St. Peter Villa, Inc. v. Linton Brief in Opposition to Certiorari

    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

DEREK JEROME SINGLETON, et al.

vs. NO. 29226
JACKSON MUNICIPAL SEPARATE 
SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al.

and Nos. 29605, 29687, 30032, 30075, 30107, 30154, 30175 
30290, 30315, 30338, 30357, 30387, 30398, 30418, 30447, ' 
30572, 30741, 30793, 30944, 40395, 71-1084, 71-1203, 71-1321, 
and 71-1435 [full captions listed preceding appended Supp­lemental Brief]

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF 
AND SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF FOR PLAINTIFFS 
WITH SUGGESTED DIRECTIONS ON REMAND

JACK GREENBERG 
JAMES M. NABRIT, III 
CHARLES STEPHEN RALSTON 
NORMAN J. CHACHKIN 
WILLIAM L. ROBINSON 
LOWELL JOHNSTON 
JONATHAN SHAPIRO 
DREW S. DAYS, III 
MARGRETT FORD

10 Columbus Circle
New York, New York 10019

[complete listing of 
attorneys follows Supple­
mental Brief]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs



IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

DEREK JEROME SINGLETON, et al.
vs. NO. 29226

JACKSON MUNICIPAL SEPARATE 
SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al.

[and other cases]

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF 
FOR PLAINTIFFS

Plaintiffs, by their undersigned counsel [a full listing 
of whom follows the body of the appended Supplemental Brief 
for Plaintiffs] respectfully pray that pursuant to Rule 28(c) 
of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, this Court grant 
them leave to file the appended Supplemental Brief for Plaintiffs 
in twenty-five pending school desegregation appeals in this 
Court. Plaintiffs desire to file the appended Supplemental 
Brief for the reason that decision of each of these appeals 
was held in abeyance by this Court pending a ruling by the 
Supreme Court of the United States in Swann v. Charlotte- 
Mecklenburg Board of Education. Nos. 281 and 349, O.T. 1970 
an<3 Davis v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County.
No. 436, O.T. 1970. Those decisions have now been rendered,
39 U.S.L.W. 4437, 4447 (1971). These appeals present a variety 
of issues, some explicitly addressed in Swann and others not
passed upon. Because of the possibility that remand of these



cases to the district courts for reconsideration in light of 
Swann would lead to further delay in school desegregation 
violative of the rule of Alexander v. Holmes County Board of 
Education, 396 U.S. 19 (1969) and Carter v. West Feliciana 
Parish School Board. 396 U.S. 296 (1970), plaintiffs desire 
to suggest instructions upon remand and appropriate dispositions 
of these appeals in light of Swann.

Respectfully submitted.

JACK GREENBEI 
JAMES M. NAB|IIT, III 
CHARLES STEPHEN RALSTON 
NORMAN J. CHACHKIN 
WILLIAM L. ROBINSON 
LOWELL JOHNSTON 
DREW S. DAYS, III 
MARGRETT FORD

10 Columbus Circle
New York, New York 10019

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

-2-



IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

DEREK JEROME SINGLETON, et al.
vs. NO. 29226

JACKSON MUNICIPAL SEPARATE 
SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al.

VIVIAN CALHOUN, et al.
vs. NOS. 29605, 30357

ED S. COOK, et al.

ROBERT L. ACREE, et al.
vs. NO. 29687

COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION OF 
RICHMOND COUNTY, GEORGIA, et al.

FREDERICK T. ALLEN, et al.
vs. NO. 30032

BOARD OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF 
BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, et al.

MARCUS GORDON, et al.
vs.

JEFFERSON DAVIS PARISH SCHOOL 
BOARD, et al.

NO. 30075



TERRY LYNN DUNN, et al.

LIVINGSTON PARISH SCHOOL 
BOARD, et al.

vs. NO. 30107

ANTHONY T. LEE, et al.
vs.

CALHOUN COUNTY SCHOOL SYSTEM and 
CITY OF OXFORD SCHOOL SYSTEM, et al.

NO. 30154

HUGH LARRY BELL, et al.
vs.

WEST POINT MUNICIPAL SEPARATE 
SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al.

NO. 30175

SHIRLEY GAINES, et al.
vs.

DOUGHERTY COUNTY BOARD OF 
EDUCATION, et al.

NO. 30290

MARILYN MARIE MONTEILH, et al.
vs.

ST. LANDRY PARISH SCHOOL 
BOARD, et al.

NO. 30315

UNITED STATES, et al.
vs.

STATE OF GEORGIA, et al.

NO. 30338

li



LINDA STOUT, et al.

JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF 
EDUCATION, et al.

vs. NO. 30387

GILBERT MASON, et al.
vs.

BILOXI MUNICIPAL SEPARATE 
SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al.

NO. 30398

DALY N. BRAXTON, et al.
vs.

BOARD OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION 
OF DUVAL COUNTY, et al.

NO. 30418

URA BERNARD LEMON, et al.
v s .

BOSSIER PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, 
et al.

NO. 30447

WILMA JOYCE HARRINGTON, et al.
vs. NO. 30572

COLQUITT COUNTY BOARD OF 
EDUCATION, et al.

HULL HOPSON RICHARDSON FRANKLIN, 
et al.

vs. NO. 30741

QUITMAN COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, 
et al.

i n



vs.
CHOCTAW COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, 
et al •

UNITED STATES, et al.
NO. 30793

ANTHONY T. LEE, et al.
vs.

ALABAMA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, 
et al.

NO. 30944

ARLENE FLAX, et al.
vs.

W. S. POTTS, et al.

NO. 40395

JERRY LOCKETT, et al.
vs. NO. 71-1084

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF MUSCOGEE 
COUNTY, GEORGIA, et al.

DORIS ELAINE BROWN, et al.
vs.

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF BESSEMER, 
et al.

NO. 71-1203

LARRY CARTER, et al.
vs.

DREW MUNICIPAL SEPARATE SCHOOL 
DISTRICT, et al.

NO. 71-1321

IV



WILLIE REED TAYLOR, et al.

COAHOMA COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, 
et al.

vs. NO. 71—1435

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF FOR PLAINTIFFS

Plaintiffs in the above-captioned matters, all of which 
are appeals in school desegregation cases presently pending 
before this Court, file this Supplemental Brief in light of 
the decisions of the United States Supreme Court in Swann v. 
Charlotte-Meeklenburg Board of Education, 39 U.S.L.W. 4437 
(1971) and Davis v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile,
39 U.S.L.W. 4447 (1971). Decisions in all of these cases 
have been withheld by this Court pending the Supreme Court's 
ruling in Swann, as announced by this Court on October 1, 1970. 
(See Motion for Decision, Calhoun v. Cook and other cases, 
filed December 24, 1970.)

These cases present to the Court a multitude of issues, 
some of which are directly controlled by Swann, and others of 
which raise issues that can be decided without reference to 
Swann. Plaintiffs in these cases desire to briefly categorize 
them for the Court, to suggest appropriate disposition in light 
of Swann for those cases controlled by it, and to emphasize 
the issues remaining for decision on the merits by this Court 
in the other cases in which remand in light of Swann would be 
inappropriate.



Since we believe Swann will require remands to the district 
courts in most of the cases affected by it, we shall reserve 
discussion of those cases for last in this Supplemental Brief 
in order to permit full treatment of the suggested directions 
on remand which we believe would be appropriate.

The cases before this Court may be conveniently grouped 
as follows:

BLACK SCHOOL CLOSINGS: Nos. 30075, 30107 and 30175
Each of these cases presents a challenge by plaintiffs 

to the district court's approval of a desegregation plan which 
calls for the closing of one or more traditionally black 
school facilities. In all of these cases, plaintiffs claim 
the closings were discriminatory. Cf. Brice v. Landis, 314 
F. Supp. 974 (N.D. Cal. 1969). These cases have been fully 
briefed and require individual determination on the merits by 
this Court. They are not directly controlled by Swann; however, 
the Supreme Court did recognize in its discussion of construc­
tion policies at pages 16 and 17 that school closings may be 
discriminatorily ordered to perpetuate segregation.

CREATION OF NEW SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO AVOID DESEGREGATION:
No. 30387
In this case from Jefferson County, Alabama, the lower 

court permitted carving out of the Jefferson County school 
system, the subject of a long-standing desegregation suit, of 
a new white school district with segregated white schools.
This case has been fully briefed and is ripe for individual

- 2 -



determination on the merits by this Court.

STANDARDIZED TESTING FOR ASSIGNMENT PURPOSES: No. 30447
This case challenges the use by a school district of 

standardized achievement tests as a means of assigning 
students to school buildings. It has been briefed and is ripe 
for determination on the merits by this Court. Swann is 
relevant because the result of such assignment techniques was 
to produce schools in Plain Dealing, Louisiana with racial 
compositions substantially disproportionate to the system-wide 

ratio.

CONSTRUCTION: No. 40395
This case from Fort Worth, Texas presents not only issues 

related to the sufficiency of the present plan of desegregation 
(see infra) but also the propriety of school construction 
which the district admits will result, under the assignment 
techniques presently contemplated, in an overwhelmingly black, 
school. This Court earlier denied a motion for injunction 
pending appeal, but the school district has, by agreement, held 
construction in abeyance pending determination of the appeal.
In light of the Supreme Court's expressed policy cautioning 
against construction of segregated schools at pages 16 and 17 
of the Swann slip opinion, the district court should be 
instructed upon remand of this case to enter an order enjoining 
the proposed construction.

- 3 -



STAY OF DESEGREGATION PENDING SWANN: No. 30032

Following its decision requiring contiguous pairing of 
13 sets of schools to completely desegregate the Broward 
County school system, 432 F.2d 362, this Court stayed imple­
mentation of its decree pending Swann in accordance with the 
October 1 determination to hold pending appeals in abeyance.
This stay should be vacated forthwith. Keyes v. School Dist.
No. 1, Denver, No. _____ (U.S. Sup. Ct., April 26, 1971)
(vacating stay granted by Tenth Circuit pending Swann).

ISSUES COLLATERAL TO STUDENT DESEGREGATION: Nos. 30338 and
71-1321
The appeal in United States v. Georgia involves not only 

issues controlled by Swann as to the validity of the pupil 
desegregation formula adopted by the district court, but also 
teacher termination procedures and the validity of desegrega­
tion plans which separate students by sex. Briefs have been 
submitted and these issues are ripe for determination on the 
merits by this Court entirely apart from any remand which might 
be required on other issues by Swann.

Carter v. Drew Municipal Separate School District raises 
the validity of continued classroom and bus segregation, 
failure to make faculty assignments substantially in line with 
the system-wide racial faculty composition, and the school 
district's decision to terminate extra-curricular activities 
coincident with desegregation. Swann reaffirms this Court's 
policy of requiring ratio faculty assignments; the other issues 
have been presented fully and are ripe for determination on

-4-



the merits.

SCHOOL DISTRICT APPEALS: Nos. 30154, 30741, 30793, 30944 and
71-1435
In each of these cases, the defendants have appealed a 

district court decision which requires them to take the 
necessary measures to eliminate segregation. In No. 30741 the 
school district seeks a minority-to-minority transfer provision, 
which Swann makes clear was properly rejected by the district 
court. No. 30944 differs from the other cases in this category 
only because it involves junior colleges rather than schools 
found by the district court to have been historically segregated. 
Swann compels affirmance of the district court orders in 
every case in this category.

CASES IN WHICH THE EXISTING PLANS ARE INADEQUATE: Nos. 29226,
29605, 29687, 30290, 30315, 30338, 30357, 30398, 30418, 
30572, 71-1084, 71-1203 and 71-1321
In all of these cases, Swann makes clear that the present 

plan is inadequate because it does not achieve the "greatest 
possible amount of actual desegregation." Several of the v 
cases present records containing adequate plans which the 
district courts ought to be directed to implement upon remand.
In No. 30315 plaintiffs appeal from a decree of the district 
court which permitted this school board to abandon an HEW plan, 
which had been in effect during 1969-70, in favor of a 
"neighborhood" zoning plan which established schools substan­
tially disproportionate to the racial composition of the entire 
district. The district court here should be instructed to 
order implementation again of the HEW plan. In No. 30338, the

-5-



district court refused to order Newton and Elbert Counties to 
adopt alternative pairing and zoning proposals suggested by 
the United States which would completely desegregate their 
systems. In these cases, the district courts should be 
instructed to require use of those techniques upon remand.

In the remainder of the cases in this category, there 
are not in the record alternative plans to completely desegre­
gate the system in accordance with the standards expressed in 
Swann. A remand in all of these cases will be required (except 
in No. 29226, wherein the district court is already scheduled 
to hold hearings to develop an elementary school desegregation 
plan which conforms to constitutional requirements) and 
plaintiffs respectfully suggest that it would be appropriate 
for this Court to give the district courts instructions and 
guidelines concerning the character of effective desegregation 
plans which are to be developed and implemented.

We note parenthetically that in several of these cases, 
the district courts left standing free—choice plans despite 
the abysmal results in terms of desegregation which that 
method has so far produced— Nos. 30398 and 71-1084. In these 
Seises too, new plans will have to be developed.

The following suggested directions which this Court might 
consider giving to the district courts on remand are based 
upon study of the Supreme Court's rulings in Swann and Davis. 
They recognize the fact that in many of these cases, the 
failure of district courts to order the use of non-contiguous 
pairing or transportation has resulted in the significant lack

- 6 -



of progress evidenced by each of these districts.
We suggest that these cases be remanded to the district 

courts with the following directions:
(1) Direct the defendants to file,within two weeks of 

its order, a plan for the complete dismantling of the remaining 
vestiges of segregation in the school system, extending to
all facets of school operation, including but not limited to 
the assignment of faculty members to each school on a basis 
substantially the same as the system-wide faculty racial 
composition, to be effective not later than the commencement 
of the 1971-72 school year. (Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg 
Bd. of Education, 39 U.S.L.W. 4437 (1971); Davis v. Board of 
School Comm'rs of Mobile, 39 U.S.L.W. 4447 (1971); Alexander 
v. Holmes County Bd. of Education, 396 U.S. 19 (1969); Carter 
v. West Feliciana Parish School Board, 396 U.S. 296 (1970); 
Northcross v. Board of Education of Memphis, 397 U.S. 232 (1970)).

(2) Direct that any such plan meet the following 
standards: while fixed ratios of pupils in particular schools 
are not required, efforts should be made, in designing the 
plan, to reach toward the establishment of the system-wide 
pupil racial ratio in the various schools so that there will
be no basis for contending that one school is racially different 
from the others and, therefore, racially identifiable; subject 
to the understanding, of course, that variations from the 
system-wide ratio at individual schools will be unavoidable 
and are satisfactory so long as there is no school with a racial 
composition substantially disproportionate to the system-wide

-7-



racial composition. Pupils of all grades should be assigned 
in such a way that as nearly as practicable the various 
schools at various grade levels have about the same proportion 
of black and white students. (Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg 
Bd. of Education, 306 F. Supp. 1299 (W.D. N.C. 1969), 39 U.S.L.W. 
4437 (1971)). These results are to be brought about by the 
use, as necessary, of all available possible and practicable 
techniques of desegregation, singly or in combination, including 
but not limited to, the restructuring of existing attendance 
zones to maximize desegregation, contiguous and non-contiguous 
Pairin<? of existing or newly devised attendance zones, the 
restructuring of grade levels as between various schools, and 
the use of transportation, including common carrier and school 
bus, as a tool to assist in effectuating the conversion to 
a unitary school system. (Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. 
of Education, 306 F. Supp. 1299 (W.D. N.C. 1969), 39 U.S.L.W.
4437 (1971); Davis v. Board of School Comm'rs of Mobile.
39 U.S.L.W. 4447 (1971)). Any plan to be approved by the 
district court must contain a majority—to—minority transfer 
provision guaranteeing free transportation to any student 
choosing to exercise an option and providing that no such 
transfer request is to be denied on the basis of overcrowding 
at the school to which the student seeks a transfer. (Swann 
v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Education. 39 U.S.L.W. 4437 
(1971); Ellis v. Board of Public Instruction of Orange County,
423 F.2d 203 (5th Cir. 1970)).

-8-



(3) Allow plaintiffs 10 days following the filing of any 
such plan or plans by the defendants in which to object thereto 
and such additional reasonable time as may be necessary for 
plaintiffs to prepare and submit an alternative to such plan
or plans, if they so elect. (Green v. County School Bd. of 
New Kent County. 391 U.S. 430 (1968); Swann v. Charlotte- 
Mecklenburq Bd. of Education, 39 U.S.L.W. 4437 (1971)).

(4) Designate or appoint an educational expert to assist 
the district court in evaluating such plan or plans as the 
parties may submit and in developing an adequate plan meeting 
constitutional requirements for the Court's approval and 
implementation not later than the commencement of the 1971-72 
school year. (Swann v. Charlotte-Meeklenburg Bd. of Education, 
306 F. Supp. 1299 (W.D. N.C. 1969), 39 U.S.L.W. 4437 (1971); 
Dowell v. School Board of Oklahoma City, 244 F. Supp. 971
(W.D. Okla. 1965), aff'd 375 F.2d 158 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 
387 U.S. 931 (1967) ) .

(5) Authorize plaintiffs to obtain the services of an 
educational expert to prepare a constitutional plan for the 
school system with the reasonable costs of any such prepared 
plan to be considered as assessable costs against the defendants. 
(Jackson v. School Board of Lynchburg. Civ. No. 534 (W.D. Va.
April 28, 1970) ; Dowell v. School Board of Oklahoma City, 244 
F. Supp. 971 (W.D. Okla. 1965), aff'd 375 F.2d 158 (10th Cir.), 
cert, denied, 387 U.S. 931 (1967)).

(6) Direct defendants to cooperate with any expert 
designated or appointed by the district court or retained by

-9-



plaintiffs in connection with their submission of an alternate 
plan, including but not limited to providing space for such 
expert(s) at the headquarters of the Superintendent of Schools 
and granting unto him full access to all information concerning 
all phases of the school system which he may deem necessary, 
Payin 9 all of his fees and expenses, providing stenographic 
assistance and the help of business machines, draftsmen and 
computers if requested, along with telephone and other communi­
cations services, supplying him with any studies and plans and 
partial plans for desegregation of the schools which defendants 
may have, and providing him with full professional, technical 
and other assistance which he may need in familiarizing himself 
with the school system and the various problems to be solved 
in desegregating the schools. (Swann v. Charlotte-Meeklenburg 
Bd. of Education. 306 F. Supp. 1299 (W.D. N.C. 1969); Jackson 
v. School Board of Lynchburg. Civ. No. 534 (W.D. Va. April 28, 
1970)).

(7) Promptly schedule a hearing on the sufficiency of 
any plans submitted and take such further steps as may be 
required to implement a completely unitary school system 
effective with the commencement of the 1971-72 school year. 
(Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, 396 U.S. 19 
(1969); Carter v. West Feliciana Parish School Board, 396 U.S. 
296 (1970) ; Northcross v. Board of Education of Memphis. 397 
U.S. 232 (1970); Swann v. Charlotte—Mecklenburg Board of 
Education. 39 U.S.L.W. 4437 (1971)).

-10-



(8) Immediately enter its order enjoining any new 
construction, additions to or expansion of, or abandonment of, 
existing schools pending completion of proceedings on remand 
and the approval and implementation of a constitutional plan 
of desegregation, and thereafter requiring the defendants to 
submit any plans for new school construction, additions to or 
expansion of, or abandonment of, existing schools to the 
district court with notice to plaintiffs prior to the letting 
of bids, signing of contracts for, or commencement of any such 
construction or abandonment, and requiring defendants to hold 
in abeyance the commencement of any such construction or 
abandonment until the district court has had an opportunity
to consider such objections as plaintiffs may tender and shall 
have approved the defendants' plans for construction or aban­
donment of school facilities. (Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburq 
Bd. of Education. 39 U.S.L.W. 4437 (1971); Calhoun v. Cook.
430 F.2d 1174 (5th Cir. 1970); Sloan v. Tenth School District 
of Wilson County. 433 F.2d 587 (6th Cir. 1970); Bradley v.
School Board of Richmond. Civ. No. 3353 (E.D. Va. June 20, 1970)).

(9) Enter its order directing defendants to implement 
the faculty desegregation policies suggested by the National 
Education Association as amicus curiae in No. 30338 and attached 
as Exhibit "A" hereto. (United States v. Montgomery County 
Board of Education. 395 U.S. 225 (1969); Swann v. Charlotte- 
Mecklenburq Board of Education. 39 U.S.L.W. 4437 (1971)).

(10) Enter its order directing defendants to file reports 
with the Court on October 15 and March 15 of each year setting

-11-



out the information required by Exhibit "B" hereto, which is 
a modification of the reporting provision approved in United 
States v. Hinds County School Board, No. 28030 (5th Cir.,
March 30, 1970).

(11) Allow plaintiffs their costs including reasonable 
attorneys' fees and enter such other orders as may be required 
to effectuate the constitutional rights involved in this 
litigation.

Respectfully submitted,

JACK GREENBERG 
JAMES M. NApRIT, III 
CHARLES STEPHEN RALSTON 
NORMAN J. CHACHKIN 
WILLIAM L. ROBINSON 
LOWELL JOHNSTON 
JONATHAN SHAPIRO 
DREW S. DAYS, III 
MARGRETT FORD

10 Columbus Circle
New York, New York 10019

MELVYN R. LEVENTHAL 
REUBEN ANDERSON 
FRED L. BANKS 
JOHN A. NICHOLS538*2 North Farish Street 
Jackson, Mississippi 39202

HOWARD MOORE, JR.
PETER E. RINDSKOPF

75 Piedmont Avenue, N.E. 
Atlanta, Georgia 30303

JOHN H. RUFFIN, JR.
930 Gwinnett Street 
Augusta, Georgia 30903

W. GEORGE ALLEN
303 Southeast 17th Street 
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33316

-12-



Of Counsel:
SAMUEL E. GATES 
PETER E. QUINT 
HARVEY J. GOLDSCHMID 

320 Park Avenue 
New York, N.Y. 10022

A. P. TUREAUD
1821 Orleans Avenue
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130

WILLIAM R. TRAUB
DUANE, MORRIS & HECKSCHER 

1617 Land Title Building 
Broad and Chestnut Streets 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19110

SOLOMON SEAY, JR.
FRED D. GRAY

352 Dexter Avenue 
Montgomery, Alabama 36104

C. B. KING
ELLIOTT HOLDEN 
P. O. Box 1024 
Albany, Georgia 31702

MARION OVERTON WHITE
1520 North Market Street 
Opelousas, Louisiana 70570

U. W. CLEMON
OSCAR W. ADAMS

1630 Fourth Avenue, North 
Birmingham, Alabama 35203

NORRIS D. WOOLFORK, III
305 South Parramore Avenue 
Orlando, Florida 32805

LOUIS R. LUCAS
525 Commerce Title Building 
Memphis, Tennessee 38103

FRANKIE FIELDS SMITH
VERNON Z. CRAWFORD 

1407 Davis Avenue 
Mobile, Alabama 36603

L. CLIFFORD DAVIS 
914 East Rosedale 
Fort Worth, Texas 76104

DAVID H. HOOD, JR.
2001 Carolina Avenue 
Bessemer, Alabama 35020

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

13-



APPENDIX "A”
FACULTY DESEGREGATION

The school board shall announce and implement the following policies:
1. Principals, teachers, teacher-aides and other 

staff who work directly with children at school 
shall be so assigned that in no case will the 
racial composition of a staff indicate that a 
school is intended for Negro students or white 
students. The district shall assign the staff 
described above so that the ratio of Negro to 
white teachers in each school, and the ratio 
of other staff in each, are substantially the 
same as each such ratio is to the teachers
and the other staff, respectively, in the 
entire school system. The school district 
shall, to the extent necessary to carry out 
these policies, direct members of its staff 
as a condition of continued employment to 
accept new assignments.

2. Staff members who work directly with children, 
and professional staff who work on the ad­
ministrative level will be hired, assigned, 
promoted, paid, demoted, dismissed, and other­
wise treated without regard to race, color or 
national origin, except as otherwise provided 
in this decree.

3. If there is to be a reduction in the number of 
principals, teachers, teacher-aides or other 
staff employed by the school district which 
will result in the dismissal, non-renewal or 
demotion of any such person, the person to be 
dismissed, nonrenewed or demoted shall be 
selected from among all those persons holding 
positions in the class (e.g., principlas, 
assistant principals, guidance counselors, 
elementary teachers, secondary teachers, 
coaches, teacher-aides, etc.) to be reduced.
The person with the least seniority in that 
class in the system shall be selected. In 
addition, where there has been any such dis­
missal, nonrenewal or demotion and where a 
position is to be restored in the class 
previously reduced or a vacancy occurs in such 
class, an opportunity to fill that position 
shall be offered to the person or persons dis­
missed, nonrenewed or demoted as a result of 
such reduction in the order of their seniority 
in that class. Furthermore, the person so 
dismissed, nonrenewed or demoted shall be 
offered, on the basis of seniority in the 
school district, any other available position

-14-



for which he is certified by the State 
before that job is offered to any teacher 
who does not have job seniority in the class 
in which the vacancy has occurred.

4. If any principal, teacher, teacher-aide or other 
staff member employed by the school district
is to be dismissed, nonrenewed or demoted for 
reasons other than a reduction in force, the 
school board shall fill any staff vacancy or 
vacancies created thereby with a person or 
persons of the same race as that of the indi­
vidual dismissed, nonrenewed, or demoted.
Nothing in this paragraph is intended to limit 
rights of persons dismissed, nonrenewed or 
demoted which have been recognized in prior rulings

5. Each principal, teacher, teacher-aide or other 
staff member hired or promoted to fill a va­
cancy created by a dismissal, nonrenewal or 
demotion, shall be selected on the basis of 
reasonable, nondiscriminatory and reviewable 
standards and procedures. Each person making 
written application to be hired or promoted and 
possessing the minimum objective qualifications 
established by the State shall be evaluated in 
writing on the basis of such standards. These evaluations shall show the weight given to 
each standard, the grade given the applicant
on each such standard and the grounds for the 
grade. The evaluations shall be retained for a period of not less than three years. In 
the event the racial composition of new princi­
pals or teachers or teacher-aides or other staff 
fails to approximate the racial ratio for such class of the faculty which exited at the com­
mencement of the academic year 1965-66, this 
shall be considered prima facie evidence of 
racial discrimination and, upon challenge, the 
burden shall be upon the school district to 
demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence 
that it acted on the basis of such reasonable, 
nondiscriminatory and reviewable standards and 
procedures and without racial discrimination. 
Where the number of positions filled by promo­
tion or hiring is too small to permit comparison 
with the 1965-66 ratio respecting such positions, 
the court shall consider equivalent promotions 
and new hires in years prior to the current year 
in order to determine whether the school district is approximating the 1965-66 ratio.

6. If the overall ratio of black to white educators 
reported to the district court on or before 
October 15 of each year pursuant to Paragraph 8 
does not approximate the ratio of black to white 
educators existing in the school district at the 
commencement of the 1965-66 school year, the 
school district shall actively recruit black

-15-



educators in filling its vacancies. In such event, the school district shall submit a 
plan for an affirmative recruiting program 
which shall include, as appropriate, inter­
viewing at predominantly black colleges and uni­
versities, communicating its interest in hiring 
black educators to the placement offices and 
students at such institutions and to all other 
potential sources of black educators, and ad­
vertising in media likely to reach potential black candidates for employment.

7. Prior to dismissal, nonrenewal, demotion, pro­
motion or employment of any principal, teacher, teacher-aide or other staff, the school board 
will develop or require the development of 
reasonable, nondiscriminatory and reviewable 
standards and procedures to be used in taking 
such actions. These procedures and standards, 
and the weight assigned to each standard, shall 
be available for public inspection and shall 
be retained by the school district. The school district shall also record and preserve the 
evaluations made pursuant to the standards and 
procedures. Such evaluations shall be made avail­
able upon request to any affected employee or applicant.
“Demotion" as used above, includes any reassign­
ment (1) under which the staff member receives 
less pay or has less responsibility than under 
the assignment he held previously; (2) which 
requires a lesser degree of skill than did the 
assignment he held previously; or (3) under 
which the staff member is asked to teach a sub­
ject or grade other than one for which he is 
certified or for which he has had substantial 
experience within a reasonably current period.
In general and depending upon the subject matter 
involved, five years is such a reasonable period.
"Promotion" as used above, includes any reassign­
ment (1) under which the staff member receives 
more pay or more responsibility than under the 
assignment he held previously; or (2) which 
requires a greater degree of skill than did the assignment he held previously.

8. On or before July 15 of each year, the school 
district shall file with the Clerk of the District 
Court, and serve upon the affected individuals,a report listing the name, race and position of 
any staff member who has been dismissed or 
demoted during the preceding twelve months or 
whose contract has not been renewed for the 
forthcoming school year, and the reason or 
reasons therefor. In the case of a dismissal, 
nonrenewal or demotion for any other reason.

-16-



this report shall list the name and race 
of the replacement for each dismissed, demoted 
or nonrenewed staff member. In addition, on 
or before October 15, each such school district 
shall file with the Clerk of the District Court, 
a report listing the number of staff vacancies, 
other than those created by a dismissal, non­
renewal or demotion, occurring during the pre­ceding 12 months; the class of positions in 
which such vacancy has occurred, and the name, 
race and position of each person hired or pro­
moted to fill such vacancies. This report shall 
set forth the racial ratio in each such class at 
the commencement of the academic year 1965-66 and shall further show the racial ratio of new hires and promotions in each such class.

-17-



APPENDIX "B" 
REPORTS

Defendants shall file reports on October 15 and March 15 
of each year setting forth the following information, as well 
as that required by the faculty desegregation policies in 
Exhibit HA":

1. (a) The number of students by race enrolled in the 
school district, and in each school of the district, and in 
each classroom of the district.

i!
j
i

i

i

(b) The number of full-time teachers by race in the j
!school district, and in each school of the district.
i

(c) The number of part-time teachers by race in the j
i

j school district, and in each school of the district.
(d) The number of principals, assistant principals, 

supervisors and head teachers, each by race, in the school 
^i®trict, and the schools to which each of such personnel 
are assigned.

(e) The race, position and school or schools to which 
assigned of each professional staff employee of the district 
not included in the answers to (b), (c) or (d) above.

2. Describe the requests and the results which have accrue^ 
by race, under the majority-to-minority transfer provision 
during the current school year or thereafter since the school 
district's last report to the court.

3. State the number of inter-district transfers granted, 
the race of the students who were granted such transfers, and 
the school district to which the transfers were allowed during 
the current school year or thereafter since the school district's 
last report to the court. State whether the school district has

-18-



paid or is paying any form of tuition or other contractual 
payment to any other school district for such transferring 
students.

4. State for each school bus run operated by defendants 
or under contract with defendants to transport students of the 
district from their homes or other pick-up points to school 
facilities of the district: (a) the time at which the first 
passenger other than a child of the driver boards the bus
in the morning; (b) the time at which the bus arrives at the 
school it serves, or the last such school if students are dis­
charged at more than one facility; (c) the names of each school 
facility served on said run; (d) the number or other designation 
of such run; (e) the name aid race of the driver of said run;
(f) the number of students taken to each school on said run, 
by race.

5. State whether any sports teams or other extracurricu­
lar activity groups are participated in by students of one
race only.

6. Give a brief description of any present or proposed 
construction, expansion or abandonment of facilities and state 
the dates on which notice of the school district's plans for 
such construction, expansion or abandonment of facilities was 
given to the court and parties.

7. State whether during the current school year or 
thereafter since the school district's last report to the

the school district has sold or abandoned any school 
facility, equipment or supplies having a total value of 
more than $500.00. Give the name and address of the buyer in 
each such instance.

-19-



to8. if pupils in the school district are assigned 
schools on the basis of attendance zones, in whole or in part, 
furnish a map showing the attendance zones in use at the time 
the report is filed.



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 29th day of April, 1971, 
1 served a copy of the foregoing Supplemental Frief for 
Plaintiffs upon each of the following counsel of record, by 
United States mail, first class postage prepaid:

J. Bennett Johnston, Esq.
406 Lane Building 
Shreveport , Louisiana
Hon. Brian Landsberg, Esq. 
United States Department 

of Justice
Washington, F.C. 20530
Hon. Leonard E. Yokum 
District Attorney 
21st Judicial District 
Amite, Louisiana
Hon. Jack P.F. Gremillion 
Attorney General of Louisiana 
State Capitol Building 
Eaton Rouge, Louisiana 70304
Franklin H. Pierce, Esq.
213 Southern Finance Euilding 
Augusta, Georgia 30902
A. C. Latimer, Esq.
3400 First National Bank Bldg. 
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
E. Freeman Leverett, Esq.
P. 0. Eox 896 
Elberton, Georgia 30635
Maurice H. Bishop, Esq.
Frank Nelson Building 
Birmingham, Alabama 35203
J. Howard McEniry, Esq.
1721 Fourth Avenue, N. 
Bessemer, Alabama 35020

Jesse W. Walters, Esq.
P. 0. Eox 527 
Albany, Georgia 317C2
Whelchel and Whelchel 
P. 0. Box 763 
Moultrie, Georgia 31763
Hon. Bernard N. Marcantel 
District Attorney 
31st Judicial District 
P. *>. Box 1366 
Jennings, Louisiana 70546
Cecil Morgan, Esq. 
Continental Life Euilding 
Fort Worth, Texas
Yardley D. Euckman, Esq. 
James D. Rinaman, Esq.
1300 City Hall 
Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Harry J. Kron, Esq.
P. 0. Box 1005 
Thibodaux, Louisiana 70301
J. Y. Fontenot, Esq. 
District Attorney 
27th Judicial District 
Opelousas, Louisiana 70570
J. Madden Hatcher, Eso.
P. 0. Eox 2707 
Columbus, Georgia 31902
Vayman fherrer, United 

States Attorney 
Federal Building 
Birmingham, Alabama 35203

-21-



%

Thomas H. Watkins, Esq.
300 Bankers Trust Plaza Building 
Jackson, Mississippi 39205
William M. O'Bryan, Esq.
1415 East Sunrise Boulevard 
Bort Lauderdale, Florida 33304
Arthur S. Seppi, Esq.
2455 E. Sunrise Boulevard 
Fort Lauderdale, Florida
J. Edward Thornton, Esq.
P. 1 . Box 23 
Mobile, Alabama 36601
Thomas Thagard, Esq.
325 Fell Building 
Montgomery, Alabama 36104

Victor E. Pringle, Esq.
P. O. Box 292
Biloxi, Mississippi 39533
Thomas A. Thomas, Esq.
1911 Harrison Street 
Hollywood, Florida
Edgar C. Hamilton, Esq.
315 Third Street
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
John Y. Christopher, Esq.
P. 0. Box 366 
Butler, Alabama 36904
John R. Phillips, Esq. 
Commercial Nat'l Bank Bldg. 
Anniston, Alabama 36201

H. h. Eurnham, Esc.
_ P. 0. Box 1613

Anniston, Alabama 36201
J. E. Blackburn, Esq.
110 Courthouse Square 
Bay Minnette, Alabama 36507

Hon. Alfred L. Evans, Jr. 
Assistant Attorney General 
132 State Judicial Building 
Atlanta, Georgia 30334
Champ T. Terney, Esq.
IOC Court Street 
Indianola, Mississippi 33751
William H. Maynard, Esq.
104 Stevens Building 
Clarksdale, Mississippi 33614
George P. Hewes, III, Esq. 
1440 First National Bank Bldg 
P. 0. Box 119
Jackson, Mississippi 39205

Larry 0. Lewis, Esq.
P. 0. Box 370
Marks, Mississippi 33646
William A. Allain, Esq.
P. 0. Box 220
Jackson, Mississippi 39205
Thomas J. Tubb, Esq.
P. 0. Box 324
West Point, Mississippi 39773
Robert C. Cannada, Esq.
700 Petroleum Building 
P. 0. Box 22567

-22-