Case 6:97-cv-01463-ACC Document 174 Filed 03/07/01 Page 1 of 3 PageID 714

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

" t ••

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

L • ,

ORLANDO DMSION

1 I ~. '~

RICHARD LANDOW, as next friend of KAYLA LANDOW, as representative of a
dass of similarly situated penons,
Plaintiff,
-vs-

Case No. 6:97-CIV-1463-0RL-22KRS

SCHOOL BOARD OF BREVARD COUNlY,
Defendant.

FINAL ORDER AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
On December 15, 2000, following a bench trial, the Court issued a Memorandum Decision and Order (Doc. 171) declaring that the School Board ofBrevard County had violated Title IX, 20 U.S.C. § 1681, and the Florida Educational Equity Act, Fla. Stat. § 228.2001, by virtue ofdisparities between the boys' baseball and girls' softball programs at Astronaut and Titusville High Schools. As a result, the Court determined that the Plaintiff class was entitled to injunctive relief Accordingly, the Court
directed the parties to submit a joint plan for remedying the inequalities identified in the memorandum
decision, or, ifthey could not reach agreement, to file separate proposals. In accordance with the Court's direction, on March 5, 200 I, the parties submitted a Stipulated
Joint Plan (Doc. 173). Under the Plan, new softball fields will be constructed at Astronaut and Titusville High Schools. The parties represent that these playing fields will be dedicated for the exclusive use of the girls' softball teams, and that the fields, "and their associated amenities, will be substantially equivalent to those provided to the boys' baseball teams at those high schools." Doc. 173

A072A (Rev.8I82)

Case 6:97-cv-01463-ACC Document 174 Filed 03/07/01 Page 2 of 3 PageID 715
at 3. Counsel state that the School Board has already approved the funding for the construction ofthe two new softball fields, and that the School Board can begin construction in March 2001 so that the fields will be ready for play by the summer of 2001.
The Court determines that the proposal outlined in the Stipulated Joint Plan constitutes an adequate and effective remedy for the gender equity violations identified in the December 15th Memorandum Decision and Order. The Court commends counsel and the parties for submitting an agreed plan.
Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. The Stipulated Joint Plan (Doc. 173) is APPROVED. 2. Not later than March 31, 200 I, the School Board shall begin demolishing the Riverview Elementary facility at Titusville High School, and shall thereafter promptly commence construction of a girls' softball field at Titusville High School on the Riverview site. In accordance with the School Board's stated goal of having the new field built in time for the girls' softball team to practice on it before the playing season begins, the School Board shall ensure that construction is completed and the field is ready for play by the first day of classes in the 2001-2002 school year. As outlined in the Stipulated 10int Plan, "[t]he field will have appropriate fencing, bleachers providing seating for 60 on each side ofthe diamond, dugouts, with refrigerated water, an electronic scoreboard, a batting cage, and a pitching warmup area." Doc. 173 at 2. Additionally, the new softball field "will be lighted and a concession/restroom/pressbox/storage facility will also be constructed." Id 3. Not later than March 31, 2001, the School Board shall commence construction of a girls' softball field at Astronaut High School. The softball field will be built next to the existing baseball field. The School Board shall ensure that construction is completed and the new field is ready for play
-2-
A072A (Rev.8I82)

Case 6:97-cv-01463-ACC Document 174 Filed 03/07/01 Page 3 of 3 PageID 716

by the first day of classes in the 2001-2002 school year. As outlined in the Stipulated Joint Pl~ the

field will have a backstop and 6' fencing, "bleachers seating 60 on both sides ofthe diamond, dugouts

with refrigerated water for each team, an electronic scoreboard, a batting cage, a warmup area, and

an 8x12 storage shed." Doc. 173 at 2-3.

4. Not later than March 30, 2001, the School Board shall notify the student bodies of

Astronaut and Titusville High Schools that the two new softball fields are being built.

5. Henceforth, the School Board shall ensure that there are no disparities that would violate

Title IX and the Florida Educational Equity Act in its girls' softball and boys' baseball programs

throughout Brevard County.

6. The Clerk shall close this case. DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida this

~ay ofMarch, 2001.

~ff1tyv\
? Copies furnished to:
Counsel ofRecord Unrepresented Parties Administrative Law Clerk

-3-
A072A (Rev.8I82)

 
 Case 6:97-cv-01463-ACC Document 202 Filed 02/08/02 Page 1 of 2 PageID 1035
',---"

~~ ~:~, r UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT"I' ::

5

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ,,~" _ ,,_, :,]'I~T

ORLANDO DIVISION

.'=' ~ ;~'{_l~=i~'.)!'i;''\liC, ;T: '_~: F?/F' ,t.L(~.OR:OA

RICHARD LANDOW, as next friend of KAYLA LANDOW, as representative of a class of similarly situated persons,

Plaintiffs,

-vs-

Case No. 6:97-cv-1463-0rl-22KRS

SCHOOL BOARD OF BREVARD COUNTY,

Defendant.

ORDER

Based on the Defendant's Notice of Compliance (Doc. 201), filed February 5, 2002, it is

ORDERED as follows:

1. Magistrate Judge Karla R. Spaulding's December 26, 2001 Report and Recommendation

(Doc. 198) is MOOT.

2. Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees (Doc. 175), filed March 16,2001, is MOOT.

t~day DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida this

of February, 2002.

fc:pies furnished to:
Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties Magistrate Judge Karla R. Spaulding

ANNEC. CO UNITED STATES DI

Case 6:97-cv-01463-ACC DocumFenI t 2L02E FileCd O02P/08Y/02 Page 2 of 2 PageID 1036 Date Printed: 02/11/2002

Notice sent to:

~') ~,fJ"-

Michael M. Bell, Esq. Bell, Leeper & Roper, P.A.

1

2816 E. Robinson St. P.O. Box 3669

Orlando, FL 32802-3669

Michael H. Bowling, Esq. Bell, Leeper & Roper, P.A. 2816 E. Robinson St. P.O. Box 3669 Orlando, FL 32802-3669

Mark E. Tietig, Esq. Tietig & Tietig
6065 S. Tropical Trail
Merritt Island, FL 32952

Lisa Kuhlman Tietig, Esq. Tietig & Tietig 6065 S. Tropical Trail
Merritt Island, FL 32952

 
 Case 6:97-cv-01463-ACC Document 171 Filed 12/15/00 Page 1 of 19 PageID 686
F n. ED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

RICHARD LANDOW, as next friend of KAYLA LANDOW, as representative of a class of similarly situated persons,

Plaintiff,

-vs-

Case No. 6:97-cv-1463-0rl-22A

SCHOOL BOARD OF BREVARD
COUNTY,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
I. INTRODUCTION The named plaintiffin this class actionl is Richard Landow, next friend ofhis daughter, Kayla Landow, who is a member ofthe girls' varsity softball team at Titusville High School.2 Landow sues the School Board ofBrevard County (''the School Board"), alleging disparities between girls' softball

Ian April 24, 1998, the Court certified the following class in this case: "All girls currently and directly participating in the varsity and junior varsity softball programs at the ten high schools operated by the School Board of Brevard County, and those girls who are expected to directly participate in such softball programs in the future." Doc. 29, '2, at 3.
2The original plaintiff in this action was Daniel Daniels, as next friend of his daughters Jessica and Jennifer Daniels, who were members ofthe Merritt Island High School softball team. Thereafter, Rebecca Rosenbaum, on behalf of her daughter, Rachel Rosenbaum, a member ofthe Titusville High School varsity softball team, was substituted as the plaintiff. On November 7, 2000, the Court substituted Richard Landow as the named plaintiff.
A072A (Rev.8I82)

Case 6:97-cv-01463-ACC Document 171 Filed 12/15/00 Page 2 of 19 PageID 687
and boys' baseball programs at two high schools in Brevard County.3 He claims that these disparities
violate 20 U.S.c. § 1681 ("Title IX") and Fla. Stat. § 228.2001 ("Florida Educational Equity Act").
This case was tried by the Court, without a jury, on November 2 and December 4-5,2000.
Applying pertinent legal principles to the evidence presented, the Court determines that the
inequalities between the girls' softball and boys' baseball programs at Titusville High School and
Astronaut High School place the School Board in violation of Title IX and the Florida Act.
II. FINDINGS OF FACr Approximately 70,000 students attend 97 traditional and special public schools and centers
throughout Brevard County. Of the 16,000 school districts in the nation, Brevard County Public
School District is the 47th largest. It employs more than 7,000 people. From north to south, Brevard County is approximately 73 miles long.
The boys' varsity and junior varsity ("J.V.") baseball teams at Titusville and Astronaut have
one field on each campus; at least three of the four baseball teams conduct their practices on those
fields. All four baseball teams hold their home games on campus. In contrast, the varsity and J.V.
3The initial and first amended complaints alleged impermissible inequalities between the boys' baseball and girls' softball programs at all of the public high schools in Brevard County. See Docs. I & 5. However, on March 30, 2000, counsel substantially narrowed this case by filing the following stipulation:
The Class and the School Board stipulate and agree that considering all relevant Tide IX factors, the facilities offered to girls' softball players and boys' baseball players at Bayside High School, Cocoa High School, Cocoa Beach High School, Eau Gallie High School, Melbourne High School, Merritt Island High School, Palm Bay High School, Rockledge High School and Satellite High School, are, for each school, substantially equivalent as ofJanuary 22, 2000. As to any such differences in the facilities offered in favor of one sport or the other at such schools, such differences are not significant as of January 22,2000. Furthermore, the parties stipulate thatthis lawsuit does not include any changes made to Brevard County School Board facilities after January 22, 2000. Doc. 119. Hence, the present dispute focuses on the softball and baseball programs at Titusville High and Astronaut High. 4Many ofthe facts set forth in this opinion are derived - with some editorial changes - from the "STATEMENT OF FACTS ADMITIED WHICH REQUIRE NO PROOF AT TRIAL" section of the parties' Joint Pretrial Statement. See Doc. 152, Attachment "H."
-2-
A072A (Rev.8I82)

Case 6:97-cv-01463-ACC Document 171 Filed 12/15/00 Page 3 of 19 PageID 688
softball teams at Titusville and Astronaut practice and play at Marina Park, which is a public facility in the City of Titusville neither owned nor operated by the School Board.5
Marina Park has three softball fields. Each of the varsity softball teams at Titusville and Astronaut is assigned a separate field. Both schools' junior varsity softball teams share the third field, known as the practice field. The playing fields are bordered on the east by the Indian River and on the south by a marina. The fields are located 0.3 miles from u.S. Highway 1, approximately 2 miles from Titusville High School, and approximately 4 miles from the Astronaut campus.
The playing fields at Marina Park are lighted; however, due to evening usage by other groups (such as men's league and church league), the girls' softball teams rarely, if ever, play night games. Instead, they practice and play in the afternoon. Practice times vary, but typically, the girls begin practicing between 3:00 and 3:30 p.m. Their games usually start at 4:00 p.m.
The on-campus baseball field at Titusville is lighted. The boys' varsity and J.V. baseball teams share that field for both practices and games. Both teams typically play at night. Start times of practices are staggered. The J.V. team usually practices first, followed by the varsity team. It is not uncommon for players on the team with the later starting time to leave campus and return for practice.
There are no lights on the baseball field at Astronaut. The varsity baseball team practices on campus. The AstronautJ.V. baseball team usually, ifnot always, practices off-campus at Holder Park, a municipal facility located approximately two miles from Astronaut. The J.V. team has been practicing at this location for many years. These practices typically begin at 3:00 p.m.
5At one time, there was a girls' softball field at Astronaut. It was replaced by the boys' baseball field. The School Board offered no explanation for this at trial.
-3-
A072A (Rev.8f82)

Case 6:97-cv-01463-ACC Document 171 Filed 12/15/00 Page 4 of 19 PageID 689
Marina Park is maintained by the Brevard County Parks and Recreation Department. The School Board has no control over the condition of the facilities at Marina Park, although the Board may request or suggest maintenance actions or repairs.
At Marina Park, a single shed is used by all four girls' softball teams for equipment storage. Each baseball field has considerably larger storage space for the equipment ofthat school's baseball teams.
The Titusville baseball teams have two batting cages; the Astronaut boys' teams have one. The girls' softball teams, however, do not have any batting cages.
The softball teams do not have access to the controls for the scoreboards at Marina Park; thus, they play without scoreboards. In contrast, both on-campus baseball fields have working scoreboards. Additionally, there is a concession stand and a press box at the Titusville baseball field. Marina Park has no press box, and the on-site concession stand is closed during girls' games. There are no such facilities at the Astronaut baseball field.
The dimensions of play for girls' high school fast-pitch softball are smaller than the dimensions of play for men's slow-pitch softball. The playing fields at Marina Park were built to men's slow-pitch dimensions. Accordingly, the girls do not actually practice and play on true fastpitch softball fields. Since the outfield fence is farther from home plate than it would be if the field were a "dedicated" fast-pitch field, only an exceptionally powerful girls' softball player can ever experience the thrill of hitting an "over-the-fence" home run at Marina Park. Further, the presence ofadditional pitching "rubbers" (accommodating different leagues) on the pitchers' mounds at Marina Park creates a safety hazard for softball players.
-4-
A072A (Rev.8I82)

Case 6:97-cv-01463-ACC Document 171 Filed 12/15/00 Page 5 of 19 PageID 690
Members ofthe girls' softball teams typically make personal arrangements for transportation to Marina Park. The same applies to Astronaut J.V. baseball players traveling to Holder Park. However, the School Board has instructed coaches to transport players to these off-campus facilities, if necessary.
III. APPLICABLE LAW: TITLE IX AND THE FLORIDA ACT Subject to exceptions not pertinent here, 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a) provides:
No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance[.] "Congress enacted Title IX in response to its finding - after extensive hearings held in 1970 by the House Special Subcommittee on Education - ofpervasive discrimination against women with respectto educational opportunities." Cohen v. Brown University, 101 F.3d 155, 165 (l st Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1186 (1997). "Title IX was passed with two objectives in mind: 'to avoid the use of federal resources to support discriminatory practices,' and 'to provide individual citizens effective protection against those practices.'" Id (quoting Cannon v. University o/Chicago, 441 U.S. 677, 704 (1979». Title IX is implemented with respect to athletic activities by 34 C.F.R. § 106.41. Section 106.41 (a) generally provides: No person shall, on the basis ofsex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, be treated differently from another person or otherwise be discriminated against in any interscholastic, intercollegiate, club or intramural athletics offered by a recipient, and no recipient shall provide any such athletics separately on such basis.
-5-
A072A (Rev.8I82)

Case 6:97-cv-01463-ACC Document 171 Filed 12/15/00 Page 6 of 19 PageID 691
Section 106.41 (c) provides:
A recipient which operates or sponsors interscholastic, intercollegiate, club or intramural athletics shall provide equal athletic opportunity for members of both sexes. In determining whether equal opportunities are available the Director will consider, among other factors:
(1) Whether the selection of sports and levels of competition effectively accommodate the interests and abilities of members of both sexes;
(2) The provision ofequipment and supplies;
(3) Scheduling of games and practice time;
(4) Travel and per diem allowance;
(5) Opportunity to receive coaching and academic tutoring;
(6) Assignment and compensation of coaches and tutors;
(7) Provision oflocker rooms, practice and competitive facilities;
(8) Provision of medical and training facilities and servIces;
(9) Provision of housing and dining facilities and servIces;
(10) Publicity.
Unequal aggregate expenditures for members of each sex or unequal expenditures for male and female teams if a recipient operates or sponsors separate teams will not constitute noncompliance with this section, but the Assistant Secretary may consider the failure to provide necessary funds for teams for one sex in assessing equality of opportunity for members of each sex.
-6-
A072A (Rev.8I82)

Case 6:97-cv-01463-ACC Document 171 Filed 12/15/00 Page 7 of 19 PageID 692
The Florida Act also prohibits, inter alia, gender discrimination in public education. It extends
protection to those enrolled in public educational institutions which receive or benefit from either state
or federal financial assistance. See Fla. Stat. § 228.2001 (2)(a). The Florida Act lists the same factors
for assessing discrimination as are set forth in 34 C.F.R. §106.41 (c)(1 )-(1 0). See Fla. Stat. §
228.2001(3)(d)1-lO. The parties have stipulated that "[f]or the purposes of this litigation, the legal
analysis employed in Title IX cases is equally applicable to the Florida Educational Equity Act." Joint
Pretrial Statement (Doc. 152), § X ("STATEMENT OF APPLICABLE PRINCIPLES OF LAW ON
WHICH THERE IS AGREEMENT'), , 4, at 5.
IV. ANALYSIS
Preliminarily, the Court addresses the question whether the School Board's asserted failure to
comply with Title IX must be evaluated from a county-wide perspective, or on a school-by-school
basis. In denying the motion for a preliminary injunction filed earlier in this case, the Court stated:
Initial1y, the Court must determine whether it is proper to focus on al1eged inequalities solely on a school-by-school basis, or whether the Court should instead evaluate the issues on a county-wide basis. In that regard, this case is markedly different from the first suit Plaintiffs initiated against the School Board. See Daniel Daniels, etc., et al. v. School Board o/Brevard County, Case No. 97-1 186-CIV-ORL-22A. In the first suit, Plaintiffs challenged the School Board's compliance with Title IX at one secondary institution, MIHS. Here, by contrast, Plaintiffs claim that the School Board's treatment of girls' softball on a county-wide basis violates Title IX. Under these circumstances, the Court determines that it must evaluate the girls' softball programs on a county-wide basis, rather than school-by-school. The relevant inquiry, then, is whether, considered on a county-wide basis, the School Board has provided the female high school softball players athletic opportunity equal to male baseball players.
Doc. 86 at 5 (emphasis in original; footnote omitted). Since that ruling, the parties have presented
further argument concerning this issue. Predictably, Plaintiffasserts that the inquiry is school-specific;
-7-
A072A (Rev.8182)

Case 6:97-cv-01463-ACC Document 171 Filed 12/15/00 Page 8 of 19 PageID 693
the School Board, citing Klinger v. Dept. o/Corrections, 107 F.3d 609, 615 (8th Cir. 1997), counters that its compliance must be evaluated on a county-wide basis. It is unnecessary for the Court to resolve this legal issue, because the result in this particular case is the same under either analysis: even when considered on a county-wide basis, the disparities between the softball and baseball programs at Titusville and Astronaut cause the School Board to be in violation of Title IX.
The Court also determines that evidence concerning whether the girls' softball teams have the same ability as the boys' baseball teams to raise funds through gate admission fees, concession stand revenues, and sales of advertising signs, is immaterial. Notwithstanding perceptions to the contrary among some trial witnesses, the School Board has convincingly demonstrated that the softball and baseball programs are funded equally by the School Board. Further, even though teams may engage in their own fund-raising activities, their "club accounts" are monitored by school administrators to guard against preferential treatment. That some softball players and parents understood otherwise at the time of trial is, unfortunately, symptomatic of the lack of communication among the parties that seems to have plagued this case.
These preliminaries aside, the Court will now proceed to address the ten factors listed in 34 C.F.R. § 106.41.
A. Whether the selection of sports and levels of competition effectively accommodate the interests and abilities of members of both sexes.
Although Plaintiffs counsel asserted otherwise during closing argument, this factor is not implicated in this suit. Plaintiff has presented no evidence establishing a disparity in this area. Additionally, the parties agreed in their Joint Pretrial Statement that "[t]here is no evidence of inequality in team numbers or player numbers." Doc. 152, Attachment "H," ~ 56, at 7.
-8-
A072A (Rev.8I82)

Case 6:97-cv-01463-ACC Document 171 Filed 12/15/00 Page 9 of 19 PageID 694
B. The provision of equipment and supplies. Some evidence was presented concerning differences in the unifonns provided to softball and baseball players. The Court does not deem these differences, if they actually exist, to be legally significant. However, it is undisputed that the Titusville baseball teams have two batting cages, the Astronaut boys' teams have one, and the girls' softballs teams at both schools have none. In the related case of Daniels v. School Bd. ofBrevard County, Fla., 985 F. Supp. 1458, 1461 (M.D. Fla. 1997),6 the undersigned judge stated: "The use of a batting cage sharpens hitting skills. The girls' softball team is technically disadvantaged by the absence ofsuch equipment." Coupled with the other inequalities identified in this Order, this disparity constitutes a violation of Title IX. C. Scheduling of games and practice time. The Titusville baseball team has a lighted field, which gives it more flexibility in scheduling practices and games; the Titusville boys can practice and play at night, if they desire. In contrast, the Titusville softball teams cannot play at night because the Marina Park fields, while lighted, are otherwise occupied at that time. Beyond added scheduling flexibility, night games are more prestigious and offer additional benefits, as discussed in greater detail in subsection "G," infra. Combined with the other disparities addressed in this Order, the provision of lights for the Titusville boys, but not for the girls, violates Title IX.7
6Brought by the same plaintiff who initiated the suit at bar, Daniels concerned alleged inequalities between the softball and baseball programs at Merritt Island High School. In December 1997, after finding that Daniel Daniels had demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on his claims, this Court issued a preliminary injunction requiring the School Board to remedy a number ofspecific inequalities associated with the girls' softball program at Merritt Island High. Daniels was later consolidated with the instant case. On September 12, 2000, the Court dissolved the preliminary injunction in Daniels and closed that case on the basis that the complaints raised therein were subsumed in the instant action and had subsequently been remedied by the School Board.
7Since the fields used by the Astronaut baseball players have no lights, the Astronaut girls are not similarly disadvantaged.
-9-
A072A (Rev.8I82)

Case 6:97-cv-01463-ACC Document 171 Filed 12/15/00 Page 10 of 19 PageID 695
D. Travel and per diem allowance. An "admitted fact" set forth in the parties' Joint Pretrial Statement is that "[n]o travel or per diem allowance is provided to athletes in the Brevard County school system." Doc. 152, Attachment "H," ~ 57, at 7. Hence, this factor is not implicated. E. Owortunity to receive coaching and academic tutoring. Softball and baseball players enjoy equal opportunity to receive coaching. Further discussion regarding coaches is contained in subsection "F," infra. The opportunity to receive academic tutoring requires greater analysis. Plaintiff contends that some girls who desire to play softball must sacrifice after-school tutoring, since practices and games take place shortly after school ends, and coaches discipline players for tardiness. However, regardless of what may have occurred in the past, current School Board policy is that players on boys' and girls' teams are not disciplined for being late to practice as a result of after-school tutoring, provided they present their coach with a "pass" from the tutor. Hence, discipline is not really an issue. Nevertheless, regardless of disciplinary consequences, the possibility exists that a softball player who elects to receive after-school tutoring may miss a substantial enough portion of practice that her standing on the team may be diminished or jeopardized. However, the same circumstance faces the players on those baseball teams that practice immediately after class ends. Plaintiff argues that the softball players are disproportionately affected by this problem because they must leave campus as soon as school ends, since their practices and games are played some distance from campus. However, the Astronaut J.V. baseball team also practices off-campus. In any event, this issue remains largely theoretical; Plaintiff has not presented sufficient proof of differential treatment or disparate impact to warrant injunctive relief on this point. One
-10-
A072A (Rev.8I82)

~-- -_._------
Case 6:97-cv-01463-ACC Document 171 Filed 12/15/00 Page 11 of 19 PageID 696
former softball player did testify that she decided to quit the team in part because she could not obtain after-school tutoring and still arrive on time at practice. However, Plaintiff presented no proof on this subject beyond this one witness and her mother; no evidence was introduced that this is a widespread problem or that it impacted more than this single family. Further, as noted in subsection "0," infra, Plaintiff now concedes that the provision of off-campus facilities alone does not violate Title IX. If students who practice and playoff-campus shortly after classes end have less time to spend with tutors than those who practice and play on campus shortly after school, that is unfortunate, but it does not necessarily violate Title IX. With its limited budget and resources, the school district cannot be expected to resolve each and every conflict between academics and sports. Absent a more substantial showing, the Court is unwilling to rule that this potential collision between tutoring and athletics violates Title IX.
F. Assignment and compensation of coaches and tutors. The parties have agreed that "[c]ompensation of coaches for softball and baseball in Brevard County is identical." Doc. 152, Attachment "H," ~ 58, at 7. Additionally, the softball and baseball coaches attend two clinics per year; there is no preferential treatment in this area. Although some witnesses offered their lay opinions at trial that the baseball coaches were more knowledgeable and skilled than their softball counterparts, the Court does not find any differences in this regard to be legally significant for Title IX purposes. The School Board is not obligated to ensure absolute parity in coaching ability. The softball coaches are sufficiently competent for Title IX purposes. particularly given the relative success of the girls' teams. Finally, Plaintiff has not shown that the assignment and compensation of tutors is an issue.

A072A (Rev.8182)

-11-

Case 6:97-cv-01463-ACC Document 171 Filed 12/15/00 Page 12 of 19 PageID 697
G. Provision of locker rooms. practice and competitive facilities. The issue of practice and competitive facilities is at the very heart of this case. The Court must agree with defense counsel that the impetus for this lawsuit was the lack of on-campus softball fields. In that regard, the First Amended Class Action Complaint states: "The ultimate example of unequal facilities is that three out of the ten Brevard County public high schools have a boys' baseball field on their campus, while those same three schools have no girls' softball field on their campus." Doc. 5, ~ 10, at 3. This theme continued through the filing of the parties' Joint Pretrial Statement, which contained the following "admitted fact":
With respect to the two high schools in Brevard County which the Plaintiffs maintain cause the School Board to fail to comply with Title IX, the primary, though not exclusive, matter in dispute concerns the issue of on-campuS/off-campus facilities. Both Titusville High School and Astronaut High School each have an oncampus baseball field. The girls' softball players at these Titusville high schools, practice and playoff campus at Marina Park, a Brevard County-maintained and City of Titusville-owned facility. Doc. 152, Attachment "H," ~46, at 5-6. However, by the time of trial, Plaintiffs counsel had retreated from that position, admitting in closing argument that the provision of off-campus facilities to girls' softball teams and on-campus fields to boys' baseball teams does not alone constitute a Title IX violation. This is not the end of the matter, however. While the main thrust of this suit concerned the off-campus fields, Plaintiff has identified other significant disparities regarding practice and competitive facilities. The most substantial of these disparities is the simple fact that while the boys' teams have "dedicated" fields with dimensions correct for their sport, the girls' teams do not. Instead, the softball teams are forced to "make do" by playing on fields that are built to the
-12-
A072A (Rev.8182)

Case 6:97-cv-01463-ACC Document 171 Filed 12/15/00 Page 13 of 19 PageID 698
dimensions of a different sport: men's slow-pitch softball. This signals to the girls that they are not as important as the boys. As noted in the findings of fact, since the outfield fence is farther from home plate at Marina Park than it should be for girls' fast-pitch play, only an exceptional girls' softball player can clear that fence with a home run. Additionally, the pitchers' mounds at Marina Park, with their multiple pitching rubbers, pose a safety hazard not present on the boys' fields.
The significant problem of different field dimensions is exacerbated by other aspects of Marina Park. It is clear from the testimony at trial that the Marina facility is not as nice as the oncampus fields used by the boys' teams. This is not a simple matter of aesthetics, however. Evidence was presented that beer bottles, needles, ''joints'' and condoms have been found in the Marina dugouts. There was testimony that persons - presumably transients - have been discovered sleeping in the dugouts. Additionally, girls' softball players and their family members must endure comments of a sexual nature by male spectators and passers by. Male softball players waiting to take the field sometimes express impatience when the girls' games do not end on time. These men communicate their frustration by making comments or by tapping their watches to signal that the girls' time is up. This is not to suggest that the School Board has an obligation to control the behavior of these third parties; however, the Board does have the power to choose the places where its students engage in athletic activities.
Moreover, the girls do not have a scoreboard available to them, while the boys' baseball teams do. As the undersigned judge noted in Daniels:
A scoreboard is of obvious benefit to players who must keep track of the score, the innings, and the numbers of outs, balls and strikes at any given moment. The prestige factor of a scoreboard is also
-13-
A072A (Rev.8I82)

Case 6:97-cv-01463-ACC Document 171 Filed 12/15/00 Page 14 of 19 PageID 699
obvious.... [T]he fact that the boys have a scoreboard and the girls do not sends a clear message to players, fellow students, teachers and the community at large, that girls' varsity softball is not as worthy as boys' varsity baseball. 985 F. Supp. at 1460-61. Further, the Titusville boys enjoy the prestige of playing night games, while the Titusville girls do not. This Court also addressed the importance of this factor in Daniels: Nighttime play affects spectator attendance, parental involvement, and player and spectator enjoyment. Nighttime games have a "big league" quality not associated with daytime play. Additionally, lighting affords more flexibility regarding practice scheduling. The absence of lighting on the girls' softball field detrimentally affects the girls' team in all these respects. Id. at 1461. Additionally, the softball teams are provided with significantly less storage space than the baseball teams, and all four girls' teams must share a single storage shed at Marina Park. The baseball fields have dedicated pitching warm-up areas; there are no such facilities at Marina. The Titusville baseball field has a concession stand and a press box; in contrast, Marina does not have a press box and its concession stand is unavailable to the softball players. Moreover, while perhaps not otherwise of critical significance, the dugouts at Marina Park are in such relatively substandard condition when compared to those provided the boys' baseball teams that, when considered along with the more serious disparities under a "totality of the circumstances" approach, they buttress the conclusion that the School Board is treating the softball teams unequally. Similarly, the restrooms at Marina Park are sufficiently inferior to those at the Titusville baseball field that they contribute to the violation of Title IX. In contrast, the restroom at the Astronaut baseball field, which consists of a portable toilet, is inferior to the restrooms at
-14-
A072A (Rev.8I82)

Case 6:97-cv-01463-ACC Document 171 Filed 12/15/00 Page 15 of 19 PageID 700
Marina Park. In this limited area, the Astronaut softball players enjoy an advantage over their baseball counterparts.8
The remaining factor in 34 C.F.R. §106.41 (c)(7) is the provision of locker facilities. Although some trial witnesses believed otherwise, the evidence established that the on-campus locker rooms are closed at the end of the school day. Hence, they are not ordinarily available to baseball players desiring to "dress out" for on-campus practices and games. As a result, the boys do not enjoy preferential treatment in the provision of locker facilities. Similarly, although there was much testimony at trial about the lack of security at Marina Park, the Court finds that the baseball teams receive no actual preference in that area. Simply put, no security is provided for the boys' practices and games. The presence of the much-discussed on-campus security trailers is incidental, and has no connection with baseball activities. The persons who occupy those trailers are responsible for ensuring that the campuses are secure after the last school employees leave, generally around 10:00 p.m. Hence, their duties do not actually begin until after baseball games and practices have ended.
H. Provision of medical and training facilities and services. The provision of training facilities (as distinguished from practice and competitive facilities) and services is not an issue. As regards medical facilities and services, the suggestion that the boys' teams have access to the school clinics when practicing and playing on campus is without merit. Trial testimony established that these clinics close shortly after school ends. Even if the clinics were available, they contain only the most basic medical supplies. These supplies do
8Issues regarding parking at Marina Park are not sufficiently significant to warrant discussion. Testimony concerning bleacher seating was sufficiently murky that the Court cannot detennine whether a disparity actually exists.
-15-
A072A (Rev.8182)

Case 6:97-cv-01463-ACC Document 171 Filed 12/15/00 Page 16 of 19 PageID 701

not surpass anything in the first aid kits the School Board furnishes to the boys' and girls' coaches

on an equal basis. Additionally, although there was considerable discussion at trial that the

sometimes inoperative pay phone at Marina Park posed a risk that medical help might not be

timely summoned in the event ofan emergency, the School Board has mooted this contingency by

furnishing cellular phones to the softball coaches. Finally, while there was some evidence

presented that ice may not always be available at softball practices and games, Plaintiff has not

proved that the problem is sufficiently pervasive that it amounts to a Title IX violation.

I. Provision of housing and dining facilities and services.

The parties have agreed in the Joint Pretrial Statement that "[n]o housing or dining

facilities and services are provided to either boys' baseball or girls' softball players." Doc. 152,

Attachment "H," ~ 59, at 7. As a result, this factor need not be addressed.

J. Publicity.

The School Board established at trial that softball and baseball games are publicized

equally at school. Moreover, the girls' teams are currently able to display team banners and

advertising banners at Marina Park during the playing season. Although it appears that school

colors and mascots are prominently displayed at the on-campus baseball fields, Plaintiff has not

demonstrated that any disparity in this regard is sufficiently significant to rise to the level of a Title

IX violation.

v. CONCLUSION

While the School Board has taken steps to remedy the inequalities associated with its girls'

softball programs - particularly after the injunction was issued in Daniels - it has not yet fully

succeeded. The Court is not unsympathetic to the fact that the School Board operates under a tight

-16-

A072A (Rev.8I82)

Case 6:97-cv-01463-ACC Document 171 Filed 12/15/00 Page 17 of 19 PageID 702
budget, and that the Board must select from a number of legitimate competing priorities in deciding how to spend the tax dollars allocated to it. However, Title IX is the law; it must be followed. Plaintiff correctly notes that the School Board has had decades to make the changes mandated by Title IX, yet it has not done so.
On the other hand, it appears that the climate of hostility surrounding this lawsuit has in some part resulted from miscommunication, misunderstanding and mistrust. As defense counsel observed in closing argument, some of the issues about which Plaintiff complains in this suit such as relating to transportation - might have been resolved had players or parents "just asked." Other problems might have been solved had players - or, more realistically, their parents - pursued them above the coaching level, with school administrators. However, it is undeniable that players and their parents did ask the School Board to correct the more significant disparities identified in this Order, but not all were remedied.
Defense counsel also suggested that Plaintiff's attorneys were "making mountains out of molehills" with respect to some of the asserted disparities. This characterization overlooks an undeniable aspect of human nature: matters that might otherwise be accurately characterized as molehills can assume mountainous proportions when viewed from the perspective of someone who is already subjected to disparate treatment. In other words, persons who already perceive that they are viewed with less esteem than their peers understandably may consider with resentment and suspicion circumstances and conduct that might ordinarily seem less sinister.
These observations aside, the Court determines that the School Board has violated Title IX and the Florida Educational Equity Act in the manner specified in this Order, entitling the plaintiff class to a preliminary injunction. Consequently, the Court will require the School Board to
-17-
A072A (Rev.8I82)

Case 6:97-cv-01463-ACC Document 171 Filed 12/15/00 Page 18 of 19 PageID 703
remedy the violations identified in this Order. However, before issuing an injunction, the Court desires additional input from the parties concerning the specific manner in which these inequalities should be corrected. Accordingly, mindful that public funds are at stake, the Court will follow its approach in Daniels and require the parties to submit plans addressing in detail how, and within what time frame, the inequalities identified in this Order should be remedied. As noted in Daniels, such an approach has been recognized by other courts. See Cohen v. Brown University, 101 F.3d 155, 185-88 (1st Cir.I996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1186 (1997).
Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. The School Board shall immediately begin working on a plan to remedy the inequalities specified in this Order. The Court expects the Board to develop a plan that elevates the girls' softball programs at Titusville and Astronaut to the level enjoyed by the boys' baseball teams at those schools. The School Board should not propose a course of action that imposes "separate disadvantage" upon the girls' and boys' programs, as the Board initially attempted to do in response to the Court's decision on the motion for preliminary injunction in Daniels. 2. Not later than February 1,2001, counsel for the parties shall meet in person at a mutually convenient location in a good faith effort to determine whether they can agree upon a single plan for remedying the inequalities addressed in this Order. 3. Not later than March 15,2001, the parties shall either file a joint plan with the Court, or file and serve separate proposed plans. 4. If the parties submit separate proposed plans, each party may serve and file a response to its opponent's plan not later than April 2, 2001.

A072A (Rev.8182)

-18-

Case 6:97-cv-01463-ACC Document 171 Filed 12/15/00 Page 19 of 19 PageID 704

/ S DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida this

~ day of December, 2000.

Copies furnished to:
~ Counsel ofRecord
Unrepresented Parties Administrative Law Clerk Courtroom Deputy

ANNE C. CONWAY ITED STATES DISTRICT ,,"-'~"'"'

A072A (Rev.8f82)

-19-

 
 985 F.Supp. 1458 United States District Court,
M.D. Florida, Orlando Division.
. Daniel DANIELS, as next friend of Jessica Daniels and Jennifer Daniels, Plaintiffs,
v. SCHOOL BOARD OF BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, Defendant. No. 97–1186–CIV–ORL–22.Nov. 25, 1997. Attorneys and Law Firms Lisa Kuhlman Tietig, Tietig & Tietig, Merritt Island, FL, for plaintiff. Jeffrey Graham Slater, Eubanks, Hilyard, Rumbley, Meier & Lengauer, P.A., Orlando, FL, for defendant.
Opinion ORDER CONWAY, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION The Plaintiffs in this action are Jessica and Jennifer Daniels, and their father, Daniel Daniels. Jessica and Jennifer are seniors at Merritt Island High School (“MIHS”). They both are members of the girls' varsity softball team. Plaintiffs have sued the Defendant, School Board of Brevard County, based on disparities between the MIHS girls' softball and boys' baseball programs. They assert claims pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1681 (“Title IX”) and the Florida Educational Equity Act, Fla.Stat. § 228.2001 (“the Florida Act”). Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction. On November 24, 1997, the Court heard oral argument on the motion. After considering the parties' evidentiary submissions, legal memoranda and arguments, the Court determines that the Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary injunction. II. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION STANDARD “A plaintiff moving for a preliminary injunction must show: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a substantial threat of irreparable injury; (3) that the threatened injury to the plaintiff outweighs the injury to the nonmovant; and (4) that the injunction would not disserve the public interest.” Statewide Detective Agency v. Miller, 115 F.3d 904, 905 (11th Cir.1997). III. TITLE IX AND THE FLORIDA ACT Subject to exceptions not pertinent here, Title IX provides:

No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance[.] 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a).
“Congress enacted Title IX in response to its finding—after extensive hearings held in 1970 by the House Special Subcommittee on Education—of pervasive discrimination against women with respect to educational opportunities.” Cohen v. Brown University, 101 F.3d 155, 165 (1st Cir.1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1186, 117 S.Ct. 1469, 137 L.Ed.2d 682 (1997). “Title IX was passed with two objectives in mind: ‘to avoid the use of federal resources to support discriminatory practices,’ and ‘to provide individual citizens effective protection against those practices.’ ” Id. (quoting Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677, 704, 99 S.Ct. 1946, 1961, 60 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)).
Title IX is implemented with respect to athletic activities by 34 C.F.R. § 106.41. Section § 106.41(a) generally provides:
No person shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, be treated differently from another person or otherwise be discriminated against in any interscholastic, intercollegiate, club or intramural athletics offered by a recipient, and no recipient shall provide any such athletics separately on such basis. Section 106.41(c) provides: A recipient which operates or sponsors interscholastic, intercollegiate, club or intramural athletics shall provide equal athletic opportunity for members of both sexes. In determining whether equal opportunities are available the Director will consider, among other factors: (1) Whether the selection of sports and levels of competition effectively accommodate the interests and abilities of members of both sexes; (2) The provision of equipment and supplies; (3) Scheduling of games and practice times; (4) Travel and per diem allowance; (5) Opportunity to receive coaching and academic tutoring; (6) Assignment and compensation of coaches and tutors; (7) Provision of locker rooms, practice and competitive facilities; (8) Provision of medical and training facilities and services; (9) Provision of housing and dining facilities and services; (10) Publicity.

Unequal aggregate expenditures for members of each sex or unequal expenditures for male and female teams if a recipient operates or sponsors separate teams will not constitute noncompliance with this section, but the Assistant Secretary may consider the failure to provide necessary funds for teams for one sex in assessing equality of opportunity for members of each sex. The Florida Act also prohibits, inter alia, gender discrimination in public education. It extends protection to those enrolled in public educational institutions which receive or benefit from either state or federal financial assistance. See Fla.Stat. § 228.2001(2)(a). The Florida Act lists the identical factors for assessing discrimination in athletics set forth in 34 C.F.R. § 106.41(c)(1)–(10). See Fla.Stat. § 228.2001(3)(d)(1)– (10). IV. ANALYSIS A. Substantial Likelihood of Success on the Merits 1 Plaintiffs assert that the following inequalities exist at the MIHS softball and baseball facilities, and that these disparities violate Title IX and the Florida Act. Electronic Scoreboard It is undisputed that the boys' baseball field has an electronic scoreboard, and that the girls' field has no scoreboard at all. At the preliminary injunction hearing, Defendant's counsel argued that a scoreboard is inessential to varsity softball play. The Court disagrees. A scoreboard is of obvious benefit to players who must keep track of the score, the innings, and the numbers of outs, balls and strikes at any given moment. The prestige factor of a scoreboard is also obvious. As with all the differences the Court addresses in this Order, the fact that the boys have a scoreboard and the girls do not sends a clear message to players, fellow students, teachers and the community at large, that girls' varsity softball is not as worthy as boys' varsity baseball. Batting Cage It is also undisputed that the boys' baseball team has a batting cage and the girls' softball team does not. The use of a batting cage sharpens hitting skills. The girls' softball team is technically disadvantaged by the absence of such equipment. At the hearing, Plaintiffs' counsel represented that it would be difficult for the two teams to share one batting cage as a result of differences in the pitching machines each team uses. Accordingly, it appears that sharing the existing batting cage is not feasible. Bleachers Photographs submitted by Plaintiffs starkly illustrate that the bleachers on the girls' softball field are in worse condition, and seat significantly fewer spectators, than the bleachers on the boys' field. In fact, at the preliminary injunction hearing, Defendant's counsel admitted that the girls' bleachers are actually

“hand-me-downs” that the boys' team passed on to the girls' team after the boys' team received new bleachers. Again, the message this sends the players, spectators and community about the relative worth of the two teams is loud and clear. Signs A sign reading “Merritt Island Baseball” is emblazoned in very large letters on the side of a portable structure adjacent to the boys' baseball field. The sign faces MIHS' student parking lot. This sign clearly publicizes only the boys' baseball team. Another sign is located just outside the left field fence of the boys' field. This billboard-type sign reads “Home of the Mustangs;” it faces toward the boys' field. Due to its location, the effect of this second sign is to advertise the boys' baseball team. There are no signs publicizing the girls' softball team. Bathroom Facilities There are no restrooms located on the girls' softball field. Restrooms are located on the boys' baseball field. A fence separates the girls' field from the restrooms. There is a dispute concerning whether the coach of the girls' team has been provided with a key to a gate in the fence. Equal access to restroom facilities is such a clearly established right as to merit no further discussion. Concession Stand/Press Box/Announcer's Booth A combination concession stand/press box/announcer's booth is located on the boys' baseball field. There is no such structure on the girls' softball field. These facilities affect player and spectator enjoyment of a sport, as well as attendance. Field Maintenance The photographs submitted by Plaintiffs facially suggest that the girls' softball field is not as wellmaintained as the boys' baseball field. However, at the preliminary injunction hearing, Defendant's counsel stated that the photographs were misleading because MIHS was in the process of reconditioning the girls' field at the time the photographs were taken. Defense counsel maintains that the reconditioning process continues. Accordingly, at this juncture, it is difficult for the Court to evaluate the comparative level of field maintenance. Lighting The boys' baseball field is lighted for nighttime play; the girls' softball field is not. Apparently, this single factor was the impetus for this lawsuit. Nighttime play affects spectator attendance, parental involvement, and player and spectator enjoyment. Nighttime games have a “big league” quality not associated with daytime play. Additionally,

lighting affords more flexibility regarding practice scheduling. The absence of lighting on the girls' softball field detrimentally affects the girls' team in all these respects. After Plaintiffs filed suit, the Brevard County School Board voted to install lighting at MIHS' girls softball field. Plaintiffs contend that have not received assurance that the lighting will be in place by January 26, 1998, the beginning of the girls' season. Defendant's counsel stated at the preliminary injunction hearing that there is every reason to believe that lighting would be installed by that date. Unless the lighting is in place by January 26, 1998, MIHS will be enjoined from using the lights on the boys' baseball field. The Court determines that the cumulative effect of the inequalities in the two athletic programs is so significant as to give Plaintiffs a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of the Title IX and Florida Act claims. The Defendant has chosen to favor the boys' baseball team with a lighted playing field, a scoreboard, a batting cage, superior bleachers, signs publicizing the team, bathroom facilities, and a concession stand/press box/announcer's booth, but has not seen fit to provide the girls softball team with any of these things. This disparity implicates several of the considerations listed in 34 C.F.R. § 106.41. See § 106.41(2) (“provision of equipment and supplies”), (3) (“[s]cheduling of games and practice times”), (7) (“[p]rovision of ... practice and competitive facilities”), (8) ( “[p]rovision of ... training facilities”), and (10) (“[p]ublicity”). A balance of the relevant factors favors the Plaintiffs. The Defendant seeks to avoid liability on the basis that it provides equal funding for the boys' and girls' programs. According to the Defendant, each team has a separate booster club which engages in separate fund-raising activities. The Defendant suggests that it cannot be held responsible if the fundraising activities of one booster club are more successful than those of another. The Court rejects this argument. It is the Defendant's responsibility to ensure equal athletic opportunities, in accordance with Title IX. This funding system is one to which Defendant has acquiesced; Defendant is responsible for the consequences of that approach. B. Substantial Threat of Irreparable Injury Plaintiffs have also demonstrated a substantial threat of irreparable injury. Each day these inequalities go unredressed, the members of the girls' softball team, prospective members, students, faculty and the community at large, are sent a clear message that girls' high school varsity softball is not as worthy as boys' high school varsity baseball, i.e., that girls are not as important as boys. In that regard, Plaintiffs have filed two expert affidavits detailing the effects of such unequal treatment on girls. See Dkts. 23 & 25. Further, Jessica and Jennifer are seeking athletic scholarships, many of which, Plaintiffs maintain, are not decided until after the softball season is over. Accordingly, it is critical that the two girls do their best during their final season.

C. RELATIVE HARM/PUBLIC INTEREST 4 Since these inequalities should have long ago been rectified, the Court is unsympathetic to Defendant's claims that it will be unduly harmed by the expenditure of funds necessary to level the playing field for girls' softball athletes. For too long, the girls' softball team has been denied athletic opportunity equal to the boys' baseball team. The harm associated with that treatment as second-class athletes is significant. In short, the balance of harms favors Plaintiffs. The players and all others associated with these programs, the school system as a whole, and the public at large, will benefit from a shift to equal treatment. D. BOND 5 This lawsuit represents a form of public interest litigation. Accordingly, the Court has the discretion not to require Plaintiffs to post security for the issuance of a preliminary injunction. See City of Atlanta v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, 636 F.2d 1084, 1094 (5th Cir.1981). The Court will exercise that discretion in this case. No bond will be required of Plaintiffs. V. CONCLUSION After careful analysis, the Court determines that Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary injunction. At the preliminary injunction hearing, various possibilities of remedying the inequalities at issue were discussed. Since public funds are at stake, the Court will afford Defendant an opportunity to submit a plan addressing how Defendant proposes to remedy the inequalities identified in this Order, given the Court's determination that a preliminary injunction should issue. Such an approach has been recognized by other courts. See Cohen v. Brown University, 101 F.3d 155, 185–88 (1st Cir.1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1186, 117 S.Ct. 1469, 137 L.Ed.2d 682 (1997). In submitting its proposal, Defendant should be mindful of Title IX's salutary effects. As the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit recently observed in Cohen: There can be no doubt that Title IX has changed the face of women's sports as well as our society's interest in and attitude toward women athletes and women's sports. In addition, there is ample evidence that increased athletics participation opportunities for woman and young girls, available as a result of Title IX enforcement, have had salutary effects in other areas of societal concern. One need look no further than the impressive performances of our country's women athletes in the 1996 Olympic Summer Games to see that Title IX has had a dramatic and positive impact on the capabilities of our women athletes, particularly in team sports. These Olympians represent the first full generation of women to grow up under the aegis of Title IX. The unprecedented success of these athletes is due, in no small measure, to Title IX's beneficent effects on women's sports, as the athletes

themselves have acknowledged time and again. What stimulated this remarkable change in the quality of women's athletic competition was not a sudden, anomalous upsurge in women's interest in sports, but the enforcement of Title IX's mandate of gender equity in sports. 101 F.3d at 188 (citations omitted).
Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. Plaintiffs' Application for Preliminary Injunction and Request for Prompt Hearing (Dkt.3), filed October 9, 1997, is GRANTED. 2. Not later than December 15, 1997, Defendant shall serve and file a plan concerning how Defendant proposes to remedy the inequalities identified in this Order, given the Court's determination that a preliminary injunction should issue. Service on Plaintiffs' counsel shall be by hand delivery, telecopier transmission or overnight courier. Not later than December 18, 1997, Plaintiffs shall file and serve a memorandum in response to Defendant's proposed plan. 3. The Court will withhold issuance of a preliminary injunction pending receipt of the report identified in paragraph 2 of this Order.
Parallel Citations 123 Ed. Law Rep. 1153

 
 Landow ex rel. Landow v. Sch. Bd., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7156
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division March 27, 2001, Decided
Case No. 6:97-CIV-1463-ORL-22KRS Reporter: 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7156 | 2001 WL 311311
RICHARD LANDOW, as next friend of KAYLA LANDOW, as representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, -vs- SCHOOL BOARD OF BREVARD COUNTY, Defendant.
Counsel: For RICHARD LANDOW, plaintiff: Mark E. Tietig, Lisa Kuhlman Tietig, Tietig & Tietig, Merritt Island, FL. For SCHOOL BOARD OF BREVARD COUNTY, defendant: Michael H. Bowling, Michael M. Bell, Bell, Leeper & Roper, P.A., Orlando, FL. Judges: ANNE C. CONWAY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE. Opinion by: ANNE C. CONWAY
Opinion
ORDER
This cause comes before the Court for consideration of the School Board of Brevard County's Motion for Extension of Deadlines Set Forth in the Court's Final Order and Preliminary [sic] Injunction (Doc. 183), filed March 19, 2001, and Plaintiff's Response thereto (Doc. 185), filed March 21, 2001. On March 23, 2001, in the absence of the undersigned judge and pursuant to her direction, Magistrate Judge Karla R. Spaulding temporarily relieved the School Board of one of the deadlines at issue, pending final ruling by the undersigned judge.
On March 7, 2001, the Court entered a Final Order and Permanent Injunction (Doc. 174) requiring the School Board to, inter alia, (1) begin demolishing the Riverview Elementary facility at Titusville High School not later than March 31, 2001, (2) promptly thereafter commence construction of a girls' softball field at Titusville High on the Riverview site, (3) begin construction of a girls' softball field at Astronaut High School not later than March 31, 2001, and (4) as to the fields at both high schools, ensure that construction is completed and the fields are ready for play by the first day of classes in the 2001-2002 school year.
The Court did not pull these deadlines out of thin air, it based them on the representations of counsel in the Stipulated Joint Plan (Doc. 173) the parties filed on March 5, 2001. In that regard, the Stipulated Joint Plan stated:
In the event the Court approves this plan, the demolition of Riverview Elementary School will start as early as March 2001 and the field should be ready for play by summer of 2001. It being the goal of the SCHOOL BOARD not merely to have the fields ready for use during the next school year's softball season, but complete so that the girls' softball teams can practice thereon prior to the opening of the season.

Doc. 173 at 2. Concerning the timetable for construction of the field at Astronaut High, the Stipulated Joint Plan stated: "The School Board intends to begin construction in March of 2001, so that the field can be available for play as early as summer 2001." Id. at 3. Consistent with these representations, the descriptions of the projects attached to the Stipulated Joint Plan contained the followed statements: "The demolition on the Riverview Elementary School can start in March 2001 and the field [at Titusville High] could be ready for play by the summer of 2001" and "The area selected [at Astronaut High] is presently available so it is possible that work could begin in March 2001 and the field could be available for play by June 2001." Exhibits "A" and "B" to Doc. 173.
Now, the School Board says it cannot meet those deadlines. In that regard, the Motion for Extension states: "The undersigned has conferred with Ed Curry, the Assistant Superintendent in charge of facilities, and has been informed that it will be impossible to obtain bids and complete the demolition of the Riverview Annex by March 31, 2001." Doc. 183, P 1, at 2. Additionally, the motion states:
Likewise, the SCHOOL BOARD cannot guarantee that the softball fields can be completed by the start of school. As mentioned above, bidding for jobs is required by Florida law and other factors, such as weather, play a large part in completing projects such as this. Further, to require completion by the end of summer, the SCHOOL BOARD would be required to sod, as opposed to seed, the fields. This would result in an increase of approximately $ 100,000 in costs over the some $ 600,000 already allocated for construction.
Id., P 3, at 2. The School Board states that it
offered, in an effort to reassure the plaintiffs that it is acting in the best of faith, to guarantee that the girls' softball fields at Astronaut and Titusville High Schools would be ready for practice and play by December 1, 2001. This will allow some six weeks prior to the beginning of the season for the parties to resolve any disputes and to seek court intervention, if necessary. Nevertheless, counsel for the plaintiffs stated that such date was "too far out."
Id., P 7, at 3-4. Accordingly, the School Board asks the Court to "amend its order of March 7, 2001, to permit the SCHOOL BOARD to have through April 30, 2001, to complete the demolition of Riverview [5] Elementary School at Titusville High School and to have through January 15, 2002, as agreed by the parties in the Joint Plan, to complete the softball fields at Titusville and Astronaut High Schools." Id. at 4.
In response, Plaintiff states that he does not oppose extension of the deadline for demolishing the Riverview Annex, but notes that "no demolition is required to begin construction of the field at Astronaut High School." Doc. 185, P 1, at 1. Plaintiff also does not object to modification of the deadline for completing construction of both fields, except as it relates to installing grass on the fields. In that regard, Plaintiff states:
The School Board should carefully choose the proper grass seed; sow, irrigate, and fertilize the seed and grass properly and in a timely manner; and, if the grass is not grown, filled in, and playable by December 1, 2001, the School Board must be prepared to sod or otherwise render the field playable by January 15, 2002.

Id., P 2, at 2. Finally, Plaintiff states that he does "object to the wholesale extension of the Court's deadline for completion of the fields because the School Board has not provided sufficient reason [6] for any further extension of the deadlines[.]" Id., P 3, at 3. In that regard, Plaintiff offers the following observations:
Although it is true that Plaintiffs agreed to the absolute outside maximum deadline of January 15, 2002, in the stipulated plan, Plaintiffs think it better for everyone that the fields be completed and made playable as soon as possible. The School Board could begin work on the Astronaut field immediately and could use the time needed to demolish the Riverview annex to line up and schedule labor and materials for construction of the Titusville field. Also, the completion deadline for both fields should be as early as practicable to allow time for Plaintiffs to inspect the fields; and, in the event of non-compliance with this Court's Final Order, to have sufficient time to compel compliance with the Final Order prior to the beginning of softball practice.
Id.
In light of the foregoing, it appears that an extension of some of the deadlines in the Final Order and Permanent Injunction is warranted. However, these extensions would have been unnecessary had counsel been more accurate in articulating realistic deadlines in their Stipulated Joint Plan. The timetable they submitted led the Court to believe that demolition (Titusville) and construction (Astronaut) could begin by the end of March, and that the fields could be finished sometime in the summer of this year. Moreover, the January 15, 2002 deadline referenced in both the School Board's motion and the Plaintiff's response appears nowhere in the Joint Plan.
Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED that School Board's Motion for Extension of Deadlines Set Forth in the Court's Final Order and Preliminary [sic] Injunction (Doc. 183), filed March 19, 2001, is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The Motion is GRANTED insofar as it seeks an extension of time until April 30,2001, to complete demolition of the Riverview Annex. The Motion is likewise GRANTED insofar as it seeks an extension of time to complete construction of the girls' softball fields at Titusville and Astronaut High Schools. The Motion is DENIED, however, insofar as it seeks an extension to January 15, 2002. Based on the School Board's offer to Plaintiff "to guarantee that the girls' softball fields at Astronaut and Titusville High Schools would be ready for practice and play by December 1, 2001," Doc. 183, P 7, at 2-3, it appears the School Board can finish constructing the fields substantially earlier than January 15, 2002. Accordingly, the deadline for completing construction of the two softball fields is extended to December 1, 2001.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida this 27th day of March, 2001.
ANNE C. CONWAY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 
 Case 6:97-cv-01186-ACC Document 58 Filed 09/12/00 Page 1 of 3 PageID 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

DANIEL DANIELS, as next friend of JESSICA DANIELS and JENNIFER DANIELS,
Plaintiffs,
-vs-
SCHOOL BOARD OF BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA,
Defendant. ________________~I

CASE NO. 6:97-CIV-1186-0RL-22A

ORDER In this action, Plaintiffs complain that disparities between the girls' softball and boys' baseball programs at Merritt Island High School (''MIHS'') violates Title IX, 20 U.S.C. § 1681, and the Florida Educational Equity Act, Fla. Stat. § 228.200 I. On December 23, 1997, the Court entered an Order and Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 32) which required the Defendant School Board to remedy . a number of specific inequities relating to the girls' softball program at MIHS. On April 24, 1998,
this case was consolidated with the case ofDaniel Daniels, as nextfriend 0/Jessica Daniels and
Jennifer Daniels, etc. v. SchoolBoardo/BrevardCounty, Florida, case no. 6:97-civ-1463-0rl-22A,
for all purposes, including trial. The latter action complains of disparities in the girls' softball and boys' baseball programs county-wide; therein, Plaintiffs sought, and were granted, class-action treatment. Case number 97-1463 is the lead case.

A072A (Rev.8f82)

Case 6:97-cv-01186-ACC Document 58 Filed 09/12/00 Page 2 of 3 PageID 2
On March 30, 2000, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation in case no. 97-1463, substantially narrowing their dispute. The stipulation recites:
The Class and the School Board stipulate and agree that considering all relevant Title IX factors, the facilities offered to girls' softball players and boys' baseball players at Bayside High School, Cocoa High School, Cocoa Beach High School, Eau Gallie High School, Melbourne High School, Merritt Island High School, Palm Bay High School, Rockledge High School and SatelliteHigh School, are, for each school, substantially equivalent as of January 22, 2000. As to any such differences in the facilities offered in favor of one sport or the other at such schools, such differences are not significant as ofJanuary 22,2000. Furthermore, the parties stipulate that this lawsuit does not include any changes made to Brevard County School Board facilities after January 22,2000. Doc. 119 in case no. 97-1463. Consistent with this stipulation. the parties represented in their summary judgment submissions in case no. 97-1463 that the softball/baseball programs at the nine schools identified in the stipulation were in compliance with Title IX and its state counterpart. Accordingly, they focused on the asserted disparities at only two schools: Titusville High and Astronaut High. This narrowed inquiry is confirmed in the Joint Pretrial Statement recently filed in case no. 97-1463. Plaintiffs' claims in the instant action are subsumed in 97-1463, which, as previously noted, has a county-wide focus. Further, as evidence by the stipulation filed in 97-1463, the disparities at MIHS have been rectified. Accordingly, the preliminary injunction entered in the instant case no
longer serves any useful purpose and should be dissolved. Given these circumstances, the Court also determines that this case should be closed.
Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. The Order and Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 32) entered on December 23, 1997 is DISSOLVED.
2
A072A (Rev.8182)

Case 6:97-cv-01186-ACC Document 58 Filed 09/12/00 Page 3 of 3 PageID 3
.... _--
2. The Clerk shall close this case. 2. Any remaining issues, including attorneys' fees, shall be addressed in case no. 97-1463.
J..d CCJ DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, Orlando, Florida, this day ofSeptember, 2000.

Copies to:

cd~ounsel ofRecord
(f'\ Any Unrepresented Parties
Magistrate Judge Karla R. Spaulding Administrative Law Clerk
Courtroom Deputy

3
A072A (Rev.8182)

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION
CASE NO. 97-1463-CV-ORL-22A
DANIEL DANIELS, as next friend of JESSICA DANIELS and JENNIFER DANIELS, as representatives of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
SCHOOL BOARD OF BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA,
Defendant.
-----_---!/ FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SOUGHT
I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. Tlus is an action by Plaintiffs, by and through their next friend, as
representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, for relief under the Education
Amendments of 1972, § 901,20 U.S.C.A. § 1681 (Title IX). Plaintiffs allege that the
Defendant, in violation of federal law, has failed to provide equal athletic facilities to the
class of Plaintiffs because of Plaintiffs' gender.
II. JURISDICTION & VENUE 2. Jurisdiction of this Comi is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.c. §§ 1331 and
1343. The rights, privileges, and immmuties sought herein to be redressed are those

secured by Title IX and the Constitution of the United States of America, in particular, the Fourteenth Amendment thereto . This action can be maintained as a class action under Rule 23, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This Court further has supplemental jurisdiction ofthe subject matter of this claim by virtue of28 U.S .c. § 1367, as to all claims arising under the laws and Constitution ofthe State of Florida that are so related to the claims of which tIns Comi has original jurisdiction and wInch form part of the same case or controversy.
3. This claim arises out of acts undeliaken and injuries suffered in the Middle District of Florida and venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
III. PARTIES 4. The Plaintiff Class consists of all girls who are currently playing, or will play in the future, on any Brevard County public lngh school's girls' softball team. 5. Class representatives, JESSICA and JENNIFER DANIELS, are twin sisters who are Ulnted States citizens and reside with their parents in Merritt Island, Brevard County, Florida. They are seventeen years of age and in the twelfth grade at Merritt Island High School (MIHS), a public school owned and operated by Defendant. Both JESSICA and JENNIFER are members ofthe MIHS girls' softball team. As members of the MIHS girls' softball team, JESSICA and JENNIFER, compete against other high schools' girls' softball teams in Brevard County, Florida. Sometimes their gaInes are at MIHS, aIld sometimes their games are at other Brevard County High Schools. DruIiel DANIELS is JESSICA and JENNIFER's father.
2

6. Defendant, School Board of Brevard County, Florida, is the corporate name of the goveming body ofthe school district of Brevard County, Florida, by which it is empowered, among other things, to sue and be sued pursuant to Florida law.
IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS 7. The premiere varsity athletic activity in the Spring semester in Brevard County Public Schools is softball for girls and baseball for boys. 8. Tryouts for girls' varsity softball teams in Brevard County Public Schools begin in or about the last week of JanuaJ.Y, 1998. 9. SepaJ.·ate playing fields exist in some BrevaJ.·d COlmty Public Schools for softball and baseball, aJ.ld use of the baseball field for softball play is impossible because the sizes of the fields and elevations of the pitchers' mounds are different for baseball and softball. 10. Throughout BrevaJ.·d County's public high schools, boys' high school baseball teams have faJ.· superior facilities, coaching, and services than girls' high school softball teaJ.llS. EXaJ.llples of inequalities that Plaintiffs believe to exist throughout the public school system include unequal bleachers, score boards, batting cages, publicity, uniforms, and travel-related services. The ultimate example of unequal facilities is that three out of the ten BrevaJ.·d County public high schools have a boys' baseball field on their campus, while those same tl1Tee schools have no girls' softball field on their campus. These schools aJ.·e as follows.
A. Astronaut High School has a boys' baseball field on CaJ.llPUS, while it does not have a girls' softball field on campus. The girls' softball teams playing
3

at Astronaut High School are forced to travel to a field off campus to play games and practice.
B. Cocoa High School has a boys' baseball field on campus, while it does not have a girls' softball field on campus. The girls' softball teams playing at Cocoa High School are forced to travel to a field off campus to play games and practice.
C. Titusville High School has a boys' baseball field on campus, while it does not have a girls' softball field on campus. The girls' softball teams playing at Titusville High School are forced to travel to a field off campus to play games and practice. 11. Equal facilities, coaching, and services between the girls' softball teams and the boys' baseball teams in Brevard County public high schools are necessary to impart equality, parity, importance, w0l1h, morale, team spirit, dignity, and obvious utility to the fans and players. 12. Unequal facilities between the girls' softball and boys' baseball teams at anyone public high school impacts the entire class of Plaintiffs because each school's team travels to and plays on fields at other public high schools. 13. Defendant allows, supp0l1s, and otherwise facilitates a system of providing lmequal supp0l1 to boys athletics, including the baseball program, from booster clubs, private and commercial donations, commercial agreements, and other sources that result in unlawful disparities in girls' athletics, including the softball program.
4

14. Defendant should begin design, acquisition, installation and implementation of equal facilities, coaches, and services for girls' softball teams and boys' baseball teams in Brevard County public high schools as soon as possible in order to achieve gender equity in softball and baseball facilities throughout Brevard COlmty's public high schools in time for the Spring 1998 softball season.
15. Unless Defendant is ordered to provide equal facilities, coaching, and services for the girls' high school softball teams and the boys' high school baseball teams in Brevard County's public high schools, Plaintiff Class will suffer injuries for which they have no adequate legal remedy. Specific perf0l111ance in the f0l111 of equal facilities and coaches for Brevard County's public high schools' softball teams is required; monetary damages are inadequate.
16. The hardship on Plaintiff Class if relief is denied is disproportionately onerous as opposed to the hardship to Defendant if it is granted.
v. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
17. The Class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, as the Class consists of all of the more than 180 girls who are now, and the many more who will be, members of the varsity and junior varsity softball teams in Brevard County's ten public high schools who are subject to the discriminatory policies and practices of the Defendant School Board of Brevard County, and as said policies and practices will uniformly affect the Class members.
18. There are questions of law and fact common to the Class, particularly insomuch as the policies and practices ofthe School Board have a discliminatory and
5

disparate impact on the treatment of girls throughout each school, throughout the district, and throughout the conullunity. Furthelmore, commonality of fact exists because named plaintiffs are female high school students, are patiicipants in Defendant's softball programs, attend a school with glaring disparities, and have been adversely affected by the School Board's policies and practices solely or substatltially because of their gender
19. The claims of the representative patiies are typical of and coextensive with the claims of the Class, as JENNIFER and JESSICA DANIELS request broad injunctive relief for violations of rights that similarly affect all girls, now and in future, impacted by the softball progranl.
20. The representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class, as the interests of the named patiies are coextensive with the members of the Class; atld, natned patiies and their Attomeys who have ah"eady achieved favorable results in the related individual action, have shown that they have the ability, experience, vigor, tenacity, financial conmlitment, atld other qualifications necessary to pursue the interests of all Class members.
21. The School Board has acted in providing or allowing better funding, facilities, atld services to the boys' baseball progratlls and has refused to act to eliminate disparities regat"ding the girls' softball teatlls on grounds generally applicable to the Class, as each Class member is subjected to disparities at horne atld/or away games and is subject to the satne funding sources atld formulae; thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief with respect to the Class as a whole.
VI. COUNTS
6

COUNT I. Violation of Title IX, Education Amendments of 1972, § 901, 20 U.S.C. § 1681.
22. Plaintiffs reallege Paragraphs 1 tlu·ough 21. 23. Because of Defendant's failure to provide equal facilities, coaching, and services for the girls' public high school softball teams and boys' public high school baseball teams, Plaintiffs are being denied the benefits of and are being subjected to discrimination on the basis of their gender under Defendant's education program or activity which receives Federal financial assistance. 24. Because of their gender, Plaintiffs are being wilfully denied equal athletic opportunities by Defendant. 25 . The lack of equal facilities, coaching, and services for the girls' public high school softball teams and boys' public high school baseball teams does not effectively accommodate the interests and abilities of members of both sexes, including the interests and abilities of Plaintiffs. 26. As a result of Defendant's illegal actions, Plaintiffs have incurred costs and attorney fees.
COUNT II. Violation of Florida Educational Equity Act, Fla. Stat. § 228.2001.
27. Plaintiffs reallege Paragraphs 1 through 21. 28. Because of Defendant's failure to provide equal facilities, coaching, and services for the girls' public high school softball teams and boys' public high school baseball teams, Plaintiffs are, on the basis of sex, being denied the benefits of and being
7

subjected to disclimination under Defendant's education program or activity which receives or benefits from federal or state financial assistance.
29. Plaintiffs, on the basis of sex, are being denied the benefits of and being treated differently fl.-om boys in interscholastic athletics offered by Defendant.
30. Because of their gender, Plaintiffs are being denied an equal athletic opportunity by Defendant.
31. The lack of equal facilities, coaching, and services for the girls' public high school softball teams and boys' public high school baseball teams does not effectively accOlmnodate the interests and abilities of members of both sexes, including the interests and abilities of Plaintiffs.
32. As a result of Defendant's illegal actions, Plaintiffs have llIcUlTed costs and attorney fees.
REQUEST FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs have been damaged by Defendant as a result of each violation alleged in each count above, and request preliminmy mId pelmanent injunctive relief mId all other relief that is just and equitable, including costs mId attorney fees.
8

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy hereof was mailed on tIns 8th day of
December, 1997 to the following named persons:
DR. DAVID SAWYER Superintendent SCHOOL BOARD OF BREVARD COUNTY 2700 Judge Fran Jamieson Way Melbourne, FL 32940-6699
JEFFREY G. SLATER Eubanks, Hilyard & Rumbley, P.A. P. O. Box 4973, Orlando, FL 32802-4973 Attorney for Defendant

cli l danielslc\ assl amended .c

LISA KUHLMAN TIETIG Trial Counsel Florida Bar No. 0978027 TIETIG & TIETIG 6065 South Tropical Trail Merritt Island, FL 32952 (407) 452-9944; Fax 452-8942 Attorneys for Plaintiff Class

9

 
 DANIELS v. SCHOOL BD. OF BREVARD COUNTY, FLA. NO. 97-1186-CIV-ORL-22.
995 F.Supp. 1394 (1997) Daniel DANIELS, as next friend of Jessica Daniels and Jennifer Daniels, Plaintiffs,
v. SCHOOL BOARD OF BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, Defendant.
United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division. December 23, 1997.
Lisa Kuhlman Tietig, Tietig & Tietig, Merritt Island, FL, for Daniel Daniels, as next friend of Jessica Daniels and Jennifer Daniels, plaintiffs.
Jeffrey Graham Slater, Eubanks, Hilyard, Rumbley, Meier & Lengauer, P.A., Orlando, FL, for School Board of Brevard County, Florida, defendants.
ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION CONWAY, District Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION On November 25, 1997, the Court entered an Order (Dkt.28) determining that the Defendant, [995 F.Supp. 1395] School Board of Brevard County, was violating Title IX1 and the Florida Educational Equity Act2 based on disparities between the girls' softball and boys' baseball programs at Merritt Island High School ("MIHS"). In the Order, the Court identified specific inequalities with respect to the following matters: electronic score-board, batting cage, bleachers, signs, bathroom facilities, concession stand/press box/announcer's booth, and field lighting. Before entering a preliminary injunction, the Court directed the School Board to submit a plan concerning how it proposed to remedy the deficiencies identified in the Order. The School Board has filed its plan; Plaintiffs have responded thereto.
II. THE SCHOOL BOARD'S PLAN3 Preliminarily, the School Board notes that it has sent a directive to all secondary school principals, advising them that effective immediately all principals, athletic directors, coaches and booster clubs are to be advised that district policy henceforth requires that each principal shall be responsible for insuring that regardless of the source of funding, whether it be school district, school, or booster club, the expenditures that support male and female athletic teams shall be on an equitable basis. Henceforth a principal may not accept or approve, either directly or indirectly, funding which fosters a disparate, inequitable status between male and female athletic teams. Defendant's Response to Court Order of November 25, 1997, Requiring Plan to Remedy Court Determined Inequalities Between MIHS Baseball and Softball Facilities (Dkt.29) at 4. However, the School Board proposes not to spend any funds to remedy the inequities identified in the prior Order. In that regard, the School Board states: [T]he plan here being submitted by the School Board does not involve the expenditure of funds by the School Board of Brevard County or Merritt Island High School. The Defendant assumes that the Court understands and can fully appreciate the financial limitations and tight budgetary constraints under which the School Board is forced to operate. Any monies spent on athletics must obviously be taken from another area of operations which is already lacking in funds.The School Board believes that the immediate expenditure of funds to eliminate the inequities the Court has determined exist between the boys' baseball program and the girls' softball program at Merritt Island High School would create more problems than it would solve. In reaching the decision not to expend funds to eliminate the inequities the Defendant is not unmindful of the fact that before the Court has even issued an injunction in this case the Daniels family has already filed a separate class action asking that the School Board be required to install new softball fields at three other Brevard County high schools which presently use off-campus fields for

practice and games. That new suit also suggests that there are inequalities between the boys' facilities and girls' facilities used by students from Brevard County high schools other than Merritt Island High School and that they need to be remedied. Id. at 8. The School Board proposes the following remedial measures regarding the specific inequities identified in the prior Order:
ELECTRONIC SCOREBOARD The School Board says it is not feasible to move the electronic scoreboard on the boys' [995 F.Supp. 1396] baseball field back and forth between the baseball field and the girls' softball field. Accordingly, the Board proposes to disallow use of the scoreboard on the boys' field "until such time as the girls' field has a comparable scoreboard." Id. at 4.
BATTING CAGE The School Board contends that the design and structure of the batting cage on the boys' field precludes moving it back and forth between the two fields. The Board proposes to co-locate the girls' and boys' separate pitching machines so that both teams can use the batting cage on alternate weeks.
BLEACHERS The School Board maintains it is not feasible to relocate bleachers from the boys' field to the girls' field. Accordingly, "[u]ntil such time as funds may be raised for the purchase of additional bleachers or bleachers are donated so that the girls' field has bleachers essentially equal in number and quality to the boys' bleachers," the School Board proposes to rope off the boys' bleachers so that "the only area used during games shall be equivalent in size and seating number to those bleachers which presently exist on the girls' softball field." Id. at 5.
SIGNS The School Board proposes altering the "Merritt Island Baseball" sign facing the student parking lot, to read "Merritt Island Baseball and Softball." Alternatively, the Board proposes to either eliminate all lettering or change the sign to "Merritt Island Athletics." The School Board also proposes to remove the donated "Home of the Mustangs" sign which faces the boys' baseball diamond, and to leave in place a second, gender neutral sign located outside the boys' field.
BATHROOM FACILITIES The School Board proposes to remove a portion of the fence separating the boys' and girls' fields, so as to permit equal access to the restrooms.
CONCESSION STAND/PRESS BOX/ANNOUNCER'S BOOTH The Board proposes to close down this building until such time as a comparable facility is constructed on the girls' field.
LIGHTING The School Board has already approved the installation of lights on the MIHS girls' softball field. The Board anticipates the installation process will be complete by the beginning of the girls' season. If it is not, the Board proposes to disallow use of the lights on the boys' field until the lights on the girls' field are in place.
III. PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO THE PLAN Plaintiffs' basic position is that the School Board should be required to remedy the inequities by spending the funds necessary to improve the MIHS girls' softball program, rather than denying the boys' baseball team facilities it already enjoys.4 Plaintiffs commend the Board's new policy regarding booster club funding; however, they maintain that this policy will essentially freeze present inequities. Plaintiffs also assert that the School Board's "take it away from the boys" approach is actually designed to generate "backlash" against the girls' softball team. Further, Plaintiffs contend that the Board's plan is inadequate to

remedy the perception of inequality because even if the boys are not allowed to use certain facilities — such as the electronic scoreboard, bleachers, lighting and concession stand/ press box/announcer's booth — those facilities will remain in place as symbols of inequality. Accordingly, Plaintiffs urge the Court to require the School Board to either completely remove those facilities from the boys' field or[995 F.Supp. 1397] provide the girls with equal facilities on their field. Finally, Plaintiffs decry the School Board's claim of "tight budgetary constraints;" they maintain that the Board is slated to receive at least $43 million from the Florida Department of Education for capital improvements.5
IV. ANALYSIS In giving the School Board the opportunity to submit a plan, the Court had hoped for constructive input, such as a long-range fiscal plan to remedy the inequities identified in the Court's prior Order. Unfortunately, the Board's plan leaves much to be desired; it creates the impression that the Board is not as sensitive as it should be regarding the necessity of compliance with Title IX. The Court is inclined to agree with Plaintiffs that many of the Board's proposals seem more retaliatory than constructive. The Board's approach essentially imposes "separate disadvantage," punishing both the girls and the boys, rather than improving the girls' team to the level the boys' team has enjoyed for years. The Court is sensitive to the financial constraints imposed upon public educational institutions in this day and age; that is yet another reason the Court gave the Board an opportunity to submit a remedial plan, rather than simply entering an injunction decreeing the expenditure of funds by a date certain. However, the fact remains that Plaintiffs have presented substantial evidence that the School Board has violated, and continues to violate, an Act of Congress mandating gender equality in public education. However, the inquiry does not end here. Before the School Board's response to the Court's November 25 Order was due, Plaintiffs altered the playing field dramatically by filing a separate suit seeking class action status and challenging the Board's treatment of girls' softball on a county-wide basis. See Daniel Daniels, as next friend of Jessica Daniels and Jennifer Daniels v. School Board of Brevard County, Florida, Case No. 97-1463-CIV-ORL-22, filed December 4, 1997. In this second suit, Plaintiffs complain, inter alia, of the fact that three of the ten high schools in Brevard County have boys' baseball fields, but no girls' softball fields.6 On the heels of this filing, a different group of parents and children commenced yet another action claiming gender equity violations with respect to girls' softball programs throughout the county. See Dee Hartley, as parent and next friend of Natasha Harris, et al. v. School Board of Brevard County, Florida,Case No. 97-1492-CIV-ORL-22, filed December 10, 1997. The complaint in this third suit also requests class action status.7 As a result of these latest two cases, the Title IX focus has expanded from the softball facilities at one high school to girls' softball programs throughout Brevard County. In the instant suit, two high school girls and a parent sought to force expenditures to improve one softball field. The two subsequent cases presumably seek to force, inter alia, the construction of softball fields at three other high schools. These developments dramatically alter the potential financial impact on the School Board. At this juncture, the Court cannot make a reasoned determination concerning the amount of additional funds the School Board should be required to expend to remedy the inequities present at Plaintiffs' particular high school. The extent to which the Board must further appropriate funds to correct the situation at MIHS must be considered in the context of the two related cases which seek class action treatment and the expenditure of funds on a county-wide basis. Accordingly, with the exception of lighting on the MIHS girls' softball field, which the School Board[995 F.Supp. 1398] has already committed to install, for the moment, the Court will impose injunctive measures which do not require additional funding.
V. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. Before January 26, 1998, the School Board shall make the following changes at Merritt Island High School:

a. Remove a portion of the fence separating the boys' baseball field and girls' softball field, so that the restroom facilities are readily accessible to players and spectators at both fields.
b. Co-locate the girls' and boys' pitching machines so that both teams can use the batting cage, and establish a schedule allowing both teams equal use of the cage.
c. Change the "Merritt Island Baseball" sign facing the student parking lot, so that it reads "Merritt Island Baseball and Softball," and remove the donated "Home of the Mustangs" sign which faces the boys' baseball diamond.
d. Install lighting on the girls' softball field.
2. During the pendency of this action and the two related cases, the School Board is not required to deny the boys' baseball team and its spectators use of the electronic scoreboard, existing bleachers and the concession stand/press box/announcer's booth.8 The Board is also not required to deny the boys' baseball team use of the lights on the baseball field, since the Board is required to install lighting on the girls' softball field by January 26, 1998. Finally, the Board is not required to remove the gender-neutral sign located outside the boys' baseball field.
FOOTNOTES
1. 20 U.S.C. § 1681. 2. Fla. Stat. § 228.2001. 3. The School Board objects to being required to submit a plan. However, as the Court expressly noted in the November 25, 1997 Order, this procedure has been recognized by other courts. See Cohen v. Brown University, 101 F.3d 155, 185-88 (1st Cir.1996), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 117 S.Ct. 1469, 137 L.Ed.2d 682 (1997). 4. Additionally, regarding specific inequities, Plaintiffs contend that the batting cage should be moved to the girls' field "to balance past favoritism," that the "Merritt Island Baseball" sign should be changed to read "Merritt Island Softball and Baseball," not "Merritt Island Baseball and Softball," and that the other, gender neutral sign should be removed because leaving it where it is "would maintain an appearance of discrimination[.]" Plaintiffs do not object to School Board's plan regarding access to restroom facilities. 5. According to a newspaper article submitted by Plaintiffs, the School Board has not yet received these funds. 6. It is unclear how this second suit advances the interests of Jessica and Jennifer Daniels, particularly since it was filed before the Court entered a preliminary injunction in the instant case. 7. All three cases were randomly assigned to the undersigned judge. 8. Of course, this ruling assumes that the players and spectators of the girls' team are free to patronize the concession stand.

 
 Case: 6:97-cv-1463 As of: 01/31/2014 06:07 PM EST 1 of 14
CLOSED, FRC, KRS, LEAD
U.S. District Court Middle District of Florida (Orlando) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 6:97−cv−01463−ACC

Landow v. School Board/Brevard Assigned to: Chief Judge Anne C. Conway Demand: $0 Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff Daniel Daniels as next friend of Jessica Daniels and Jennifer Daniels, as representatives of a class of similarly situated persons (All girls currently and directly participating in the varsity and junior varsity softball programs at the ten high TERMINATED: 05/31/2000
Plaintiff Rebecca Rosenbaum as next friend of Rachel Rosenbaum TERMINATED: 11/07/2000
Plaintiff Richard Landow as next friend of Kayla Landow, etc.

Date Filed: 12/04/1997 Date Terminated: 03/07/2001 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Lisa Kuhlman Tietig Office of the Attorney General PL−01 − The Capitol 400 S Monroe St Tallahassee, FL 32399−1050 850/414−3300 Email: lisa.tietig@myfloridalegal.com TERMINATED: 05/31/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mark E. Tietig Tietig &Tietig, PA 6065 S Tropical Trail Merritt Island, FL 32952 321/452−9944 Fax: 321/452−8942 Email: mt@tietig.com TERMINATED: 11/07/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lisa Kuhlman Tietig (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark E. Tietig (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant School Board of Brevard County

represented by Jeffrey Graham Slater Law Office of Jeffrey G. Slater Suite 125 2420 Lakemont Ave Orlando, FL 32814 407/388−2905 Fax: 407/3887801 Email: jgslater@travelers.com TERMINATED: 06/08/1998 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 6:97-cv-1463 As of: 01/31/2014 06:07 PM EST 2 of 14
Michael M. Bell Bell &Roper, PA 2707 E Jefferson St Orlando, FL 32803 407/897−5150 Fax: 407/897−3332 Email: mbell@bellroperlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael H. Bowling Bell &Roper, PA 2707 E Jefferson St Orlando, FL 32803 407/897−5150 Fax: 407/897−6947 Email: bowling@bellroperlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 12/04/1997
12/04/1997 12/04/1997 12/04/1997 12/04/1997 12/09/1997 12/09/1997 12/09/1997 12/11/1997 12/15/1997 12/18/1997 12/18/1997
12/19/1997 12/22/1997 12/22/1997

# Docket Text
1 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT filed with injunctive relief sought based upon unequal educational opportunities of girls in the Brevard County public schools (jrm) (Entered: 12/05/1997)
MAGISTRATE JUDGE CASE ASSIGNMENT Magistrate assigned: David A. Baker (jrm) (Entered: 12/05/1997)
FILING FEE PAID. (Filing Fee $ 150.00 Receipt # 67540) (jrm) (Entered: 12/05/1997)
SUMMONS issued for School Board/Brevard. Consent(s) issued. (jrm) (Entered: 12/05/1997)
2 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE (notice of pendency) by Daniel Daniels with Local Rule 1.04(c) − related to 97−1186−Civ−Orl−22 (jrm) (Entered: 12/05/1997)
3 MOTION by Daniel Daniels to certify class action . (map) (Entered: 12/09/1997)
4 MEMORANDUM by Daniel Daniels in support of [3−1] motion to certify class action. (map) (Entered: 12/09/1997)
5 AMENDED COMPLAINT by Daniel Daniels amending [1−1] complaint. (map) (Entered: 12/10/1997)
6 RETURN OF SERVICE executed as to School Board/Brevard on 12/5/97; Answer due on 12/26/97 for School Board/Brevard. (map) (Entered: 12/11/1997)
7 NOTICE of designation under Local Rule 3.05 − TRACK 2. (ctc) (nrs) (Entered: 12/15/1997)
8 NOTICE of attorney appearance for School Board/Brevard by Jeffrey Graham Slater. (nrs) (Entered: 12/18/1997)
9 MOTION by School Board/Brevard with memorandum in support to extend time within which to respond to "Plaintiffs' dispositive motion to maintain case as class action ." referred to Magistrate Judge David A. Baker. (nrs) (Entered: 12/18/1997)
10 NOTICE re: Local Rule 3.01(g) and Motion to Maintial Case as Class Action by Daniel Daniels. (map) (Entered: 12/19/1997)
11 NOTICE of Magis. Judge reassignment (cbh) (Entered: 12/22/1997)
MAGISTRATE JUDGE CASE ASSIGNMENT Magistrate assigned: Karla R. Spaulding (cbh) (Entered: 12/22/1997)

Case: 6:97-cv-1463 As of: 01/31/2014 06:07 PM EST 3 of 14

12/22/1997 12/23/1997 12/23/1997 12/24/1997 01/05/1998 01/08/1998 01/08/1998 01/08/1998 01/08/1998 01/09/1998
01/12/1998 01/15/1998
01/15/1998
01/22/1998
02/20/1998 02/24/1998 03/04/1998 03/12/1998

Motion referred: [9−1] motion to extend time within which to respond to "Plaintiffs' dispositive motion to maintain case as class action referred to Magistrate Judge Karla R. Spaulding (cbh) (Entered: 12/22/1997)
12 ANSWER and affirmative defenses by School Board/Brevard to first amended complaint. (nrs) (Entered: 12/23/1997)
13 DEMAND for jury trial by School Board/Brevard (nrs) (Entered: 12/23/1997)
14 MEMORANDUM by Daniel Daniels in opposition to [9−1] motion to extend time within which to respond to "Plaintiffs' dispositive motion to maintain case as class action (nrs) (Entered: 12/24/1997)
15 ORDER consolidating this case with 97−1492−CIV−ORL−22 for the sole purpose of determining whether the two cases should be accorded class action treatment. ( Signed by Judge Anne C. Conway ) ctc (map) (Entered: 01/05/1998)
16 MOTION by Daniel Daniels for preliminary injunction and request for prompt hearing . (map) (Entered: 01/08/1998)
17 MEMORANDUM by Daniel Daniels in support of [16−1] motion for preliminary injunction, [16−2] motion for prompt hearing. (map) (Entered: 01/08/1998)
18 MOTION by School Board/Brevard to extend time to respond to plaintiffs' motion for class certification referred to Magistrate Judge David A. Baker. (map) (Entered: 01/08/1998)
19 RESPONSE by School Board/Brevard to [16−1] motion for preliminary injunction, [16−2] motion for prompt hearing. (map) (Entered: 01/08/1998)
20 ORDER granting [9−1] motion to extend time within which to respond to "Plaintiffs' dispositive motion to maintain case as class action; Response to motion reset to 1/15/98 for [3−1] motion to certify class action . ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Karla R. Spaulding ) ctc (map) (Entered: 01/09/1998)
Motions no longer referred: [18−1] motion to extend time to respond to plaintiffs' motion for class certification. (map) (Entered: 01/12/1998)
21 ORDER granting [18−1] motion to extend time to respond to plaintiffs' motion for class certification: Response to motion reset to 3/30/98 for [3−1] motion to certify class action ; denying with leave to refile [16−1] motion for preliminary injunction and [16−2] motion for prompt hearing. ( Signed by Judge Anne C. Conway ) ctc (map) (Entered: 01/15/1998)
22 MOTION by School Board/Brevard with memorandum in support for reconsideration of [20−1] order Response to motion reset to 1/15/98 for [3−1] motion to certify class action referred to Magistrate Judge Karla R. Spaulding. (map) (Entered: 01/16/1998)
23 ORDER granting [22−1] motion for reconsideration of [20−1] order: plaintiff shall file response to [3−1] motion to certify class action the earlier fo March 30, 1998 or 20 days after the date on which the plaintiffs 97−1492−CIV−ORL−22A file a motion to maintain that case as a class action. ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Karla R. Spaulding ) ctc (map) (Entered: 01/23/1998)
24 MOTION by Daniel Daniels with memorandum in support to postpone filing of case management report referred to Magistrate Judge Karla R. Spaulding. (map) (Entered: 02/20/1998)
ENDORSED ORDER denying [24−1] motion to postpone filing of case management report ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Karla R. Spaulding ) ctc (lak) (Entered: 02/24/1998)
25 CASE MANAGEMENT REPORT. (lak) (Entered: 03/05/1998)
26 CASE MANAGEMENT AND SCHEDULING ORDER setting Joining of parties, amending of pleadings on 12/31/98; Deadline for filing of motions 12/17/99; Discovery cutoff 9/1/99; Pretrial statement due on or before 12/17/99; Jury Trial set for 2/1/00 before Judge Anne C. Conway. ( signed by Judge Anne C. Conway ) ctc (map) (Entered: 03/12/1998)

Case: 6:97-cv-1463 As of: 01/31/2014 06:07 PM EST 4 of 14

03/17/1998 03/17/1998 04/24/1998
04/24/1998 05/08/1998
05/08/1998 05/08/1998 05/12/1998 05/12/1998 05/19/1998
05/27/1998 06/02/1998 06/05/1998 06/08/1998
06/25/1998 06/25/1998 06/25/1998

27 MOTION by School Board/Brevard with memorandum in support to consolidate cases 97−1463−CIV−ORL−22A and 97−1186−CIV−ORL−22A for all purposes, including trial . (map) (Entered: 03/17/1998)
28 RESPONSE by School Board/Brevard to [3−1] motion to certify class action. (map) (Entered: 03/17/1998)
29 ORDER granting [3−1] motion to certify class action; the class is certified as "All girls currently and directly participating in the varsity and junior varsity softball programs at the ten high schools operated by the School Board of Brevard County, and those girls who are expected to directly participate in such softball programs in the future." Granting [27−1] motion to consolidate cases 97−1463−CIV−ORL−22A and 97−1186−CIV−ORL−22A for all purposes, including trial with all future pleadins and papers being filed only in this case. ( Signed by Judge Anne C. Conway ctc (map) (Entered: 04/27/1998)
Consolidated Lead Case (map) (Entered: 04/27/1998)
30 MOTION by Daniel Daniels for reconsideration of partial denial of interim attorneys fees. Original order dated 4/22/98 is in case 97−1186−Civ−Orl−22. This case, 97−1463−Civ−Orl−22 is now the lead case in a consolidated class action suit. (lak) (Entered: 05/08/1998)
31 MEMORANDUM by Daniel Daniels in support of [30−1] motion for reconsideration of partial denial of interim attorneys fees. (lak) (Entered: 05/08/1998)
32 AFFIDAVIT of Lisa Kuhlman Tietig by Daniel Daniels Re: [31−1] support memorandum (lak) (Entered: 05/08/1998)
33 RESPONSE by School Board/Brevard to [30−1] motion for reconsideration of partial denial of interim attorneys fees. (hsh) (Entered: 05/13/1998)
34 MEMORANDUM of Law by School Board/Brevard in support of [33−1] motion response to Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of partial denial of interim attorney's fees (hsh) (Entered: 05/13/1998)
35 ORDER granting in part, denying in part [30−1] motion for reconsideration of partial denial of interim attorneys fees; plaintiffs' counsel are awarded the additional sum of $2,437.50 in interim attorneys' fees. ( Signed by Judge Anne C. Conway ) ctc (map) (Entered: 05/19/1998)
36 MOTION by School Board/Brevard to extend time within which to respond to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories . Referred to Magistrate Judge Karla R. Spaulding. Karla R. Spaulding (nrs) (Entered: 05/27/1998)
37 JOINT STIPULATION AND MOTION by School Board/Brevard to substitute attorney referred to Magistrate Judge Karla R. Spaulding. (map) (Entered: 06/03/1998)
ENDORSED ORDER granting [36−1] motion to extend time within which to respond to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories. ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Karla R. Spaulding ) ctc (map) (Entered: 06/08/1998)
ENDORSED ORDER granting [37−1] motion to substitute attorney; terminated attorney Jeffrey Graham Slater for School Board/Brevard and added Michael M. Bell. ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Karla R. Spaulding ) ctc (map) (Entered: 06/08/1998)
38 MOTION by Daniel Daniels for preliminary injunction and... (maa) (Entered: 06/25/1998)
38 ... REQUEST for promt hearing by Daniel Daniels re: [38−1] motion for preliminary injunction. (maa) (Entered: 06/25/1998)
39 MEMORANDUM by Daniel Daniels in support of [38−1] motion for preliminary injunction. (maa) (Entered: 06/25/1998)

Case: 6:97-cv-1463 As of: 01/31/2014 06:07 PM EST 5 of 14

07/14/1998
07/23/1998
07/27/1998
08/07/1998 08/07/1998
08/07/1998 08/07/1998 08/07/1998 08/07/1998 08/07/1998 08/07/1998 08/07/1998 08/07/1998 08/07/1998 08/07/1998 08/07/1998 08/07/1998 08/07/1998 08/07/1998 08/07/1998 08/14/1998

40 MOTION by School Board/Brevard to extend time for serving all papers and affidavits in support of a preliminary injunction from 5 days to 20 days . (maa) (Entered: 07/14/1998)
41 ORDER denying [40−1] defendant's motion to extend time for serving all papers and affidavits in support of a preliminary injunction from 5 days to 20 days. Plaintiffs shall file a proposed preliminary injunction by 07−31−98. Defendant shall file an opposition by 08−07−98. Plaintiffs shall have until 08−14−98 to file any further affidavits and other evidentiary materials in support. If necessary, the Court will schedule a hearing. (Signed by Judge Anne C. Conway 07−22−98) ctc (jrm) (Entered: 07/23/1998)
42 MOTION by Daniel Daniels with memorandum in support to compel answers to interrogatories referred to Magistrate Judge Karla R. Spaulding. (maa) (Entered: 07/27/1998)
43 MEMORANDUM by School Board/Brevard in opposition to [42−1] motion to compel answers to interrogatories. (maa) (Entered: 08/07/1998)
44 MEMORANDUM by School Board/Brevard in opposition to [38−1] motion for preliminary injunction. (photo exhibits filed separately) (maa) (Entered: 08/07/1998)
45 AFFIDAVIT of William J. Dugan by School Board/Brevard Re: [44−1] opposition memorandum. (maa) (Entered: 08/07/1998)
46 AFFIDAVIT of Leslie P. Vann by School Board/Brevard Re: [44−1] opposition memorandum. (maa) (Entered: 08/07/1998)
47 AFFIDAVIT of Tom McIntyre by School Board/Brevard Re: [44−1] opposition memorandum. (maa) (Entered: 08/07/1998)
48 AFFIDAVIT of Robert L. Petty by School Board/Brevard Re: [44−1] opposition memorandum. (maa) (Entered: 08/07/1998)
49 AFFIDAVIT of Dino Colona by School Board/Brevard Re: [44−1] opposition memorandum. (maa) (Entered: 08/07/1998)
50 AFFIDAVIT of Charlie Shack by School Board/Brevard Re: [44−1] opposition memorandum. (maa) (Entered: 08/07/1998)
51 AFFIDAVIT of Ken Lunderman by School Board/Brevard Re: [44−1] opposition memorandum. (maa) (Entered: 08/07/1998)
52 AFFIDAVIT of Barbara Rodrigues by School Board/Brevard Re: [44−1] opposition memorandum. (maa) (Entered: 08/07/1998)
53 AFFIDAVIT of Donald L. Beggs by School Board/Brevard Re: [44−1] opposition memorandum. (maa) (Entered: 08/07/1998)
54 AFFIDAVIT of Don Shannon by School Board/Brevard Re: [44−1] opposition memorandum. (maa) (Entered: 08/07/1998)
55 AFFIDAVIT of Jeanne L. Andrews by School Board/Brevard Re: [44−1] opposition memorandum. (maa) (Entered: 08/07/1998)
56 AFFIDAVIT of Daniel Diesel by School Board/Brevard Re: [44−1] opposition memorandum. (maa) (Entered: 08/07/1998)
57 AFFIDAVIT of Ronald Philpot by School Board/Brevard Re: [44−1] opposition memorandum. (maa) (Entered: 08/07/1998)
58 AFFIDAVIT of Brian D. Eubanks by School Board/Brevard Re: [44−1] opposition memorandum. (maa) (Entered: 08/07/1998)
59 AFFIDAVIT of Ed Curry by School Board/Brevard Re: [44−1] opposition memorandum. (maa) (Entered: 08/07/1998)
60 OBJECTION by Daniel Daniels to evidence supporting [44−1] opposition memorandum. (maa) (Entered: 08/14/1998)

Case: 6:97-cv-1463 As of: 01/31/2014 06:07 PM EST 6 of 14

08/14/1998 08/14/1998 08/14/1998 08/14/1998 08/14/1998 08/14/1998 08/14/1998 08/14/1998 08/14/1998 08/14/1998 08/14/1998 08/14/1998 08/14/1998 08/14/1998 08/14/1998 08/25/1998 08/27/1998
08/28/1998
08/28/1998
09/14/1998 09/14/1998
09/17/1998

61 NOTICE of Submission of Evidence by Daniel Daniels (exhibit Z filed separately). (maa) (Entered: 08/14/1998)
62 AFFIDAVIT of Kristin Ainsworth by Daniel Daniels Re: [38−1] motion for preliminary injunction. (maa) (Entered: 08/14/1998)
63 AFFIDAVIT of Nancy Childears by Daniel Daniels Re: [38−1] motion for preliminary injunction. (maa) (Entered: 08/14/1998)
64 AFFIDAVIT of Patricia Flake by Daniel Daniels Re: [38−1] motion for preliminary injunction. (maa) (Entered: 08/14/1998)
65 AFFIDAVIT of Michelle Fredrick by Daniel Daniels Re: [38−1] motion for preliminary injunction. (maa) (Entered: 08/14/1998)
66 AFFIDAVIT of Delores A. Hartley by Daniel Daniels Re: [38−1] motion for preliminary injunction. (maa) Modified on 08/14/1998 (Entered: 08/14/1998)
67 AFFIDAVIT of Amy McQuown by Daniel Daniels Re: [38−1] motion for preliminary injunction. (maa) (Entered: 08/14/1998)
68 AFFIDAVIT of Pauletta Sue Pangburn by Daniel Daniels Re: [38−1] motion for preliminary injunction. (maa) (Entered: 08/14/1998)
69 AFFIDAVIT of Rebecca L. Rosenbaum by Daniel Daniels Re: [38−1] motion for preliminary injunction. (maa) (Entered: 08/14/1998)
70 AFFIDAVIT of Rachel Rosenbaum by Daniel Daniels Re: [38−1] motion for preliminary injunction. (maa) (Entered: 08/14/1998)
71 AFFIDAVIT of Sondra D. Skinner by Daniel Daniels Re: [38−1] motion for preliminary injunction. (maa) (Entered: 08/14/1998)
72 AFFIDAVIT of Anne Marie Smith by Daniel Daniels Re: [38−1] motion for preliminary injunction. (maa) (Entered: 08/14/1998)
73 AFFIDAVIT of Elicia Watson by Daniel Daniels Re: [38−1] motion for preliminary injunction. (maa) (Entered: 08/14/1998)
74 AFFIDAVIT of Richard Wolfe by Daniel Daniels Re: [38−1] motion for preliminary injunction. (maa) (Entered: 08/14/1998)
75 AFFIDAVIT of/by Daniel Daniels Re: [38−1] motion for preliminary injunction. (maa) (Entered: 08/14/1998)
76 MEMORANDUM by School Board/Brevard in opposition to [60−1] objection to evidence supporting [44−1] opposition memorandum (hsh) (Entered: 08/27/1998)
77 NOTICE of Hearing: Motion hearing set for 9:00 9/18/98 for [38−1] motion for preliminary injunction; Scheduled for Judge Anne C. Conway ctc (hsh) (Entered: 08/27/1998)
78 MOTION by School Board/Brevard to strike [61−1] notice of submission of evidence ; referred to Magistrate Judge Karla R. Spaulding (hsh) (Entered: 08/31/1998)
79 MOTION by School Board/Brevard to withdraw and substitute part of exhibit "N" submitted in support of defendant's memorandum of law in opposition to plaintiffs' application for preliminary injunction (hsh) (Entered: 08/31/1998)
80 MEMORANDUM by Daniel Daniels of law in opposition to [78−1] motion to strike [61−1] certain evidence submitted by plaintiffs (hsh) (Entered: 09/15/1998)
81 RESPONSE by Daniel Daniels to [79−1] motion to withdraw and substitute part of exhibit "N" submitted in support of defendant's memorandum of law in opposition to plaintiffs' application for preliminary injunction (hsh) (Entered: 09/15/1998)
82 MOTION by Daniel Daniels with memorandum in support to supplement evidence . (maa) (Entered: 09/17/1998)

Case: 6:97-cv-1463 As of: 01/31/2014 06:07 PM EST 7 of 14

09/18/1998 09/18/1998 09/22/1998 09/22/1998
09/30/1998
10/06/1998 10/13/1998 10/28/1998 11/18/1998 12/09/1998 02/05/1999 04/28/1999 04/30/1999
06/30/1999 07/07/1999

83 MINUTE ENTRY: Preliminary injunction hearing held on 09/18/98 before Judge Anne C. Conway. Court Reporter: Rita Meyer (nrs) (Entered: 09/18/1998)
84 MINUTE ENTRY: Status Conference held on 9/18/98 before Judge Karla R. Spaulding; Court requests list of physical problems, coaching, etc. on the 11 schools; Court requests parties to call chambers for time to meet on the week of 10/13/98; Court Reporter: Karen Harms (hsh) (Entered: 09/21/1998)
85 NOTICE of Hearing: set mediation conference at 9:00 for 10/16/98 ctc (hsh) (Entered: 09/22/1998)
86 ORDER denying [82−1] motion to supplement evidence, granting [79−1] motion to withdraw and substitute part of exhibit "N" submitted in support of defendant's memorandum of law in opposition to plaintiffs' application for preliminary injunction; denying [78−1] motion to strike [61−1] notice of submission of evidence; denying [38−1] application for preliminary injunction and request for prompt hearing; exhibit "N" and photographs attached to exhibit 2 are to be resubmitted in a binder small enough to fit in the Court file storage area maiintained by the clerk within 11 days ( Signed by Judge Anne C. Conway ) ctc (hsh) (Entered: 09/22/1998)
87 ORDER granting in part, denying in part [42−1] motion to compel answers to interrogatories; Interrogatory #10, 15 &17 are granted and Interrogatory # 16 is denied; it is further ordered the defendant shall provide responses to these interrogatories within 20 days from the date of this Order or upon such extension of that time as agreed to be counsel for the plaintiffs ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Karla R. Spaulding 9/29/98 ) ctc (hsh) (Entered: 09/30/1998)
88 MOTION by Daniel Daniels with memorandum in support for amendment of [86−1] order or for clarification of finding in the [86−1] order (hsh) (Entered: 10/06/1998)
89 ORDER denying [88−1] motion for amendment of [86−1] order, denying [88−2] motion for clarification of finding in the [86−1] order ( Signed by Judge Anne C. Conway ) ctc (hsh) (Entered: 10/13/1998)
Deadline updated: set jury trial for 2/1/00 before Judge Anne C. Conway (hsh) (Entered: 10/28/1998)
90 NOTICE of Hearing: set status conference at 2:30 p.m. on 11/24/98 before Magistrate Judge Karla R. Spaulding ctc (hsh) (Entered: 11/18/1998)
91 NOTICE OF TELEPHONIC SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE : set telephonic settlement conference at 2:00 p.m. on 1/21/99 before Magistrate Judge Karla R. Spaulding ctc (hsh) (Entered: 12/09/1998)
92 MINUTE ENTRY: Status Conference held on 2/5/99 before Magistrate Judge Karla R. Spaulding (tape number 99−10s−253−656) (hsh) (Entered: 02/09/1999)
93 UNOPPOSED MOTION by Daniel Daniels with memorandum in support to extend time through 9/1/99 to disclose expert witnesses ; referred to Magistrate Judge Karla R. Spaulding (hsh) (Entered: 04/29/1999)
94 ORDER granting [93−1] motion to extend time through 7/1/99 to disclose expert witnesses; all other dates in case management and scheduling order remain the same; further, neither this order nor the settlement discussions that preceded it may be cited or relied upon in support of any motion seeking an enlargement of any other dates in this case ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Karla R. Spaulding 4/29/99 ) ctc (hsh) (Entered: 04/30/1999)
95 UNOPPOSED MOTION by Daniel Daniels with memorandum in support to extend time to disclose expert witnesses ; referred to Magistrate Judge Karla R. Spaulding (hsh) (Entered: 06/30/1999)
96 ORDER: granting in part [95−1] motion to extend time to disclose expert witnesses; Plaintiffs shall disclose their expert witnesses on or before 7/16/99; Defendant shall disclose its expert witness on or before 8/16/99. All other dates in the Case Management and Scheduling Order remain the same. Further, this order may not ne cited or relied upon in support of any motion seeking an enlargement or

Case: 6:97-cv-1463 As of: 01/31/2014 06:07 PM EST 8 of 14

07/26/1999 07/29/1999 08/09/1999 08/11/1999 08/23/1999 08/25/1999 09/01/1999 09/20/1999 09/30/1999
11/08/1999 11/18/1999
12/02/1999 01/05/2000

any other dated in this case. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Karla R. Spaulding 7/5/99) ctc (hsh) (Entered: 07/07/1999)
97 MOTION by Daniel Daniels with memorandum in support to extend time deadlines for discovery and and for filing of dispositive motions , or in the alternative for continuance ; referred to Magistrate Judge Karla R. Spaulding (hsh) (Entered: 07/27/1999)
98 ORDER denying [97−1] motion to extend time deadlines for discovery, denying [97−2] motion for continuance. Plaintiff's counsel did not explain what discovery will be completed by 9/1/99, or why additional discovery is necessary. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Karla R. Spaulding) ctc (hsh) (Entered: 07/29/1999)
99 UNOPPOSED MOTION by Daniel Daniels with memorandum in support to extend Deadlines for Discovery and for filing of Dispositive Motions , or in the alternative for continuance . (hsh) (Entered: 08/10/1999)
100 ORDER denying [99−1] motion to extend Deadlines for Discovery and for filing of Dispositive Motions; denying without prejudice [99−2] motion for continuance if the class representative consents to the November 2000 trial term. (Signed by Judge Anne C. Conway) ctc (hsh) (Entered: 08/11/1999)
101 MOTION by Daniel Daniels with memorandum in support to extend time deadlines for Discovery and Dispositive Motions , and for Continuance . (hsh) (Entered: 08/23/1999)
102 SCHEDULING ORDER setting Deadline for filing of motions 3/31/00; Discovery cutoff 2/1/00; Pretrial statement due on or before 9/1/00; Jury trial set for 11/1/00 before Judge Anne C. Conway (signed by Judge Anne C. Conway) ctc (hsh) (Entered: 08/26/1999)
103 PARTIALLY UNOPPOSED MOTION by School Board/Brevard with memorandum in support to amend it's Order and Preliminary Injunction entered 12/23/97 in the case of 97−1186−Civ−Orl−22 (the Merritt Island High School Case). (hsh) (Entered: 09/02/1999)
104 MEMORANDUM of Law by Daniel Daniels Responding to Defendant's [103−1] partially unopposed motion to amend it's Order and Preliminary Injunction entered 12/23/97 in the case of 97−1186−Civ−Orl−22 (the Merritt Island High School Case). (hsh) (Entered: 09/21/1999)
105 ORDER denying [103−1] motion to amend it's Order and Preliminary Injunction entered 12/23/97 in the case of 97−1186−Civ−Orl−22 (the Merritt Island High School Case). The 12/23/97 Order is amended as follows: within 30 days, the School Borad shall either 1) change the sign on the boys' baseball team trailer to read "Merritt Island Baseball and Softball" and the sign on the girls' softball team trailer to read "Merritt Island Softball and Baseball" or 2) change the signs on both trailers to read "Merrit Island Athletics." The School Board shall file a report on compliance with this order within 40 days. ( Signed by Judge Anne C. Conway on 9/29/99 ) ctc (maa) (Entered: 09/30/1999)
106 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE by School Board/Brevard with [105−1] order − the signs now read "Merritt Island Athletics". (hsh) Modified on 11/15/1999 (Entered: 11/09/1999)
107 ORDER: It is improper for a party to communicate directly with the presiding judge. Further, the correspondence does not reflect that it was sent to opposing counsel. The Clerk is directed to return the correspondence with Mr. Daniels. All further communications with the Court shall be presented in the form of a court document filed with the Clerk of Court, rather than by letter sent directly to the presiding judge. See Local Rule 3.01(f). (Signed by Judge Anne C. Conway) ctc (hsh) (Entered: 11/18/1999)
108 NOTICE of Hearing: set settlement conference at 9:30 a.m. on 1/6/00 before Magistrate Judge Karla R. Spaulding . ctc (hsh) (Entered: 12/03/1999)
109 UNOPPOSED MOTION by plaintiff Daniel Daniels with memorandum in support to add class representative and to continue settlemenmt conference − referred to

Case: 6:97-cv-1463 As of: 01/31/2014 06:07 PM EST 9 of 14

01/05/2000 01/05/2000
01/06/2000 01/06/2000 01/06/2000 01/26/2000 02/03/2000 02/07/2000 02/16/2000
03/30/2000
03/30/2000
03/30/2000
04/04/2000 04/04/2000 04/04/2000 04/04/2000 04/04/2000 04/04/2000 04/04/2000 04/04/2000
04/04/2000

Magistrate Judge Karla R. Spaulding (jrm) (Entered: 01/05/2000)
110 ORDER denying [109−2] plaintiffs' motion to continue settlemenmt conference (Signed by Magistrate Judge Karla R. Spaulding) ctc (jrm) (Entered: 01/06/2000)
111 MOTION by defendant School Board/Brevard for reconsideration of [110−1] Order denying plaintiffs' unopposed motion for continuance of settlement conference − referred to Magistrate Judge Karla R. Spaulding (jrm) (Entered: 01/06/2000)
Motion referred: [109−1] motion to add class representative referred to Judge Anne C. Conway (jrm) (Entered: 01/06/2000)
Settlement conference held (jrm) (Entered: 01/06/2000)
112 MINUTE ENTRY: Settlement Conference held on 01−06−00 before Magistrate Judge Karla R. Spaulding (jrm) (Entered: 01/06/2000)
113 CONFLICT ORDER parties have 11 days to respond (Signed by Judge Anne C. Conway ) ctc (jrm) (Entered: 01/26/2000)
114 CERTIFICATE of interested persons by defendant School Board/Brevard in response to [113−1] order (jrm) (Entered: 02/03/2000)
115 CERTIFICATE of interested persons by plaintiff Daniel Daniels in response to [113−1] order (jrm) (Entered: 02/08/2000)
116 ORDER granting [109−1] plaintiffs' motion to add class representative, Rebecca Rosenbaum, as next friend of Rachel Rosenbaum. (Signed by Judge Anne C. Conway) ctc (jrm) (Entered: 02/16/2000)
117 JOINT MOTION by Daniel Daniels, School Board/Brevard, Rebecca Rosenbaum for two day extension of time in which to file motions for summary judgment . (nrs) (Entered: 03/31/2000)
118 UNOPPOSED MOTION by Daniel Daniels (as next friend of Jennifer and Jessica Daniels) with memorandum in support to withdraw as class representatives . (nrs) (Entered: 03/31/2000)
119 JOINT STIPULATION by Daniel Daniels, School Board/Brevard, Rebecca Rosenbaum as to the issues remaining to be litigated in this case . (nrs) (Entered: 03/31/2000)
120 MOTION by defendant School Board/Brevard for summary judgment (jrm) (Entered: 04/05/2000)
121 MEMORANDUM with attached exhibits by defendant School Board/Brevard in support of [120−1] motion for summary judgment (jrm) (Entered: 04/05/2000)
122 AFFIDAVIT of Dr. Daniel T. Scheuerer by defendant School Board/Brevard Re: [120−1] motion for summary judgment (jrm) (Entered: 04/05/2000)
123 AFFIDAVIT of Tim Sparkman by defendant School Board/Brevard Re: [120−1] motion for summary judgment (jrm) (Entered: 04/05/2000)
124 AFFIDAVIT of Daniel Diesel by defendant School Board/Brevard Re: [120−1] motion for summary judgment (jrm) (Entered: 04/05/2000)
125 MOTION by plaintiffs Daniel Daniels, Rebecca Rosenbaum for summary judgment (jrm) (Entered: 04/05/2000)
126 MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs Daniel Daniels, Rebecca Rosenbaum in support of [125−1] motion for summary judgment (jrm) (Entered: 04/05/2000)
127 STATEMENT of material facts by plaintiffs Daniel Daniels, Rebecca Rosenbaum as to which there is no genuine issue for trial in support of [125−1] motion for summary judgment (jrm) (Entered: 04/05/2000)
128 NOTICE of filing evidence in support of plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment by plaintiffs Daniel Daniels, Rebecca Rosenbaum (jrm) (Entered: 04/05/2000)

Case: 6:97-cv-1463 As of: 01/31/2014 06:07 PM EST 10 of 14

04/04/2000 04/04/2000 04/19/2000
04/20/2000
05/05/2000 05/05/2000 05/05/2000 05/05/2000 05/05/2000 05/05/2000 05/05/2000 05/05/2000 05/05/2000 05/05/2000 05/05/2000 05/05/2000 05/18/2000 05/31/2000

129 DEPOSITION of Donna A. Lopiano, B.S., taken 08−24−99 by plaintiffs Daniel Daniels, Rebecca Rosenbaum re: [125−1] motion for summary judgment. Transcript filed separately. (jrm) (Entered: 04/05/2000)
130 DEPOSITION of Kay Francis taken 08−20−99 by plaintiffs Daniel Daniels, Rebecca Rosenbaum re: [125−1] motion for summary judgment. Transcript filed separately. (jrm) (Entered: 04/05/2000)
131 JOINT MOTION by plaintiffs Daniel Daniels, Rebecca Rosenbaum, defendant School Board/Brevard with memorandum in support for a ten day extension of time in which to file opposing memoranda in response to the motions for summary judgment (jrm) (Entered: 04/19/2000)
132 ORDER granting [131−1] joint motion for a ten day extension of time in which to file opposing memoranda in response to the motions for summary judgment; response to motion set to 5/5/00 for [125−1] motion for summary judgment by plaintiffs and [120−1] motion for summary judgment by defendant (Signed by Judge Anne C. Conway) ctc (jrm) (Entered: 04/20/2000)
133 MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs Daniel Daniels, Rebecca Rosenbaum opposing [120−1] defendant's motion for summary judgment (jrm) (Entered: 05/05/2000)
134 STATEMENT of facts by plaintiffs Daniel Daniels, Rebecca Rosenbaum in response to [120−1] defendant's motion for summary judgment (jrm) (Entered: 05/05/2000)
135 MEMORANDUM with attached exhibits by defendant School Board/Brevard in opposition to [125−1] motion for summary judgment (Exhibits 11 and 12 docketed separately) (jrm) (Entered: 05/08/2000)
136 AFFIDAVIT of Daniel Diesel by defendant School Board/Brevard Re: [135−1] opposition memorandum (jrm) (Entered: 05/08/2000)
137 AFFIDAVIT of Tim Sparkman by defendant School Board/Brevard Re: [135−1] opposition memorandum (jrm) (Entered: 05/08/2000)
138 NOTICE of filing evidence in support of plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment by plaintiffs Daniel Daniels, Rebecca Rosenbaum (jrm) (Entered: 05/08/2000)
139 AFFIDAVIT of Patricia Flake by plaintiffs Daniel Daniels, Rebecca Rosenbaum Re: [125−1] motion for summary judgment (jrm) (Entered: 05/08/2000)
140 AFFIDAVIT of Rebecca L. Rosenbaum by plaintiffs Daniel Daniels, Rebecca Rosenbaum Re: [125−1] motion for summary judgment (jrm) (Entered: 05/08/2000)
141 AFFIDAVIT of Rachel Rosenbaum by plaintiffs Daniel Daniels, Rebecca Rosenbaum Re: [125−1] motion for summary judgment (jrm) (Entered: 05/08/2000)
142 AFFIDAVIT of Jamie Flake by plaintiffs Daniel Daniels, Rebecca Rosenbaum Re: [125−1] motion for summary judgment (jrm) (Entered: 05/08/2000)
143 DEPOSITION of Rebecca Lynn Rosenbaum taken 01−28−00 by plaintiffs Daniel Daniels, Rebecca Rosenbaum re: [125−1] motion for summary judgment. Transcript filed separately. (jrm) (Entered: 05/08/2000)
144 DEPOSITION of Jerome H. Poliacoff, Ph.D., taken 08−25−99 by plaintiffs Daniel Daniels, Rebecca Rosenbaum re: [125−1] motion for summary judgment. Transcript filed separately. (jrm) (Entered: 05/08/2000)
145 AMENDED NOTICE of filing evidence by plaintiffs Daniel Daniels, Rebecca Rosenbaum in opposition to [120−1] defendant's motion for summary judgment (jrm) (Entered: 05/18/2000)
146 ORDER granting [117−1] joint motion for two day extension of time in which to file motions for summary judgment and the motions are deemed timely filed; granting [118−1] plaintiff's motion to withdraw as class representatives. Jennifer Daniels and Jessica Daniels are no longer class representatives. The Clerk shall terminate Daniel Daniels as a party to this action. The case will proceed with

Case: 6:97-cv-1463 As of: 01/31/2014 06:07 PM EST 11 of 14

06/12/2000 08/21/2000 08/28/2000 08/30/2000 09/01/2000 09/08/2000 09/12/2000 09/15/2000 09/22/2000 10/19/2000 10/23/2000 10/27/2000
10/27/2000 11/02/2000 11/07/2000
11/09/2000 11/20/2000

Rebecca Rosenbaum as plaintiff. Rachel Rosenbaum shall continue to serve as the class representative. Denying [120−1] motion for summary judgment; denying [125−1] motion for summary judgment. Despite defendant's jury demand, this case is not properly triable before a jury because plaintiffs seek only equitable remedies. The case will be tried by the Court. (Signed by Judge Anne C. Conway) ctc (jrm) (Entered: 05/31/2000)
147 JOINT RESPONSE by defendant School Board/Brevard, plaintiff Rebecca Rosenbaum to [146−1] Court's Order; 5 days for trial (jrm) (Entered: 06/12/2000)
148 TRIAL BRIEF by plaintiff Rebecca Rosenbaum (jrm) (Entered: 08/21/2000)
149 TRIAL BRIEF by defendant School Board/Brevard (jrm) (Entered: 08/29/2000)
150 UNOPPOSED MOTION by plaintiff Rebecca Rosenbaum with memorandum in support for a one week extension of time to file pretrial documents (jrm) (Entered: 08/30/2000)
151 ORDER granting [150−1] plaintiff's motion for a one week extension of time to file pretrial documents; reset pretrial statement deadline for 9/8/00 (Signed by Judge Anne C. Conway) ctc (jrm) (Entered: 09/01/2000)
152 JOINT PRETRIAL STATEMENT (jrm) (Entered: 09/08/2000)
153 ORDER within 11 days, parties to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law; also on disk. (Signed by Judge Anne C. Conway) ctc (jrm) (Entered: 09/12/2000)
154 PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT and conclusions of law by plaintiff Rebecca Rosenbaum (with computer disk) (jrm) (Entered: 09/15/2000)
155 PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT and conclusions of law by defendant School Board/Brevard (with attached disc) (jrm) (Entered: 09/25/2000)
156 NOTICE OF HEARING: Set non jury trial for 8:30 11/1/00; scheduled for Judge Anne C. Conway (Signed by Deputy Clerk) ctc (jrm) (Entered: 10/23/2000)
157 November Trial Calendar; case set for date certain 11−01−00, 8:30 a.m. (jrm) (Entered: 10/23/2000)
158 MOTION by Rebecca Rosenbaum with memorandum in support to substitute class representative , or, in the alternative to allow trial to proceed without presence of class representative , or, in the alternative to require the class representative to appear in trial . (hsh) (Entered: 10/27/2000)
159 AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING: RESCHEDULED jury trial to begin at 8:30 on 11/2/00 before Judge Anne C. Conway . (Signed by Deputy Clerk) ctc (hsh) (Entered: 10/30/2000)
160 NON JURY TRIAL held on 11−02−00 before Judge Anne C. Conway. Court Reporter: Rita Meyer. Trial continued to December to allow for deposition(s) to be taken. (jrm) (Entered: 11/02/2000)
161 ORDER granting [158−1] plaintiff class's emergency motion to substitute class representative, mooting [158−2] motion to allow trial to proceed without presence of class representative, mooting [158−3] motion to require the class representative to appear in trial. Richard Landow, as next friend of Kayla Landow, is substituted as the class representative and shall be added to the docket sheet. Rebecca Rosenbaum, as next friend of Rachel Rosenbaum, is removed as the class representative and shall be terminated as a party to this action. (Signed by Judge Anne C. Conway) ctc (jrm) (Entered: 11/07/2000)
162 NOTICE OF TRIAL (Resumed from 11−02−00): Set non jury trial for 8:30 12/1/00 trial term; scheduled for Judge Anne C. Conway (Signed by Deputy Clerk) ctc (jrm) (Entered: 11/09/2000)
163 UNOPPOSED MOTION by plaintiffs Richard Landow with memorandum in support for computers and telephones in courtroom (jrm) (Entered: 11/20/2000)

Case: 6:97-cv-1463 As of: 01/31/2014 06:07 PM EST 12 of 14

11/27/2000 11/27/2000 11/28/2000 12/04/2000 12/05/2000 12/05/2000 12/05/2000 12/15/2000
02/16/2001 03/05/2001 03/07/2001
03/07/2001 03/16/2001 03/16/2001 03/16/2001
03/16/2001 03/16/2001 03/16/2001 03/16/2001 03/16/2001 03/19/2001

164 ORDER granting [163−1] plaintiff's motion for computers and telephones in courtroom (Signed by Judge Anne C. Conway) ctc (jrm) (Entered: 11/27/2000)
165 TRANSCRIPT of trial proceedings held on 11−02−00 before Judge Anne C. Conway. Transcript filed separately. (jrm) (Entered: 11/27/2000)
166 DECEMBER TRIAL CALENDAR: Set non jury trial for 8:30 12/1/00; scheduled for Judge Anne C. Conway (Signed by Deputy) ctc (jrm) (Entered: 11/29/2000)
167 MINUTE ENTRY: Non−jury trial (DAY 2) held on 12/04/00 before Judge Anne C. Conway. Court Reporter: Rita Meyer (nrs) (Entered: 12/05/2000)
168 MINUTE ENTRY: Non−jury trial (DAY 3) held on 12/05/00 before Judge Anne C. Conway. Court Reporter: Rita Meyer (nrs) (Entered: 12/07/2000)
169 EXHIBIT LIST by plaintiff Richard Landow (nrs) (Entered: 12/07/2000)
170 EXHIBIT LIST by defendant School Board/Brevard (nrs) (Entered: 12/07/2000)
171 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER directing School Board to begin working on a plan to remedy the inequalities specified in this order. Not later than 2/1/01, counsel for all parties shall meet to determine whether they can agree upon a single plan. Not later than 3/15/01, parties shall file either a joint plan with the Court, or file and serve separate proposed plans; if the parties sumbit separate proposed plans, each party may serve and file a response to its opponent's plan not later than 4/2/01. ( Signed by Judge Anne C. Conway ) ctc (maa) (Entered: 12/15/2000)
172 TRANSCRIPT of Testimony of Dr. Daniel Scheurer held on 12/05/00 before Judge Anne C. Conway. Transcript filed separately. (nrs) (Entered: 02/20/2001)
173 STIPULATED joint plan by defendant School Board/Brevard, plaintiff Richard Landow (jrm) (Entered: 03/05/2001)
174 FINAL ORDER AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION [173−1] stipulated joint plan is approved. By 03−31−01 construction of girls' softball fields shall begin at Titisville High School and Astronaut High School. By 03−30−01 the School Board shall notify the student bodies of said high schools that the 2 new softball fields are being built. The Clerk shall close this case. (Signed by Judge Anne C. Conway) ctc (jrm) Modified on 03/07/2001 (Entered: 03/07/2001)
CASE CLOSED. (jrm) (Entered: 03/07/2001)
175 MOTION by Richard Landow for attorney fees and costs . Referred to Magistrate Judge Karla R. Spaulding. (nrs) (Entered: 03/16/2001)
176 MEMORANDUM by Richard Landow in support of [175−1] motion for attorney fees and costs (nrs) (Entered: 03/16/2001)
177 NOTICE of filing affidavits of Lisa Kuhlman Tietig, Mark E. Tietig, Wayne Allen and other documents in support of [175−1] motion for attorneys' fees by Richard Landow (nrs) (Entered: 03/16/2001)
178 AFFIDAVIT of Lisa Kuhlman Tietig by Richard Landow Re: [175−1] motion for attorney fees and costs (nrs) (Entered: 03/16/2001)
179 AFFIDAVIT of Mark E. Tietig by Richard Landow Re: [175−1] motion for attorney fees and costs (nrs) (Entered: 03/16/2001)
180 AFFIDAVIT of Wayne L. Allen by Richard Landow Re: [175−1] motion for attorney fees and costs (nrs) (Entered: 03/16/2001)
181 ATTORNEYS' TIMESHEET by Richard Landow in support of [175−1] motion for attorney fees and costs (nrs) (Entered: 03/16/2001)
182 COSTS STATEMENT by Richard Landow in support of [175−1] motion for attorney fees and costs. (nrs) (Entered: 03/16/2001)
183 MOTION by defendant School Board/Brevard for extension of deadlines set forth in the Court's Final Order and Preliminary Injunction (jrm) (Entered: 03/19/2001)

Case: 6:97-cv-1463 As of: 01/31/2014 06:07 PM EST 13 of 14

03/19/2001 03/21/2001 03/23/2001
03/27/2001 03/28/2001
03/29/2001 04/06/2001 04/06/2001 04/13/2001 04/23/2001 04/27/2001 11/06/2001

184 MEMORANDUM by defendant School Board/Brevard in support of [183−1] motion for extension of deadlines set forth in the Court's Final Order and Preliminary Injunction (jrm) (Entered: 03/19/2001)
185 RESPONSE by Richard Landow to [183−1] motion for extension of deadlines set forth in the Court's Final Order and Preliminary Injunction (nrs) (Entered: 03/21/2001)
186 ORDER: This cause comes before the Court for consideration of the School Board of Brevard County's 183−1 motion for extension of deadlines. In the absence of U.S. District Judge Anne C. Conway, and pursuant to her direction, the undersigned Magistrate Judge temporarily relieves the School Board of the March 31, 2001 deadline for commencing demolition of the Riverview facility at Titusville High School, pending Judge Conway's final ruling on the School Board's motion. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Karla R. Spaulding) ctc (hsh) (Entered: 03/26/2001)
187 UNOPPOSED MOTION by School Board/Brevard with memorandum in support for extension of time to respond to Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees and costs (through and including 04/06/01) . referred to Magistrate Judge Karla R. Spaulding (nrs) (Entered: 03/27/2001)
188 ORDER granting in part, denying in part [183−1] motion for extension of deadlines set forth in the Court's Final Order and Preliminary Injunction. GRANTED insofar as it seeks an extension of time until 04/20/2001 to complete demolition of the Riverview Annex. The motion is likewise GRANTED insofar as it seeks an extension of time to complete construction of the girls' softball fields at Titusville and Astronaut High Schools. The motion is DENIED, however, insofar as it seeks an extension to 01/15/02. The deadline for completing construction of the two softball fields is exended to 12/01/01. (Signed by Judge Anne C. Conway.) ctc (nrs) (Entered: 03/28/2001)
189 ORDER granting [187−1] defendant's motion for extension of time to respond to Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees and costs (through and including 04/06/01); response to motion set to 4/6/01 for [175−1] motion for attorney fees and costs . (Signed by Magistrate Judge Karla R. Spaulding 03−28−01) ctc (jrm) (Entered: 03/29/2001)
190 MEMORANDUM with attached exhibits by defendant School Board/Brevard in opposition to [175−1] plaintiff's motion for attorney fees and costs (jrm) (Entered: 04/09/2001)
191 AFFIDAVIT of Alan M. Gerlach by defendant School Board/Brevard Re: [190−1] opposition memorandum (jrm) (Entered: 04/09/2001)
192 MOTION by plaintiff's Richard Landow with memorandum in support for leave to file reply to defendant's memorandum of law in opposition to plaintiff's motion for attorney fees − referred to Magistrate Judge Karla R. Spaulding (jrm) (Entered: 04/13/2001)
193 MEMORANDUM by defendant School Board/Brevard in opposition to [192−1] plaintiff's motion for leave to file reply to defendant's memorandum of law in opposition to plaintiff's motion for attorney fees (jrm) (Entered: 04/24/2001)
194 ORDER denying [192−1] plaintiff's motion for leave to file reply to defendant's memorandum of law in opposition to plaintiff's motion for attorney fees. The Clerk is directed to remove the attached reply brief from the motion and return it to plaintiff's counsel. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Karla R. Spaulding) ctc (jrm) (Entered: 04/27/2001)
195 ORDER within 20 days, defendant shall file a supplemental statement identifying the time entries to which it objects and the basis of the objection. Defendant is not permitted to file further briefing in support of its supplemental statement and plaintiffs are not permitted to respond to the supplemental statement absent express leave of Court. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Karla R. Spaulding) ctc (jrm) (Entered: 11/06/2001)

Case: 6:97-cv-1463 As of: 01/31/2014 06:07 PM EST 14 of 14

11/13/2001 12/07/2001 12/26/2001
01/04/2002
01/08/2002
02/05/2002 02/08/2002 08/12/2002 08/13/2002 12/20/2002 05/22/2003

196 RESPONSE by School Board/Brevard to [195−1] order (nrs) (Entered: 11/13/2001)
197 NOTICE by Michael Bowling, Esquire, as to School Board/Brevard of change of address for counsel (Bell, Leeper &Roper, P.A. 2816 E. Robinson Street, Orlando, Florida 32803−5834) (nrs) (Entered: 12/07/2001)
198 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of Magistrate Judge Karla R. Spaulding recommending that the motion be granted in part [175−1] motion for attorney fees and costs. Motion no longer referred. Objections to R and R due by 1/14/02. ctc (jrm) (Entered: 12/26/2001)
199 UNOPPOSED MOTION by plaintiff Richard Landow with memorandum in support to extend time an additional 20 days in which to object to the report and recommendation on attorney fees ; referred to Magistrate Judge Karla R. Spaulding (jrm) (Entered: 01/07/2002)
200 ORDER granting [199−1] plaintiff's motion to extend time an additional 20 days in which to object to the report and recommendation on attorney fees; objections reset to 2/6/02 for [198−1] report and recommendation (Signed by Magistrate Judge Karla R. Spaulding) ctc (jrm) (Entered: 01/09/2002)
201 NOTICE of compliance by School Board/Brevard (nrs) (Entered: 02/06/2002)
202 ORDER mooting [198−1] report and recommendation; mooting [175−1] plaintiffs' motion for attorney fees and costs (Signed by Judge Anne C. Conway) ctc (jrm) (Entered: 02/11/2002)
203 RECEIPT for return of plaintiff's trial exhibits (jrm) (Entered: 08/13/2002)
204 RECEIPT for return of defendant's trial exhibits (jrm) Modified on 08/13/2002 (Entered: 08/13/2002)
205 RECEIPT for return of plaintiff's Exhibit Z to doc. No. 61 (jrm) (Entered: 12/20/2002)
206 CLERK'S certificate of destruction of defendant's Exhibit N to memorandum in opposition to plaintiffs' application for preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 44) (jrm) (Entered: 05/22/2003)

 
 Case: 6:97-cv-1492 As of: 05/31/2014 06:26 PM EDT 1 of 4
U.S. District Court Middle District of Florida (Orlando) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 6:97−cv−01492−ACC

FRC, KRS

Hartley, et al v. School Board/Brevard Assigned to: Chief Judge Anne C. Conway Demand: $100,000 Cause: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Civil Rights Violation
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 12/10/1997 Date Terminated: 04/24/1998 Jury Demand: Defendant Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Dee Hartley as parent and next friend of Natasha Harris

represented by Charles J. Roberts Charles J. Roberts 2825 Judge Fran Jamieson Way Viera, FL 32940 321/638−2002 Fax: 321/609−9194 Email: charles.roberts@flcourts18.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Edward H. Zebersky Zebersky &Payne, LLP Suite 2150 110 SE 6th St Ft Lauderdale, FL 33301 954/989−6333 Fax: 954/989−7781 Email: ezebersky@zpllp.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Sabrina Childears as parent and next friend of Sabrina Childears

represented by Charles J. Roberts (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Edward H. Zebersky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Elizabeth Landow as parent and next friend of Kristi Landow and Kayla Landow

represented by Charles J. Roberts (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Edward H. Zebersky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Richard Landow as parent and next friend of Kristi Landow and Kayla Landow

represented by Charles J. Roberts (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 6:97-cv-1492 As of: 05/31/2014 06:26 PM EDT 2 of 4

Edward H. Zebersky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Sondra Skinner as parent and next friend of Amanda Conklin

represented by Charles J. Roberts (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Edward H. Zebersky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Amy McQuown as parent and next friend of Elicia Watson

represented by Charles J. Roberts (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Edward H. Zebersky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Susan Cunningham as parent and next friend of Lori Cunningham

represented by Charles J. Roberts (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Edward H. Zebersky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Patricia Flake as parent and next friend of Christina Flake and Jamie Flake

represented by Charles J. Roberts (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Edward H. Zebersky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Sue Pangburn as parent and next friend of Dorian Pangburn, Lauren Pangburn, and Anna Rose Pangburn

represented by Charles J. Roberts (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Edward H. Zebersky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

Case: 6:97-cv-1492 As of: 05/31/2014 06:26 PM EDT 3 of 4

Jacqueline Lucas as parent and next friend of Jennifer Lucas

represented by Charles J. Roberts (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Edward H. Zebersky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
School Board of Brevard County an entity created by the Florida Constitution and Florida Statutes

represented by Jeffrey Graham Slater Law Office of Jeffrey G. Slater Suite 125 2420 Lakemont Ave Orlando, FL 32814 407/388−2905 Fax: 407/3887801 Email: jgslater@travelers.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 12/10/1997 12/10/1997 12/10/1997 12/10/1997 12/15/1997 12/22/1997 12/22/1997
01/05/1998
01/05/1998 01/06/1998 01/07/1998

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT filed pursuant to Title IX. This case is to stop the unequal treatment of the girls' softball teams as compared to the boys' baseball teams and to ensure the girls' teams receive equal athletic opportunities. (nrs) (Entered: 12/10/1997)
MAGISTRATE JUDGE CASE ASSIGNMENT Magistrate assigned: James G. Glazebrook (nrs) (Entered: 12/10/1997)
FILING FEE PAID. ( Filing Fee $ 150.00 Receipt # 67611) (nrs) (Entered: 12/10/1997)
2 ORDER directing counsel to review and certify compliance with Local Rule 1.04(c) within 10 days. (Signed by Judge Anne C. Conway.) ctc (nrs) (Entered: 12/10/1997)
3 NOTICE of designation under Local Rule 3.05 − TRACK 2. (ctc) (nrs) (Entered: 12/15/1997)
4 NOTICE of new case number 97−1492−Civ−Orl−22C (spr) (Entered: 12/22/1997)
5 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE by Dee Hartley, Sabrina Childears, Elizabeth Landow, Richard Landow, Sondra Skinner, Amy McQuown, Susan Cunningham, Patricia Flake, Sue Pangburn, Jacqueline Lucas with [2−1] order − related to 97−1186−CIV−ORl−22 (Daniels v. School Board of Brevard County, Florida) (nrs) (Entered: 12/22/1997)
6 ORDER: This case is consolidated with 97−1463−CIV−ORL−22 for the sole purpose of determining whether the two cases should be accorded class action treatment. Both cases shall be assigned to Magistrate Judge Karla R. Spaulding, to whom the lower−numbered case is currently assigned. (Signed by Judge Anne C. Conway.) ctc (nrs) (Entered: 01/06/1998)
MAGISTRATE JUDGE CASE ASSIGNMENT Magistrate assigned: Karla R. Spaulding (nrs) (Entered: 01/06/1998)
7 NOTICE of new case number − 97−1492−CIV−ORL−A (nrs) (Entered: 01/06/1998)
SUMMONS(ES) issued for School Board/Brevard . Consent(s) issued. (nrs) (Entered: 01/07/1998)

Case: 6:97-cv-1492 As of: 05/31/2014 06:26 PM EDT 4 of 4

01/12/1998 01/14/1998 01/28/1998 01/28/1998 01/28/1998 02/17/1998
03/09/1998
03/09/1998
03/17/1998 03/17/1998 04/24/1998
04/24/1998 02/05/2004

8 NOTICE of attorney appearance for School Board/Brevard by Jeffrey Graham Slater. (nrs) (Entered: 01/13/1998)
9 RETURN OF SERVICE executed as to School Board/Brevard 1/13/98. Answer due on 2/2/98 for School Board/Brevard. (nrs) (Entered: 01/14/1998)
10 DEMAND for jury trial by School Board/Brevard. (nrs) (Entered: 01/29/1998)
11 ANSWER and affirmative defenses to Complaint by School Board/Brevard. (nrs) (Entered: 01/29/1998)
12 MOTION by School Board/Brevard with memorandum in support to strike plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages . (nrs) (Entered: 01/29/1998)
13 RESPONSE by Dee Hartley, Sabrina Childears, Elizabeth Landow, Richard Landow, Sondra Skinner, Amy McQuown, Susan Cunningham, Patricia Flake, Sue Pangburn, Jacqueline Lucas to [12−1] motion to strike plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages. (nrs) (Entered: 02/18/1998)
14 MOTION by Dee Hartley, Sabrina Childears, Elizabeth Landow, Richard Landow, Sondra Skinner, Amy McQuown, Susan Cunningham, Patricia Flake, Sue Pangburn, Jacqueline Lucas for class certification . (nrs) (Entered: 03/09/1998)
15 MEMORANDUM by Dee Hartley, Sabrina Childears, Elizabeth Landow, Richard Landow, Sondra Skinner, Amy McQuown, Susan Cunningham, Patricia Flake, Sue Pangburn, Jacqueline Lucas in support of [14−1] motion for class certification. (nrs) (Entered: 03/09/1998)
16 RESPONSE by School Board/Brevard to [14−1] motion for class certification. (nrs) (Entered: 03/18/1998)
17 MEMORANDUM by School Board/Brevard in support of [12−1] motion to strike plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages. (nrs) (Entered: 03/18/1998)
18 ORDER denying [14−1] motion for class certification; dismissing case without prejudice . The Clerk shall close the case. All other pending motions therein are moot. (Signed by Judge Anne C. Conway.) M/R 95/1596 ctc (nrs) (Entered: 04/24/1998)
CASE CLOSED. (nrs) (Entered: 04/24/1998)
FRC record data: accession # 021 03 0539; agency box # 133 of 255; location # D0980621; temporary record. (igc) (Entered: 02/05/2004)

 
 Case: 6:97-cv-1186 As of: 01/31/2014 05:57 PM EST 1 of 5
CLOSED, FRC, KRS
U.S. District Court Middle District of Florida (Orlando) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 6:97−cv−01186−ACC

Daniels, et al v. School Board/Brevard Assigned to: Chief Judge Anne C. Conway Demand: $0 Case in other court:
98−2115 Cause: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Civil Rights Violation
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 09/29/1997 Date Terminated: 09/12/2000 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Daniel Daniels as next friend of Jessica Daniels and Jennifer Daniels

represented by Lisa Kuhlman Tietig Office of the Attorney General PL−01 − The Capitol 400 S Monroe St Tallahassee, FL 32399−1050 850/414−3300 Email: lisa.tietig@myfloridalegal.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant School Board of Brevard County

represented by Jeffrey Graham Slater Law Office of Jeffrey G. Slater Suite 125 2420 Lakemont Ave Orlando, FL 32814 407/388−2905 Fax: 407/3887801 Email: jgslater@travelers.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 09/29/1997
09/29/1997 09/29/1997 09/29/1997 10/02/1997 10/09/1997 10/09/1997 10/10/1997

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT filed pursuant to Title VII. This case is based on the School Board's failure to provide equal athletic facilities to girls and boys. (nrs) Modified on 09/29/1997 (Entered: 09/29/1997)
MAGISTRATE JUDGE CASE ASSIGNMENT Magistrate assigned: James G. Glazebrook (nrs) (Entered: 09/29/1997)
2 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE with Local Rule 1.04(c) by Daniel Daniels, Jessica Daniels, Jennifer Daniels − no related cases. (nrs) (Entered: 09/29/1997)
FILING FEE PAID. (Filing Fee $150.00 − Receipt #66805) (nrs) (Entered: 09/30/1997)
SUMMONSES issued for School Board/Brevard. (map) (Entered: 10/02/1997)
3 MOTION by Daniel Daniels for preliminary injunction and request for prompt hearing . (nrs) (Entered: 10/09/1997)
4 MEMORANDUM by Daniel Daniels in support of [3−1] motion for preliminary injunction, [3−2] motion for prompt hearing. (nrs) (Entered: 10/09/1997)
5 NOTICE of attorney appearance for School Board/Brevard by Jeffrey Graham Slater (nrs) (Entered: 10/10/1997)

Case: 6:97-cv-1186 As of: 01/31/2014 05:57 PM EST 2 of 5

10/14/1997 10/14/1997 10/21/1997 10/22/1997 10/27/1997
10/29/1997 10/30/1997 11/03/1997 11/03/1997 11/06/1997 11/06/1997 11/06/1997 11/19/1997 11/21/1997 11/21/1997 11/21/1997 11/21/1997 11/21/1997 11/21/1997 11/21/1997

6 NOTICE of designation under Local Rule 3.05 − TRACK 2. (ctc) (nrs) (Entered: 10/14/1997)
7 NOTICE of unavailability for preliminary injunction hearing by Jeffrey G. Slater as to School Board/Brevard. (nrs) (Entered: 10/14/1997)
8 RESPONSE by School Board/Brevard in opposition to [3−1] motion for preliminary injunction. (nrs) (Entered: 10/22/1997)
9 ANSWER and affirmative defenses to Complaint by School Board/Brevard. (nrs) (Entered: 10/23/1997)
10 ORDER: Defendant shall have to and including 11/19/97 at 4:00 p.m. within which to file any affidavits or other evidence in opposition to the application for preliminary injunction, and to serve those materials on Plaintiffs by hand delivery, facsimile transmission or overnight courier. Plaintiffs shall have to and including 11/21/97 at 4:00 within which to file and serve a final reply brief, affidavits or other evidence in support of the application for preliminary injunction, and to serve those materials on Plaintiffs by hand delivery or facsimile transmission. On or before 11/03/97, the parties shall file and serve memoranda providing information from which the Court can make a reasoned determination as to the amount of security, if any, to be posted in the event the Court issues a preliminary injunction. Motion hearing set for 9:00 11/24/97 for [3−1] motion for preliminary injunction and [3−2] motion for prompt hearing before Judge Anne C. Conway . (Signed by Judge Anne C. Conway.) ctc (nrs) (Entered: 10/27/1997)
11 REPLY TO AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES by Daniel Daniels. (STRICKEN PER ORDER #12) (nrs) Modified on 10/30/1997 (Entered: 10/29/1997)
12 ORDER striking [11−1] reply. (Signed by Magistrate Judge James G. Glazebrook.) ctc (nrs) (Entered: 10/30/1997)
13 MEMORANDUM by Daniel Daniels in support of [3−1] motion for preliminary injunction. (nrs) (Entered: 11/03/1997)
14 RESPONSE by School Board/Brevard to [10−1] order re: posting of preliminary injunction security. (nrs) (Entered: 11/04/1997)
15 RETURN OF SERVICE executed as to School Board/Brevard 10/8/97. Answer due on 10/28/97 for School Board/Brevard. (nrs) (Entered: 11/06/1997)
16 NOTICE of filing the original affidavit of Ed Curry by School Board/Brevard. (nrs) (Entered: 11/07/1997)
17 AFFIDAVIT of Ed Curry by School Board/Brevard Re: [14−1] response objection. (nrs) (Entered: 11/07/1997)
18 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE by School Board/Brevard to [3−1] motion for preliminary injunction. (nrs) (Entered: 11/19/1997)
19 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM by Daniel Daniels in support of [3−1] motion for preliminary injunction. (nrs) (Entered: 11/21/1997)
20 AFFIDAVIT of Daniel Daniels by Daniel Daniels Re: [3−1] motion for preliminary injunction. (nrs) (Entered: 11/21/1997)
21 AFFIDAVIT of Jennifer Daniels by Daniel Daniels Re: [3−1] motion for preliminary injunction. (nrs) (Entered: 11/21/1997)
22 AFFIDAVIT of Janet Daniels by Daniel Daniels Re: [3−1] motion for preliminary injunction. (nrs) (Entered: 11/21/1997)
23 AFFIDAVIT of Louise Mead Tricard by Daniel Daniels Re: [3−1] motion for preliminary injunction. (nrs) (Entered: 11/21/1997)
24 AFFIDAVIT of Richard Wolfe by Daniel Daniels Re: [3−1] motion for preliminary injunction. (nrs) (Entered: 11/21/1997)
25 AFFIDAVIT of Dr. Bette S. Tallen by Daniel Daniels Re: [3−1] motion for preliminary injunction. (nrs) (Entered: 11/21/1997)

Case: 6:97-cv-1186 As of: 01/31/2014 05:57 PM EST 3 of 5

11/21/1997 11/24/1997 11/25/1997
12/15/1997 12/18/1997 12/22/1997 12/23/1997 12/23/1997 01/06/1998 01/06/1998 01/06/1998 01/06/1998 01/06/1998 01/07/1998 01/13/1998
01/15/1998 01/16/1998 01/16/1998 01/16/1998 01/20/1998

26 Exhibits in support of [19−1] plaintiff's supplemental memorandum of law by Daniel Daniels. (Filed separately) (nrs) (Entered: 11/21/1997)
27 MINUTE ENTRY: Preliminary Injunction held on 11/24/97 before Judge Anne C. Conway. Court Reporter: Sandra Dawkins (Realtime Reporters) (nrs) (Entered: 11/24/1997)
28 ORDER granting [3−1] petition for preliminary injunction and [3−2] motion for prompt hearing. Not later than 12/15/97, Defendant shall serve and file a plan concerning how Defendant proposes to remedy the inequalities identified in this order, given the Court's determinatino that a preliminary injunction should issue. Not later than 12/18/97, Plaintiffs shall file and serve a memorandum in response to Defendant's proposed plan. The Court will withhold issuance of a preliminary injunction pending receipt of the report. (Signed by Judge Anne C. Conway.) ctc (nrs) (Entered: 11/25/1997)
29 RESPONSE by School Board/Brevard to [28−1] order. (nrs) (Entered: 12/15/1997)
30 RESPONSE by Daniel Daniels to school board's plan. (nrs) (Entered: 12/18/1997)
31 NOTICE of new case number 97−1186−Civ−Orl−22C (spr) (Entered: 12/22/1997)
32 ORDER and PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. ( Signed by Judge Anne C. Conway ) ctc (nrs) (Entered: 12/23/1997)
33 NOTICE OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL of [32−1] order, [28−1] order by School Board/Brevard Fee Status: pd Receipt: 67753 Certificate of Readiness due on 1/7/98 (rdo) (Entered: 12/29/1997)
34 MOTION by Daniel Daniels for interim attorney fees and costs . (nrs) Modified on 01/07/1998 (Entered: 01/07/1998)
35 MEMORANDUM by Daniel Daniels in support of [34−1] motion for interim attorney fees and costs. (nrs) Modified on 01/07/1998 (Entered: 01/07/1998)
36 ATTORNEY time and costs by Daniel Daniels. (nrs) Modified on 01/07/1998 (Entered: 01/07/1998)
37 AFFIDAVIT of Burton J. Green by Daniel Daniels Re: [36−1] attorney time and costs. (nrs) (Entered: 01/07/1998)
38 AFFIDAVIT of Lisa Kuhlman Tietig by Daniel Daniels Re: [36−1] attorney time and costs. (nrs) (Entered: 01/07/1998)
39 CASE MANAGEMENT REPORT. (nrs) (Entered: 01/08/1998)
40 CASE MANAGEMENT AND SCHEDULING ORDER setting Joining of parties, amending of pleadings on 7/1/98; Deadline for filing of motions; Discovery cutoff 1/15/99; Pretrial statement due on or before 5/28/99. Jury trial set for 7/1/99 before Judge Anne C. Conway. (Signed by Judge Anne C. Conway.) ctc (nrs) (Entered: 01/13/1998)
41 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS on preliminary injunction hearing for date of 11/24/97 before Judge Anne C. Conway. Transcript filed separately. (rdo) (Entered: 01/15/1998)
42 DISCLOSURE of insurance information by School Board/Brevard. (nrs) (Entered: 01/20/1998)
43 RESPONSE by School Board/Brevard to [34−1] motion for interim attorney fees and costs. (nrs) Modified on 01/20/1998 (Entered: 01/20/1998)
43 (A) MOTION by School Board/Brevard for oral argument on Plaintiff's Motion for Interirm Attorney's Fees and Costs and the Defendant's response to the Plaintiff's Motion for Interim Attorney's Fees and Costs . (nrs) (Entered: 01/21/1998)
44 SUPPLEMENTAL disclosure of insurance information by School Board/Brevard. (nrs) (Entered: 01/21/1998)

Case: 6:97-cv-1186 As of: 01/31/2014 05:57 PM EST 4 of 5

01/22/1998 01/22/1998 01/28/1998 01/28/1998 01/29/1998 01/30/1998 02/02/1998 02/02/1998 02/09/1998 02/12/1998 02/13/1998 04/22/1998
04/22/1998 04/24/1998
04/24/1998 04/24/1998 04/24/1998 10/29/1998 12/07/1999

45 NOTICE of withdrawal of appeal by School Board/Brevard (rdo) (Entered: 01/23/1998)
46 MOTION by School Board/Brevard to withdraw notice of appeal (rdo) (Entered: 01/23/1998)
47 MOTION by Daniel Daniels to strike [43−1] motion response . (nrs) (Entered: 01/29/1998)
48 MEMORANDUM by Daniel Daniels in support of [47−1] motion to strike [43−1] motion response. (nrs) (Entered: 01/29/1998)
49 RESPONSE by School Board/Brevard to [47−1] motion to strike [43−1] motion response (lak) (Entered: 01/29/1998)
50 NOTICE of filing exhibits inadvertently not attached to Memorandum dated 1/26/98 by Daniel Daniels (lak) (Entered: 02/02/1998)
NOTICE assigning 11th Circuit case number re: [33−1] appeal USCA NUMBER: 98−2115 (rdo) (Entered: 02/02/1998)
51 MOTION by plaintiff Daniel Daniels with memorandum in support for leave to file reply to defendant's response to plaintiff's motion for interim attorney fees and costs (jrm) (Entered: 02/03/1998)
52 JUDGMENT OF USCA (certified copy) dismissing [33−1] appeal. The parties filed a joint stipulation to dismiss. MFR Number 94/2730 Mandate date: 2/5/98 USCA EOD: 2/5/98 (rdo) (Entered: 02/09/1998)
52 (A) REPORT on preliminary injunction compliance by School Board/Brevard to [32−1] order. (nrs) (Entered: 02/17/1998)
53 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE by School Board/Brevard to [34−1] motion for interim attorney fees and costs. (nrs) (Entered: 02/17/1998)
54 ORDER granting [34−1] motion for interim attorney fees and costs (Plaintiff's counsel are hereby awarded interim attorneys' fees and expenses in the amount of $15,958.12); denying [43−1] motion for oral argument on Plaintiff's Motion for Interim Attorney's Fees and Costs and the Defendant's response to the Plaintiff's Motion for Interim Attorney's Fees and Costs; mooting [46−1] motion to withdraw notice of appeal; denying [47−1] motion to strike [43−1] motion response; and granting [51−1] motion for leave to file reply to defendant's response to plaintiff's motion for interim attorney fees and costs. The Clerk shall file the tendered Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendant's response to Plaintiffs' motion for interim attorneys fees and costs. (Signed by Judge Anne C. Conway.) ctc (nrs) Modified on 05/08/1998 (Entered: 04/22/1998)
55 REPLY by Daniel Daniels to response to [34−1] motion for interim attorney fees and costs. (nrs) (Entered: 04/23/1998)
56 ORDER consolidating this case with 97−1463−CIV−ORL−22A for all purposes, including trial; all pleadings and papers shall be file only in case 97−1463−CIV−ORL−22A. This case shall be assigned to Magistrate Karla R. Spaulding. ( Signed by Judge Anne C. Conway ) ctc (map) (Entered: 04/27/1998)
MAGISTRATE JUDGE CASE ASSIGNMENT Magistrate assigned: Karla R. Spaulding (map) (Entered: 04/27/1998)
CONSOLIDATED MEMBER CASE. Lead Case Number: 97−1463−CIV−ORL−22. (map) (Entered: 04/27/1998)
ALL FUTURE CASE PAPERS WILL BE ENTERED ON THE DOCKET SHEET FOR CASE 97−1463−CIV−ORL−22A AND WILL BE FILED IN THAT CASE FILE. (map) (Entered: 04/27/1998)
Deadline updated; set jury trial for 2/1/00 before Judge Anne C. Conway . (maa) (Entered: 10/29/1998)
Deadline updated; reset jury trial for 11/1/00 before Judge Anne C. Conway . (maa) (Entered: 12/07/1999)

Case: 6:97-cv-1186 As of: 01/31/2014 05:57 PM EST 5 of 5

01/27/2000 09/12/2000 09/12/2000

57 CONFLICT ORDER: Within 11 days of this Order, all parties shall file a response to this conflict order. (Signed by Judge Anne C. Conway on 01/26/00.) ctc (nrs) (Entered: 01/27/2000)
58 ORDER: The Order and Preliminary Injunction entered 12/23/97 is DISSOLVED. The Clerk is directed to close the case. Any remaining issues, including attorneys' fees, shall be addressed in lead case 6:97−cv−1463−orl−22A. ( Signed by Judge Anne C. Conway ) ctc (lak) (Entered: 09/12/2000)
CASE CLOSED. (lak) (Entered: 09/12/2000)