to the Court a motion listing suggested modifications to existing orders. See Joint Mot. For Approval (hereinafter “Joint Motion”) (Rec. Doc. 132). On March 14, 2008, the Court approved portions and rejected other portions of the proposed order with instructions to revise it and report back to the Court within a specified time. Tr. at 16-27 (Hearing of March 14, 2008). On May 14, 2008, a fairness hearing was held regarding the revised proposed order and the order was approved. See Order of May 14, 2008 (hereinafter “May 14th Order”) (Rec. Doc. 164). That order excluded from its provisions the Jefferson Parish magnet schools and decreed that a new consent order for those schools be submitted on or before November 1, 2008. Id. at ¶6. In the meantime, the school system was
2

Case 2:64-cv-14801-KDE-JCW Document 190 Filed 01/05/09 Page 3 of 16
authorized to continue to utilize its existing magnet schools, and students attending those schools were allowed to continue in them through the schools’ terminal grade, regardless of where in the Parish they resided. Id at ¶¶5-6. As part of the operation of magnet programs prior to approval and implementation of the Magnet Plan, the JPSB also seeks the Court’s approval of new arts and Montessori magnet programs at Washington, Ames, Clancy, and Lincoln elementary schools, all racially-identifiable black schools. See New Magnet Programs Motion at ¶¶1-2.
The new Magnet Plan was submitted on October 30, 2008. The plan requires students on the respective banks of the Mississippi to attend a magnet school on their home bank and equalizes the offerings on each side of the river. Under the proposal, magnet students on the West Bank in grades K-5 will be served by Gretna No. 2 and Ruppel elementary schools. Magnet students in grades 6-8 will be housed at Thomas Jefferson Middle School. Magnet students in grades 9-12 will be housed at the site of the former Archbishop Blenk school. All of these programs are either new or existing programs. On the East Bank, magnet students in grades K-6 will be housed at Hazel Park and Metairie Academy elementary schools, while magnet students in grades 7-12 will be housed at Haynes Academy. Metarie and Haynes Academy are existing magnet programs, but Hazel Park is an existing elementary school that, under the plan, would be converted into a magnet school. All other aspects of the program–such as course offerings; teacher hiring, training, and credentialing; program size; and sports and other extracurricular offerings–are described as identical on both banks of the river.
II. ANALYSIS A. Considerations for “Fairness” of Proposed Consent Orders
The Court applies to both these proposed consent orders the same legal standard that it 3

Case 2:64-cv-14801-KDE-JCW Document 190 Filed 01/05/09 Page 4 of 16
applied in issuing its May 14th Order: settlements that are reasonable, fair, and adequate are subject to approval. The reason for requiring Court approval is to protect the rights of absent persons or non-parties whose interests may be compromised by the settlement. In most cases, the parties are free to settle a lawsuit without Court oversight, particularly when those are suits in ordinary litigation brought by one private party against another private party that will not affect the rights of any other persons. Approval of a consent order, however, requires careful Court scrutiny. The settlement must be valid under contract principles and must be fair, adequate, and reasonable. But when a consent decree contains injunctive provisions or has prospective effect, the district court must be cognizant of and sensitive to equitable considerations.
Even when a consent decree affects only the parties, the Court examines it carefully to ascertain not only that it is a fair settlement but also that it does not put the Court’s sanction to, and power behind, a decree that is unfair or in violation of the Constitution, statutory authority, or established jurisprudence. This requires a determination that the proposal represents a reasonable factual and legal determination based on the facts of the record, whether established by evidence, affidavit, or stipulation. If the decree also affects third parties, the Court must be satisfied that the effect on them is neither unreasonable nor proscribed. While ordinary contract principles would not allow one party to a consent decree to unilaterally withdraw, the district court’s discretion to disapprove the consent decree can negate the agreement.
It is also important to note that, although the Court has the power to approve or reject a settlement negotiated by the parties, the Court may not require the parties to accept a settlement or a consent order to which they have not agreed. Whereas changed circumstances may justify a Court-ordered modification of a consent decree over the objections of a party after the decree has
4

Case 2:64-cv-14801-KDE-JCW Document 190 Filed 01/05/09 Page 5 of 16
been entered, and the district court might advise the parties that it will not approve their settlement proposal unless one or more of its provisions were deleted or modified, the Court does not have the power to modify a proposed consent decree and to order its acceptance over either party’s objection.
In reviewing the standard applicable to these orders, the Court finds instructive the Fifth Circuit case of Ibarra v. Texas Employment Commission, 823 F.2d 873 (5th Cir. 1987), and Judge Sear’s opinion in Blanchard v. Forest, 1996 WL 28526 (E.D. La. 1996). While those cases do not specifically relate to desegregation matters, they are instructive and provide guidance with regard to the factors to be considered when evaluating a consent order and/or settlement for approval at a fairness hearing. The burden of proving fairness is on the parties offering the consent order for approval. B. Analysis of the Motion for New Magnet Programs
The new magnet programs proposed by the JPSB are housed at racially-identifiable black schools, two on each side of the river. See Motion for New Magnet Programs at ¶4. These schools will house new arts and Montessori magnet programs, one on each bank. Id. Importantly, the institution of magnet programs at these schools does not change the present school attendance zones. Students attending these schools will be automatically enrolled in these programs, though if a parent or guardian objects, a student may be enrolled in another school in the area. Id. at ¶4. Students from other schools may also apply to attend these schools, with admission by lottery, but as a desegregation tool white students will be given a preference for admission. Id. at ¶3. The academic offerings will be balanced, with substantially similar educational opportunities–in terms of implementation of nationally recognized, high-quality
5

Case 2:64-cv-14801-KDE-JCW Document 190 Filed 01/05/09 Page 6 of 16
curricula by highly trained personnel–and substantially similar facilities on both sides of the river. Id. at ¶¶5-7. The Court finds that this proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and especially notes that approval of this plan may cause an increase in the number of desegregated schools in the school system. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Approval of New Magnet Programs is GRANTED. C. Analysis of the Magnet Plan
Throughout this litigation, the Court has repeatedly noted that its sole concern, and the sole issue before it, was “compliance with the United States Supreme Court and the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals jurisprudential guidelines regarding desegregation of student bodies, faculty, staff, and administration.” Tr. at 59 (Hearing of May 14, 2008). While the Court is cognizant of, and sympathetic to, individual cases in which acceptance or rejection of the Magnet Plan would work a hardship for parents or children, nonetheless the Court must focus on ensuring the school system’s compliance with that desegregation jurisprudence.
Further, given the extensive history of this litigation, which is now forty-four-and-a-half years old, the Court must look towards its stated goal of closing this case with a declaration that the school system has achieved unitary status. To that end, the Court issued the May 14th Order pursuant to a 36-month deadline, after which compliance with the decree would, hopefully, result in the achievement of unitary status. See Tr. at 15 (Hearing of March 14, 2008) (finding that consent order failed “fairness” standard because it lacked a reasonable termination date); Tr. at 64-66 (Hearing of May 14, 2008) (noting three-year deadline for completion of tasks). In order to facilitate the achievement of unitary status, the May 14th Order included an extensive and minute student attendance zone plan specifically designed to move the school system
6

Case 2:64-cv-14801-KDE-JCW Document 190 Filed 01/05/09 Page 7 of 16
towards unitary status. See May 14th Order, at Ex. A; Joint Motion at 3 (noting that attendance zones were drawn “in order to bring the School district into full compliance with the Constitution”); see also id. at Attach. A (school attendance zones maps, enrollment projections, and projected desegregation status). These zones were not drawn by the Court, but rather by the school system; they were considered by the parties (and the Court as well) to be so critical to achievement of unitary status that changes to them required Court approval. See May 14th Order at ¶1. After three years (presuming unitary status had not been achieved), the zones would automatically be reassessed and redrawn, always with the goal of achieving unitary status. Id.
Now, less than six months after approval of those zones, the JPSB proposes to convert Hazel Park Elementary as part of its Magnet Plan. See Magnet Plan, at ¶¶12-15. Unlike the Motion for New Magnet Programs, the conversion proposed in the Magnet Plan will change the attendance zone of four surrounding elementary schools: Airline Park, Green Park, Harahan, and Rudolph Matas. Id. The issue of most pressing concern for this Court is how this redrawing of the recently adopted school attendance zone map will affect the school system’s progression towards unitary status. Simply put, does redrawing the map create more segregated schools, or fewer?
Unfortunately, the Court has encountered some difficulty in getting this basic question–indeed, in a school desegregation case, the basic question–fully answered. In the Magnet Plan, Defendants provided the Court with a projection of the increase in student population at the four surrounding schools that would be caused by converting Hazel Park. Id. at
7

Case 2:64-cv-14801-KDE-JCW Document 190 Filed 01/05/09 Page 8 of 16
¶13.1 This projection did not include any information regarding the racial breakdown of students
who would be reassigned to specific schools. However, the Magnet Plan did conclude that such
reassignments would “result in two new desegregated schools–Airline Park Elementary School
and Green Park Elementary School.” Id at ¶14 (emphasis added). This conclusion overstated
matters, since both Airline Park and Green Park were already projected to be desegregated under
the original school attendance zone plan approved on May 14, 2008. See Joint Motion at Attach.
A (noting both Airline Park and Green Park as “Desegregated”). The Magnet Plan is also silent
as to the effect of the Hazel Park conversion on the other two schools, Harahan and Rudolph
Matas.
This uncertainty caused the Court to request, at the December 12th hearing, information
on how redrawing the boundaries would affect the racial demographics of the neighboring schools. Tr. at __ (Hearing of December 12, 2008).2 The Defendants complied and filed the
requested material on December 18, 2008. See Mot. to Supp. Hearing Rec., at ¶1 (hereinafter
1 These projections seem to be based on the assumption that every student in Hazel Park will be reassigned to a surrounding school, an assumption that is made explicit in the supplemental filing requested by the Court. See Mot. to Supp. Hearing Rec., at ¶1 (hereinafter “Supplement”) (Rec. Doc. 189). Of course, as was noted in the Plan itself, see Magnet Plan at ¶15, and as Defendants noted repeatedly at the fairness hearing, see Tr. at __ (Hearing of December 12, 2008), some unknown number of present Hazel Park students will stay at the school even after its conversion, since they will attend the magnet program. Additionally, the migration of affected students to neighboring schools would not happen all at once, but would happen as new grades in the magnet program come “online.” See Magnet Plan at ¶12. As such, the Defendants’ projections are at best guesses, and it is unclear how the proposed conversion would actually affect the population of the neighboring schools. Of course, given the mobility of the population and countless other socioeconomic factors that affect school demographics, all such projections are guesses. The Court accepts this uncertainty as inherent in the process, and will employ the projections as the best educated guess of the JPSB, absent a showing that any other methodology is more sound.
2 A full transcript of the December 12th hearing has not yet been prepared. Once it has been completed, the Court will re-issue this Order with the corrected page numbers.
8

Case 2:64-cv-14801-KDE-JCW Document 190 Filed 01/05/09 Page 9 of 16
“Supplement”) (Rec. Doc. 189). In this iteration, the JPSB claimed, more accurately, that Airline Park and Green Park “are projected to be desegregated schools.” Id. at ¶1. The Supplement noted that the population of Harahan and Rudolph Matas would not be desegregated, but rather racially-identifiable white, with minimal changes in the student population. Id. If the conversion went forward, Defendants concluded, the school system would “realize an increase of one in the number of desegregated schools.” Id.
The Court is uncertain how Defendants reached this conclusion, and the existing record seems to refute it. Under these projections, the JPSB claims, Airline Park, Green Park, and Harahan would have the same desegregation status as they did in the original school attendance zone plan–that is, the first two would remain “desegregated” while the last would remain “racially-identifiable white.” See Joint Motion at Attach. A (noting Harahan as “raciallyidentifiable white”). But in the original school attendance zone plan, Rudolph Matas is actually listed by JPSB and Plaintiffs as “desegregated.” Id. On the other hand, the Magnet Plan notes that after the proposed conversion of Hazel Park, Rudolph Matas will become “raciallyidentifiable white.” Supplement at ¶1.3 Thus by this Court’s count, implementing Magnet Plan would result in a decrease in the number of desegregated schools in Jefferson Parish.4 This is simply not progress towards unitary status, and as such this Court is unable to conclude that Defendants have carried their burden of showing that the Magnet Plan is reasonable, fair, and
3 Relevant excerpts from the Joint Motion showing the approved school attendance zone plans are attached to this order as Attachment A.
4 To say nothing of the fact that Hazel Park, the school scheduled for conversion, is already listed as a desegregated school in the original school attendance zone plan approved on May 14, 2008. See Joint Motion at Attach. A (noting Hazel Park as “desegregated”).
9

Case 2:64-cv-14801-KDE-JCW Document 190 Filed 01/05/09 Page 10 of 16
adequate. III. CONCLUSION
The Court wishes to emphasize the precise scope and effect of this order. First, aspects of the Magnet Plan unrelated to the change in attendance zones–such the establishment of appropriate curricula, acquisition and renovation/upgrade of facilities, and teacher selection and retention–are unobjectionable and, indeed, evidence much thought and careful planning. It is hoped that any future Magnet Plan retains such high-quality features. Most importantly, the Court’s order today does not require the school system to dismantle or change its existing magnet programs, which have been in operation this school year pursuant to ¶¶5-6 of the May 14th Order. In the interim period prior to approval of a revised Magnet Plan, those programs–including those programs approved by the Court today, see supra at §II(B)–can continue in operation.
However, the Court is unable to approve the change in the existing (and recently adopted) school zone attendance plan. Once the school system achieves unitary status, the JPSB will be free–as is proper in our federal system, which largely assigns the task of education to local and state governments–to employ any constitutional means to administer its magnet school program, including conversion of an existing desegregated school such as Hazel Park. The citizens of Jefferson Parish can sustain the JPSB in its decisions, or object at the ballot box. But until the achievement of unitary status, this Court is bound to view any proposal to alter the terms of the May 14th Order through the prism of how the change would impact the school system’s progress towards that status. The JPSB must be able to show that any proposal to alter the May 14th Order moves the school system toward unitary status. In this instance, it has not
10

Case 2:64-cv-14801-KDE-JCW Document 190 Filed 01/05/09 Page 11 of 16
made that showing. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Approval of the Advanced Magnet
Studies Plan (Rec. Doc. 186) is hereby DENIED. The parties are ORDERED to submit to the Court a revised Magnet Plan pursuant to ¶6 of the May 14th Order no later than 120 days from the date of this Order. In the interim period prior to approval of the revised Magnet Plan, the provisions of ¶¶5-6 of the May 14th Order regarding the enrollment of present magnet students shall remain in force.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 5th day of January, 2009. _________________________________________ KURT D. ENGELHARDT United States District Judge
11

Case 2:64-cv-14801-KDE-JCW Document 190 Filed 01/05/09 Page 12 of 16
ATTACHMENT A
12

Case 2:64-cv-14801-KDE-JCW Document 190 Filed 01/05/09 Page 13 of 16 13

Case 2:64-cv-14801-KDE-JCW Document 190 Filed 01/05/09 Page 14 of 16 14

Case 2:64-cv-14801-KDE-JCW Document 190 Filed 01/05/09 Page 15 of 16 15

Case 2:64-cv-14801-KDE-JCW Document 190 Filed 01/05/09 Page 16 of 16 16

 
 Case 2:64-cv-14801-KDE-JCW Document 201 Filed 01/30/09 Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LENA VERN DANDRIDGE, et al., Plaintiffs,
vs.

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 64-14801 SECTION: N(2)

JEFFERSON PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, et al., Defendants.

JUDGE: KURT D. ENGELHARDT

ORDER

On January 29, 2009, this Court approved the “Amended West Bank Advanced Studies

Magnet Plan Pursuant to Paragraph 6 of Consent Order Dated May 14, 2008 and Court Order

Entered in Document No. 190 and Request for Expedited Consideration” [hereinafter, “West Bank

Magnet Plan”]. This approval was granted from the bench after a fairness hearing and embodied in

a written order, the entire and complete text of which reads:

IT IS ORDERED that the West Bank advanced studies magnet plan submitted herein by Defendant Jefferson Parish School Board and docketed as Record Document No. 197 is hereby approved for implementation for commencement of School Year 2009 through 2010; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this order shall terminate on the date fixed in the Consent Order entered herein by the court on May 14, 2008.

Order of January 29, 2009 (Rec. Doc. 200) [hereinafter January 29th Order].

It has now come to the Court’s attention that Jefferson Parish School Board (“JPSB”)

employees and/or counsel have represented the January 29th Order as embodying a ruling by the

1

Case 2:64-cv-14801-KDE-JCW Document 201 Filed 01/30/09 Page 2 of 6
Court that from this time forward, students on the West Bank of the Mississippi River must attend magnet schools only on the West Bank, and students on the East Bank of the river only on the East Bank. In fact, the school system has issued an “FAQ” to parents that notes that as a result of the January 29th Order, “the school board has demonstrated to the Court’s satisfaction that West Bank Advanced Studies academies are or will be substantially equal to East Bank advanced studies academies to the extent feasible.” As such, the FAQ concludes, “no student domiciled on the west bank of the river shall be permitted to enroll in an east bank magnet school and no student domiciled on the east bank of the river shall be permitted to enroll in a west bank magnet school . . . .” Id.
Quite simply, this is a gross mischaracterization of the January 29th Order, and the Court is at a loss to understand how any employee or representative of the JPSB has reached this conclusion. The language quoted by the FAQ is drawn from Paragraph 6 of the Court’s Order of May 14th, 2008, in which the Court decreed that students from the West Bank attending East Bank magnet schools could remain on the East Bank, and vice versa. The full quotation follows:
Upon the entry of an order by the court declaring that west bank magnet schools offer substantially equal educational opportunities as magnet schools situated on the east side of the Mississippi River, no student domiciled on the west bank of the river shall be permitted to enroll in an east bank magnet school and no student domiciled on the east bank of the river shall be permitted to enroll in a west bank magnet school beyond the last grade offered at the magnet school of current enrollment.
Order of May 14, 2008 [hereinafter, “May 14th Order”]. In this language, the May 14th Order simply anticipates something that the JPSB may chose to do once unitary status has been achieved. But no order of this Court has declared the magnet program to be unitary, or otherwise suggested that the JPSB may use the river as a dividing line in assigning students to magnet schools. The
2

Case 2:64-cv-14801-KDE-JCW Document 201 Filed 01/30/09 Page 3 of 6
January 29th Order, contrary to the FAQ that has come to the Court’s attention, was not a declaration that “west bank magnet schools offer substantially equal educational opportunities as magnet schools situated on the east side of the Mississippi River.” The Order approving the Amended Magnet Plan contains no such finding of this condition, which is a predicate for unitary status, as noted above.
At the January 29th fairness hearing, it was clear that the only plan before the Court dealt not with the magnet system as a whole, but only the West Bank schools.1 The Court made it abundantly clear that the January 29th Order did not declare the magnet schools to be unitary, but was a step towards the eventual declaration of such status.2 In fact, the Court requested, and the parties agreed to, the deletion of language in the original West Bank Magnet Plan that confined magnet students to the side of the river upon which they reside, see Rec. Doc. 190 at ¶¶4,5,8,9,12, and 24, and noted that deletion at the fairness hearing.3 The Court has consistently noted that it did not favor any
1 The Transcript notes: THE COURT: My understanding, correct me if I am wrong, my
understanding is that what we are here today on relates only to the establishment of the magnet schools on the West Bank and that pursuant to the Court’s January 5th order, there would be forthcoming some type of plan or other order submitted to the court relative to East Bank schools?
MR. PATIN: Yes, that's correct, Judge . . . . Tr. at 4, ll. 4-11 (emphasis added).
2 See Tr. at 17, ll. 4-5 (“THE COURT: So I think in that sense, this is a very positive step towards achieving unitary status.”) (emphasis added).
3 See Tr. At 15, ll. 18-20 (“THE COURT: [T]he language in those paragraphs that talked about assigning students to a school on that side of the river on which they are domiciled has been removed.”)
3

Case 2:64-cv-14801-KDE-JCW Document 201 Filed 01/30/09 Page 4 of 6
proposal to “close the river,” and repeated that fact at the hearing.4 Finally, in response to a question
from a parent, the Court explicitly declared from the bench that a student need not live on the West
Bank to attend a West Bank magnet school, and vice versa.5
In addition, it is simply not reasonable to interpret the Amended Magnet Plan as a declaration
4 The Transcript notes:
THE COURT: In my opinion, and I’ve told the lawyers this both in telephone conferences and I think I said this last spring, I don’t see a Consent Order that says the river is a bright line divider of the parish serving the purpose of executing unitary status. In fact, that would, in my mind, create binary status.
Tr. at 17, ll. 10-14.
THE COURT: With regard to the East Bank/West Bank issue, and I'm going to generally refer that to that as using the river as a dividing line. . . . I still think, and I have said from day one, that using the river as an artificial barrier is problematic . . . for the reasons that I've stated from the get-go on this case.
Tr. at 13, ll. 7-14. 5 The Transcript notes:
MS. EDLER: I do have one concern. My friend Kitty, who is sitting back there with the crutches, was advised by Roslyn Math[e]s . . . that her–this child would need to live on the side of the river where that magnet school was for her to come into the magnet school system. That concerns me. It concerns me that the school system is continuing to tell parents that they must reside on that side of the river.
THE COURT: I don't know when that conversation occurred. MS. EDLER: : That was just now. THE COURT: I just said what I said on the record, and there a transcript of it, so as far as I'm concerned, as of the few minutes ago when I finally closed my mouth, I think that would not be a correct assertion based upon the Court’s ruling and based upon the Amended Advanced Studies Magnet Plan that I have just approved.
Tr. at 20, ll. 2-18.
4

Case 2:64-cv-14801-KDE-JCW Document 201 Filed 01/30/09 Page 5 of 6
of unitary status. Throughout, the Amended Magnet Plan notes that the approved West Bank programs “will offer” identical or substantially equal programs and curricula. See Amended Magnet Plan at ¶¶ 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 14 (emphasis added). The Amended Magnet Plan, thus, sets forth the prospective tasks that, if successfully completed, will establish conditions upon which unitary status can, at some point in the future,6 be declared. The only section of the Amended Magnet Plan that notes that any aspect of the magnet school system is equal is the one concerning school facilities. Id. at ¶ 19 et seq. and subtitle preceding ¶ 19. Facilities are only one part of the determination of unitary status, and no fair reading of the Amended Magnet Plan suggests the conclusion that the JPSB seems to have drawn–that the January 29th Order was a declaration of unitary status that permits the school system to confine magnet students to their side of the river.
To be sure, the Court noted at the fairness hearing that some new magnet students who reside on the East Bank but who wish to attend a West Bank school (and vice versa) might well have to attend a school on their home side of the river when they enter the magnet program or enter a new magnet school because they have completed their school’s terminal grade. This is primarily because of the constraints of space. The Court noted at the hearing that it hoped students in that situation could be accommodated, but understands that not all students can be so accommodated. But that is a very different matter from incorrect assertions that the river is now to be used as a dividing line for purposes of magnet school assignment pursuant to the Court’s January 29th Order.
6 Further supporting the conclusion that the January 29th Order envisions some future declaration of unitary status is the fact that the Court insisted upon a termination date for the Order. See Amended Magnet Plan at ¶ 24. The termination date was explicitly chosen so that the Court would have an opportunity, at that time, to review the operations of the school system pursuant to the Order and, hopefully, find that the precedent conditions set forth in the Amended Magnet Plan had been accomplished, and then declare the system unitary.
5

Case 2:64-cv-14801-KDE-JCW Document 201 Filed 01/30/09 Page 6 of 6
As a result of the FAQ document and other assertions brought to the Court’s attention, the Court is very concerned that the parties, as well as parents, might misunderstand the scope and effect of the January 29th Order. To that end, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
(1) Any party or representative of a party who makes representations or assertions contrary to that which is set forth herein, or contrary to the record in these proceedings, or contrary to the transcript of the fairness hearing of January 29, 2009, will CEASE AND DESIST from such representation.
(2) Within 72 hours after it appears in the record of this case, the transcript of the January 29, 2009, fairness hearing shall be provided to the public by the JPSB on its website or linked to that website in some accessible fashion.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 30th day of January, 2009.
_________________________________________ KURT D. ENGELHARDT United States District Judge
6

 
 Case 2:64-cv-14801-KDE-JCW Document 246 Filed 06/30/11 Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LENA VERN DANDRIDGE, ET AL., Plaintiffs,

vs.

Civil Action No. 2:64-cv-14801-KDE-JCW

JEFFERSON PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL.,
Defendants.

MOTION TO EXTEND THE CONSENT ORDER AND FOR FURTHER REMEDIES OR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH 37 OF THE CONSENT ORDER, AND FURTHER FOR CONTEMPT AND MEANINGFUL AND APPROPRIATE SANCTIONS,
AND TO CONTINUE THE HEARING SET BY THE COURT

The plaintiffs, through undersigned counsel, object to the expiration of the Consent Order

and move the court to set an evidentiary hearing to consider actions and conduct of the defendant

school board and the superintendent of schools (defendants), which actions and conduct

plaintiffs believe to be deliberate obstructions to the process of desegregation and a deliberate

defiance of the orders of this court, to wit:

I.

BY ORDER OF THIS COURT, the plaintiffs, within ninety days (90) of receipt of the

monitor’s year 2011 annual report, submitted a written report to the School District identifying areas

of material non-compliance by the School System with the provisions of the Consent Order and a

copy of the report was concurrently submitted to the court. Pursuant to applicable provisions of the

Consent Order, the defendants are required to “either undertake corrective action during the next

school year or submit to plaintiffs a response contesting any area or areas of asserted material

noncompliance contained in the report submitted by plaintiffs. To date, defendants have not

responded.

Page 1 of 6

Case 2:64-cv-14801-KDE-JCW Document 246 Filed 06/30/11 Page 2 of 6
II. The School System’s efforts to recruit Black students into Advanced Academies, Magnet Schools, AP and Honors Programs and classes, Gifted and Talented Programs, and IB Programs has been, and continues to be, woefully inadequate and has not led to the desegregation of said schools to the extent possible.
III. The School System has not sought Court approval for a declaration that Academic Academies are equal, which further impacts the School System’s obligation to desegregate. The Plaintiffs further submit that because of irregularities uncovered with admissions into Gretna #2 and other Advanced Academies and Magnet Schools, coupled with irregularities not investigated that directly impact the admissions of students of the protected class (African-American Black students) the System is in “material non-compliance” with the provisions of the Consent Order and has failed to adequately desegregate its school system to the extent possible. Still further, the defendants have used the Consent Order and these Advanced Academies and Magnet Schools as a pretext to conceal attempts to continue a system of racially segregated schools inasmuch as these Advanced Academies and Magnet Schools remain predominately racially identifiable White in a school system which is predominately African-American Black.
IV. Considering the size of defendants’ School System, i.e. student body population, and the numbers of students being reported as having availed themselves of the majority-to-minority (“M-toM”) transfer plan and academic transfer plan to further facilitate the desegregation of the School System, these programs remain significantly under-utilized inasmuch as there remains an identifiable number of racially segregated schools, in violation of the Consent Order and the Constitution.
Page 2 of 6

Case 2:64-cv-14801-KDE-JCW Document 246 Filed 06/30/11 Page 3 of 6
V. There remains a disproportionate number of Black students being subjected to the School System’s disciplinary process and disparate treatment while under supervision of school system officials.
VI. The staffing requirements contained in the Consent Order have not been fully implemented. The School System is not in compliance with requirements of the Consent Order in the areas of administrative, faculty and non-instructional support staff assignments, e.g. inter alia, none of the Academic Study Academies have Black principles. This fact presents an issue that should be reviewed as the defendants’ conduct materially violates the provisions of the Consent Order and their obligation to desegregate its school system to the extent possible. The efforts of defendants to recruit African-American Black teachers are a sham. There is no good faith attempt to recruit African-American Black teachers and the efforts the defendants reported to the court as their remedies for prior discrimination are ineffective.
VII. The School System’s reporting in the areas of resource allocations for school equipment and materials of instruction has been sporadic and sketchy at best, and when made, reports are difficult to read and interpret as they are not designed in a format that is easy to understand by persons lacking instruction in accounting practices. The Compliance Officer’s Monthly Reports bear out the difficulty experienced in compelling the responsible system personnel to timely and regularly submit the required information. Although the plaintiffs agree that the School System has adopted a Resource Allocations Policy and Facilities Policy, the projects envisioned remain mostly incomplete. The defendants have a history and long standing policy of building schools which led to the busing of students of the
Page 3 of 6

Case 2:64-cv-14801-KDE-JCW Document 246 Filed 06/30/11 Page 4 of 6
protected class (African-American Black students) out of their neighborhoods, and allowing White students to transfer when they were assigned to racially identifiable African-American Black schools or schools in predominately African-American Black neighborhoods.
VIII. The defendants have openly and publicly expressed defiance against considering the advice and counsel of the Compliance Officer and their conduct shows that they are determined to undermine the Compliance Officer’s authority “to coordinate and oversee the implementation of this Consent Order” or otherwise to enforce the orders of the court. The school board and its agents have publicly expressed and taken actions to confirm that they are free to ignore the Compliance Officer and the Consent Order. The plaintiffs are entitled to the relief granted by the court in its orders. Therefore, they request the court to enforce its orders regarding the duty and responsibility of the Compliance Officer “to coordinate and oversee the implementation of this Consent Order” or otherwise to enforce the orders of the court. On information and belief, the Compliance Officer has given directions and advice consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment and orders of the court, which directives and advice the defendants, its agents and assigns, have openly and publicly rejected and defied.
IX. The Jefferson Parish School Board shows no signs of abandoning its attempts to maintain the dual system of racially segregated schools in Jefferson Parish. Plaintiffs request the court to remove authority over desegregation from the Jefferson Parish School Board and to appoint a Special Master to assist the Compliance Officer in implementing the Consent Order.
Page 4 of 6

Case 2:64-cv-14801-KDE-JCW Document 246 Filed 06/30/11 Page 5 of 6
X. Plaintiffs’ counsel has made objections cited above directly to the defendants through their counsel and to the Compliance Officer, and counsel has been informed that their objections were communicated to the defendants. Plaintiffs further urge that, under the circumstances, including their prior history of discriminatory practices, the actions of the school board continue to be so severely in violation of the orders of this court that substantial, meaningful and appropriate sanctions against the defendants are unavoidable as considerations for the relief that should be imposed. Though plaintiffs, through counsel, reported their objections to the actions and conduct of the defendants to the Compliance Officer and the defendants’ counsel, they agreed to, in the spirit of compromise, work cooperatively with defendants’ counsel and to withhold the filing of motions so as not to create media sensationalism. The defendants, however, continued on an unrelenting path of racially discriminatory actions, ignoring the protests of both the plaintiffs and the Compliance Officer. The conduct complained of herein is no less than deliberate inexcusable misconduct which warrants meaningful and appropriate sanctions against the school board, its individual members, and its superintendent. WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs request an evidentiary hearing be held after sufficient delay to conduct limited discovery, and, after due proceedings, pray that this court grant such relief as requested above to enforce applicable provisions of the Consent Order and/or such other relief as the court deems just and proper to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. Plaintiffs further request that the hearing set for Wednesday, July 20, 2011, at 8:30 a.m. be continued accordingly.
Respectfully Submitted, BY ATTORNEY:
Page 5 of 6

Case 2:64-cv-14801-KDE-JCW Document 246 Filed 06/30/11 Page 6 of 6 10523 N Oak Hills Pkwy Ste A Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70810-2858
GIDEON T. CARTER, III Bar Roll Number 14136 Post Office Box 80264 Baton Rouge, LA 70898-0264 Telephone: (225) 214-1546 Facsimile: (225) 926-2299 Email: gideon.carter@Lawyer4u.com CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing with the Court’s CM/ECF system which will send a notice of electronic filing to opposing counsel on this 30th day of June 2011.
GIDEON T. CARTER, III
Page 6 of 6

 
 Case 2:64-cv-14801-KDE-JCW Document 261-1 Filed 08/02/11 Page 1 of 14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LENA VERN DANDRIDGE, ET AL., Plaintiffs,

vs.

Civil Action No. 2:64-cv-14801-KDE-JCW

JEFFERSON PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL.,
Defendants.

FINAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

This Final Settlement Agreement (the “Agreement”) between the Plaintiffs and the

Defendants (the “School Board”) provides for the resolution and termination of this litigation

following its acknowledgment by this court. The parties to Lena Vern Dandridge, et al. v.

Jefferson Parish School Board, et al., No. 64-14801 (EDLA) (the “Lawsuit”), and the Jefferson

Parish School Board (the “School Board”) jointly stipulate and agree, subject to the

acknowledgment of the court, that upon court acknowledgment of this Final Settlement

Agreement, the court may make a finding of full unitary status based on prior actions and

enforceable commitments in the Consent Order [164], as amended, and the Agreement, vacate all

prior orders and injunctions in the Lawsuit, and enter a Final Judgment and Order dismissing the

Lawsuit with prejudice. Such dismissal shall be without prejudice only to the extent that

plaintiffs may, with the exception of Paragraph B(5) of this Agreement, file a separate action in

the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana seeking to enforce the terms

of this Agreement.

A. Background

This suit was originally filed on July 30, 1964, to desegregate the public schools of

Jefferson Parish and to eliminate the vestiges of the prior dual school system. After various

1

Case 2:64-cv-14801-KDE-JCW Document 261-1 Filed 08/02/11 Page 2 of 14
judicial proceedings and decrees, by Consent Order [164] entered May 15, 2008, the court approved numerous unopposed modifications of the previously operative Orders covering all phases of school district operation.
The Consent Order [164], as amended, and the plan therein required the School Board, inter alia, to modify attendance zones, and upgrade facilities consistent with its desegregation obligations. Beginning with the 2008-2009 school year, the School Board began to operate the Jefferson Parish public schools consistent with the terms of the Consent Order [164].
Following the court’s approval and entry of the Consent Order [164], as amended, counsel for the parties have conferred and met on several occasions to discuss the remaining issues in this litigation and to explore the possibility of reaching a negotiated resolution of this matter consistent with governing legal standards. The parties have now reached an agreement within that framework, pursuant to which they will jointly request the court:
(a) acknowledge this Agreement and schedule such further proceedings as may be necessary to give final authority to the Agreement;
(b) in conjunction with such acknowledgement, find that the actions taken by the School Board in this litigation to date together with the commitments contained in this Agreement, provide an appropriate basis for judicial determination that the school system has achieved unitary status because the steps required by this Agreement are necessary to and will eliminate all remaining vestiges of the original dual system to the extent practicable, and
(c) dismiss the case and vacate all prior orders and injunctions entered herein, acknowledging this Agreement as part of the dismissal order.
B. Areas Covered by the Final Settlement Agreement This Agreement is predicated upon and reflects the fact that it has not been possible, in
the time that has elapsed since the entry of the Consent Order [164], to resolve all remaining issues affecting the School Board’s achievement of “unitary status” that were identified either in the court’s various Orders or in discussions among counsel prior or subsequent to issuance of the
2

Case 2:64-cv-14801-KDE-JCW Document 261-1 Filed 08/02/11 Page 3 of 14
Consent Order [164]. This Agreement does recognize that the School Board has developed and begun to implement specific plans and courses of action intended to confront and resolve those issues. These plans include, inter alia, the creation of new magnet school programs and Academic Academies, school modifications, modification of attendance zones, operation of a Majority-to-Minority Transfer Program, and implementation of other special educational programs and services.
The Plaintiffs have evaluated the content of the plans thus far developed and implemented, and have concluded, as memorialized in this Agreement, that the School Board should continue to implement and evaluate the effectiveness of those plans as provided for below during the term of this Agreement without the necessity of continuing federal court supervision over its activities. Under these circumstances, the parties are satisfied that dismissal of this action and vacation of prior outstanding orders and injunctions in accordance with this Agreement is legally appropriate.
1. Programs To Improve Black Participation In Certain Programs The School Board, in cooperation with plaintiffs, have devised plans that are aimed at increasing participation of Black students in magnet programs, gifted study programs, Advanced Placement and honors courses, and International Baccalaureate programs (Consent Order [164], as amended). All such plans shall remain in full force and effect for the duration of this Agreement. Among the specific steps that the School Board will take to attract Black students’ applications to these programs for the 2011-12 and succeeding school years are the following: (a) accomplishing earlier and broader dissemination --- no later than January of
each school year --- of notices to parents of pupils currently enrolled in the school system of an updated written flyer describing programs to be offered in the following year;
3

Case 2:64-cv-14801-KDE-JCW Document 261-1 Filed 08/02/11 Page 4 of 14
(b) assuring that such information is posted continuously on information boards in all feeder schools in the school system;
(c) expanding outreach to local businesses and institutions regarding these programs;
(d) scheduling Open House opportunities for parents, especially parents of students eligible to apply, during the spring of each school year, to visit these programs and to observe and receive information about the programs;
(e) making presentations about these programs during the spring semester of the each school year for parents;
(f) maintaining prominently on the School Board’s website complete information, updated promptly and regularly, about these programs; and
(g) providing comprehensive information during the spring semester of each school year about these programs, together with details about and deadlines for submission of applications, to all principals at schools enrolling students eligible to apply and conducting appropriate follow-up to assure that principals support and encourage interest in these programs among their students.
(h) the School Board shall make public service media announcements advertising magnet programs, gifted study programs, Advanced Placement courses, honors courses, and International Baccalaureate programs.
2. Facilities
With respect to the provision of facilities, the School Board has undertaken a Facilities
Policy. The School Board agrees to complete the implementation of that process in as timely a
manner as practicable.
The School Board is presently reviewing facilities to determine whether any current
school(s) should be closed. In determining whether a school should be closed, the following
non-exclusive considerations shall be considered and procedures shall be followed prior to the
closure of any school:
(a) A recent history of declining student enrollments resulting in a significant underutilization of classrooms;
4

Case 2:64-cv-14801-KDE-JCW Document 261-1 Filed 08/02/11 Page 5 of 14
(b) Proximity of schools to a school to be closed that have sufficient capacity to enroll all or significant portions of students displaced by a school closure;
(c) Inferior physical plant of a school warranting closure as recommended by the School Board’s architects and/or engineers; and/or
(d) Excessively high operating cost due to a school’s age or physical condition. In all instances in which it is practicable, the redrawing of contiguous student attendance
zones following a school closure shall not result in increasing in number the majority race of a racially identifiable receiving school or result in a desegregated receiving school becoming racially identifiable. Where in is not practicable to redraw student attendance zones following closure of a school so as to avoid an increase in the majority race of a racially identifiable receiving school or a desegregated school becoming racially identifiable, all reasonable measures will be taken to minimize such results.
In the absence of compelling reasons, school closures shall not disproportionately affect one racial group as opposed to another racial group.
In the event a school is closed which was to receive funding for repairs or renovations or other capital improvements under the School Board’s Facilities Policy, such funds shall be utilized to fund any unbudgeted cost overruns for other projects in the said Facilities Policy or if not needed for unbudgeted cost overruns such funds shall revert the appropriate fund for other uses by the School Board.
Prior to consideration by the School Board as to whether a school should be closed, public notice thereof shall be made by advertisement in the School Board’s official journal and on the school system’s website not less than 30 days prior to such consideration. The public notice shall identify the school or schools to be considered for closure, the time and location of
5

Case 2:64-cv-14801-KDE-JCW Document 261-1 Filed 08/02/11 Page 6 of 14
all meetings in connection therewith, and advise that public comment shall be available to
persons wishing to be heard.
3. Resource Allocations
With respect to allocations for school equipment and materials of instruction the School
Board has adopted and implemented a resource allocations policy. The School Board agrees to
continue that process throughout the term of this Agreement.
4. Additional commitments
The School Board agrees to the continuation and maintenance of the following elements
of prior decrees in this litigation:
(a) Attendance zones established in the Consent Order [164], as amended, shall not be modified so as to result in a resegregation of the school system. In the event it should become necessary to adjust attendance zones or close schools during the term of this Agreement, the School Board shall provide plaintiffs with such attendance zone adjustments and projected student enrollments by race and/or schools to be closed and the rationale for such closure. Similarly, the School Board may expand choice opportunities in any nondiscriminatory manner that does not result in resegregation of the school system.
(b) The School Board shall continue to verify addresses and to enforce its attendance zones, procedures, and requirements in substantially the same manner as it has done under the prior orders of the court in this matter, including by continuing to require school principals to certify by affidavit, each fall, that they have examined the “911” addresses of students registered and enrolled in their school and that those addresses are accurate.
(c) Assignments to magnet programs shall be made in the same fashion as has been required by prior orders of the court, as amended. Any proposed modifications to policies or procedures applicable to such programs shall be communicated to plaintiffs prior to implementation.
(d) The School Board agrees to continue its affirmative efforts, in recruiting and outreach, to encourage applications for instructional and administrative positions from qualified Black applicants.
(e) The School Board agrees to continue to encourage desegregated student participation in the school system’s gifted and talented programs.
6

Case 2:64-cv-14801-KDE-JCW Document 261-1 Filed 08/02/11 Page 7 of 14
The parties further agree that during the term of this Agreement the School Board shall continue to follow the following current practices and policies (or their substantial equivalents):
(a) use of the Dandridge Desegregation Task Force; (b) student transfers in accordance with established Policy; (c) facility improvement/expansion in accordance with established Policy; (d) discipline and drop-out prevention in accordance with established Policy, (f) the Compliance Office or other such office shall have monitoring
responsibilities and may make compliance recommendations to the superintendent of schools, and (g) implementation of the attached post-unitary policies. 5. Appointment of administrative, faculty and non-instructional support staff The superintendent shall recommend for appointment and/or employment all school-site administrative and faculty personnel subject to the concurrence of the School Board whose concurrence shall not be unreasonably withheld. With respect to all assistant principal, dean, and teaching positions, the superintendent’s recommendation may be informed by the recommendation of the school’s principal. Subject to any future modification of School Board policy, the principal shall have, with the exception of the diversity goal in Paragraph B(6), unfettered discretion when making recommendations for assistant principals, deans, and teachers to recommend for employment the person deemed best suited, regardless of other considerations, to further the school’s academic mission and the attainment of a satisfactory or higher school performance rating. The Board agrees to continue its affirmative efforts, in recruiting and outreach, to encourage applications for instructional and administrative positions, including central office or administration, area supervisory, and school site personnel, from qualified minority applicants
7

Case 2:64-cv-14801-KDE-JCW Document 261-1 Filed 08/02/11 Page 8 of 14
and shall periodically compare the results of its efforts with the available qualified labor pool in the local area and in the State of Louisiana.
The courts of the state of Louisiana shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any disputes that may arise in connection with this provision of this Agreement.
6. Racial Composition The School Board is committed to the concept of preserving racial diversity in its teacher ranks assigned to the school system’s schools. The Board agrees to continue its affirmative efforts, in recruiting and outreach, to encourage applications for instructional, professional and administrative staff (positions, including central office), should reflect the broad diversity of backgrounds and experiences that characterize Jefferson Parish or administration, area supervisory, and Louisiana. Furthermore, one means of achieving a diverse workplace is to encourage, recruit, and seek to attract applications, for all vacant positions, school site personnel, from individuals of widely diverse backgrounds qualified minority applicants and shall periodically compare the results of its efforts with the available qualified labor pool in the local area and in the State of Louisiana. The Superintendent shall direct staff to carry out ongoing recruitment activities within the Human Resources Department which should focus on widely disseminating information about vacancies so as to reach a group of potential applicants broadly reflecting geographic, gender, racial, and ethnic diversity. If such activities include recruitment trips or visits by School System staff to community and/or educational institutions, they should include visits to institutions and locations that, taken as a whole, reflect that broad diversity. The Superintendent, or his or her designee, shall: (a) Take appropriate steps to inform all staff of the School System who are
involved in the employment process of the Board’s support for, and commitment to, achieving diverse staffs of well-qualified employees from
8

Case 2:64-cv-14801-KDE-JCW Document 261-1 Filed 08/02/11 Page 9 of 14
widely varying backgrounds. This provision applies in particular to school site personnel who review applications for instructional staff positions, conduct interviews, and make hiring recommendations;
(b) Direct the Department of Human Resources to provide guidance to staff involved in the employment and promotional processes concerning appropriate, educationally sound and legally valid methods to evaluate applicants that take into account a candidate’s potential contribution to staff diversity at a particular school, program or location;
(c) Require that an annual written report be prepared containing information and conclusions regarding the School System’s staff diversity, including diversity in classified instructional, professional and administrative personnel, including central office, and at the school system level. At a minimum, the written annual report shall contain the following information:
(i) Information concerning the numbers of instructional, professional, administrative, including central office, and classified personnel at each school. The information collected shall contain the gender, racial and ethnic identification of these employees;
(ii) Information on those employees identified as twelve-month employees who work in the administrative offices of the School System;
(iii) Staff who are in the school system’s Assistant Principal and Principal pools;
(iv) The report may also make recommendations to guide and assist instructional personnel who desire to gain the experience and training that will qualify them for entrance into promotional pools;
(v) Information regarding the recruitment activities of the Human Resources Department as provided for in this policy;
(vi) A comparison of the diversity of the staff with the previous years, including the diversity in classified instructional, professional, central office and administrative personnel at the school level; and,
(d) Present the findings of the annual written report to the School Board at a public meeting of the Board regarding these matters, along with any recommendations the Superintendent may have;
(e) Provide the Cabinet and any other such individuals as may be necessary with a copy of the annual written report for the purpose of conducting meetings, as necessary, to address any findings or conclusions contained in the report regarding
9

Case 2:64-cv-14801-KDE-JCW Document 261-1 Filed 08/02/11 Page 10 of 14
staff diversity; and
(f) Ensure the annual written report to the Board shall be made publicly available to any person or organization via the School System’s website and through other reasonable means, upon request.
This Recruitment Policy is intended to produce a pool of applicants for vacant positions
advertised by the School System that is as diverse as possible and it is not intended to require,
establish, or support racial or ethnic quotas in the employment process nor does it confer
any additional legal rights on any applicant, employee or prospective applicant than is otherwise
prescribed by law.
7. Provision of information
Finally, the parties agree that the School Board shall develop and implement internal
procedures to monitor its effectuation of this Agreement and shall provide to plaintiffs the
following information for each school year during the term of this Agreement, no later than December 1st of that school year:
(a) The number of students enrolled in the Magnet Schools, Academies, and IB Schools, by race, ethnicity (using the census reporting categories required by the Louisiana Department of Education), grade level and school;
(b) Total certificated positions filled by new hiring for the preceding school year, by race and ethnicity (using the census reporting categories required by the Louisiana Department of Education), and cross-tabulated by work site category (central office or administration, area supervisory, and school site, respectively).
(c) Individual school staffing by race and ethnicity (using the census reporting categories required by the Louisiana Department of Education) for regular classroom teachers, other instructional personnel, principals, assistant principals, other administrators, and non-certificated staff groupings.
C. Consultation and Enforcement
The parties agree to confer and consult periodically concerning the School Board’s
implementation of this Agreement in order to identify any problems or concerns that may arise
10

Case 2:64-cv-14801-KDE-JCW Document 261-1 Filed 08/02/11 Page 11 of 14
so that they may be resolved amicably without the need to resort to judicial enforcement of the provisions of the Agreement. Remedies for alleged non-compliance that cannot be resolved through consultation shall be limited, with the exception of the provisions in Paragraph B(5), to specific performance.
1. Written Notification of Alleged Violations and Voluntary Correction. If Plaintiffs believe that Defendants have breached the terms of this Agreement, Plaintiffs will notify Defendants of the provision of the Agreement with which they allege Defendants have not complied, and with a written explanation of the nature of the alleged breach. Said notification shall be within fifteen (15) business days of discovering such alleged breach. Upon receipt of this written notice and explanation ("Notice"), Defendants will conduct an appropriate investigation and respond, in writing, within fifteen (15) business days. However, if the termination date for this Agreement is less than fifteen business days away, Defendants will respond by the termination date. The Parties may, if warranted, take voluntary corrective action. 2. Mediation. If Plaintiffs reasonably believe that the response provided by Defendants does not resolve the issue(s) or alleged violation(s) raised in the Notice, the Parties may invoke a mediation process ("Mediation") to resolve the dispute. Mediation shall take place in Jefferson Parish; the mediator need not be from that Parish, however. The costs of Mediation shall be Defendants' responsibility. Unless otherwise agreed in writing between the Parties, Mediation must commence within forty-five (45) calendar days from receipt of Notice. For alleged violations which Plaintiffs, in good faith, reasonably believe may result in immediate and irreparable harm to Plaintiffs, the Notice shall so indicate this belief, and Mediation must then commence within five (5) business days, if at all practicable. However, should Plaintiffs learn of an alleged breach
11

Case 2:64-cv-14801-KDE-JCW Document 261-1 Filed 08/02/11 Page 12 of 14
at a time that is five (5) days or less prior to the termination date of this Agreement, they shall promptly notify Defendants of the alleged breach, and Defendants shall make a good faith effort to correct the alleged breach within 24 hours thereof. The Parties shall conduct the Mediation in good faith in an attempt to resolve the matter(s) contained in the Notice.
3. Performance of this Agreement. If the issue(s) of noncompliance raised in the Notice is/are not resolved through Mediation, then Plaintiffs' sole remedy is to file a separate action to enforce performance of this Agreement in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. An action seeking such specific performance shall be filed as a new and separate action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana not later than sixty (60) days following the expiration of this Agreement. In any action for specific performance in which plaintiffs shall prevail in whole or in part, plaintiffs may petition the court for an award of reasonable attorney’s fees. Defendants will not object to the filing of such a case on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction. Strict compliance with Paragraphs C(1) and (2) above is agreed by the Parties to be a condition precedent to the filing of any such action. D. Notice All notices, notifications, and required provisions of information or data provided for in this Agreement shall be deemed made by forwarding the same to a party’s counsel of record by certified mail or e-mail transmission for which an acknowledgement of receipt is received by the sender from the addressee. E. Term of Agreement This Agreement shall become effective upon its acknowledgment by the court, after being approved by the parties. With the exception of the post-unitary status policies of the
12

Case 2:64-cv-14801-KDE-JCW Document 261-1 Filed 08/02/11 Page 13 of 14

School Board attached to this Agreement, this Agreement shall terminate either on July 1, 2014

or at the end of the 2013-14 school year whichever is earlier.

F. Modification of Agreement

The provisions of this Agreement may be modified during the term of the Agreement by

a written document executed by counsel for the parties.

G. Understanding of the parties

Each term of this Agreement is deemed by the parties as essential to its perfection and

ongoing validity with respect to the declaration of unitary status and termination of federal

judicial supervision over the facets of the operations of the Jefferson Parish Public School

System.

H. Entire Agreement

This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and supersedes any

prior understanding or representation of any kind preceding the date of its execution. There are

no other promises, conditions, understandings, contracts or other Agreements, whether oral or

written, relating to the subject matter of this Agreement.

Dated this 2nd day of August, 2011.

Respectfully submitted, BY ATTORNEYS:

/s/ Gideon T. Carter, III Gideon T. Carter, III, T.A. (LA Bar #14136) Attorney at Law PO Box 80264 10523 N Oak Hills Pkwy Ste A (70810-2858) Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70898-0264 Telephone: 225-343-1111 Facsimile: 225-334-7824 Email: gideon.carter@lawyer4u.com Attorney for Plaintiffs

/s/ Michael G. Fanning Michael G. Fanning (LA Bar #05440) GRANT & BARROW, P.L.C. PO Box 484 238 Huey P. Long Ave (70053-5816) Gretna, Louisiana 70054-0484 Telephone: 504-368-7888 Facsimile: 504-368-7263 E-mail: jgrant@grantbarrow.com Attorney for Defendant

13

Case 2:64-cv-14801-KDE-JCW Document 261-1 Filed 08/02/11 Page 14 of 14
/s/ Charles L. Patin, Jr. Charles L. Patin, Jr., T.A. (LA Bar #10338) KEAN, MILLER, HAWTHORNE, D’ARMOND,
McCOWAN & JARMAN, L.L.P. PO Box 3513 400 Convention St Ste 700 (70802-5628) Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70821-3513 Telephone: 225-387-0999 Facsimile: 225-388-9133 E-mail: charlie.patin@keanmiller.com Attorney for Defendant
14

 
 Dandridge v. Jefferson Parish School Bd., 249 F.R.D. 243 (2008) 233 Ed. Law Rep. 325

249 F.R.D. 243 United States District Court,
E.D. Louisiana. Lena Vern DANDRIDGE, et al.
v. JEFFERSON PARISH SCHOOL BOARD.
Civil Action No. 64-14801. |
March 13, 2008.
Synopsis Background: In class action against school board and school superintendent for maintaining and operating a compulsory bi-racial school system, teachers’ union moved to intervene to modify one paragraph in proposed consent order calling for desegregation plan. Parents moved to intervene as third-party plaintiffs.
The District Court, Kurt D. Engelhardt, J., held that motions to intervene were untimely.
Motions denied.
*244 ORDER AND REASONS
KURT D. ENGELHARDT, District Judge. Before the Court are the following two motions: (1) Motion for Leave to Intervene to Modify One Paragraph in Proposed Consent Order Under F.R.C.P. Rule 24 by Jefferson Federation of Teachers (Rec.Doc.128); and (2) Motion to Intervene as Third-Party Plaintiff (Rec.Doc.129). Oral argument was requested on both motions. Because the Court deems oral argument unnecessary, it CANCELS oral argument and
1

rules as set forth herein.
I. BACKGROUND This action was originally commenced on July 31, 1964. In the original Complaint (See Rec. Doc. 1, Docket sheet, entry 1), it was alleged that the Jefferson Parish School Board (“JPSB”) and the Superintendent of Schools of Jefferson Parish maintained and operated a compulsory bi-racial school system in the parish and assigned students, teachers and other school personnel to the schools operated and controlled by them on the basis of race. Plaintiffs sought class certification and asserted discrimination by Defendants because of the compulsory bi-racial school system allegedly established by them. Plaintiffs also claimed that Defendants discriminated on the basis of race in the areas of school construction, formulation of budgets, disbursement of school funds, and *245 participation in extra curricular activities. Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief prohibiting the operation of a compulsory bi-racial school system in Jefferson Parish, as well as the alleged dual scheme or pattern of school zone lines and attendance area lines based on race or color, the assignments of pupils to public schools on the basis of race or color, the assignment of teachers, principals and other professional personnel to public schools on the basis of race and color, and the construction of elementary and high schools on the basis of dual attendance areas on the basis of race and color. Plaintiffs also sought to enjoin the Defendants from programming or supporting extra-curricular activities limited solely to one or the other of the races. Alternatively, Plaintiffs sought the entry of a decree directing Defendants to present a complete plan “in a period of time to be determined by this court” for the establishment of “a unitary, non-racial system which shall include a plan for the assignment of pupils, teachers, principals and other professional school personnel on a non-racial basis; the drawing of school zone or attendance area lines on a non-racial basis; the allotment of funds, the construction of schools, the approval of budgets on a non-racial basis and the elimination of any other discrimination in the operation of the school system or curricula which are based solely on race or color.”
Pursuant to a June 22, 1965 Order (See Rec. Doc. 1, Docket sheet, entry 19), Defendants ultimately filed a plan providing for desegregation of the public school system on a unitary non-racial basis of operation, which

Dandridge v. Jefferson Parish School Bd., 249 F.R.D. 243 (2008) 233 Ed. Law Rep. 325

was approved by the Court on June 26, 1969 (See Rec. Doc. 1, Docket sheet, entry 70). That plan was submitted and filed, but not recommended, by the JPSB on February 28, 1969, and was accepted by the court. (See Rec. Doc. 1, Docket sheet, entry 54).
On December 1, 1969, the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals rendered its decision in Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate School District, 419 F.2d 1211, which set forth various guidelines for certain subject school districts, which did not then include the Parish of Jefferson, to begin immediately to operate as unitary school systems within which no person is to be effectively excluded from any school because of race or color. Subsequently, the JPSB submitted a follow-up plan on July 9, 1971. (See Rec. Doc. 1, Docket sheet, entry 90). This plan was submitted following the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1, 91 S.Ct. 1267, 28 L.Ed.2d 554 (1971). The plan submitted by the JPSB, however, was not accepted, and Plaintiffs were granted further relief pursuant to Swann. The United States Fifth Circuit, in its opinion entered on February 11, 1972, affirmed the decision of the District Court from which the JPSB had taken an appeal. 456 F.2d 552. Thus, the plan entered in 1971, and amended on May 1, 1978 by Judge Charles Schwartz (See Rec. Doc. 1, Docket sheet, entry 115), remained in place until 2007.
On March 8, 2007, the Dandridge Plaintiffs and the JPSB filed a joint motion to supplement the desegregation plan, to specifically authorize the school district to utilize magnet school programs as a voluntary desegregation methodology. (See Rec. Doc. 1, Docket sheet, entry 116). That motion set forth requirements for the magnet school program in addition to authorizing magnet schools pursuant to the established consent order. On March 8, 2007, Judge Jay Zainey of this Court signed an Agreed Order, prepared by the Plaintiffs’ attorney and the JPSB’s attorneys. (See Rec. Doc. 1, Docket sheet, entry 117). In addition, Judge Zainey’s Order directs the parties to, if possible, file a proposed plan in the form of a consent order, prepared through good faith efforts conducted in close cooperation, that when fully implemented by the school district will bring the remaining facets of the operations of the school system into compliance with the constitution.
On February 22, 2008, Plaintiffs and the JPSB Defendants filed a Joint Motion for Court Approval of Consent Order. That motion is set for a fairness hearing on Friday, March 14, 2008 so that the undersigned may either approve or
2

reject the Consent Order, based on its reasonableness, fairness, and adequacy. On March 10, 2008, four days *246 before the scheduled fairness hearing, the Court received two motions to intervene, which it now addresses.
II. THE MOTIONS TO INTERVENE
A. Motion for Leave to Intervene to Modify One Paragraph in Proposed Consent Order Under F.R.C.P. Rule 24 by Jefferson Federation of Teachers (Rec.Doc.128) In this motion, the Jefferson Federation of Teachers (“the Union”) requests permission to intervene, pursuant to Rule 24(a)(2)1, to seek the modification of one paragraph in the Consent Order that arguably affects a Collective Bargaining Agreement between the Union and the JPSB. In opposition, the parties jointly assert that no where in the Union’s motion does it argue that the proposed Consent Order is inconsistent with federal law, would frustrate desegregation, or would fail to achieve the goals of a unitary school system. The parties also assert that the Union’s motion to intervene is untimely.
B. Motion to Intervene as Third-Party Plaintiff (Rec.Doc.129) In this motion, Ronald and Nicole Elder, on behalf of their minor child, Aston Elder; and Shane and Angelle Granier, on behalf of their minor child, Matthew Granier (collectively, “the parent intervenors”), request permission to intervene in this case as of right, as third party plaintiffs, claiming that the proposed Consent Order will create inappropriate neighborhood districting discrimination, relative to the magnet school system in Jefferson Parish. Alternatively, the parent intervenors seek permissive intervention claiming that as parents of children attending magnet schools in Jefferson Parish who will be affected by the Proposed Consent Order, they have an interest in the outcome of this matter. In opposition, the parties jointly assert that no where in the motion of the parent intervenors is it argued that the proposed Consent Order is inconsistent with federal law, would frustrate desegregation, or would fail to achieve the goals of a

Dandridge v. Jefferson Parish School Bd., 249 F.R.D. 243 (2008) 233 Ed. Law Rep. 325

unitary school system. The parties also assert that the motion to intervene by the parent intervenors is untimely.
III. LAW AND ANALYSIS Rule 24(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that intervention of right shall be permitted upon timely application:
when the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action and the applicant is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the applicant’s ability to protect that interest, unless the applicant’s interest is adequately represented by existing parties.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a)(2). A party is entitled to intervene as of right if: 1) the motion to intervene is timely filed; 2) the potential intervenor asserts an interest that is related to the property or transaction that forms the basis of the controversy in the case into which intervention is sought; 3) disposition of the case may impair or impede the potential intervenor’s ability to protect its interest; and 4) the existing parties do not adequately represent the potential intervenor’s interests. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a); Trans Chem. Ltd. v. China Nat’l Mach. Import and Export Corp., 332 F.3d 815, 822 (5th Cir.2003); Heaton v. Monogram Credit Card Bank of Ga., 297 F.3d 416, 422 (5th Cir.2002).
The Fifth Circuit has explained that “the inquiry under subsection (a)(2) is a flexible one, which focuses on the particular facts and circumstances surrounding each application ... [and] intervention of right must be measured by a practical rather than a technical yardstick.” United States v. Tex. E. Transmission Corp., 923 F.2d 410, 413 (5th Cir.1991). However, failure to meet any one of the four requirements results in denial of the motion. See Sierra Club v. Espy, 18 F.3d 1202, 1205 (5th Cir.1994). Because the motions to intervene of both the Union and the *247 parent intervenors fail the timeliness
3

requirement, the Court denies the requests to intervene.
The party who seeks to intervene must first timely move to do so. This is a discretionary determination for the district court. See Smith Petroleum Serv., Inc. v. Monsanto Chem. Co., 420 F.2d 1103, 1115 (5th Cir.1970). To determine whether a motion to intervene is timely, the court may consider: 1) the length of time during which the would-be intervenor actually knew or reasonably should have known of its interest in the case before it petitioned for leave to intervene; 2) the extent of the prejudice that the existing parties to the litigation may suffer as a result of the would-be intervenor’s failure to apply for intervention as soon as it knew or reasonably should have known of its interest in the case; 3) the extent of the prejudice that the would-be intervenor may suffer if intervention is denied; and 4) the existence of unusual circumstances militating either for or against a determination that the application is timely. Ford v. City of Huntsville, 242 F.3d 235, 239 (5th Cir.2001) (citing Sierra Club, 18 F.3d at 1205). The Fifth Circuit has explained that the timeliness requirement “is not a tool of retribution to punish the tardy would-be intervenor, but rather a guard against prejudicing the original parties by the failure to apply sooner.” Sierra Club v. Espy, 18 F.3d 1202, 1205 (5th Cir.1994). “A motion to intervene’s timeliness is to be determined from all the circumstances.” Doe v. Glickman, 256 F.3d 371, 376 (5th Cir.2001).
Here, this request for intervention has been made after the parties to this litigation have formulated a proposed Consent Order and only four days before this Court is charged with either adopting or rejecting this proposed Consent Order at a fairness hearing. The intervenors did not seek intervention when the matters placed at issue in this case were subject to adjudication, but rather claim their interest is based solely on the language of the proposed Consent Order. Because this case is in the settlement phase, has been the subject of long standing prior consent orders, and is not on the trial docket, this Court reasons that there is currently no case or controversy into which the movants can truly intervene, given the current posture. For this reason, both motions to intervene are untimely.
As for the Union, their request to intervene regards one paragraph in the proposed Consent Order, to which it objects. Thus, instead of being a party to this intervention as of right, the Court views the Union as more of an interested entity that objects to the proposed Consent Order based on one single paragraph located therein.

Dandridge v. Jefferson Parish School Bd., 249 F.R.D. 243 (2008) 233 Ed. Law Rep. 325

Further, the Union, perhaps even more so than the intervenor parents, knew of the negotiations between the parties and knew of the proposed Consent Order. Yet, the Union has offered no explanation as to why its request to intervene has come only four days before the fairness hearing, wherein this Court is charged with either adopting or rejecting the proposed Consent Order.
As for the motion of the parent intervenors, the Court finds it is untimely for the following additional reason. Specifically, the issue over which the parent intervenors complain (i.e., paragraph 5 of the proposed Consent Order) was addressed in Judge Zainey’s March 8, 2007 Order wherein he ordered:

children therein, the Court finds that these parents were placed on notice (or should have been) when the proposed Consent Order at issue was placed on the JPSB’s website for public inspection on February 12, 2008. However, even though parents could have sought intervention before the proposed Consent Order was finalized, the parent intervenors waited nearly one month after it was posted, and then only four days before the proposed fairness hearing, to bring their motion before the Court. Such request is untimely.
The parent intervenors also request permissive intervention, which is governed by Rule 24(b) and states in pertinent part:

Consistent with the requirements of the grant through the Magnet Schools Assistance Program, admission to magnet schools funded through the Magnet Schools Assistance Program for students residing outside a magnet school’s student attendance zone shall be limited in such a manner that such students residing on the east side of the Mississippi River shall be eligible for enrollment in magnet schools situated on the east side of the river and such students residing on the west side of the Mississippi River shall be eligible for enrollment in magnet schools on the west side of the river, such that the School District will not be under an obligation to provide transportation for magnet transfer students from one side of the Mississippi River to the other.
(See Rec. Doc. 1, Docket Sheet, entry 117). Thus, the parent intervenors (and, for that matter, the JPSB) should have been on notice in early 2007 that provisions applicable to the division of the magnet school attendance *248 zones were being discussed and negotiated. For those parents who had no reason to know of this case, the previously entered consent orders, and the current order being negotiated by the parties, or for those parents who only recently became associated with the Jefferson Parish School System because of recent enrollment of a child or
4

Upon timely application anyone may be permitted to intervene in an action ... when an applicant’s claim or defense and the main action have a question of law or fact in common. [ ] In exercising its discretion the court shall consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(b). As the Court explained above, the request of the parent intervenors in untimely and should be denied for that reason alone.
As for the extent of prejudice the Union and the parent intervenors would suffer if their motions are denied, the Court reminds both the Union and the parent intervenors that it is charged with considering the fairness of the proposed Consent Order at the March 14, 2008 fairness hearing. In doing so, the Court will consider the arguments made by the movants in their motions to intervene as well as the arguments made in the more than 60 letters the Court has received regarding the proposed Consent Order. Thus, the movants to these motions are not without recourse; their argument are being heard and considered fully by the Court. If, after considering all the arguments of the interested parties, the Court determines that the proposed Consent Order should be rejected and the case is ultimately placed on the Court’s trial docket, the Union and the parent intervenors may re-urge their motions to intervene at that time.

Dandridge v. Jefferson Parish School Bd., 249 F.R.D. 243 (2008) 233 Ed. Law Rep. 325

IV. CONCLUSION IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to Intervene to Modify One Paragraph in Proposed Consent Order Under F.R.C.P. Rule 24 by Jefferson Federation of Teachers (Rec.Doc.128) is hereby DENIED without prejudice to the right of the Union to re-urge this motion if this matter is later placed on the Court’s trial docket.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Intervene as Third-Party Plaintiff (Rec.Doc.129) is hereby DENIED without prejudice to the right of the parents to re-urge this motion if this matter is later placed on the Court’s trial docket.
All Citations
249 F.R.D. 243, 233 Ed. Law Rep. 325

Footnotes

1

The Union’s motion incorrectly states that it is brought pursuant to Rule 24(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

however, a thorough reading of the motion reveals that the Union actually requests permission to intervene pursuant to Rule

24(a)(2), which involves a movant who claims an interest to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action.

5