Draft of Newsletter on Harkless v. Sweeney

    3le 

2/6 

Newsletter DRAFT 

HARKIESS v. SWEENEY 

On May 23, 1966, twelve plack teachers brought a class action suit against 

the Sweeney Independent School district, Harkless v. Sweeney. The com 

plaint alleged that seventeen (12 of which initially filed suit) of twenty 

four black teachers were fired during the desegrating of the school 

district purely on the pasis of their color. Testimony and evidence 

revealed that while black teachers were subjected to an arbitrary and in- 

congruous evaluation resulting in the firing of most of them, no white 

teachers were dismissed as a result of a cutback in staff. The court 

denied a class action status and the complaint was made on an individual 

action basis with a multiple plaintiff. Eventually, two teachers 

dropped out and Harkless from then on represented ten black teachers. 

Concurrent with the complaint of descrimination, the suit sought to gain 

relief formthe teachers in the form of back-pay. 

The route taken by the Courts since 1966 was an extended one. 

Judges procrastinated in making devieusndecisions that would have long 

since favorably decided Harkless. In 1969, the judge ruled falsely that 

he had no jurisdiction to argue the case and dismissed it on that ground. 

LDF appealed and in 1971 the first decision was made concerning Harkless. 

The Court ruled that one coulgsue a school board for equity and could 

receive back-pay. Later that year and reaching into 1972, the evaluation 

process undergone by the black teachers was argued by the Gourt but a 

decision was not reached by the judge until three years later. The 

judge offered reinstatement of the teachers but denied them back-pay 

on the grounds’ that there was no descrimination evidenced. 



After various appeals on behalf of the plaintiff, it was to be even- 

tually decided Fiat descrimination was indeed evidenced and | apie Mose” be aecrrbid 

tiff Pioieenliy eee due the sought after relief or back-pay. | Presently ay ee 

the court is arguing the amount of lawyers' fees which decision is expected ha e 

some time soon. 

While the apparent success of Harkless rests with the upholding of 

the plaintiff's complaints and the issuance of back-pay, one cannot 

snow ignore the toll paid by the teachers during the lengthy 

litigation. If only out of curiosity and nothing else, one 

may inquire about the teachers' lives during this pexiadx 

thirteen year period. It is known that none of them were able 

to find comparable employment in the Sweeney district and in 

fact, one teacher worked as a nurse's aide which yielded 

yearly only a small portion of her salary were she employed 

as a teacher. It was of no significance to the school board 

that these teachers had among them an average of fifteen years 

teaching experience, and that in one instance one of the teachers 

had worked for the Sweeney School district for thirty four years. 

Ironically, two of the teachers will never personally 

reap the fruits of a successful Harkless, but, their children 

will inherit the compensation as a result of their parents' 

death. It is hoped that the back-pay awarded the teachers 

and theirs will begin to amend the injustices metered out to 

these teachers.