Amended - Supplemental Pleading

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

)
RONALD BRADLEY, et al., )

)
Plaintiffs, )

)
v. )

)
WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, )

)
Defendants, )

)
and )

)
DENISE MAGDOWSKI, )

)
Defendants- )
Intervenors )

)
and )

)
ALLEN PARK, et al., )

)
Defendants- )
Intervenors, )

)
and )

)
KERRY GREEN, et al., )

)
Defendants- )
Intervenors, )

)
and )

)
WAYNE COUNTY INTERMEDIATE )
SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., )

Added Defendants )
)

AMENDED - SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADING

I. PRIOR PROCEEDINGS

1. The pertinent prior proceedings and decisions 

in this cause in the Court of Appeals are set forth in Bradley 
v. Miliiken, 433 F.2d 397 (6th Cir. 1970); Bradley v. Milliken,

438 F .2d 897 (6th Cir. 1971); Bradley v. Milliken, _F.2d_

(6th Cir. Feb . 2 3 s 1972), cert, denied, __ _U < S. _, 41 U . S. L . W .
3175 ( Oct. 10, 1972); Bradley v, Miliiken, __F .2d
(6th Cir. Dec. 8, 1972) and Bradley v, Ml111ken, F.2d
(6th Cir. e n  banc, June 12, 1973), The pertinent prior proceeding 

and decisions in this cause in the District Court are set forth 
In September 3, 1970 Ruling on Application for Preliminary



Injunction, Motion to Intervene, and Motion to Dismiss, aff’d 

in part and rev’d in part, 433 F.2d 897; December 3, 1970 Ruling 
on School Plans submitted, remanded with instructions, 438 F.2d
o , 1971897; Feb. l6y/Rulings and Order on Class Action and Standing;
Ruling on Issue of Segregation, 338 F.Supp. 582 (E.D.Mich. 1971)

aff’d en banc, ____F.2d____(June 12, 1973); Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law on Detroit-Only Plans of Desegregation,

F .Supp. (E.D.Mich. March 28, 1972), aff’d en banc,
___ _F.2d____(June 12 , 1973); Ruling on Propriety of a Metropolitan
Remedy to Accomplish Desegregation of the Public Schools of
the City of Detroit, F .Supp. _____(E.D .Mich. June 12, 1973) ,
aff’d en banc in part, and vacated en banc as set forth in
___F.2d (June 12, 1973); Ruling on Desegregation Area and
Development of Plan, and Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law in Support thereof, F .Supp. ____(E.D.Mich. June 14, 1972),

vacated en banc in part and reinstated en banc in part as set
forth in ____F.2d____(Jane 12, 1973); Order for Acquisition of
Transportation, ____F.Supp.____(E.D.Mich. July 11, 1972),

vacated en banc as set forth in ____F.2d____(June 12, 1973).
2. The pleadings and evidence already of record in 

this cause are now and have been on file in the District Court 
and available for inspection and/or copying by any interested 

party.
II. DEFENDANTS

3. The original Detroit School District Defendants
are the Board of Education of the City of Detroit, its Superintendent 
(now Charles Wolfe), and the members of the Board of Education.

4. The original State Defendants are Governor William 

J. Milliken, Attorney General Frank J. Kelley, the Michigan 
State Board of Education and its Superintendent, John W. Porter.

i
5. The intervening Detroit defendants are (a) the 

Detroit Federation of Teachers Local 231, American Federation 
of Teachers, AFL-CIO and (b) Denise Magdowski, et al.

6. The intervening suburban defendants are Allen Park 

Public Schools, School District of the City of Berkeley, Brandon 

Schools, Centerline Public Schools, Cherry Hill School District,

2



Chippewa Valley Public Schools, School District of the City of 

Clawson, Crestwood School District, Dearborn Public Schools,

Dearborn Heights School District No. 7* East Detroit Public 

Schools, School District of the City of Ferndale, Flat Rock 

Community Schools, Garden City Public Schools, Gibralter School 
District, School District of the City of Hazel Park, Intermediate 

School District of the County of Macomb, Lake Share Public 

Schools, Lakeview Public Schools, The Lamphere Schools, Lincoln 

Park Public Schools, Madison District Public Schools, Melvindale- 
North Allen Park School District, School District of No th Dearborn 

Heights, Novi Community School District, Oak Park School 

District, Oxford Area Community Schools, Redford Union School 

District No. 1, Richmond Community Schools, School District of 

the City of River Rouge, Riverview Community School District, 
Roseville Public Schools, South Lake Schools, Taylor School 

District, Warren Consolidated Schools, Warren Woods Public 
Schools, Wayne-Westland Community Schools, Woodhaven School 

District, Wyandotte Public Schools, Grosse Pointe Schools,

Southfield Public Schools, School District of the City of 

Royal Oak and Kerry Green, et al.
7. The added state defendant is State Treasurer Allison

Green.
8. The added suburban defendants are (a) the Wayne 

County Intermediate School District, the Oakland County Intermediate 

School District, Lakeview Public Schools, Fitzgerald Public Schools, 

Fraser Public Schools, Harper Woods School District, Van Dyke 

Public Schools, Hamtramck School District, School District
of the City of Troy, Highland Park City School District, School 

District of the City of Birmingham, Bloomfield Hills School 

District, Farmington Public School District, Clarenceville 
School District, West Bloomfield School District, Livonia Public 

School District, South Redford School District, Romulus Township 
School District, Inkster School District, Westwood Community 
School District, Ecorse Public School District, Southgate Community 

School District, Riverview Community School District, School 

District of the City of Pontiac, Holly Area Schools, Huron



Valley Schools, Lake Orion Community School District, Rochester 

Community School, Walled Lake Consolidated School District,
Avondale School District, Clarkston Community Schools, South 
Lyon Community Schools, Waterford School District, Mt. Clemens 

Community School District, Anchor Bay School District, Romeo 

Community Schools, Clintondale Community Schools, L'anse 
Creuse Public Schools, South Lake Schools, Utica Community 

Schools, Armada Area Schools, New Haven Community Schools,
Plymouth Community School District, Huron School District,

Northville Public School District, Van Buren Public School 
District, Grosse lie Township School District, Trenton Public 
School District; (b) all other school districts, if any, in 

the tri-county area; (c) the Boards of Education and Members 
of the Boards of Education in each school district in the tri­
county area; (d) the Superintendents of each school district in 

the tri-county area.
9. On or about November 6, 1971* the intervening and 

added suburban defendants were aware that the District Court ordered 

the State Board of Education to submit a metropolitan plan 

of desegregation for the Detroit Public Schools on November 5*
1971, and that the District Court did not propose to stop the 
voice of any suburban school district which wished to be heard.
Prior thereto, intervening and added suburban defendants were 

aware that proof introduced in this cause on the trial of the 
issue of segregation concerned various state actions by the 
defendants (or their agents) then before the Court, state law, 
or the State of Michigan relating to the official segregation 

of black citizens in the Detroit Public Schools and their 
official segregation from white citizens in suburban schools! 

that the District Court warned during the trial that the State 
Defendants should consider the broadest possible remedies! and 
that motion to add all suburban school district defendants 

as defendants was filed and held in abeyance. No suburban 
defendant chose to file application for leave to intervene prior 
to February 9, 1972. On or about March 16, 1972, added suburban



# •
defendants were aware that the applications for leave to 

intervene filed by any suburban school district were granted by 

the District Court on March 15, 1972. Some of the added defendants 

thereafter filed writs of mandamus or prohibition against the 

District Judge which were denied without prejudice to their 
rights to intervene in the District/. Despite awareness of 

these facts, added suburban school district defendants, to 
this date, have chosen not to file application for leave to 

intervene. In any event, at every stage of these proceedings 

someone of the then party defendants presented the defenses 

available to any suburban school district defendants.

III. INCORPORATION OF PRIOR COMPLAINT

10. Plaintiffs Ronald Bradley, et al., hereby incorporate 

by reference the entirety of their original complaint in this 

cause, filed August 19, 1970. (The original complaint is 

attached as Exhibit A).

IV. ADDITIONAL ALLEGATIONS TO CONFORM 
TO THE EVIDENCE

11. Wholly apart from the actions of any suburban 

defendant, various state actions— by the original Detroit 

and State defendants, their agents, state law, and the State 

of Michigan— contributed to the expanding pattern of official 

segregation and containment of black children in racially 
identifiable, virtually all black schools in the Detroit Public 

Schools surrounded by racially identifiable, virtually all 

white schools in the suburban public schools throughout the 
tri-county area. These state actions include, but are not 

limited to, new school construction; discriminatory reimbursement 

of transportation funds; the validation and reimposition of
the boundaries of the Detroit School District, imposition of 

a segregatory pupil assignment policy for the Detroit Public 
Schools, and the particular carve-out of regional school 
governance units wholly within the Detroit School District by 
Act 48 of the Public Acts of 1970; the transfer and/or trans­
portation of students across school districts and within school 

districts with the purpose and/or effect of official school 
segregation; limitations and operation of bonding authority;



and the operation of state aid and financial limitations, in
f t f *  ^  s *conjunction with other official actions of segregation,/left 

the Detroit School District virtually bankrupt and further 

identified it as a black school district. Wholly apart from 

any action by suburban school district defendants, the state 
actions noted above are significant, pervasive and causally 

related to the official and substantial segregation of black 
children in and within the Detroit Public Schools.

Wholly apart from any action by suburban school district defendants, 
the state, through the actions noted above, has acted in a 

racially discriminatory fashion with the effect of creating 

and maintaining the expanding pattern of racial segregation 
noted above and along school district lines. Wholly apart 

from any action by suburban school district defendants, the 
pattern of racially identifiable, virtually all white schools 

in the suburbs is a result of the official containment and segre-
l y V 'f 'f  f  t Olgation of black children in racially -and virtually all
i

black schools within the City of Detroit.

12. The state controls the instrumentalities whose
action is necessary to remedy the expanding pattern of official

and substantial school segregation noted above. Suburban school
districts— like the Detroit School District, intermediate,
local, and regional school districts— are subordinate governmental
entities which have been created and carved out by the state
and given varying powers to assist in carrying out the state

responsibility for education and whose size and boundaries
are uneven, often crossed by school children and school programs, 

hep.rana^little relationship to other governmental units. The 
State Board of Education has various authority and power—  
including, but not limited to, distribution of funds, accreditation, 
and general supervision and responsibility for public 
education in the state— -at its disposal to assist in planning 
and implementing any desegregation plan for the Detroit public 
schools extending beyond the geographic boundaries of the City
of Detroit.



#

13. The Detroit metropolitan area has grown as a

series of interrelated and overlapping economic, recreation, 

service, and governmental units with many persons moving 

to the suburbs but working and enjoying services in Detroit, 

and others living in Detroit but working and enjoying services 

in the suburbs. The school and housing opportunities for black 

citizens in the Detroit Metropolitan Area, however, have 

been and remain restricted by discriminatory state action to

areas of historic racial containment throughout the metropolitan 

area.
14. Although plaintiffs’ Plan of Desegregation limited

to the geographic limits of the City of Detroit would accomplish 

more actual desegregation than now obtains in the system or 
would be achieved under Detroit Board Plans A and C, any actual 

plan of desegregation for the Detroit Public Schools limited to 

the geographic limits of the City of Detroit:
(a) will, by official action, make all schools in 

the Detroit Public School system racially 
identifiable as black and make the entire 

Detroit school system identifably black;
(b) will not achieve the effective desegregation of 

the Detroit Public Schools;
(c) does not promise realistically, to substitute, 

now or hereafter, a system of just schools for 

the system of illegally segregated white schools 

and black schools found;
(d) will not now eradicate the constitutional 

violations found and will not hereafter prevent 

their reoccurence.
15. The only feasible plan of desegregation for

the constitutional violations found, considering the practicalities 

of the Situation, involves the crossing of the boundary lines 

between the Detroit School District and adjacent or nearby 
school districts for the limited purpose of providing an 

effective desegregation plan.

separate, and distinct/within the City and a few other

-  7



16. The pupils, teachers, resources and facilities of 

the following defendant local and intermediate school districts 

are necessary in this cause for the limited purpose of accom­

plishing the effective desegregation of the Detroit public 
schools now and hereafter, including but not limited to inclusion 

in the desegregation area for pupil and staff assignment:

Wayne County Intermediate; Oakland County Intermediate; 
Macomb County Intermediate; Lake Shore; Roseville 
City; East Detroit City; South Lake; Grosse Pointe; 
Lakeview; Centerline; Fitzgerald; Warren Woods;
Fraser; Harper Woods; Van Dyke; Warren Consolidated; 
Hazel Park City; Hamtramck; Lamphere; Madison Heights; 
City of Troy; Ferndale City; Berkley City; Highland 
Park; Royal Oak City; Clawson City; Birmingham; Oak 
Park City; Southfield; Bloomfield Hills; Farmington; 
Clarenceville; West Bloomfield; Livonia; Garden City; 
South Redford; North Dearborn Heights; Crestwood;
Cherry Hill; Redford Union; Taylor; Dearborn City; 
Dearborn Heights; Fairlane; Romulus Township; Inkster 
City; Wayne-Westland Community; Westwood Community; 
Ecorse; Allen Park; Southgate Community; River Rouge 
City; Riverview Community; Wyandotte City; Lincoln 
Park City; MeIvindale-North Allen.
17. The pupils, teachers, resources and facilities of 

the following defendant school districts are necessary for
the limited purpose of accomplishing the effective desegre­
gation of the Detroit public schools now and hereafter, including 
but not limited to, limitation of their additional school 
capacity and staff hiring except insofar as they affirmatively 

promote desegregation:
Pontiac City; Novi Community; Holly Area; Huron 
Valley; Lake Orion Community; Oxford Area Community; 
Rochester Community; Walled Lake Consolidated;
Avondale; Brandon Township; Clarkston Community;
South Lyon Community; Waterford; Mt. Clemens 
Community; Anchor Bay; Richmond Community; Romeo 
Community; Chippewa Valley; Clintondale; L'Anse 
Creuse; South Lake; Utica Community; Armada Area;
New Haven Community; Plymouth Community; Huron; 
Northville; Van Buren; Flat Roch Community; Gibraltar; 
Grosse lie Township; Trenton Public Schools;
Woodhaven.

18. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference, as 

additional allegations to conform to the evidence, the Findings of Fact 
in Support of Desegregation Area and Development of Plans issued 

by the District Court June 1*1, 1972. [These Findings of Fact 
are attached as Exhibit B].

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully pray that upon the 
filing of this Complaint, the Court advance this cause on the 
docket, order the Court-appointed Panel to proceed 'with 

its planning and studies, order a speedy hearing of this action

8



#
according to law and the guidelines established by 4ke S 

Circuit in its Opinion and Order of June 12, 1973, and upon such 

hearing:
a. Enter a decree approving an effective metropolitan 

plan of desegregation for the Detroit Public Schools which 
promises realistically to work now and hereafter to maintain
a racially unified, non-discriminatory system of public schooling. 

Such plan should include the utilization of all reasonable 

and feasible methods and tools of desegregation as set forth 
in the guidelines established by the Sixth Circuit in its 

decision en banc of June 12, 1973, and the controlling decisions 
of the Supreme Court; provided, however, pursuant to the decision 

of theSixth Circuit, that existing governmental and organiza­
tional structures shall, in any case, be maintained to the 
extent possible, pending a reasonable opportunity for the 
Michigan Legislature to act to alter same.

b. Enter a decree enjoining defendants to implement 

no later than the 1973-74 school year and maintain thereafter 
such an effective, metropolitan plan for the desegregation of 

the Detroit Public Schools.
c. Award to plaintiffs’ attorneys reasonable counsel 

fees for services rendered and to be rendered inland reimbursement 

for all out-of-pocket expenses of;this action.
d. Retain continuing jurisdiction of this cause and 

grant such other and additional relief as may appear to the 
Court to be equitable and just.

Respectfully submitted,

J. HAROLD FLANNERY 
Center for Lav/ & Education- 
61 Kirkland St.
Cambridge, Mass. 02133 
PAUL R. DIMOND 
906 Rose Avenue 
Ann Arbor, Mich. 4810*1 
313-769-3899

NATHANIEL JONES 
General Counsel 
N.A.A.C.P.
1790 Broadway 
New York, New York 10019 

LOUIS R. LUCAS 
WILLIAM E. CALDWELL 
Ratner, Sugermon & Lucas 
525 Commerce Title Bldg. 
Memphis, Tennessee 38103 
901- 523-8601 

JACK GREENBERG 
NORMAN J. CHACKKIN 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019

- Q