Wall v. Stanley County, North Carolina Board of Education Opinion

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11,019.

Audrey Gillis Wall and The 
North Carolina Teachers 

Association, a corporation, 
Appellants,

versus

The Stanly County Board of 
Education, a public body 

corporate of Stanly County, 
North Carolina, 

Appellee.

A ppeal from the U nited States District Court for the 
M iddle District of North Carolina, at Salisbury. 

Eugene A. Gordon, D istrict Judge.

(Argued March 6, 1967. Decided May 19, 1967.)

Before H aynsworth , Chief Judge, and Sobeloff, Bore- 
m an , Bryan, Bell, W inter and Craven, Circuit Judges, 
sitting en banc.

J. LeVonne Chambers (Conrad O. Pearson, Jack Greenberg 
and James M. Nabrit, III, on brief) for Appellants, and 
Henry C. Doby (Staton P. Williams on brief) for Appel­
lee.



2

C r a v e n , Circuit Judge:

It is now firmly established in this circuit (1) that the 
Fourteenth Amendment forbids the selection, retention, and 
assignment of public school teachers on the basis of race; 
(2) that reduction in the number of students and faculty in 
a previously all-Negro school will not alone justify the dis­
charge or failure to reemploy Negro teachers in a school 
system; (3) that teachers displaced from formerly racially 
homogeneous schools must be judged by definite objective 
standards with all other teachers in the system for continued 
employment; and (4) that a teacher wrongfully discharged 
or denied reemployment in contravention of these principles 
is, in addition to equitable remedies, entitled to an award of 
actual damages.1

In derogation of these principles, the district court denied 
relief to Negro school teacher Mrs. Audrey Wall. We reverse.

I .

The facts found by the district court are briefly stated2 
below.

Audrey Gillis Wall, a Negro, is, in the words of the district 
judge, a teacher of “ unchallenged professional and educa­
tional qualifications, who has thirteen years of teaching ex­
perience, predominantly in Stanly County,” North Caro­
lina. She holds A.B. and M.S. degrees and, despite some de­

1 Chambers v. Hendersonville City Bd. of Educ., 364 F.2d 189 (4th Cir. 
1966); Johnson v. Branch, 364 F.2d 177 (4th Cir. 1966); Wheeler v. Durham 
City Bd of Educ., 363 F.2d 738 (4th Cir. 1966); Franklin v. County School Bd., 
360 F.2d 325 (4th Cir. 1966). Chambers, Johnson, and Franklin were authored 
by Judge J. Spencer Bell, who would have written the opinion for the court in 
this case but for his death on March 19, 1967.

2 For a more complete statement of findings, see Wall v. Stanly County Bd. of 
Educ., 259 F. Supp. 238 (M .D .N .C. 1966).



3

ficiencies in performance, was recommended by her princi­
pal for reemployment for the school year 1965-66. The 
School Board approved the principal’s recommendation of 
reemployment, contingent only upon the allocation of the 
requisite teaching positions by the State.

Integration came to the Stanly County school system ten 
years after Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 
(1954), occurring with the transfer of two Negro pupils 
from a Negro school to a formerly all-white school in the 
school year 1964-65. The system at that time consisted of 
seventeen public schools and some 7,000 students, of which 
approximately fifteen percent were Negro.

For the year 1965-66 and prior thereto, there was com­
plete segregation of white and Negro teachers, i.e., no Negro 
teacher taught white pupils, and no white teacher taught 
Negro pupils. The first break in teacher segregation occurred 
in January 1966 when a Negro teacher was employed to 
teach history in a mostly white school.

On or about June 5, 1965, the allocation of teacher spaces 
for the school year 1965-66 was received from the North 
Carolina Board of Education. For the first time such spaces 
were granted to the Stanly County Board of Education with­
out reference to race and without designation of the school 
in which the spaces might be used by the Stanly County 
Board. During the spring of 1965, the Board adopted a free­
dom of choice plan of pupil enrollment, and as a result 
thereof, over 300 Negro pupils who had formerly attended 
all-Negro schools were assigned to formerly white schools 
for the school year beginning September 1965.

As found by the district court, “ the shifts in pupil enroll­
ment as result of the ‘freedom of choice plan’ resulted in a 
decrease in the allocation of teacher spaces to the Negro 
schools and an increase in the allocation of teacher spaces to



4

formerly white or predominantly white schools.”  Despite 
this, and again in the words of the district court, “ the Board 
adopted no specific provisions to govern assignment of teach­
ers who might be affected by the shifting of pupil enroll­
ment. The Board did not solicit opinions from either teach­
ers or principals as to what, if any, policy might or should be 
adopted. Principals were not advised as to whether teachers 
whose positions were affected by the aforesaid reduced al­
lotments to Negro schools would be reassigned to another 
school in the system. The Board did not advise the several 
white principals that they could employ Negro teachers nor 
Negro principals that they could hire white teachers.”

II.

The meaning of the foregoing is very plain. Obviously the 
Board considered that transfer of Negro pupils from a Negro 
school diminished the need for Negro teachers in the Negro 
school, causing Mrs. Wall to lose her job. The premise of 
such a proposition is that Mrs. Wall was not employed as a 
teacher in the Stanly County school system but was em­
ployed as a Negro teacher in a Negro school. Such a premise 
is unlawful. It is repugnant to the Fourteenth Amendment, 
which “ forbids discrimination on account of race by a public 
school system with respect to employment of teachers.” 
Franklin v. County School Bd., 360 F.2d 325, 327 (4th Cir. 
1966), citing Bradley v. School B d 345 F.2d 310, 316 (4th 
Cir.), rev’d on other grounds, 382 U.S. 103 (1965).

In his opinion, the district judge said: “ It is obvious that 
if the teacher spaces at Lakeview had not been reduced, 
Mrs. Wall would have been reemployed for the school year 
1965-66.” His finding is fully supported by the evidence. It 
requires reversal of the decision below because Mrs. Wall 
was not allowed by the School Board to compete for a teach­



5

ing position in the system on the basis of her merit and quali­
fications as a teacher. Solely because of her race, she was not 
considered in comparison with other teacher applicants, 
about fifty of whom had not previously taught in the sys­
tem. This sort of invidious discrimination offends the Con­
stitution. E.g., Chambers v. Hendersonville City Bd. of 
Educ., 364 F.2d 189 (4th Cir. 1966); Franklin v. County 
School Bd., 360 F.2d 325 (4th Cir. 1966); see generally 
Note, Discrimination in the Hiring and Assignment of 
T eachers in the Public School Systems, 64 Mich. 692 (1966). 
We reject the erroneous conclusion of the district court that 
the decisions of this circuit in Chambers and Franklin, re­
quiring an objective and comparative evaluation with all 
other teachers, are not controlling.

III.

Since Mrs. Wall was recommended for reemployment by 
her principal and his recommendation approved by the 
School Board— subject only to the allotment of spaces, which 
was controlled by the same Board— we think the belated 
and invidiously unfair rejection of her application for re­
employment entitles her to recover damages. Smith v. Bd. of 
Educ., 365 F.2d 770, 784 (8th Cir. 1966); Chambers v. 
Hendersonville City Bd. of Educ., 364 F.2d 189, 193 (4th 
Cir. 1966) ; Johnson v. Branch, 364 F.2d 177, 182 (4th Cir. 
1966) ; Rolfe v. County Bd. of Educ., 11 Race Rel. L. Rep.
1841, 1846-47, ..... F. Supp.........., ...... (E.D. Tenn. 1966) ;
Macklin v. County Bd. of Educ., 11 Race Rel. L. Rep. 805, 
806,.... F.Supp..... ,.... (M.D. Tenn. 1966). Mrs. Wall man­
aged to secure employment elsewhere for the school year 
1965-66. Proper damage elements will include salary differ­
ences, if any, and moving expenses to her new residence. If 
she should be reemployed in the Stanly County system for



6

the school year 1967-68, she should also be awarded the rea­
sonable expense of moving back to Stanly County.

We further instruct the district court to order the Board 
to put Mrs. Wall, if she wishes, on the roster of teaching ap­
plicants for the school year 1967-68, and to require that she 
then be considered for employment objectively in compari­
son with all teachers. The Board will be ordered to consider 
her twelve-year experience in the Stanly County school sys­
tem to the extent it considers seniority as a factor in the re­
tention of other teachers. The Board should be specifically 
enjoined from considering her race as a factor in determin­
ing whether or not she will be reemployed.

If Mrs. Wall should be denied reemployment, the district 
court will require a full report of the reasons for denial, and 
will scrutinize it to assure that the School Board has acted 
in good faith and without regard to race. Because of the 
Board’s prior discrimination against Mrs. Wall, it will carry 
“ the burden of justifying its conduct by clear and convincing 
evidence.” Chambers v. Hendersonville City Bd. of Educ., 
364 F.2d 189, 196 (4th Cir. 1966).

IV.

On April 15, 1966, the School Board adopted an extreme­
ly comprehensive plan governing the hiring and assigning of 
personnel in the public schools. The plan establishes stand­
ards and procedures for rating and evaluating teachers. It 
contains definitions and instructions for the application of 
the standards to a given teacher and methods by which at­
tributes of the teacher are to be evaluated. We think this ex­
haustive plan, if implemented in good faith, is fully sufficient 
to assure that “ staff and professional personnel will be em­
ployed solely on the basis of competence, training, experi­
ence, and personal qualification and shall be assigned to and



7

within the schools of the administrative unit without regard 
to race, color, or national origin * * *.,,s

Aside from the facial adequacy of the new plan of teacher 
recruitment and assignment, we are advised in open court by 
counsel that for the school year 1966-67 some progress has 
been made in integrating the faculty and that now some six 
or seven Negro teachers are teaching in formerly white 
schools. On remand, we instruct the district court to make 
further inquiry into the present degree of implementation of 
the plan and to consider de novo the question of whether or 
not an injunction ought to issue. Only if the district court 
concludes that the plan is being implemented according to 
its tenor, i.e., that teachers are being hired and assigned with­
out racial discrimination, may it reject the prayer for an in­
junction. The district court will retain jurisdiction to con­
sider motions in the cause as may be necessary to assure fair 
and equal treatment of all teachers and to assure that the 
plan will not become a paper proclamation of good inten­
tions to be filed away and forgotten.

Reversed and Remanded.

3 Resolution on Teacher Hiring Policies, Stanly County, North Carolina, 
Board of Education, April 15, 1966.



A d m . O ffice, U . S. C o u rts— 3555— 6-13-66— 150— Lew is  P r in tin g  C o ., R ich m o n d , V a . 2320?