United States v. Georgia Motion for Leave to File and Supplemental Brief for Appellant

    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

NO. 30338

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

CHARLIE RIDLEY, JR., et al.,
Plaintiffs-intervenors- Appellants,

V.

THE STATE OF GEORGIA, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court 
for the Northern District of Georgia

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AND SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF 
FOR APPELLANTS CHARLIE RIDLEY, JR., ET AL.

HOWARD MOORE, JR.
PETER E. RINDSKOPF
Citizens Trust Bank Bldg. 
75 Piedmont Avenue, N.E. 
Atlanta, Georgia 30303

JACK GREENBERG 
NORMAN J. CHACHKIN 

10 Colvimbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019

Attorneys for Appellants, Ridley, et al.



IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

NO. 30338

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

CHARLIE RIDLEY, JR., et al..
Plaintiffs-Intervenors- Appellants,

V.

THE STATE OF GEORGIA, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court 
for the Northern District of Georgia

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF

Intervenors-appellants, Charlie Ridley, Jr., et al., 
respectfully pray pursuant to Rule 28(c) of the Federal Rules 
of Appellate Procedure that the court grant them leave to file 
the attached Supplemental Brief for the reason that, since the 
filing of their main brief in this case, the National Education 
Association has filed pursuant to leave granted by this court 
a brief amicus curiae which suggests a new form of relief



and intervenors-appellants desire to comment on and support 
the suggestions of amicus.

Respectfully^ >^ubmitted.

-HOWARD MOOREy JR.
PETER E. RINDSKOPF

Citizens Trust Bank Bldg. 
75 Piedmont Avenue, N.E. 
Atlanta, Georgia 30303

JACK GREENBERG 
NORMAN J. CHACHKIN 

10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019

Attorneys for Appellants, Ridley, et al.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I served a copy of the foregoing 

Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Brief and Supplemental 
Brief for Appellants, Ridley, et al., upon Hon. Alfred K.
Evans, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, 132 Judicial Building, 
Atlanta, Georgia 30334, and upon Martin Buckley, Esq., Attorney, 
United States Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., counsel 
for appellees and the United States, respectively, by depositing

of April, 1971.



IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

NO. 30338

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

CHARLIE RIDLEY, JR., et al.,
Plaintiffs-Intervenors- Appellants,

V.

THE STATE OF GEORGIA, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court 
for the Northern District of Georgia

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF FOR APPELLANTS CHARLIE RIDLEY, JR., ET AL.

This Supplemental Brief is filed in response to the Brief 
Amicus Curiae of the National Education Association. Appellants 
Charlie Ridley, Jr., et al. welcome the assistance of amicus 
in dramatizing to this court, in a manner not possible in the 
individual litigation setting, the decimation in the ranks of 
black teachers and principals which has accompanied the process 
of school desegregation in this Circuit.



There are well-grounded historical reasons why, just as
not all black parents sent their children to white schools

i/under freedoni-of-choice, not all dismissed or terminated black
teachers and principals contemplate litigation even if they

2/feel they have been discriminated against. Because of the 
time and expense involved in mounting a lawsuit, attorneys 
then often must select among those who seek their services; 
the cases which reach the courts may fortuitously be those 
which do not pique the sensibilities of the court when it 
focuses upon them as isolated instances rather than as part 
of a pervasive pattern and practice.

Such cases also illustrate the weakness of the Singleton 
decree to protect black teachers against systematic, arbitrary 
firings whose covert purpose and effect is to reduce the 
number of blacks employed by the school system but which are 
carried out under the guise of dismissals for cause. Every 
school system receives various complaints about all of its 
personnel, some involving their competence or expertise, and 
others involving details of their personal lives which have no 
connection whatsoever with the performance of their duties.

See United States v. Jefferson County Board of Education. 372 F.2d 836 (1966), aff'd on rehearing ^  banc, 380 F.2d 385 (5th Cir.), cert, denied sub nom, Caddo Parish School Board 
V. United States. 389 U.S. 840 (1967),

School systems dismissing black teachers when desegregating 
discourage litigation by creating a smokescreen of insubstantial charges of incompetence or insubordination.

- 2-



singleton places no restrictions upon the school administrators' 
decision to dredge up such data as a basis, and often one 
very poorly communicated to the affected teacher, for termina­
tion of employment. The resultant welter of conflicting 
testimony and opinion, charges and countercharges after the
fact, does not readily lend itself to judicial scrutiny, and

3/courts are wont to defer to administrative opinion.
Singleton also imposes no obligation upon a school 

district which does terminate the services of black teachers 
or principals to maintain qualified black personnel in positions 
of authority within its system or to recruit black professionals 
into its schools.

This court's attention for many years has been directed
toward the painfully slow process of school desegregation in1/this Circuit. There have been relatively few teacher firing

1/cases in this court compared to other circuits because so long 
as school boards could maintain identifiably black and white 
schools, they felt no need to eliminate black professionals 
from the system. See Brief of Amicus, pp. 6-8. This court has 
become accustomed to dealing with hundreds, thousands, and

V Compare McFerren v. Walker (Fayette County Board of Educa­
tion) Civ. No. 65-136 (W.D. Tenn. Nov. 5, 1970).

Compare Jefferson, supra, n.1 with Hall v. St. Helena 
Parish School Board, 417 F.2d 801 (5th Cir.), cert, denied 396 
U.S. 904 (1969); United States v. Hinds County School Board,
417 F.2d 852 (5th Cir. 1969), cert, denied, 396 U.S. 1032 
(1970); Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate School District, 419 F.2d 1211 (5th Cir. 1969).
^  E.g., Williams v. Kimbrough, 415 F.2d 874 (5th Cir. 1969), 
cert, denied, 396 U.S. 1061 (1970).

-3-



even tens of thousands of students, and has properly coimnented 
that "when figures speak we must listen." Hall v. st. Helena 
Parish School Board, 417 F.2d 801, 809 (5th Cir.), cert, denied, 
396 U.S. 904 (1969). We respectfully suggest, as amicus has 
suggested, that the figures showing the loss of black profes­
sional personnel in desegregating school systems in this 
Circuit speak equally loudly and clearly of racial discrimination, 
even though the absolute numbers are smaller.

We urge this court to act firmly and providently to spare 
from further discrimination and harassment those who have 
already borne for so long the fruits of racial prejudice and 
hatred. Historically, black teachers have suffered every form
of discrimination imaginable. They were paid less than white

^  1/ teachers, assigned to inconvenient schools, restricted in 
8/

their activities, assigned additional tasks, kept from advance-
their profession by exclusion from programs offered

9/
to white teachers, etc. The institutions of learning available
to them were often substantially inferior to those operated

10/their states for the benefit of whites. In these circum—
^ S e e  Reynolds v. Board of Public Instruction of Dade 
County, 148 F,2d 754 (5th Cir.), cert, denied, 326 U.S. 746 
(1945); Morris v. Williams. 149 F.2d 703 (8th Cir. 1945).
1/  See Williams v. Kimbrough. 295 F. Supp. 578 (W.D. La. 1969).
8/ E.g.. Johnson v. Branch. 364 F.2d 177 (4th Cir. 1966)cert, denied, 385 U.S. 1003 (1967).

United States v. Plaquemines Parish School Board, 291 F. Supp. 841 (E.D. La. 1969), modified in other respects, 415 F.2d 817 (5th Cir. 1969).
10/ E.g., Sanders v. Ellington. 288 F. Supp. 937 (M.D. Tenn. 1968.

- 4 -



stances, it is hardly surprising that in the early days of 
school desegregation, some of those who favored integration 
advanced the argument that black pupils did not receive an 
equal educational opportunity if required to attend schools 
staffed solely by black teachers who were themselves so 
restricted. This was never intended to imply, however, that 
black teachers as a class were more poorly prepared or less 
competent than their white counterparts. The goal was the 
elimination of those restrictions and the availability of 
black teachers' knowledge and insight to both black and white 
students alike. It is a tribute to black teachers that despite 
the conditions outlined above, and the restrictions placed 
upon them they overcame obstacles and emerged as resourceful, 
effective and sympathetic teachers and administrators.

Appellants Ridley, et al. support the modification of the
Singleton decree as proposed by amicus. The figures demonstrate
the failure of case-by-case litigation to protect the consti-11/tutional rights of black professionals and black students.
The cases demonstrate the difficulty of courts weighing the 
application of completely subjective standards. The remedy is 
an affirmative duty to recruit black teachers and definite 
reviewable criteria for reductions in force.

The result proposed by amicus is similar to that reached 
after a succession of cases involving teacher terminations in
n /  Some studies have suggested that discrimination against black teachers in the South is resulting in a decrease of 
interest in teaching among black college students. See R. 
Hooker, Displacement of Black Teachers in the Eleven Southern 
States (1970) (Nashville, Tenn.: Race Relations Information 
Center).

-5-



the Eighth Circuit, where the court finally announced that 
"the undisputed evidence that Negro representation on the 
faculty was decreased in the school system in the 1968-69 
school year and the evidence that the ratio of Negroes on the 
faculty to whites does not remotely approach the proportion 
of Negro students to white students is substantial evidence 
supporting racial discrimination." Jackson v. Wheatley School 
District, 430 F.2d 1359, 1363 (8th Cir. 1970). Compare Brooks 
V. School District of Moberly, 267 F.2d 733 (8th Cir. 1959); 
Smith V. Board of Education of Morrilton, 365 F.2d 770 (8th 
Cir. 1966); Walton v. Nashville Special School District, 401 
F.2d 137 (8th Cir. 1968).

Finally, we urge the court to act with dispatch in order 
to protect black teachers and administrators from irreparable 
harm and to shield black students from the indignity of 
further wholesale dismissals of black teachers and principals.

- 6-



CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, appellants Charlie Ridley, Jr., et al. 
respectfully pray that the judgments below be reversed, as 
set forth in their original brief on the appeal which has 
been consolidated with the appeal of the United States in No. 
30,338, and that this Court convene en banc for the purpose 
of amending its Singleton decree as proposed by amicus curiae 
National Education Association, and directing that the provisions 
of such amended decree shall apply to school desegregation 
cases throughout this Circuit.

Re spect f u 1 ly .̂ subm it t ed,

HOWARD MOORE, JR.
PETER E. RINDSKOPF
Suite 1154, Citizens Trust Bank Bldg. 
75 Piedmont Avenue, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303

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

Attorneys for Appellants Ridley et al.

-7-