Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education Brief Amicus Curiae in Support of Respondents

    No. 84-1340

IN THE

j^uprrm r (Heart of t o  Um trf* S ta irs
October Term, 1985

Wendy Wygant, et al .,
P e t i  t i  o n e r s ,

v .

Jackson Board of Education, et al . ,
R e s p o n d e n t s .

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

BRIEF OF
NATIONAL SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION 

AS AMICUS CURIAE SUPPORTING RESPONDENTS

GWENDOLYN H. GREGORY 
C o u n se l o f  R e c o rd

Deputy General Counsel
National School Boards Association
1680 Duke Street
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
(703) 838-6712

AUGUST W. STEINHILBER 
NSBA Associate Executive Director 

and General Counsel

THOMAS A. SHANNON 
NSBA Executive Director



TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

INTEREST OF THE AMICUS CURIAE..................... 2

ISSUE PRESENTED FOR REVIEW.........................  4

ARGUMENT..........................................................  5

I .  I n t r o d u c t i o n .......................................  5

I I .  There Is No C o n s t i t u t i o n a l  
Duty t o  Grant a P r e f e r e n c e  
to  Employees on the B as is  o f
S e n i o r i t y ..............................................  7

I I I .  The Equal P r o t e c t i o n  Clause 
Does Not Require  A l l  Races 
t o  be Treated  the Same............... 18

IV. Schoo l  Boards May 
C o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y  Make R ace-  
C onsc ious  Employment D e c i s i o n s  
to  Implement a P o l i c y  th a t  a 
R a c ia l  Mix in the D i s t r i c t ' s  
F a c u l t y  i s  B e n e f i c i a l  to  the 
E ducation  o f  the Student  Body.  21

V. Schoo l  Boards Should be 
A llowed to P r o t e c t  Them­
s e l v e s  from Damage S u i ts  
under S e c t i o n  1983 by Taking 
C o r r e c t i v e  A c t io n  Without  a
Court O r d e r .........................................  34

VI. C o n c l u s i o n ............................................ 3 6



APPENDIX

APPENDIX

A— STATE STATUTORY PROVISIONS 
S p e c i f y i n g  L a y o f f  O r d e r ............  38

B— C o u n c i l  o f  Urban Boards 
o f  E d u ca t ion :  Respondents  to
Survey 46



TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES: PAGE

Board o f  Education  e t  a l  . v .  R ow ley ,
102 S .C t .  3034 ( 1 9 8 2 ) .......................................  27

C lev e la n d  Board o f  E du cat ion  v .
Lou d erm i l l  , 105 S. Ct . 1487 (1985 ) ..........  8

C o n t r a c t o r s  A s s 'n  o f  Eastern Pa. 
v .  U.S. Department o f  L a b o r ,
442 F. 2d 159 (3rd C i r .  1 9 7 1 ) ......................  30

Green v .  County Schoo l  Board,
391 U.S. 430 (1968 ) .........................................  19 ,34

L o u is ia n a  v .  United S t a t e s ,
380 U.S. 433 ( 1 9 6 5 ) ............................................ 34

M i l l i k e n  v .  B r a d le y ,
433 U. S. 167 (1977 ) ............................................  34

Swann v .  C h a r lo t te -M eck len b u rg  
Board o f  E du ca t ion ,  402 U.S . 1 
( 1 9 7 1 ) ..................................................................... 6 ,1 9 ,2 0

STATUTES:

42 U .S .C .  1983........................................................  35

42 U.S .C . 1 9 8 8 ........................................................ 35

CONSTITUTIONAL PR O VISIO N S:

Equal P r o t e c t i o n  Clause passim



OTHER AUTHORITIES:

Hendersen, E. and Long, B.
Academic E x p e c t a n c ie s  o f  
B lack  and White Teachers  
f o r  B lack and White F i r s t  G r a d e r s . 
P r o c e e d in g s  o f  the 77th Annual 
C onv ent ion  o f  the American 
P s y c h o l o g i c a l  A s s s o c i a t i o n  ,
M o n t r e a l ,  Canada 1973 Vol . 8,
6 8 7 - 6 8 8 ......................................................................... 22

Simpson, A. and E r i c k s o n ,  M.
T e a c h e r s '  Verbal  and Nonverbal 
Communication P a t te r n s  as a 
F u n c t ion  o f  Teacher R ace ,  Student  
Gender and Student  R a c e . American 
E d u ca t ion a l  Research J o u rn a l ,  1983 
(S u m . ) /  v o l .  2 0 ( 2 ) ,  183-198 23



No. 84-1340

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

October  Term, 1985

Wendy Wygant, e t  a l . ,
P e t i t i o n e r s ,

v .

Jackson  Board o f  E d u ca t ion ,  e t  a l  . ,
R e s p o n d e n t s .

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

BRIEF OF
NATIONAL SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION 

AS AMICUS CURIAE SUPPORTING RESPONDENTS

This  b r i e f  amicus cur iae  in su p p or t  o f  

Respondents  i s  subm itted  with the w r i t t e n  

c o n s e n t s  o f  c o u n s e l  to  a l l  p a r t i e s .  

L e t t e r s  o f  c o n s e n t  are on f i l e  with the

C lerk  o f  the Court



2

INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE

Amicus c u r i a e ,  N a t iona l  S ch oo l  Boards 

A s s o c i a t i o n  ( NSBA), i s  a n o n p r o f i t  

f e d e r a t i o n  o f  t h i s  n a t i o n ' s  s t a t e  s c h o o l  

b o a rd s  a s s o c i a t i o n s ,  the D i s t r i c t  o f  

Columbia s c h o o l  board and the s c h o o l  

b o a rd s  o f  the o f f s h o r e  f l a g  areas  o f  the 

United S t a t e s .  E s t a b l i s h e d  in 1940, NSBA 

i s  t h e  o n l y  m a j o r  n a t i o n a l  e d u c a t i o n a l  

o r g a n i z a t i o n  r e p r e s e n t i n g  s c h o o l  boards  

and t h e i r  m em bers .  I t s  m em b ersh ip  i s  

r e s p o n s i b l e  f o r  the e d u c a t i o n  o f  more than 

n i n e t y - f i v e  p e r c e n t  o f  t h i s  n a t i o n ' s  

p u b l i c  s c h o o l  c h i l d r e n .

The i n d i v i d u a l s  who compose t h i s  

n a t i o n ' s  s c h o o l  b oa rd s  are  e l e c t e d  or 

app o in ted  community r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s ,  most 

o f  whom are not p r o f e s s i o n a l  e d u c a t o r s . 

They are  r e s p o n s i b l e  under s t a t e  law f o r



3

the f i s c a l  management, s t a f f i n g ,  

c o n t i n u i t y ,  and e d u c a t i o n a l  p r o d u c t i v i t y  

o f  the p u b l i c  s c h o o l s  w i th in  t h e i r  

j u r i s d i c t i o n s .  NSBA submits  t h i s  b r i e f  in 

the b e l i e f  th a t  the most e f f e c t i v e  manner 

o f  a s s u r in g  an equa l  e d u c a t i o n a l  

o p p o r t u n i t y  f o r  a l l  s c h o o l  c h i l d r e n  i s  

through v o l u n t a r y  com p l ia n ce  by s c h o o l  

b oa rds  and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s  with

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  and s t a t u t o r y  c i v i l  r i g h t s  

m andates .

I f  t h i s  Court r e q u i r e s  s c h o o l  boards  

to  wait  f o r  a c o u r t  to  o r d e r  com pliance  

with c i v i l  r i g h t s  la w s ,  r a t h e r  than 

a l lo w in g  boards  to  take the i n i t i a t i v e  on 

t h e i r  own, such a d e c i s i o n  c o u ld  th re a te n  

the a b i l i t y  o f  the n a t i o n ' s  p u b l i c  s c h o o l  

boards  t o  ensure  th a t  s c h o o l  systems are  

o p e r a te d  in a n o n d is c r  im inatory  manner and 

in a c l im a t e  o f  c o o p e r a t i o n ,  no t  c o e r c i o n .



4

ISSU E PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

P e t i t i o n e r s  frame the i s s u e  p resen ted

f o r  re v ie w  as f o l l o w s :

Does the C o n s t i t u t i o n  perm it  a p u b l i c  
employer  to  adopt  r a c i a l  p r e f e r e n c e s  
f o r  s c h o o l  t e a ch e r  l a y o f f s  in the 
absence  o f  j u d i c i a l  or  a d m in i s t r a t iv e  
f i n d i n g s  o f  past  d i s c r i m i n a t i o n  in 
employment or  e d u c a t i o n  based s o l e l y  
upon d i f f e r e n c e s  between the 
r e s p e c t i v e  p e r c e n t a g e s  o f  m i n o r i t y  
t e a c h e r s  and s tu d e n ts ?

Amicus r e s p e c t f u l l y  submits  th a t  the

i s s u e  i s  m i s s t a t e d .  The low er  c o u r t

e x p l i c i t l y  r e fu s e d  t o  r u l e  on the q u e s t i o n

o f  whether the D i s t r i c t  Court  was c o r r e c t

in u t i l i z i n g  the m i n o r i t y  s tu d en t  r a t i o  to

determ in e  u n d e r r e p r e s e n t a t i o n  o f  t e a c h e r s ,

s t a t i n g  "n o  s u c h  i s s u e  was p r e s e n t e d . "

746 F .2d  1152, 1156 f o o t n o t e  1 .  The is su e

d e c id e d  b e lo w ,  and the i s s u e  which Amicus

w i l l  a dd ress  in i t s  b r i e f  i s :

Whether the C o n s t i t u t i o n  p erm its  a 
p u b l i c  employer to  e n t e r  in to  a 
c o l l e c t i v e  b a r g a in in g  agreement which ,



5

in the e v e n t  the d i s t r i c t  f i n d s  i t  
n e c e s s a r y  t o  l a y  o f f  t e a c h e r s , 
r e q u i r e s  the d i s t r i c t  to  m ainta in  the 
same m a j o r i t y - m i n o r i t y  r a t i o  as 
e x i s t e d  at the time o f  the l a y o f f s .

Amicus submits  th a t  the i s s u e  o f  the

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y  o f  a s tandard used f o r

h i r i n g  o f  t e a c h e r s ,  w h ich  co m p a r e s  the

s tu d en t  m i n o r i t y - m a j o r i t y  r a t i o  with the

te a c h e r  r a t i o ,  i s  a s e p a ra te  i s s u e  from

the one which i s  p re se n te d  to  the Court  in

t h i s  c a s e .  The P e t i t i o n e r s  d id  not plead

nor d id  the lower  c o u r t  d e c i d e  the issue

o f  d i  s c r  im.inat ion  in h i r i n g .  The s o l e

issu e  f o r  r e s o l u t i o n  here i s  whether the

l a y o f f  p r o v i s i o n  in the c o n t r a c t  i s

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  .

ARGUMENT

I .  INTRODUCTION

Amicus a grees  f u l l y  with the 

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  arguments made by 

Respondents and i n c o r p o r a t e s  by r e f e r e n c e  

the arguments se t  f o r t h  in the b r i e f  f i l e d



6

h e r e in  by R espon den ts .  Because the

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  i s s u e s  are f u l l y  b r i e f e d  by 

R espon den ts ,  Amicus w i l l  a dd ress  the 

b ro a d e r  p o l i c y  q u e s t i o n s  p resen ted  by t h i s  

case  .

P e t i t i o n e r s  argue f o r  a r u l e  that

would p r o h i b i t  s c h o o l  b o a r d s ,  in absence

o f  a c o u r t  o r d e r ,  from tak ing  ra ce  in to

a c co u n t  a t  a l l  in making d e c i s i o n s

re g a r d in g  em p loy ees .  Such a r u l e  would go

beyond the req u ir e m e n ts  o f  the

C o n s t i t u t i o n  and, e q u a l l y  im p o r ta n t ,  would

be poor  e d u c a t i o n a l  and p u b l i c  p o l i c y .  As

s t a t e d  by C h i e f  J u s t i c e  B u rg er  in the

landmark c a s e  o f  Swann_______v .

C h a r lo t te -M eck len b u rq  Board o f  E d u c a t i o n ,

402 U.S. 1, 16 (1971 ) :

"S ch o o l  a u t h o r i t i e s  are  t r a d i t i o n a l l y  
charged  with  broad power to  form ulate  
and implement e d u c a t i o n a l  p o l i c y  and 
might  w e l l  c o n c l u d e ,  f o r  example, that  
in o r d e r  to  p repa re  s tu d e n ts  t o  l i v e  
in a p l u r a l i s t i c  s o c i e t y  each s c h o o l



7

shou ld  have a p r e s c r i b e d  r a t i o  o f  
Negro to  white s tu d e n t s  r e f l e c t i n g  the 
p r o p o r t i o n  f o r  the d i s t r i c t  as a 
w hole .  To do t h i s  as an e d u c a t i o n a l  
p o l i c y  i s  w ith in  the broad 
d i s c r e t i o n a r y  powers o f  s c h o o l  
a u t h o r i t i e s ;  a b se n t  a f i n d i n g  o f  a 
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  v i o l a t i o n ,  however ,  
th a t  would not be w i th in  the a u t h o r i t y  
o f  a f e d e r a l  c o u r t . "

In absence  o f  c l e a r  c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  

p r o s c r i p t i o n  to the c o n t r a r y ,  s c h o o l  

boards  should  con t in u e  to  have the 

a u t h o r i t y  t o  use w h a t e v e r  m eth od s  t h e y  

deem a p p r o p r ia t e  to  maximize the b e n e f i t s  

o f  the e d u c a t i o n a l  system f o r  the s tu d en ts  

in the d i s t r i c t .

I I .  THERE IS  NO CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO
GRANT A PREFERENCE TO EMPLOYEES ON THE 
B A S IS  OF SE N IO R IT Y .

The b r i e f  f i l e d  h ere in  by P e t i t i o n e r s ,  

as w e l l  as the b r i e f s  o f  amic i  who support  

the P e t i t i o n e r s '  p o s i t i o n ,  imply t h a t  the 

c o n c e p t  o f  s e n i o r i t y  i s  s a c r o s a n c t  and 

endows the s e n i o r  employee with some kind 

o f  s p e c i a l  c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  r i g h t .  That, o f



8

c o u r s e ,  i s  not the c a s e .

S e n i o r i t y  i s  n o t  a c o n c e p t  e t c h e d  in 

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  s t o n e ,  so  hea v y  t h a t  i t  

ou tw eigh s  o t h e r  c o n s i d e r a t i o n s  t h a t  may 

v a l i d l y  e n t e r  l a y o f f  d e t e r m i n a t i o n s .  

C e r t a i n l y ,  the Court  has r e c o g n i z e d  that  

p u b l i c  employment c o n t r a c t s  may c r e a t e  a 

p r o p e r t y  i n t e r e s t  m e r i t in g  due p r o c e s s  

p r o t e c t i o n s .  S e e , e .g . , C leve land  Board 

o f  E du cat ion  v .  L o u d e r m i l l , 105 S . C t . 1487 

(1 9 8 5 ) .  However, the C o n s t i t u t i o n  in no 

way awards in c rem en ta l  d e g r e e s  o f  

p r o t e c t i o n  based s o l e l y  on the number o f  

y ea rs  an employee has he ld  a p a r t i c u l a r  

p o s i t i o n .  A lthough re d u c in g  the f a c u l t y  

in o r d e r  o f  s e n i o r i t y  may be more 

o b j e c t i v e  than o t h e r  l a y o f f  c r i t e r i a ,  the 

r e l a t i v e  o b j e c t i v i t y  shou ld  not be 

c o n fu s e d  with  i s s u e s  o f  c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y .

P re se r v in g  s e n i o r i t y  r i g h t s  o f  p u b l i c



9

employees  dur ing  a r e d u c t i o n  in f o r c e  can 

be su p p or ted  on s e v e r a l  g rou n ds .  However, 

such a g o a l  shou ld  not be a l low ed  to  r i s e  

to  the l e v e l  o f  a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  b a r r i e r  

p re v e n t in g  a p u b l i c  employer from 

v o l u n t a r i l y  e n t e r in g  in t o  a c o l l e c t i v e  

b a rg a in in g  agreement th a t  r e c o g n i z e s  the 

need to  accord  s p e c i a l  treatm ent  to  

m i n o r i t y  p e r s o n n e l  so  t h a t  p a s t  r a c i a l  

i m b a l a n c e s  in s t a f f  c o m p o s i t i o n  do n o t  

once  again become p r e s e n t  r e a l i t y .

S ta te  s t a t u t e s  in l a r g e  part  

acknowledge that  s c h o o l  boards  should  

r e t a i n  d i s c r e t i o n  in making l a y o f f  

d e t e r m in a t i o n s  and do not c r e a t e  

e n t i t l e m e n t  to  s e n i o r i t y  r i g h t s .

Am i c  us has a t t a c h e d  a t  A p p e n d ix  A a 

s t a t e - b y - s t a t e  a n a l y s i s  o f  s t a t u t o r y  

p r o v i s i o n s  r e l a t i n g  to  r e d u c t i o n s  in 

f o r c e .  F or ty -on e  s t a t e s  have - s t a t u t o r y



10

p r o v i s i o n s  which a u t h o r i z e  s c h o o l  

d i s t r i c t s  t o  employ r e d u c t i o n s  in f o r c e  

f o r  a v a r i e t y  o f  s p e c i f i e d  r e a s o n s ,  such 

as d e c r e a s e d  e n r o l l m e n t ,  r e o r g a n i z a t i o n ,  

f i s c a l  l i m i t a t i o n s  or  the e l i m i n a t i o n  o f  a 

p rog ra m  o r  p o s i t i o n .  Of the  s t a t u t e s  

which a u t h o r i z e  r e d u c t i o n s  in f o r c e ,  

n i n e t e e n  d o  n o t  s t a t u t o r i l y  im pose  the 

o r d e r  o f  d i s m i s s a l  or  su s p e n s io n  when a 

r e d u c t i o n  o f  p e r s o n n e l  becomes n e c e s s a r y .  

The absence  o f  r e s t r i c t i o n s  in t h i s  regard  

c l e a r l y  s u g g e s t s  t h a t  these  s t a t e  

l e g i s l a t u r e s  have l e f t  l a y o f f  d e c i s i o n s  to  

the d i s c r e t i o n  o f  the l o c a l  school boards.

The tw enty - tw o  s t a t e s  th a t  do s p e c i f y  

a p a r t i c u l a r  l a y o f f  scheme t h a t  s c h o o l  

b oa rd s  must f o l l o w  in red u c in g  t h e i r  

f a c u l t i e s  v a ry  in  the d eg r e e  o f  s t a t u t o r y  

c o n t r o l  t h e y  e x e r t .  Only  s e v e n  s t a t e s  

p r o v id e  th a t  t e a c h e r s  must be l a i d  o f f  in



11

r e v e r s e  o rd e r  o f  s e n i o r i t y ,  w ithou t  

i n d i c a t i n g  any p o s s i b i l i t y  o f  v a r i a n c e .  

(Two o f  t h e s e  s t a t e s  i n c l u d e  in t h e i r  

l a y o f f  scheme a p r o v i s i o n  c a l l i n g  f o r  

nontenured t e a c h e r s  t o  be d i sm isse d  

f i r s t ) .  Three o t h e r  s t a t e s  r e q u i r e  s c h o o l  

d i s t r i c t s  t o  f o l l o w  a n o n t e n u r e d  f i r s t  

r u l e  in la y in g  o f f  t e a c h e r s ,  w i th o u t  o t h e r  

r e s t r  i c t i o n  .

I t  shou ld  be noted  that  the i m p o s i t i o n  

o f  a nontenured f i r s t  r u l e  d oes  not 

r e s t r i c t  the s c h o o l  d i s t r i c t ' s  d i s c r e t i o n  

in d e te rm in in g  which nontenured t e a c h e r s  

s h o u l d  be d i s m i s s e d  in the  e v e n t  o f  a 

r e d u c t i o n  in s t a f f  l e v e l s  and, once  a l l  

nontenured t e a c h e r s  are  d i s m i s s e d ,  t h e r e  

i s  no r e s t r i c t i o n  as  t o  w h ich  t e n u r e d  

t e a c h e r s  should  be d is m is s e d  f i r s t .  In 

f a c t  one s t a t e ,  C o n n e c t i c u t ,  p r o v id e s  that  

tenured  p erson n e l  be d i sm isse d  a c c o r d in g



12

to  the terms o f  the c o l l e c t i v e  b a r g a i n in g  

agreement n e g o t i a t e d  between the d i s t r i c t  

and the t e a c h e r s '  u n ion .

A l l  o f  the remaining tw e lv e  s t a t e s  o f  

the  t w e n t y  two s p e c i f y i n g  a p a r t i c u l a r  

l a y o f f  system , a l l o w  the l o c a l  s c h o o l  

d i s t r i c t  t o  m o d i f y  o r  d e v i a t e  from the  

s t a t u t o r i l y  mandated l a y o f f  p lan under 

c e r t a i n  c i r c u m s t a n c e s  or  o t h e r w is e  a l l o w  

the d i s t r i c t s  t o  c o n t r o l  the l a y o f f  

p o l i c y .

Six  s t a t e s  p r o v id e  in v ers e  s e n i o r i t y  

as  t h e  g e n e r a l  o r d e r  in w h ich  l a y o f f s  

shou ld  be made (one  i n c lu d e s  a nontenured 

f i r s t  r u l e  as w e l l )  but  s p e c i f i c a l l y  l i s t  

i n s t a n c e s  where s c h o o l  d i s t r i c t s  may 

d i v e r g e  from t h i s  p a t t e r n  in  o r d e r  t o  

s a t i s f y  s p e c i a l  cu r r icu lu m  n eed s ,  equal  

p r o t e c t i o n  c o n s i d e r a t i o n s ,  c o l l e c t i v e  

b a r g a in in g  terms o r  a f f i r m a t i v e  a c t i o n



13

c o n t r a c t  p u rp oses .

Two s t a t e s ,  F l o r i d a  and Maine, 

e x p l i c i t l y  r e q u i r e  th a t  l a y o f f  o f  t e a ch e rs  

be c o n t r o l l e d  by the terms o f  a c o l l e c t i v e  

b a r g a in in g  agreement .  M aine 's  s t a t u t e  

a l s o  c o n t a i n s  a p r o s c r i p t i o n  a g a in s t  the 

use o f  s e n i o r i t y  as the s o l e  c r i t e r i o n  f o r  

l a y o f f .  Oregon p r o v i d e s  t h a t  l a y o f f

d e c i s i o n s  be made on the b a s i s  o f  

a f f i r m a t i v e  a c t i o n  needs ,  s e n i o r i t y  and 

m e r i t .  The i n t e r e s t s  o f  the s c h o o l  system 

c o n t r o l  the  o r d e r  in w h ich  t e a c h e r s  in  

L o u is ia n c e  may be d is m is s e d  f o r  r e d u c t i o n  

in f o r c e  p u r p o s e s .  F i n a l l y ,  one

l e g i s l a t u r e  s im ply  r e q u i r e s  each s c h o o l  

board to  e s t a b l i s h  a w r i t t e n  l a y o f f  

p o l i c y  .

C l e a r l y ,  the s t a t e s  overw h e lm ing ly  

p r e f e r  g i v i n g  l o c a l  s c h o o l  d i s t r i c t s  

e i t h e r  t o t a l  o r  p a r t i a l  c o n t r o l  over



14

l a y o f f  d e t e r m in a t i o n s  r a t h e r  than 

r e s t r i c t i n g  the  o r d e r  o f  s u s p e n s i o n  o r  

d i s m i s s a l  to  in v e r s e  s e n i o r i t y .  As noted 

a b o v e ,  o n l y  seven  o f  the f i f t y  s t a t e s  and 

D i s t r i c t  o f  Columbia b ind  s c h o o l  d i s t r i c t s  

t o  in v e rs e  s e n i o r i t y  l a y o f f  schemes 

w i t h o u t  p e r m i t t i n g  any v a r i a n c e .  Even 

adding the o t h e r  th ree  s t a t e s  which 

r e q u i r e  s t r i c t  adherence  to  a nontenured 

f i r s t  r u l e  to  t h i s  f i g u r e  d oes  no t  change 

the  c o n c l u s i o n  th a t  the  v a s t  m a j o r i t y  o f  

s t a t e  l e g i s l a t u r e s  have not  made s e n i o r i t y  

in p u b l i c  employment in t o  a s t a t u t o r y  

bulwark im perv ious  t o  the r e a l  need f o r  

d i s c r e t i o n  on the p a r t  o f  s c h o o l  boards  to  

in c lu d e  r a c e  as a f a c t o r  in making l a y o f f  

d e c i s i o n s .

NSBA conducted  a s u r v e y ,  f o r  the 

purpose  o f  the su b m iss io n  o f  t h i s  b r i e f ,  

o f  the membership o f  i t s  C ounc i l  o f  Urban



15

Boards o f  Education  to  e l i c i t  v iew s  as t o  

the  e f f e c t  w h ich  r e v e r s a l  o f  t h e  l o w e r  

c o u r t  d e c i s i o n  would have on a f f i r m a t i v e  

a c t i o n  e f f o r t s  in the l a r g e s t  s c h o o l  

d i s t r i c t s  in the co u n tr y  and to  determ ine  

what c r i t e r i a  the  b o a r d s  use in making 

d e c i s i o n s  on l a y o f f s .

The Counci l  o f  Urban Boards o f  

Education  was e s t a b l i s h e d  by NSBA in 1967 

t o  a d d r e s s  the  u n iq u e  n e e d s  o f  s c h o o l  

board  members s e rv in g  the l a r g e s t  c i t i e s  

o f  the United S t a t e s .  I t s  membership i s  

composed o f  s c h o o l  boards  in communit ies 

with a c o r e - c i t y  p o p u l a t i o n  o f  l e a s t  

100 ,000  p e r s o n s .

A pp rox im ate ly  60% o f  the membership o f  

the C ou n c i l  o f  Urban Boards responded  to 

the NSBA s u r v e y .  The names and e n r o l lm e n t  

o f  the d i s t r i c t s  which responded are 

l i s t e d  in Appendix B. Those survey



16

r e s p o n d e n t s  are  r e s p o n s i b l e  f o r  the 

e d u c a t i o n  o f  5 ,1 8 8 ,0 2 5  c h i l d r e n ,  which 

c o n s t i t u t e s  o v e r  13% o f  the t o t a l  s tu d en t  

e n r o l lm e n t  in e lem en ta ry  and se con d a ry  

s c h o o l s  in the n a t io n  and o v e r  50% o f  the 

m i n o r i t y  s tu d en t  e n r o l l m e n t .  Thus, the 

impact  o f  the p o l i c i e s  and p r a c t i c e s  o f  

th ese  d i s t r i c t s  on the e d u c a t i o n  o f  the 

n a t i o n ' s  c h i l d r e n  i s  s i g n i f i c a n t .

Over t w o - t h i r d s  o f  the r e s p o n d e n ts  t o  

the su rv ey  have adopted  v o l u n t a r y  

a f f i r m a t i v e  a c t i o n  p l a n s .  F o r ty -o n e  o f  

the d i s t r i c t s  are p a r t i e s  to  c o l l e c t i v e  

b a r g a i n i n g  a g r e e m e n t s ,  o u t  o f  w h ich  18 

have a f f i r m a t i v e  a c t i o n  p r o v i s i o n s .  

T h i r t y - s e v e n  d i s t r i c t s  have p r o v i s i o n s  

r e l a t i n g  t o  r e d u c t i o n s  in f o r c e  in t h e i r  

a f f i r m a t i v e  a c t i o n  p l a n ,  t h e i r  c o l l e c t i v e  

b a r g a i n i n g  c o n t r a c t  o r  a b o a r d  p o l i c y .  

Twelve o f  the d i s t r i c t s  have p r o v i s i o n s  in



17

t h e i r  p la n s  o r  c o n t r a c t s  which t r e a t  

m i n o r i t i e s  d i f f e r e n t l y  f o r  l a y o f f  

p u r p o s e s .  Fourteen o t h e r  d i s t r i c t s  t r e a t  

m i n o r i t i e s  d i f f e r e n t l y  f o r  the purpose o f  

p r o m o t i o n  o r  t r a n s f e r .  Four d i s t r i c t s  

t r e a t  o t h e r  groups o f  em ployees  

d i f f e r e n t l y  f o r  the purpose  o f  l a y o f f ,  two 

exempt mathematics and s c i e n c e  t e a c h e r s  

from l a y o f f  and one exempts the head coach  

as w e l l  as r e q u i r i n g  th a t  the 

m i n o r i t y - m a j o r i t y  r a t i o  be m a in ta in e d .

With r e f e r e n c e  to  the head coach 

ex em p t ion ,  one wonders about  the s t a t e  o f  

the law i f  a s c h o o l  board may take 

a f f i r m a t i v e  a c t i o n  to  assure  that  the head 

c o a c h  i s  n o t  l a i d  o f f  b u t  may n o t  take  

a c t i o n  to  assure  th a t  an in o r d in a t e  number 

o f  m i n o r i t y  f a c u l t y  members are  not  l a i d

o f  f  .



18

I I I .  THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE DOES NOT 
REQUIRE ALL RACES TO BE TREATED THE 
SAME.

A l t h o u g h  a c o u r t  m ig h t  n o t  have  the  

a u t h o r i t y  to  r e q u i r e  the s c h o o l  board to 

a s s u r e  th a t  the p r o p o r t i o n  o f  m i n o r i t y  to

maj o r  i t y t e a c h e r s i s m a i n t a i n e d , the

s c h o o l  b o a r d  d o e s and s h o u l d  have the

a u t h o r i t y to  v o l u n t a r i l y agree with i t s

t e a c h e r s ' un ion to m ainta in that

p r o p o r t  ion .

The c o n c e p t  o f  e q u a l i t y  d oes  not  

n e c e s s a r i l y  mean t r e a t i n g  p eop le  the same. 

I t  i s  n a iv e  to b e l i e v e  th a t  e q u a l i t y  can 

be promoted w i th o u t  taking  a c co u n t  o f  

r a c e .  A l l  t h in g s  be ing  e q u a l ,  a " c o l o r  

b l i n d "  system may be the b e s t  system . But 

a l l  t h i n g s  a r e  n o t  e q u a l  in a s c h o o l  

system where t r e a t i n g  a l l  employees  the 

same in a l a y o f f  s i t u a t i o n  would r e s u l t  in 

the d i s m i s s a l  o f  a l l  o r  most  o f  the



19

m i n o r i t y  em ployees .  Swann_____ v .

C h a r lo t te -M eck len b u rg  Board o f  E d u c a t i o n , 

402 U.S. 1, 28 (1971 ) .

U n f o r t u n a t e l y  t h i s  c o u n t r y  i s  s t i l l  

s u f f e r i n g  the r e s u l t s  o f  m ass ive  

d i s c r i m i n a t i o n  a g a in s t  m i n o r i t i e s  and i t  

w i l l  take more than c o u r t  o r d e r s  to  remove 

th ose  e f f e c t s .  P u b l i c  and p r i v a t e

em ployers  a l i k e  must take v o lu n t a r y  

a f f i r m a t i v e  e f f o r t s  to  e r a d i c a t e  

d i s c r i m i n a t i o n  from s o c i e t y ,  " r o o t  and 

b ra n ch . "  Green v .  County Schoo l  B o a r d , 

391 U.S. 430 (1 9 6 8 ) .  There i s  no way that  

th ose  e f f o r t s  w i l l  be e f f e c t i v e  i f  

em ployers  are r e q u i r e d  t o  be " c o l o r  

b l i n d  ."

T h is  C o u r t  has n o t e d  t h a t  t e a c h e r s  

shou ld  be a ss ig n ed  to  s c h o o l s  in a manner 

t h a t  a v o id s  c r e a t i n g  the p e r c e p t i o n  that  a 

s c h o o l  i s  f o r  w h ites  o n l y  or  f o r  b la c k s



20

o n l y .  Swann v .  C h a r lo t te -M e ck le n b u rq  

Board o f  E d u c a t i o n , 402 U.S . 1 ,  18 ( 1 9 7 1 ) .  

S i m i l a r l y ,  in the in s t a n t  case  what 

p e r c e p t i o n  would have been c r e a t e d  i f  the 

P e t i t i o n e r s '  idea  o f  " e q u a l i t y "  had been 

put in t o  p l a c e  and t e a c h e r s  were d is m is s e d  

on the b a s i s  o f  s e n i o r i t y ?  I t  d o e s  not 

r e q u i r e  a study t o  re a ch  the c o n c l u s i o n  

th a t  d i s m i s s i n g  most  o f  the b la c k  t e a c h e r s  

in  the  d i s t r i c t  wou ld  have  a n e g a t i v e  

impact on b la c k  s t u d e n t s .

Am icus  en d o rse s  the d i s c u s s i o n  in 

R e s p o n d e n t ' s  b r i e f  r e l a t i n g  to  the 

q u e s t i o n  o f  whether a l l  d i s t i n c t i o n s  based 

on r a c e  a r e  " s u s p e c t "  under  the  Equal 

P r o t e c t i o n  C l a u s e .  I t  may be  t r u e ,  as  

noted in the b r i e f  o f  P e t i t i o n e r s ,  that  

any d i s t i n c t i o n  based on ra ce  might cause 

a c e r t a i n  amount o f  s t r i f e .  However, th a t  

i s  no t  a re a so n  to  e l e v a t e  a l l  such



21

c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s  t o  a l e v e l  a b o v e  o t h e r  

ty pes  o f  d i s t i n c t i o n s .  One wonders i f  an 

a r t  t e a c h e r  would  n o t  be as u p s e t  o v e r  

be ing  l a i d  o f f  in f a v o r  o f  a head coach  

w i t h  l e s s  s e n i o r i t y  than would  a w h i te  

t e a c h e r  in the same s i t u a t i o n  with a b la c k  

t e a c h e r .  L a y o f f s  c a u s e  c o n t r o v e r s y  in 

whatever form they are  made.

I V .  SCHOOL BOARDS MAY CONSTITUTIONALLY  
MAKE RACE-CONSCIOUS EMPLOYMENT 
DECISIONS TO IMPLEMENT A POLICY THAT A 
RACIAL M IX IN  THE D IS T R IC T 'S  FACULTY 
I S  BEN EFICIAL TO THE EDUCATION OF THE 
STUDENT BODY.

P e t i t i o n e r s  d i s a g r e e  with the Jackson 

Board o f  E d u c a t i o n ' s  r a t i o n a l e  in 

a t tem p tin g  to  assure  that  the 

m i n o r i t y - m a j o r i t y  r a t i o  o f  t e a c h e r s  i s  not  

a l t e r e d  by the l a y o f f s .  P e t i t i o n e r s  argue 

t h a t  t h e r e  i s  no e v i d e n c e  to  show t h a t  

having b la ck  " r o l e  m odels "  i s  n e c e s s a r i l y  

b e n e f i c i a l  to  a b la c k  s t u d e n t ' s  a b i l i t y  to



22

l e a r n .

P s y c h o l o g i c a l  s t u d i e s  have shown that  

r a c e  and e t h n i c i t y  are important f a c t o r s  

in b o th  the s t u d e n t - t e a c h e r  r e l a t i o n s h i p  

and the  l e a r n in g  p r o c e s s .  For example,  

r e s e a r c h  has shown that  b l a c k  and white 

t e a c h e r s  have markedly  d i f f e r e n t  academic 

e x p e c t a t i o n s  f o r  t h e i r  s t u d e n t s ,  c l e a r l y  

f a v o r in g  s tu d e n t s  o f  t h e i r  own ra ce  when 

q u e s t i o n e d  as t o  which w i l l  a c h ie v e  

c e r t a i n  e d u c a t i o n a l  g o a l s .  Hendersen, E. 

and Long, B. Academic E x p e c t a n c ie s  o f  

B la c k  and White  T e a c h e r s  f o r  B la c k  and 

White F i r s t  G r a d e r s . P r o c e e d in g s  o f  the 

7 7 th  Annual  C o n v e n t i o n  o f  the A m er ica n  

P s y c h o l o g i c a l  A sssoc  i a t i o n , M on trea l ,  

Canada 1973 V o l . 8, 6 8 7 -6 8 8 .

S t u d ie s  have a l s o  shown that  t e a c h e r s  

d i r e c t  d i f f e r e n t  amounts and forms o f  

p r a i s e  and c r i t i c i s m  towards s tu d e n t s  o f



23

d i f f e r e n t  r a c e s .  Simpson, A. and

E r i c k s o n ,  M. T ea ch ers '  V erba l  and 

Nonverbal Communication P a t te r n s  as a 

F u n ct ion  o f  Teacher Race ,  Student Gender 

and Student R a c e . American E du ca t ion a l  

Research J o u rn a l ,  1983 (Sum .) ,  v o l .  2 0 ( 2 ) ,  

183-198.

The m a j o r i t y  o f  t h e  r e s p o n d e n t s  to  

NSBA's s u r v e y  o f  i t s  C o u n c i l  o f  Urban 

Boards o f  Education  s t a t e d  t h e i r  b e l i e f  

th a t  a f f i r m a t i v e  a c t i o n  in employment i s  

an important  t o o l  in the e d u c a t i o n  o f  a l l  

c h i l d r e n ,  both  b la c k  and w h i te ,  and s c h o o l  

boards  should  have as wide d i s c r e t i o n  as 

p o s s i b l e  in d e v e l o p in g  v o lu n t a r y  p la n s .  

Some op ined  th a t  i t  i s  p a r t i c u l a r l y  

im portant  to  a l l o w  such p r o v i s i o n s  in 

c o l l e c t i v e  b a rg a in in g  agreem ents .

F o l low in g  are some examples o f  p o l i c y  

s ta tem en ts  on the s u b j e c t  o f  r o l e  models



24

and a f f i r m a t i v e  a c t i o n  which are  c o n t a in e d  

in a f f i r m a t i v e  a c t i o n  p la n s  subm itted  as a 

p a r t  o f  the NSBA s u r v e y :

• [1 31 has been r e c o g n i z e d  by 
most  e d u c a t o r s  w i t h in  our 
p l u r a l i s t i c  s o c i e t y ,  t h a t  s c h o o l  
d i s t r i c t s  have an o b l i g a t i o n  to  
promote c u l t u r a l ,  r a c i a l ,  and 
human understanding  w ith in  the 
communit ies  they  s e r v e .  An 
e f f e c t i v e  method f o r  t h i s  
d i s t r i c t  o f  a c h ie v in g  t h i s  
o b j e c t i v e  i s  to  p r o v id e  s tu d e n ts  
with a d i s t r i c t  s t a f f  t h a t  i s  
r e f l e c t i v e  o f  b o th  s e x e s ,  as w e l l  
as m u l t i - e t h n i c  and c u l t u r a l  
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  o f  s o c i e t y .

• To p r o v id e  in -d e p th  
e d u c a t i o n ,  the s c h o o l s  need to  
p r o v id e  in the l e a r n in g  
environment an o p p o r t u n i t y  f o r  
c h i l d r e n  to  e x p e r i e n c e  h i g h l y  
q u a l i f i e d  r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s  o f  a l l  
e t h n i c  groups and c u l t u r e s  as 
p a r t  o f  t h e i r  e d u c a t io n  s in c e  
th ey  need to  l e a r n  to  f u n c t i o n  in 
a p l u r a l i s t i c  w o r ld .

• America i s  a land o f  
d i v e r s i t y  whose q u a l i t y  o f  
c h a r a c t e r  s p r in g s  from the 
c r e a t i v i t y ,  the t o i l ,  the 
i n t e l l i g e n c e  and the s t r u g g l e s  o f  
i n d i v i d u a l s  o f  a l l  r a c e s  and 
c u l t u r e s .  I t  i s  im p o r ta n t ,  
t h e r e f o r e ,  th a t  a l l  s tudents



25

understand and a p p r e c i a t e  that  
t h e i r  world  i s  b u i l t  by the hands 
and minds o f  p e o p le  who are from 
many n a t i o n a l ,  r e l i g i o u s ,  e t h n i c  
and c u l t u r a l  b a ckgrou nds .  This 
understanding  and a p p r e c i a t i o n  i s  
enhanced when s tu d e n t s  see 
members o f  t h e i r  own e t h n i c  
groups in r o l e s  o f  i n s p i r a t i o n a l  
l e a d e r s h i p .

• [S]ome o f  our c h i l d r e n  are
handicapped by be ing  sep a ra ted  
r e s i d e n t i a l l y  and s o c i a l l y  from 
the m a j o r i t y  o f  the community 's  
p o p u l a t i o n  by rea son  o f  t h e i r  
e t h n i c  and economic background.

[ T ] h i s  s e p a r a t i o n . . . i s  
r o o t e d  in ca u ses  which are fa r  
beyond the power o f  the s c h o o l s  
a lone  to  c o r r e c t  or  e l i m i n a t e ;  
the c o o p e r a t i v e  e f f o r t s  o f  a l l  
segments o f  the p o p u la t i o n  and 
i t s  a g e n c i e s ,  p u b l i c  and p r i v a t e ,  
are r e q u i r e d .

[T]he p u b l i c  s c h o o l s ,  how­
e v e r ,  have the r e s p o n s i b l i l i t y  t o  
make e v e r y  p o s s i b l e  e f f o r t  con ­
s i s t e n t  with t h e i r  e d u c a t i o n a l  
r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s  to  minimize the 
e f f e c t  o f  t h i s  s e p a r a t i o n  among 
p u p i l s .  In t h i s  we are  c o g n iz a n t  
bo th  o f  the handicap imposed on 
the c h i l d  s u b je c t e d  to  separa ­
t i o n ,  and the f a c t  that  p u p i l  
g ro u p in g s  r e p r e s e n t a t i v e  o f  a 
broad c r o s s - s e c t i o n  o f  a l l  
e lem ents  in the community i s  a 
d e s i r a b l e  e d u c a t i o n a l  environment 
f o r  a l l  p u p i l s  i n v o l v e d .



26

• The m i n o r i t y  s tu d en t
a t te n d in g  a s c h o o l  with a 
r e l a t i v e l y  high p e r ce n t a g e  o f  
m i n o r i t y  s t u d e n t s  [ sh ou ld  have] 
a v a i l a b l e  to  him the p o s i t i v e  
image p rov id ed  by a m i n o r i t y  
t e a c h e r , c o u n s e l o r  and 
a d m i n i s t r a t o r .

M in o r i t y  s t u d e n t s  shou ld  be 
p ro v id e d  w ith  employees  o f  t h e i r  
own r a c e  whom they can r e c o g n i z e  
as examples o f  o c c u p a t i o n a l  
a ch iev em en t .  The c h i l d  from the 
m a j o r i t y  group  should  have 
p o s i t i v e  e x p e r i e n c e s  with 
m i n o r i t y  p e o p le  which can be 
p r o v i d e d ,  in p a r t ,  by having 
m i n o r i t y  t e a c h e r s ,  c o u n s e l o r s  and 
a d m i n i s t r a t o r s  where the e n r o l l ­
ment i s  l a r g e l y  made up o f  
m a j o r i t y  group  s t u d e n t s .
M a jo r i t y  s tu d e n ts  should  be g iv e n  
an o p p o r t u n i t y  t o  be i n s t r u c t e d  
b y ,  and r e l a t e  t o ,  members o f  
m i n o r i t y  r a c e s  in o r d e r  to  
a l l e v i a t e  r a c i a l  i s o l a t i o n .

There  i s  a c o n t in u in g  argument among 

e d u c a t o r s  as to  what makes c h i l d r e n  l e a r n .

And, e d u c a t i o n  be ing  more an a r t  than a

sc ien ce  , the d ebate w i l l c o n t i n u e .

However , whatever  m e r i t th e re  i s in e i t h e r

s id e  o f the argument as to whe ther



27

c h i l d r e n  l e a r n  b e t t e r  w ith  a r a c i a l l y  

mixed f a c u l t y ,  t h a t  argument should  not  be 

fou g h t  in the c o u r t s .

As t h i s  Court has c a u t io n e d  on s e v e r a l  

o c c a s i o n s ,  " c o u r t s  l a c k  the ' s p e c i a l i z e d  

knowledge and e x p e r i e n c e  n e c e s s a r y  to  

r e s o l v e  p e r s i s t e n t  and d i f f i c u l t  q u e s t i o n s  

o f  e d u c a t i o n a l  p o l i c y '  Board o f

Education  e t  a l . v .  R ow ley , 102 S .C t .  3034 

(1982 ) .

The i s s u e  h e r e  i s  n o t  w h eth er  the 

s c h o o l  board was c o r r e c t  in i t s

e d u c a t i o n a l  judgment th a t  the s tu d en ts  

w i l l  be b e t t e r  served  with a m ix tu re  o f  

r a c e s  on the  f a c u l t y .  That  i s  n o t  an 

i s s u e  which c o u r t s  should  attem pt to 

r e s o l v e .  The i s s u e  f o r  the  c o u r t s  i s  

w hether ,  in o rd er  t o  meet i t s  p o l i c y  

o b j e c t i v e s ,  a board may c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y  

exempt m i n o r i t y  f a c u l t y  members from an



28

o t h e r w i s e  r a c i a l l y  n e u t r a l  scheme o f  

l a y o f f s  in  o r d e r  t o  m a i n t a i n  a r a c i a l  

m ix t u r e  .

I f  h i r i n g  d e c i s i o n s  a r e  made in a 

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  manner in the f i r s t  

i n s t a n c e ,  the s c h o o l  board may 

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y  e l e c t  t o  m ainta in  the 

r a c i a l  mix which r e s u l t e d  from the 

n o n d i s c r i m i n a t o r y  h i r i n g .

P e t i t i o n e r s  com pla in  o f  what they  c a l l  

r a c i a l  " p r e f e r e n c e s . "  As noted a b ov e ,  the 

P e t i t i o n e r s  a l s o  m i s s t a t e  the  i s s u e  in 

t h i s  c a s e  as b e in g  r e l a t e d  to the h i r in g  

d e c i s i o n s  made by R espon den ts .  But the 

p o l i c y  o f  m a in ta in in g  the r a c i a l  mix o f  

the d i s t r i c t  in the e v e n t  o f  the need to 

l a y  o f f  t e a c h e r s ,  i s  c o n c e p t u a l l y ,  and 

p o s s i b l y  c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y ,  d i f f e r e n t  from 

a s o - c a l l e d  " p r e f e r e n c e "  o f  one r a c e  o v e r  

another  in h i r i n g .  Where an employer  has ,



29

through c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y  v a l i d  a f f i r m a t i v e  

a c t i o n  e f f o r t s ,  r e a l i z e d  a g o a l  o f  a 

p a r t i c u l a r  m i n o r i t y - m a j o r i t y  r a t i o ,  i t  

would seem p e r m i s s i b l e  f o r  the em ployer  to  

take s t e p s  to p r o t e c t  th a t  r a t i o ,  even by 

the  means o f  e x e m p t in g  m i n o r i t i e s  from 

l a y o f f  to  the e x t e n t  r e q u i r e d  to  r e t a i n  

the e x i s t i n g  r a c i a l  p r o p o r t i o n .

Amicus urges  t h i s  Court n o t  to  

o v e r t u r n  J a c k s o n ' s  l a y o f f  p lan  m ere ly  

b eca u se  o f  a l l e g a t i o n s  in b r i e f s  that  the 

h i r in g  m eth odo logy  was a l l e g e d l y  

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y  i n f i r m .  I t  s h o u l d  be 

n o t e d  t h a t  f i r s t ,  t h e r e  i s  no e v i d e n c e  

th a t  the h i r in g  p r o c e s s  was f a u l t y ,  the 

low er  c o u r t  having e x p r e s s l y  s t a t e d  that  

i t  was not  r ea ch in g  that  i s s u e ;  and 

s e c o n d ,  th a t  the board used the s tu d en t  

body r a t i o  o n l y  as a " g o a l . "  There i s  no 

e v id e n c e  that  the Jackson Board h ired



30

m i n o r i t y  p e r s o n n e l  in  o r d e r  t o  m eet  a 

quota or  th a t  i t  r e fu s e d  j o b s  t o  w h ites  

s o l e l y  b eca u se  o f  t h e i r  r a c e .  Race i s  a 

p roper  c r i t e r i o n  f o r  employment, i f  not  

used as the s o l e  c o n s i d e r a t i o n  and the use 

o f  g o a l s  in a f f i r m a t i v e  a c t i o n  p la n s  has 

been e x p r e s s l y  upheld  by the c o u r t s .

C o n t r a c t o r s  A s s ' n  o f  E a s t e r n  Pa. v .  

U .S .  D ep a rtm en t  o f  L a b o r , i n v o l v e d  the  

q u e s t i o n  o f  whether the P r e s i d e n t  had the 

a u t h o r i t y  t o  r e q u i r e  f e d e r a l  c o n t r a c t o r s  

to  e s t a b l i s h  g o a l s  and t i m e t a b l e s  to  

in c r e a s e  m i n o r i t i e s  in t h e i r  w o r k f o r c e s .  

The union p l a i n t i f f s  argued that  such a 

req u irem en t  was d i s c r i m i n a t o r y  and that  

the  government d id  not  have the a u t h o r i t y  

to  make such req u irem en ts  in absence  o f  a 

c o u r t  f i n d i n g  o f  d i s c r i m i n a t i o n .  The 

c o u r t  h e l d :

"Even absent  a f i n d i n g  t h t  the
s i t u a t i o n  found to  e x i s t  in the



31

f i v e - c o u n t y  area  [ low  p e r c e n t a g e  
o f  m i n o r i t i e s ]  was the r e s u l t  o f  
d e l i b e r a t e  past  d i s c r i m i n a t i o n ,  
the f e d e r a l  i n t e r e s t  in improving 
the a v a i l a b i l i t y  o f  key tradesmen 
in the l a b o r  p o o l  would be the 
same. While a c o u r t  must f in d  
i n t e n t i o n a l  p a s t  d i s c r i m i n a t i o n  
b e f o r e  i t  can r e q u i r e  a f f i r m a t i v e  
a c t i o n  under 42 U.S .C.  s e c t i o n  
2 0 0 0 e 5 ( g ) ,  t h a t  s e c t i o n  imposes 
no r e s t r a i n t  upon the measures 
which the P r e s i d e n t  may r e q u i r e  
o f  the b e n e f i c i a r i e s  o f  f e d e r a l  
a s s i s t a n c e . "  442 F .2d 159, 175 
(3rd Cir  . 1971) .

" [T ]h e  p l a i n t i f f s  urge that  
the s p e c i f i c  g o a l s  s p e c i f i e d  by 
the Plan [which r e q u i r e s  the 
s e t t i n g  o f  g o a l s  and t i m e t a b l e s  
f o r  h i r in g  o f  m i n o r i t i e s ]  are 
r a c i a l  quotas  p r o h i b i t e d  by the 
equal  p r o t e c t i o n  a s p e c t  o f  the 
F i f t h  Amendment. . .  The 
P h i l a d e lp h ia  Plan i s  v a l i d  
E x ecu t iv e  a c t i o n  d es ig n ed  t o  
remedy the p e r c e iv e d  e v i l  that  
m i n o r i t y  tradesmen have not been 
inc lud ed  in the l a b o r  p oo l  
a v a i l a b l e  f o r  the per form ance  o f  
c o n s t r u c t i o n  p r o j e c t s  in which 
the f e d e r a l  government has a c o s t  
and per form ance  i n t e r e s t .  The 
F i f t h  Amendment d oes  not p r o h i b i t  
such a c t i o n . . . A  f i n d i n g  as t o  the 
h i s t o r i c a l  reason  f o r  the 
e x c l u s i o n  o f  a v a i l a b l e  tradesmen 
from the l a b o r  p oo l  i s  not 
e s s e n t i a l  f o r  f e d e r a l  c o n t r a c t u a l



32

rem edia l  a c t i o n . "  at  page 177.

But even  a ssu m in g  a r g u e n d o  t h a t ,  in 

a b sen ce  o f  a c o u r t  o r d e r ,  a s c h o o l  board 

ca n n o t  r e f u s e  to  h i r e  members o f  one r a c e  

in o r d e r  to  rea ch  a d e s i r e d  

m i n o r i t y - m a j o r i t y  r a t i o ,  i t  d oes  not

f o l l o w  t h a t  an employer  ca n n ot  

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y  exempt from l a y o f f

members o f  one r a c e  in o r d e r  to  m a inta in  a 

r a t i o  which was a ch iev ed  in a 

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  manner.

The e n t i r e  argument o f  P e t i t i o n e r s  i s  

based on an assumption  th a t  there  i s  o n ly  

one rea son  f o r  which a p u b l i c  employer  may 

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y  exempt m i n o r i t i e s  from 

l a y o f f .  That r e a s o n ,  under P e t i t i o n e r s  

r a t i o n a l e ,  i s  when th ere  has been a 

f i n d i n g  by a c o u r t  t h a t  the  p a r t i c u l a r

employee exempted from l a y o f f  would have 

had s e n i o r i t y  had the em ployer  no t



33

s u b j e c t e d  the employee t o  d i s c r i m i n a t i o n  

on the b a s i s  o f  h i s  o r  her r a c e .

In o r d e r  to  a c c e p t  that  argument 

s e v e r a l  assumptions must be made: f i r s t ,

that  s e n i o r  employees have a 

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  r i g h t  to  be l a i d  o f f  l a s t  

and s e c o n d , th a t  an employer  may not take 

r a c e  in to  a ccou n t  in s e t t i n g  c r i t e r i a  f o r  

the o r d e r  o f  l a y o f f s .  Both assum ptions  

are  f a u l t y .

A lthough  i t  i s  true  th a t  a c o u r t  may 

not  o r d e r  an employer  to  take ra ce  into, 

a c c o u n t  in the  a b s e n c e  o f  a f i n d i n g  o f  j 
d i s c r i m i n a t i o n ,  that  i s  not the ca se  with 

p u r e ly  v o lu n t a r y  a c t i o n s  by the  e m p loy er .  

P u b l i c  s c h o o l  systems in p a r t i c u l a r  should  

be a l low ed  the l a t i t u d e  in making 

d e c i s i o n s  as to  who t o  l a y  o f f  and who to  

r e t a i n ,  because  they are  charged  with the 

heavy r e s p o n s i b i l i t y  o f  a ssu r in g  the



34

e d u c a t i o n  o f  a l l  c h i l d r e n  in the d i s t r i c t  

and taking s te p s  t o  make the p r o c e s s  

e a s i e r .  In t h i s  c a s e ,  t h e  b o a r d  has 

determ ined  that  to  l a y  o f f  t e a c h e r s  on a 

r a c e  n e u t r a l  b a s i s  w ou ld  r e s u l t  in  the  

l o s s  o f  m i n o r i t y  t e a c h e r s ,  t o  the

d e t r i m e n t  o f  th e  c h i l d r e n .  That would  

seem to  be an a p p r o p r ia t e  d e c i s i o n  f o r  the 

board  .

V . SCHOOL BOARDS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO 
PROTECT THEMSELVES FROM DAMAGE SU IT S  
UNDER SECTION 1 9 8 3  BY TAKING  
CORRECTIVE ACTION WITHOUT A COURT 
ORDER.

T h is  Court  has on numerous o c c a s i o n s  

he ld  that  s c h o o l  b oa rds  have an

a f f i r m a t i v e  duty  t o  e l i m i n a t e  a l l  e f f e c t s  

o f  p a s t  d i s c r i m i n a t i o n  and to assure  the 

deve lopm ent  o f  a u n i t a r y  s c h o o l  system . 

S e e , e . g  . , M i l l i k e n  v .  B r a d le y , 433 U.S. 

267 (1977 ) ;  Green v .  County Schoo l  B o a r d s , 

391 U.S. 430 (1 9 6 8 ) ;  L ou is ia n a  v .  United



35

S t a t e s , 380 U.S. 433 (1 9 6 5 ) .

I t  i s  e n t i r e l y  c o n c e i v a b l e  th a t  a 

c o u r t  might  agree with the board o f  

e d u c a t i o n  th a t  a t  l e a s t  one rea son  f o r  the 

d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y  low number o f  m i n o r i t y  

f a c u l t y  members, b e f o r e  the board  began 

a f f i r m a t i v e  e f f o r t s  to in c r e a s e  that  

p r o p o r t i o n ,  was because  o f  past  

d i s c r i m i n a t o r y  a c t i o n  by a p r e v i o u s  board 

o f  e d u c a t i o n .  I f  t h i s  b o a r d  has done  

noth ing  to  r e c t i f y  th a t  d i s c r i m i n a t i o n ,  a 

c o u r t  c o u ld  o rd er  rem ed ia l  e f f o r t s  to  

b e g in  im m ediate ly  and, f u r t h e r ,  co u ld  hold  

the  b o a r d  l i a b l e  in d a m a g e s ,  u n d e r  42 

U .S .C .  1 9 8 3 ,  and a l s o  award a t t o r n e y s '  

f e e s  under 42 U.S .C.  1988.

Y et ,  P e t i t i o n e r s  argue that  the board 

i s  unau th or ized  to  make th a t  d e t e r m in a t i o n  

i t s e l f  and to  take a c t i o n  on i t s  own to  

a ssu re  that  the p o s i t i v e  g a in s  in numbers



36

o f  m i n o r i t y  f a c u l t y  are not  l o s t  d u r in g  

the  p r o c e s s  o f  im p l e m e n t in g  a p la n  to  

reduce  the l a b o r  f o r c e .  P e t i t i o n e r s  would 

have the board  use a " c o l o r  b l i n d "  scheme 

which would a s s u r e d l y  r e s u l t  in the l o s s  

o f  the  m a j o r i t y  o f  the  b la c k  em p lo y e e s .  

Then the board would be c a l l e d  upon to  s i t  

b a c k  and w a i t  f o r  a c o u r t  t o  h o l d  i t s  

a c t i o n  d i s c r i m i n a t o r y  and o rd e r  a damage 

award a g a in s t  the b o a r d .  S u re ly  the  board 

shou ld  have the a u t h o r i t y  t o  make i t s  own 

d e t e r m in a t i o n  as t o  whether d i s c r i m i n a t i o n  

e x i s t e d  and, i f  s o ,  the manner in which i t  

shou ld  be a d d r e s s e d .

V I .  CONCLUSION

On b e h a l f  o f  s c h o o l  b oa rds  a c r o s s  the 

c o u n tr y  which are a t tem p t in g  to  remove the 

e f f e c t s  o f  d i s c r i m i n a t i o n  by t h e i r  

r e s p e c t i v e  s c h o o l  d i s t r i c t s ,  as w e l l  as by 

s o c i e t y  a t  l a r g e ,  Amicus urges  t h i s  Court

n o t  t o  t i e  t h e i r  h a n d s . S c h o o l  b o a r d s



37

shou ld  be a l low ed  to  use a l l  a v a i l a b l e  

t o o l s  t o  assu re  each s tu d e n t  in the s c h o o l  

d i s t r i c t  an equal  e d u c a t i o n a l  o p p o r t u n i t y .  

Not a l l  s c h o o l  boards  are  w i l l i n g  to  adopt 

v o l u n t a r y  a f f i r m a t i v e  a c t i o n  p l a n s ,  i t  

be ing  p o l i t i c a l l y  e x p e d i e n t ,  in many 

c a s e s ,  t o  do n o th in g .  But— where s c h o o l

b oa rds  take on the task v o l u n t a r i l y ,  the 

p u b l i c  and th e  c o u r t s  owe a m o r a l  and 

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  d u t y  t o  t h o s e  b o a r d s  t o  

s u p p o r t  t h e i r  e f f o r t s .

R e s p e c t f u l l y  s u b m it t e d ,

Gwendolyn H. Gregory 
C o u n s e l  o f  R e c o rd

Deputy General Counsel
N a t ion a l  Schoo l  Boards A s s o c i a t i o n
1680 Duke S t r e e t
A le x a n d r i a ,  VA
(703)  838-6712

AUGUST W. STEINHILBER 
NSBA A s s o c i a t e  E xecut ive  D i r e c t o r  

and General Counsel

THOMAS A. SHANNON 
NSBA E xecu t iv e  D i r e c t o r



38

APPENDIX A

STATE STATUTORY PROVISIONS 
SPECIFYING LAYOFF ORDER

*R IF  S t a t u t e
S t a t e O r d e r  o f  L a y o f f C i t a t i o n

Alabama None s p e c i f i e d . Code o f  A1 . 
§1 6 -2 4 -8  
( 1977 )

Alaska None s p e c i f i e d . Ak. S t a t .
§ 1 4 .2 0 .1 7 5
(1984)

A r izon a None s p e c i f i e d . A z . R e v . 
S t a t . Ann. 
§15-544 
(1984)

Arkansas None

C a l i ­
f o r n i a

In v erse  s e n i o r i t y  
but  d e v i a t i o n s  
a l low ed  t o  meet 
s p e c i a l  needs o r  
equal  p r o t e c t i o n  
requ irem en ts

A n n . C a l i f .  
Educ. Code 
§4 4 9 5 5 (b) , 
( d ) (S u p p .  
1985)

C o lo ra d o Nontenured f i r s t . C o . R ev . 
S t a t . § 2 2 -  
6 3 -1 1 2 (3 )  
(1984)

* " R e d u c t io n  in f o r c e "



39

RIF S t a t u t e
S t a t e O r d e r  o f  L a y o f f C i t a t i o n

Connec­
t i c u t

Nontenured f i r s t .  
For tenured  p e r s o n ­
n e l ,  f o l l o w  c o l l e c ­
t i v e  b a r g a in in g  
agreement o r  board  
p o l i c y .

Ct .Gen.
S t a t . Ann. 
§ 1 0 - 1 5 1 (d) 
(Supp.1985)

Delaware None s p e c i f i e d . Del .Code  
Ann. T i t .14 
§1411(1981)

D i s t r i c t
Columbia

o f None

F l o r i d a Pursuant t o  terms 
o f  c o l l e c t i v e  b a r ­
g a in in g  agreement ;  
i f  none,  board  must 
p r e s c r i b e  RIF r u l e s

F l a . S t a t . 
Ann.§231 .36  
( 5 ) ( Supp . ) 
1985)

G eorg ia None s p e c i f i e d . Code o f  Ga. 
Ann.§ 2 0 - 2 -  
9 4 0 ( a ) (6)
(1982)

Idaho None s p e c i f i e d . I d a . Code
§33-515
(Supp.1985)

I l l i n o i s Nontenured f i r s t  
and in v e r s e  
s e n i o r i t y  but can 
d e v i a t e  by c o l l e c ­
t i v e  b a r g a in in g  or  
f o r  a f f i r m a t i v e  
a c t i o n  p u r p o s e s .

111 .Rev .  
S t a t .122 
§24-12 
( 1985)



40

RIF S t a t u t e
S t a  t e O r d e r  o f  L a y o f f C i t a t i o n

Ind iana None spec i f  ied  . Ind . S t a t . 
§ 2 0 - 6 . 1 - 4 -  
1 0 ( a ) (5)
(Supp.1984)

Iowa None

Kansas None

Kentucky Inverse  s e n i o r i t y . Ky . Re v . 
Stat  . 
§161.800 
(1984 )

Loui s i -  
ana

I n t e r e s t s  o f  the 
s c h o o l  system.

L a . Opp . 
A t t y . Gen . 
1938-40 
p .  1004.

Maine Pursuant to n e g o t i ­
ated  agreement; 
may in c lu d e  but 
cann ot  be l i m i t e d  
to s e n i o r i t y .

Me . Rev . 
S t a t . Ann . 
T i t .20A 
§13201 
( 1984 )

Maryland None

Massa­
c h u s e t t s

Nontenured f i r s t . Mass .Gen .Laws 
Ann.71 §42 
(1982 )

Michigan None s p e c i f i e d . Mich. Comp . 
Laws §38 .105  
(1982 )



41

RIF S t a t u t e
S t a t e O r d e r  o f  L a y o f f C i t a t i o n

Minne­
s o t a

In v e rse  s e n i o r i t y  
b u t  can d e v i a t e  f o r  
a f f i r m a t i v e  a c t i o n  
p u r p o s e s .

Minn . S t a t . 
§125 .12  
Subd. 6b(d)  
( 1984 )

M i s s i s ­
s i p p i

None

Mi ssou r  i Nontenured f i r s t  
and in v e r s e  
s e n i o r i t y .

Rev . S ta t  .Mo . 
§168.291  
(1984)

Montana None s p e c i f i e d . Mt . Code Ann . 
§20 -4 -206  (4 ) 
(1983 )

Nebraska Each board  must 
adopt RIF p o l i c y  
which f o l l o w s  non­
tenured f i r s t  
u n le ss  would cause  
noncompliance  with 
f e d e r a l  o r  s t a t e  
a f f i r m a t i v e  a c t i o n  
r e q u i r e m e n t s .

Neb . S t a t . 
§ § 7 9 -1 2 6 4 .0 5 ,  
7 9 -1 2 5 4 .0 8  
(1984)

Nevada None s p e c i f i e d . N e v . R e v . S t a t . 
§ 3 9 1 , 312(g )  
(1983 )

New
Hampshire

None

New
J e rs e y

Inverse  s e n i o r i t y . NJ S t a t .A n n .  
§1 8 A :28-9 e t  
seq . (1968  )



42

RIF S t a t u t e
S t a t e O r d e r  o f  L a y o f f C i t a t  io n

New
Mex i c o

None

New
York

Inverse  s e n i o r i t y . Consol  . Laws 
NY 16 Educ. 
Code §2855 
(1981 & Supp. 
1985 )

North 
C a r o l in a

None spec  i f  ied  . NC G e n .S t a t .  
§11 5C 325(e )  
§ (10  (1983 )

North 
Da ko ta

None s p e c i f i e d . ND Cent. Code 
§ 1 5 - 5 3 . 1 - 2 6 . 1  
(2 ) (1982 )

Ohio Nontenured f i r s t  
& in v erse  s e n i o r i t y

Oh .R ev . Code 
§3319.17 
(1980 )

Oklahoma None

Oregon Pursuant to  a f f i r m a ­
t i v e  a c t i o n  p o l i c y  
o f  d i s t r i c t  but 
a l s o  s e n i o r i t y  and 
m e r i t .

■Or . Rev . Sta t . 
§ 3 4 2 .9 4 3 (3 )
(1983)

P enn sy l ­
v a n ia

I n v erse  s e n i o r i t y  24 P a . S t a t .  
b u t  not to s u p e r -  §1 1 -1 1 2 5 .1  
sede o r  preempt (Supp. 1985) 
c o l l e c t i v e  b a r ­
g a in in g  agreement; 
however ,  t e a c h e r  not 
a b a r g a in in g  un it  
member r e t a i n s  
s e n i o r  i t y .



43

RIF S t a t u t e
S t a t e O r d e r  o f  L a y o f f C i t a t i o n

Rhode 
I s la n d

Inverse  s e n i o r i t y  
b u t  can d e v i a t e  
where n e c e s s a r y  to  
r e t a i n  t e a c h e r s  o f  
t e c h n i c a l  s u b j e c t s  
whose p l a c e s  more 
s e n i o r  t e a c h e r s  can­
not  f i l l .

Gen . Laws R. I . 
§ 1 6 -1 3 -6  
(1981 )

South 
C a r o l in a

None

South
Dakota

A l l  b oa rds  must 
e s t a b l i s h  w r i t t e n  
s t a f f  r e d u c t i o n  
p o l  i c  i e s .

SD C o d . Laws 
§1 3 -1 0 -1 1  
(1982)

Te nnes-
see

None spec  i f i e d . Tenn .Code 
Ann. § 4 9 - 5 -  
5 1 1 ( b ) (1)  
(1983)

Texas Inverse  s e n i o r i t y . T e x . Code Ann. 
§13 .110  
(Supp . 1985 )

Utah None spec  i f  ied  . Ut .Code Ann. 
§ 5 3 .5 1 -8  
(1982 )

Ve rmont None s p e c i f i e d . V t . S t a t .A n n . 
T i t . 16 563 
(12 ) (1976 )

V irg  in i a None spec i f  ied  . Code o f  Va . 
§ 2 2 .1 -3 0 4  
(1980)



44

RIF S t a t u t e
S t a  te O r d e r  o f  L a y o f f C i t a t i o n

Washing­
ton

None spec i f i e d  . Rev . Code Wa . 
§28A 67.070 
(1984)

West
Virg  in i a

None spec  i f  ied W. Va.Code 
§ 18A-2-2 
(Supp.1985)

Wiscon­
s in

In v e rse  s e n i o r i t y  
but  can d e v i a t e  by 
c o l l e c t i v e  b a r g a i n ­
ing agreement.

Wi . S t a t . 
§ 1 1 8 .2 3 (4 )  , 
(5 )  (1984)

Wyom ing None spec i f i e d . Wyo. S t a t .A n n .
§ 2 1 - 7 - l l l ( a )  
( iv )  (1977 )



45

SUMMARY

S t a t u t o r y  A n a l y s i s ____________Number o f  S t a t e s

T o t a l  s u r v e y e d .....................................  51
With RIF s t a t u t e .................................. 41
No l a y o f f  o r d e r  s p e c i f i e d .............  19
L a y o f f  scheme s p e c i f i e d ............... 2 2

• Nontenured f i r s t -
no d e v i a t i o n s  a l low ed  3

• Nontenured f i r s t -
d e v i a t i o n s  a l l o w e d . . . .  1

• Inverse  s e n i o r i t y -
no d e v i a t i o n s .................... 5

• In v erse  s e n i o r i t y -
d e v i a t i o n s  a l l o w e d . . . .  5

• Nontenured f i r s t  & 
in v e rs e  s e n i o r i t y -
no d e v i a t i o n s . . . . . . . . .  2

• nontenured f i r s t  &
in v e rs e  s e n i o r i t y -  
d e v i a t i o n s  a l l o w e d . . . .  1

• Take a c co u n t  o f  a f f i r m a ­
t i v e  a c t i o n ,  s e n i o r i t y
and m e r i t .............................  2

• I n t e r e s t s  o f  the s c h o o l
d i s t r i c t ................................  1

e A ccord ing  to  c o l l e c t i v e
b a r g a in in g  a g r e e m e n t . .  2

• Sch oo l  board  must
e s t a b l i s h  l a y o f f  p o l i c y 1



46

APPENDIX B

COUNCIL OF URBAN BOARDS 
OF EDUCATION

Respondents  to  Survey

S c h o o l  D i s t r i c t  E n r o l lm e n t

ALASKA
Anchorage 40,560

CALIFORNIA
An a he im 11,610
Los Angeles 672,183
Oakland 49, 348
San Diego 110,655

COLORADO
Aurora 23,787
Pueblo 18,475

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 86,568

FLORIDA
Dade County, Miami 223,854
Orl ando 88 ,485
Tampa 108,871

GEORGIA
A t la n ta 67,317

ILLINOIS
C hicago 420,000

INDIANA
Ind i a n a p o l i s 54,070
South Bend 21,952



47

S c h o o l  D i s t r i c t E n r o l lm e n t

IOWA
Cedar Rapids 17 ,829

KANSAS
Kansas C i ty  
Tope ka 
W ich i ta

23,013 
14 ,500 
44,512

KENTUCKY
Louisv  i l l e 92 ,0 0 0

LOUISIANA
Baton Rouge 55,700

MARYLAND
B a lt im ore 116,872

MASSACHUSETTS
Boston 55,470

MICHIGAN
Ann Arbor 
De t r o  i t  
FI i n t
Grand Rapids

14 ,376  
191,387 

30 ,876 
34 ,236

MINNESOTA
S t . Paul 32 ,000

MISSOURI
S p r i n g f i e l d 22,917

NEBRASKA
Omaha 41,193

NEVADA
Re no 31 ,500



48

S c h o o l  D i s t r i c t  E n r o l lm e n t

NEW JERSEY
Newark 57,296

NEW MEXICO
Albuquerque 75 ,3 3 6

NEW YORK
New York C i ty 925,000

NORTH CAROLINA 
C h a r l o t t e  
Rale igh

7 1,946 
54 ,506

OHIO
Canton 
Columbus 
To 1 ed o

13,693 
67 ,761 
43 ,3 2 7

OKLAHOMA
Oklahoma C ity  
Tulsa

38,632
46 ,178

OREGON
P ort land
Salem

50,800
22,500

PENNSYLVANIA
P h i l a d e lp h ia
P i t t s b u rg h

203,000 
41 ,269

TEXAS
D a l la s  
Fort Worth 
Houston

127,000
63,143

183,873



49

S c h o o l  D i s t r i c t E n r o l lm e n t

VIRGINIA
A le x a n d r ia 10 ,000
C h a r lo t t e -M e c k le n b u r g 71 ,9 4 6
Hampton 20,466
N or fo lk 35 ,649
Portsmouth 18 ,500
Richmond 31,500
V i r g i n i a  Beach 56,150

WASHINGTON
S e a t t l e 42 ,438