Opinion ID: 359624
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Denial of the Preliminary Injunction Against Collection

Text: 10 of Ethnic Data 11 Plaintiffs sought to enjoin the mandatory answering of ethnic questionnaries. These questionnaries were distributed to the school system's community school districts. All supervisors and teachers employed in the city's public schools were required to answer questions pertaining to their race, color, sex and national origin. In denying appellants' motion in the February 24 order, the district court made no findings of fact or conclusions of law, although it did note that there is a clear right and obligation of authorities to gather data in order to determine, Inter alia, whether there has been unlawful discrimination. 12 This court has recently clarified the standard for issuance of a preliminary injunction: there must be a showing of possible irreparable injury And either (1) probable success on the merits Or (2) sufficiently serious questions going to the merits to make them a fair ground for litigation And a balance of hardships tipping decidedly toward the party requesting the preliminary relief. Selchow & Righter Co. v. McGraw-Hill Book Co., No. 77-7569, slip op. at 3533, 3537, 580 F.2d 25 at 27 (2d Cir. 1978); Triebwasser & Katz v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 535 F.2d 1356, 1358 (2d Cir. 1976); See Mulligan, Foreword Preliminary Injunction in the Second Circuit, 43 Brooklyn L.Rev. 831, 832-33 (1977). Since appellants neither presented nor sought to present any evidence in support of their motion for a preliminary injunction, all that the district court had before it was a question of law. Absent any evidence, the district court could not conclude that the appellants were likely to suffer irreparable injury, much less that the balance of hardships weighed decidedly in their favor. See Gillespie & Co. of New York v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 533 F.2d 51, 53 (2d Cir. 1976) (per curiam). 13 Moreover, appellants have failed to show that they are likely to succeed on the merits. See id. They argue, first, that because the agreement between OCR and the Board was vacated by the district court, any racial/ethnic survey to be conducted in conjunction with the Memorandum is invalid. However, they have made no showing that the survey of the ethnic composition of the existing staff of the school system would only be conducted because the Memorandum provided for it. Indeed, for all that appears in the record, this survey is one routinely conducted by the City Board as part of its annual school census. 14 Appellants also argue that because Title VI does not prohibit racial/ethnic discrimination in employment where providing employment is not a primary objective of federal aid, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-3, 9 OCR cannot lawfully seek statistics regarding the ethnic and racial composition of the teaching staff. However, appellants have mischaracterized the nature of the OCR investigation. The charging letter of November 9, 1976, specifically noted that its concern with discriminatory employment practices was motivated by the unfortunate effect that these practices exercise on minority schoolchildren: (B)y assigning teachers to schools in such a manner . . . (,) minority children are generally taught by teachers with less experience, lower salary and fewer advanced degrees. Accordingly, OCR's investigation falls within the parameters of 42 U.S.C. § 2000d, 10 and not 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-3, See note 9 Supra, since the objective of OCR's investigation was to alleviate discrimination against minority schoolchildren and not against minority teachers as such. 11 In the context of this OCR investigation, then, the collection of racial and ethnic data is authorized by Title VI. 12 See United States v. Jefferson County Board of Education, 372 F.2d 836, 882-84 (5th Cir. 1966), Aff'd, 380 F.2d 385 (5th Cir.) (en banc), Cert. denied, 389 U.S. 840, 88 S.Ct. 67, 19 L.Ed.2d 103 (1967). 15 Appellant's additional arguments that the proposed census would violate other federal statutes and the Constitution are unpersuasive. The Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, is invoked but it does not prohibit the collection or retention of such data in this context. Title VI and its regulations authorize the collection of staff data which in turn is permitted to be maintained under 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(1). 13 Nor does the Equal Education Opportunities Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1751, prohibit the collection of racial and ethnic staff data. 14 At this stage of the record, where it does not appear whether or not teacher and supervisor assignments in the New York public schools violate Title VI, plaintiffs' assertion that these practices are not violative cannot be taken as fact. Thus any suggestion that OCR's actions are directed at overcoming simple racial imbalance is premature. 16 Finally, the Constitution itself does not condemn the collection of this data. Cf. United States v. State of New Hampshire, 539 F.2d 277, 280-82 (1st Cir.) (upholding as constitutional a requirement pursuant to § 709(c) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-8(c), that the State provide racial and ethnic employee data to the federal government on an EEO-4 form), Cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1023 (1976). The one-sentence argument that the census produces a Fourth Amendment violation is frivolous; there is no search or seizure here involved. Nor is there a violation of the constitutional right of privacy of teachers and principals within Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S.Ct. 1678, 14 L.Ed.2d 510 (1965), or Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S.Ct. 705, 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973). See Note, On Privacy: Constitutional Protection for Personal Liberty,48 N.Y.U.L.Rev. 670, 673-78, 697-701, 770-72 (1973); Cf. Whalen v. Roe,429 U.S. 589, 97 S.Ct. 869, 51 L.Ed.2d 64 (1977) (statute requiring submission of form with patient's name to State Department of Health in case of certain prescription drugs not unconstitutional); Schachter v. Whalen, 581 F.2d 35 (2d Cir. 1978) (statute granting power to subpoena medical records from doctor under investigation by State not unconstitutional).