Northcross v. Memphis City Schools Board of Education Motion of Plaintiffs-Appellants to Expedite Determination of Appeals

    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

Nos. 20,533or. o oZ O f

DEBORAH A. NORTHCD0°c, et ?1. 
vs.

— t~» s~ \t?i r . n T T n - n  r r r m ;  A - nur r A J u ± .l \j l v  Or
THE MEMPHIS CITY SCHOOLS, et al.

No. 20,629
CTJ± Tjn 5 B B RN7* RD ROB I NS O N t 0 iz a 1

VS .
S t t t i t  n t r  n n m T n A ;  to /-\t\ totn r\tp l i j u j u u i  L u u m  i  £5u n x \ -L --  w x.

EDUCATION, et al.

No. 20,334 No. 71-1174
JOSEPHINE GOSS, et al. DEBORAH A. NORTHCROSS, et al.

vs. / s.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE 
CITY OF KNOXVILLE, et al.

BOARD OF EDUCATION Or tHE 
MEMPHIS CITY SCHOOLS, et al.

MOTION OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS 
TO EXPEDITE DETERMINATION OF APPEALS

AVON N. WILLIAMS, JR. 
404 James Robertson 

Parkway
Nashville, Tennessee 

37219
CARL A. COWAN 
2212 Vine Avenue 
Knoxville, Tennessee 

37915

for Plai]

JACK GREENBERG 
JAMES M. NABRIT, III 
NORMAN J. CHACHKIN 
SYLVIA DREW 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019

LOUIS R. LUCAS 
WILLIAM E. CALDWELL 
RATNER, SUGARMON and LUCAS 
525 Commerce Title Building 
Memphis, Tennessee 33103

tiffs-Appe11antsAttorneys



IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

DEBORAH A. NORTKCROSS, et al.
vs . NOS. 20,533 &

0-
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE MEMPHIS 
CITY SCHOOLS, et al.

CLAUDE BERNARD ROBINSON, et al.
vs. NO. 20,629

SHELBY COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, 
et al.

JOSEPHINE GOSS, et al.
vs. NO. 20,834

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CITY OF 
KNOXVILLE, et al.

DEBORAH A. NORTHCROSS, et al.
vs. NO. 71-1174

m
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE MEMPHIS 
CITY SCHOOLS, et al.

MOTION OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS 
TO EXPEDITE DETERMINATION OF APPEALS

Plaintiffs-appellants in these pending school desegregation
appeals, by their undersigned counsel, respectfully pray that
this Court expedite its determination of these appeals in



accordance with the rulings of the United States Supreme Court 
in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 39 U.S.L.W.
4437 (1971) and Davis v. Board of School Conm'rs of Mobile, 39 
U.S.L.W. 4447 (1971) to the end that their constitutional 
rights may be effectuated by the submission, approval and 
implementation of constitutional plans of desegregation in the 
Memphis, Shelby County and Knoxville school systems effective 
with the commencement of the 1971-72 school year.

These appeals were fully briefed and argued prior to the 
issuance of the Supreme Court's decisions. (In No. 71-1174, 
a panel of this Court entered an Order denying an injunction 
against certain construction projects proposed by the Board of 
Education of Memphis, and the matter is now pending upon a 
Petition for Rehearing En Banc.) However, each of the cases 
will undoubtedly be affected by the guidance given by the 
Supreme Court in Swann and Davis. Although this Court will 
not again be in session prior to the regular June, 1971 term, 
we respectfully pray that determination of these cases in light 
of Swann and Davis be expedited in order to permit the 
necessary preparation of plans and hearings in the district 
courts to take place in order to effectuate unitary school 
systems in these school districts by the beginning of the 1971- 
72 school year.

We are cognisant of this Court's heavy caseload, of the 
recent joint sentencing conference between the Sixth and 
Seventh Circuits, and of the fact that some of these matters 
were given’expedited consideration prior to Swann and Davis.

-2-



The urgent necessity of fully effectuating plaintiffs' consti­
tutional rights not later than the commencement of the next 
school year compels the submission of this Motion. We hope 
that the matters contained herein will assist the Court in 
assessing the impact of Swann and Davis.

For the convenience of the Court, we briefly summarize 
the subject of the appeals:

Nos. 20,533 and 20,539 are an appeal and cross-appeal from 
the order of the United States District Court for the Western 
District of Tennessee on remand from Northcross v. Board of 
Educ. of Memphis, 397 U.S. 232 (1970). No. 20,629 is an appeal 
from the order of the same district court approving a desegre­
gation plan for Shelby County. No. 20,834 is an appeal from the 
order of the United States District Court for the Eastern 
District of Tennessee approving the plan of desegregation of 
the Knoxville school system. In each of these cases, the 
district courts approved plans utilizing geographic zoning only 
without requiring remedial alteration of attendance zones, 
pairing— both contiguous and non-contiguous— and pupil trans­
portation so as to eliminate the continued existence of schools
in each system which are "substantially disproportionate in

1/
their racial composition." Swann, slip op. at p. 22. The plans 
are generally defended by the school districts on the grounds 
that they are "racially neutral" and that remedying the existing

Copies of the slip opinions of the Supreme Court decisions 
were forwarded to this Court in connection with No. 71-1174 
on April 21, 1971.

-3-



segregation will be difficult and possibly expensive. As the
Supreme Court put it in Swann, however,

But all things are not equal in a system that 
has been deliberately constructed and maintained 
to enforce racial segregation. The remedy for 
such segregation may be administratively awkward, 
inconvenient, and even bizarre in some situations 
and may impose burdens on some; but all awkward­
ness and inconvenience cannot be avoided in the 
interim period when remedial adjustments are 
being made to eliminate the dual school systems....
In short, an assignment plan is not acceptable 
simply because it appears to be neutral.

(Slip op. at p. 24).
We think a fair reading of Swann and Davis compels the 

conclusion that the plans approved by the district courts in 
each of these cases are unacceptable because they fail to "make 
every effort to achieve the greatest possible degree of actual 
desegregation, taking into account the practicalities of the 
situation." (Davis, slip op. at p. 4). The cases must be 
returned to the district courts with instructions that they 
"may and should consider the use of all available techniques 
including restructuring of attendance zones and both contiguous 
and non-contiguous attendance zones .... The measure of any 
desegregation plan is its effectiveness." (ibid.).

No. 71-1174 is an appeal from denial by the district court 
of an injunction restraining construction projects proposed by 
the Board of Education of Memphis. Although a panel of this 
Court agreed with that denial, since no action has been 
announced on the Petition for Rehearing En Banc, it would be 
appropriate to reassess the matter in light of the Supreme 
Court's discussion of construction at pp. 16-17 of the Swann

-4-



slip opinion:
The construction of new schools and the 
closing of old ones is ... a decision 
which, when combined with one technique 
or another of student assignment, will 
determine the racial compcsirion of the 
student body in each school in the system.
Over the long run, the consequences of 
the choices will be far reaching. People 
gravitate toward school facilities, just 
as schools are located in response to the 
needs of people. The location of schools 
may thus influence the patterns of resi­
dential development of a metropolitan 
area and have important impact on compo­
sition of inner city neighborhoods.
In the past, choices in this respect have 
been used as a potent weapon for creating 
or maintaining a state-segregated school 
system.... Such a policy does more than 
simply influence the short-run composition 
of the student body of a new school. It 
may well promote segregated residential 
patterns which, when combined with "neigh­
borhood zoning," further lock the school 
system into the mold of separation of the 
races. Upon a proper showing, a district 
court may consider this in fashioning a 
remedy.
In ascertaining the existence of legally- 
imposed school segregation, the existence 
of a pattern of school construction and 
abandonment is thus a factor of great weight.
In devising remedies where legally imposed 
segregation has been established, it is 
the responsibility of local authorities and 
district courts to see to it that future 
school construction and abandonment is not 
used and does not serve to perpetuate or 
re-establish the dual system.

We add only that the Supreme Court's language mirrors, with 
approval, this Court's holding in Sloan v. Tenth School Dist. 
of Wilson County, 433 F.2d 587 (6th cir. 1970), which was brought 
to the Supreme Court's attention in connection with the Little 
Rock matter (see Petition for Rehearing En Banc, p. 54a).

5-



In light of Swann and Davis, we respectfully suggest that
the injunction sought in No. 71-1174 should issue. As to the 
other cases which we submit must be remanded to the district 
courts, we respectfully suggest the following directions to the 
lower courts. These suggested instructions are based upon study 
of the Supreme Court's rulings in Swann and Davis. They 
recognize the fact that in many of these cases, the failure of 
the district courts to order the use of non-contiguous pairing 
or transportation has resulted in the significant lack

/
-6-



of progress evidenced by each of these districts.
We su'ggest that these cases be remanded to the district 

courts with the following directions:
(1) Direct the defendants to file, within two weeks of

its order, a plan for the complete dismantling of the remaining 
vestiges of segregation in the school system, extending to 
all facets of school operation, including but not limited to 
the assignment of faculty members to each school on a basis 
substantially the same as the system-wide faculty racial 
composition, to be effective not later than the commencement 
of the 1971-72 school year. (Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg 
Bd. of Education, 39 U.S.L.W. 4437 (1971); Davis v. Board of 
School Comm'rs of Mobile, 39 U.S.L.W. 4447 (1971); Alexander 
v. Holmes County Bd. of Education, 396 U.S. 19 (1969); Carter 
v. West Feliciana Parish School Board, 396 U.S. 296 (1970); 
Northcross v. Board of Education of Memphis, 397 U.S. 232 (1970))

(2) Direct that any such plan meet the following 
standards: while fixed ratios of pupils in particular schools 
are not required, efforts should be made, in designing the 
plan, to reach toward the establisliment of the system-wide 
pupil racial ratio in the various schools so that there will
be no basis for contending that one school is racially different 
from the others and, therefore, racially identifiable; subject 
to the understanding, of course, that variations from the 
system-wide ratio at individual schools will be unavoidable 
and are satisfactory so long as there is no school with a racial 
composition substantially disproportionate to the system-wide



racial composition. Pupils of all grades should be assigned 
in such a way that as nearly as practicable the various 
schools at various grade levels have about the same proportion 
of black and white students. (Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg 
Bd. of Education, 306 F. Supp. 1299 (W.D. N.C. 1969), 39 U.S.L.W. 
4437 (1971)). These results are to be brought about by the 
use, as necessary, of all available possible and practicable 
techniques of desegregation, singly or in combination, including 
but not limited to, the restructuring of existing attendance 
zones to maximize desegregation, contiguous and non-contiguous 
pairing of existing or newly devised attendance zones, the 
restructuring of grade levels as between various schools, and 
the use of transportation, including common carrier and school 
bus, as a tool to assist in effectuating the conversion to 
a unitary school system. (Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. 
of Education, 306 F. Supp. 1299 (W.D. N.C. 1969), 39 U.S.L.W.
4437 (1971) ; Davis v. Board of School Comm'rs of Mobile,
39 U.S.L.W. 4447 (1971)). Any plan to be approved by the 
district court must contain a majority-to-minority transfer 
provision guaranteeing free transportation to any student 
choosing to exercise an option and providing that no such 
transfer request is to be denied on the basis of overcrowding 
at the school to which the student seeks a transfer. (Swann 
v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Education, 39 U.S.L.W. 4437 
(1971); Ellis v. Board of Public Instruction of Orange County,
423 F.2d 203 (5th Cir. 1970)).

/
-8-



(3) Allow plaintiffs 10 days following the filing of any 
such plan or plans by the defendants in which to object thereto 
and such additional reasonable time as may be necessary for 
plaintiffs to prepare and submit an alternative to such plan
or plans, if they so elect. (Green v. County School Bd. of 
New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430 (1968); Swann v. Charlotte- 
Mecklenburg 3d. of Education. 39 U.S.L.W. 4437 (1971)).

(4) Designate or appoint an educational expert to assist 
the district court in evaluating such plan or plans as the 
parties may submit and in developing an adequate plan meeting 
constitutional requirements for the Court’s approval and 
implementation not later than the commencement of the 1971-72 
school year. (Swann v. Charlotte-Meeklenburg Bd. of Education, 
306 F. Supp. 1299 (W.D. N.C. 1969), 39 U.S.L.W. 4437 (1971); 
Dowell v. School Board of Oklahoma City, 244 F. Supp. 971
(W.D. Okla. 1965), aff'd 375 F.2d 158 (10th Cir.), cert, denied, 
387 U.S. 931 (1967)).

(5) Authorize plaintiffs to obtain the services of an 
educational expert to prepare a constitutional plan for the 
school system with the reasonable costs of any such prepared 
plan to be considered as assessable costs against the defendants. 
(Jackson v. School Board of Lynchburg, Civ. No. 534 (W.D. Va.
April 28, 1970); Dowell v. School Board of Oklahoma City, 244 
F. Supp. 971 (W.D. Okla. 1965), aff'd 375 F.2d 158 (10th Cir.), 
cert, denied, 387 U.S. 931 (1967)).

(6) Direct defendants to cooperate with any expert 
designated; or appointed by the district court or retained by

-9-



plaintiffs in connection with their submission of an alternate 
plan, including but not limited to providing space for such 
expert (s) at the headquarters of the Superintendent of Schools 
and granting unto him full access to all information concerning 
all phases of the school system which he may deem necessary, 
paying all of his fees and expenses, providing stenographic 
assistance and the help of business machines, draftsmen and 
computers if requested, along with telephone and other communi­
cations services, supplying him with any studies and plans and 
partial plans for desegregation of the schools which defendants 
may have, and providing him with full professional, technical 
and other assistance which he may need in familiarizing himself 
with the school system and the various problems to be solved 
in desegregating the schools. (Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg 
Bd. of Education, 306 F. Supp. 1299 (W.D. N.C. 1969); Jackson 
v. School Board of Lynchburg, Civ. No. 534 (W.D. Va. April 28, 
1970)).

(7) Promptly schedule a hearing on the sufficiency of 
any plans submitted and take such further steps as may be 
required to implement a completely unitary school system 
effective with the commencement of the 1971-72 school year. 
(Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, 396 U.S. 19 
(1969); Carter v. West Feliciana Parish School Board, 396 U.S. 
296 (1970); Northcross v. Board of Education of Memphis, 397 
U.S. 232 (1970); Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of 
Education, 39 U.S.L.W. 4437 (1971)).

/
-10-



(8) Immediately enter its order enjoining any new 
construction, additions to or expansion of, or abandonment of, 
existing schools pending completion of proceedings on remand 
and the approval and implementation of a constitutional plan 
of desegregation, and thereafter requiring the defendants to 
submit any plans for new school construction, additions to or 
expansion of, or abandonment of, existing schools to the 
district court with notice to plaintiffs prior to the letting 
of bids, signing of contracts for, or commencement of any such 
construction or abandonment, and requiring defendants to hold 
in abeyance the commencement of any such construction or 
abandonment until the district court has had an opportunity
to consider such objections as plaintiffs may tender and shall 
have approved the defendants' plans for construction or aban­
donment of school facilities. (Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg 
Bd. of Education, 39 U.S.L.W. 4437 (1971); Calhoun v. Cook,
430 F.2d 1174 (5th Cir. 1970); Sloan v. Tenth School District 
of Wilson County, 433 F.2d 587 (6th Cir. 1970); Bradley v.
School Board of Richmond, Civ. No. 3353 (E.D. Va. June 20, 1970))

(9) Enter its order directing defendants to implement 
the faculty desegregation policies

attached
as Exhibit "A" hereto. (United States v. Montgomery County 
Board of Education, 395 U.S. 225 (1969); Swann v. Charlotte- 
Mecklenburg Board of Education, 39 U.S.L.V7. 4437 (1971)).

(10) Enter its order directing defendants to file reports 
with the Court on October 15 and March 15 of each year setting

-11-



out the information required by Exhibit "B" hereto.
(11) Allow plaintiffs their costs including reasonable 

attorneys' fees and enter such other orders as may be required 
to effectuate the constitutional rights involved in this 
litigation.

JAMES M. NABRIT, III 
NORMAN J. CHACHKIN 
SYLVIA DREW

10 Columbus Circle
New York, New York 10019

AVON N. WILLIAMS, JR.
404 James Robertson Parkway 
Nashville, Tennessee 37219

LOUIS R. LUCAS 
WILLIAM E. CALDWELL 
RATNER, SUGARMON and LUCAS 

525 Commerce Title Building 
Memphis, Tennessee 38103

CARL A. COWAN
2212 Vine Avenue 
Knoxville, Tennessee 37915

Attorneys for Plaintiffs- 
Appe Hants

/
-12-



APPENDIX "A"

FACULTY DESEGREGATION

The school board shall announce and implement the 
following policies:

1. Principals, teachers, teacher-aides and other 
staff who work directly with children at school 
shall be so assigned that in no case will the 
racial composition of a staff indicate that a 
school is intended for Negro students or white 
students. The district shall assign the staff 
described above so that the ratio of Negro to 
white teachers in each school, and the ratio 
of other staff in each, are substantially the 
same as each such ratio is to the teachers
and the other staff, respectively, in the 
entire school system. The school district 
shall, to the extent necessary to carry out 
these policies, direct members of its staff 
as a condition of continued employment to 
accept new assignments.

2. Staff members who work directly with children, 
and professional staff who work on the ad­
ministrative level will be hired, assigned, 
promoted, paid, demoted, dismissed, and other­
wise treated without regard to race, color or 
national origin, except as otherwise provided 
in this decree.

3. If there is to be a reduction in the number of 
principals, teachers, teacher-aides or other 
staff employed by the school district which 
will result in the dismissal, non-renewal or 
demotion of any such person, the person to be 
dismissed, nonrenewed or demoted shall be 
selected from among all those persons holding 
positions in the class (e.g., principlas, 
assistant principals, guidance counselors, 
elementary teachers, secondary teachers, 
coaches, teacher-aides, etc.) to be reduced.
The person with the least seniority in that 
class in the system shall be selected. In 
addition, where there has been any such dis­
missal, nonrenewal or demotion and where a 
position is to be restored in the class 
previously reduced or a vacancy occurs in such 
class, an opportunity to fill that position 
shall be offered to the person or persons dis­
missed, nonrenewed or demoted as a result of 
such reduction in the order of their seniority 
in that class. Furthermore, the person so 
dismissed, nonrenewed or demoted shall be 
offered, on the basis of seniority in the 
school district, any other available position

-13-



for which he is certified by the State 
before that job is offerecTto any teacher 
who does not have job seniority in the class 
in which the vacancy has occurred.

4. If any principal, teacher, teacher-aide or other 
staff member employed by the school district
is to be dismissed, nonrenewed or demoted for 
reasons other than a reduction in force, the 
school board shall fill any staff vacancy or 
vacancies created thereby with a person or 
persons of the same race as that of the indi­
vidual dismissed, nonrenewed, or demoted.
Nothing in this paragraph is intended to limit 
rights of persons dismissed, nonrenewed or 
demoted which have been recognized in prior 
rulings

5. Each principal, teacher, teacher-aide or other 
staff member hired or promoted to fill a va­
cancy created by a dismissal, nonrenewal or 
demotion, shall be selected on the basis of 
reasonable, nondiscriminatory and reviewable 
standards and procedures. Each person making 
written application to be hired or promoted and 
possessing the minimum objective qualifications 
established by the State shall be evalm ted in 
writing on the basis of such standards. These 
evaluations shall show the weight given to 
each standard, the grade given the applicant
on each such standard and the grounds for the 
grade. The evaluations shall be retained for 
a period of not less than three years. In 
the event the racial composition of new princi­
pals or teachers or teacher-aides or other staff 
fails to approximate the racial ratio for such 
class of the faculty which exited at the com­
mencement of the academic year 1965-66, this 
shall be considered prima facie evidence of 
racial discrimination and, upon challenge, the 
burden shall be upon the school district to 
demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence 
that it acted on the basis of such reasonable, 
nondiscriminatory and reviewable standards and 
procedures and without racial discrimination. 
Where the number of positions filled by promo­
tion or hiring is too small to permit comparison 
with the 1965-66 ratio respecting such positions, 
the court shall consider equivalent promotions 
and new hires in years prior to the current year 
in order to determine whether the school district 
is approximating the 1965-66 ratio.

6. If the overall ratio of black to white educators 
reported to the district court on or before 
October 15 of each year pursuant to Paragraph 8

< does not approximate the ratio of black to white 
educators existing in the school district at the 
commencement of the 1965-66 school year, the 
school district shall actively recruit black

-14-



educators in filling its vacancies. In such 
event, the school district shall submit a 
plan for an affirmative recruiting program 
which shall include, as appropriate, inter­
viewing at predominantly black colleges and uni­
versities, communicating its interest in hiring 
black educators to the placement offices and 
students at such institutions and to all other 
potential sources of black educators, and ad­
vertising in media likely to reach potential 
black candidates for employment.

7. Prior to dismissal, nonrenewal, demotion, pro­
motion or employment of any principal, teacher, 
teacher-aide or other staff, the school board 
will develop or require the development of 
reasonable, nondiscriminatory and reviewable 
standards and procedures to be used in taking 
such actions. These procedures and standards, 
and the weight assigned to each standard, shall 
be available for public inspection and shall 
be retained by the school district. The school 
district shall also record and preserve the 
evaluations made pursuant to the standards and 
procedures. Such evaluations shall be made avail­
able upon request to any affected employee or 
applicant.
“Demotion" as used above, includes any reassign­
ment (1) under which the staff member receives 
less pay or has less responsibility than under 
the assignment he held previously; (2) which 
requires a lesser degree of skill than did the 
assignment he held previously; or (3) under 
which the staff member is asked to teach a sub­
ject. or grade other than one for which he is 
certified or for which he has had substantial 
experience within a reasonably current period.
In general and depending upon the subject matter 
involved, five years is such a reasonable period.
"Promotion" as used above, includes any reassign­
ment (1) under which the staff member receives 
more pay or more responsibility than under the 
assignment he held previously; or (2) which 
requires a greater degree of skill than did the 
assignment he held previously.

8. On or before July 15 of each year, the school 
district shall file with the Clerk of the District 
Court, and serve upon the affected individuals,
a report listing the name, race and position of 
any staff member who has been dismissed or 
demoted during the preceding twelve months or 
whose contract has not been renewed for the 
forthcoming school year, and the reason or

i reasons therefor. In the case of a dismissal, 
nonrenewal or demotion for any other reason,

15-



this report shall list the name and race 
of the replacement for each dismissed, demoted 
or nonrenewed staff member. In addition, on 
or before October 15, each such school district 
shall file with the Clerk of the District Court, 
a report listing the number of staff vacancies, 
other than those created by a dismissal, non­
renewal or demotion, occurring during the pre­
ceding 12 months; the class of positions in 
which such vacancy has occurred, and the name, 
race and position of each person hired or pro­
moted to fill such vacancies. This report shall 
set forth the racial ratio in each such class at 
the commencement of the academic year 1965-66 and 
shall further show the racial ratio of new hires 
and promotions in each such class.



APPENDIX 1,B M

REPORTS ■ ■

Defendants shall file reports on October 15 and March 15 i
of each year setting forth the following information, as well

i
as that required by the faculty desegregation policies in 
Exhibit "A":

1. (a) The number of students by race enrolled in the 
school district, and in each school of the district, and in i
each classroom of the district.

(b) The number of full-time teachers by race in the 
school district, and in each school of the district.

|
(c) The number of part-time teachers by race in the 

school district, and in each school of the district.
(d) The number of principals, assistant principals, 

supervisors and head teachers, each by race, in the school 
district, and the schools to which each of such personnel 
are assigned.

(e) The race, position and school or schools to which j 
assigned of each professional staff employee of the district
not included in the answers to (b), (c) or (d) above.

2. Describe the requests and the results which have accrued,1
by race, under the majority-to-minority transfer provision

I
during the current school year or thereafter since the school 
district's last report to the court.

3. State the number of inter-district transfers granted, 
the race of the students who were granted such transfers, and
the school district to which the transfers v/ere allowed during

ithe current school year or thereafter since the school district’s 
last report to the court. State whether the school district has

i
-17-



paid or is paying any form of tuition or other contractual 
payment to any other school district for such transferring 
students. ;

4 . State for each school bus run operated by defendants 1 
or under contract with defendants to transport students of the

i

district from their homes or other pick-up points to school
j

facilities of the district: (a) the time at which the first 
passenger other than a child of the driver boards the bus 
in the morning; (b) the time at which the bus arrives at the 
school it serves, cr the last such school if students are dis­
charged at more than one facility; (c) the names of each school jj
fa°ili«-y served on said run; (d) the number or other designation

I
of such run; (e) the name and race of the driver of said run;
(f) the number of students taken to each school on said run, 
by race.

5. State whether any sports teams or other extracurricu­
lar activity groups are participated in by students of one
race only.

i
6. Give a brief description of any present or proposed

i
construction, expansion or abandonment of facilities and state 
the dates on which notice of the school district's plans for 
such construction, expansion or abandonment of facilities was i
given to the court and parties. j

7. State whether during the current school year or 
thereafter since the school district's last report to the 
court, the school district has sold or abandoned any school 
facility-, equipment or supplies having a total value of
more than $500.00. Give the name and address of the buyer in 
each such instance.

-18-



8. if pupils in the school district are assigned to 
schools on the basis of attendance zones, in whole or in part 
furnish a map showing the attendance zones in use at the time 
the report is filed. l

-19-

l



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 30th day of April, 1971,
I served a copy of the foregoing Motion of Plaintiffs-Appellants 
to Expedite Determination of Appeals upon the following counsel 
of record via United States mail, first class postage prepaid:

Jack Petree, Esq.
900 Memphis Bank Eldg. 
Memphis, Tennessee 33103
Lee Winchester, Jr., Esq. 
100 North Main Building 
Memphis, Tennessee 33103
Craig Crenshaw, Esq.
U.S. Dep't of Justice 
Washington, T.C. 20530
S. Frank Fowler, Jr., Esq. 
Hamilton Bank Building 
Knoxville, Tennessee 31902

I

-20-