IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT GREENEVILLE

MICHAEL MADISON, et al. Plaintiffs,
and
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Intervenor,
v.
SULLIVAN COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al.,
Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) C.A. No. 2:00-CV-094 ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CONSENT ORDER

On March 24, 2000, Plaintiff Michael Madison filed this

action, alleging that, while enrolled at Sullivan East High

School, Defendants Sullivan County Board of Education (“SCBE”),

Keith Glover, and Harmon Peters (collectively, “Sullivan County

Defendants”); and Defendants Anson Blevins, Thomas Johnson, Todd

Bolling and Jeffrey Rutherford (collectively, “Student Defendants”),1 caused him to be harassed on the basis of race.

On September 14, 2000, an amended complaint was filed adding

Marquita Madison as a plaintiff.

In their Amended Complaint, the Madison plaintiffs alleged,

inter alia, violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the

Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Title VI of the

1On August 5, 2002, upon motion by the Madison plaintiffs, the Court ordered Defendants Glover, Blevins, Johnson, Bolling and Rutherford dismissed from this action.
Page 1 of 23

Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d, et seq. In their respective Answers, SCBE, Glover, Peters and Blevins expressly denied the plaintiffs’ claims. The United States, after conducting a preliminary evaluation of the plaintiffs’ allegations and the Defendants’ responses, informed the parties that the Attorney General had certified this case as one of general public importance for purposes of seeking intervention under Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000h2. Accordingly, the United States filed a motion to intervene as a plaintiff in the case, which the Court granted on November 28, 2000. The Sullivan County Defendants deny the allegations contained in the Intervening Complaint of the United States.
The parties desire to avoid costly and protracted litigation and have voluntarily agreed, as indicated by the signatures below, to resolve the Madison plaintiffs’ and United States’ claims against the Defendants without the necessity of an evidentiary hearing.
By separate Compromise Settlement Agreement and Release in Full, the Madison plaintiffs have compromised and settled privately all issues between them and the Sullivan County Defendants. SCBE and the United States, as indicated by the signatures of their respective attorneys to this Order, have agreed to resolve the United States’ claim against SCBE without the necessity of continuing contested litigation. After
Page 2 of 23

reviewing the terms of the Consent Order, the Court concludes that the entry of this Consent Order comports with federal law and is appropriate under all the circumstances.
Therefore, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED as follows: I. Factual Background
A. Defendant SCBE is organized under, and exists pursuant to, the laws of the State of Tennessee, and is a recipient of Federal financial assistance. Plaintiff Michael Madison attended Sullivan East High School (“East”), which is operated by SCBE, beginning in the 1995-96 school year through October of the 199798 school year. Plaintiff Marquita Madison attended East beginning in the 1998-99 school year through the 1999-2000 school year. Defendant Keith Glover was principal at East and defendant Harmon Peters was a teacher at East during the period that the Madison plaintiffs attended East. The Student Defendants attended East during October of the 1997-98 school year.
B. While attending East, the Madison plaintiffs were allegedly subjected to harassment on the basis of race by their classmates. The United States and the Madison plaintiffs contend that, as a result of this harassment, Michael Madison completed the eleventh and twelfth grades on a homebound program provided by SCBE, and Marquita Madison completed the eleventh and twelfth grades in a different school district. Michael Madison graduated from East upon the completion of his homebound study program;
Page 3 of 23

Marquita Madison graduated from Tennessee High School in Bristol, Tennessee. The Madison plaintiffs and the United States contend that the harassment on the basis of race was severe, pervasive and objectively offensive; that SCBE officials with authority to rectify the situation were given notice of the harassment but failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective actions; that these SCBE officials were deliberately indifferent to this harassment; and that this deliberate indifference prevented the Madison plaintiffs from enjoying educational benefits and opportunities. The Madison plaintiffs and the United States further contend that SCBE’s response to the Madison plaintiffs’ complaints of harassment constituted a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
C. The Sullivan County Defendants deny these allegations. Neither the Sullivan County Defendants’ agreement to the terms of this Consent Order nor any other action taken by the Sullivan County Defendants in connection with this settlement constitutes an admission of wrongdoing or a violation of any state or federal law by the Sullivan County Defendants, the same being specifically denied.
Page 4 of 23

II. Scope and Duration of Consent Order A. This Consent Order is effective immediately upon its
entry by the Court and shall remain in effect for four (4) years from the date of entry or ninety (90) calendar days after the last report under Section VII is received, whichever date is later, absent an extension as set forth in Section II.C.
B. The Court shall retain jurisdiction over this action during the four-year period specified above, absent an extension as set forth in Section II.C, to insure compliance with all provisions of this Consent Order.
C. The parties to this Consent Order shall endeavor in good faith to resolve informally any differences regarding interpretation of, and compliance with, this Order prior to bringing such matters to the Court for resolution. However, in the event that the Defendants either fail to perform in a timely manner any act required by this Order or acts in violation of any provision of this Order, the United States may move the Court to impose any remedy authorized by law or equity.
D. The parties agree that the time limits set forth throughout this Consent Order may be expanded upon mutual consent of the parties. Where SCBE, despite its reasonable efforts, cannot satisfy any time limit or deadline set forth in this Consent Order, the parties shall endeavor in good faith to agree
Page 5 of 23

upon a reasonable extension of the particular deadline in question. If the parties are unable to agree upon an extension, either party may move the Court for an extension, which may be granted upon good cause shown. III. Injunctive Relief
The Defendants, their agents, employees, successors, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, are enjoined from:
A. Engaging in any act or practice that may discriminate against any student on the basis of that student’s race, color or national origin in the administration or provision of educational services, programs, opportunities or benefits;
B. Failing to respond promptly and appropriately to allegations of harassment or discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin;
C. Retaliating against, or taking any actions that may adversely affect any student or employee because that student or employee has alleged, opposed, or filed or participated in a complaint with SCBE or any federal, state, local or nongovernmental entity concerning, harassment or discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin.
Page 6 of 23

IV. Retention of Expert/Development of Comprehensive Plan and Training Program A. SCBE shall retain Stephen Wessler and Johnny Purvis, who
the parties acknowledge possess expertise in the area of student harassment prevention and training in the context of elementary/secondary education.
1. SCBE shall retain Mr. Wessler to develop a comprehensive plan, as described in Section V, below, that will entail:
a. Revised written policy, practices and procedures for preventing, identifying and remediating harassment and discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin;
b. An annual climate assessment for each school in the SCBE system regarding student to student and teacher to student interactions to determine whether circumstances warrant school-specific actions;
c. Policies and procedures for investigating complaints and generating reports for evaluation; and
d. Age-appropriate harassment and prevention programs for students; informal sessions on policy and responsibility of staff; and workshops on addressing bias and harassment for all district employees.
2. SCBE shall retain Mr. Purvis to train, administer and implement this comprehensive plan, as described in Section
Page 7 of 23

VI, below, for all SCBE school board members, employees and students.2
B. If Mr. Wessler or Mr. Purvis subsequently is unable to
perform the tasks identified in Sections IV.A.1 and IV.A.2, the
parties shall identify a mutually acceptable expert to serve as a
replacement.
C. Within ninety (90) calendar days from the date of entry
of this Consent Order, SCBE shall deliver to counsel for the United States,3 copies of the written school climate assessments
and analyses, the proposed Comprehensive Plan, the proposed
Training Program, and all supporting materials.
D. Within one hundred twenty (120) calendar days from the
date of entry of this Consent Order, the United States shall
provide written comments or objections, if any, to SCBE that
pertain to the items set forth in Section IV.C, above. SCBE
2For purposes of this Consent Order, “employees” shall be defined to include all central office and school administrators, counselors, teachers, teacher aides, coaches, secretaries, playground supervisors, bus drivers, cafeteria workers, custodians, and all other staff members who have contact with students. SCBE shall make reasonable efforts to include substitute teachers, substitute bus drivers and other substitute or temporary employees in the training described above.
3All documents or reports required to be submitted to the United States pursuant to this Consent Order shall be addressed to: Chief, Educational Opportunities Section, Civil Rights Division, United States Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Patrick Henry Building - Suite 4300, Washington, DC 20530.
Page 8 of 23

shall make a good faith effort to address any concerns of the United States, and, where appropriate, incorporate any suggestions or modifications proposed by the United States. V. Comprehensive Plan for Preventing, Identifying and
Remediating Harassment and Discrimination on the Basis of Race, Color or National Origin SCBE shall begin to implement the Comprehensive Plan within one hundred eighty (180) calendar days from the date of entry of this Consent Order, and shall, at a minimum, include the following provisions: A. SCBE’s general statement of policy. SCBE shall revise its written policy prohibiting harassment and discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin, to insure that the written policy (1) sets forth SCBE’s commitment to protect students from harassment and discrimination and to maintain a nondiscriminatory environment; (2) states that all students, regardless of race, color or national origin, are entitled to an educational environment free from harassment and discrimination; (3) reaffirms that SCBE shall respond to students’ complaints of harassment promptly and appropriately; (4) requires all SCBE employees to promptly report, to the principal or a compliance coordinator (as described in Section V.J, below), harassment that they observe, are informed of, or reasonably suspect; and (5) prohibits retaliation against students or SCBE employees who report allegations of harassment or discrimination, or who
Page 9 of 23

participate in the reporting or investigation of such allegations.
B. Definitions and examples of prohibited conduct. SCBE shall define harassment and discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin, and provide concrete examples of each.
C. Policies and procedures for reporting prohibited conduct. SCBE shall explain how to report allegations of harassment and discrimination, and, with annual revisions (as appropriate), identify to whom at each school in the SCBE system and at SCBE’s central office such allegations should be reported. SCBE shall set forth formal complaint procedures and shall also inform students and their parents of their rights to file complaints with the U.S. Department of Education, the U.S. Department of Justice, and other state or local entities, including the right to bring an action in state or federal court.
D. Policies and procedures for investigating complaints. SCBE shall describe the steps it will take to respond to reported incidents of harassment or discrimination, including but not limited to taking disciplinary measures against those found to have engaged in such acts, and, where appropriate, reporting violent or criminal conduct to law enforcement authorities.
E. Policies and procedures for remediating violations. SCBE shall explain the disciplinary measures available against persons who are found to have engaged in harassment or
Page 10 of 23

discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin. Corrective action shall be, among other things, appropriate to the severity of the harassment; calculated to end the harassment and prevent retaliation; and designed to insure that the offending conduct does not limit and/or interrupt the ability of the complainant (and the victim, if different) to participate in, or benefit from, the educational services, programs and/or opportunities provided by SCBE.
F. Policies regarding confidentiality. SCBE shall explain what efforts it will make, consistent with its legal obligations to investigate, to take appropriate action, and to conform with any discovery or disclosure obligations, to respect the privacy of the complainant, the victim, individuals against whom a complaint is filed, and witnesses.
G. Dissemination of policies and procedures, and training of personnel. SCBE shall post, in prominent places throughout each school and SCBE administrative building, its revised policies concerning harassment and discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin.
H. Dissemination of policies and procedures to students and parents. SCBE shall inform students and their parents, through, at a minimum, annual meetings with all students, an annual distribution of notices to students and parents or guardians, by use of the Attendance, Grading and Student Rights and
Page 11 of 23

Responsibility Policy Handbooks, of SCBE’s policies prohibiting harassment and discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin, including how and to whom to report harassment or discrimination, how to file a formal complaint, and what steps SCBE will take to investigate complaints and punish those found to have engaged in prohibited conduct.
I. Student curriculum. As part of each school’s regular curriculum, at least annually SCBE shall train students about preventing, identifying and responding to harassment and discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin;
J. Designation of a compliance coordinator at each school in the District. The compliance coordinators shall be appointed by SCBE’s Director of Schools and shall be empowered to receive and investigate complaints of harassment or discrimination, and to take such other actions as may be delineated. SCBE shall insure that appropriate time is afforded the compliance coordinators to fulfill their duties as described herein. SCBE shall inform employees, students and parents or guardians of the identity and role of the compliance coordinator at their respective schools. SCBE shall, on at least an annual basis, provide the compliance coordinators with appropriate training. Such training shall, at a minimum, include (1) how to investigate allegations of harassment or discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin; (2) how to document and maintain
Page 12 of 23

records of such investigations; (3) how to balance the complainant’s privacy and confidentiality concerns with the notification of complainant’s teachers to prevent additional incidents of harassment or discrimination; and (4) how to remediate such harassment or discrimination. Any new compliance coordinators who may be designated in the future shall receive appropriate training within thirty (30) calendar days.
K. Record-keeping. SCBE shall maintain a written record (“Incident Report”) of each and every allegation, whether verbal or in writing, of harassment or discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin. The Incident Report shall, at a minimum, include (1) the name of the person making the allegation, and, if different, the name of the alleged victim; (2) the nature of the allegation and the date of the alleged incident; (3) the names of all persons alleged to have committed violations; (4) the names of all persons who may have relevant information about the incident; (5) the written statements of the complainant, the victim (if different from the complainant), the alleged perpetrator, and any witnesses; (6) the outcome of the investigation; (7) any action taken by SCBE; and (8) attached copies of any documents supplied to SCBE or created during the investigation or complaint process. The Incident Report shall be completed no later than fifteen (15) calendar days after the date upon which the complaint is first made. The compliance
Page 13 of 23

coordinators, the school building principal, and the Director of Schools, or his or her designee from the central administration staff, shall be supplied with a copy of each such Incident Report, and, in a space specifically designated, each shall initial the Incident Report to indicate that s/he has reviewed the Report and approves of the actions taken by the investigating official. VI. Mandatory Education and Training Program
A. SCBE shall begin implementation of the Training Program within one hundred eighty (180) calendar days from the date of entry of this Consent Order. Within two hundred seventy (270) calendar days from the date of entry of this Consent Order, SCBE shall insure that all SCBE school board members and employees have participated in the Training Program.
B. The Training Program shall, at a minimum, include the following:
1. Informing each individual of SCBE’s policies prohibiting any act or practice that has the purpose or effect of discriminating against any student on the basis of that student’s race, color or national origin in the administration or provision of educational services, programs, opportunities or benefits;
2. Informing each individual of her or his duties and responsibilities under SCBE’s Comprehensive Plan for preventing, identifying and remediating harassment and discrimination on the
Page 14 of 23

basis of race, color or national origin, and of the consequences to each individual for failure to comply with these duties and responsibilities;
3. Informing each individual of SCBE’s procedures for the prompt reporting of incidents of harassment or discrimination;
4. Discussing how to structure a classroom and school environment in which harassment and discrimination are not tolerated;
5. Holding a question and answer session to review each of the foregoing areas; and
6. Certification of attendance by the person conducting the Training Program for each person attending the program.
C. SCBE shall conduct a comparable Training Program within thirty (30) calendar days of the start of each school year.
D. New SCBE school board members and employees shall participate in a comparable Training Program within thirty (30) calendar days from the start of their affiliation with, or employment in, the SCBE system. VII. Reports to the United States
A. On a quarterly basis, beginning thirty (30) days from the date of entry of this Consent Order, SCBE shall deliver to counsel for the United States, at the address set forth
Page 15 of 23

previously, a detailed report covering the preceding reporting period containing information about the SCBE’s compliance efforts with this Consent Order, including but not limited to:
1. Copies of SCBE’s policies and procedures for preventing, identifying, reporting and responding to harassment and discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin, including any revisions since the previous report;
2. Copies of notices and other materials provided to employees, students and parents of SCBE’s policies and procedures for preventing, identifying, reporting and responding to harassment and discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin, and a description of how and when these notices and materials were distributed;
3. Copies of the agenda (including date of training) and all materials used in the Training Program for SCBE school board members and employees;
4. Copies of all certifications of attendance of SCBE school board members and employees in the Training Program;
5. A list of compliance coordinators, by job title and school;
6. Copies of the agenda (including date of training) and all materials used in the training of compliance coordinators;
Page 16 of 23

7. The names of all trainers and copies of their resumes, vitae and/or brochures;
8. Copies of all posters or notices regarding harassment and discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin, and a description of when they were posted and where;
9. Copies of all Incident Reports, as described in Section V.K., above. (SCBE may redact the names of students or request that the United States maintain the confidentiality of these records to the extent permitted by law.); and
10. Narrative descriptions of upcoming training and other activities related to the prevention of harassment and discrimination.
B. Within sixty (60) calendar days of receipt of any of the above reports, the United States may request, in writing, clarifications of, or supplementation to, the report. In that event, SCBE shall provide such clarifications and/or permit the inspection and copying of supplemental materials as the United States may reasonably request. VIII. Compensation of Plaintiff and Release of Claims
In consideration of the mutual covenants, promises and consideration contained herein, the parties agree as follows:
Page 17 of 23

A. This Consent Order (including this release) does not constitute, nor shall it be construed as, an admission of any liability or wrongdoing by any party.
B. The Defendants shall compensate the Madison plaintiffs as set forth in the separate, confidential agreement (“Compromise Settlement Agreement”) between the parties for settlement of any and all claims that the Madison plaintiffs may have against the Defendants, and their affiliates and subsidiaries, together with their respective members, directors, officers, agents, and employees, including but not limited to, claims for compensatory damages, personal injury, emotional distress, loss of reputation, humiliation, embarrassment, costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees. The Compromise Settlement Agreement shall be signed by the parties contemporaneously with the signing of the Consent Order.
C. The Madison plaintiffs agree that simultaneously with the submission of this Consent Order to the Court, their attorneys shall also file in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, the Stipulation of Dismissal attached hereto as Exhibit A, which Stipulation requests that, contingent on the Court’s signing and entering this Consent Order, all claims asserted in Case No. 2:00-CV-094 be dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear its own costs.
E. The Madison plaintiffs agree not to enter into any suit, action, or other proceeding at law or in equity, or to prosecute
Page 18 of 23

further any suit or action that might presently exist, or to make any claim or demand of any kind against SCBE or any of its affiliates and subsidiaries, together with their respective members, directors, officers, agents, and employees, asserting any claim released by the Madison plaintiffs in Section VIII.C, above, other than an action to enforce their rights herein.
F. The Madison plaintiffs acknowledge that they have reviewed this Consent Order (including their release of all claims) and that its language and intended effect have been explained, and that they have had the opportunity to review the Consent Order (including their release of all claims) with their attorneys. The Madison plaintiffs also acknowledge that they have voluntarily entered into this Consent Order (including the release of all claims) of their own free will based only upon the terms and conditions included in the Consent Order and release and the Compromise Settlement Agreement.
G. The provisions of this release will be governed by the laws of the State of Tennessee.
H. If a court of competent jurisdiction determines that any provision contained in this release, or any part thereof, cannot be enforced, the parties agree that such determination shall not affect or invalidate the remainder of the release.
I. This Consent Order (including the release of all claims) and the Monetary Settlement Agreement constitutes the entire
Page 19 of 23

agreement between the Madison plaintiffs and the Defendants, and supercedes all prior understandings, whether oral or written, between the parties. Any amendments or modifications to this Consent Order (including the release of all claims) must be in writing and signed by the parties.
J. This agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective heirs, successors, and assigns. ORDERED, this _______ day of _______________, 2002.
_____________________________ THOMAS GRAY HULL United States District Judge
Page 20 of 23

By their signatures on this and the following pages, the

undersigned parties and counsel agree to, and request the entry

of, this Consent Order:

Madison Plaintiffs:

Counsel for Madison Plaintiffs:

____________________ MICHAEL MADISON
____________________ MARQUITA MADISON

_______________________ LARRY L. CRAIN, #9040 5214 Maryland Way - Suite 402 Brentwood, TN 37027 (615) 376-2600
BRIAN SCHUETTE 1019 State Street P.O. Box 48 Bowling Green, KY 42102-0048 (270) 781-7500

LES BAILEY 317 Shelby Street - Suite 201 P.O. Box 847 Kingsport, TN 37662 (423) 378-4469

Page 21 of 23

Counsel for Plaintiff-Intervenor United States: RALPH F. BOYD, JR. Assistant Attorney General MICHAEL S. MAURER, D.C. No. 420908 JAVIER M. GUZMAN, D.C. No. 462679 Attorneys for Plaintiff-Intervenor U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Educational Opportunities Section Patrick Henry Building 601 D Street, NW - Suite 4300 Washington, D.C. 20530 (202) 514-4858
Page 22 of 23

Counsel for, and Representatives of, Defendants:

_________________________ JIM KISS President Sullivan County Board
of Education

________________________ PATRICK LEDFORD, #001106 Moore, Stout, Waddell
& Ledford, P.C. P.O. Box 1345 Kingsport, TN 37662 (423) 246-2344

_________________________ Dr. JOHN B. O’DELL Director of Schools Sullivan County Board
of Education

________________________ E. PATRICK HULL, #004337 229 East New Street Kingsport, TN 37660 (423) 247-6151

Page 23 of 23

 
 http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/edu/documents/sullivan-com.php
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT GREENEVILLE
MICHAEL MADISON, et al., Plaintiffs, and
United States of America, Plaintiff-Intervenor, v.
SULLIVAN COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al., Defendants.
C.A. No. 2:00-CV-094
COMPLAINT-IN-INTERVENTION
The United States of America, Plaintiff-Intervenor, alleges as follows:
1. This complaint-in-intervention is filed by the Attorney General of the United States on behalf of the United States, pursuant to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000h-2; and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d, et seq., and its implementing regulations, which prohibit recipients of Federal financial assistance from discriminating on the basis of race or color in education programs or activities.
2. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1345 and 42 U.S.C. § 2000h-2.
3. Defendants Sullivan County Board of Education (hereinafter "SCBE" or "the District") are responsible for the administration of educational services for all students enrolled in the Sullivan County school system, including Sullivan East High School (hereinafter "East").
4. The original complaint in Madison v. Sullivan County Board of Education, et al., No. 2:00-CV094, was filed on March 24, 2000, and has since been amended. In the amended complaint, Plaintiffs allege that SCBE violated, inter alia, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000d, et seq., and its implementing regulations, by discriminating on the basis of race or color.
5. Plaintiffs are citizens of Tennessee. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages as a result of the District's deliberate indifference to the verbal and physical peer-on-peer racial harassment committed by students under the District's direct control and disciplinary authority.
6. SCBE is organized under, and exists pursuant to, the laws of the State of Tennessee and, as such, is subject to the prohibitions of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
7. SCBE is a recipient of Federal financial assistance and, as such, is subject to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d, et seq., and its implementing regulations.

8. Plaintiffs are former students of the District who have been subjected to harassment constituting discrimination on the basis of race.
9. The racial harassment to which Plaintiffs were subjected was severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive.
10. The Defendants' actions and inactions in response to the harassment violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d, et seq., and its implementing regulations.
11. Such actions and inactions include the following:
a. East officials with authority to rectify the situation were given notice that Plaintiffs were being subjected to harassment or discrimination on the basis of race, but failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective actions;
b. East officials with authority to rectify the situation had actual notice of, and were deliberately indifferent to, the harassment or discrimination on the basis of race to which Plaintiffs were subjected;
c. The deliberate indifference of East officials prevented Plaintiffs from enjoying the educational benefits and opportunities provided by East.
d. The District's response to the racial harassment to which Plaintiffs were subjected constituted a denial of equal protection of the laws on the basis of race, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
12. Unless enjoined by this Court, the Defendants will continue to violate the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI.
13. The United States seeks intervention in this lawsuit. The United States, through intervention, seeks relief to ensure that the SCBE will operate a school system that provides an educational environment free of racial harassment for its students and that is in compliance with federal law.
14. The Attorney General, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000h-2, has certified in the attached certification that this is a case of general public importance.
Wherefore, the United States respectfully requests that this Court:
1. Grant the United States intervention in this case;
2. Declare that Defendants have denied Plaintiffs the equal protection of the laws in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment;
3. Declare that Defendants have discriminated on the basis of race by failing to address, prevent, and remedy racial harassment, and in so doing failed to provide the benefits of its educational activities and services to Plaintiffs, in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d, et seq., and its implementing regulations;
2

4. Permanently enjoin Defendants, their officers, agents, employees, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, from all unlawful discrimination against school-age children on the basis of race; 5. Order Defendants to develop, adopt, and timely implement a comprehensive plan that will ensure a harassment-free educational environment for all its students; 6. Order Defendants to file a report annually with the Court for three years detailing the implementation of its plan; 7. Order Defendants to provide such relief as is necessary to compensate Plaintiffs for the discrimination to which they were subjected; 8. Grant any additional relief as the needs of justice may require.
Respectfully Submitted,
_________________________ JANET RENO Attorney General
_________________________ BILL LANN LEE Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division
_________________________ JEREMIAH GLASSMAN (DC Bar# 172395) MICHAEL S. MAURER (DC Bar# 420908) JAVIER M. GUZMAN (DC Bar# 462679) KIRAN A. AHUJA (GA Bar# 005801) Attorneys for Plaintiff-Intervenor U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Educational Opportunities Section 601 D Street, N.W., Suite 4300
3

Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514-4092
4

 
 http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/edu/documents/sullivan-mot.php
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT GREENEVILLE
MICHAEL MADISON, et al., Plaintiffs, and
United States of America, Plaintiff-Intervenor, v.
SULLIVAN COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al., Defendants.
C.A. No. 2:00-CV-094
UNITED STATES' MOTION TO INTERVENE AS PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR
For the reasons set forth below and in the accompanying Memorandum, the United States hereby moves to intervene in the above-captioned case as a party-plaintiff, pursuant to Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and to 42 U.S.C. § 2000h-2; and to file the attached Complaintin-Intervention.
In support of this motion, the United States submits:
1. Plaintiffs moved to file an amended complaint in the above-captioned case, and on September 14, 2000, the Court granted the motion. In the amended complaint, plaintiffs assert claims under, inter alia, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d, et seq. (Title VI). Specifically, plaintiffs allege that the Sullivan County Board of Education did not respond appropriately to the harassment on the basis of race to which they were subjected and of which the District had notice. Plaintiffs further allege, inter alia, that the District's knowing inaction violated their right to equal protection and constituted discrimination on the basis of race under Title VI and other federal laws.
2. Rule 24(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for intervention as of right when a statute of the United States confers an unconditional right to intervene or when the applicant claims an interest in the subject matter of the action which may be affected. Rule 24(b) provides for permissive intervention when an applicant's claim and the main action have common questions of law or fact.
3. The United States meets the requirements of Rule 24(a) because, inter alia, there is a statute conferring an unconditional right to intervene, and, in addition, the United States has a strong interest in the proper and effective interpretation and application of Title VI, which may be affected by this litigation. The requirements for permissive intervention are also met.
4. Under 42 U.S.C. § 2000h-2, the United States may intervene upon a timely application in any action in any court of the United States in which relief is sought from a denial, on account of race, of equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the

United States, if the Attorney General certifies that the case is of general public importance. In such cases, the United States is "entitled to the same relief as if it had instituted the action." 42 U.S.C. § 2000h-2.
5. Both Plaintiffs and the United States claim violations of Title VI and the Fourteenth Amendment, and these claims are based on substantially the same facts.
6. The Attorney General has certified that this case is of general public importance, and the certificate is attached to the Complaint-in-Intervention.
7. The United States' proposed intervention is timely. The United States learned of this lawsuit soon after the filing of the initial complaint. The United States then promptly investigated the allegations raised and notified the parties. On October 18, 2000, the United States notified the parties that we would seek to intervene in this action, but that we would refrain from filing this motion for ten days to permit the parties to engage in settlement discussions. Because Defendants have declined to do so, we now file this Motion to Intervene.
8. The Court has set a scheduling conference for December 6, 2000. If the Court grants intervention, the United States, prior to December 6, will meet with the other parties to develop a proposed discovery plan and arrange for initial disclosures under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, as required under local court rules.
Wherefore, the United States respectfully requests that the Court grant the Motion to Intervene and direct the Clerk of the Court to file the attached Complaint-in-Intervention. A proposed Order is attached hereto.
Respectfully submitted,
BILL LANN LEE Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division
_________________________ JEREMIAH GLASSMAN (DC Bar# 172395) MICHAEL S. MAURER (DC Bar# 420908) JAVIER M. GUZMAN (DC Bar# 462679) KIRAN A. AHUJA (GA Bar# 005801) Attorneys for Plaintiff-Intervenor U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Educational Opportunities Section 601 D Street, N.W., Suite 4300 Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514-4092
2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT GREENEVILLE
MICHAEL MADISON, et al., Plaintiffs, and
United States of America, Plaintiff-Intervenor, v.
SULLIVAN COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al., Defendants.
C.A. No. 2:00-CV-094
ORDER Upon good cause shown, the United States' Motion to Intervene is hereby GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file the United States' Complaint-in-Intervention.
_________________ Thomas Gray Hull United States District Judge
3

 
 CLOSED,BCS,JURY_TRIAL
Live Database U.S. District Court − Eastern District of Tennessee (Greeneville)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:00−cv−00094

Madison, et al v. Sullivan Co Bd of Ed, et al Assigned to: Honorable Thomas G Hull Demand: $2,500,000 Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act Plaintiff Michael A Madison
Plaintiff Marquita L Madison next friend Carrie E Madison

Date Filed: 03/24/2000 Date Terminated: 10/16/2002 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Brian L Schuette Brian Schuette, Attorney at Law, PSC 719A Dishman Lane Bowling Green, KY 42104 270−781−7500 Fax: 270−781−7533 Email: Brian@bsa−law.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Larry L Crain Crain Law Center, LLC 5214 Maryland Way Suite 402 Brentwood, TN 37027 615−376−2600 Fax: 615−345−6009 Email: larry@csafirm.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Leslie W Bailey , Jr Law Office of Leslie Bailey 372 Shelby Street Suite 201 Kingsport, TN 37660 423−378−4469 Fax: 423−378−4088 Email: sharonbailey7@hotmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Brian L Schuette (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Larry L Crain (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Leslie W Bailey , Jr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Case 2:00-cv-00094 Doc <docnum> Filed <datefiled> Page 1 of 7

Defendant Sullivan County Board of Education TERMINATED: 10/17/2002
Defendant Keith Glover individually and in his capacity as principal of Sullivan East High School TERMINATED: 10/17/2002
Defendant Harmon Peters individually and in his capacity as teacher at Sullivan East High School TERMINATED: 10/17/2002

represented by E Patrick Hull E. Patrick Hull Law Office P O Box 1388 Kingsport, TN 37662−1388 423−247−6151 Email: pat@hull−firm.com TERMINATED: 10/17/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
J Patrick Ledford Wilson Worley Moore Gamble &Stout, PC P O Box 88 Kingsport, TN 37662 423−246−2344 Email: pledford@wwmgs.com TERMINATED: 10/17/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tausha M Carmack Moore, Stout, Waddell &Ledford, PC P O Box 1345 Kingsport, TN 37662−1345 423−246−2344 TERMINATED: 10/17/2002
William R Berry The Law Office of William Berry 600 North Roan Street Johnson City, TN 37605 423−926−4608 Fax: 423−928−8170 Email: bwrlw@aol.com TERMINATED: 10/17/2002
represented by J Patrick Ledford (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/17/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tausha M Carmack (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/17/2002
William R Berry (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/17/2002
represented by J Patrick Ledford (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/17/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tausha M Carmack (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/17/2002

Case 2:00-cv-00094 Doc <docnum> Filed <datefiled> Page 2 of 7

Defendant Anson Blevins TERMINATED: 10/07/2002
Defendant Thomas Johnson TERMINATED: 08/05/2002
Defendant Jeff Rutherford TERMINATED: 08/05/2002
Defendant Todd Boling TERMINATED: 08/05/2002
Intervenor Plaintiff United States of America

William R Berry (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/17/2002
represented by Anson Blevins 190 Honaker Drive Bristol, TN 37620−5482 PRO SE
represented by Jeremiah Glassman U S Department of Justice Educational Opportunities Section 601 D Street NW Suite 4300 Washington, DC 20530 202−514−4092 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Javier M Guzman U S Department of Justice Educational Opportunities Section 601 D Street NW Suite 4300 Washington, DC 20530 202−514−4092
Kiran A Ahuja U S Department of Justice Educational Opportunities Section 601 D Street NW Suite 4300 Washington, DC 20530 202−514−4092
Michael S Maurer United States Department of Justice (Tax DC) Tax Division P.O. Box 7238 Washington, DC 20044 202−514−3812 Fax: 202−514−1116 Email: michael.maurer@usdoj.gov.

Date Filed

# Docket Text

Case 2:00-cv-00094 Doc <docnum> Filed <datefiled> Page 3 of 7

03/24/2000
03/24/2000 04/20/2000 05/05/2000
05/08/2000
05/08/2000
05/08/2000 05/09/2000
05/15/2000
05/15/2000 06/22/2000
07/19/2000
08/23/2000 09/14/2000 09/14/2000 10/04/2000 10/16/2000
11/02/2000 11/28/2000 11/28/2000 12/06/2000

1 COMPLAINT (Summons(es) issued at intake desk &given to atty); jury demand, Magistrate Judge Dennis H. Inman designated for pretrial matters (BGP) (Entered: 03/24/2000)
FILING FEE PAID on 3/24/00 in the amount of $ 150.00, receipt # 10404. (BGP) (Entered: 03/24/2000)
2 ANSWER by defendant Anson Blevins to complaint [1−1] C/S (RLC) (Entered: 04/20/2000)
3 MOTION by plaintiff Michael A Madison for attorney Brian L Schuette to appear pro hac vice w/cert of G.S. from US Dist Ct for the Western Dist of Kentucky attached. C/S (RLC) Modified on 05/08/2000 (Entered: 05/05/2000)
4 AGREED ORDER by Honorable Thomas G. Hull, dfts Sullivan Co Bd of Ed, Keith Glover and Harmon Peters, shall have until and including 5/15/00 to ans or otherwise plead to the complaint. (cc: all counsel) (RLC) (Entered: 05/08/2000)
ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant Sullivan Co Bd of Ed, defendant Keith Glover, defendant Harmon Peters by J Patrick Ledford (see Doc. 4 ). C/S (RLC) (Entered: 05/08/2000)
RECEIPT #10516 in the amt of $60.00 for phv mot for Brian L Schuette (see Doc. 3 ). (RLC) (Entered: 05/08/2000)
5 ORDER by Honorable Thomas G. Hull granting motion for attorney Brian L Schuette to appear pro hac vice [3−1] (cc: all counsel) (KSH) (Entered: 05/09/2000)
6 RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon defendants Sullivan Co Bd of Ed and Keith Glover, 4/5/00; defendant Harmon Peters, 3/25/00; defendants Anson Blevins and Jeff Rutherford on 4/3/00 (Former Emp) (Entered: 05/15/2000)
7 ANSWER by defts Sullivan Co Bd of Ed, Keith Glover, Harmon Peters to [1−1] C/S (Former Emp) (Entered: 05/15/2000)
LETTER to pltf's attys in regard to service on Jeff Rutherford and in regard to lack of service of Todd Boling (see left−hand side of file for letter) (EBM) (Entered: 06/22/2000)
8 RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon defendant Thomas Johnson 7/13/00 and defendant Todd Boling on 7/14/00 by personal service (RLC) (Entered: 07/19/2000)
9 MOTION by plaintiff Michael A Madison to amend complaint C/S (RET) (Entered: 08/23/2000)
10 ORDER by Honorable Thomas G. Hull granting pltf's motion to amend complaint [9−1] (cc: all counsel) (RLC) (Entered: 09/14/2000)
11 AMENDED COMPLAINT [1−1] by plaintiff Michael A Madison; adding Marquita L Madison; jury demand (RLC) (Entered: 09/14/2000)
12 ANSWER by Sullivan Co Bd of Ed, Keith Glover, Harmon Peters to Amended Complaint [11−1] C/S (EBM) (Entered: 10/05/2000)
NOTICE OF SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ; Pretrial conference set for 9:00 12/6/00 w/consent form and sample sched order attached. (cc: all counsel) (RLC) (Entered: 10/16/2000)
13 MOTION obo USA to intervene as pltf−intervenor, with memo in support attached (RET) (Entered: 11/02/2000)
14 ORDER by Honorable Thomas G. Hull granting motion of USA to intervene [13−1] (cc: all counsel) (Former Emp) (Entered: 11/28/2000)
15 INTERVENOR'S COMPLAINT by USA (Former Emp) (Entered: 11/28/2000)
16 SCHEDULING ORDER by Honorable Thomas G. Hull ; Pretrial conference set for 9:00 10/12/01 ; Jury trial set for 9:00 10/23/01. Expected length of trial is 5

Case 2:00-cv-00094 Doc <docnum> Filed <datefiled> Page 4 of 7

days. (cc: all counsel) (RLC) (Entered: 12/06/2000)

12/13/2000

17 REPORT of the parties pursuant to Rule 26 C/S (Former Emp) (Entered: 12/13/2000)

12/13/2000

18 ANSWER by defts Sullivan Co Bd of Ed, Keith Glover, Harmon Peters to intervening complaint [15−1] C/S (Former Emp) (Entered: 12/13/2000)

04/09/2001

19 JOINT STIPULATION for entry of a protective order by all parties C/S (EBM) (Entered: 04/09/2001)

04/11/2001

20 PROTECTIVE ORDER by Mag Judge Dennis H. Inman, in agreement with the parties. ORDERED that within 30 days of the conclusion of this case, the parties will return all copies of previously disclosed education records to the disclosing party. (cc: all counsel) (RLC) (Entered: 04/11/2001)

05/16/2001

21 JOINT MOTION by plaintiff Michael A Madison, defendant Sullivan Co Bd of Ed, defendant Keith Glover, defendant Harmon Peters, plaintiff Marquita L Madison, intervenor plaintiff USA to continue trial and entry of revised sched order C/S (RLC) (Entered: 05/16/2001)

05/17/2001

22 REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER by Honorable Thomas G. Hull; Motion filing ddl set for 12/14/01; Discovery set for 11/2/01; Pretrial conference set for 9:00 3/8/02; Jury trial set for 3/19/02 (cc: all counsel) (Former Emp) (Entered: 05/17/2001)

05/23/2001

23 MOTION by defendant Sullivan Co Bd of Ed, defendant Keith Glover, defendant Harmon Peters to amend revised sched order C/S (RLC) (Entered: 05/23/2001)

06/14/2001

24 ORDER by Honorable Thomas G. Hull granting motion to amend revised sched order [23−1] all dispositive motions shall be 12/4/01, all motions regarding evidentiary ques including motions in limine must be filed no later than 2/14/02. Response to motions are due on or before 2/25/02 (cc: all counsel) (RET) (Entered: 06/14/2001)

06/20/2001

NOTICE OF HEARING before Mag Judge Dennis H. Inman ; In−court hearing set for 9:00 7/24/01 (cc: all counsel) (EBM) (Entered: 06/20/2001)

07/19/2001

25 MOTION &MEMO IN SUPPT by plaintiffs for hearing to review objections to disclosure of education records C/S (BGP) (Entered: 07/19/2001)

07/24/2001

26 MINUTES: before Mag Judge Dennis H. Inman ; In−court hearing held 7/24/01 re release of student records. Order to enter Ct Rptr: Karen Culbreth Ctrm Dpty: S Hopson (Former Emp) (Entered: 07/24/2001)

07/26/2001

27 ORDER by Mag Judge Dennis H. Inman finding the motion for hearing to review objections to disclosure of education records [25−1] moot. (cc: all counsel) (KSH) (Entered: 07/26/2001)

08/09/2001

28 DISCLOSURES of expert witnesses by intervenor plaintiff USA C/S (BGP) (Entered: 08/09/2001)

08/10/2001

29 DISCLOSURES OF EXPERT WITNESSES by plaintiff Michael A Madison, plaintiff Marquita L Madison C/S (KSH) (Entered: 08/10/2001)

08/21/2001

REMARK: File #2 begins w/doc #30 (Former Emp) Modified on 08/21/2001 (Entered: 08/21/2001)

08/21/2001

30 NOTICE OF DEPOSITION by intervenor plaintiff of Randy Simpson on August 21, 2001 C/S (Former Emp) (Entered: 08/21/2001)

09/12/2001

MAIL RETURNED [27−1] addressed to defendant Anson Blevins &re−mailed to 190 Honaker Dr., Bristol, TN, 37620−5482 (BGP) (Entered: 09/12/2001)

10/19/2001

31 JOINT MOTION for continuance and entry of revised scheduling order (attached) C/S (Former Emp) (Entered: 10/19/2001)

11/08/2001

32 REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER by Honorable Thomas G. Hull estimated length of trial 5 days, unknown chance of settlement ; Motion filing ddl set for 5/20/02 ; Discovery set for 3/1/02 ; Pretrial conference set for 9:00 6/14/02 ; Jury

Case 2:00-cv-00094 Doc <docnum> Filed <datefiled> Page 5 of 7

11/30/2001 12/05/2001 01/02/2002 01/16/2002 01/31/2002
01/31/2002 01/31/2002
05/15/2002 06/21/2002 06/24/2002 06/24/2002 06/24/2002
07/17/2002 07/18/2002 07/18/2002 07/18/2002 07/22/2002 07/26/2002

trial set for 9:00 6/25/02 (cc: all counsel) (KSH) (Entered: 11/08/2001)
33 THIRD AMENDED NOTICE OF DEPOSITION by plaintiff Michael A Madison, plaintiff Marquita L Madison of John Vicars on Dec. 19, 2001 @ 2:00 p.m. C/S (GIntake) (Entered: 11/30/2001)
34 MOTION by defendant Sullivan Co Bd of Ed, defendant Keith Glover, defendant Harmon Peters to quash C/S (GIntake) (Entered: 12/05/2001)
35 ORDER by Mag Judge Dennis H. Inman granting motion to quash pltf's notice to take the depo of Vicars [34−1] (cc: all counsel) (RET) (Entered: 01/02/2002)
36 MOTION by plaintiff Michael A Madison to extend to disclose expert testimony exhibit on outside of file C/S (GIntake) (Entered: 01/16/2002)
37 AGREED ORDER by Honorable Thomas G. Hull,it is ORDERED the Sullivan Co dfts shall have through 2/15/02 to respond to pltf's first motion for enlargment of time, unless the same is made moot by a revised Sched Order. (cc: all counsel) (RLC) (Entered: 01/31/2002)
38 JOINT MOTION by plaintiff, defendant, plaintiff, intervenor plaintiff, unknown to continue and entry of revised scheduling order (GIntake) (Entered: 01/31/2002)
39 REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER by Honorable Thomas G. Hull estimated length of trial 5 days; Motion filing ddl set for 6/26/02 ; Discovery set for 6/16/02 ; Pretrial conference reset for 9:00 9/25/02; Jury trial reset for 9:00 10/8/02 (cc: all counsel) (EBM) (Entered: 01/31/2002)
40 MEDIATION REPORT Case did not settle. (cc: all counsel) (GIntake) (Entered: 05/15/2002)
41 MOTION by defendant Sullivan Co Bd of Ed, defendant Keith Glover, defendant Harmon Peters to exceed page limitation w/brief in support attached. C/S (GIntake) (Entered: 06/21/2002)
42 ORDER by Honorable Thomas G. Hull granting dft's motion to exceed page limitation [41−1] (cc: all counsel) (RLC) (Entered: 06/24/2002)
43 MOTION by defendant Sullivan Co Bd of Ed, defendant Keith Glover, defendant Harmon Peters for summary judgment w/brief in suppt attached C/S (BGP) (Entered: 06/24/2002)
44 MOTION by defendant Sullivan Co Bd of Ed, defendant Keith Glover, defendant Harmon Peters for order to sever the trial of the pltfs state claims "if" these defts' motion for sj is NOT granted w/brief in suppt attached C/S (BGP) (Entered: 06/24/2002)
45 MOTION by plaintiffs to extend time an additional 10 days to resp to dfts sj mot C/S (RLC) (Entered: 07/17/2002)
46 ORDER by Honorable Thomas G. Hull granting motion to extend time an additional 10 days to resp to dfts sj mot [45−1] (cc: all counsel) (Former Emp) (Entered: 07/18/2002)
47 RESPONSE by defendant Sullivan Co Bd of Ed, defendant Keith Glover, defendant Harmon Peters to pltf's mot for ext of time [45−1] w/brief in support attached..... C/S (RLC) Modified on 07/19/2002 (Entered: 07/19/2002)
47 .... and in the alternative, MOTION by defendant Sullivan Co Bd of Ed, defendant Keith Glover, defendant Harmon Peters to continue trial date C/S (RLC) (Entered: 07/19/2002)
48 SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF by defts Sullivan Co Bd of Ed, Keith Glover, Harmon Peters in support of its motion to continue trial date [47−1] C/S (EBM) (Entered: 07/22/2002)
49 RESPONSE by Michael A Madison, Marquita L Madison, USA to motion for summary judgment [43−1] w/brief in support attached and Exhibits 1−36 in support LOOSE FROM FILE C/S (EBM) (Entered: 07/26/2002)

Case 2:00-cv-00094 Doc <docnum> Filed <datefiled> Page 6 of 7

07/27/2002 07/27/2002
07/30/2002 08/05/2002
08/06/2002 08/06/2002 08/07/2002 08/07/2002 09/23/2002 10/04/2002 10/07/2002 10/15/2002
10/16/2002
10/17/2002
10/17/2002 10/28/2002 11/21/2002

50 RESPONSE by plaintiff to motion for summary judgment [43−1] C/S (Former Emp) (Entered: 07/29/2002)
51 MOTION by pltfs Michael A Madison, Marquita L Madison to dismiss pending state claims as well as federal claims as to defts Keith Glover, Thomas Johnson, Jeff Rutherfored and Todd Boling, and for dismissal of pltf Marquita Madison's claim against deft Harmon Peters C/S (Former Emp) (Entered: 07/29/2002)
NOTICE OF FPC (cc: all counsel) (RLC) (Entered: 07/30/2002)
52 ORDER by Honorable Thomas G. Hull granting pltfs motion to dismiss pending state claims as well as federal claims as to defts Keith Glover, Thomas Johnson, Jeff Rutherfored and Todd Boling, and for dismissal of pltf Marquita Madison's claim against deft Harmon Peters [51−1]. Dismissing party Todd Boling, party Jeff Rutherford, party Thomas Johnson. Therefore, the motion for sj filed by Glover and Peters insofar as it deals with the claims of Marquita Madison are now moot. (cc: all counsel) (GIntake) (Entered: 08/05/2002)
REMARK: File #3 begins with Doc. 53 (GIntake) (Entered: 08/06/2002)
53 JOINT MOTION by plaintiffs, defendants, intervenor plaintiff to continue trial date C/S (GIntake) (Entered: 08/06/2002)
54 AGREED ORDER by Honorable Thomas G. Hull, that the Sullivan Co dfts shall have through 9/16/02 to reply to pltf's resp in opposition to sj mot. (cc: all counsel) (RLC) (Entered: 08/07/2002)
55 ORDER by Honorable Thomas G. Hull granting joint motion to continue trial date [53−1] ; Pretrial conference reset for 10:00 11/15/02 ; Jury trial continued for 9:00 12/4/02 (cc: all counsel) (RLC) (Entered: 08/07/2002)
NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT by telephone call from defendants atty Pat Ledford to law clerk (EBM) (Entered: 09/23/2002)
56 MOTION by plaintiffs for entry of order dismissing all calims against Anson Blevins because they have settled all claims against him. C/S (EBM) (Entered: 10/04/2002)
57 ORDER by Honorable Thomas G. Hull granting motion for entry of order dismissing all calims against Anson Blevins [56−1] dismissing party Lisa Blevins, party Anson Blevins (cc: all counsel) (RLC) (Entered: 10/07/2002)
MAIL RETURNED [57−1], [57−2] addressed to plaintiff Michael A Madison's atty Brian L Schuette at 1847 Scottsville Road, Bowling Green, Ky 42104−3301 marked "forward time exp−rtn to sender" and gave his address as P.O. Box 48, Bowling Green, KY 42105−0048. Confirmed new address and gave to Atty maintenance. Remailed to new address w/consent order of 10/16/02 (EBM) Modified on 10/16/2002 (Entered: 10/16/2002)
58 CONSENT JUDGMENT by Honorable Thomas G. Hull that shall remain in effect for four years from date of this entry or 90 calendar days after the last report under Section VII is received and dismissing case . A copy of the stipulation of dismissal to be filed after this is entered is attached. (cc: all counsel) (EBM) (Entered: 10/16/2002)
59 STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL that pltfs have settled this action as to certain parties and dismissing party Harmon Peters, party Keith Glover, party Sullivan Co Bd of Ed w/full prejudice and each party shall bear his own costs and expenses including but not limited to atty fees. (cc: all counsel) (EBM) (Entered: 10/17/2002)
LETTER regarding exhs sent w/stip of dismissal of this date to pltfs' atty B Schuette and to USA's atty J Guzman (EBM) (Entered: 10/17/2002)
REMARK: Per telephone conversation w/Javier M Guzman exhibits for USA's documents destroyed (RLC) (Entered: 10/28/2002)
REMARK−exhs to pltfs' motion #36 destroyed (EBM) (Entered: 11/21/2002)

Case 2:00-cv-00094 Doc <docnum> Filed <datefiled> Page 7 of 7

 
 http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/edu/documents/casesummary.php#sullivan
Madison and United States v. Sullivan County Board of Education Race
The two plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that the Sullivan County Board of Education (SCBE) violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to appropriately address known student-on-student harassment on the basis of race. Specifically, plaintiffs' amended complaint alleges that both Michael and Marquita Madison, who are black, were subjected to ongoing racial harassment while attending Sullivan East High School (East). This harassment included a constant barrage of racial slurs, some made within earshot of teachers, racially derogatory graffiti on walls and desks, and racially offensive paraphernalia. Though school officials knew or should have known of the harassment, they failed to take appropriate steps to address it. Marquita eventually transferred to another school after her sophomore year. Michael fell victim to a racially-motivated assault outside the school cafeteria his junior year. He did not return to East after the assault and finished high school on homebound studies.
The Section filed its complaint-in-intervention, motion to intervene, andsupporting memorandum in November 2000. In our complaint-inintervention, we sought monetary relief for the plaintiffs and injunctive relief, such as policies and procedures to prevent or address such harassment in the future. The court granted the Section's intervention on November 28, 2000. The parties conducted discovery in 2001 and early 2002. Following discovery, the parties negotiated a consent order and monetary settlement of the Title VI and equal protection claims. Under the consent order, which was approved by the Court on October 16, 2002, the school system agreed to retain an expert to develop a comprehensive plan to prevent, identify, and remedy harassment and discrimination; provide an education and training program for teachers, staff, and students about the school district's policies prohibiting harassment and discrimination; and maintain written records of each harassment allegation received, investigation conducted and corrective action taken by the district to ensure a consistent and effective review of allegations. For more details about the settlement, please see the press release linked here.

 
 http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/edu/documents/sullivan-mem.php
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT GREENEVILLE
MICHAEL MADISON, et al., Plaintiffs, and
United States of America, Plaintiff-Intervenor, v.
SULLIVAN COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al., Defendants.
C.A. No. 2:00-CV-094
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF UNITED STATES' MOTION TO INTERVENE AS PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Michael Madison filed the original complaint in this lawsuit on March 24, 2000, against the Sullivan County Board of Education ("SCBE" or "District"), Keith Glover (principal), Harmon Peters (teacher), and four students formerly enrolled in the District. Plaintiffs moved to file an amended complaint to include an additional plaintiff, Marquita Madison, and on September 14, 2000, the Court granted the motion.
Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that they were denied the equal protection of the laws in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and that they were discriminated against on the basis of race in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d, et seq., and its implementing regulations. Specifically, Plaintiffs complain that the District, through its knowing inaction and failure to protect them from a racially hostile environment, discriminated against them on the basis of their race in violation of Title VI. Moreover, Plaintiffs allege that the District's failure to intervene to stop the harassment constitutes a denial of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Plaintiff Michael Madison, a former student at Sullivan County East High School ("East"), claims that throughout the school years 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98, he was repeatedly subjected to harassment on the basis of race which prevented him from enjoying the educational benefits and opportunities provided by the District. Michael claims that teachers witnessed, and administrators were aware of, such harassment, but failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action, and were deliberately indifferent to the harassment. This harassment culminated in a racially motivated assault on October 1, 1997. Michael did not return to school after the assault and completed his education on a home-bound educational program. As a result of the harassment, Michael alleges that his mental and emotional health has suffered.
Plaintiff Marquita Madison, also a former student at East, claims that throughout the school years 1998-99 and 1999-00, she was repeatedly subjected to harassment on the basis of race which prevented her from enjoying the educational benefits and opportunities provided by the District. Marquita and her parents repeatedly informed the District - including the high school principal,

assistant principals, and other staff - of the ongoing harassment. Marquita alleges that the District did not take immediate and appropriate corrective action, and was deliberately indifferent to the harassment.
The United States seeks to intervene in this lawsuit to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI, and to ensure that recipients of Federal financial assistance do not unlawfully discriminate on the basis of race. When recipients discriminate, the United States has an interest in having such conduct declared unlawful and enjoined, appropriate remedies implemented, and the victims made whole. In addition, the United States has a significant interest in the proper interpretation and enforcement of Title VI.
DISCUSSION
I. The United States Should be Granted Intervention as of Right Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a).
Rule 24(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure sets out the standards by which parties may intervene as of right. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a). Rule 24(a) articulates two ways in which a party may intervene as of right:
Upon timely application, anyone shall be permitted to intervene in an action (1) when a statute of the United States confers an unconditional right to intervene; or (2) 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). The United States should be granted leave to intervene under either standard.
A. A Statute of the United States Confers an Unconditional Right to Intervene in this Action.
42 U.S.C. § 2000h-2 provides that:
Whenever an action has been commenced in any court of the United States seeking relief from the denial of equal protection of the laws under the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution on account of race, color, religion, sex or national origin, the Attorney General for or in the name of the United States may intervene in such action upon timely application if the Attorney General certifies that the case is of general public importance. In such action the United States shall be entitled to the same relief as if it had instituted the action.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(1) (codifying that intervention will be granted 'when a statute of the United States confers an unconditional right to intervene'). This statutory language unambiguously establishes the right of the United States to intervene in this case, in which Plaintiffs have alleged 'a denial of equal protection of the laws under the fourteenth amendment.' See Pasadena City Bd. of Educ. v. Spangler, 427 U.S. 424, 431, 96 S. Ct. 2697, 2702, 49 L. Ed. 2d 599 (1976); United States v. Jefferson County Bd. of Educ., 372 F.2d 836, 896 (5th Cir. 1966), modified, 380 F.2d 385 (5th Cir. 1967)(en banc); Smith v. Board of Educ. of Morrilton Sch. Dist., 365 F.2d 770 (8th Cir. 1966); see also 7C Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1906 at 244 (2d ed. 1986) (United States has unconditional right to intervene under Section 2000h-2). The statute also entitles the United States to seek the "same relief as if it had instituted
2

the action." Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2). The Attorney General has certified this case as one of general public importance. (1) (See Exhibit A). In addition, for the reasons set forth below, the United States' motion to intervene is timely. Therefore, the United States has met the requirements under 42 U.S.C. § 2000h-2, which provides authority for the United States to intervene and prosecute this case.
B. The United States Has an Interest in This Action That Is Not Adequately Represented by the Existing Parties.
The Sixth Circuit has determined that intervention of right is permitted under Rule 24(a)(2) when: (1) an applicant claims a substantial legal interest in the subject matter; (2) the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impede its ability to protect its interest; and (3) that interest is not adequately represented by existing parties. Grutter v. Bollinger, 183 F.3d 394, 39798 (6th Cir. 1999). The Sixth Circuit interprets Rule 24 liberally in favor of potential intervenors. See Michigan State AFL-CIO v. Miller, 103 F.3d 1240, 1245 (6th Cir. 1997); Triax Co. v. TRW, Inc., 724 F.2d 1224, 1227 (6th Cir. 1984).
1. A Substantial Legal Interest
The United States' special role in representing the public interest supports intervention in this case. The United States has a significant interest in enforcing the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in cases of general public importance and in seeing that recipients of federal funds do not unlawfully discriminate. In situations where discrimination has occurred, the United States has an interest in having such conduct declared unlawful and enjoined, and appropriate remedies implemented to compensate the victims and prevent like discrimination in the future for all students.
Moreover, as the United States' sole enforcer of Title VI in federal courts, the Department of Justice has a strong interest in the proper and effective application and interpretation of Title VI and its implementing regulations.
Finally, the law concerning peer-on-peer harassment is an emerging area; the United States can play an important role in ensuring that legal standards are developed and applied consistently across the country in accordance with the Supreme Court's recent decisions in this area. See Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629, 649-50, 119 S. Ct. 1661, 1674-75, 143 L. Ed. 2d 839 (1999) (adopting deliberate indifference standard in student harassment cases); Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274, 276, 118 S. Ct. 1989, 1992, 141 L. Ed. 2d 277 (1998) (holding that school district can be liable for money damages under Title IX for teacher-student sexual harassment).
2. Impairment of Interest
The disposition of this action may impede the United States' ability to protect these interests. The Sixth Circuit has found that this prong is met where the disposition of a case may have adverse stare decisis effects. Jansen v. City of Cincinnati, 904 F.2d 336, 341 (6th Cir. 1990). As the Sixth Circuit stated, '[u]nder the doctrine of stare decisis, once a court has applied a principle of law to a certain set of facts, it will apply that principle to all future cases involving facts that are substantially the same.' Id. The United States has an interest in the effective enforcement of federal civil rights laws, and a decision rendered in this case could adversely affect the scope and nature of the United States' future prosecution of claims of peer-on-peer racial harassment under Title VI and the Fourteenth Amendment.
3

3. Adequacy of Representation
Finally, the requirement of Rule 24(a)(2) is met if the applicant shows that representation of her interest 'may be' inadequate. The burden for making this showing is minimal. Trbovich v. Mine Workers, 404 U.S. 528, 538, 92 S. Ct. 630, 636, 30 L. Ed. 2d 686 (1971); United States v. Schreiber, 150 F.R.D. 106, 109 (S.D. Ohio 1993). The United States seeks to intervene, in part, to ensure that the District takes remedial action to prevent similar discrimination in the future. The United States has a unique interest in enforcing federal law and in seeking appropriate remedies for federal violations. See generally SEC v. United States Realty & Imp. Co., 310 U.S. 434, 459-60, 60 S. Ct. 1044, 1055, 84 L. Ed. 1293 (1941). In contrast, Plaintiffs are seeking compensatory damages on their own behalf and have no responsibility to consider the larger implications of Defendants' discrimination. Therefore, the United States' interest cannot be adequately represented by Plaintiffs. See Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians v. Minnesota, 989 F.2d 994, 998-99 (8th Cir. 1993) (holding that where interests of existing party and the intervenor are 'disparate, even though directed at a common legal goal, ... intervention is appropriate').
II. The United States Should Be Granted Permissive Intervention Pursuant to Rule 24(b).
In the alternative, the United States should be granted permissive intervention. Rule 24(b) states that permissive intervention is allowed 'when an applicant's claim or defense and the main action have a question of law or fact in common.' Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b). '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.' Id.
Rule 24(b) further provides that '[w]hen a party to an action relies for ground of claim or defense upon any statute or executive order administered by a federal or state governmental officer or agency ... the officer or agency upon timely application may be permitted to intervene in the action.' Id.
This provision was added in 1946 to avoid "exclusionary constructions" of the United States' right to intervene. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 24, 1946 Advisory Committee Notes. Prior to the adoption of this explicit statutory authority, the Supreme Court held that the United States may have 'a sufficient interest in the maintenance of its statutory authority and the performance of its public duties to entitle [it] to intervention.' United States Realty, 310 U.S. at 460.
This case raises important issues concerning the legal standards to be applied in actions enforcing federal civil rights laws, specifically Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It is appropriate, therefore, that the United States be allowed to participate as Plaintiff-Intervenor.
III. The Motion to Intervene Is Timely.
Timeliness is a requirement for both intervention as of right and permissive intervention. To determine the timeliness of a motion to intervene, a court should consider all relevant circumstances. Bradley v. Milliken, 828 F.2d 1186, 1191 (6th Cir. 1987). In particular, a court should consider: (1) the point to which the suit has progressed;
(2) the purpose for which intervention is sought;
(3) the length of time preceding the application during which the proposed intervenor knew or reasonably should have known of his interest in the case;
4

(4) the prejudice to the original parties due to the proposed intervenor's failure, after he or she knew or reasonably should have known of his or her interest in the case, to apply promptly for intervention; and
(5) the existence of unusual circumstances militating against or in favor of intervention.
Triax, 724 F.2d at 1228; see Michigan Ass'n for Retarded Citizens v. Smith, 657 F.2d 102, 105 (6th Cir. 1981).
The motion for intervention is timely given that this suit has not progressed beyond the initial pleading stage of litigation: the original complaint in this lawsuit was filed on March 24, 2000; the school district defendants answered in May 2000, and three of the four student defendants have not yet answered the complaint. Additionally, the Court has recently permitted the amendment of the complaint to include an additional plaintiff. Finally, discovery has not yet commenced and no scheduling order has yet been entered. The Court's Rule 16 conference has been set for December 6, 2000.
The United States became aware of this lawsuit soon after the filing of the initial complaint and thereafter commenced a preliminary inquiry into the allegations raised. The delay in the United States' filing of the motion to intervene was necessary for the United States to evaluate whether the case is one of general public importance and one in which serious and credible allegations of discrimination are involved. In determining whether to seek intervention, the United States requested and reviewed information from both the Plaintiffs and the District.
On October 18, 2000, the United States informed the parties that the Attorney General had certified this as a case of general public importance, and provided a ten-day period for the parties to indicate whether they were interested in engaging in settlement negotiations. In a good faith effort to facilitate a settlement, the United States did not file its motion to intervene during this period. Only after the District declined to engage in such discussions has the United States moved to intervene.
In sum, because this case is in the initial stage of litigation and the United States has acted diligently in moving to intervene, the original parties will not be prejudiced if the motion is granted.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the United States' Motion to Intervene should be granted.
Respectfully submitted,
BILL LANN LEE Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division
5

___________________________________ JEREMIAH GLASSMAN (DC Bar# 172395) MICHAEL S. MAURER (DC Bar# 420908) JAVIER M. GUZMAN (DC Bar# 462679) KIRAN A. AHUJA (GA Bar# 005801) Attorneys for Plaintiff-Intervenor U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Educational Opportunities Section Patrick Henry Building 601 D Street, N.W., Suite 4300 Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514-4092 1. This certification is not reviewable by Defendants or the Court. See United States v. Greenwood Mun. Separate Sch. Dist., 406 F.2d 1086, 1089-90 (5th Cir. 1969); Carter v. School Bd. of West Feliciana Parish, 569 F. Supp. 568, 571 (M.D. La. 1983).
6

 
 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2002 WWW.USDOJ.GOV

CRT (202) 514-2008 TDD (202) 514-1888

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT REACHES SETTLEMENT WITH SCHOOL DISTRICT IN PEER HARASSMENT CASE

WASHINGTON, D.C.– Under a settlement reached yesterday, a Tennessee school district will compensate two students who were harassed by other students and will take significant steps to prevent and eliminate harassment on the basis of race, color and national origin.

The proposed consent order, filed with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, also settles a lawsuit filed by the victims. That lawsuit, and a separate complaint filed by the Justice Department, alleged that the Sullivan County Board of Education violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by failing to respond appropriately to complaints that the victims were being harassed by other students on the basis of race. The complaint alleged that, due to the school district's failure to put an end to the harassment, one victim completed high school through a home-schooling program and the other victim transferred to another school district.

“No student should have to endure harassment while receiving an education,” said Ralph F. Boyd, Jr., Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. “This case demonstrates the Department's commitment to protecting the civil rights of all Americans to receive equal educational opportunities.”

Under the terms of the consent order, the Sullivan County Board of Education, which denies the allegations, has agreed, among other things to:

C

retain an expert to evaluate the district's policies and procedures for preventing, identifying,

and remedying harassment and discrimination on the basis of race, color and national origin;

C

conduct a school climate assessment regarding student-to-student and teacher-to-student

interactions to determine whether circumstances warrant school-specific actions;

C

develop a comprehensive plan to prevent, identify, and remedy harassment and discrimination

on the basis of race, color and national origin;

C

provide an education and training program to inform and instruct teachers, staff, and students

about the school district's policies prohibiting harassment and discrimination on the basis of

race, color and national origin;

C

maintain written records of each harassment allegation received, investigation conducted and

corrective action taken by the district to ensure a consistent and effective review of allegations.

The consent order will be monitored through reports the school board is required to submit to the Department of Justice for review.

### 02-595