Moore v. Tangipahoa Parish School Board Brief for Appellants

    IN THE

S2Ak
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 
NO. 30781

JOYCE MARIE MOORE, et al.,
Appellants,

versus
TANGIPAHOA PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, et 
al.,

Appellees,
JOSEPH DURHAM, et al.,

Appellees.

On Appeal from the United States District Court 
for the Eastern District of Louisiana

BRIEF FOR APPELLANTS

JACK GREENBERG 
NORMAN J. CHACHKIN 
MARGRETT FORD 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019

A. P. TUREAUD 
1821 Orleans Avenue 
New Orleans, Louisiana 70116

Attorneys for Appellants



TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES..............................  i, ii
ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW.......................  1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE.............................  2
STATEMENT OF FACTS................................  9

ARGUMENT

I. THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN DENYING PLAINTIFFS 
MOTION :FOR FURTHER RELIEF WHERE THE BOARD 
DEMOTED SEVEN (7) BLACK PRINCIPALS PRIOR TO 
THE 1969-70 SCHOOL YEAR, WHILE HIRING SIX (6) 
WHITE PRINCIPALS AND DEMOTING ONLY TWO (2) 
WHITE PRINCIPALS AND WHERE SUCH DEMOTIONS 
WERE MADE WITHOUT AN OBJECTIVE CRITERIA FOR 
COMPARISON BETWEEN BLACK AND WHITE PRINCIPALS, 
AND WHERE THE BOARD DEMOTED AND SUBSEQUENTLY 
DISMISSED TWO (2) BLACK BAND DIRECTORS WHO 
WERE EXPERIENCED IN THEIR FIELD WHILE HIRING 
TWO (2) INEXPERIENCED WHITE BAND DIRECTORS 
AND WHERE THE BOARD REFUSED TO EMPLOY QUA­
LIFIED BLACK TEACHERS...................... 21

II. THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN APPROVING A 
DESEGREGATION PLAN WHICH PROVIDED FOR 
SEGREGATION OF SOME OF THE SCHOOLS AND 
OR CLASSES BY SEX..........................  27

CONCLUSION.........................................  28

TABLE OF CASES

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).... 4
Chambers v. Hendersonville City Board of

Education, 364 F. 2d 189 (4th Cir., 1966)..... 25, 26
Davis v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile 

County, 393 Fayette 2d 690 (5th Cir., 1968) 3,5



Dunn v. Livingston Parish School Board, No. 3197
(E.D. La. August 12, 1970)......................  25

Franklin v. County School Board of Giles County,
360 F. 2d 325 (4th Cir., 1966)..................  26

Greene v. County Board of New Kent County, Virginia,
391 U.S. 430 (1968).............................  2

Hall v. St. Helena Parish School Board, 417 F. 2d
801 (5th Cir., 1969)............................  5,6

Hill v. Franklin County Board of Education, 390 F.
2d 583 (6th Cir., 1968)...................  25

Jackson v. Wheatley School District No. 28 of 
St. Francis County, Arkansas, No. 19,952 
(8th Cir., August 11, 1970).....................  25

McBeth v. Board of Education of Devalls Bluff 
School District No. 1 Ark., 300 F. Supp.
1270 (1969).....................................  26

Moore v. Tangipahoa Parish School Board,
No. 15556 (E.D. La., July 2, 1969)..............  25

Rolfe v. County Board of Education of Lincoln 
County, Tennessee, 391 F. 2d 77
(6th Cir., 1968)................................  25, 27

Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate School
District, 419 F. 2d 1211 (5th Cir., 1969).......  21, 22

23, 25
Smith v. Concordia Parish School Board,

No. 11, 577 (W.D. La. 1970)......................  25
Smith v. Morrilton School District, No. 32,

365 F. 2d 770 (8th Cir., 1966)..................  24, 25
Steward v. Stanton Independent School District,

374 F. 2d 774 (5th Cir., 1967)..................  25
United States v. Jefferson County Board of Education,

380 F. 2d 285 (5th Cir., en banc 1967),
cert, denied sub, nom. Caddo Parish School Board v.
United States, 389 U.S. 840 (1967)..............  2, 25

Wall v. Stanley County Board of Education,
387 F. 2d 275 (1967)............................ 25, 27

l i



IN THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 
NO. 30781

JOYCE MARIE MOORE, et al. , :
Appellants, :

versus :
TANGIPAHOA PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, et :
al.,

Appellees, :

JOSEPH DURHAM, et al., •
Appellees. :

On Appeal from the United States District Court 
for the Eastern District of Louisiana

BRIEF FOR APPELLANTS 

TSSITES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
Whether the District Court erred in denying plaintiffs 

Motion for Further Relief where the Record showed that:
1. The Board demoted seven (7) Black principals prior to 

the 1969-70 school year, while hiring six (6) white principals 
and demoting only two (2) white principals, and where such 
demotions were made without an objective criteria for compans.. 

between Black and white principals;



-2-

2. The Board demoted and subsequently dismissed two (2) 
Black band directors who were experienced in the field while 
hiring two inexperienced white band directors;

3. The Board refused to offer re—employment to one (1) 
tenured Black teacher and two (2) non-tenured Black teachers; 
one who had taught in the system for eight (8) years and one 
who had taught for three (3) years, all because of racial 

reasons; and
4. The desegregation plan approved by the court provided 

for segregation of some schools by sex.

Statement of the Case
This case was filed on May 3, 1965, by Negro school 

children seeking to desegregate the public schools of Tangipahoa 
Parish, Louisiana. In June, 1965, an order was entered requiring 
that desegregation be commenced pursuant to freedom of choice

in the fall of that year.
After the decision of this court in United States v. Jefferson 

County Board of Education,i/ plaintiffs filed a Motion for Further 

Relief, and on July 12, 1967, the court entered with slight 
modification the Jefferson model decree.

Following the decision in Green v. County School Board of 
Now Kent county. Virginia. 391 U.S. 430 (1968), plaintiffs filed

1/ 372 F. 2d 836, Affirmed with modifications_on rehearing en
banc 380 F. 2d 385 Cert, den., sub npiri_Caddo Parish School 
Board v- United States. 389 U.S. 840 (1967).



-3-

a second motion for further relief alleging that Freedom of 
choice had failed to effect a unitary system, and that other 
methods promised a speedier conversion, and requesting that 
the Board be directed to prepare, for implementation during 
the 1968-69 school year, a plan incorporating such other 
methods. Relying on Davis v. Board of School Commissioners 
of Mobile County. 393 F. 2d 690 (5th Cir. 1968), the motion 
also prayed that defendants be directed to conduct a detailed 
survey of the system and to file with the court and the plain­

tiffs a report thereof.
On June 26, 1968 the district court conducted a hearing 

and on June 28th entered an order directing defendants: (1) to
conduct a survey of the extent of desegregation and file a 
report thereon with the court and plaintiffs no later than 
July 15th; and (2) to file, within 10 days thereafter, a new 
plan for the assignment of pupils and teachers for the 1968-69 
school year. A further hearing was scheduled for August 14,

1968.
On July 25, 1968 the Board filed a joint plan for students 

and faculty. For the students the plan provided that all freedom 
of choice forms be honored and that additional Negro students be 
assigned to formerly white schools up to eight (8) percent of the 
present white school. For the faculty it assigned 10% faculty 
of the opposite race across the board with all schools having at 
least one member of the opposite race.



-4-

to
Plaintiffs objected/the plan in that it failed to satisfy 

Brown v. Board of Education and Green. A hearing was held on 
August 14, 1968, on the Board's proposed plan and objections 
thereto. Prior to the hearing's commencement, the Board filed 
an amended plan that eliminated the feature which would have 
assigned additional Negroes to white schools up to 8% of their 
enrollment and that reverted to pure free choice. Similarly it 
retracted, as to teachers, the 10% "across the board" it had 
previously proposed.

On August 20, 1968, the district court filed an opinion 
and order requiring assignments to be made based on the spring 
choices but directing some supplemental procedures. The order 
made clear, however, that the Board would have to devise changes 
looking to the, 1969-70 school year.

A conference was held on October 10, 1968 with counsel for 
all parties and on October 16, 1968, the Court entered an order 
directing the defendants to submit to the court and serve upon 
the plaintiffs:

1. A plan to be put into effect when classes commence 
for the 1969-70 school year, calling for the assign- 
ment of all students...by the adoption of geographic 
attendance zones, or pairing of classes or both;

; *
!

2. A plan for the assignment of teachers, as well as 
principals, assistant principals and supervisory 
personnel on a non-discriminatory basis, based on 
the plan for the assignment of students.

iI , '

■



-5-

Notice of appeal was filed by defendants on November 11, 
1968. A stay pending appeal was granted April 2, 1969 and on 
April 9th an order was entered adding this case for oral
argument on April 21, 1969.

This case was argued with some 38 other school cases,
Hall v. St. Helena Parish School Board. 417 F. 2d 801 (5th 
Cir., 1969). This court required the submission and implemen­
tation of desegregation plans other than "freedom of choice" 
to convert the public schools of the respective districts into 
unitary systems.

On June 7, 1969 the Board submitted a new desegregation 
plan and on June 11, 1969 plaintiffs filed objections to the 
new plan stating that the plan failed to comply with Davis v. 
Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County, 393 F. 2d 1086 
(5th Cir., 1969) .

A hearing was held on the new plan and the objections 
thereto on June 17, 1969 and on July 2, 1969 the district court 
entered an order which provided in part that:

A. All classroom assignments shall
be made on a racially non-discriminatory 
basis and in such a manner that no class 
is racially identifiable.

E. The principal of each of the schools 
that will be closed shall be assigned 
either as a principal to some other 
school, or as an assistant principal 
in a school that a member of the opposite 
race is serving as principal, unless 
it is determined in a particular instance 
that this is not educationally feasible



-6-

for a valid reason not related to race. 
Principals of all other schools shall 
remain in charge of those schools unless 
reassignment is required for some reason 
other than race.

G. Principals, teachers, administrative
personnel, members of the professional 
staff, athletic coaches, and other 
persons in positions of responsibility 
or authority shall not be assigned, 
promoted, demoted or dismissed on a 
racially discriminatory basis, nor in 
any manner that makes a school racially 
identifiable by the race of its staff.
Any personnel displaced as a result of 
a school closing shall be assigned to 
a similar position in some other school 
on a racially non-discriminatory basis.
This shall not prevent the School Board 
from failing to continue the employment 
of any teacher who is not entitled to 
tenure under state law, so long as its 
decision is reached without racial dis­
crimination of any kind.

P. With respect to Wards six and seven where 
separate education for boys and girls has 
been approved on a limited basis for 1969- 
70 the school board shall report its plan 
for the 1970-71 school year to the court, 
opposing counsel, and the Educational 
Resource Center on School Desegregation 
no later than March 1, 1970.

The Board appealed from the District court's denial of 
a Motion for New Trial from its July 2, 1969 order.

In spite of this court's order in Hall and the District 
Court's order of July 2, 1969, the Board proceeded to coerce 
and intimidate Black teachers into resigning their positions, 
which resulted in plaintiffs filing a motion for an order 
adjudging defendants in civil contempt of the district court's 
order and for supplemental relief.



-7-

A hearing was held on the motion on August 22, 1969.
Although no formal order was signed the district court, in 
making oral findings of fact and conclusions of law, denied 
plaintiffs' motion for adjudication of contempt stating that 
it could find no racial bias or discrimination. (Tr. Aug. 22,
1969; pp. 141-143).

On December 30, 1969, this court granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss the appeal taken from the District Court's 
order of July 2, 1969.

Plaintiffs filed another motion for further relief on July 
30, 1970, asking that the district court order the defendant 
board to offer employment to Black teachers previously dismissed 
by the Board; that the Board be required to reinstate a Black 
principal, who had been principal for eight (8) years, and who 
had been demoted to the level of classroom teacher and janitor; 
and that the Board be ordered to eliminate segregated bus routes.

Hearings were had on plaintiffs' motion on August 11, 1970 
and on August 24, 1970. The District Court entered an order 
signed September 2, 1970, which granted relief as to the segre­
gated classes and bus routes by race but denied relief as to 
segregation of classes by sex and denied relief as to the re­
instatement of the demoted Black principal and reinstatement 
of the discharged Black teachers and reserved ruling on questions 
relating to Black athletic coaches. On September 15, 1970, 
plaintiffs appealed from the court’s decision of September 2,
1970.



-8-

On October 19, 1970, the District Court sua sp.onte ordered 
another hearing on the matter on November 11, 1970 so that it 
could take further evidence with respect to principals and 
coaches referred to above. The hearing was held on November 11, 
1970, with further evidence being presented.

On November 18, 1970, plaintiffs-appellants applied to this 
court for an order holding the briefing schedule in abeyance 
for 30 days because the District Court had not rendered a 
decision on the issues placed before it on November 11, 1970.
This Court granted the motion to and including December 20,

1970.
Because the District Court still had not ruled on the 

issues placed before it on November 11, 1970, plaintiffs found 
it necessary to reguest another order to hold the briefing 
schedule in abeyance for 30 days on December 17, 1970. Chief 
Judge Brown granted the motion to and including January 10,
1971. On January 6, 1971, plaintiffs again requested that
the briefing schedule be held in abeyance because of the District 
Court's failure to rule. Plaintiffs were given until February 1, 
1971 to submit Briefs. Because plaintiffs had not received the 
District Court's decision of January 25, 1971, plaintiffs on 
January 28, 1971 filed an additional motion to hold the briefing 
schedule in abeyance until 15 days after the District court's 
decision. Plaintiffs received the District Court's decision of 
January 25, 1971 on February 1, 1971 and filed a notice of appeal 
and a motion to consolidate the two appeals on February 2, 1971.



-9-

The district court's decision of January 25, 1971, denied 
plaintiffs' motion for further relief as to the principal, 
assistant principals and band directors, but granted relief 
as to coaches and assistant coaches.

This appeal and the previous appeal are from the district 
court's failure to grant relief as to the demotion or firing of 
principals, assistant principals, band directors, teachers, and 
as to classrooms segregated by sex.

Statement of the Facts
Prior to the integration of schools there were thirteen (13) 

Black principals and no assistant Black principals. There were 
twenty (20) white principals and four (4) assistant white prin­
cipals. After the integration of schools there are ten (10)
Black principals and two (2) assistant Black principals. There 
are now twenty two (22) white principals and six (6) white 
assistants.

Of the Black principals that remained seven (7) received 
a demotion, with a cut in salary. Of this seven, four (4) were 
reduced to the level of classroom teacher; one of whom was 
demoted from high school principal to junior high school principal; 
one of whom was demoted from high school principal to elementary 
principal and one demoted from junior high school to elementary 
school .-2/

_2/ Defendants answer to interrogatories of August, 1970.



-10-

Since the 1968-69 school year two (2) black band directors 
were reduced to assistant band directors and subsequently 
released by the defendant school board.

Only two (2) white assistant principals were reduced to 
the level of classroom teacher and no white band directors 
were dismissed, demoted or reduced to the level of classroom 
teacher.

There were numerous Black teachers dismissed, prior to 
the 1969-70 and 1970-71 school years. At the hearing before 
the district court on August 22, 1969, one of the issues placed 
before the court was that of the dismissal of Black teachers 
and the Board's practice of intimidating Black teachers into 
resigning. The court found that there was no racial bias or 
discrimination on the part of the School Board against these 
Black teachers.-2/ At the August 11, 1970 hearing, plaintiffs 
again attempted to raise the issue with reference to the 1969 
discriminatory dismissal and/or intimidation of these Black 
teachers because there was some question in the mind of counsel 
for plaintiffs^/as to whether or not the court had ordered the 
Board to offer employment to some of these dismissed teachers .-̂ /

3/ Tr. August 22, 1969, pp. 141-143.
4/ Atty. A. P. Tureaud. As a result of this misunderstanding,

the court ordered a transcript of the August 22, 1961 hearing. 
However, the Transcript of August 22, 1969 hearing did not 
indicate that the court had ordered the Board to offer 
employment to these teachers.

5/ Tr. August 11, 1970, pp. 25-29.



-11-

The Court refused to entertain the question of the dismissal 
of these teachers in that it had heard testimony as to them m  
August of 1969. The court did entertain testimony as to three 
teachers that were released after the 1969-70 school term, they 
were Mrs. Gloria Duplessis, Mrs. Mary Walker and Mr. Joseph 
Richardson. The two black band directors that were released 
were Mr. Edward Duplessis and Mr. Dennis Epps.

As previously stated, prior to the integration of schools 
there were thirteen (13) Black principals. As of the 1969-70 
school year, seven (7) of these Black principals had been demote^

with a reduction in salary.
Prior to the District Court's order of July 2, 1969, the

defendant board had maintained three (3) schools segregated by 
sex; two (2) elementary and one (1) jr. high school. After 
the court ordered integration plan, spearation by sex was allowed 
to extend to the high school level in some wards.

The Black principal most severly affected by the discrimina 
tory practices of the Board was Mr. Fred McCoy, who had been an 
elementary school principal of a Black school for eight (8) years, 
but was demoted to the level of classroom teacher in July, 1969.

The Board attempted tojustify demoting McCoy by stating that 
that he was not certified as a principal under state certification 
standards. McCoy, however, testified without contradiction that 
there was an agreement between him and the former superintendent, 
Dewitt Sauls, that he would be appointed principal if he would 
accumulate six hours per year towards his Master's in Administratio



-12-

the one certification requirement he lacked - McCoy testified 
that he did attend graduate school at night, on Saturdays and 
during the summer in order to live up to his part of the agree­
ment. He stated that he has acquired 20 hours, of the 36

6/required, towards Tiis Masters in Administration.
McCoy also testified, without contradiction, that he had 

not completed his Masters because he was required to spend five 
(5) hours per day at his school during the summer vacation months, 
and that he had asked the superintendent to relieve him of his 
summer responsibilities so that he could attend school,—^ but 
that he was required to sit at the school and supervise the 

j anitor.
Marion Hendry, who is the Supervisor of Instruction, but 

who has worked in the capacity of Supervisor of Personnel for the 
past year and a half, testified that when he got the job of 
Supervisor in 1967, the system had quite a few principals th- 
did not hold a Masters degree in the Negro schools. The overall 
situation was that most of the white principals had the Masters 
degree and that a good number of the Negro principals did not.

However he went on to testify as follows:
Q. Now, if you had a vacancy at this time, based on your 

knowledgeof Mr. McCoy, would you hire him as a prin­
cipal?

A. No.
Q . Why not?

6/ Tr. Aug. 11, 1970, pp. 105-108; 126-130. 
7/ Tr. August 11, 1970, pp. 128-129.



-13-

A. I just would feel like that he w a s -- he was not
certified where we would have people holding a degree,
I feel like would have been certified.

Q. Do you think he would handle the disciplinary situation 
in the schools today as a principal?

A. Well, of course, that would be my belief, in some of 
the larger schools, I'd have to say he couldn't handle 
it.

Q. Do you think he could handle it in the smaller schools?
A. Depends on the circumstances that would arise from it, 

Mr. Simpson.
Q. Did he have any disciplinary problems at Midway after 

you became supervisor
A. Not any that I can remember, no.-8/
Accordingly, it was admitted that McCoy did not have any 

disciplinary problems while he was principal at Midway Elementary 
School.

Indeed, after testifying that he did not believe that McCoy 
was capable of handling the situation at a large school, Hendry 
was asked (Tr. August 11, 1970, p. 70):

Q. Mr. Hendry, you indicated that you didn't think Mr.
McCoy was capable of handling a larger high school?

A. I did.
Q. Larger school?
A. I did.
Q. Do you have any Black principals of large high schools 

in the parish?
A. No we do not.
Q. Do you have any Black principals at large schools?
A. No, sir.

8/ Tr. August 11, 1970, pp. 76-77.



-14-

McCoy testified, without contradiction that there were 
six (6) vacancies for principals in the parish since his demotion 
in July 1969 and that none of his positions were offered to him 
in spite of the fact that he had eight (8) years experience as 
a principal, and that all six vacancies were filled by members 
of the white race.-3/ McCoy testified that he suffered a cut in 
salary in the amount of $3,029.80 annually.

In addition to the demotion of McCoy to the level of class­
room teacher, the Board demoted the following Black principals 
in the following way:

1. Robert Warford from Assistant Principal to classroom 
teacher, with a reduction in salary of $116.67 per 
month;

2. Bernice Smith from teaching elementary principal to 
classroom teacher with a reduction in salary of $57.15 
per month;

3. Nelson Cyprian from teaching elementary principal to 
classroom teacher with a reduction in salary of $65.73 
per month;

4. Manley Younglbood from High School principal to Jr. hith 
school principal;

5. C. B. Temple from High School principal to elementary 
principal with reduction in salary of $47.39 per month; 
and

6. Joe Brumfield from Jr. High School principal to elementary 
principal with a reduction in salary of $27.28 per month._

9/ Tr. August 11, 1970, p. 121-122 

10/ Tr. August 11, 1970, p. 120

11/ Answer to interrogatories by defendants in August, 1970.



-15-

While the Board has demoted seven Black principals and 
assistant principals, it has demoted only two (2) white assista 
principals, one with only a reduction of $7.40 per month in 

salary.
When integration took place, two Black band directors at 

previously Black schools, Edward Duplessis and Dennis Epps, 
were demoted to assistant band directors and subsequently were 
dismissed by the Board. Prior to dismissal Duplessis suffered 
a cut in monthly salary of $49.07 and Epps suffered a cut in 
salary of $50.00 per month. At the same time, no white band 
directors, on the other hand, were demoted or dismissed, 
resulting in there being no Black band directors in the system. 
Indeed, after the demotion of Epps and Duplessis the Board 
hired a band director and an assistant band director, both of 
whom were white, without offering the positions to Epps or 
Duplessis.

Hendry, Supervisor of Instruction, succinctly stated 
that there was no reason why the job was not offered to 
Epps (Tr. August 24, 1970, pp. 16-17):

Q. Have you recently hired a new band director 
for the parish?

A. Yes, we hired a band director.
Q. What school was he assigned?

12/A. Kentwood High School.—

12/ Kentwood was a formerly all white school.



-16-

Q. How long has he been in the Tangipahoa Parish 
School System?

A. This is his first year.
Q. The first year in the system?
A . Right.
Q. Therefore, he has not been a coach, I mean a band 

director in the parish prior to this?

A. No.
Q. Did you offer this job to Mr. Epps?

A . No.
Q. Did you —  is there any particular reasons why you 

did not offer him a job as band director?

A . No.

Hendry also testified that when the assistant band director 
was hired, the position was not offered to Epps. (Tr. August 24, 
1970, p. 17). There was also testimony to the effect that Epps 
had passed the National Teachers Exam, whereas the newly hired 
band director had not (Tr. Aug. 24, 1970, p. 36).

Mr. Edward Duplessis did not testify at the hearing nor 
was his demotion discussed, but the board in cross-examining 
Mr. Epps and on direct to Mr. C. B. Temple, (his former 
principal at the all Black high school) attempted to prove 
that Mr. Epps was responsible for a student demonstration at 
the s c h o o l A t  no time was it stated that Epps led the

13/ Tr. August 24, 1970, pp. 149-150; 153-154.



students in the demonstration, and as a matter of fact 
meetings took place between Mr. Temple, Mr. Hendry and Mr.
Epps and nothing resulted from these meetings. Indeed,
Epps' former principal (C. B. Temple) stated that after 
nothing was done about their meetings, he just forgot about 
it'lA/ Thus, not only was there nothing to show that Epps 
was dismissed or demoted as a result of the student demonstra- 
tion, but he was transferred to another school at the end of 
that school year and was allowed to teach for 1\ years after 
the incident occurred. The Board made no attempts to prove 
that Epps' performance was unsatisfactory for the 1969-70 

school year.
There were numerous Black teachers dismissed. However, 

only two testified at the August 24, 1970 hearing. In addition, 
a school board official was cross-examined about a third one.

Mrs. Gloria Duplessis testified that she had taught in 
the school system for eight years, seven of these years in 
Black schools, including Dillon High School, and one in an 
integrated, former all-white school, and was dismissed after 
the one year at the former all-white school. She testified 
that for the first four months at the former all-white school, 
Chesbrough, she had absolutely no duties to perform and that

14/ Tr. August 24, 1970, p. 153.



-18-

at her other assignment. Spring Creek, she had students sent 
to her class (rather than having been brought by the classroom 
teacher) in 30 minute intervals. Mrs. Duplessis further 
testified that at no time was she observed by a supervisor at 
these two schools.iS/firs. Duplessis explained that for dis- 
plinary purposes it would have been better for her if the 
classroom teacher would have accompanied the students.

The Board attempted to prove that Mrs. Duplessis' per­
formance at Dillon was unsatisfactory. However, Mr. Temple, 
the former principal at the former Dillon High School testi­
fied that he was quite pleased with Mrs. Duplessis' work, 
but that he had on occasions been displeased because of her 
absence due to illness. Here again, the Board did not put 
Mrs. Duplessis' principal for the 1969-70 school year on the
stand to testify as to her performance.-1̂ /

Very much like Mr. McCoy, Mrs. Duplessis had an agree­
ment with Mr. Dewitt Sauls, the former superintendent, that 
she would be allowed to teach in the parish with a temporary 
teacher's certificate while she worked for her B.A. degree. 
This she did, and she testified that she only needed 12 hours
for her B.A. degree 12/

15/ Tr. August 24, 1970, pp. 98-107.
16/ Tr. August 24, 1970, pp. 150-152; 154-155
17/ Tr. August 24, 1970, pp. 101-102.



-19-

The Board also released Mrs. Mary Walker, who had 
taught in the system for three years; two years at the former 
Dillon High School, formerly an all Black school, and seven 
months at Ponchatoula High School (seven months due to 
maternity leave) .A^The principal at Ponchatoula, formerly 
an all white school, testified that Mrs. Walker was incompetent 
because she did not keep her students quiet in her study 
period, but also testified that he had never sat in on any 
of her academic classes in order to determine her competency 
in those classes .A^/There were no complaints about Mrs. Walker 
for the two years while she was assigned to the Black Dillon 
High School.

On cross-examination a school board official testified 
concerning the third Black teacher, Mr. Joseph Richardson to 
the effect that he was required to take the National Teachers 
examination because he had taught one year in the system prior 

to entering the military service for two years and had resume 
his teaching position in the parish upon his release.AO/rhis 
meant that at that time he entered his fourth year of credit 
for teaching. Board officials had previously testified that 
teachers who had acquired tenure were not required to take the 
exam. However, in Mr. Richardson's case he was required to 
take the exam because he had not acquired tenure although given

18/ Tr. August 24, 1970, pp. 94-97.

19/ Tr. August 24, 1970, pp. 136-143
20/ Tr. August 24, 1970, pp. 21-23.



-20-

credit for time served in the military services.
Evidence demonstrated that the Board made no pretext 

of setting up objective criteria for demoting principals, 
band directors and dismissing teachers.-^

21/ Tr. August 24, 1970, pp. 9-10



-21-

Argument
I

THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN DENYING PLAINTIFFS' 
MOTION FOR FURTHER RELIEF WHERE THE BOARD DEMOTED 
SEVEN (7) BLACK PRINCIPALS PRIOR TO THE 1969-70 
SCHOOL YEAR, WHILE HIRING SIX (6) WHITE PRINCIPALS 
AND DEMOTING ONLY TWO (2) WHITE PRINCIPALS AND 
WHERE SUCH DEMOTIONS WERE MADE WITHOUT AN OBJECTIVE 
CRITERIA FOR COMPARISON BETWEEN BLACK AND WHITE 
PRINCIPALS, AND WHERE THE BOARD DEMOTED AND 
SUBSEQUENTLY DISMISSED TWO (2) BLACK BAND DIRECTORS 
WHO WERE EXPERIENCED IN THEIR FIELD WHILE HIRING 
TWO (2) INEXPERIENCED WHITE BAND DIRECTORS AND 
WHERE THE BOARD REFUSED TO EMPLOY QUALIFIED BLACK 
TEACHERS .

The court below, in its order of July 2, 1969, tracked
Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate School District, 419
F.2d 1211 (5th Cir. 1969), and ordered:

Sec. I (E). The principal of each of the schools 
that will be closed shall be assigned either as a 
principal to some other school, or as an assistant 
principal in a school that a member of the opposite 
race is serving as principal, unless it is deter­
mined in a particular instance that this is not 
educationally feasible for a valid reason not 
related to race....
Sec. I (G). Principals, teachers, administrative 
personnel, members of the professional staff, 
athletic coaches, and other persons in positions 
of responsibility or authority shall not be 
assigned, promoted, demoted or dismissed on a 
racially discriminatory basis, nor in any manner 
that makes a school racially identifiable by the 
race of its staff. Any personnel displaced as a 
result of a school closing shall be assigned to 
a similar position in some other school on a 
racially nondiscriminatory basis. This shall not 
prevent the school board from failing to continue 
the employment of any teacher who is not entitled 
to tenure under state law, so long as its decision 
is reached without racial discrimination of any 
kind.



-22-

Contrary to the Fifth circuit's order in Singleton, 
supra, and this Court's order of July 2, 1969, the School Board
proceeded to demote and dismiss Black principals and Black 
teachers. In less than ten days of this Court's order, the 
Board reduced Fred McCoy, Jr., former principal at all-Black 
Midway Elementary School, to the level of classroom teacher.

The Board’s justification for this demotion was that it 
did not feel that Mr. McCoy was capable of handling the 
administration of an integrated school, while at the same time 
admitting that there were no Black principals at any of the 
high schools in the parish. It was also admitted that new 
white principals have been hired by the Board since the demotion 
of Mr. McCoy and that Mr. McCoy was not offered a position 
as principal although he has had experience as a principal 
for eight years and the persons that were hired had far less 
experience.

The Board attempted to justify its position by stating 
that Mr. McCoy was not certified as a principal, but Mr. McCoy 
testified without contradiction that there was an agreement 
between him and the former superintendent, Dewitt Sauls, that 
he would be appointed principal if he would accumulate six 
hours per year towards his Masters in Administration. Mr. McCoy 
testified that he did attend school at night, on Saturdays 
and during the summer in order to live up to his part of 
the agreement. He stated that he has acquired 20 hours 
towards his Masters in Administration.



-23-

One of the Singleton requirements in the case of demotions 
is that no vacancy may be filled through recruitment of a 
person of a race, color, or national origin different from 
that of the individual dismissed or demoted, until each 
displaced staff member who is qualified has had an opportunity 
to fill the vacancy and has failed to accept an offer to do so. 
Clearly, there have been vacancies in principalships and 
assistant principalships since McCoy was demoted, most of which 
have been filled by whites.

It is also clear that as long as Mr. McCoy was qualified 
to take the position, no white persons could be hired even if 
they were somewhat more qualified than Mr. McCoy. That 
Mr. McCoy was qualified to fill these openings is evident 
from the fact that he had been appointed by the school district 
to the position of principal for the previous eight years.

In an attempt to show some concrete standard on which 
it based its demotions, the school board has pointed to the 
fact that Mr. McCoy has not yet attained his Master's degree. 
However, this is a classic instance of using standards ex 
post facto to justify an otherwise inexplicable action. At 
no time prior to his demotion was Mr. McCoy informed a 
Master's degree was a necessary requirement for his position.
In fact, at the time of his demotion, numerous principals 
throughout the parish system possessed only a Bachelor's 
degree (Aug. 24 Transcript p. 44, Aug. 11 Transcript p. 76,
Record Chart showing degrees).



-25-

In view of the court-ordered plan for the Tangipahoa 
Parish School system, the school district was obligated to 
appraise the demoted principals and teachers qualifications 
on a nonracial basis. Moore v. Tangipahoa Parish School Board,
No. 15556 (E.D. La., July 2, 1969); Singleton v._Jackson
Municipal Separate School District, 419 F.2d 1211, 1217, 1218
(5th Cir., en banc, 1969); United States v. Jefferson County 
Board of Education, 380 F.2d 385, 394 (5th Cir., en banc, 1967);
Steward v. Stanton Independent School District, 375 F.2d 774 
(5th Cir. 1967) (per curiam); Chambers v. Hendersonville City 
Board of Education, 364 F.2d 189 (4th Cir. 1966); Rolfe__v.
County Board of Education of Lincoln County, Tennessee, 391 
F.2d 77 (6th Cir. 1968); Smith v. Morrilton School District 
No. 32, 365 F.2d 770 (8th Cir. 1966); Smith v. Concordia 
Parish School Board, No. 11,577 (W.D. La. 1970), and Dunn v.
Livingston Parish School Board, No. 3197 (E.D. La., August 12, 

1970).
Moreover, when it became necessary to discharge or demote 

principals or teachers because of the integration of schools, 
the Board was required to compare their qualifications with all 
of the teachers in the system and not just at their school.
Hill v. Franklin County Board of Education, 390 F.2d 583 
(6th Cir. 1968); Wall v. Stanley County Board of Education,
378 F.2d 275 (1967); Jackson v. Wheatley School District No.---
of St. Francis County, Arkansas, No. 19,952 (8th Cir., Aug. 11,
1970); Rolfe v. County Board of Education of Lincoln County,— Term



-24-

Further, this is the only criteria used by the Board.
It neglects other relevant factors that should have been 
considered, such as Mr. McCoy’s eight years of experience 
and his fine record devoid of disciplinary problems (Aug. 11 
Transcript p. 77). See Smith v. Morrilton School District
NO. 32, 365 F.2d 770 (8th Cir. 1966).

Finally, by requiring a Master's degree of all 
principals, the school system is penalizing Black personnel 
for the Board's own prior unconstitutional segregated school 
policy. under the previous dual system, Black principals 
were not required to hold a Master's degree while in general 
white principals were (Aug. 11, 1970, Tr. 76-77). By now 
requiring all Black principals to hold a Master's degree without 
allowing a reasonable time for them to meet the new standard, 
the Board effectively discriminates against Black personnel.

indeed the Board stated that "there can be no question 
but what the educational background of the Negro teachers 
and principal; their ability to control classroom and school 
situation which arise is not as good as a class, as the white 
teachers."^ However, the District Court in its September 2, 
1970 order found no pattern of racial discrimination by the 

Board against Black teachers.

22/ Memorandum Brief submitted to District Court by Defendants
on October 8, 1970, p. 1-



-26-

391 F.2d 77 (1968); McBeth v. Board of Education of Devalls
Bluff School District No. 1, Ark., 300 F. Supp. 1270 (1969), 
and Franklin v. County School Board of Giles County, 360 F.2d 
325 (4th Cir. 1966). Thus, the court in Chambers v. 
Hendersonville City Board of Education, supra, stated that 
'•Negro school teachers, as a class, were entitled to an order 
requiring the school board, which decreased number of positions 
open to Negro teachers from 24 to 8, to set up definite objective 
standards for employment and retention of teachers and to apply 
them to all teachers alike in a manner compatible with require­
ments of due process and equal protection.

in this case the Tangipahoa Parish School Board has made 
no pretext of setting up an objective criteria for demoting 
principals, band directors and dismissing teachers. Indeed 
the Board official testified that the Board did not feel that 
the demoted principal was capable of handling an integrated 
school. Obviously no other criteria was used in demoting 
Black principals, since only two white assistant principals 
were demoted while no white principal was demoted. As a matter 
of fact, the Board made no effort to prove that they compared 
the qualifications of the demoted and dismissed Black teachers 
and principals with others in the system and found them inferior

prior to their demotion or dismissal.
The Board's actions in demoting Black principals and 

band directors and dismissing Black teachers while retaining



-27-

whites would lead one to believe that these Black teachers 
and principals were hired to teach only in Black schools and 
not in white schools. Employment of Black teachers, not as 
teachers in the entire school system, but as teachers in Black 
schools only is repugnant to the Fourteenth Amendment. Wall 
v, Stanley County Board of Education, 378 F.2d 275 (1967).

At no time prior to the demotions did the Defendant- 
Appellees develop or require the development of non-racial 
objective criteria to be used in selecting the staff members 
to be demoted, and no objective criteria were used in fact 
prior to the demotions. Where there is a history of racial 
discrimination in the school system the burden of showing non­
discrimination in relation to teacher employment is on the School 
Board, Rolfe v. County Board of Education of Lincoln County, 
Tennessee, 391 F.2d 77 (6th Cir. 1968).

II
THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN APPROVING 
A DESEGREGATION PLAN WHICH PROVIDED FOR 
SEGREGATION OF SOME OF THE SCHOOLS AND/
OR CLASSES BY SEX.

In its September 2, 1970 order the District Court
allowed the School Board to continue segregating some of its 
schools and classes by sex, stating that at present there is 
no evidence of a pattern of racial discrimination resulting 
from this sex separation.

Prior to the desegregation order which integrated the 
schools, two elementary schools and one junior high school



-28-

were segregated by sex. However, after the court ordered 

the schools desegregated, separation by sex was extended to 

the high school level. This would leave one to believe that 

such extension was for the purpose of separating Black boys 

from white girls and white boys from Black girls, and such 

action violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth 

Amendment.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated, the decree of the District 

Court as far as it denies relief to Black principals, teachers, 
band directors and segregation of students by sex should be 
reversed by this Court.

Respectfully submitted,

NORMAN J. CHACHKIN 
MARGRETT FORD

10 Columbus circle
New York, New York 10019

A. P. TUREAUD
1821 Orleans Ave.
New Orleans, Louisiana

Attorneys for Appellants

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that I have this 10th day of February,

1971, mailed a copy of the foregoing Brief for Appellants



-29-

to counsel for appellees and intervenors by placing same in
the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows

Joseph H. Simpson, Esq- 
Assistant District Attorney 
21st Judicial District 
Amite, Louisiana 70422
John D. Kopfler, Esq.
P.0. Box 1209 
Hammond, Louisiana.