64 of 76 DOCUMENTS 

American Law Reports Federal

©  1970 The Lawyers Co-operative Publishing Company; Bancroft-Whitney Company

©  2003 West Group - Updated January 2002  
Annotation 

Racial Discrimination in the Hiring, Retention, or Assignment of Teachers--Federal Cases 

J. F. Ghent 

3 A.L.R. Fed. 325 

 JURISDICTIONAL TABLE OF CASES and STATUTES   

INDEX OF TERMS   

ENCYCLOPEDIAS, TREATISES, and SPECIALIZED SERVICES 

LAW REVIEW ARTICLES 

ARTICLE OUTLINE 

ARTICLE:  
 [*I]        Preliminary matters

 [*1]      Introduction

 [*1a]        Scope
This annotation collects the federal cases n1  in which evidence, as distinguished from mere allegations, of racially n2  discriminatory action (or inaction) in the hiring, retention, or assignment n3  of schoolteachers has been presented and discussed, or in which plans for the elimination of such discrimination have been ruled upon.
 
**** Note:
 
    Attention is called to 36 Fed Reg 11769 (June 18, 1971) which contains new Department of Health, Education, and Welfare policies on nondiscrimination in school staffing practices. 

 [*1b]        Related matters
 
 Validity and construction of statutes, ordinances, or regulations requiring competency tests of schoolteachers. 64 A.L.R.4th 642.
 
 Sufficiency of notice of intention to discharge or not to rehire teacher, under statutes requiring such notice. 52 A.L.R.4th 301.
 
 Sexual conduct as ground for dismissal of teacher or denial or revocation of teaching certificate. 78 A.L.R.3d 19.
 
 What constitutes "insubordination" as ground for dismissal of public school teacher. 78 A.L.R.3d 83.
 
 Dismissal of public school teacher because of unauthorized absence or tardiness. 78 A.L.R.3d 117.
 
 Construction and effect of tenure provisions of contract or statute governing employment of college or university faculty member. 66 A.L.R.3d 1018.
 
 Application of state law to sex discrimination in employment advertising. 66 A.L.R.3d 1237.
 
 Dismissal of, or disciplinary action against, public school teacher for violation of regulation as to dress or personal appearance of teachers. 58 A.L.R.3d 1227.
 
 Relief against school board's "busing" plan to promote desegregation. 50 A.L.R.3d 1089.
 
 Construction and operation of "equal opportunities clause" requiring pledge against racial discrimination in hiring under construction contract. 44 A.L.R.3d 1283.
 
 Constitutionality of enactment or regulation forbidding or restricting employment of aliens in public employment or on public works. 38 A.L.R.3d 1213.
 
 Elements and measure of damages in action by schoolteacher for wrongful discharge. 22 A.L.R.3d 1047.
 
 De facto segregation of races in public schools. 11 A.L.R.3d 780.
 
 What constitutes "incompetency" or "inefficiency" as a ground for dismissal or demotion of public school teacher. 4 A.L.R.3d 1090.
 
 Fair employment statutes designed to eliminate racial, religious, or national origin discrimination in private employment. 44 A.L.R.2d 1138.
 
 Comment Note.--Racial segregation. 38 A.L.R.2d 1188.
 
 Discrimination because of race, color, or creed in respect of appointment, duties, compensation, etc., of schoolteachers or other public officers or employees. 130 A.L.R. 1512.
 
 Title VII Race or National Origin Discrimination in Employment-Supreme Court Cases. 182 A.L.R.Fed. 61.
 
 Equal Protection and Due Process Clause Challenges Based on Racial Discrimination--Supreme Court Cases. 172 A.L.R.Fed. 1.
 
 Actions Brought Under 42 U.S.C.A. § §  1981-1983 for Racial Discrimination--Supreme Court cases. 164 A.L.R.Fed. 483.
 
 Termination of agency or employment relationship as depriving person of civil rights in violation of 42 U.S.C.A. §  1985(3). 107 A.L.R.Fed. 686.
 
 Circumstances warranting judicial determination or declaration of unitary status with regard to schools operating under court-ordered or -supervised desegregation plans and the effects of such declarations. 94 A.L.R.Fed. 667.
 
 What constitutes impairment of proposed intervenor's interest to support intervention as matter of right under Rule 24(a)(2) of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in actions relating to school desegregation. 75 A.L.R.Fed. 231.
 
 What constitutes reverse or majority discrimination on basis of sex or race violative of federal constitution or statutes. 26 A.L.R.Fed. 13.
 
 Exhaustion of remedies under Title VII (Equal Employment Opportunity) of Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C.A. § §  2000e et seq.) as prerequisite to maintenance of action under 42 U.S.C.A. §  1981 for employment discrimination. 23 A.L.R.Fed. 895.
 
 Construction and application of §  902 of Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C.A. §  2000h-2) authorizing U. S. to intervene in private action for relief from denial of equal protection of laws under Fourteenth Amendment on account of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. 19 A.L.R.Fed. 623.
 
 Mandatory maternity leave rules or policies for public school teachers as constituting violation of equal protection clause of Fourteenth Amendment of Federal Constitution. 17 A.L.R.Fed. 768.
 
 Award of attorney's fees under §  706(k) of Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C.A. §  2000e-5(k)) authorizing court to allow prevailing party, other than Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or United States, reasonable attorney's fee as part of costs in action under equal employment opportunities part of Act. 16 A.L.R.Fed. 643.
 
 Validity, construction and application of provisions (so-called "Antibusing Amendments") of Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C.A. § §  1651-1656) prohibiting assignment or transportation of students or teachers in public schools in order to overcome racial imbalance. 16 A.L.R.Fed. 950.
 
 Punitive damages in actions for violations of Federal Civil Rights Acts. 14 A.L.R.Fed. 608.
 
 Construction and application of §  704(a) of Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C.A. §  2000e-3(a)), making it unlawful employment practice to discriminate against individual for participation in equal opportunity proceedings or activities. 11 A.L.R.Fed. 316.
 
 Construction and application of sec. 201(b)(4) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 USC sec. 2000a(b)(4)), prohibiting discrimination or segregation in noncovered establishments which either contain or are contained within covered establishments. 11 A.L.R.Fed. 753.
 
 Validity, construction, and application of sec. 201(b)(2) and related provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 USC sec. 2000a(b)(2)), prohibiting discrimination or segregation in restaurants, cafeterias, and other such facilities principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, and in gasoline stations. 10 A.L.R.Fed. 220.
 
 Construction and application of sec. 201(e) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 USC sec. 2000a(e)) excluding from the Act's coverage private clubs and other establishments not in fact open to the public. 8 A.L.R.Fed. 634.
 
 Validity, construction, and application of sec. 201(b)(3) and related provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 USC sec. 2000a(b)(3)), prohibiting discrimination or segregation in motion-picture houses, theaters, concert halls, sports arenas, stadiums, or other places of exhibition or entertainment. 7 A.L.R.Fed. 415.
 
 Validity, construction and application of sec. 201(b)(1) and related provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 USC sec. 2000a(b)(1)), prohibiting discrimination or segregation in inns, hotels, motels, or other establishments providing lodging to transient guests. 7 A.L.R.Fed. 450.
 
 Allowability of federal tax benefits to a private racially segregated school or college. 7 A.L.R.Fed. 548.
 
 Construction and application of provisions of Equal Pay Act of 1963 (29 USC sec. 206(d)) prohibiting wage discrimination on basis of sex. 7 A.L.R.Fed. 707.
 
 Actionability under Federal Civil Rights Acts, of discrimination because of complaining party's association with persons of different race, color, or the like. 6 A.L.R.Fed. 973.
 
 Necessity and sufficiency of conciliation proceedings by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as prerequisite to bringing civil action under §  706(a) and (e) of Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C.A. §  2000e-5(a) and (e). 5 A.L.R.Fed. 334.
 
 Federal court regulation of school construction or facility so as to avoid school segregation. 4 A.L.R.Fed. 979.

 [*2]      Summary

 [*2a]        Generally
 
**** Synopsis:
 
   Racial discrimination in the hiring, retention, or assignment of schoolteachers is unconstitutional; whether such discrimination exists in a particular situation depends largely upon whether the plaintiff teacher's qualifications were objectively compared with those of the other teachers or applicants in the school system; there is a trend in the federal courts toward requiring more specific, detailed plans for eliminating such discrimination.
Although little attention was paid to the teaching staff in the early school desegregation cases, n4  racial discrimination in the hiring, retention, or assignment of schoolteachers has become an actively litigated subject in the federal courts, n5  particularly in the Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Circuits. As in cases involving state employment generally, n6  such discrimination is unconstitutional in that it violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. n7  This being so, provision for faculty desegregation is indispensable to the validity of a school desegregation plan, n8  and school pupils have standing to raise the question of teacher assignments to the extent that such assignments constitute an asserted denial of constitutionally protected rights of the pupils. n9  Specifically, teachers displaced as a result of desegregation may not be treated as new applicants to the school system unless all teachers, including those to be retained, are so treated. n10  In evaluating the qualifications of such teachers, objective, nonracial standards must be applied throughout the school system, and a teacher's tenure or lack of tenure, while a permissible factor to be weighed, may not be used to disguise racial discrimination or to obstruct desegregation. n11 
With regard to whether racial discrimination in the hiring, retention, or assignment of schoolteachers can be established in any given circumstances, n12  it is significant that although school boards generally have wide discretion in the employment and dismissal of teachers, a history of racial discrimination gives rise to a presumption that further suspicious acts are racially motivated, thus placing the burden on the school authorities to justify their decisions by clear and convincing proof. n13  Thus, racial discrimination in the hiring or retention of schoolteachers has been held established in a number of federal cases, the courts frequently stressing that the qualifications of the plaintiff teachers were not compared with those of the other teachers or applicants in the school system. n14  On the other hand, where the federal courts have noted either that the qualifications of the plaintiff teachers were objectively evaluated or that the plaintiff teachers were not in fact as well qualified for their positions as the teachers hired or retained, racial discrimination in the hiring or retention of schoolteachers has been held not established in some cases. n15  In still other federal cases, racial discrimination in the assignment or transfer of schoolteachers has been held established. n16 
Assuming the existence and unconstitutionality of racial discrimination in the hiring, retention, or assignment of schoolteachers, much of the litigation with regard to such discrimination has concerned the proper method of eliminating it. n17  Generally speaking, n18  although school boards have primary responsibility for selecting means, they must take some affirmative action to eliminate such discrimination, and they must do everything in their power to meet decreeimposed complete desegregation of faculties. n19  Ideally, faculty desegregation plans should be designed to avoid identification of any particular school as predominantly Negro or white while at the same time remaining flexible enough to meet educational needs; the hour for the luxury of flexibility, however, is about over. n20  Further, since the elimination of racial discrimination in the hiring, retention, and assignment of schoolteachers must be achieved at the earliest practicable date (which may vary from community to community), a faculty desegregation plan should not only specify a positive commitment to a reasonable program, but it should also embody the steps to be carried out and the time schedule to be followed in doing so. n1  And although it is preferable that desegregation of school faculties be accomplished without the use of racial criteria, teachers should be involuntarily transferred if voluntary placement is not effective in overcoming the effects of past segregation of faculties. n2 
With respect to particular plans or orders for the elimination of racial discrimination in the hiring, retention, or assignment of schoolteachers, n3  the Fourth Circuit cases have shown some tendency toward an increasing use of quotas, timetables, and involuntary transfers, particularly where progress toward school faculty desegregation has been slow or nonexistent; n4  the Fifth Circuit cases have shown the same tendency even more definitely. n5  The Eighth Circuit cases involving such particular plans or orders have shown some tendency toward an increasing use of timetables and involuntary transfers, particularly where progress toward school faculty desegregation has been slow or nonexistent, but the courts in those cases have consistently refused to impose specific quotas, ratios, or mathematical formulas. n6  Finally, the few cases from federal circuits other than the Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth, involving particular plans or orders for the elimination of racial discrimination in the hiring, retention, or assignment of schoolteachers, have revealed the courts' willingness to require quotas, timetables, and involuntary transfers. n7 

 [*2b]        Practice pointers
A teacher wrongfully discharged or denied re-employment in contravention of the principle of objective comparison of qualifications n8  is entitled, in addition to equitable remedies, n9  to an award of actual damages, n10  and proper damage elements recoverable by a discriminatorily dismissed teacher who secures other employment include salary differences, if any, and moving expenses, if any. n11  Moreover, a school board's failure to comply with a court's faculty desegregation orders may be the basis for contempt proceedings to enforce compliance. n12 
In view of the federal decisions requiring quotas, timetables, and involuntary transfers where progress toward school faculty desegregation has been slow or nonexistent, n13  an attorney for the members of a school board should advise his clients that if they want to retain some flexibility in their faculty desegregation plan, they should demonstrate their good faith by taking the initiative to achieve substantial progress. He should also advise them to evaluate objectively the qualifications of all teachers in the school system, especially when some teachers are displaced in the process of desegregation, since the existence of racial discrimination has frequently turned on whether that was done. n14 
 <>
Organization of teachers could not maintain class action on behalf of 4 black former school principals and 4 dismissed black teachers, where class was not so enormous that joinder of all members would be impracticable and where no member of purported class had appeared as plaintiff in litigation. Lee v Macon County Board of Education (CA5 Ala) 498 F2d 1090.

 [*II]        Constitutional issues

 [*3]      Segregation of faculties in general

 [*3a]        Generally
 
**** Synopsis:
 
   Since school faculty segregation is unconstitutional, provision for faculty desegregation is indispensable to the validity of a school desegregation plan.
Racial allocation of school faculties encourages pupil segregation, n15  denies students equality of educational opportunity, n16  is not constitutionally permissible, n17  and renders inadequate an otherwise constitutional pupil desegregation plan. n18  That is to say, faculty desegregation goes hand in hand with the abolition of pupil segregation n19  and is an integral, n20  essential, n1  and indispensable n2  part of any school desegregation plan--not because of teachers' employment rights, but because students are entitled to a nonracial education and because assignment of teachers to students on the basis of race denies students that right. n3 
Since a school district may not continue a segregated teaching staff, n4  an effective school desegregation plan should produce integration of faculties along with integregation of students, n5  and a positive commitment to a reasonable program aimed at ending segregation of a teaching staff is necessary for the final approval of a constitutionally adequate desegregation plan. n6  More specifically, if in a school district there are still all-Negro schools, or if only a small fraction of Negroes are enrolled in white schools, or if there is no substantial integration of faculties, the existing school desegregation plan fails to meet constitutional standards. n7 
Segregative policies with respect to faculty and staff violate Constitution independently of segregation of pupils. Morgan v Kerrigan (CA1 Mass) 509 F2d 580, cert den 421 US 963, 44 L Ed 2d 449, 95 S Ct 1950, later proceeding (CA1 Mass) 689 F2d 265, later proceeding (DC Mass) 554 F Supp 169, affd (CA1 Mass) 726 F2d 11, 38 FR Serv 2d 638, later proceeding (DC Mass) 620 F Supp 214, affd (CA1 Mass) 831 F2d 313, 94 ALR Fed 629.
Whether discharged or demoted teacher reasonably refused alternative employment is ordinarily factual issue to be resolved by District Court, whose decision will be reversed only for clear error; teacher need not accept inferior position and thereby acquiesce in racially discriminatory practice in order to mitigate damages. Williams v Albemarle City Board of Education (CA4 NC) 508 F2d 1242.
Fourteenth Amendment forbids discrimination in selection, retention, and assignment of faculty in public schools; consequently, school system cannot displace black faculty members merely because black schools are closed or integrated as part of plan for desegregation. Reynolds v Abbeville County School Dist. (CA4 SC) 554 F2d 638.
Duty to desegregate dual school systems includes constitutional obligation to take affirmative action to redistribute and assign faculty and staff members so that no school can be identified as tailored for students of any particular race. U.S. v. Board of Ed. of Lincoln County, 301 F. Supp. 1024 (S.D. Ga. 1969).
In school district where Mexican-Americans constituted indentifiable minority group which had been segregated and discriminated against in schools, court held that duty to desegregate faculty extended to Mexican-Americans as well as to Negroes. Cisneros v Corpus Christi Independent School Dist. (DC Tex) 324 F Supp 599, supp op (DC Tex) 330 F Supp 1377, affd in part and mod in part on other grounds (CA5 Tex) 467 F2d 142, cert den 413 US 920, 922, 37 L Ed 2d 1041, 1044, 93 S Ct 3052, 3053, reh den 414 US 881, 38 L Ed 2d 129, 94 S Ct 31.
Teachers and other professional staff members may not be discriminatorily hired, assigned, dismissed, or demoted, because of race or color. Quality Education For All Children, Inc. v School Board (DC Ill) 362 F Supp 985.
It is violative of Fourteenth Amendment for public school officials to make education policy decisions which are based wholly or in part on considerations of race of teachers, and which have effect of increasing or aggravating racial segreation in public schools. Booker v Special School Dist. (DC Minn) 351 F Supp 799.
Mexican-American school children had standing to maintain suit alleging that because of school district's discriminatory employment practices, there was disproportionately low number of Mexican-American teachers in school system. Otero v Mesa County Valley School Dist. (CA10 Colo) 568 F2d 1312.

 [*3b]        Standing to sue
The following federal cases support, explicitly or implicitly, the proposition that school pupils have standing to raise the question of teacher assignments by race to the extent that such assignments constitute an asserted denial of constitutionally protected rights of the pupils.
 
United States--
 
Rogers v Paul (1965) 382 US 198, 15 L Ed 2d 265, 86 S Ct 358.
 
Fourth Circuit-
 
Jackson v School Board of Lynchburg (1963, CA4 Va) 321 F2d 230.
Wheeler v Durham City Board of Education (1966, CA4 NC) 363 F2d 738.
Brown v County School Board (1965, DC Va) 245 F Supp 549.
Kier v County School Board (1966, DC Va) 249 F Supp 239.
 
Sixth Circuit--
 
Mapp v Board of Education (1963, CA6 Tenn) 319 F2d 571.
Northcross v Board of Education (1964, CA6 Tenn) 333 F2d 661.
Monroe v Board of Comrs. (1963, DC Tenn) 221 F Supp 968.
Monroe v Board Comrs. (1964, DC Tenn) 229 F Supp 580.
Holding that Negro students not yet in the segregated grades did have standing to challenge racial allocation of faculty, the court in Rogers v Paul (1965) 382 US 198, 15 L Ed 2d 265, 86 S Ct 358, vacated the finding to the contrary of the District Court, which was sustained by the Court of Appeals, and remanded for a prompt evidentiary hearing on this issue. The court concluded that two theories would give students not yet in the segregated grades sufficient interest to challenge racial allocation of faculty: (1) that racial allocation of faculty denies them equality of educational opportunity without regard to segregation of pupils; and (2) that it renders inadequate an otherwise constitutional pupil desegregation plan soon to be applied in their grades.
A complaint, in an action by a group of Negro children and parents, praying for an order compelling the school board to "effect . . . a transition to a racially non-discriminatory school system" was held broad enough to comprehend all aspects of the schools' operations, in Jackson v School Board of Lynchburg (1963, CA4 Va) 321 F2d 230, in which the plaintiffs' challenges to the school desegregation plan included failure, inter alia, to provide for desegregation of faculty and staff. The court reversed the decision below and remanded the case with the statement that the District Court had the authority and the responsibility to perform comprehensively the task of further considering the plan to bring it into full conformity with the law.
The allegations of a complaint which were stricken below were ordered restored insofar as they related to the assignment of teachers and principals, in Mapp v Board of Education (1963, CA6 Tenn) 319 F2d 571, a case involving an action by Negro children appearing by their parents. The court agreed that the teachers and principals were not within the class represented by plaintiffs and that plaintiffs could not assert or ask protection of the constitutional rights of the teachers and others who were not parties to the cause, but concluded that the attack upon the assignment of teachers by race was not one seeking to protect rights of the teachers, but was a claim that continued assigning of teaching personnel on a racial basis impaired the students' rights to an education free from any consideration of race.
It was held that the issues of assignment of teachers on a desegregated basis and of a unitary employment policy were proper ones to be determined in a school segregation case brought by students and their parents, in Northcross v Board of Education (1964, CA6 Tenn) 333 F2d 661, because the assignment of teachers by race might impair the students' rights to an education free from any consideration of race, and thus it was a question not of the rights of teachers, but of the rights of students that were affected.
In Monroe v Board of Comrs. (1963, DC Tenn) 221 F Supp 968, it was held that Negro pupils and their parents can, in a class action, assert a claim to desegregation of teachers and principals as part of their right to an abolition of discrimination in the public schools, although they cannot assert the rights of Negro principals and teachers. The court concluded that the claim to desegregation of teachers and principals would be held under advisement pending the implementation of the school desegregation plan.
See United States v Baldwin County Bd. of Education (1982, MD Ga) 544 F Supp 367,  §  6[b] .
 <>
A state teachers' association representing about 3,400 Negro teachers in the state was held to have standing to litigate the constitutionality of the dismissal of seven Negro teachers, despite the contentions that it was not asserting the rights in its own behalf, and that the association was not an individual member of a class, in Smith v Board of Education (1966, CA8 Ark) 365 F2d 770, the court holding that several factors in cases such as the present one dictate a liberal evaluation of the requirement of standing. The court explained that these factors were (1) the possibility, not to be overlooked in the context of contemporary racial controversy, of an element of deterrence, through fear of reprisal, when one makes his own assertion of constitutional rights; (2) the possibility that the individual will lose interest in the litgation if and when he obtains other employment; (3) that integrated pupils possess appropriate concern about racial allocation of faculty; and (4) that the teachers' association, and any similar organization functioning in an area where desegregation is in process, faces the distinct possibility that dismissal will adversely affect it as an entity through diminuation of membership and financial support.

 [*4]      Particular practices

 [*4a]        Generally
 
**** Synopsis:
 
   Racially based hiring, retention, or assignment of schoolteachers to perpetuate faculty segregation is unconstitutional, and teachers displaced as a result of desegregation may not be treated as new applicants to the school system unless all teachers, including those to be retained, are so treated.
 
**** Comment:
 
   The phrase "to perpetuate faculty segregation" in the foregoing synopsis is implicit in the many federal decisions (see  § §  8 , infra) holding or recognizing that race may or must be considered in overcoming the effects of past faculty segregation.
The reach of the Brown decisions, although they specifically concerned only pupil discrimination, clearly extends to the proscription of the employment and assignment of public school teachers on a racial basis, n8  particularly since the assignment of teachers by race may impair students' rights to an education free from any consideration of race. n9  Thus, the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution forbids the selection, retention, and assignment of public school teachers on the basis of race, n10  race should not be a factor in the hiring, assignment, promotion, demotion, or dismissal of teachers, n11  and schoolteachers and other professional staff members should not be discriminatorily assigned, dismissed, demoted, or passed over for retention, promotion, or rehiring, on the ground of race or color. n12 
In accordance with the foregoing principles, it has been stated that the recruitment and assignment of public school teachers on a racial basis so as to establish schools that are racially identifiable by the composition of their faculties deprive students of the right to be free of racial discrimination in the operation of the public schools in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, n13  and that when the predominant race of students attending a particular school continues to serve as the predicate for the assignment of a teacher, then equal opportunity is denied. n14  Moreover, since refusal to transfer or assign white teachers to minority schools or Negro teachers to majority classrooms cannot be justified on the argument that educational standards would thereby be lowered, n15  assignment of teachers upon a racial basis to maintain segregated faculties is unconstitutional without the necessity of proof that racial allocation has an adverse effect upon the quality of education. n16  And since a satisfactory school desegregation plan must include provisions for the employment and assignment of staff on a nonracial basis, n17  it follows that a freedom of choice plan in which only a small percentage of Negro students have chosen to attend integrated schools cannot be approved under the Fourteenth Amendment if it is shown that Negro and white teachers and staff have been continually and systematically assigned only to schools where their race has predominated. n18 
When the constitutional requirement of racial equality compels realignment of the allotment of teachers, that realignment may not serve as a vehicle for other forms of discrimination. n19  Thus, reduction in the number of students and faculty in a previously all-Negro school will not alone justify the discharge or failure to re-employ Negro teachers in a school system. n20  In any instance where one or more teachers or other professional staff members are to be displaced as the result of desegregation, no staff vacancy in the school system should be filled through recruitment from outside the system unless no such displaced staff member is qualified to fill the vacancy. n1  In other words, when a school system's needs change as a result of compliance with the basic law of the land outlawing racial discrimination, the equal protection clause will not permit the teachers so displaced to be treated as new applicants to the system, unless all teachers, including those to be retained, are so treated. n2  Those displaced teachers, absent good cause for the refusal to rehire, such as age, or poor professional performance, must be given the same preference as to re-employment as that given to teachers not so displaced. n3 
A school board's consolidation policy, although nondiscriminatory on its face and although based upon otherwise rational considerations, becomes impermissible and may not be applied where a school is closed as the direct consequence of an effort to rectify constitutional defects in the method by which pupils and teachers have previously been assigned, where the effect is to impose, without some concern for qualifications to teach, the heavy burden of unemployment solely upon those whose constitutional rights were violated, and where an additional result may be to impede meaningful realization of the constitutional rights of the pupils. n4 
Provision of collective bargaining agreement between city board of education and teachers union under which, if it became necessary to lay off teachers, those with most seniority would be retained, except that at no time would there be greater percentage of minority teachers laid off than percentage of minority teachers employed at time of layoff, is inconsistent with equal protection clause of Fourteenth Amendment where its implementation results in layoff of nonminority teachers at same time that minority teachers with less seniority are retained, and where (1) three Justices of Supreme Court are of view that layoff plan is not sufficiently narrowly tailored to accomplish purposes that otherwise may be legitimate, since less intrusive means are available, (2) fourth Justice is of view that none of interests asserted by board, singly or together, justify racially discriminatory layoff policy, and (3) fifth Justice is of view that layoff plan is not narrowly tailored to achieve its asserted purpose because it acts to maintain levels of minority hiring that have no relation to remedying employment discrimination. Wygant v Jackson Board of Education (1986, US) 90 L Ed 2d 260, 106 S Ct 1842, 40 BNA FEP Cas 1321, 40 CCH EPD P 36106.
Teachers of school district may not be discriminatorily hired, assigned, dismissed or demoted because of race or color. Moore v Kibbee (DC NY) 381 F Supp 834.
See Kromnick v School Dist. (1984, CA3 Pa) 739 F2d 894, 35 BNA FEP Cas 538, 34 CCH EPD P 34525, cert den 469 US 1107, 83 L Ed 2d 777, 105 S Ct 782, 36 BNA FEP Cas 976, 35 CCH EPD P 34854,  §  15 .
Faculty displaced as result of school system's plan for desegregation must, absent good cause for refusal to rehire, be placed in any positions which later become vacant without comparing their qualifications to those of new applicants, unless all teachers are annually considered for re-employment in comparison with new applicants. Reynolds v Abbeville County School Dist. (CA4 SC) 554 F2d 638.
Where school district hired 10 new white teachers and rehired 4 white teachers who had resigned or retired prior to dismissals, without first offering these positions to previously discharged black teachers, who had been discharged as result of shifting of school district's boundaries and reduction of student population within school district, court, which held that criteria used by school district to determine which teacher should be dismissed was unfair and almost entirely subjective in nature, remanded case to District Court, directing school district to take immediate steps to develop and adopt truly objective, nonracial, and reasonable criteria for selection of staff members for dismissal due to reduction in student population. U. S. v Texas Education Agency (CA5 Tex) 459 F2d 600.
See Wygant v Jackson Bd. of Education (1982, ED Mich) 546 F Supp 1195, 29 BNA FEP Cas 1359, 30 CCH EPD P 33199,  §  15 .
Both the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibit selection of public school teachers on basis of race. United States v School Dist. (DC Mo) 399 F Supp 322 vacated on other grounds (CA8 Mo) 539 F2d 655.

 [*4b]        Evaluation of qualifications; tenure
 
**** Synopsis:
 
   In evaluating the qualifications of teachers for purposes of hiring, retention, or assignment, objective, nonracial standards must be applied throughout the school system; while a teacher's tenure or lack of tenure is a permissible factor to be weighed, it may not be used to disguise racial discrimination or to obstruct desegregation.
In accordance with the general principle that in judging the performances of teachers with an eye to retention, promotion, or dismissal, nonracial criteria must be used, n5  the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment require that when a teacher is displaced as a result of faculty desegregation, the qualifications of all teachers in the system must be evaluated by objective standards, resulting in dismissal only of the least qualified. n6  In this day, race per se is an impermissible criterion for judging a teaching applicant's qualifications or a school district's needs, n7  and this applies equally to considerations described as environment, ability to communicate, speech patterns, or capacity to establish rapport with pupils when these descriptions amount only to euphemistic references to actual or assumed racial distinctions. n8  It is now too late for a school board to assume that it may objectively regard all supposed racial differences in order to avoid its obligation to employ teachers in accord with constitutional standards. n9 
The fact that a teacher has not acquired tenure status under state law may be a factor in evaluating his qualifications. n10  This, however, may not be used as the only basis upon which to discriminate against teachers serving on a faculty which is being desegregated. n11  School boards in states having tenure legislation should establish definite objective standards for the employment and retention of teachers and should apply such standards to all tenure teachers, on the one hand, and nontenure teachers, on the other, consistently with the due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution of the United States. n12  Clearly, then, school boards cannot use local tenure or teacher hiring security statutes as a justification for failing to initiate and maintain desegregation of faculties. n13 
Although it may be that Arabs are considered to be an ethnic group within the Caucasian race, a United States citizen born in Iraq who alleges that he was denied tenure by a private college because he was of the "Arabian race" is able to make out a case under 42 U.S.C.A. §  1981, which provides that all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right to make and enforce contracts as is enjoyed by white citizens, if he can prove that he was subjected to intentional discrimination based on the fact that he was born an Arab, rather than solely on the place or nation of his origin, or his religion. St. Francis College v Al-Khazraji (1987) 481 US 604, 95 L Ed 2d 582, 107 S Ct 2022, 43 BNA FEP Cas 1305, 43 CCH EPD P 37018, reh den (US) 97 L Ed 2d 749, 107 S Ct 3244, 43 CCH EPD P 37130.
District Court did not abuse its discretion or sacrifice interests of school system by failing to require that black applicants for permanent teaching positions in kindergarten, primary and elementary grades have taken certain reading and method courses where such courses were not required for state teaching certificate which was necessary qualification for permanent teaching position. Morgan v Kerrigan (CA1 Mass) 530 F2d 431, 14 BNA FEP Cas 312, 11 CCH EPD P 10636, cert den 426 US 935, 49 L Ed 2d 386, 96 S Ct 2648, 96 S Ct 2649, 24 BNA FEP Cas 1515, 12 CCH EPD P 10977, reh den 429 US 873, 50 L Ed 2d 156, 97 S Ct 193 and reh den 429 US 1125, 51 L Ed 2d 577, 97 S Ct 1166, later proceeding (DC Mass) 612 F Supp 1060, 38 BNA FEP Cas 481, 38 CCH EPD P 35550, later proceeding (DC Mass) 617 F Supp 1316, 38 CCH EPD P 35551, later proceeding (DC Mass) 620 F Supp 214, affd (CA1 Mass) 831 F2d 313, 94 ALR Fed 629.
Examinations prescribed and administered by board of examiners of New York City school system to candidates seeking licenses for permanent appointment to supervisory positions in city's school system were held to be violation of equal protection clause of Fourteenth Amendment, because tests discriminated against black and Puerto Rican applicants, who failed tests at substantially higher rates than white applicants, and who constituted only 1.4% of principals and 7.2% of assistant principals in nation's largest school system. Chance v Board of Examiners, etc. (DC NY) 330 F Supp 203, affd (CA2 NY) 458 F2d 1167.
Nonrenewal of black teachers' contracts, as a result of new policy of school board not to rehire teachers in their performance grade based on scores attained in teachers' examination, was in violation of equal protection of laws, where new policy was unevenly applied to extent of being inherently capricious, in that other teachers similarly situated were not dismissed. United States ex rel. Clark v Chesterfield County School Dist. (CA4 SC) 484 F2d 70.
Dismissal of black teachers for failure to attain minimum score in teachers' examination was invalid, where record indicated strong undercurrent of discrimination effectively decimating ranks of black teachers whose credentials were equally, if not more, impressive than many of those hired by Board, minimum score required by Board was patently arbitrary and discriminatory, and test was arbitrarily and erratically administered by Board, which required some exempted teachers to take test and did not require others similarly situated to do so, and where testing service which administers examination stated that it was least valid when applied to experienced teachers, such as at least some of teachers involved. Walston v County School Board (CA4 Va) 492 F2d 919.
If school system's plan for desegregation reduces number of faculty positions, school system must consider all of faculty on basis of objective, racially neutral criteria for remaining positions; evaluations limited to black faculty may not be used to justify their discharge or demotion. Reynolds v Abbeville County School Dist. (CA4 SC) 554 F2d 638.
Where District Court's initial decision that selection of cut-off score of 950 on National Teachers Examination as qualification for licensing teachers in state constituted arbitrary denial of equal protection under Fourteenth Amendment, appeared questionable in light of recent Supreme Court decisions and where further illumination as to proper factors to be considered in evaluating the constitutionality of state's actions had recently been provided, fairest and best solution in action would be to vacate such prior District Court decision and extend discovery for 5 months. United States v North Carolina (DC NC) 425 F Supp 789.
Effect of standards established in Singleton v Jackson Municipal Separate School Dist. (CA5 Miss) 419 F2d 1211, revd on other grounds 396 US 290, 24 L Ed 2d 477, 90 S Ct 608, reh den 396 US 1053, 24 L Ed 2d 698, 90 S Ct 705, is to protect those who are demoted or dismissed because of desegregation related reductions in teaching staff, by (1) guaranteeing procedural fairness in determining who is demoted by means of requirement of prior written criteria, and (2) giving to those who are displaced prior consideration for new positions equal to positions lost because of desegregation; where Singleton Case applies, objective criteria are required but Singleton Case does not apply after unitary school system is achieved; standards required by Title VII (42 U.S.C.A. § §  2000e et seq.) are adequate to cover staff decisions for those classes of personnel for which there were no desegregation-related reductions requiring stricter standards. Lee v Pickens County School System (CA5 Ala) 563 F2d 143.
District Court's order directing that plaintiff be reinstated as teacher at elementary school was vacated and remanded for full and complete trial, because defendant school board was not given opportunity by District Court to present its case involving black teacher in integrated school who had been dismissed by school board, which found her to be incompetent as teacher because she scored poorly on an achievement test intended for sixth grade students, following which teacher filed suit in federal court seeking reinstatement on ground that her dismissal was racially motivated; and at hearing court concluded that test was insufficient ground for dismissing her and entered temporary injunction prohibiting her dismissal, even though defendant school board had numerous witnesses present and ready to testify on issue of teacher's alleged incompetency before proceedings were abruptly terminated by court. Carter v Morehouse Parish School Board (CA5 La) 441 F2d 380, cert den 404 US 880, 30 L Ed 2d 161, 92 S Ct 201.
In determining who is to be demoted when faculty demotions become necessary because of desegregation plan, both substantive and procedural fairness are required of school system; objective nonracial criteria for demotions must be committed to paper and made available for public inspection prior to any demotion in order to prevent necessity for and dangers of ex post facto justification of decisions already made. United States v Gadsden County School Dist. (CA5 Fla) 539 F2d 1369, reh den (CA5 Fla) 542 F2d 1174.
Where, in order providing for unitary school system, federal court had provided that displaced tenured teachers should continue to be employed by school system in some capacity while allowing school board to discontinue employment of nontenured teachers so long as decision was reached without racial discrimination of any kind, and where state law relating to tenure provided that any teacher not found unsatisfactory by school board within 3-year period after employment would be considered to have tenure, court held that letter from school board to 5 Negro teachers, alleging that their positions were being terminated because of federal court order ordering closing of some schools, but not finding performance of teachers unsatisfactory, was insufficient notice to teachers under state law requiring finding of unsatisfactory performance, and court ordered school board to re-employ teachers with back pay. Moses v Washington Parish School Board (DC La) 304 F Supp 1112.
Where there was long history of racial discrimination by defendant school district, which had denied re-employment to much larger number of black teachers than white teachers when school system converted from dual to unitary system, court held that use of examination, which tested teacher's capacity for advanced studies at master's and doctor's level, to enforce school board policy requiring in-service teachers and applicants for teaching positions to achieve certain score on examination or else have master's degree as precondition to retention and employment, was improper, since it classified teachers and applicants on basis of race, since test was not job-related to extent that it determined teacher competency, and since it disqualified disproportionately large number of black teachers and applicants. Armstead v Starkville Municipal Separate School Dist. (DC Miss) 325 F Supp 560, affd in part and revd in part on other grounds (CA5) 461 F2d 276.
Where National Education Association, Mississippi Teachers Association, and 8 Negro teachers brought suit for permanent injunction preventing defendant school board from requiring in-service teachers and applicants for teaching positions to achieve score of 1,000 or more on National Teachers Examination (NTE) as precondition to retention and employment in system, court granted relief in view of fact that 1,000 NTE cutoff score established by defendant school board created racial classification, under which 90% of white graduates from Mississippi institutions of higher education were eligible to teach in school district, whereas 89% of black graduates from Mississippi institutions were disqualified. Baker v Columbus Municipal Separate School Dist. (DC Miss) 329 F Supp 706, affd (CA5 Miss) 462 F2d 1112.
Black professor of Afro-American studies failed to demonstrate racial discrimination in university's decision not to grant tenure based on failure to demonstrate acceptable level of competence in research and scholarly writing where plaintiff failed to illustrate in detail extra demands allegedly placed on his time in developing new Afro-American Studies Department and in dealing with needs of black students. Carpenter v Board of Regents (1984, CA7 Wis) 728 F2d 911, 34 BNA FEP Cas 248, 33 CCH EPD P 34199.

 [*III]        Existence of discrimination

 [*5]      Presumptions and burden of proof
 
**** Synopsis:
 
   Although school boards generally have wide discretion in the employment and dismissal of teachers, a history of racial discrimination gives rise to a presumption that further suspicious acts are racially motivated, thus placing the burden on the school authorities to justify their decisions by clear and convincing proof.
Generally speaking, school boards are vested with wide discretion in matters affecting school management, including the employment n14  and dismissal n15  of teachers, and a court may not interfere with a school board's action unless the board has exercised its power in an unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious, or unlawful manner. n16 
Nevertheless, where a history of racial discrimination is shown to exist, the burden of showing nondiscrimination is on the party having the power to produce the facts. n17  Thus, a long history of racial discrimination, coupled with sudden disproportionate decimation in the ranks of Negro teachers when desegregation is finally begun, gives rise to an imputation of racial discrimination in the failure to rehire Negro teachers. n18  such circumstances cast the burden of proof on the school authorities to show that the failure to rehire was for nondiscriminatory reasons. n19  In such circumstances, the proof must be clear and convincing before failure to re-employ may be upheld. n20  Or, as another court has stated the rule, the contemporaneous existence, within one system, of some schools whose faculties and student bodies are almost exclusively white and of other schools whose faculties and student bodies are almost exclusively Negro, creates a presumption of discriminatory faculty assignments which requires the school authorities to demonstrate the constitutionality of their procedures. n1  Moreover, the presence of all Negro teachers in a school attended in the past solely by Negro pupils denotes that school a "colored school" just as certainly as if the words were printed across its entrance in 6-inch letters. n2 
 <>
Also recognizing that school board must assume burden of showing that its employment decisions affecting plaintiff were not racially motivated:
 
Fifth Circuit--
 
Pulliam v Board of Trustees (1979, ND Miss) 488 F Supp 1.
Cousin v Board of Trustees (1980, ND Miss) 488 F Supp 75, 28 BNA FEP Cas 166, revd on other grounds (CA5 Miss) 648 F2d 293, 28 BNA FEP Cas 172, 26 CCH EPD P 31894, vacated on other grounds (CA5 Miss) 661 F2d 377, 28 BNA FEP Cas 177.
Schwartz v Florida (1980, ND Fla) 494 F Supp 574, 23 BNA FEP Cas 203.
Hardy v Porter (ND Miss) 443 F Supp 1164, 26 BNA FEP Cas 1206, affd, remanded on other grounds (CA5 Miss) 613 F2d 112, 26 BNA FEP Cas 1260, 22 CCH EPD P 30723.
For purposes of Emergency School Aid Act of 1972 §  706(d)(1)(B), whereby educational agency is deemed ineligible for federal financial assistance if its practice in regard to "demotion or dismissal of instructional or other personnel" or in regard to "hiring, promotion, or assignment of employees" has discriminatory impact, prima facie case of discriminatory impact may be made by proper statistical study, and if prima facie case is made, burden of rebutting case is upon party against whom case has been made; agency may be deemed ineligible for federal assistance even though agency had no specific intent to discriminate by its practice. Board of Education v Harris (1979) 444 US 130, 62 L Ed 2d 275, 100 S Ct 363, 21 CCH EPD P 30368A.
In action by Federal Government against suburban school district under Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C.A. § §  2000e et seq.), based on school district's alleged "pattern or practice" of discrimination against Negroes in hiring teachers, Court of Appeals correctly concluded that proper statistical comparision should be between racial composition of school district's teaching staff and racial composition of qualified public school teacher population in relevant labor market, but Court of Appeals, holding that government had conclusively proved its "pattern or practice" lawsuit, erred in substituting its judgment for that of District Court in (1) accepting government's contention that relevant labor market area included nearby city as well as county in which defendant school district was located, whereas defendant contended that any statistical comparison would be distorted because nearby city had made special attempts to maintain 50 percent Negro teaching staff, and (2) disregarding possibility that certain prima facie statistical proof of discrimination in record might, at trial court level, be rebutted by statistics dealing with school district's hiring practices after it became subject to Title VII--proper disposition of case being to remand to District Court for further findings as to relevant labor market area and for ultimate determination of whether school district had engaged in pattern or practice of employment discrimination after becoming subject to Act. Hazelwood School Dist. v United States, 433 US 299, 53 L Ed 2d 768, 97 S Ct 2736.
When school board members' actions have natural, probable, and foreseeable result of increasing or perpetuating segregation, presumption of segregative purpose is created and burden of proof then shifts to defendant officials to show that pattern of actions taken by those officials can be explained in manner consistent with absence of segregative intent; once burden of proof has shifted, school officials must be able to demonstrate that no reasonable alternative policy would have achieved same permissible educational goals with less segregative effect and when such showing cannot be made, it is reasonable to infer that officials acted with unlawful segregative intent; proof that authorities have pursued intentional segregative policy in substantial portion of school district creates rebuttable presumption that entire school system is unlawfully segregated, unless system is divided into clearly unrelated units. Arthur v Nyquist (CA2 NY) 573 F2d 134.
Where black school teacher who had not been rehired for failure to obey administrative directives, introduced evidence showing that files of white teachers who had received tenure and promotion abounded with administrative memoranda indicating repeated failures to obey administrative directives, as well as other deficiencies, black school teacher's evidence was held to make out prima facie case of racial discrimination and, under McDonnell Douglas Corp. v Green, 411 US 792, 36 L Ed 2d 668, 93 S Ct 1817, placed on defendants burden of producing evidence that nonrenewal of black school teacher's employment had some legally permissible foundation; black school teacher had burden of proving existence of coverup for racially discriminatory decision. Morris v Board of Education of Lourel School Dist. (DC Del) 401 F Supp 188.
Court of Appeals refused to apply presumption of racial discrimination or place upon board of education burden of proving that discriminatory policies played no part in rejection, non-promotion, or demotion of each individual plaintiff where board of education had taken affirmative steps to desegregate its schools in light of evolving law and it was conceded that complete desegregation in county had been voluntarily accomplished in 1967 and where there was no sudden disproportionate decimation in ranks of Negro teachers incident to complete integration of school system; court pointed out record clearly demonstrated statistical changes in racial composition of teaching staff were not result of any discriminatory hiring policies of board of education, but rather were result of dramatic demographic changes which occurred in county. Morton v Charles County Board of Education (CA4 Md) 520 F2d 871, cert den 423 US 1034, 46 L Ed 2d 408, 96 S Ct 566.
In light of history of segregation, disproportionate reduction of black principals raised inference of discrimination which school authorities were required to rebut by showing through clear and convincing evidence that permissible, racially neutral selection criteria governed their conduct. Reynolds v Abbeville County School Dist. (CA4 SC) 554 F2d 638.
Plaintiff seeking protection of standards set forth in Singleton v Jackson Municipal Separate School Dist. (CA5 Miss) 419 F2d 1211, revd on other grounds 396 US 290, 24 L Ed 2d 477, 90 S Ct 608, reh den 396 US 1053, 24 L Ed 2d 698, 90 S Ct 705, has burden of proving applicability of its terms; thus, in order to prevail on remand, plaintiff, National Education Association, Incorporated, must show and court must find that because of desegregation there was reduction in personnel which resulted in demotion of high school principal. Lee v Pickens County System (CA5 Ala) 563 F2d 143.
Where former principal of all black elementary school filed action claiming racial discrimination in failure of school board to promote him to office of principal after court approved desegregation plan, school board had burden of proving that its personnel decisions were free from racial considerations; since former principal conceded on appeal that his move from elementary principal to high school assistant principal was not demotion, per se rule requiring that he be offered next principalship before nonblack was recruited for job did not apply. Roper v Effingham County Board of Education (CA5 Ga) 528 F2d 1024.
Immediately past history of racial discrimination in presently unitary school system established prima facie case of violation of equal protection in black teacher's alleged demotion and discharge, so that on remand burden of proof would be upon school district to justify its actions by clear and convincing evidence. Barnes v Jones County School Dist. (CA5 Miss) 544 F2d 804.
Once it has been shown that most black teachers are assigned to black schools and most white teachers to white schools, it then becomes burden of board of education to show that such assignments were not racially motivated. Davis v School Dist. (DC Mich) 309 F Supp 734, affd (CA6) 443 F2d 573, cert den 404 US 913, 30 L Ed 2d 186, 92 S Ct 233, and later app (CA6 Mich) 474 F2d 46, later app (CA6 Mich) 487 F2d 890.
Contemporaneous existence within one system, of some schools whose faculties and student bodies are almost exclusively white and other schools whose faculties and student bodies are almost exclusively Negro, creates presumption of discriminatory faculty assignments which requires school authorities to demonstrate constitutionality of their procedures. U.S. v School Dist. (DC Ill) 301 F Supp 201, mod on other grounds (CA7) 432 F2d 1147, cert den 402 US 943, 29 L Ed 2d 111, 91 S Ct 1610.
School board, faced with need to reduce number of faculty because of consolidation of formerly segregated schools, has burden of proving that policies and procedures followed in determining which teachers should be discharged are not discriminatory. Thomas v Board of Education (CA8 Ark) 457 F2d 1268.
Where it is possible to identify school as either "white" or "black" by reference to racial composition of its teachers, prima facie case of violation of Fourteenth Amendment rights is shown. Booker v Special School Dist. (DC Minn) 351 F Supp 799.
Faculty members who alleged racial discrimination in nonrenewal of their contracts for teaching services had burden of establishing by testimony prima facie case against school district, and upon establishing prima facie case, it became duty of school district to establish by evidence that action of school board was justified and in compliance with orders of court and in no way racially motivated. Cato v Collins (DC Ark) 394 F Supp 629 aff'd on other grounds (CA8 Ark) 539 F 2d 656.
Black teachers who charged school district with discriminatory hiring practices, had initial burden of showing discriminatory action on part of school district by showing that (1) they belonged to racial minority, (2) they applied and were qualified for job for which employer was seeking or accepting applications, (3) they were rejected, and (4) after rejection position remained open and employer continued to seek or accept applications from persons with similar qualifications. Oliver v Moberly Missouri School Dist. (DC Mo) 427 F Supp 82.
Where de jure segregation by school authorities was claimed, finding of purpose or intent to segregate on part of school authorities was necessary to support order requiring desegregation of elementary schools. Johnson v San Francisco Unified School Dist. (CA9 Cal) 500 F2d 349.
Although burden of rebuttal is more onerous in situation in which school district has history of unlawful discrimination, mere existence of past discrimination does not shift burden of proof to defendant school district to rebut charges of individual racial discrimination. Harris v Birmingham Bd. of Education (1982, ND Ala) 537 F Supp 716.

 [*6]      Discrimination in hiring or retention

 [*6a]        Held established
Racial discrimination in the hiring or retention of schoolteachers has been held or recognized as being established in a number of federal cases, the courts frequently stressing that the qualifications of the plaintiff teachers were not compared with those of the other teachers or applicants in the school system.
 
Fourth Circuit-
 
James v Beaufort County Board of Education (DC NC) 348 F Supp 711, affd (CA4) 465 F2d 477, supp op 472 F2d 177, cert den 413 US 920, 37 L Ed 2d 1041, 93 S Ct 3053.
 
Fifth Circuit--
 
Lee v Macon County Board of Education (CA5 Ala) 453 F2d 1104.
U.S. v Texas Education Agency (CA5 Tex) 459 F2d 600.
Schwartz v Florida (1980, ND Fla) 494 F Supp 574, 23 BNA FEP Cas 203.
Lee v Washington County Board of Education (SD Ala) 456 F Supp 1175.
 
Eighth Circuit-
 
Hegler v Board of Education (CA8 Ark) 447 F2d 1078.
Clark v Mann (CA8 Ark) 562 F2d 1104.
See Hazelwood School Dist. v United States, 433 US 299, 53 L Ed 2d 768, 97 S Ct 2736, supra  §  5 .
Discriminatory hiring practices, segregative assignment and transfer policies, and promotion system which perpetuated in administrative positions effects of discriminatory hiring, combined to buttress segregated nature of school system, and cumulative effect isolated black students, black teachers and black administrators in limited number of schools, thereby denying to those students equal educational opportunity; evidence supported findings that school system's use of National Teachers Examination (NTE) had racially disproportionate impact, and that no showing was made that NTE was substantially related to job performance. Morgan v Kerrigan (CA1 Mass) 509 F2d 580, cert den 421 US 963, 44 L Ed 2d 449, 95 S Ct 1950, later proceeding (CA1 Mass) 689 F2d 265, later proceeding (DC Mass) 554 F Supp 169, affd (CA1 Mass) 726 F2d 11, 38 FR Serv 2d 638, later proceeding (DC Mass) 620 F Supp 214, affd (CA1 Mass) 831 F2d 313, 94 ALR Fed 629.
In school desegregation case, black teachers in system were found to have been segregated in black schools; rough understatement of situation was that less than one-third of schools were majority black, but that over two-thirds of black teachers were sent to them. Morgan v Hennigan (DC Mass) 379 F Supp 410, affd (CA1 Mass) 509 F2d 580, cert den 421 US 963, 44 L Ed 2d 449, 95 S Ct 1950, later proceeding (CA1 Mass) 689 F2d 265, later proceeding (DC Mass) 554 F Supp 169, affd (CA1 Mass) 726 F2d 11, 38 FR Serv 2d 638, later proceeding (DC Mass) 620 F Supp 214, affd (CA1 Mass) 831 F2d 313, 94 ALR Fed 629 and supp op (DC Mass) 388 F Supp 581, 14 BNA FEP Cas 308, affd (CA1 Mass) 530 F2d 431, 14 BNA FEP Cas 312, 11 CCH EPD 10636, cert den 426 US 935, 49 L Ed 2d 386, 96 S Ct 2648, 96 S Ct 2649, 24 BNA FEP Cas 1515, 12 CCH EPD P 10977, reh den 429 US 873, 50 L Ed 2d 156, 97 S Ct 193 and reh den 429 US 1125, 51 L Ed 2d 577, 97 S Ct 1166, later proceeding (DC Mass) 612 F Supp 1060, 38 BNA FEP Cas 481, 38 CCH EPD P 35550, later proceeding (DC Mass) 617 F Supp 1316, 38 CCH EPD P 35551 and later proceeding (CA1 Mass) 726 F 2d 33, later proceeding (DC Mass) 602 F Supp 806.
Racially biased recruiting and assignment of staff members, and other policies suggested intentional segregation by city's school board; no policy, save segregation itself, could consistently explain staff recruitment and assignment, and general obstructionism which marked actions of school board so that District Court's finding that school board acted in intentional violation of 42 U.S.C.A. §  1983 was approved; record did not include indication of complicity or bad faith of state defendants and inaction on part of state supervisory personnel could not, under standards promulgated by United States Supreme Court, be said to constitute intentional segregation so as to violate the Constitution. Arthur v Nyquist (CA2 NY) 573 F2d 134.
Seven Negro teachers were held to have been discharged because of their race in Franklin v County School Board (1966, CA4 Va) 360 F2d 325, where, upon the county school board's abandonment of two Negro schools as part of a plan to integrate the school system with regard to pupils, the plaintiff teachers were discharged without any comparative evaluation of their qualifications with those of other teachers in the system or even with those of eight new teachers employed in the system, all of whom were white.
Under the circumstances, a sudden disproportionate decimation in the ranks of Negro teachers was held to have raised an inference of discrimination which had thrust upon the school board the burden of justifying its conduct by clear and convincing evidence, in Chambers v Hendersonville City Board of Education (1966, CA4 NC) 364 F2d 189, an action by Negro schoolteachers and their professional association, seeking an injunction against allegedly racially discriminatory policies and practices of the school board. Due to courtordered integration of 217 Negro students into their respective county schools, enrollment at the Negro school dropped from 498 to 281, and the superintendent recommended that the school board retain only 7 of the 24 Negro teachers, which was the approximate pro rata allotment based upon the number of the remaining Negro pupils under the state teacher-pupil ratio. The District Court, after reviewing the individual cases, held that there had been no discrimination, and the Court of Appeals, reversing this finding and remanding the case, pointed out that the school superintendent, in making the decisions on all employment contracts, considered the principals' reports and acted upon his own personal preference based upon the reports. The court also noted that the report submitted by the principal of the Negro school had been the only one in writing and had been extremely elaborate and meticulous, listing, with respect to each teacher, various qualifications, while on the other hand, the white principals' reports had been oral, those principals being unable to remember details with respect to individual teachers or to testify that their reports had attempted a comparative rating of their teachers. In short, the court continued, the Negro principal's report clearly reflected the knowledge that the number of Negro teachers was to be drastically reduced; consequently his teachers were graded comparatively while those of the white principals were used only to eliminate those teachers who, in the opinion of the principal or superintendent, fell below a minimum standard, while the informal oral reports made by the white principals furnished no basis whatsoever for any objective rating of their teachers either within each school or within the system or with new applicants. Finding this test too subjective to withstand scrutiny in the face of the long history of racial discrimination in the community and failure of the public school system to desegregate until forced to do so by litigation, the court held that the plaintiffs as a class were entitled to an order requiring the board to set up definite objective standards for the employment and retention of teachers and to apply them to all teachers alike in a manner compatible with the requirements of the due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution, and that all the plaintiffs who desired to teach in the school system and who could meet the minimum standards of the board were entitled to an order requiring their re-employment for the school year and an award of any damages which might have been incurred.
A Negro teacher of unchallenged professional and educational qualifications and with 13 years of teaching experience who lost her job as a result of shifts in pupil enrollment from formerly Negro schools to formerly white schools pursuant to a system-wide desegregation plan was held to have been subjected to racial discrimination in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, in Wall v Stanly County Board of Education (1967, CA4 NC) 378 F2d 275, where the court found that solely because of her race, the plaintiff teacher had not been considered in comparison with other teacher applicants, about 50 of whom had not previously taught in the system. The court reasoned that since the school board had not advised the several white principals that they could employ Negro teachers, the board had operated under the unlawful premise that the plaintiff had not been employed as a teacher in the school system, but rather as a Negro teacher in a Negro school. Since the plaintiff teacher had secured employment elsewhere, the court ordered that if she reapplied for a teaching position in the school system for the following year, the school board should consider her objectively in comparison with all teachers, and that if she were denied re-employment, the board, because of its prior discrimination against her, would carry the burden of justifying its conduct by clear and convincing evidence.
Viewed against the background of the long history of racial discrimination and the presumption of discrimination which arose from the sudden decimation in the ranks of Negro teachers from the desegregation of the formerly all-Negro high school, we conclude from the facts stated that the plaintiff teachers have established a denial of due process and of equal protection of the laws, the court held in North Carolina Teachers Asso. v Asheboro City Board of Education (1968, CA4 NC) 393 F2d 736, 3 ALR Fed 299. When the formerly all-Negro high school at which the plaintiffs had taught was converted into an integrated elementary school, its faculty allotment was reduced from 24 to 11. The faculty allotments of some of the other formerly all-white schools in the system were increased, although the total allotment of teachers for the system was reduced from 209 to 206. The plaintiff teachers received a letter advising them that the defendant board of education could not offer them a contract for the next term, but that their applications would be kept on file for consideration as vacancies arose, if they so desired. No white teachers received the letter, and white teachers who, for cause, were not rehired, were so notified. When 35 new teachers were employed the following year, the plaintiff teachers were considered for re-employment but were rejected, their qualifications being compared to those of new applicants. Other teachers in the system, however, were generally rehired each year without having to compete with new applicants, unless they had reached retirement age or unless good cause adversely affecting their professional qualifications had arisen. The court based its decision primarily on the finding that the board of education had proceeded from the erroneous premise that when the high school had been reconstituted, the plaintiff teachers had lost their jobs --"teaching the Negro pupils" --and had stood in the position of new applicants for employment. When a school system's needs change as a result of compliance with the basic law of the land outlawing racial discrimination, the court said, the equal protection clause will not permit the teachers so displaced to be treated as new applicants to the system, unless all teachers, including those to be retained, are so treated. The court added that the displaced teachers, absent good cause for the refusal to rehire, such as age, or poor professional performance, had to be given the same preference as to re-employment as that given to teachers not so displaced. Finding that one of the plaintiff teachers was at least as well qualified and much more experienced than the two white teachers of his subject who had been retained in the system, the court stated that when the constitutional requirement of racial equality compels realignment of the allotment of teachers, that realignment may not serve as a vehicle for other forms of discrimination. As to the contention that another of the plaintiff teachers had been justifiably refused re-employment because he had passed three bad checks, the court reasoned that late assertion of the reason, its evident minimal weight, and, in the face of a recommendation for re-employment, the absence of any proof to show that it had been treated as a cause for disciplinary action, made the attempted justification so lacking in substance as to be regarded as pretextuous.
In action by black principal, alleging that black applicants for teaching and principal positions were denied employment on basis of race, unlawful employment practice whereby whites were chosen as principals of formerly white schools and blacks were chosen as principals of formerly black schools, would be enjoined where this practice had constituted illegal discrimination. Evans v Harnett County Bd. of Education (1982, CA4 NC) 684 F2d 304, 29 BNA FEP Cas 672, 29 CCH EPD P 32947.
Dismissal of black teachers for failure to attain minimum score in examination required by school board was discriminatory, where record indicated strong undercurrent of discrimination which had effectively decreased ranks of black teachers whose credentials were equally, if not more, impressive than many of those hired by school board. Walston v County School Board (CA4 Va) 492 F2d 919.
Black person who was demoted from position as principal during desegregation of school system and who was discharged from administrative position following year established prima facie case of racial discrimination where (1) school system's disproportionate reduction of black principals raised inference of discrimination which must be rebutted by school authorities, and (2) school superintendent's failure to consider former princial, absent good cause, for positions that were filled by new employees, violated principle that equal protection clause will not permit teachers displaced by desegregation plan to be treated as new applicants to school system unless all teachers, including those to be retained, are so treated. Reynolds v Abbeville County School Dist. (CA4 SC) 554 F2d 638.
District Court found that race was factor in denying black woman an appointment as principal when less qualified white woman and three other persons were appointed to elementary school principleships for which black woman had applied. Morton v Charles County Board of Education (DC Md) 373 F Supp 394, 7 BNA FEP Cas 948, 8 CCH EPD P 9457, affd (CA4 Md) 520 F2d 871, 11 BNA FEP Cas 677, 10 CCH EPD P 10323A, cert den 423 US 1034, 46 L Ed 2d 408, 96 S Ct 566, 11 BNA FEP Cas 1310, 10 CCH EPD P 10542.
Evidence supported finding that black schoolteacher was victim of racial discrimination in refusal to rehire, where similarly situated white teacher was given warnings and counseling relative to performance deficiencies, less qualified white teacher replaced black teacher, and evidence was in conflict whether black teacher's performance was generally satisfactory. Johnson v Chapel Hill Independent School Dist. (1988, CA5 Tex) 853 F2d 375, 47 BNA FEP Cas 1498, 47 CCH EPD P 38227.
Where recently integrated school system renewed all teachers' contracts for following school year except contracts of 2 black teachers which were not renewed allegedly because of deficiencies in their performances as teachers, court ordered their reinstatement where evidence suggested that their dismissals had been racially motivated and had been based upon informal and unfair evaluation, particularly in view of fact that school board filled 2 vacancies occurring at later date by hiring 2 white teachers from outside school district as replacements. Sparks v Griffin (CA5 Tex) 460 F2d 433.
Black teacher who had been employed by county school board for 31 years as teacher, and who had taught at county school for blacks for 20 years, who thereafter sought and gained employment with city school system located in same county because of court order closing county black school at which she taught, and who was thereafter dismissed following year by city school system, held entitled to relief on ground that she had not lost tenure as result of transfer to city school system, court saying that teacher had been dismissed because of closing of all-black school and not because she was not competent teacher. Lee v Roanoke City Board of Education (CA5 Ala) 466 F2d 1378.
Five black schoolteachers who lost positions as result of consolidation of integrated schools held victims of racial discrimination, court saying that it was not persuaded that they had been denied employment for valid, objective, nonracial reasons, noting that all plaintiffs had numerous years of teaching experience, and saying that it was difficult to beleive that school district's level of tolerance of their alleged deficiencies in performance of their duties was coincidentally reached and exceeded during period meaningful desegregation was being achieved. McLaurin v Columbia Municipal Separate School Dist. (CA5 Miss) 478 F2d 348, reh den (CA5 Miss) 486 F2d 1049, later app (CA5 Miss) 530 F2d 661.
Where principal of formerly all-black high school lost his position as result of consolidation of schools following integration order, and thereafter failed to sign contract offered to him of vice-principalship of consolidated high school on ground that such constituted demotion, although he was willing to accept position as principal at junior high school, but was not offered such position because there was only one junior high school in district and position had been filled by better qualified person, court, holding that position of assistant principal in large integrated high school was comparable or better than job of principal of small segregated high school, white or black, reversed District Court's order granting plaintiff backpay and reinstatement to job, saying that "hindsight reveals" that school board would have been required to offer plaintiff elementary school principalship had he not previously indicated that he would regard this as demotion and unacceptable, but saying that in interest of fairness to all concerned, case should be reconsidered at trial level to determine advisability of entring order requiring school board to offer plaintiff first principal vacancy that might occur in school system. Bassett v Atlanta Independent School Dist. (CA5 Tex) 485 F2d 1268.
Black teachers dismissed, 1 for alleged incompetence and another for alleged incompetence and wilful neglect of duty, were in fact dismissed on racial grounds and were thus entitled to reinstatement and back pay. Cornist v Richland Parish School Board (CA5 La) 495 F2d 189 (disapproved on other grounds Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v Wilderness Soc.  421 US 240, 44 L Ed 2d 141, 95 S Ct 1612).
A Negro elementary school teacher was held to have been subjected to racial discrimination in violation of the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment in Williams v Kimbrough (1969, DC La) 59 CCH Lab Cas P 9202, where the teacher's principal testified that the sole reason for his dismissal had been his unsatisfactory conduct on a field trip taken a year before the dismissal. The plaintiff teacher had been among seven or eight teachers who had accompanied a number of pupils and had been responsible for their supervision and behavior. At a public garden, the children had become quite unruly, destroying some of the property. The principal, in his testimony, admitted that he did not recall whether the plaintiff teacher's pupils had misbehaved and that he had no substantial basis on which to conclude that the plaintiff teacher did not normally exercise the required supervision of his students. The court emphasized that the principal had waited until a year after the incident to dismiss the plaintiff teacher and that the principal had never informed the plaintiff teacher that his conduct at the public garden had been unsatisfactory. We cannot concede, the court said, that any school administrator would dismiss a teacher proof on school boards to show that failure to rehire was for nondiscriminatory reasons, and require that such proof be clear and convincing, before failure to re-employ may be upheld.
Where evidence established that plaintiff was superior French teacher and only black faculty member on staff of high school having 2,300 students, 27% of whom were black, that teacher was not reappointed for coming school year for sole reason that he refused to comply with request of his school's principal that he remove his goatee, and that no disruptions of any kind had been caused by teacher's appearance, court held, under circumstances, that principal's request to teacher to remove goatee was arbitrary, unreasonable, and based on principal's personal preference, and was racially motivated, and thus refusal to reappoint teacher was unlawful, especially in view of complete absence of any written rule or policy by which to measure discretion conferred upon principal by school board in matters of personal appearance. Braxton v. Board of Public Instruction of Duval County, Fla., 303 F. Supp. 958, 2 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 835, 2 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P 10126, 61 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P 9362 (M.D. Fla. 1969).
Where, following resignation of her husband, who was black principal in school system, principal's wife, a teacher, who refused to accept fact that her husband resigned but contended that district had fired him, expressed her displeasure at actions of board by drawing picture depicting black man hanging on cross with blood spilling from his side, and by writing various quotations on picture, including, inter alia, "Were you there when the black principal and teachers were fired," and where, following teacher's mailing of picture to school superintendent and various officials, her contract was not renewed, court, finding that such activities were protected by First Amendment, held teacher entitled to relief and reinstatement. Armstead v Starkville Municipal Separate School Dist. (DC Miss) 331 F Supp 567.
Where proof showed that school district had been hiring more white replacement teachers than black replacement teachers according to policy of replacing black for black teachers and white for white teachers, such policy was held constitutionally impermissible as racial classification; having successfully attained unitary school system by end of 1973 school year, school board was under duty to hire teachers and administrators on basis of objective merit standards, irrespective of race. McCormick v Attala County Board of Education (DC Miss) 407 F Supp 586, 18 BNA FEP Cas 1750, 12 CCH EPD P 10967, vacated on other grounds (CA5 Miss) 541 F2d 1094, 18 BNA FEP Cas 1759, 12 CCH EPD P 11231, on remand (ND Miss) 424 F Supp 1382, 18 BNA FEP Cas 1760, 14 CCH EPD P 7721.
A county board of education's discharge of a Negro teacher, allegedly because of a decrease in the enrollment at her school when a desegregation plan had gone into effect, was held discriminatory in Hill v Franklin County Board of Education (1968, CA6 Tenn) 390 F2d 583, where the board had compared the plaintiff teacher's qualifications only with those of other teachers at her school, rather than with those of all other teachers in the county school system.
Two nontenure Negro teachers, a science teacher of more than 6 years' experience and a mathematics teacher of more than 2 years' experience, were held to have been subjected to racial discrimination when, upon a significant decrease in enrollment at their high school as a result of a desegregation plan for the county school system, they were discharged, in Rolfe v County Board of Education (1968, CA6 Tenn) 391 F2d 77, the court stating that the plaintiff teachers had been entitled to have their qualifications compared with those of all other nontenure teachers within the system, rather than, as had happened, only with those of other teachers in the same school. Reinforcing its conclusion, the court also found that when the board of education had finished implementing its desegregation plan, only one of the nontenure Negro teachers in the system had remained, while no teacher of the Caucasian race had been discharged. The rule is, the court declared, that teachers displaced from a school with a racially homogeneous faculty, because of a decrease in students, must be judged for continued employment by definite objective standards with all other teachers in the system. Rejecting the board of education's contention that they could not have foreseen the decrease in enrollment at the plaintiffs' high school and that by the time they had become aware of the situation it had been too late to compare the plaintiffs' qualifications with those of other teachers in the county and to discharge the latter to create positions for the plaintiffs, the court pointed out that 3 months before the decrease had occurred, the superintendent of schools had appeared before the teachers of the plaintiffs' high school and had told them that the "chances were" that the school would lose some of its teachers as a result of the desegregation plan. The board is not, the court said, in a position to feign surprise when faced with a situation which it knowingly created.
Trial court in Title VII action brought by black teacher whose nontenured contract was not renewed erred in granting summary judgment for defendant administrators, where evidence that one administrator refused to tell teacher actual reasons for nonrenawal, and that other administrator had made overtly disparaging racial remark in context of vow to remove blacks from faculty, raised issues of fact as to motivation of decision not to renew contract. Hull v Cuyahoga Valley Joint Vocational School Dist. Bd. of Educ. (1991, CA6 Ohio) 926 F2d 505, 55 BNA FEP Cas 269, 55 CCH EPD P 40582.
Where Negro elementary teacher, with B.S. degree and tenure rights under state law, brought suit alleging discrimination in her dismissal from school system, which dismissal occurred 2 days before opening of school as result of, according to school board, declining enrollment and her incompetency, court directed her reinstatement as teacher and ordered that she be paid at not less than salary contracted for during school year, as result of school system's failure to obey state law regarding dismissal of tenured teachers, especially in view of fact that untenured teachers remained employed after she had been dismissed. Hatton v County Board of Education (CA6 Tenn) 422 F2d 457.
Where all-white school board in Tennessee county with 75% black population was required by federal court order to unify its previously unconstitutionally separated black and white school systems, and where its response was to discharge 22 teachers, 15 of them black and 7 of them white, and only 1 of white teachers discharged had more than 2 years service, whereas most of 13 black teachers who filed complaint had periods of service of many years, extending up to 35 years in same school system, court held school board had failed to carry burden of showing that discharges were nonracial in nature. McFerren v County Board of Education (CA6 Tenn) 455 F2d 199, cert den 407 US 934, 32 L Ed 2d 817, 92 S Ct 2461.
Black was discriminated against by school board in selection of principal of high school where he possessed qualifications at least as strong as white candidates, minor complaints in his personnel file could not be regarded as credible in view of evident pattern of racial discrimination, board's reason for not hiring plaintiff was his lack of experience, even though several white candidates with no prior experience had been appointed as high school principals, and where board did not adopt objective written criteria to assist in decision-making process; black's demotion to position as physical education teacher was also result of unlawful discrimination where demotion was directly attributable to reduction in number of principals during process of establishing unitary school system and his qualifications were not considered on basis of written, objective criteria. Cooper v Williamson County Bd. of Education (1983, MD Tenn) 587 F Supp 1082, 33 CCH EPD P 34071.
School district was enjoined from dismissing 103 teachers and counselors and 35.5 school library assistants, high proportion of whom were black, following electorate's rejection of school board millage request, court noting that dismissal of black teachers would reduce their proportion in total system from 8% to roughly 4%, was economically unnecessary, would essentially emasculate desegregation program among faculty, and though court reiterated that judgment as to fiscal policy was business of school board, judgment could not be made which could unnecessarily impinge upon provision of Fourteenth Amendment rights of teachers. Oliver v Kalamazoo Board of Education (DC Mich) 346 F Supp 766, affd (CA6) 448 F2d 635.
Holding unconstitutionally discriminatory the discharge of seven Negro teachers upon the closing of a formerly all-Negro school, and the subsequent hiring during the following summer of 14 new teachers, 12 of whom were white, for the desegregated junior and senior high schools, the court in Smith v Board of Education (1966, CA8 Ark) 365 F2d 770, ordered the school board to ascertain, with respect to each of the teachers (with the exception of one who had taken another position and did not want his former job back), whether that teacher remained interested in employment with the school district, and, if so, the subject which he was qualified to teach as measured by standards currently and legally applied by the school board, and to then offer to a teacher who manifested such interest the first position for which he was so qualified in which a vacancy existed or thereafter occurred, this preference, however, to extend only to the first such vacancy so offered to that teacher, and, irrespective of his acceptance or refusal of the first offer, he was not to be entitled to preference with respect to any subsequent vacancy. The defendants, in the action brought under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, contended that race might be a rational and permissible criterion in the employment of teachers in various senses and for various reasons: they suggested that a Negro could be disqualified for a reason generally associated with race but not grounded on consideration of race per se, as, for example, an applicant might be considered inferior because he had attended a poorly regarded Negro college, or because his speech pattern was so different from that of his prospective pupils as to pose a serious obstacle to communication, or because he failed to pass an objective qualification test; it was argued also that in some circumstances race per se might be a valid factor, that rapport between teacher and pupil, essential to a really effectually instructional effort, might be unattainable where they were of different races, and that this difference affected attitudes, personal philosophies, and prejudices; and it was also said that a teacher might bear such hostility toward members of another race as to render him incapable of effectively educating them. Rejecting these contentions, the court held that in this day, race per se is an impermissible criterion for judging either an applicant's qualifications or the district's needs and that this applies equally to considerations described as environment, ability to communicate, speech patterns, or capacity to establish rapport with pupils, when these descriptions amount only to euphemistic references to actual or assumed racial distinctions. Pointing out that desegregation of pupils inevitably means that some of them will be exposed to teachers of another race, the court concluded that it is now too late for a school board to assume that it may objectively regard all supposed racial differences in order to avoid its obligation to employ teachers in accord with constitutional standards.
Where 4 Negro teachers brought suit alleging that their contracts of employment had not been renewed because they were Negroes, court, noting that 60 percent of students in district were black and 40 percent were white, but that of 18 teachers employed by system, only 3 were Negro, found that no attempt had been made to compare plaintiffs' teaching abilities and qualifications with those teachers retained, and that evidence clearly pointed to racial discrimination as reason for discharge of plaintiffs. Jackson v Wheatley School Dist. (CA8 Ark) 430 F2d 1359, later app (CA8 Ark) 464 F2d 411, later app (CA8 Ark) 489 F2d 608.
In class action, where evidence showed that no black teacher at elementary school was paid more than $ 4,500 yearly, even though 4 of such teachers had over 20 years' experience teaching in district system, whereas no fulltime, fully qualified, white elementary teacher in district earned less than $ 5,000, and where evidence also showed that, excluding principals and coaches, no black high school teacher earned more than $ 4,500, except one who was paid $ 4,800, and no fulltime white secondary schoolteacher earned less than $ 5,300, court held that plaintiff had met burden of establishing that salary differentials were result of racial discrimination, a constitutionally impermissible practice, and court consequently ordered board to pay those teachers who were thus discriminated against difference between what they were actually paid and what they would have been paid if all teachers had been treated equally. Arkansas Education Asso. v Board of Education (CA8 Ark) 446 F2d 763.
Where school system, pursuant to integration order, closed its black school and required all pupils within district to attend its formerly all-white school, and concurrently offered all of system's white teachers new contracts for coming year, but gave notice to 5 black teachers that their contracts of employment would not be renewed, court held that District Court had erred in placing burden of proving discrimination upon dismissed black teachers, where district had long history of segregation, where there had been decrease in number of black teachers, where proportion of black faculty to white faculty was significantly less than proportion of black to white students, and where only black teachers were dismissed; and where record showed that some teachers voluntarily declined to renew their contracts, but that school board, rather than offering any of dismissed black teachers opportunity to fill vacancies, went outside school system to attempt to hire other teachers, court held that discrimination had been proved. Moore v Board of Education (CA8 Ark) 448 F2d 709.
Principal of all-black school, who had served in that position for 8 years, but who had lost position as result of consolidation order under plan of integration, who was placed in charge of newly developed vocational school program at formerly all-black school where he had 2 black and 2 white teachers under his supervision, whereas he had previously supervised 27 black teachers and 2 part-time white teachers, held entitled to relief on ground that his demotion constituted racial discrimination in assignment of principals. U. S. v Cotton Plant School Dist. (CA8 Ark) 479 F2d 671.
Where 2 Negro teachers lost their jobs as result of closing of Negro school pursuant to integration plan, court held dismissals to be motivated by racial discrimination and ordered school board to make them offers of employment. McBeth v Board of Education (DC Ark) 300 F Supp 1270.
School district did not rebut inference of discrimination in failure to hire schoolteacher whose objective qualifications were as good as at least one of her competitors. Oliver v Moberly Missouri School Dist. (DC Mo) 427 F Supp 82.
Defendant school district and administrators were not entitled to summary judgment in action brought under 42 U.S.C.A. §  1981 and Title VII after tenured black teacher's contract was not renewed, where issues of fact existed as to truth and pretextual nature of defendants' proffered justifications for decision in light of evidence that plaintiff, who was sole black teacher in predominantely white small town, was repeatedly singled out for disciplinary treatment on matters that were insubstantial, mostly unrelated to teaching performance (which had been rated outstanding), and either unproven or unprovable. Ginwright v Unified School Dist.  No. 457 (1991, DC Kan) 756 F Supp 1458.
School district discriminated against black applicant for mathematics teaching position by hiring less-qualified white applicant, where district's use of subjective criteria (hearsay report that black applicant had poor communications skills) violated district's own policy that restricted subjective criteria to impressions formed at personal interview and from written references, resulting in hearsay-based adverse decision that passed over very well qualified black applicant in favor of newly graduated white teacher applicant. Roberts v Houston County Bd. of Educ. (1993, MD Ala) 819 F Supp 1019.

 [*6b]        Held not established
In some federal cases, racial discrimination in the hiring or retention of schoolteachers has been held or recognized as being not established.
 
Fourth Circuit-
 
Horton v Orange County Board of Education (DC NC) 342 F Supp 1244, mod on other grounds (CA4) 464 F2d 536.
 
Fifth Circuit--
 
Lee v Walker County School System (CA5 Ala) 594 F2d 156.
Pulliam v Board of Trustees (1979, ND Miss) 488 F Supp 1.
Cousin v Board of Trustees (1980, ND Miss) 488 F Supp 75, 28 BNA FEP Cas 166, revd on other grounds (CA5 Miss) 648 F2d 293, 28 BNA FEP Cas 172, 26 CCH EPD P 31894, vacated on other grounds (CA5 Miss) 661 F2d 377, 28 BNA FEP Cas 177.
Where plaintiff sought preliminary injunction against defendants mandating them to rehire him for 3-year term as counselor at community college, court, after considering law and facts, remained thoroughly unconvinced that defendants were motivated by racial bias or discrimination in refusing to rehire plaintiff, and since plaintiff failed to show either irreparable harm or likelihood of success on merits, court would not issue preliminary injunction. Moore v Kibbee (DC NY) 381 F Supp 834.
Black school teacher who was discharged for supposed failure to follow administrative directives, failed to prove racial discrimination where court found that superintendent discharged black school teacher on basis of policeman's letter concerning her conduct outside of school; black school teacher also failed to prove racially discriminatory decision by school board which had been exposed to policeman's letter and had been advised of black school teacher's repeated insubordination. Morris v Board of Education of Laurel School Dist. (DC Del) 401 F Supp 188.
Dismissal of black teacher with many years' experience was not racially motivated where she was incompetent as teacher and where 7 other teachers in her grade, who were white, were similarly terminated. United States ex rel. Clark v Chesterfield County School Dist. (CA4 SC) 484 F2d 70.
Nontenured black teacher's contract was properly not renewed where initial recommendation for nonrenewal came from black principal, similar recommendation came from advisory counsel to school board in which blacks were equal participants with whites, and there was uncontroverted record of deficiencies on part of dismissed teacher to foreclose his claim that his nonrenewal was based on his race. Williams v Hyde County Board of Education (CA4 NC) 490 F2d 1231.
Claims of racial discrimination in hiring or promotion policies of school board with respect to faculty held not established as to 13 of 14 plaintiffs and, with respect to claims of student plaintiffs relative to racial composition of school faculties, District Court's order declaring that ratio of black and white faculty members in each school should be not less than 75% nor more than 125% of ratio of black teachers throughout system, affirmed; evidence did not disclose pattern of ratio discrimination where record demonstrated that statistical changes upon which plaintiffs relied were not result of any discriminatory hiring policies of school board, but rather were result of dramatic demographic changes which occurred in county between 1960-1970. Morton v Charles County Board of Education (CA4 Md) 520 F2d 871, cert den 423 US 1034, 46 L Ed 2d 408, 96 S Ct 566.
There was substantial evidence to support District Court's finding that certain black school teacher was discharged for noninvidious reasons; school board met its burden of showing that teacher was not dismissed because of his race. Walston v School Board (CA4 Va) 566 F2d 1201.
A city school board's failure to reemploy 14 of the 26 Negro teachers who had taught in the school system the previous year was held not to have been established as racially motivated in Buford v Morganton City Board of Education (1965, DC NC) 244 F Supp 437, the court stating that school boards were vested with wide discretion in matters affecting school management, including the employment of teachers, and that a court could not interfere with the board's action unless the board had exercised its power in an unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious, or unlawful manner. There was no seniority or tenure for teachers in the school system in question, all teachers having to reapply each year for employment the following year. In concluding that the school board had carefully compared the qualifications of the Negro teachers with those of all other applicants for the same jobs in the entire school system, the court stressed that the board did not have to compare a teacher's qualifications with those of every other applicant, but only with those of applicants competing for the same position. Comparing the qualifications of the individual teachers, the court discovered that only 5 of the 14 Negro teachers who had not been re-employed (the court also emphasizing that some of the Negro teachers had been re-employed) had paper records (degrees earned and certificates granted) equivalent to those of the white teachers who had been employed in their places. Even of those five, however, the court found that most, if not all, of the degrees earned, had been from institutions not of comparable quality with the institutions in which the white applicants had been educated. Further, the court found that only two, or perhaps three, of the five, had markedly greater teaching experience than the employed white applicants. In the final analysis, the court said, employment of teachers involves appraisal of intangibles, such as temperament, personality, and leadership, which cannot be reduced to a slide-rule formula.
Black Ph.D. who was denied position as university professor despite unanimous recommendation of search committee that she be hired (and despite fact that nobody else had ever been denied job who had received unanimous recommendation) failed to show that university's reasons for refusing to hire her (limited record of publications, failure to submit recommendations from outside professors) were pretextual. Nondiscriminatory reasons for refusal to hire need not be good reasons, they need only be true ones. McAdoo v Toll (1985, DC Md) 615 F Supp 1309, 38 BNA FEP Cas 1248.
Teaching contract of black teacher was not renewed because of her incompetence, supported by overwhelming and virtually uncontradicted evidence, particularly showing her refusal or inability to follow teaching methods and philosophy required by board of education, and her claim that nonrenewal was racially motivated had no basis in fact. Cannady v Person County Board of Education (DC NC) 375 F Supp 689.
See Quarles v Oxford Municipal Separate School Dist. (1989, CA5 Miss) 868 F2d 750, 13 FR Serv 3d 599,  §  7 .
Firing of 2 teachers held not to have been racially motivated where teachers appeared with some parents at door of office during school hours and demanded to speak with superintendent, who agreed to talk with parents but ordered teachers to return to classrooms so that children would not remain alone, and proof showed, after further direct and individual instructions to return to teaching stations, teachers failed to do so and were thereafter suspended. Graves v Walton County Board of Education (CA5 Ga) 410 F2d 1153.
Failure to hire Negro teacher as superintendent of high school was held not racially motivated, where Negro and another white teacher had been employed in school board's central office, where they had found themselves without jobs as result of board's decision to reorganize its central office and do away with their positions, where Negro had been offered job of vice principal of one high school (which offer was rejected), and where he had filed suit charging that board's decision to hire different white educator from outside system as principal of school was racially motivated. Foster v Board of Education (CA5 Ala) 431 F2d 648.
Following earlier issuance of order directing school board to integrate faculty, Negro schoolteachers brought additional suit, asserting that under new system board had systematically reduced proportion of black teachers employed in school system as result of unlawful hiring practices and as result of closing black schools because of desegregation; but, noting that since all black teachers from closed black schools had been absorbed in system, and that plaintiffs were really complaining that as places became vacant from attrition, board's hiring practices in filling such vacancies had caused number of black teachers in system to decline, court held that record showing that over 3-year period number of black teachers employed by system totaled 390, 417, and 397, while white teachers employed by school system over 3-year period totaled 1,255, 1,379, and 1,426, did not establish racially discriminatory hiring practices. Conley v Lake Charles School Board (CA5 La) 434 F2d 35.
Where Negro school principal asserted that school board's refusal to rehire him was racially motivated, but could show only that he had given school system 19 years of good service, that he was professionally trained, and that "he could think of no other reason for his discharge other than race," court held plaintiff had not proved by preponderance of evidence that failure of board to rehire him was based on racial grounds. Glover v Daniel (CA5 Ga) 434 F2d 617.
Where one junior college campus, confronted with plummeting attendance and skyrocketing costs, was closed and its activities were merged into 2 other junior colleges in public school system, and where at closing time closed school had 31 black and 8 white faculty members, and where 19 black teachers and 4 white teachers were reassigned to remaining campuses, leaving 12 black teachers and 4 white teachers not reassigned within junior college system because there were no spaces available, court held that District Court's conclusion that evaluation procedure for retaining teachers had been honestly and fairly conducted by qualified professionals acting in professional way who were not motivated or influenced by racial considerations, should be affirmed. Smith v Board of Public Instruction (CA5 Fla) 438 F2d 1209, cert den 404 US 865, 30 L Ed 2d 108, 92 S Ct 61.
City school district, against whom Negro schoolteacher filed action for mandatory injunction seeking to require it to grant him new contract as science teacher, was held to have based its decision not to retain teacher on grounds of professional incompetence, and teacher was held to have failed to carry his burden of proving that refusal to award him contract was racially motivated or violated any of his constitutional rights. Jennings v Meridian Municipal Separate School Dist. (CA5 Miss) 453 F2d 413.
Evidence held to sustain view that black high school mathematics teacher was fired for failing to perform his teaching duties satisfactorily and not, as he maintained, because he was Negro or because he criticized school administration. Austin v Maxwell (CA5 Fla) 456 F2d 1237.
Where, following integration order approved by court, small Alabama school system operated only 1 elementary school and 1 high school which all students attended, and where principal of formerly all-black high school, who was offered position of administrative assistant to superintendent as result of reorganization, charged that school board's failure to appoint him to position of principal or supervisor of newly integrated elementary school amounted to racial discrimination, court concluded that assignment of former principal as administrative assistant was based on objective and reasonable nondiscriminatory standards, court saying that trial court had not abused its discretion in refusing to grant injunctive relief. Lee v Macon County Board of Education (CA5 Ala) 470 F2d 958.
In civil rights suit challenging constitutionality of dismissal of black schoolteacher, testimony of all witnesses who appeared at trial below supported conclusion that considerations of race played no part in her discharge; moreover, fact that dismissal occurred simultaneously with faculty desegregation campaign in county was purely matter of coincidence and not operation of cause and effect. Blunt v Marion County School Board (CA5 Fla) 515 F2d 951.
District Court did not err in not reinstating three teachers who was dismissed during time when unitary school system was being implemented; there was substantial evidence from which District Court could conclude that teachers in question were incompetent and there was no showing that their dismissals were result of racial discrimination. Adams v Rankin County Board of Education (CA5 Miss) 524 F2d 928.
Where no reduction in teaching staff became necessary because of school's desegregation during period under review and where black teacher's dismissal was said to be in no way related to faculty reorganization due to conversion from dual school system, school's decision not to rehire black teacher was upheld; under facts of case, standards developed in another case proscribing dismissals of black teachers in absence of objective standards only when desegregation-related reduction in force occurred, were not applicable. Pickens v Okolona Municipal Separate School Dist. (CA5 Miss) 527 F2d 358.
Where former principal of all black elementary school became assistant principal of integrated high school as result of court approved desegregation plan, evidence was sufficient to support conclusion that school board's decision to promote others rather than black former principal was based on merit, or lack thereof, and not on race. Roper v Effingham County Board of Education (CA5 Ga) 528 F2d 1024.
Adoption of national teachers' examination requirement by school board is impermissible when shown to have been motivated by discriminatory purpose; however, in absence of such showing, use of national teachers' examination scores in evaluating teachers is generally permissible; thus, where District Court found that there was no racial bias in test, or differential grading, and that plaintiffs, terminated teachers, failed to show racially discriminatory purpose in adoption of test and its use as evaluative tool it was not improper for school board to terminate teachers for their refusal to take examination despite plaintiffs' citation of statistical evidence showing that examination had some disproportionate impact on black teachers in school district. Moore v Tangipahoa Parish School Board (CA5 La) 594 F2d 489.
Black high school band director could not maintain Title VII action following his discharge where, during three years he served as director, band as whole performed very poorly in state competitions, despite superior talent of individual band members, band was faced with abnormally high dropout rate caused by low morale, and director had "lack of rapport with community." Torrence v Oxford Municipal School Dist. (1985, ND Miss) 615 F Supp 321, 38 BNA FEP Cas 1799, affd without op (CA5 Miss) 793 F2d 1289, cert den 479 US 985, 93 L Ed 2d 578, 107 S Ct 575.
Intervenors in desegregation action failed to show racial discrimination in recruiting and hiring of teachers, where intervenors presented no evidence of relevant labor market from which teachers were drawn and no evidence of recruiting practices of either district or individual schools. Montgomery v Starkville Municipal Separate School Dist. (1987, ND Miss) 665 F Supp 487, affd (CA5 Miss) 854 F2d 127.
See Dooley v Ft. Worth Independent School Dist. (1987, ND Tex) 686 F Supp 1194, 46 BNA FEP Cas 1710, 3 BNA IER Cas 1462,  §  7 .
Where Negro schoolteacher, not rehired by defendant school district, brought suit against district, its superintendent, and members of its school board, on ground that defendants refused to re-employ him to teach at integrated high school because of his race or color pursuant to policy or plan not to permit Negro teachers to teach white students, court held that evidence clearly supported view that, beyond a reasonable doubt, plaintiff was not rehired because he was a poor teacher and because he had failed to work harmoniously with his superiors, and not because of his race, which court found had nothing to do with board's decision that he was unfit to continue as teacher. Bonner v Texas City Independent School Dist. (DC Tex) 305 F Supp 600.
Where two Negro elementary schoolteachers, whose contracts were not renewed as result of necessary reduction in number of teachers in school district, alleged that their dismissal was on account of race, court, noting that plaintiffs had failed to produce evidence to support their allegations, said that while school district was not yet completely integrated, this in itself did not prove that plaintiffs were racially discriminated against, particularly in view of fact that many other contracts of Negro teachers were renewed by school district. McDonald v Marlin Independent School Dist. (DC Tex) 313 F Supp 1162, 2 BNA FEP Cas 910, 2 CCH EPD P 10275, affd (CA5 Tex) 427 F2d 1367, 2 BNA FEP Cas 912, 2 CCH EPD P 10262.
Court denied motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order against school board proposing to investigate charges against 5 teachers, where it appeared that racial motives were in no way involved in connection with action proposed to be taken, and where it appeared that teachers had been charged for apparent good cause with misconduct or incompetence in performing their duties, including, inter alia, a black teacher charged with wilful neglect and incompetence by his supervisors, one of whom was a black principal; a white temporary probationary teacher whose re-employment was not recommended by his black principal; and a black temporary probationary teacher who was single and who became pregnant. Smith v Concordia Parish School Board (DC La) 331 F Supp 330.
Where, following order to implement faculty desegregation requirements, a number of white teachers were transferred from formerly all-white faculties to school where principal was black, and at first faculty meeting principal made statements which one white teacher considered inappropriate and attempted to greet one teacher with handshake, after which principal was reprimanded by superintendent of schools, and where, thereafter, following conversation, black principal stated that he believed school system would be better off without him and his wife, and at meeting on following Saturday, superintendent made announcement that black principal's position was open and principal, who was present, did not comment on announcement, court, though terming decision one difficult to make, held that black principal's resignation was not in fact result of coercion, but was result of desire to seek employment elsewhere. Armstead v Starkville Municipal Separate School Dist. (DC Miss) 331 F Supp 567 .
Dismissal of black teacher was made on basis of objective and nondiscriminatory standard applied in nondiscriminatory manner, not on racial grounds; although during relevant period, school district had not promulgated detailed written criteria for selection of teachers not to be rehired due to integration of faculty, requirement that such criteria be employed in reducing faculty consequent upon desegregation did not apply to dismissal of teacher in question, which was made in good faith and without racial motivation, where, moreover, dismissal of teacher could not be traced to court-ordered school consolidation in furtherance of desegregation, school district having voluntarily integrated its school system. Gay v Wheeler (DC Tex) 363 F Supp 764.
Although only about 20% of faculty in school district was Mexican-American, while more than one-half of students were Mexican-American, school district did not discriminate against Mexican-Americans in its hiring policy, where, at least in recent years, district employed approximately 60% of Mexican-American applicants and only 30% of Anglo applicants, number of Mexican-American applicants for teaching positions has remained drastically low, in spite of district's efforts to recruit actively among them, and every Mexican-American applicant denied a job was refused for valid reasons. Morales v Shannon (DC Tex) 366 F Supp 813.
No racial discrimination was found in school district's nonretention of black teacher where statistics discounted racial discrimination in hiring or firing of teachers in school system for years in question and where, from totality of evidence adduced, it was apparent that sole cause of nonrenewal of black teacher's contract was his incompetency as teacher; teacher's argument that school board failed to apply valid objective, nonracial criteria in making its decision not to renew his contract was rejected by court which pointed out that there was no reduction or anticipated reduction in number of teachers and staff employed by school board so that criteria mandated by certain leading case need not be applied. Griffin v Lancaster (DC La) 400 F Supp 421.
A county board of education was held not to have acted discriminatorily in refusing to employ a Negro applicant for a teaching position in the county school system in Hill v Franklin County Board of Education (1968, CA6 Tenn) 390 F2d 583, where the board had considered the plaintiff applicant's qualifications by definite objective standards and had concluded that they were not sufficiently high to justify employment.
Although appellants complained of discrimination in hiring of school personnel, court found no evidence of discrimination, noting that Negroes comprised slightly more than 21 percent of Ohio school system's teaching staff, that school board had endeavored to integrate staff and had achieved reasonably balanced staff in each school, and that, in any event, there was no constitutional duty on part of school board to balance races in teachers' employment. Deal v Cincinnati Board of Education (CA6 Ohio) 419 F2d 1387, cert den 402 US 962, 29 L Ed 2d 128, 91 S Ct 1630.
A Negro teacher's aide, who alleged she was discharged from her job at high school in retaliation for support she showed her son as result of son's suspension from participating in high school band activities because he quit playing his instrument and left gymnasium when pep band he was in started playing "Dixie," was held actually to have been dismissed because of poor performance as teacher's aide, in that she typed poorly, spent excessive time in lounge area, took unduly long lunch breaks, had poor general attitude, adversely affected morale of other employees, and refused to co-operate with several teachers. Caldwell v Craighead (CA6 Tenn) 432 F2d 213, cert den 402 US 953, 29 L Ed 2d 123, 91 S Ct 1617.
See Wygant v Jackson Bd. of Education (1982, ED Mich) 546 F Supp 1195, 29 BNA FEP Cas 1359, 30 CCH EPD P 33199,  §  15 .
See Carpenter v Board of Regents (1984, CA7 Wis) 728 F2d 911, 34 BNA FEP Cas 248, 33 CCH EPD P 34199,  §  4[b] .
Teacher's allegation that city school board's widespread practice of assigning and removing teachers because of their race constituted "custom or policy" was not "boilerplate," and was therefore capable of supporting teacher's claim for race discrimination in violation of §  1983. 42 U.S.C.A. §  1983. Mohr v. Chicago School Reform Bd. of Trustees of Bd. of Educ. of City of Chicago, 993 F. Supp. 1155, 125 Ed. Law Rep. 452 (N.D. Ill. 1998)
Black probationary teacher not rehired after school year sought damages of $ 250,000 from school board, alleging she was not rehired because of her civil rights activities; but court denied recovery, finding ample evidence for her dismissal by pointing out that she had been late in signing in at school on 140 of 167 days in which she was in attendance, that she had left school during day to visit jailed student and had left class unattended without signing out, that she was consistently derelict in maintaining and turning in for review her lesson plan book contrary to school requirements, that she had failed to perform required corridor duty approximately 50 percent of the time, that other faculty members were highly critical of her teaching methods and curriculum, that she had made indelicate sexual remarks to her classes on two occasions, and that she held class discussions critical of school administration's action in relieving a teacher. Robbins v Board of Education (DC Ill) 313 F Supp 642 .
Seven Negro schoolteachers whose all-Negro high school was closed pursuant to a school district desegregation plan were held to have failed to meet the burden of proving that the school board's action in failing to renew their teaching contracts had resulted from racial discrimination in Brooks v School Dist. (1959, CA8 Mo) 267 F2d 733, cert den 361 US 894, 4 L Ed 2d 151, 80 S Ct 196, where the school board, after comparing the qualifications of all teachers of both races in reaching its determination as to which teachers would be re-employed, decided not to re-employ 11 Negro teachers (including the seven plaintiffs) and four white teachers. Although some of the plaintiffs had more college credits or more experience in teaching than some of the white teachers who were subsequently employed in the school system, the court found "a mass of testimony tending to support" the school board's determination that the white applicants' qualifications were superior to those of the plaintiffs with reference to the positions the plaintiffs were certificated to fill. The plaintiff teachers complained particularly that the school board, by including in its standard for determining merit the intangible factors of personality and ability to fulfil the requirements of the position, must have injected racial prejudice or discrimination into its decisions. The court, however, pointing to the "ample" expert testimony to the effect that the intangibles included in the board's standards were important elements to be considered in determining teacher qualifications, concluded that there was no direct or positive evidence that the board had been influenced by racial considerations in the matter of employing its teachers. Additionally, the court took note of the following factors "tending to negative any racial prejudice on the part of the board": (1) integration of the school system had been completed promptly and in a manner satisfactory to all concerned; (2) the wishes of Negroes as to integration had been fully considered and observed; and (3) before integration, Negroes had been paid salaries equal to those of white teachers and had been furnished with the same kind of equipment and supplies. Although conceding that, considering the number of applicants involved, the result (no Negro teachers being re-employed) was "unusual and somewhat startling," the court nevertheless found substantial evidence to support the trial court's finding and conclusion that the school board had acted honestly pursuant to a proper standard in awarding the teacher contracts.
The failure of a superintendent of schools to continue the employment of certain Negro teachers upon the consolidation of two formerly segregated school districts was held not to have been racially motivated in Walton v Nashville, Arkansas Special School Dist. (1968, CA8 Ark) 401 F2d 137, where the court found that the school consolidation had made possible a reduction and a saving in the overall teaching staff. One of the plaintiff teachers, who had taught social studies in the formerly all-Negro district, received a letter informing him that his employment was terminated on the ground that he had not furnished a transcript of his teaching qualifications, as all teachers in the formerly all-Negro district had been asked to do. He contended that since all white teachers had transcripts on file, the transcript requirement could apply only to Negro teachers and that therefore it rested on the prohibited basis of race, so that his dismissal amounted to a deprivation of his livelihood without due process. The court, however, declared that the school district had the right to investigate the competence and fitness of those whom it hired to teach in its schools, and that requiring a transcript was a reasonable step in that process. The court also noted that the teacher in question had been asked more than once to furnish his transcript and that his excuses for not producing it did not "ring true." Another of the plaintiffs, a former teacher of high school home economics in the formerly all-Negro district, argued that her qualifications had not been objectively compared with those of every other teacher in the formerly all white district, but the court pointed out that the only teacher of high school home economics in the formerly all-white district possessed superior experience and qualifications, and that although the particular plaintiff could also have taught science, the only teaching position in that area was a combination of science and mathematics, for which another teacher was better qualified. A third plaintiff had taught vocational agriculture in the formerly all-Negro district and had been re-employed in that capacity in the consolidated district, but only after the vacancy had been created by the promotion of his counterpart in the formerly all-white district. He claimed that he had been re-employed only when it had become apparent that a second agriculture teacher was required because of the large number of Negro pupils transferring and registering for agriculture. Emphasizing that there had been no vacancy in vocational agriculture at the time of the particular plaintiff's termination, the court concluded that his eventual reinstatement far outweighed any inference or implication of racial discrimination. Inference and implication are sometimes justified, the court said, but a case must be stronger than this one before we reverse on inference and implication alone.
Tenured full professor, only black faculty member at University of Minnesota, failed to prove racial discrimination where record showed he was discharged after 12 years of very poor teaching performance including frequent unexcused absences from classes and faculty meetings, low enrollment in classes, and undocumented research. No prima facie case of discrimination was presented where, though very few black faculty had taught in Minnesota, this number was not heavily disproportionate to small percentage of blacks in population of that state. King v University of Minnesota (1985, CA8 Minn) 774 F2d 224, 40 BNA FEP Cas 391, cert den (US) 89 L Ed 2d 893, 106 S Ct 1491, 40 BNA FEP Cas 704.
Nonretention of black schoolteacher was not discriminatory, where teacher had taught substance of standardized achievement tests, contrary to principal's directions to teach "to the test." Scoggins v Board of Education (1988, CA8 Ark) 853 F2d 1472, 47 BNA FEP Cas 985, 47 CCH EPD P 38193, 12 FR Serv 3d 185.
Holding that Negro principal was not rehired as result of internal dispute between superintendent and principal over operation of school within Arkansas school system, and that principal's teaching contract had not been renewed because of his insubordination, his violations of professional duties as established for position of principal, and his general and continuous harassment of superintendent throughout school year, court said that principal had not met burden of proving discrimination, which rested with him, in view of facts that there had been no decrease in number of black teachers hired in past several years within school system, whereas number of white teachers had actually declined during same period, and that no black teacher had been discharged except for lack of educational qualifications, in which cases their positions were filled by other black teachers. Tims v Board of Education (CA8 Ark) 452 F2d 551.
Where total integration of schools within system resulted in need to reduce number of elementary teachers from 15 to 10, court held to be without merit claim of black teacher that her dismissal was based on racial discrimination, court pointing out that criteria used to evaluate all 15 teachers appeared to be totally objective in nature and fair, and that dismissed teacher had ranked thirteenth out of 15 teachers evaluated; furthermore, court pointed out that 5 white teachers and 5 black teachers had been retained on staff, and that when board, following resignation of white teacher who had been retained, found it necessary to hire another teacher to replace resigned teacher, it rehired black teacher who had ranked eleventh on evaluation. Thomas v Board of Education (CA8 Ark) 457 F2d 1268.
Black teacher, who had 27 years of experience in her profession, 19 years of which were in defendant school system, was held to have been dismissed because of her inability to teach "modern math," and because of her poor use of tests and incorrect rating, poor use of language, and failure to maintain discipline, rather than, as she charged in complaint, because of fact that she was black, although court did comment that it was troubled by fact that teacher had been allowed to teach for many years in black schools, and her deficiencies had been uncovered only when she was assigned to integrated school. Alexander v Warren, Arkansas, School Dist. (CA8 Ark) 464 F2d 471.
Finding of District Court that nonrenewal of black teacher's contract was based on his insubordination and violation of state activities association rules, and not on racial motivation, was held not clearly erroneous. Cato v Collins (CA8 Ark) 539 F2d 656.
Black elementary school teacher was not victim of racial discrimination in decision of school board not to rehire her after voluntary leave of absence, where teacher's relationship with supervisors had been friendly during prior employment, teacher chosen for position was also black, and no evidence supported teacher's claim that unrelated lawsuit filed against district by teacher, her husband, and other parents motivated retaliatory decision not to rehire. Sherpell v Humnoke School Dist.  No. 5 (1990, ED Ark) 750 F Supp 971.
Under circumstances of case, court held that fact that no black teachers were on school staff resulted not from any failure on part of defendant school district to integrate faculty, but from lack of available qualified black teachers, court noting that there was no authority supporting proposition that black student whose parents sued school district had constitutional right to black teacher. Blount v Ladue School Dist. (DC Mo) 321 F Supp 1245.
Two black schoolteachers were not subject to racial discrimination by school district which refused to hire them, since two teachers had grade point averages, work experience, and recommendations which indicated that they were less qualified than their competitors. Oliver v Moberly Missouri School Dist. (DC Mo) 427 F Supp 82.
In action to desegregate county's public schools, parents of students would be denied intervention where parents, who alleged discrimination against blacks in teacher hiring and dismissal practices, would not fairly and adequately protect interests of class of black teachers in view of lack of evidence, and where decrease from 40 percent to 32 percent in number of black teachers would not establish that goal of unitary school system had been frustrated by school board, inasmuch as school board would not be required to maintain same black-white teacher ratio that existed when faculty desegregation first took place. United States v Baldwin County Bd. of Education (1982, MD Ga) 544 F Supp 367.
School district did not discriminate against whites in failing to apply race-neutral criteria mandated by prior discrimination case in selecting new high school principal, where, because all aggrieved unsuccessful applicants were white, criteria were inapplicable, since criteria were imposed as remedy for past discrimination against blacks. Ellison v Chilton County Bd. of Educ. (1995, MD Ala) 894 F Supp 415.
Where black applicant for teaching position in county school system was informed about principal's rule against "male teachers wearing moustaches," made no objection to such rule, was hired, showed up at school still wearing moustache, thereafter refused to resign and continued to wear moustache, and was subsequently fired by school board, court held that black teacher's claim that he was fired because he was black was not convincing (although court further concluded that teacher's rights were not limited to those which he possessed as Negro, and since principal's rule against wearing moustaches was gross example of rule based upon personal taste of administrative official, which was not permissible base upon which to build rules for organization of public institution, there not being slightest evidence offered to support proscription against moustaches other than personal taste, teacher should be offered another teaching position in high school in school system commencing with following semester). Ramsey v Hopkins (DC Ala) 320 F Supp 477, remanded on other grounds (CA5) 447 F2d 128.
Court found charge that Negro teacher was discriminated against on account of race in not being rehired to be without substance in fact, court saying that teacher in fact resigned from her position to have a baby, which was born within a month after resignation, and that she had not been rehired because principal at her school, also Negro, gave negative recommendation to superintendent concerning her adequacies as teacher. Horton v Lawrence County Board of Education (DC Ala) 320 F Supp 790, revd on other grounds (CA5) 449 F2d 793.
 <>
An all-Negro faculty was held not a violation of any law, in Haney v County Board of Education (1968, DC Ark) 284 F Supp 916, because: (1) the school in question was the only one in a school district and an attendance zone (as distinguished from a Negro school within a district which also maintained white schools); (2) the school district did not practice segregation as a policy; (3) the school district had admitted all school children regardless of color (although it had only two white children as pupils) and was still willing to do so; and (4) the school was not an unequal or inferior school, the teachers being above average and having admirable scholastic qualifications.

 [*7]      Discrimination in assignment or transfer
In the following federal cases, racial discrimination in the assignment or transfer of schoolteachers was held established.
Lee v Monroe County Bd. of Education (1981, CA5 Ala) 640 F2d 755, 25 CCH EPD P 31719.
Hardy v Porter (ND Miss) 443 F Supp 1164, 26 BNA FEP Cas 1206, affd, remanded on other grounds (CA5 Miss) 613 F2d 112, 26 BNA FEP Cas 1260, 22 CCH EPD P 30723.
 
Eighth Circuit-
 
Williams v Anderson (CA8 Ark) 562 F2d 1081.
 
Ninth Circuit--
 
Williams v Kimbrough (DC La) 59 CCH Lab Cas P 9202, discussed at 3 ALR Fed 345, is also reported in 295 F Supp 578.
Diaz v San Jose Unified School Dist. (1984, CA9 Cal) 733 F2d 660, cert den (US) 85 L Ed 2d 497, 105 S Ct 2140, later proceeding (ND Cal) 633 F Supp 808.
Court of Appeals' judgment relating to Denver, Colorado, school system's "core city" schools modified, and case remanded to District Court so as, inter alia, to afford school board opportunity to rebut petitioners' prima facie case of intentional segregation in core city schools raised by finding of intentional segregation in schools in other section of City, placing burden on school board to show that its policies and practices with respect, inter alia, to assignment of faculty and staff, when considered together with other factors and when premised on board's so-called "neighborhood school" concept, either were not taken in effectuation of policy to create or maintain segregation in core city schools or, if unsuccessful in that effort, were not factors in causing existing condition of segregation in those schools. Keyes v. School Dist. No. 1, Denver, Colo., 413 U.S. 189, 93 S. Ct. 2686, 37 L. Ed. 2d 548 (1973).
See Hazelwood School Dist. v United States, 433 US 299, 53 L Ed 2d 768, 97 S Ct 2736, supra  §  5 .
Although racially segregated faculty assignment is one factor which is relevant in proving existence of school system that is dual for teachers and students, mere fact that there is faculty segregation does not make out prima facie case of purposeful racial assignment of students as well as prima facie case of intentionally discriminatory faculty assignments contrary to Fourteenth Amendment. Dayton Board of Education v Brinkman, 443 US 526, 61 L Ed 2d 720, 99 S Ct 2971, reh den 444 US 887, 62 L Ed 2d 121, 100 S Ct 186.
See Arthur v Nyquist (CA2 NY) 573 F2d 134,  §  6[a] .
See Kromnick v School Dist. (1984, CA3 Pa) 739 F2d 894, 35 BNA FEP Cas 538, 34 CCH EPD P 34525, cert den 469 US 1107, 83 L Ed 2d 777, 105 S Ct 782, 36 BNA FEP Cas 976, 35 CCH EPD P 34854,  §  15 .
School district's proffered nondiscriminatory reasons for transferring teacher, i.e., incidents of alleged misconduct including a threat that he would hit students with baseball bat, were not pretexts for race discrimination; although teacher minimized the baseball bat matter as merely "a minor classroom incident," a school district could not tolerate such comments from teacher even to disruptive students. Civil Rights Act of 1964, § §  701 et seq., 42 U.S.C.A. § §  2000e et seq.; 43 P.S. § §  951 et seq. Jones v. School Dist. of Philadelphia, 198 F.3d 403, 140 Ed. Law Rep. 496, 81 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1682 (3d Cir. 1999).
Where white physical education teacher employed at one high school applied for transfer to fill vacancy for same position at another high school whose faculty was already more than 90 percent white, which application was denied on ground that applicant was white, court did not consider applicant's constitutional claim but held instead that defendant board of education was immune from civil liability, because in refusing transfer, it was merely following orders and agreements made with state commission and with union, which agreements sought to correct racially imbalanced faculties in Philadelphia schools. De Felice v Philadelphia Board of Education (DC Pa) 306 F Supp 1345, affd (CA3) 432 F2d 1358.
Where, under plan for conversion of formerly all-black high school to integrated junior high school, principal of formerly all-black high school was retained as principal of newly integrated junior high school, rather than being transferred to 1 of 2 vacant principalships that existed at senior high schools in school system, court held that no evidence existed, in view of fact that school district had demonstrated voluntarily its willingness to assign black principal to white high school and that this particular black principal was not complainant in case, that assignment was made on basis of racial discrimination. Downing v School Board of Chesapeake (CA4 Va) 455 F2d 1153.
See Reynolds v Abbeville County School Dist. (CA4 SC) 554 F2d 638,  §  6[a] .
There was no evidence of racial discrimination in hiring or assignment of black teachers in district that was desegregated in 1970 by dispersal of teachers and staff throughout district so that no school was racially identifiable, and in which percentages of black teachers had increased since 1970. Quarles v Oxford Municipal Separate School Dist. (1989, CA5 Miss) 868 F2d 750, 13 FR Serv 3d 599.
Judgment of District Court was vacated with direction that case be dismissed as moot, where black teacher, who originally claimed that she had been transferred, as part of general reassignment of approximately 1,300 faculty members, to position of less responsibility within system, had since been returned to her prior position and had not suffered at any time any loss in salary, pension rights, or other emoluments. Braxton v Board of Public Instruction (CA5 Fla) 449 F2d 158.
Where it was uncontested that black high school principal was unlawfully demoted to elementary school principalship with substantial decrease in pay, court remanded case to lower court to hold evidentiary hearing, if necessary, to decide issue of black principal's backpay and entitlement to attorneys' fees. Horton v Lawrence County Board of Education (CA5 Ala) 449 F2d 793.
Where black head coach in football, basketball, and track at all-black school had served in that capacity for 10 years, had been removed from his position because of desegregation plan requiring closing of school at which he taught, and had been reassigned as assistant coach in football and basketball at city's larger and predominantly white high school without any reduction in pay, and where, following resignation of white head football coach, had applied for 2 successive seasons to fill position, but had been rejected in favor of white applicant from outside school system, and where court pointed out that black coach's 10-year record at his former school included 209 basketball victories against only 46 defeats, and 55 football victories against only 19 defeats, court held that black coach was entitled to position as head coach in football or basketball at senior high school in school system, that no evidence had been adduced to support view that he was unable to successfully assume duties and responsibilities of head coaching position, and that fact that person had already been hired for such position did not constitute reason for court failing to enter equitable relief to which black coach was entitled. Lee v Macon County Board of Education (CA5 Ala) 456 F2d 1371.
Black woman demoted from position as high school counselor and offered job as teacher at same rate of pay refused to accept teaching position and filed suit for reinstatement, contending that she was dismissed as counselor because of her race, but court agreed that school board's action was not based upon race, but upon professional incompetence, where evidence showed that it was responsibility of counselor to maintain permanent records of student grades and to administer and grade student achievement tests, that plaintiff kept inaccurate and incomplete records, that she allowed students to enter their own grades on permanent records, that she failed to properly follow instructions as to how records should be kept, that she improperly graded achievement tests, and that she encouraged teachers to pass students whether they actually passed or not. U. S. v Board of Education (CA5 Ga) 469 F2d 1315.
District Court erred in finding that black person was not demoted when he was transferred from position as principal to position of assistant principal at larger school during conversion of dual school system into unitary system; on remand, school board was instructed to promulgate written nonracial objective criteria for selecting professional staff to be dismissed or demoted as result of staff reductions during unification and to reconsider former principal's demotion in light of such criteria. United States v Gadsden County School Dist. (CA5 Fla) 539 F2d 1369, reh den (CA5 Fla) 542 F2d 1174.
Claims by black teachers, principals and assistant principal alleging discrimination by county school board are groundless and summary judgment in favor of defendant school board is affirmed where one black principal had been reassigned as administrative assistant at county's largest high school shortly after his initial demotion since that position was commensurate with his former position as principal of high school less than half that size because responsibilies and pay were comparable; another black principal had no meritorious claim because he was guilty of inequitable conduct and also specifically requested to remain at school to which he had been demoted; and claim that defendants unlawfully refused to promote black assistant principal is similarly groundless since principalships awarded after assistant principal was fully qualified to serve as principal all went to persons better qualified than assistant principal. Lee v Walker County School System (CA5 Ala) 594 F2d 156.
Two Negro elementary school teachers who, after being told by their principal that integration of the school had made necessary the replacement of each of them by white teachers and that it was against the school board's policy to transfer replaced teachers, were notified that they had been assigned to a 1-room elementary school located on a plantation approximately 60 miles from Tallulah, Louisiana, were held to have been subjected to racial discrimination in violation of the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment in Williams v Kimbrough (1969, DC La) 59 CCH Lab Cas P 9202. All of the 23 students in the 1-room school were Negroes, their grades ranging from 1-8. At the time of the transfer, the one teacher there taught all grades. The school had been built and paid for by the plantation owner, who, instead of the school board, maintained the building and surrounding grounds. Although there was a room connected with the school where a teacher could live, there were no suitable living accommodations for a teacher with a family or for two teachers. The school building was "not in the best condition" and was surrounded by high grass. The court concluded that the assignments had been a rather clumsy attempt by the principal to "remedy" the discriminatory dismissals by giving the teachers what amounted to nothing less than a "Hobson's choice" so transparent as to indicate that the principal's stated reasons had not been the real ones.
Black physical education teacher failed to show racial discrimination in removal from coaching duties and ultimate transfer to science teaching prior to termination, where removal was prompted by coaching misconduct in tackling student during football practice and teacher presented no evidence that science-teaching assignment was racially motivated. Dooley v Ft. Worth Independent School Dist. (1987, ND Tex) 686 F Supp 1194, 46 BNA FEP Cas 1710, 3 BNA IER Cas 1462.
Where two Negro principals of two high schools in school system were reassigned duties as co-ordinating principals, court agreed with school board that, contrary to Negro principals' allegations, new assignments were actually promotions rather than demotions, court noting that more responsible duties were assigned to co-ordinating principals than to principals, and court further noting that failure to have co-ordinating principals' offices ready and to have their duties immediately implemented was not occasioned by any fault of school board, but was occasioned by court advancement of final phase of desegregation plan from September to February, 1970. Williams v Iberville Parish School Board (DC La) 314 F Supp 1104.
No evidence of discrimination was found in assignment of school personnel in Ohio school district, where Negroes comprised 21 percent of teaching staff, court saying that there was no constitutional duty on part of school board to balance races in teachers' assignments, court further noting that evidence demonstrated that board had actively attempted to integrate its staff at all levels, and that while it considered race of person to be assigned to vacancy, that was only one of several considerations permissible. Deal v Cincinnati Board of Education (CA6 Ohio) 419 F2d 1387, cert den 402 US 962, 29 L Ed 2d 128, 91 S Ct 1630.
Apart from question of wisdom and legality of placing more black staff in schools with greater black student populations, considered by itself, disproportionate staff assignment by race clearly supported District Court's conclusion that school board policies and actions served to create and strengthen racial identifiability of certain schools as "black" and thereby furthered and perpetuated dual school system in city. Oliver v Michigan State Board of Education (CA6 Mich) 508 F2d 178, cert den 421 US 963, 44 L Ed 2d 449, 95 S Ct 1950 and (disapproved on other grounds Dayton Board of Education v Brinkman 443 US 526, 61 L Ed 2d 720, 99 S Ct 2971, reh den 444 US 887, 62 L Ed 2d 121, 100 S Ct 186).
Finding by district judge that discrimination in teacher assignments was not substantial or significant contributing cause of school segregation was not clearly erroneous. Higgins v Board of Education (CA6 Mich) 508 F2d 779.
See Cooper v Williamson County Bd. of Education (1983, MD Tenn) 587 F Supp 1082, 33 CCH EPD P 34071,  §  6[a] .
Board of Education's practice of assigning black teachers disproportionately to black schools accentuated racial identifiability of such schools, and was unconstitutional discrimination. NAACP v Lansing Board of Education (DC Mich) 429 F Supp 583, affd (CA6 Mich) 559 F2d 1042, cert den 434 US 997, 54 L Ed 2d 491, 98 S Ct 635 and affd without op (CA6 Mich) 571 F2d 582, cert den 438 US 907, 57 L Ed 2d 1150, 98 S Ct 3126.
Although primary cause of racial imbalance of school system's faculty was priority given under collective bargaining agreement to transfer requests by teachers with seniority, it could be inferred that assignments not governed by collective bargaining agreement were not made in accordance with racially neutral principles and although full responsibility for teacher imbalance could not reasonably be placed on school system, its attempts to disclaim any responsibility for such imbalance were not persuasive; school system knowingly carried out program of segregation affecting all of city's teachers. Armstrong v Brennan (CA7 Wis) 539 F2d 625, vacated and remanded for reconsideration in light of Arlington Heights v Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 US 252, 50 L Ed 2d 450, 97 S Ct 555, holding that in absence of discriminatory intent, official action is not unconstitutional solely because it results in racially disproportionate impact, and in light of Dayton Board of Education v Brinkman, 433 US 406, 53 L Ed 2d 851, 97 S Ct 2766, on remand (CA6 Ohio) 561 F2d 652, on remand (SD Ohio) 446 F Supp 1232, revd CA6 Ohio) 583 F 2d 243, affd 443 US 526, 61 L Ed 2d 720, 99 S Ct 2971, reh den 444 US 887, 62 L Ed 2d 121, 100 S Ct 186, holding that school desegregation remedy must be designed to redress segregative effect caused by constitutional violations.
Over 15-year period, where 227 vacancies occurred at predominantly white schools and 220 white teachers and 7 Negro teachers were hired to fill such vacancies, and where 89 vacancies occurred at predominantly Negro schools and 12 white teachers and 77 Negro teachers were hired to fill such vacancies, court found racial discrimination in assignment of teachers, stating that such was result of deliberate decision by school board to assign teachers on basis of race and that such policy was responsible, in part, for fact that schools in school district had become racially identifiable as being for one or the other of the two races. U.S. v School Dist. (DC Ill) 301 F Supp 201, mod on other grounds (CA7) 432 F2d 1147, cert den 402 US 943, 29 L Ed 2d 111, 91 S Ct 1610.
Defendant school board commissioners and their predecessors were held to have had general policy of assigning teachers and staff members to schools in such manner that racial composition of such teachers and administrators mirrored racial composition of student bodies of such schools, resulting in disproportionately high number of Negro teachers in schools with high Negro student body, and disproportionately low number of Negro teachers in schools with all or almost entirely white student bodies; and as matter of law, court concluded that such practice deprived students of equal protection of laws, and ordered certain assignments of teachers for school year which would tend to alter such existing ratios to end that faculties in various schools under administration of defendants would become desegregated. Burns v Board of School Comrs. (DC Ind) 302 F Supp 309, affd (CA7) 437 F2d 1143.
Where black teacher, thoroughly grounded in field of education of deaf and speech-handicapped children, was advanced to acting supervisor of Special School District which had responsibility for educating and training all physically and mentally handicapped children in county and for furnishing vocational education for high school students, thereafter being promoted to supervisor, was subsequently reassigned as teacher rather than supervisor, court held, on basis of evidence presented, that supervisor was not demoted because she was black, but because tensions and anxieties had built up in teaching staff in Special School District which either did or could affect teaching programs in schools, and that even though it may have been unwitting on her part, she was largely responsible for creating and continuing such tensions, it being noted that some teachers had been reduced to tears immediately after conferences with her. Gossin v Huskey (DC Mo) 348 F Supp 689, affd without op (CA8 Mo) 475 F2d 1407.
The existing situation reflects racial discrimination in the assignment of teachers and other personnel, the court held in Board of Education v Dowell (1967, CA10 Okla) 375 F2d 158, cert den 387 US 931, 18 L Ed 2d 993, 87 S Ct 2054, where little or nothing had been done during the 6-year period between 1955 and the filing of the case to integrate the staffs of schools that were all white or all nonwhite, where the record reflected a higher percentage of nonwhite teaching personnel having master's degrees than white personnel, where the superintendent of schools had admitted that there had been no difference in the quality of performance between the white and nonwhite personnel, and where integration of personnel existed only in schools having both white and nonwhite pupils, with no nonwhite personnel employed in the central administration section of the system.

 [*IV]        Elimination of discrimination

 [*A]        General rules

 [*8]      School board's duty, generally
 
**** Synopsis:
 
   Although school boards have primary responsibility for selecting means, they must take some affirmative action to eliminate racial discrimination in the hiring, retention, and assignment of teachers; school boards must do everything in their power to meet decree-imposed complete desegregation of faculties.
Although the primary responsibility for the selection of means to achieve employment and assignment of staff on a nonracial basis rests with the school board, n3  at this very, very late date in the glacial movement toward school racial integration, it should no longer be an issue of good faith. n4  The question is and must always remain: Is the constitutional imperative being met? n5  In some affirmative way, therefore, school boards must act to correct past discriminatory practices in the assignment of teachers n6  and to achieve a racial balance in faculty distribution. n7  The type of faculty desegregation plan under which school boards should operate is a plan that "promises realistically to work now." n8 
Where integration is brought about immediately pursuant to a geographic plan, the school authorities may retain free rein in teacher assignments. n9  And where direct discrimination in pupil assignments is eliminated and complete integration on a geographic plan is foreseeable at the end of an additional year, school authorities are entitled to the court's indulgence in teacher and staff assignments. n10  But where a desegregation plan calls for the students to assign themselves, the school authorities must assume the burden of leading in desegregation through the assignment of teachers and staff. n11  Of course, school boards have an affirmative duty to do everything within their power to meet decree-imposed complete desegregation of faculties. n12 
 
**** Note:
 
    Attention is called to 36 Fed Reg 11769 (June 18, 1971) which contains new Department of Health, Education, and Welfare policies on nondiscrimination in school staffing practices. 
Where white teachers in school system which was 72.5 percent Negro brought suit alleging discrimination in appointment of elementary school principals and vice principals as result of school district's abolishing of promotion list which had been established in 1953, and replacing of list with agreement between superintendent and members of board of education to appoint principals and other supervisors from list of 35 white persons and 20 Negro persons, one factor for placement on list admittedly being consideration by board of listee's color, court held abolishment of long standing promotion list and replacement of same with agreement not to be in violation of white teachers' constitutional rights, inasmuch as board of education had affirmative duty to integrate school faculties and because state action based partly on considerations of color, in furtherance of proper governmental objectives, does not violate Fourteenth Amendment. Porcelli v Titus (CA3 NJ) 431 F2d 1254, cert den 402 US 944, 29 L Ed 2d 112, 91 S Ct 1612.
In consolidated appeal from three different District Court decrees covering 36 parish and two city school systems, all in Louisiana, Court of Appeals, though directing most of its discussion to pupil assignment, noted that integration of faculty was of equal importance and stated that school boards must do everything within their power to recruit and reassign teachers so as to provide for substantial degree of faculty integration, including withholding of teacher contracts if necessary, and must assign teachers to particular schools so that schools cannot be identified as tailored either for heavy concentration of Negro or white students. Hall v St. Helena Parish School Board (CA5 La) 417 F2d 801, cert den 396 US 904, 24 L Ed 2d 180, 90 S Ct 218.
School board acting to establish unified school system under integration order had obligation to offer black principal who had some classroom responsibility any position for which he was qualified before refusing to renew his contract and before filling vacancy with person of different race, color, or national origin. Ward v Kelly (CA5 Miss) 515 F2d 908.
In proceeding to require school district to implement new student assignment plan and to assign faculty and staff to its schools in accordance with "Singleton ratio," no proof existed that school district committed any act with segregative intent where school district introduced evidence of its difficulty in obtaining and keeping qualified teachers in order to satisfy previous court order and that rapid turnover in teachers, especially white teachers, had exacerbated problem, and where school district had in good faith attempted to comply with court's order by hiring new trachers to replace those who resigned or retired, by moving surplus teachers from schools with declining enrollments to schools where they were needed, by transfering teachers between schools and by recruiting teachers all with goal of compliance with Singleton ratio in mind. United States v Texas Education Agency (1981, ED Tex) 510 F Supp 994.
Duty to desegregate faculty held to extend, in school district having large identifiable Mexican-American minority, to Mexican-Americans as well as to Negroes. Cisneros v Corpus Christi Independent School Dist. (DC Tex) 324 F Supp 599, supp op (DC Tex) 330 F Supp 1377, affd in part and mod in part on other grounds (CA5 Tex) 467 F2d 142, cert den 413 US 920, 922, 37 L Ed 2d 1041, 1044, 93 S Ct 3053, 3052, reh den 414 US 881, 38 L Ed 2d 129, 94 S Ct 31.
In order to overcome effects of past discrimination in assigning teachers, school district has obligation to allocate certificated and noncertificated personnel so that no school is identifiable by composition of its faculty as being tailored for heavy concentration of either black or white students. Booker v Special School Dist. (DC Minn) 351 F Supp 799.
In actions litigating employment rights of black public school teachers who were discharged in implementation of program of school desegregation and consolidation, qualifications of such teachers must be compared with qualifications of all other teachers in system. United States v School Dist. (DC Mo) 399 F Supp 322.
School district under compulsion to integrate its faculty was not required to achieve substantially equal ratio in each subject taught within school system, much less in secondary roles, and thus district was not required to obtain particular ratio of black to white athletic coaches so long as integration of faculty has been accomplished as whole. Harris v Birmingham Bd. of Education (1982, ND Ala) 537 F Supp 716.

 [*9]      Flexibility; quotas.
 
**** Synopsis:
 
   Ideally, faculty desegregation plans should be designed to avoid identification of any particular school as predominantly Negro or white while at the same time remaining flexible enough to meet educational needs; the hour for the luxury of flexibility, however, is about over.
The goal of faculty integration is not the allocation of teachers on either a token or a quota basis; n13  token assignments will not suffice. n14  Rather, the pattern of faculty assignment should be designed to avoid identification of any particular school as predominantly Negro or white. n15 
The standards fixed by courts with respect to faculty desegregation cannot be totally inflexible. n16  Consideration must be given to the availability of teaching personnel, n17  sound school administrative procedure, n18  and other important factors. n19  Thus, numerical quotas or percentages, although appealing for their simplicity, lack that equitable flexibility which is still needed for a selective distribution of qualified teachers for particular faculty rolls. n1  However, the hour for the luxury of flexibility in faculty desegregation is about over. n2 
 
**** Caution:
 
   The cases in  § §  12 , infra, indicate an increasing use of quotas, particularly where progress toward school faculty desegregation has been slow or nonexistent.
Noting that it had previously pointed out that existing policy and practice with regard to, inter alia, hiring and assignment of faculty and staff were among most important indicia of segregated school system, and that, independently of student assignment, where it is possible to identify "white school" or "Negro school" simply by reference to racial composition of teachers and staff, prima facie case of violation of substantive constitutional rights under equal protection clause is shown, and that first remedial responsibility of school authorities is to eliminate such invidious racial distinctions, United States Supreme Court approved plan of faculty assignment in each school within school district which had as goal ratio of white to Negro faculty members in each school substantially same as was such ratio throughout entire school system. Swann v Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 US 1, 28 L Ed 2d 554, 91 S Ct 1267, reh den 403 US 912, 29 L Ed 2d 689, 91 S Ct 2200, reh den 403 US 912, 29 L Ed 2d 689, 91 S Ct 2201.
See Davis v Board of School Comrs.  402 US 33, 28 L Ed 2d 577, 91 S Ct 1289,  §  13 .
Once there has been finding of intentional racial discrimination, race-conscious remedies are constitutionally valid means of ameliorating effects of such discrimination; accordingly district court could properly order preference for retention of black teachers in layoffs as reasonable and constitutionally permissible solution to racial discrimination in area of faculty hiring, and seniority provisions in collective bargaining agreement could not preclude such order. Morgan v O'Bryant (1982, CA1 Mass) 671 F2d 23, 28 BNA FEP Cas 58, 28 CCH EPD P 32544, later proceeding 687 F2d 510, 29 BNA FEP Cas 1353 and cert den 459 US 827, 74 L Ed 2d 64, 103 S Ct 62, 29 BNA FEP Cas 1752, 30 CCH EPD P 33063, reh den 459 US 1059, 74 L Ed 2d 625, 103 S Ct 478, 30 CCH EPD P 33157 and reh den 463 US 1215, 77 L Ed 2d 1401, 103 S Ct 3556, 32 CCH EPD P 33682 and cert den 459 US 881, 74 L Ed 2d 146, 103 S Ct 178, 29 BNA FEP Cas 1560, 30 CCH EPD P 33063, reh den 463 US 1215, 77 L Ed 2d 1401, 103 S Ct 3556, later proceeding (DC Mass) 612 F Supp 1060, 38 BNA FEP Cas 481, 38 CCH EPD P 35550, later proceeding (DC Mass) 617 F Supp 1316, 38 CCH EPD P 35551, later proceeding (DC Mass) 620 F Supp 214, affd (CA1 Mass) 831 F2d 313, 94 ALR Fed 629.
Use of hiring ratios and limited preferential treatment of black applicants in remedying past discrimination is permissible method of fulfilling court's duty to render decree which will so far as possible eliminate discriminatory effects of past. Morgan v Kerrigan (1975, DC Mass) 388 F Supp 581, 14 BNA FEP Cas 308, affd (CA1 Mass) 530 F2d 431, 14 BNA FEP Cas 312, 11 CCH EPD P 10636, cert den 426 US 935, 49 L Ed 2d 386, 96 S Ct 2648, 96 S Ct 2649, 24 BNA FEP Cas 1515, 12 CCH EPD P 10977, reh den 429 US 873, 50 L Ed 2d 156, 97 S Ct 193 and reh den 429 US 1125, 51 L Ed 2d 577, 97 S Ct 1166, later proceeding (DC Mass) 612 F Supp 1060, 38 BNA FEP Cas 481, 38 CCH EPD P 35550, later proceeding (DC Mass) 617 F Supp 1316, 38 CCH EPD P 35551, later proceeding (DC Mass) 620 F Supp 214, affd (CA1 Mass) 831 F2d 313, 94 ALR Fed 629.
See Kromnick v School Dist. (1984, CA3 Pa) 739 F2d 894, 35 BNA FEP Cas 538, 34 CCH EPD P 34525, cert den 469 US 1107, 83 L Ed 2d 777, 105 S Ct 782, 36 BNA FEP Cas 976, 35 CCH EPD P 34854,  §  15 .
Court of Appeals for Fourth Circuit has announced view that plans for integrated faculties should contain provision that ratio of Negro and white faculty members at each school within school district should be approximately same as ratio throughout entire system, although exceptions may be made for specialized faculty positions. Nesbit v Statesville City Board of Education (CA4 NC) 418 F2d 1040; Brewer v School Board of Norfolk (CA4 Va) 434 F2d 408, cert den 399 US 929, 26 L Ed 2d 796, 90 S Ct 2247.
In single opinion dealing with, inter alia, faculty desegregation in 16 different cases, Court of Appeals for Fifth Circuit ordered various school boards, not later than 2 months following filing of opinion by court, to assign principals, teachers, teacher-aides, and other staff who worked directly with children at school, so that racial composition of staff would not indicate that any particular school was intended for children of either Negro or white race, and further ordered that each affected school district assign faculty and staff so that ratio of Negro to white teachers in each school, and ratio of other staff in each school, would be substantially same as found throughout entire school system. Singleton v Jackson Municipal Separate School Dist. (CA5 Miss) 419 F2d 1211, revd on other grounds 396 US 290, 24 L Ed 2d 477, 90 S Ct 608, reh den 396 US 1053, 24 L Ed 2d 698, 90 S Ct 705, later app 426 F2d 1364, mod on other grounds 430 F2d 368, later app 432 F2d 927, cert den 402 US 944, 29 L Ed 2d 112, 91 S Ct 1611; Anthony v Marshall County Board of Education (CA5 Miss) 419 F2d 1211; U.S. v Mathews (CA5 Tex) 419 F2d 1211; Stout v Jefferson County Board of Education (CA5 Ala) 419 F2d 1211; Brown v Board of Education (CA5 Ala) 419 F2d 1211; Davis v Board of School Comrs. (CA5 Ala) 419 F2d 1211; Carter v West Feliciana Parish School Board (CA5 La) 419 F2d 1211, vacated on other grounds 396 US 226, 24 L Ed 2d 382, 90 S Ct 467, and revd on other grounds 396 US 290, 24 L Ed 2d 477, 90 S Ct 608, reh den 396 US 1053, 24 L Ed 2d 698, 90 S Ct 705; George v Davis (CA5 La) 419 F2d 1211; Smith v Concordia Parish School Board (CA5 La) 419 F2d 1211; Harris v St. John the Baptist Parish School Board (CA5 La) 419 F2d 1211; Bennett v Evans (CA5 Ga) 419 F2d 1211; Bennett v Burke County Board of Education (CA5 Ga) 419 F2d 1211; Bivins v Bibb County Board of Education (CA5 Ga) 419 F2d 1211; Thomie v Houston County Board of Education (CA5 Ga) 419 F2d 1211; Youngblood v Board of Public Instruction (CA5 Fla) 419 F2d 1211; and Wright v Board of Public Instruction (CA5 Fla) 419 F2d 1211.
Where faculty and administrative staff of school system were more segregated than schools themselves, school district was directed to assign black and Mexican-American teachers throughout system on same ratio of percentages they comprised of total teacher and staff population; school system further ordered to employ Mexican-American teachers in such numbers as would more truly reflect ratio of Mexican-American students to total scholastic population of school district, court saying, however, that showing of good-faith efforts to find sufficient qualified Mexican-American teachers to achieve equitable ratio would rebut any inference of discrimination. Cisneros v Corpus Christi Independent School Dist. (CA5 Tex) 467 F2d 142, cert den 413 US 920, 37 L Ed 2d 1041, 93 S Ct 3053, and cert den 413 US 922, 37 L Ed 2d 1044, 93 S Ct 3052, reh den 414 US 881, 38 L Ed 2d 129, 94 S Ct 31.
Court modified order so that new order provided that ratio of Negro to white teachers in each school in school system be substantially same as such ratio was to teachers in entire system, where prior order of court, which required system to provide approximately 25% black teachers at each school, which was approximately same percentage of black students in school system, actually worked to disadvantage of black teacher applicants, inasmuch as it required hiring teachers on account of color rather than without regard to color. Horton v. Lawrence County Bd. of Ed., 320 F. Supp. 790, 3 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1147, 4 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P 7590 (N.D. Ala. 1970), order rev'd, 449 F.2d 793, 3 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1153, 4 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P 7559 (5th Cir. 1971).
Where there was racial segregation in school system, court ordered desegregation, including direction that faculty composition must fairly reflect ratio of minority students to total student population of district; while racial ratio or quota in each school is improper as to students, one is proper and may be required as to teachers. Arvizu v Waco Independent School Dist. (DC Tex) 373 F Supp 1264, revd on other grounds (CA5 Tex) 495 F2d 499, reh den (CA5 Tex) 496 F2d 1309.
Where proof showed that school district had been hiring more white replacement teachers than black replacement teachers according to policy of replacing black for black teachers and white for white teachers, such policy was held constitutionally impermissible as racial classification; having successfully attained unitary school system by end of 1973 school year, school board was under duty to hire teachers and administrators on basis of objective merit standards, irrespective of race. McCormick v Attala County Board of Education (DC Miss) 407 F Supp 586, 18 BNA FEP Cas 1750, 12 CCH EPD P 10967, vacated (CA5 Miss) 541 F2d 1094, 18 BNA FEP Cas 1759, 12 CCH EPD P 11231, on remand (ND Miss) 424 F Supp 1382, 18 BNA FEP Cas 1760, 14 CCH EPD P 7721.
In proceeding for injunctive relief prohibiting board of education from terminating any black tenured teacher due to need for reduction of staff size, trial court would grant injunction and order board of education not to terminate any black tenured teachers as part of economically-induced staff reductions until district achieved its goal of 20 percent black teaching staff, which goal was set in prior litigation, since denial of injunctive relief would inflict irrevocable damage on development of children enrolled in school system, especially on attitudinal and emotional development of district's black students. Oliver v Kalamazoo Bd. of Education (1981, WD Mich) 526 F Supp 131.
See Wygant v Jackson Bd. of Education (1982, ED Mich) 546 F Supp 1195, 29 BNA FEP Cas 1359, 30 CCH EPD P 33199,  §  15 .
While there was no requirement, at least as of now, that public school faculties must be desegregated by means of any precise mathematical percentage to achieve racial balance among teachers, there was no question that faculties must be essentially desegregated "right speedily," and it was patently insufficient for the school board to content itself with mere expressions of abstract good intentions without coming forward with some concrete proposal for increased faculty desegregation. Graves v Board of Education (DC Ark) 299 F Supp 843.

 [*10]      Time
 
**** Synopsis:
 
   Since the elimination of racial discrimination in the hiring, retention, and assignment of schoolteachers must be achieved at the earliest practicable date (which may vary from community to community), a faculty desegregation plan should not only specify a positive commitment to a reasonable program, but it should also embody the steps to be carried out and the time schedule to be followed in doing so.
Since delays in desegregating school systems are no longer tolerable, n3  and since elimination of discrimination in the employment and assignment of teachers and administrative employees can no longer be deferred, n4  an acceptable faculty desegregation plan must embrace positive measures to be accomplished over a limited time. n5  Indeed, the elimination of a racial basis for the employment and assignment of staff must be achieved at the earliest practicable date, n6  although the time may vary from community to community. n7 
A faculty desegregation plan should not only specify a positive commitment to a reasonable program, but should embody the steps to be carried out and the time schedule to be followed in doing so. n8  It is therefore the duty of the district courts to require specific target dates and accomplishments in order to insure full compliance with decree-imposed desegregation of faculties with all deliberate speed. n9  Transitional periods for gradual integration of grades and faculty are no longer meaningful excuses for school boards ordered to get on with their task of equal education for all. n10 
 
**** Observation:
 
   The cases in  § §  12 , infra, indicate an increasing use of time schedules, particularly where progress toward school faculty desegregation has been slow or nonexistent.
Public school district which, after becoming subject to prohibitions against employment discrimination contained in Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C.A. § §  2000e et seq.), makes all of its employment decisions in wholly nondiscriminatory way does not violate Title VII even if it had formerly maintained all white work force by purposefully excluding Negroes. Hazelwood School Dist. v United States, 433 US 299, 53 L Ed 2d 768, 97 S Ct 2736.

 [*11]      Voluntary and involuntary transfers
 
**** Synopsis:
 
   Although it is preferable that desegregation of school faculties be accomplished without the use of racial criteria, teachers should be involuntarily transferred if voluntary placement is not effective in overcoming the effects of past segregation of faculties.
Although it has been said that desegregation and integration of faculties can and must be accomplished without the use of racial criteria, for equal protection of the law must work in both directions to be in fact and in law equal, n11  other courts have adopted the view that the achievement of the constitutionally required objective of faculty desegregation may not be made contingent upon the willingness of teachers voluntarily to transfer from their present schools, n12  that school boards have the legal duty to achieve faculty desegregation by compelling faculty assignment if voluntary placement is not effective, n13  and that if it is necessary in order to remedy the effects of past discrimination, racial factors should be affirmatively considered in assigning or reassigning teachers to schools. n14  While no particular teacher, regardless of color or scholastic background, has a vested right to be employed by a certain school district to teach a certain group of pupils, n15  it has nevertheless been held that in the absence of teachers as parties, their forced transfer to effect racial balance is prohibited, n16  a full evidentiary hearing on the issue of faculty allocation on a racial basis being a necessary part of any decision on the adequacy of a plan of desegregation. n17 
 
**** Observation:
 
   The cases in  § §  12 , infra, indicate an increasing use of involuntary transfers of white teachers to predominantly Negro schools, and vice versa, in order to overcome the effects of past segregation of faculties.
See Davis v Board of School Comrs.  402 US 33, 28 L Ed 2d 577, 91 S Ct 1289,  §  13 .
Where school board protested that it could not achieve faculty desegregation by transferring teachers to different schools because under state law teacher contracts were for specific schools, thus making reassignment of teacher a breach of contract, court said that to extent that state law frustrated implementation of constitutional mandate it was invalid and that board would have to take such position if it were faced with lawsuits by teachers who had been reassigned and were alleging breach of contract; but that it was hoped that such confrontations could be avoided by co-operation on part of teachers and by recruiting and hiring teachers with eye toward faculty desegregation. U. S. v Greenwood Municipal Separate School Dist. (CA5 Miss) 406 F2d 1086, cert den 395 US 907, 23 L Ed 2d 220, 89 S Ct 1749.
Court of Appeals for Fifth Circuit, in single opinion affecting 16 different cases, ordered school boards to assign faculty to schools in substantially same ratio of Negro to white teachers in each school as was found throughout entire school system, and further directed each school district, to extent necessary to carry out plan, to direct members of its staff as condition of continued employment to accept their new assignments. Singleton v Jackson Municipal Separate School Dist. (CA5 Miss) 419 F2d 1211, revd on other grounds 396 US 290, 24 L Ed 2d 477, 90 S Ct 608, reh den 396 US 1053, 24 L Ed 2d 698, 90 S Ct 705, later app 426 F2d 1364, mod on other grounds 430 F2d 368, later app 432 F2d 927, cert den 402 US 944, 29 L Ed 2d 112, 91 S Ct 1611; Anthony v Marshall County Board of Education (CA5 Miss) 419 F2d 1211; U.S. v Mathews (CA5 Tex) 419 F2d 1211; Stout v Jefferson County Board of Education (CA5 Ala) 419 F2d 1211; Brown v Board of Education (CA5 Ala) 419 F2d 1211; Davis v Board of School Comrs. (CA5 Ala) 419 F2d 1211; Carter v West Feliciana Parish School Board (CA5 La) 419 F2d 1211, vacated on other grounds 396 US 226, 24 L Ed 2d 382, 90 S Ct 467, and revd on other grounds 396 US 290, 24 L Ed 2d 477, 90 S Ct 608, reh den 396 US 1053, 24 L Ed 2d 698, 90 S Ct 705; George v Davis (CA5 La) 419 F2d 1211; Smith v Concordia Parish School Board (CA5 La) 419 F2d 1211; Harris v St. John the Baptist Parish School Board (CA5 La) 419 F2d 1211; Bennett v Evans (CA5 Ga) 419 F2d 1211; Bennett v Burke County Board of Education (CA5 Ga) 419 F2d 1211; Bivins v Bibb County Board of Education (CA5 Ga) 419 F2d 1211; Thomie v Houston County Board of Education (CA5 Ga) 419 F2d 1211; Youngblood v Board of Public Instruction (CA5 Fla) 419 F2d 1211; and Wright v Board of Public Instruction (CA5 Fla) 419 F2d 1211.
Where school board sought exemption from requirement that ratio of Negro to white teachers in each school in system should be substantially same as ratio throughout entire system, because its efforts to place Negro faculty members in all-white faculty had met with opposition, court said that regardless of opposition and impediments, school board under under continuing obligation to comply with order. Mays v Board of Public Instruction (CA5 Fla) 428 F2d 809.
In action charging school district with building, operating and maintaining school for purpose and with effect of segregating black students in school system and discriminatorily assigning or permitting assignment of black faculty to that school on basis of race, those instances where discrimination in faculty assignments has not contributed to student segregation may be remedied by eliminating any remaining vestiges of discrimination through faculty reassignment. United States v School Dist. (ED Mich) 460 F Supp 352, vacated on other grounds (CA6 Mich) 616 F2d 895.
School district could affirmatively rehire laid-off black teachers, who lost jobs in court-ordered boundary realignment on basis of seniority, to extent they were laid off disproportionately. Little Rock School Dist. v Pulaski County Special School Dist. (1987, ED Ark) 663 F Supp 1557.
Responsibility for faculty and staff desegration is that of school district, not teachers; and achievement of desegregated faculties may not be made contingent upon willingness of teachers to voluntarily transfer from their present schools, for, if necessary, school district must use its power to assign or reassign teachers in order to comply with constitutional requirements. Booker v Special School Dist. (DC Minn) 351 F Supp 799.
In action by teachers challenging mandatory reassignment of teachers based on race, court held that reassignments did not violate teachers' constitutional or statutory rights though plan was not voluntary since school district was threatened with loss of federal funds because of faculty segregation; court also noted that voluntary desegregation plans can be adopted by school districts. Zaslawsky v Board of Education (1979, CA9 Cal) 610 F2d 661.

 [*B]        Particular plans and orders

 [*12]      Fourth Circuit cases
The Fourth Circuit cases involving particular plans or orders for the elimination of racial discrimination in the hiring, retention, or assignment of schoolteachers have shown some tendency toward an increasing use of quotas, timetables, and involuntary transfers, particularly where progress toward school faculty desegregation has been slow or nonexistent.
See Swann v Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 US 1, 28 L Ed 2d 554, 91 S Ct 1267, reh den 403 US 912, 29 L Ed 2d 689, 91 S Ct 2200, reh den 403 US 912, 29 L Ed 2d 689, 91 S Ct 2201, supra  §  9 .
Cases were remanded and respective District Courts instructed to receive from respective school boards new plans for desegregation which will give effect to Swann v Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 US 1, 28 L Ed 2d 554, 91 S Ct 1267, reh den 403 US 912, 29 L Ed 2d 689, 91 S Ct 2200, 2201 and Davis v Board of School Comrs.  402 US 33, 28 L Ed 2d 577, 91 S Ct 1289, conformed to (CA5 Ala) 445 F2d 318, where district judges did not have benefit of Supreme Court mandate that adequate consideration be given to possible use of bus transportation and split zoning; school authorities and District Courts should consider use of all techniques for desegregation, including pairing or grouping of schools, noncontiguous attendance zones, restructuring of grade levels, and transportation of pupils. Adams v School Dist. (CA4 Va) 444 F2d 99, cert den 404 US 912, 30 L Ed 2d 186, 92 S Ct 230, and later app (CA4 Va) 456 F2d 943, cert den 406 US 933, 32 L Ed 2d 1136, 92 S Ct 1778, and cert den 409 US 892, 34 L Ed 2d 149, 93 S Ct 109, and later app (CA4 Va) 500 F2d 1129.
"In the absence of the teachers as parties to this proceeding, we do not think that the order should require any involuntary assignment or reassignment of a teacher. [But] vacant teacher positions in the future . . . should be opened to all applicants, and each filled by the best qualified applicant regardless of race," the court held in Wheeler v Durham City Board of Education (1966, CA4 NC) 363 F2d 738, where the admitted practice of the school board had been to employ the best-qualified available Negro teachers for schools attended by Negro pupils, and the best-qualified white teachers for schools attended solely or predominantly by white pupils. Noting also that the effect of the school board's policy had been a complete racial segregation in teaching staffs, the court further ordered the board to encourage transfers at the next session by present members of the faculty to schools in which pupils were wholly or predominantly of a race other than that of the teachers. Combined with the employment of new teachers regardless of race, the court said, this procedure will within a reasonable time effect the desegregation of the faculty.
A county school board was ordered to incorporate in its faculty desegregation plan "some minimal, objective time table" in Bowman v County School Board (1967, CA4 Va) 382 F2d 326, vacated on other grounds Green v County School Board, 391 US 430, 20 L Ed 2d 716, 88 S Ct 1689, the court stating that elimination of discrimination in the employment and assignment of teachers and administrative employees could no longer be deferred. In refusing to go further, however, and order immediate substantial interracial assignment of all teachers, the court reasoned that involuntary reassignment of teachers to achieve racial blending of faculties in each school was not justified on the present record, which did not reveal what impact such an order might have upon the school system or what administrative difficulties might be encountered in complying with it. Accordingly, the court remanded the case for the fashioning of a more specific and comprehensive order based on a supplemented record after an appraisal of the practical, administrative, and other problems, if any, remaining to be solved and overcome.
A "minimal, objective timetable for faculty desegregation" was held appropriate for a particular city's schools in Brewer v School Board of Norfolk (1968, CA4 Va) 397 F2d 37, where, under the existing arrangement, the geographical attendance areas for elementary and junior high schools into which the city was divided contained more than one school, leaving to the pupils and their parents a choice within the zone. The court explained that the existing system tended to perpetuate a dual system of schools, since the identity of Negro and white schools located in the same zone could be determined by the racial composition of the faculty. The goal of faculty integration, the court said, is not the allocation of teachers on either a token or a quota basis, and the pattern of faculty assignment should be designed to avoid identification of any particular school as predominantly Negro or white.
Court affirmed District Court's ordering of end to racial discrimination in employment of teachers and school personnel, where, in previous school year, only 27 Negro and 12 white teachers were assigned across racial lines in school system, which operated 20 public schools and had 7,000 white and 6,000 Negro students. Felder v Harnett County Board of Education (CA4 NC) 409 F2d 1070.
School board ordered to formulate plan which would include provisions for integration of faculty so that in each school in system ratio should be approximately same as ratio throughout system, only exception being made for specialized faculty positions. Brewer v School Board of Norfolk (CA4 Va) 434 F2d 408, cert den 399 US 929, 26 L Ed 2d 796, 90 S Ct 2247.
District Court's order declaring that ratio of black and white faculty members in each school should be not less than 75 percent nor more than 125 percent of ratio of black teachers throughout system, affirmed where District Court carefully analyzed school statistics in light of percentage of blacks in general population as well as school system, and also took into consideration statistical data bearing upon percentage of blacks in relevant employment pool from which school board drew substantial number of employees. Morton v Charles County Board of Education (CA4 Md) 520 F2d 871, cert den 423 US 1034, 46 L Ed 2d 408, 96 S Ct 566.
A school board which, despite its stated policy of hiring teachers on the basis of merit, qualifications, and performance, without regard to race, had continued discriminating on the basis of race in hiring new teachers, was ordered to use the same criteria in hiring Negro applicants that were considered in hiring white applicants in Christmas v Board of Education (1964, DC Md) 231 F Supp 331. Although the court noted that the school board had failed to hire a single Negro applicant for certain desegregated schools, even though the qualifications of some of those applicants had been obvious and admitted, the court stated that no quota system was urged or required. As to the board's proposed reassignment of some Negro teachers in the process of school desegregation, the court held that it should not dictate the individual teachers who should or should not be assigned to a particular school or who should or should not be included in the first group of Negro teachers to be transferred. The court further observed that the board's criteria for selecting the first teachers to be transferred did not violate constitutional rights if they were fairly applied. Those factors were: competency in the classroom; professional attitude; whether the teacher was working up to his full capacity; preparation; language factors and patterns; personality; cultural background; ability to accept responsibility; initiative; acceptance of authority; and loyalty to the system.
In Swann v Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education (1965, DC NC) 243 F Supp 667, affd (CA4) 369 F2d 29, the court held an amendment to a school desegregation plan with respect to assignment of staff and professional personnel acceptable, except with respect to when it would be accomplished. The pertinent provision revolved that the development of a policy be undertaken looking to the ultimate employment and assignment of all staff and professional personnel without regard to race or to factors other than training, competence, and fitness. The court disapproved the word "ultimate" contained in the resolution, and ordered the board to substitute the word "immediate."
Although assignments based solely on race are not the proper manner of eliminating segregated faculties, the legal duty of the school board to eliminate the effects of past racial assignment patterns means that the efficacy of the board's plan can necessarily be measured only by use of a comparative racial yardstick--the amount of increase or decrease in faculty integration, school by school, for a given year over the previous one--the court held in Teel v Pitt County Board of Education (1967, DC NC) 272 F Supp 703. The court found that the county board of education, although it had issued a written policy statement that teachers would be employed on qualifications alone, had for the most part continued an unwritten policy and practice of assigning Negro teachers to "Negro" schools and white teachers to "white" schools. That policy, the court said, must end. The court explained, however, that it did not intend to require involuntary reassignment of teachers to achieve racial blending of faculties in each school in the system, since that would be nothing more than racial assignments for racial purposes and would be inimical to a rational concept of equal protection of all persons under the law without regard to their race, and since a compulsive mass transfer to achieve a proportionate or percentage racial blending would be an ill-advised and disruptive measure. On the other hand, the court ordered the board to encourage transfers by present members of the faculty to schools in which the pupils were predominantly of another race. In that connection, the court also observed that the willingness of a teacher to teach in an integrated school or a school with an integrated faculty should not be controlling in making assignments, since the teacher was employed to teach in the system and not in a particular school.
Since the record before the court discloses that a greater degree of faculty desegregation can be achieved without serious practical, administrative, or other problems, a more specific and more comprehensive order directing substantial faculty desegregation is required, the court held in Coppedge v Franklin County Board of Education (1967, DC NC) 273 F Supp 289, affd (CA4) 394 F2d 410. By the terms of the court's prior interim order, the county board of education had been directed to fill all faculty and professional staff vacancies on a nonracial basis and to encourage transfers by present members of the faculty to schools within the system in which pupils were wholly or predominantly of a race other than that of the teacher. Pursuant to that interim order, the school board issued a policy statement that the choice of assignment expressed by teachers or members of a professional staff would be honored to the extent practicable. The court disapproved that provision as tending to perpetuate racial seggregation in faculty and staff, most teachers having remained at the schools to which they had been assigned when the schools had been completely racially segregated. The court also found that although its interim order had directed that teachers be hired and assigned on a nonracial basis, the 25 new white teachers had been assigned to predominantly white schools and the 24 new Negro teachers had been assigned to all-Negro schools. The court's new order stated that race, color, or national origin should not be a factor in hiring, assignment, reassignment, promotion, demotion, or dismissal of teachers and other professional staff members, including student teachers, except that race could be taken into account for the purpose of assigning and reassigning teachers and other professional staff members to eliminate past discriminatory patterns. More specifically, the court ordered that if the assignment of teachers on a voluntary basis did not result in significant faculty desegregation of every school in the system for the next school year, to the extent that at least two teachers of the minority race (white or nonwhite) would be on each desegregated faculty, the board should make the required number of involuntary assignments. Finally, the court directed the board to establish as an ultimate objective that each faculty contain the same approximate percentage of nonwhite teachers as there were in the entire system.
On motion to reopen case due to alleged violations of court desegregation orders, statistics demonstrated that, with respect to faculty assignments, there were not vestiges of past racial segregation, no indications of discriminatory actions or lack of actions, and no violations of court orders. Vaughns v Board of Education (1983, DC Md) 574 F Supp 1280, later proceeding (DC Md) 598 F Supp 1262, affd (CA4 Md) 770 F2d 1244, 38 CCH EPD P 35727 (disapproved by Pennsylvania v Delaware Valley Citizens' Council for Clean Air, 483 US 711, 97 L Ed 2d 585, 107 S Ct 3078, 45 BNA FEP Cas 1750, 17 ELR 20929, on remand (CA3 Pa) 826 F2d 238) and later proceeding (DC Md) 742 F Supp 1275, 53 BNA FEP Cas 785, 54 CCH EPD P 40293 and affd in part and revd in part on other gnds (CA4 Md) 758 L Ed 2d 983.
Since the number of Negro teachers in the county school system is small, it should be feasible to desegregate faculties and administrative staffs in the various schools completely for the next school term, the court reasoned in Kier v County School Board (1966, DC Va) 249 F Supp 239, enjoining the defendant school board from continuing to maintain segregated faculties and administrative staffs. More specifically, the court ordered that insofar as possible, the percentage of Negro teachers in each school in the system should approximate the percentage of Negro teachers in the entire system. Although recognizing that such a guideline could not be rigorously adhered to, the court explained that some standard was necessary in order for the court to evaluate the sufficiency of the steps taken by the school authorities pursuant to the court's order. In deciding further that the school board could consider race in disestablishing its segregated schools without violating the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause, the court pointed out that its order envisioned no permanent race consciousness in teacher assignments, but was merely intended to redress former faculty segregation--"on the premise that, had there been no discrimination to begin with, the Negro teachers employed by the county would have been as evenly distributed throughout the various schools in the system as, for want of a better analogy, those teachers with blue eyes or cleft chins."
Where, as here, direct discrimination in pupil assignments is eliminated and complete integration on a geographic plan is foreseeable at the end of an additional year, school authorities are entitled to the court's indulgence in teacher and staff assignments, the court stated in Bell v School Board of Staunton (1966, DC Va) 249 F Supp 249. Noting that one-third of the Negro students in the school district were already in white schools, that a freedom of choice plan had been utilized for only 4 of the 12 grades in the school system in the current school year, that there had apparently been no hesitancy on the part of the Negro community to exercise its prerogatives under the freedom of choice plan, and that the Negro schools in the district were being phased out of the school program, the court decided that the difficulties created by forcing the school board to place white teachers in the Negro schools for only one year far outweighed the merits of such an order. Accordingly, the court ordered the integration of faculty and staff by the beginning of the school year after the next one and further ordered that in the interim, any Negro teachers no longer needed in the Negro schools because of the decrease in enrollment at those facilities as freedom of choice was extended would be considered for employment in the predominantly white schools on the same nondiscriminatory basis as white teachers presently employed by the school system.
The provisions for staff desegregation in a county school district's general desegregation plan were held too limited in Wright v County School Board (1966, DC Va) 252 F Supp 378, where, although there were no white teachers in the Negro schools and no Negro teachers in the white schools, the plan provided for staff integration only in regard to countywide meetings and in-service classes. The court stated that a satisfactory plan had to include provisions for the employment and assignment of staff on a nonracial basis and that although the primary responsibility for selecting means rested with the school board, the plan had to contain well-defined procedures which would be put into effect on definite dates. Token assignments, the court said, will not suffice.
The court in Thompson v County School Board (1966, DC Va) 252 F Supp 546, held too limited the provisions for staff desegregation in a general school desegregation plan. The plan provided for evaluation of applicants for teaching assignments on the basis of overall preparation and qualifications, for steps to be taken for the desegregation of faculty for the school year current at the time of the plan, at least including such actions as joint faculty meetings, joint in-service programs and workshops, and assignment of teachers who served more than one school without regard to race, color, or national origin; but the plan did not specifically provide for assignment of Negro teachers to formerly all-white schools and of white teachers to formerly all-Negro schools. Rejecting the contention that evidence showing simply that white schools had white faculties and Negro schools had Negro faculties was not sufficient to establish the invalidity of the plan, the court quoted from another district court opinion holding that where the plaintiffs have shown the existence of segregated faculties, the necessity for proof of actual adverse effects on Negro children flowing therefrom is obviated.
Stressing that a city's school authorities had mailed a letter to all teachers urging them to indicate their willingness to transfer to a school attended primarily or solely by pupils of the opposite race, and that in one year approximately 133 teachers had been persuaded to so transfer, the court in Beckett v School Board of Norfolk (1967, DC Va) 269 F Supp 118, refused to require the fixing of any percentage goals, deadlines, or timetables for faculty desegregation. As to the contention that faculty assignments at each school should be in proportion to the total white-Negro teaching personnel in each of the three phases of schooling --elementary, junior high, and senior high --the court commented that the proposal had no rational basis and constituted racial balancing as distinguished from desegregation of faculties. The court also remarked that in the absence of teachers as parties, forced transfer to effect racial balance was prohibited, and that such a practice was not in accord with sound educational principles. Noting the school board's apparent good faith, the court expressed the belief that in light of the progress made in only one year, any reasonable-minded person would say that the school board should have at least 3 years to work out the problem.
Although finding that a county school board had carried out its pledge to make an immediate attempt at faculty integration, the board having placed at least one faculty member in a desegregated position in every school but one, so that 20 of 217 teachers were in desegregated positions, the court in Betts v County School Board (1967, DC Va) 269 F Supp 593, ordered the school board to take affirmative action toward the end that insofar as possible, the percentage of Negro teachers in each school in the system would approximate the percentage of Negro teachers in the entire system. Recognizing that the teachers could not be allowed complete freedom of choice, the court nevertheless expressed the belief that the affirmative action necessary to achieve faculty integration did not require the involuntary reassignment of teachers presently holding positions within the system, although it might be necessary for the board to attempt persuasion. The court explained that normal attrition within the faculty would undoubtedly leave several vacancies each year and that if those vacancies were properly filled without regard to race, it was reasonable to expect that the school system would have an additional 20 teachers in desegregated positions each year.
Approving exceptions only in case of specialized faculty positions, court approved plan submitted by school board for desegregation of public schools of metropolitan area, commenting that conversion to unitary school system required assignment of faculty members to each school in system in accordance with ratio of white and black faculty throughout system. Bradley v School Board of Richmond (DC Va) 317 F Supp 555.
Court of Appeals for Fourth Circuit has announced view that plans for integration of faculties should include provisions that ratio of Negro and white faculty members at each school should be approximately same as ratio throughout entire system, exceptions being made only for specialized faculty positions. Nesbit v Statesville City Board of Education (CA4 NC Va) 418 F2d 1040.

 [*13]      Fifth Circuit cases
The Fifth Circuit cases involving particular plans or orders for the elimination of racial discrimination in the hiring, retention, or assignment of schoolteachers have shown a definite tendency toward an increasing use of quotas, timetables, and involuntary transfers, particularly where progress toward school faculty desegregation has been slow or nonexistent.
In continuing proceedings wherein a Federal District Court of Alabama, over a period of 4 or 5 years, had conducted annual hearings on a school board's plans for proceeding with desegregation of a county public school system, and had issued orders to expedite integration as rapidly as practicable, an order of the District Court which scheduled desegregation of faculty and staff on a ratio basis after the school board had failed to make adequate progress toward faculty desegregation as previously directed by the court--such order (1) providing that the board must move toward a goal under which the ratio of white to Negro faculty members in each school was substantially the same as the ratio throughout the school system, (2) fixing the ratio concerning the assignment of substitute, student, and night school teachers in each school almost immediately as substantially the same as the ratio of Negro to white teachers in each such group for the system as a whole, (3) directing that for the coming school year, schools with less than 12 full-time teachers have at least one teacher whose race was different from the race of the majority of the faculty at that school, and that schools with 12 or more full-time teachers have at least one teacher of a different race from the majority race for every six faculty and staff members at such school, whereas the ratio of white to Negro full-time teachers in the system as a whole was 3 to 2, and (4) reserving for later decision the goals to be required for future years --was held proper as promising realistically to work now, in United States v Montgomery County Board of Education (1969) 395 US 225, 23 L Ed 2d 263, 89 S Ct 1670, the court stating that the order could not be considered as having been intended to be absolutely rigid and inflexible, where the District Court judge, during the course of the proceedings, (1) had issued new orders at least annually for 4 or 5 years, (2) on at least one occasion had amended an outstanding order, on his own motion, in order not to inflict any possible injustice on the school system because of the approval by the Court of Appeals of a less stringent order for another district, and (3) had expressed his full understanding of the fact that the way must always be left open for experimentation. Under such circumstances, the Supreme Court said that it would approve the District Court's order as written, rather than as modified by the Court of Appeals to require only "substantially or approximately" the ratio required for the coming school year for full-time teachers and to eliminate the numerical ratio with regard to the ultimate objective for the future on the ground that compliance should not be tested solely by the achievement of specified ratios, particularly in view of the fact that the Court of Appeals was evenly divided in denying a petition for rehearing en banc after modification of the order by a two-to-one panel --the modifications ordered by the Court of Appeals taking from the District Court's order some of its capacity to expedite, by means of specific commands, the day when a completely unified, unitary, nondiscriminatory school system would become a reality instead of a hope.
Affirming the decision of the lower court on appeal by the board of education, which contended that the trial court had gone too far in prohibiting the assignment of teachers, principals, and other supervising or supporting personnel to schools on the basis of the race and color of such persons or of the pupils, the court in Board of Public Instruction v Braxton (1964, CA5 Fla) 326 F2d 616, cert den 377 US 924, 12 L Ed 2d 216, 84 S Ct 1223, held that where the trial court, which has the first duty with respect to requiring action if none is taken initially by the board, considers that in order fully to implement the Supreme Court's decisions on school desegregation, it will be necessary to put an end to the assignment of teachers and other personnel by race to the schools within the board's jurisdiction, it cannot conceivably be said that such an order goes beyond the permissible range of the trial court's choice of means.
In the General Statement of Policies Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Respecting Desegregation of Elementary and Secondary Schools, issued by the Commissioner of Education in April, 1965, and printed in the appendix to the opinion in Price v Denison Independent School Dist. Board of Education (1965, CA5 Tex) 348 F2d 1010, it is provided in Division V B (1) that all desegregation plans shall provide for the desegregation of faculty and staff in accordance with the following requirements: (a) the race, color, or national origin of pupils shall not be a factor in the assignment to a particular school or class within a school of teachers, administrators, or other employees who serve pupils; and (b) steps shall also be taken toward the elimination of segregation of teaching and staff personnel in the schools resulting from prior assignments based on race, color, or national origin.
Observing that a municipal school board had gone only as far as to hold joint faculty meetings and to establish a joint in-service program, the court, in Singleton v Jackson Municipal Separate School Dist. (1966, CA5 Miss) 355 F2d 865, ordered that the desegregation plan for the municipal school system be revised to provide "an adequate start" toward elimination of race as a basis for employment and allocation of teachers, administrators, and other personnel.
A school desegregation plan was ordered modified so as to end the school board's policy of hiring and assigning teachers according to race by the time the last of the schools in the county were fully desegregated for the school year 1967--68, in Davis v Board of School Comrs. (1966, CA5 Ala) 364 F2d 896.
The teaching staffs of the schools operated by a state institute for the deaf and blind were ordered to be integrated without waiting for the filling of future vacancies on a nonracial basis in Archie v Alabama Institute for Deaf & Blind (1968, CA5 Ala) 395 F2d 765. Every effort must be made by this institute, the court said, to comply with this requirement in the same manner as is required of public schools.
School boards found to have purposefully taken the identical approach of transferring only those teachers who had volunteered to move to a school with a faculty where the majority of teachers were of a race different from their own were ordered to abandon the voluntary approach and to accomplish faculty desegregation in accordance with fixed immediate target and full compliance dates, in United States v Board of Education (1968, CA5 Ala) 396 F2d 44, where the court found that only 21 of the 222 schools in question, or less than 10 percent, had achieved any faculty desegregation whatsoever, and that only 47, or .89 percent, of the 5,297 teachers in question were teaching in desegregated situations. Observing that although very few teachers had volunteered to move to a school with a faculty where the majority of teachers were of a different race from their own and that the school boards had exerted no compulsion or even persuasion to initiate integration, the court commented that the school boards could not use local tenure or teacher hiring security statutes as a justification for failing to initiate and maintain desegregation of faculties. At this very, very late date in the "glacial movement" toward school racial integration, the court said, it should no longer be an issue of good faith; the question is and must always remain: Is the constitutional imperative being met?
Race or color will henceforth not be a factor in the hiring, assignment, reassignment, promotion, demotion, or dismissal of teachers and other professional staff, with the exception that assignments shall be made in order to eliminate the effects of past discrimination, and teachers, principals, and staff members will be assigned to schools so that the faculty and staff are not composed of members of one race, the court ordered in Harris v Bullock County Board of Education (1966, DC Ala) 253 F Supp 276.
Noting that the only step taken by a county board of education toward desegregating its totally segregated dual school system had been the holding of desegregated faculty meetings on mutual school problems, the court in United States v Choctow County Board of Education (1966, DC Ala) 259 F Supp 408, ordered the board to carry out its previously revoked desegregation plan, which provided, in effect, that race, color, or national origin would not be factors in the employment, re-employment, or assignment of teachers.
Holding that there was an affirmative constitutional duty apart from any federal regulatory scheme, on the part of the defendant state officers as well as on the part of other school officials throughout the state, to desegregate staffs and faculties, the court in Lee v Macon County Board of Education (1967, DC Ala) 267 F Supp 458, affd Wallace v United States, 389 US 215, 19 L Ed 2d 422, 88 S Ct 415, declared it no longer open to question that faculty and staff desegregation was an integral part of any public school desegregation plan--not because of teachers' employment rights, but because students were entitled to a nonracial education, and that assignment of teachers to students on the basis of race denied students that right. The court ordered, inter alia, that the state superintendent of education develop a detailed program for assisting and encouraging faculty desegregation in the local school systems throughout the state for implementation prior to the 1967--68 school year and submit that program to the court and all parties within 60 days after the entry of the court's decree. The program, at a minimum, was to establish ways in which the state department of education would assist local systems in recruting and in planning for the placement of new teachers and reassigning of old teachers on a desegregated basis, so that by the fall of 1967, insofar ar it was administratively feasible, no school located in a school district where students of both races were in attendance would have teachers of only one race. The court also ordered the superintendent to apply certification requirements without discrimination on the basis of race, and not to apply certification requirements or grant provisional certificates in a manner to perpetuate faculty segregation or to avoid faculty desegregation, and also to inform all applicants for certification that the school systems throughout the state were obliged to desegregate their faculties and that teachers were subject to assignment in accordance with that obligation.
Finding that its former decree calling for positive and affirmative steps to accomplish faculty desegregation in a parish school system had failed to achieve substantial results (no Negro teachers having been assigned to teach in formerly white schools and only two white teachers having been assigned to teach in formerly Negro schools), the court in Moore v Tangipahoa Parish School Board (1968, DC La) 290 F Supp 96, ordered that at least one full-time classroom teacher of the minority race be assigned to each school in the system with fewer than five teachers, that at least two full-time classroom teachers of the minority race be assigned to each school in the system with five or more but less than 15 teachers, and that at least three full-time classroom teachers of the minority race be assigned to each school in the system with 15 or more teachers.
In the cases of United States v Jefferson County Board of Education (1967, CA5 Ala and La) 380 F2d 385, Stell v Board of Public Education (1967, CA5 Ga) 387 L Ed 2d 486, and United States by Clark v Plaquemines Parish School Board (1967, DC La) 291 F Supp 841, the courts issued almost identical faculty desegregation orders. Those orders required, among other things, that the defendant school board in each case establish as an objective that the pattern of teacher assignment to any particular school not be identifiable as tailored for a heavy concentration of either Negro or white pupils. As a means of reaching that objective, the courts further ordered that race or color not be a factor in the hiring, assignment, reassignment, promotion, demotion, or dismissal of teachers and other professional staff members, including student teachers, except that race could be taken into account for the purpose of counteracting or correcting the effect of the segregated assignment of faculty and staff in the former dual school systems.
 <>
For other cases from Court of Appeals for Fifth Circuit, requiring that teachers be assigned to respective schools within each system on systemwide ratio basis, see:
 
Fifth Circuit--
 
Bradley v Board of Public Instruction (CA5 Fla) 431 F2d 1377, cert den 402 US 943, 29 L Ed 2d 111, 91 S Ct 1608.
U. S. v Hinds County School Board (CA5 Miss) 433 F2d 598.
U. S. v Hinds County School Board (CA5 Miss) 433 F2d 605.
U. S. v Hinds County School Board (CA5 Miss) 433 F2d 611.
U. S. v Hinds County School Board (CA5 Miss) 433 F2d 622.
Smith v Concordia Parish School Board (CA5 La) 445 F2d 285.
U. S. v Perry County Board of Education (CA5 Ala) 445 F2d 302.
U. S. v Georgia (CA5 Ga) 445 F2d 303.
U. S. v Hale County Board of Education (CA5 Ala) 445 F2d 1330.
Brown v Board of Education (CA5 Ala) 446 F2d 75.
Lockett v Board of Education (CA5 Ga) 447 F2d 472.
U. S. v Wilcox County Board of Education (CA5 Ala) 454 F2d 1144, later app (CA5 Ala) 494 F2d 575, reh den (CA5 Ala) 495 F2d 1372, and cert den 419 US 1031, 42 L Ed 2d 306, 95 S Ct 512, cert den 402 US 944, 29 L Ed 2d 112, 91 S Ct 1611.
U.S. v Tunica County School Dist. (DC Miss) 323 F Supp 1019, affd (CA5) 440 F2d 377.
Armstead v Starkville Municipal Separate School Dist. (DC Miss) 325 F Supp 560, affd in part and revd in part on other grounds (CA5) 461 F2d 276.
Baker v Columbus Municipal Separate School Dist. (DC Miss) 329 F Supp 706, affd (CA5 Miss) 462 F2d 1112.
Taylor v Coahoma County School Dist. (DC Miss) 330 F Supp 174, affd (CA5) 444 F2d 221.
U. S. v Texas (DC Tex) 330 F Supp 235, mod on other grounds (CA5) 447 F2d 441, cert den 404 US 1016, 30 L Ed 2d 663, 92 S Ct 675.
U. S. v Plaquemines Parish School Board (DC La) 336 F Supp 992.
Horton v Lawrence County Board of Education (DC Ala) 320 F Supp 790, revd on other grounds (CA5) 449 F2d 793.
Lee v Macon County Board of Education (DC Ala) 321 F Supp 1.
U. S. v Board of Education (DC Ga) 331 F Supp 466.
As also applying criteria developed in Singleton, see the following:
Lee v Roanoke City Board of Education (CA5 Ala) 466 F2d 1378.
Cisneros v Corpus Christi Independent School Dist. (CA5 Tex) 467 F2d 142, cert den 413 US 920, 37 L Ed 2d 1041, 93 S Ct 3053 and cert den 413 US 922, 37 L Ed 2d 1044, 93 S Ct 3052, reh den 414 US 881, 38 L Ed 2d 129, 94 S Ct 31.
McLaurin v Columbia Municipal Separate School Dist. (CA5 Miss) 478 F2d 348, reh den (CA5 Miss) 486 F2d 1049, later app (CA5 Miss) 530 F2d 661.
On April 20, 1971, the United States Supreme Court, though reversing the opinion of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit as to student assignments, affirmed a holding of that court ordering the school commissioners of Mobile County, Alabama, with respect to faculty and staff desegregation, to establish a faculty and staff ratio in each school substantially the same as that for the entire district, the court stating that it was affirming the opinion for the reasons given in Swann v Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 US 1, 28 L Ed 2d 554, 91 S Ct 1267, reh den 403 US 912, 29 L Ed 2d 689, 91 S Ct 2200, reh den 403 US 912, 29 L Ed 2d 689, 91 S Ct 2201, supra  §  9 ; Davis v Board of School Comrs.  402 US 33, 28 L Ed 2d 577, 91 S Ct 1289.
Where hearings and dismissals of two black teachers occurred while school district was in transition from dual to unitary status, and where dismissals were not made on basis of objective and reasonable nondiscriminatory criteria, school board in fact not filing with court such criteria until long after dismissal, dismissed teachers were entitled to reinstatement with back pay; tenure hearings held under state law did not eliminate necessity that school board adopt and comply with standards required by Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate School Dist., 419 F.2d 1211, 9 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1122, 7 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P 9412 (5th Cir. 1969), judgment vacated in part, stay granted, 396 U.S. 226, 90 S. Ct. 467, 24 L. Ed. 2d 382 (1969) and cert. granted, judgment rev'd, 396 U.S. 290, 90 S. Ct. 608, 24 L. Ed. 2d 477 (1970); Cornist v. Richland Parish School Bd., 495 F.2d 189, 7 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P 9411 (5th Cir. 1974) (disapproved on other grounds Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v Wilderness Soc.  421 US 240, 44 L Ed 2d 141, 95 S Ct 1612) (superseded by statute as stated in Stanford Daily v Zurcher (CA9 Cal) 550 F2d 464, revd on other grounds 436 US 547, 56 L Ed 2d 525, 98 S Ct 1970, reh den 439 US 885, 58 L Ed 2d 200, 99 S Ct 231, 99 S Ct 232) and reh den (CA5 La) 517 F 2d 1032.
In action by school district to enjoin town from creating new district encompassing portion of plaintiff district that was located within town, on ground that school system remained tainted by discrimination, court held that plaintiff had made type of sustained good faith effort to recruit minority faculty members so as to remedy effects of any past discriminatory practices, and fact that district may have had smaller percentage of minority faculty than minority students or fact that district now had smaller percentage of minority faculty than it did before desegregation did not preclude determination that plaintiff was unitary school district (one that had effectively carried out mandate of Brown v Board of Education). Ft. Bend Independent School Dist. v Stafford (1981, CA5) 651 F2d 1133.
"Singleton" rights, which arise in favor of personnel displaced due to implementation of court-ordered desegregation, cannot exist except as part of equitable remedy imposed in desegregation injunction, even though same events giving rise to "Singleton" may also give rise to statutory civil rights claim and Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claims. Cousin v Board of Trustees (1984, CA5 Miss) 726 F2d 262, 38 BNA FEP Cas 46, 33 CCH EPD P 34211, reh den (CA5 Miss) 733 F2d 905.
Where school system with 3,000 white and 3,000 Negro students, operating five elementary schools, two junior high schools, and two senior high schools, had integrated its faculty members only to extent of assigning three white teachers and one white nurse to all-Negro schools, court said that transformation to unitary system would not come to pass until school board had balanced faculty of each school so that no faculty was identifiable as being tailored for heavy concentration of Negro or white students and ordered that such goal be reached by start of 1970-71 school year. U. S. v Greenwood Municipal Separate School Dist. (CA5 Miss) 406 F2d 1086, cert den 395 US 907, 23 L Ed 2d 220, 89 S Ct 1749.
Stating that it was firm that point had been reached where it was not spirit but bodies which counted, court, noting that school system operated four schools, two of which were all white and two of which were all Negro, and that there were no Negro teachers at either of two white schools, no white teachers at one of Negro schools, and only one white teacher for half-day at other Negro school, reversed District Court's order and ordered transportation of school district to unitary system in which school board would have to balance faculty of each school so that no faculty was identifiable as being tailored for heavy concentration of students of either race. U. S. v Indianola Municipal Separate School Dist. (CA5 Miss) 410 F2d 626, cert den 396 US 1011, 24 L Ed 2d 503, 90 S Ct 571.
Where District Court found that in 1967-68 school year 2 of 105 Negro teachers in school system taught in white schools and none of 95 white teachers taught in Negro schools, and where record was silent as to whether school board had met District Court's order that in all schools in county system ratio of teachers of opposite race be not less than six of majority race to one of minority race in each school, court reversed District Court's judgment, ordering that by September 1970 pattern of teacher assignment to any school should not be identifiable as tailored for heavy concentration of either Negro or white pupils, and that as interim objective ratio of teachers of one race to teachers of opposite race should be approximately 3 to 1 by start of 1969-70 school term, and stated that successful desegregation of faculties required desegregation of principals, substitute teachers, and student teachers. U. S. by Mitchell v Board of Education (CA5 Ala) 417 F2d 838.
Affirming with modifications District Court's order, court said plan must be modified so as to provide that "compliance day" for total faculty desegregation would be September 1, 1970, at which time pattern of teacher assignment to any particular school should not be identifiable as tailored for heavy concentration of either Negro or white pupils in school and, where district employed approximately 180 white teachers and 120 Negro teachers, ordered that race of at least 1 of every 5 faculty members in school must be different from race of majority of faculty members at that school. U. S. by Mitchell v Board of Education (CA5 Ga) 417 F2d 848.
Reversing District Court's order, court, saying that little progress had been made with respect to faculty desegregation in 25 separate school districts and that while 19.2 percent of faculty in one school district was desegregated, seven of districts had less than one full-time teacher per school assigned across racial lines and all but one of remaining systems had less than 10 percent of full-time faculty members teaching in schools in which their race was in minority, ordered District Court to see that minimum standards were established for making substantial progress toward goal of integrating faculties in 1969 and finishing job in 1970. U. S. v Hinds County School Board (CA5 Miss) 417 F2d 852, cert den 396 US 1032, 24 L Ed 2d 531, 90 S Ct 612.
It should be noted that Court of Appeals for Fifth Circuit has adopted view that noncomplying school districts should be required to immediately integrate their faculties and staff so that ratio of Negro to white teachers at any one school is substantially same as ratio of Negro to white teachers in school system as a whole; and court, in single opinion affecting 16 different lower court opinions, also ordered that if there had to be reduction in number of teachers or staff employed by school district as result of such integration, then such persons to be dismissed or demoted would have to be selected on basis of objective and reasonable nondiscriminatory standards from among all staff of school district, requiring further that each school board develop nonracial objective criteria to be used in selecting staff members to be dismissed or demoted, making such criteria and standards available for public inspection and to be retained by school board. Singleton v Jackson Municipal Separate School Dist. (CA5 Miss) 419 F2d 1211, revd on other grounds 396 US 290, 24 L Ed 2d 477, 90 S Ct 608, reh den 396 US 1053, 24 L Ed 2d 698, 90 S Ct 705, later app 426 F2d 1364, mod on other grounds 430 F2d 368, later app 432 F2d 927, cert den 402 US 944, 29 L Ed 2d 112, 91 S Ct 1611; Anthony v Marshall County Board of Education (CA5 Miss) 419 F2d 1211; U.S. v Mathews (CA5 Tex) 419 F2d 1211; Stout v Jefferson County Board of Education (CA5 Ala) 419 F2d 1211; Brown v Board of Education (CA5 Ala) 419 F2d 1211; Davis v Board of School Comrs. (CA5 Ala) 419 F2d 1211; Carter v West Feliciana Parish School Board (CA5 La) 419 F2d 1211, vacated on other grounds 396 US 226, 24 L Ed 2d 382, 90 S Ct 467, and revd on other grounds 396 US 290, 24 L Ed 2d 477, 90 S Ct 608, reh den 396 US 1053, 24 L Ed 2d 698, 90 S Ct 705; George v Davis (CA5 La) 419 F2d 1211; Smith v Concordia Parish School Board (CA5 La) 419 F2d 1211; Harris v St. John the Baptist Parish School Board (CA5 La) 419 F2d 1211; Bennett v Evans (CA5 Ga) 419 F2d 1211; Bennett v Burke County Board of Education (CA5 Ga) 419 F2d 1211; Bivins v Bibb County Board of Education (CA5 Ga) 419 F2d 1211; Thomie v Houston County Board of Education (CA5 Ga) 419 F2d 1211; Youngblood v Board of Public Instruction (CA5 Fla) 419 F2d 1211; and Wright v Board of Public Instruction (CA5 Fla) 419 F2d 1211.
Two teachers who had been denied re-employment before school district had adopted objective, nonracial criteria required in Singleton v Jackson Municipal Separate School Dist. (CA5 Miss) 419 F2d 1211, revd on other grounds 396 US 290, 24 L Ed 2d 477, 90 S Ct 608, reh den 396 US 1053, 24 L Ed 2d 698, 90 S Ct 705, and conformed to (CA5) 425 F2d 1211, and later app (CA5 Miss) 426 F2d 1364, mod on other grounds (CA5 Miss) 430 F2d 368, and later app (CA5 Miss) 432 F2d 927, cert den 402 US 944, 29 L Ed 2d 112, 91 S Ct 1611, were entitled to reinstatement, where they had not been discharged for conduct not measuring up to minimum standards of behavior for school teachers. Thompson v Madison County Board of Education (CA5 Miss) 496 F2d 682.
School boards were ordered to assign faculty and staff so that ratio of black to white teachers in each school is substantially same as ratio throughout entire school system. Banks v Claiborne Parish School Board (CA5 La) 425 F2d 1040; Conley v Lake Charles School Board (DC La) 314 F Supp 1282, affd in part and revd in part on other grounds (CA5) 434 F2d 35.
Reiterating its view that proper faculty and staff desegregation standards required assignment of faculty to each individual school on same basis as ratio of Negro to white teachers generally found throughout entire school system, court held that school system whose faculty ratio throughout entire system was 82% white and 18% Negro did not meet standard and would be required to do so before beginning of next school term, where faculty at schools having predominantly white student bodies was still 90% white and 10% Negro, and faculty at schools having predominantly Negro student bodies was 50% white and 50% Negro. Mannings v Board of Public Instruction (CA5 Fla) 427 F2d 874.
Fact that opposition had developed because of school board's efforts to place Negro faculty members on all-white faculties was held not any justification for school board to fail to comply with order requiring substantially same ratio of Negro to white teachers in each school as was found throughout entire system. Mays v Board of Public Instruction (CA5 Fla) 428 F2d 809.
Where faculty and administrative staff of school system were more segregated than schools, school board should assign black and Mexican-American teachers throughout system on same ratio of percentages they comprise of total teacher and staff population, and to move immediately to employ more Mexican-American teachers in school system, toward achievement of ratio of Mexican-American teachers to total faculty that approaches ratio of Mexican-American students to total student population. Cisneros v Corpus Christi Independent School Dist. (CA5 Tex) 467 F2d 142, cert den 413 US 920, 922, 37 L Ed 2d 1041, 1044, 93 S Ct 3053, 3052, reh den 414 US 881, 38 L Ed 2d 129, 94 S Ct 31.
District Court erred in failing to guarantee that person who lost his position of principal by desegregatory consolidation when school board unjustifiably refused to tender principalship to him on racial grounds be placed in position monetarily equivalent to that which he would have held but for racial discrimination practiced against him. Miller v Board of Education (CA5 Ala) 482 F2d 1234.
Black teacher dismissed after school board had submitted to court objective criteria to cover faculty reduction and dismissals for cause but before approval of such criteria by District Court should be reinstated, even though school board complied with state law on tenure procedures. Smith v Concordia Parish School Board (CA5 La) 493 F2d 8, cert den 420 US 907, 42 L Ed 2d 836, 95 S Ct 824, and on remand (DC La) 387 F Supp 887.
Before court accepts desegregation plan proposed by school board, it must pass upon propriety of plan's criteria for recruiting, hiring, and assignment of faculty, and court must not merely require board to submit semiannual progress reports regarding such criteria as applied to minority faculty. Arvizu v Waco Independent School Dist. (CA5 Tex) 495 F2d 499, reh den (CA5 Tex) 496 F2d 1309.
Seven black teachers who were dismissed while school district was in process of desegregation should have been terminated on basis of objective criteria, where dismissals were made in anticipation of reduction of faculty necessitated by desegregation process but which reduction did not take place; in any event, based on objective standards, there was no just cause for dismissal of 3 of teachers, and another teacher's case was remanded for further determination of her fitness. United States v Coffeeville Consol. School Dist. (CA5 Miss) 513 F2d 244.
Occupational orientation position offered to black teacher who had been unlawfully dismissed in course of integration of dual school system, was equivalent to home economics position she had held for 14 years prior to her dismissal so that school board was in compliance with Court of Appeal's earlier order which required that teacher be reinstated in her previous position or an equivalent one; teacher's failure to respond to school district's ultimatum that she continue to teach occupational orientation on provisional basis was not abdication of teacher's right to reinstatement. McLaurin v Columbia Municipal Separate School Dist. (CA5 Miss) 530 F2d 661.
Race or color cannot be factor in hiring, assignment, reassignment, promotion, demotion, or dismissal of teachers and other professional staff members, including student teachers, except that race may be taken into account for purpose of counteracting or correcting effect of segregated assignment of faculty and staff in dual system, and wherever possible, teachers shall be assigned so that more than one teacher of minority race shall be on each desegregated faculty. Graves v. Walton County Bd. of Ed., 300 F. Supp. 188 (M.D. Ga. 1968), judgment aff'd, 410 F.2d 1152 (5th Cir. 1969) and judgment aff'd, 410 F.2d 1153 (5th Cir. 1969).
Where school system had 36 Negro and 32 white teachers, and only one whiite teacher was assigned to school faculty where teacher's race was in minority, court held plan calling for only token integration of faculty as failing to meet constitutional standards and to be legally unacceptable. U.S. v. Board of Ed. of Lincoln County, 301 F. Supp. 1024 (S.D. Ga. 1969).
Where, during past school year there were 20 Negro teachers in white schools and 33 white teachers in Negro schools out of total of 1,779 teachers and approximately 36,000 students, court directed that approximately 25 white teachers and 15 Negro teachers be transferred to schools in which they were in racial minority, and that additional faculty integration be accomplished during 1970-71 school year. Acree v. County Bd. of Ed. of Richmond County, 301 F. Supp. 1285 (S.D. Ga. 1969).
Where urban school system operating 116 schools having more than 112,000 students had integrated faculty to extent where all schools except 3 had one or more white teachers, but where 42 schools still had no black teachers, court approved board plan for coming school year for desegregating instructional staffs in every school in approximately same white-to-black ratio that school system as a whole had, so that each elementary school would have instructional staff composed of 25 percent black and 75 percent white teachers, and secondary school faculties would be composed of 20 percent black and 80 percent white teachers. Allen v. Board of Public Instruction of Broward County, Fla., 312 F. Supp. 1127 (S.D. Fla. 1970), order aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 432 F.2d 362 (5th Cir. 1970).
Fifth Circuit's Singleton decision, adopting specified standards to ensure that any reduction in personnel or demotion resulting from desegregation of school districts and establishment of unitary school system does not operate to exclude or otherwise discriminate against blacks, was not violated by assignment of former black high school guidance counselor to teach high school occupational orientation class in that assignment differed from plaintiff's past counseling experience only to extent that it involved counseling groups of students as opposed to individuals; later assignment to position as career awareness counselor, and school district's subsequent offer of elementary counseling position, likewise did not constitute violation of Singleton requirements since both positions were essentially equivalent to plaintiff's past work as counselor. Real gist of demotion within meaning of Singleton is reduction in responsibility, which was not shown by plaintiff whose reassignments did not otherwise result in payment of lower wages or require lesser degree of skill. Jones v Birdsong (1980, ND Miss) 530 F Supp 221, affd (CA5 Miss) 679 F2d 24, 29 CCH EPD P 32699, 34 FR Serv 2d 234, reh den (CA5 Miss) 683 F2d 417.
In implementing aspect of school desegregation plan relating to maintenance of ratio of black to white teachers, school district employed objective criteria in hiring teachers, with race playing no part in process, slight decrease in percentage of black teachers over 4-year period not being caused by discriminatory hiring practices. George v Davis (DC La) 365 F Supp 446, affd without op (CA5 La) 493 F2d 663, reh den (CA5 La) 494 F2d 1296.
Where requirements in Singleton decision had been satisfied, school district and its officials possessed discretionary right of local school authorities in Mississippi to supervise conduct of their teachers and to refuse to renew their contracts. Pickens v Okolona Municipal Separate School Dist. (DC Miss) 380 F Supp 1036, affd (CA5 Miss) 527 F2d 358.
As of time that black teachers were demoted and subsequently not rehired, school district was operating within mandate of Singleton Decision, and such teachers should be reinstated since racial prejudice may have entered into decision not to rehire them. Wright v Houston Independent School Dist. (DC Tex) 393 F Supp 1149.

 [*14]      Eighth Circuit cases
Although the Eighth Circuit cases involving particular plans or orders for the elimination of racial discrimination in the hiring, retention, or assignment of schoolteachers have shown some tendency toward an increasing use of timetables and involuntary transfers, particularly where progress toward school faculty desegregation has been slow or nonexistent, the courts in those cases have consistently refused to impose specific quotas, ratios, or mathematical formulas.
Stressing that a school board had already made significant progress toward faculty desegregation (52 teachers already teaching in minority situations), the court in Clark v Board of Education (1966, CA8 Ark) 369 F2d 661, reh den 374 F2d 569, decided that the imposition of a set timetable with fixed mathematical requirements was not presently necessary, even though "the desegregation of the teaching staff should have begun many years ago." On the other hand, the court refused "at this late date" to approve a desegregation plan containing only a statement of general good intention. Accordingly, the court ordered the board to take accelerated and positive action to end discriminatory practices in staff assignment and recruitment. Specifically, the court ordered that (1) future employment, assignment, transfer, and discharge of teachers should be free from racial consideration; (2) should the desegregation process cause the closing of schools employing individuals predominantly of one race, the displaced personnel should, at the very minimum, be absorbed into vacancies appearing in the system; (3) whenever possible, requests of individual staff members to transfer into minority situations should be honored by the board; and (4) the board should make all additional positive commitments necessary to bring about some measure of racial balance in the staff of the individual schools in the very near future. Recognizing the difficulties involved in the reassignment of long-time members of the staff who had established close working relationships with the rest of the school's faculty, and who, perhaps, had established homes near their place of work, the court nevertheless pointed out that the attrition of retirements and resignations would afford ample opportunity for recognizing the rights of current staff members to continued employment. The court warned, however, that if the board failed to discharge its duty to bring about, in a reasonable manner of its choosing, a final end to unlawful discrimination, the courts would have no choice but to impose further demands to insure at last to the community the individual, personal, constitutional rights to which it had been long entitled but too long denied. The hour for the luxury of flexibility, the court said, is about over.
The court in Kelley v Altheimer, Arkansas Public School Dist. (1967, CA8 Ark) 378 F2d 483, quoted from an opinion in another case to the effect that the presence of all Negro teachers in a school attended in the past solely by Negro pupils denotes that school a "colored school" just as certainly as if the words were printed across its entrance in 6-inch letters, and added that the converse is also true, namely, that an all-white faculty in a school attended in the past exclusively by whites denotes that school as a "white school." Noting that in the more than 12 years since the Supreme Court decided Brown v Board of Education (1954) 347 US 483, 98 L Ed 873, 74 S Ct 686, 38 ALR2d 1180, supp op 349 US 294, 99 L Ed 1083, 75 S Ct 753, the school board had had numerous opportunities to desegregate the faculty when hiring and assigning new teachers, but that instead of doing so, it had continued to hire and assign on the basis of race, the court concluded that the failure of the board to take any steps toward desegregation of the faculty, and the statement of the superintendent of schools that he did not intend to reassign faculty members within the school system, made it highly probable that faculties would not be desegregated unless such action was compelled by the court or by the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Recognizing that faculty desegregation might well be the most difficult problem in the desegregation process, the court added that it could not permit the difficulties involved in desegregating the faculties to deter it from achieving what the Constitution requires, and urged that the full understanding and cooperation of the Negro and white faculty members be sought. The court ordered the faculty to be completely desegregated no later than the beginning of the 1969-1970 school year, to which end the court ordered (1) that vacancies at the formerly all-white school would, when possible, be filled by the employment of qualified and competent Negro classroom teachers, and, at the formerly all-Negro school, by the employment of qualified and competent white classroom teachers; (2) that immediate steps would be taken by the school district to encourage full-time white faculty members to transfer from the white to the Negro school, and full-time Negro faculty members from the Negro to the white school, and, if sufficient volunteers were not forthcoming, the district should assign a significant number of Negro teachers to the white school for the year 1967-1968, and a larger number for the 1968-1969 school year, and also assign additional white classroom teachers to the Negro school for each of the above years; and (3) that should the desegregation process result in the closing of either school or the shutting down of a particular grade in either school, displaced personnel should, at the minimum, be absorbed in vacancies appearing in the system.
Although announcing that an acceptable faculty desegregation plan had to embrace positive measures to be accomplished over a limited time and that hiring and assignment of teachers on a segregated basis had to cease, the court in Yarbrough v Hulbert-West Memphis School Dist. (1967, CA8 Ark) 380 F2d 962, declined to lay down any mathematical formula or fixed time schedule, even though the record showed that the faculty and staff of the defendant school district, with a few exceptions, remained segregated. The court emphasized that it had confidence in the district judge's discretion and sense of constitutional obligation and in the school board's willingness, under the guidance of able and experienced counsel, to comply with constitutional dictates; that a declaration of intent to desegregate faculty and staff had been adopted as a matter of school district policy and by way of positive pledge; and that applicants for employment in the school system were presently subject to assignment without regard to race. If this confidence in court, board, and counsel proves to be misplaced, the court added, this court will be available for more specific direction.
A school district desegregation plan provision that race or color should not be a factor in the hiring, assignment, reassignment, salary, promotion, demotion, or dismissal of teachers and other staff members, was held deficient because it expressed no commitment to correcting the present racial imbalance in the school faculties, in Kemp v Beasley (1968, CA8 Ark) 389 F2d 178. Although recognizing that faculty selection had to remain for the broad and sensitive expertise of the school board and its officials, the court declared that refusal to transfer or assign white staff to minority schools or Negro staff to majority classrooms could not be justified on the argument that educational standards would thereby be lowered. Any teacher qualified to teach white children, the court reasoned, ought to be competent to teach Negroes, and vice versa. Expressing the view that numerical quotas or percentages, although appealing for their simplicity, lack that equitable flexibility which is still needed for a selective distribution of qualified teachers for particular faculty roles, the court nevertheless stated that a faculty desegregation plan should not only specify a positive commitment to a reasonable program, but should embody the steps to be carried out and the time schedule to be followed in doing so. Describing as "token" the faculty desegregation which had already occurred in the district (2.4 percent of the school system's white faculty assigned to three of the seven minority schools), the court commented that transitional periods for gradual integration of grades and faculty were no longer meaningful excuses for school boards ordered to get on with their task of equal education for all. When the predominant race of the students attending a particular school continues to serve as the predicate for the board assignment of a teacher, the court said, then equal opportunity is denied.
A school district desegregation plan provision that vacancies on the teaching and professional staff should be filled by employment of the best-qualified available applicant without regard to race was held "wholly inadequate" as lacking any affirmative provisions calculated to bring about some measure of racial balance in the faculty and professional staffs of the district schools, in Jackson v Marvell School Dist. (1968, CA8 Ark) 389 F2d 740. Accordingly, the court ordered the school board to take affirmative action to encourage voluntary transfers from majority to minority staff situations and to assign members of the faculty and staff from one school to another.
Court approved plan of faculty integration submitted by school district employing 79 Negro teachers out of total of 315 teachers, which plan called for assignment of at least 3 and no more than 13 Negro teachers at each of 15 schools operated by school district. Kemp v Beasley (CA8 Ark) 423 F2d 851.
Court of Appeals for Eighth Circuit approved Little Rock school district's plan, whereby, in school district employing 29 percent Negro and 71 percent white teachers, each school under faculty desegregation plan would have from 14 percent to 50 percent Negro teachers, court noting that one means of correcting discriminatory teacher assignments was to assign teachers so that ratio of Negro teachers to white teachers in each school approximates ratio for district as a whole, and further noting that plan as implemented had corrected exaggerated racial imbalance of teachers in system. Clark v Board of Education (CA8 Ark) 426 F2d 1035, cert den 402 US 952, 29 L Ed 2d 122, 91 S Ct 1608.
Where record showed that faculty of school district consisted of 70% white and 30% black teachers, and appellee school board had stated that it was committed to providing desegregated faculty which would be no less than 18% nor more than 45% black at each school in district, Court of Appeals held District Court's modification of board's plan to be inappropriate, and ordered it set aside, where appellant did not dispute constitutional validity of school board's plan. Clark v Board of Education (CA8 Ark) 465 F2d 1044, cert den 413 US 923, 37 L Ed 2d 1044, 93 S Ct 3054.
Under Singleton decision's guidelines for protecting school staff members who are dismissed or demoted as consequence of desegregation process, touchstone in demotion inquiry is whether reduction in responsibility has occurred and trial court must weigh responsibilities actually held by plaintiff in previous position vis-a-vis responsibilities borne in position that is alleged to constitute demotion; accordingly, transfers of former high school principal and former junior high school principal to new positions in reorganized expanded school district as assistant high school principal and assistant junior high school principal, respectively, did not violate Singleton guidelines where both transfers in effect were to jobs of equal responsibility. MacDonald v Ferguson Reorganized School Dist. (1981, ED Mo) 530 F Supp 469.
See Little Rock School Dist. v Pulaski County Special School Dist. (1987, ED Ark) 663 F Supp 1557,  §  11 .
Where school district's faculty consisted of 577 teachers, 435 of whom were white and 142 of whom were Negro, and where desegregation had proceeded to point where 43 Negro teachers were assigned to white schools and 16 white teachers were assigned to Negro schools, and where there were at least some white teachers in all-Negro schools and some Negro teachers in all-white schools, court nevertheless held plan submitted for faculty desegregation insufficient, saying that it amounted to nothing but pledge that district would refrain from racial discrimination in hiring and assignment of teachers, and ordered board to proceed forthwith to put more Negro teachers into white schools and more white teachers into Negro schools and to continue process until integration of faculty was complete. Graves v Board of Education (DC Ark) 299 F Supp 843.
Where superintendent of school district testified that district would achieve complete faculty desegregation "when it could find out what that is," court, looking to future, implied that eventual goal should be that faculty of each school should be approximately 25 percent to 31 percent Negro; but for current school year, noting that very substantial progress had been made during past year and that each junior and senior high school would have not less than 15 percent nor more than 85 percent Negro faculty members, and that each elementary school would have not less than 25 percent nor more than 75 percent Negro faculty members, court approved school board's plan, stating, however, that additional progress would have to be made. Graves v Board of Education (DC Ark) 302 F Supp 136.
For other cases from the court of appeals for Eighth Circuit, reaching substantially similar results, see:
 
Eighth Circuit-
 
Christian v Board of Education (CA8 Ark) 440 F2d 608.
Moore v Board of Education (CA8 Ark) 448 F2d 709.
Clark v Board of Education (CA8 Ark) 449 F2d 493, cert den 405 US 936, 30 L Ed 2d 812, 92 S Ct 954.
Davis v Board of Education (CA8 Ark) 449 F2d 500, affirmed, Davis v Board of Education (1980, CA8 Ark) 635 F2d 730, cert den Board of Education v Davis (1981) 454 US 904, 70 L Ed 2d 223, 102 S Ct 413 and on remand Davis v Board of Education (1981, ED Ark) 520 F Supp 108, affd Davis v Board of Education (1982, CA8 Ark) 674 F2d 684, cert den Board of Education v Davis (1982, US) 74 L Ed 2d 146, 103 S Ct 178.
Cato v Parham (DC Ark) 316 F Supp 678.
Booker v Special School Dist. (DC Minn) 351 F Supp 799.

 [*15]      Cases from other circuits
The few cases from federal circuits other than the Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth, involving particular plans or orders for the elimination of racial discrimination in the hiring, retention, or assignment of schoolteachers, have revealed the courts' willingness to require quotas, timetables, and involuntary transfers.
In school desegregation case, federal court could not properly impose multidistrict, areawide remedy to single district de jure segregation problem, unless unconstitutional racially discriminatory acts of other districts had caused interdistrict segregation or district lines were deliberately drawn on racial basis; remedy must be limited to city school district even though desegregation of only city schools would not reflect racial composition of metropolitan area, since record established de jure segregation in city schools only and did not establish significant constitutional violations by suburban school districts, since metropolitan remedy might seriously disrupt state's structure of public education involving large measure of local control and would give rise to problems as to large-scale busing of students, financing, and administration, and since there was no showing that state or any of suburban districts engaged in activity having cross-district, segregative effect. Milliken v Bradley, 418 US 717, 41 L Ed 1069 41, 94 S Ct 3112, on remand (ED Mich) 402 F Supp 1096, later op (DC Mich) 411 943 F Supp affd, cause remanded (CA6 Mich) 540 F 2d 229, affd 433 US 267, 53 L Ed 2d 745, 97 S Ct 2749 and on remand (ED Mich) 460 F Supp 299, remanded on other grounds (CA6 Mich) 620 F 2d 1143, cert den 499 US 870, 66 L Ed 2d 89, 101 S Ct 207.
A Federal Court of Appeals properly finds to be clearly erroneous on the undisputed facts, a Federal District Court's finding, in a school desegregation case brought in 1972, that a school board's post-1951 policy of "dynamic gradualism"--whereby black teachers were assigned to white or mixed schools when the surrounding communities were ready to accept black teachers, and white teachers who agreed were assigned to black schools, so that by 1969 each school in the board's system had at least one black teacher--did not constitute purposeful discrimination, where as late as the 1968-1969 school year, the school board had assigned 72% of all black teachers to schools that were 90% or more black, and only 9% of white teachers to such schools, and where faculty segregation in schools in the system had disappeared completely only after efforts had been taken in such regard by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare under federal civil rights legislation. Dayton Board of Education v Brinkman, 443 US 526, 61 S Ct 720, 99 S Ct 2971, reh den 444 US 887, 62 L Ed 2d 121, 100 S Ct 186.
District Court did not abuse its discretion by order requiring school officials to hire one black teacher for each white teacher hired until percentage of black teachers in district was 20 percent, figure selected by District Court as representing approximately percentage of blacks in total city population; "catch-up" provision regarding provisional teachers which, at most, would result in half provisional teachers being black, was within discretion of District Court. Morgan v Kerrigan (1976, CA1 Mass) 530 F2d 431, 14 BNA FEP Cas 312, 11 CCH EPD P 10636, cert den 426 US 935, 49 L Ed 2d 386, 96 S Ct 2648, 96 S Ct 2649, 24 BNA FEP Cas 1515, 12 CCH EPD P 10977, reh den 429 US 873, 50 L Ed 2d 156, 97 S Ct 193 and reh den 429 US 1125, 51 L Ed 2d 577, 97 S Ct 1166, later proceeding (DC Mass) 612 F Supp 1060, 38 BNA FEP Cas 481, 38 CCH EPD P 35550, later proceeding (DC Mass) 617 F Supp 1316, 38 CCH EPD P 35551, later proceeding (DC Mass) 620 F Supp 214, affd (CA1 Mass) 831 F2d 313, 94 ALR Fed 629.
District Court's remedial plan was largely acceptable, including imposition of "one-to-one" hiring goals and instruction to board of education to delay making probationary appointment in areas in which insufficient numbers of qualified minority candidates were available, even though goals had effect of delaying appointment of some majority candidates on eligibility lists and prevented certain long-term "temporary" teachers from being rehired. Arthur v Nyquist (1983, CA2 NY) 712 F2d 816, 32 BNA FEP Cas 822, 32 CCH EPD P 33737, cert den (US) 80 L Ed 2d 456, 104 S Ct 1907, 33 CCH EPD P 34289 and cert den (US) 82 L Ed 2d 856, 104 S Ct 3555, 34 BNA FEP Cas 1887, 34 CCH EPD P 34447.
School district's teacher reassignment program to designed maintain faculty ratio at each school of between 75 percent and 125 percent of system-wide proportion of white and black teachers at that school's level in public school system whereby teachers were transferred to keep school within range, did not violate equal protection clause of Fourteenth Amendment where, notwithstanding fact that school district was no longer under federal compulsion to eliminate de facto segregation, policy was remedial as vital part of effort to achieve unitary school system, where school district was competent to choose race-conscious teacher assignment policy to further educational goals, and where impact of policy did not fall more heavily on one race than another and did not impose great risk of stigmatizing or stereo typing racial group or reinforcing racist views, and was flexible; program did not violate 42 U.S.C.A. §  2000e-2(a) since policy did not constitute per se violation, since, even if there was disparate treatment of races, which was questionable, clearly remedial intent of policy vitiated disparate claim, since plan achieved faculty integration without overtly preferring one race over another, or creating racial impediment to advancement, or depriving employees of attaining rank, and since effect of past societal discrimination had not yet been undone. Kromnick v School Dist. (1984, CA3 Pa) 739 F2d 894, 35 BNA FEP Cas 538, 34 CCH EPD P 34525, cert den 469 US 1107, 83 L Ed 2d 777, 105 S Ct 782, 36 BNA FEP Cas 976, 35 CCH EPD P 34854.
Where court had no figures in record to indicate whether there was substantial disparity in racial makeup of existing faculty staffs and had no evidence of violations by present school boards, except some hint that there were presently actions by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission pending in this regard, court had no record upon which to determine scope of any alleged violation, and no basis upon which to order affirmative action plan with regard to hiring and assignment of faculty in desegregated fashion. Evans v Buchanan (DC Del) 416 F Supp 328, app dismd 429 US 973, 50 L Ed 2d 579, 97 S Ct 475, 97 S Ct 476 and affd on other grounds (CA3 Del) 555 F2d 373, cert den 434 US 880, 54 L Ed 2d 160, 98 S Ct 235, 98 S Ct 236, reh den 434 US 944, 54 L Ed 2d 306, 98 S Ct 442, 98 S Ct 443.
The formula announced by the district judge, leaving the decision of integration of the faculties to the voluntary choice of the teachers, does not obey current judicial commands, the court held in Monroe v Board of Comrs. (1967, CA6 Tenn) 380 F2d 955, vacated on other grounds 391 US 450, 20 L Ed 2d 733, 88 S Ct 1700, remanding the case for reconsideration of the matter of faculty desegregation upon a further evidentiary hearing. In some affirmative way, the court said, school boards must act to correct past discriminatory practices in the assignment of teachers.
In system where schools which had formerly been "white" schools still had all-white faculty and those which had been "Negro" schools still had all-Negro faculty, court affirmed District Court's order to school board to employ, promote, and assign faculty and other personnel "in furtherance of a goal of removing the former racial identity of a school." Monroe v Board of Comrs. (CA6 Tenn) 427 F2d 1005.
District Court's order requiring reassignment of teachers in school system to achieve distribution of not more than 70 percent of teachers of one race in each school, although it was equitable remedy within court's authority, was vacated and remanded for hearing of evidence on issue of faculty assignment. Bradley v Milliken (CA6 Mich) 540 F2d 229, affd 433 US 267, 53 L Ed 2d L Ed 2d, 97 S Ct 2749 and on remand (ED Mich) 460 F Supp 299, remanded (CA6 Mich) 620 F2d 1143, cert den (US) 66 L Ed 2d 89, 101 S Ct 207.
School district which was experiencing financial crisis and had to lay off approximately 128 teachers, good proportion of whom would be blacks who were hired so that teachers from minority races might be more fairly represented in schools, would be required to first recall all black tenured teachers who were laid off and to insure that board of education maintained upward thrust toward court-ordered goal of 20% black staff; then all future recalls would be based on seniority, so long as at least 20% of all recalls in any one year are filled by black employees; furthermore if school district should ever reach point where only teachers left in recall pool were either non-black or blacks who are not certified for available jobs, then it must recall no more than 80% nonblack while hiring, so as to achieve 20% black and after all laid off teachers have been recalled district should hire new black teachers at annual rate of at least 20% which should continue until its teaching staff rises to 20% black. Oliver v Kalamazoo Board of Education (1980, WD Mich) 498 F Supp 732, 23 BNA FEP Cas 1677.
Constitutionality of provisions of public school teachers' collective bargaining agreement that established goal of attaining same percentage of minority racial representation on teaching staffs as that in student population of school district, and that prohibited layoff of greater percentage of minority personnel than that employed at time of any reduction in staff, would be upheld, since no judicial finding of actual past discrimination by school district was required under Title VII before school district could adopt affirmative action plan, plan adopted was justified by fact that minority teachers were "substantially" and "chronically" underrepresented on school district faculty in years preceding adoption of plan, and layoff provisions of plan were substantially related to constitutional objective of correcting such underrepresentation, in that plan was designed to either retain sufficient numbers of minority teachers so that racial composition of school district faculty would roughly approximate that of student body or to prevent reduction in minority to majority ratio, provisions were temporary measure subject to change whenever contract was renegotiated, layoff provisions neither required retention of unqualified teachers nor required layoff of all white teachers, plan neither ousted white teachers and replaced them with new minority hires nor absolutely barred laid off white teachers from ever again working for school district, and contract was collectively bargained for and voluntarily adopted by teachers union, majority membership of which was white. Wygant v Jackson Bd. of Education (1982, ED Mich) 546 F Supp 1195, 29 BNA FEP Cas 1359, 30 CCH EPD P 33199.
School district ordered to present plan to court for integration of faculties and administrators at all levels in system, where it was shown that, in spite of statements of policy indicating school district favored faculty integration in system, fact remained that most white teachers were assigned to predominately white schools and most black teachers were assigned to predominantly black schools, and that, as example, one school, having 605 white students out of total of 608 students, had no black teachers. Davis v School Dist. Inc. (DC Mich) 309 F Supp 734, affd (CA6) 443 F2d 573, cert den 404 US 913, 30 L Ed 2d 186, 92 S Ct 233 and later app (CA6 Mich) 474 F2d 46, later app (CA6 Mich) 487 F2d 890.
Where court had previously ordered that faculty be integrated in each school in school system in same ratio of black to white teachers as was found in system as a whole, allowing for tolerance of 10 percent, court modified order where it became evident that faculty integration in secondary schools had presented special problems due to dearth of Negro teachers who were qualified in certain disciplines, to extent that, while court continued prior order in effect with respect to integration of elementary school teachers, with respect to secondary school teachers court required generally that such teachers be employed and discharged without consideration of race and that to extent feasible, in light of qualifications of teachers and need for teachers of particular qualifications in each school, secondary school teachers should be assigned and transferred so that ratio of white to Negro teachers in each school would be, within tolerance of 10 percent, same as in system as a whole. Robinson v Shelby County Board of Education (DC Tenn) 311 F Supp 97, remanded on other grounds (CA6) 442 F2d 255.
Where 43 percent of city school system's faculty were Negro and 57 percent were white, and where school system had assigned 21 percent of all teachers to schools where they were in racial minority, court decided that because of problems peculiar to school system, it would not prescribe definite ratio to be assigned during coming year, but did direct school system to seek outside assistance in developing and executing more effective plan of faculty desegregation and to eliminate policy that in no school in system would teachers in racial minority exceed 35 percent of that school's total faculty. Northcross v Board of Education (DC Tenn) 312 F Supp 1150, remanded on other grounds (CA6) 444 F2d 1179.
Where, in metropolitan school system, 156 black teachers were employed in 75 predominantly white schools, while in 20 predominantly black schools, 292 black teachers were employed, and where on the average in such 95 schools, only 2 black teachers were employed by each predominantly white school, while 14 were employed by each predominantly black school, court held that white schools all had faculties which were tailored for white students, while black schools had faculties tailored for black pupils, and consequently, court concluded that faculties had to be fully integrated so that ratio of black and white faculty members in each school should be approximately same as ratio of black to white teachers in system as a whole, court saying that goal could be accomplished by utilizing appropriate teacher transfer and assignment policies to produce schools with faculties so constituted that on basis of racial composition of faculty, it would be impossible to identify any school as being tailored for students of any particular race. Kelley v Metropolitan County Board of Education (DC Tenn) 317 F Supp 980.
Where defendants' plan for desegregation of faculty and other staff in city school system provided for assignment of teachers and staff to each school in same ratio as their existence within system and in manner so as to avoid any racial identification of any school, and where plan contained other provisions to avoid racial discrimination in recruitment, assignment, reassignment, promotion, and demotion of teachers and staff, court refused to impose further restrictions, saying that school system that had voluntarily placed black staff member in charge of teacher recruitment and assignment needed no court-imposed restrictions on potential forms of faculty discrimination which court record clearly showed were not and had not ever been practiced within school system since its desegregation under prior orders of court. Mapp v Board of Education (DC Tenn) 329 F Supp 1374, supp op (DC Tenn) 341 F Supp 193, affd (CA6 Tenn) 477 F2d 851, cert den 414 US 1022, 38 L Ed 2d 313, 94 S Ct 445, 446.
District Court will order city school board to submit appropriate plan for reassignment of teachers to achieve distribution of not more than 60 percent of teachers of one race in each school; in preparing faculty reassignment plan city board must seek to achieve as far as possible percentage distribution required by order and, in achieving that goal, deviations may be made from court's guidelines provided in such order on condition that city board state in its plan why and how other guidelines could not be satisfied. Bradley v Milliken (ED Mich) 460 F Supp 322.
Finding that the present racial identifiability of the schools in the defendant school district had resulted from a deliberate decision by the district's officers and their predecessors in office to assign teachers to schools on the basis of race, the court in United States v School Dist. (1968, DC Ill) 286 F Supp 786, affd (CA7) 404 F2d 1125, held that the policy and practice violated the Fourteenth Amendment, and ordered that the district officers forthwith begin filling vacancies and assigning teachers to positions in schools where their race was in the minority. The court set up as an ultimate objective to be fully accomplished by the commencement of the 1969--1970 school year that the pattern of teacher assignment to any particular school not be identified as tailored for a heavy concentration of either Negro or white pupils. As an intermediate objective for the commencement of the 1968--1969 school year, the court ordered the achievement of not less than 50 percent of the ultimate objective, measured by the number of minority-race teachers in each school. The court further directed that the interim and ultimate objectives be achieved, where possible, by new hiring and voluntary transfers, but that if those measures did not produce adequate numbers of teachers to satisfy the objectives, additional teachers should be reassigned as needed.
Where court found that policy and practice of school board and its predecessors was to assign faculty and staff on basis of race, court ordered school board to allocate faculty and staff so that no school was identifiable by racial composition of its faculty as being tailored for heavy concentration of either Negro or white students, and said that such objective would be achieved when racial composition at each school was approximately proportional to racial composition of system's entire faculty and staff at same level or grades, court commenting further that responsibility for desegregation was on school board and not on teachers, and could not be met by relying upon willingness of teachers voluntarily to transfer from present schools. U. S. v School Dist. (DC Ill) 301 F Supp 201, mod on other grounds (CA7) 432 F2d 1147, cert den 402 US 943, 29 L Ed 2d 111, 91 S Ct 1610.
Although school board showed sincere concern and good will in solving problems posed by segregation of school system, as shown by, among others, implementation of policy of increasing minorities on teaching staffs, school board's voluntary plan for desegregation was not practical and would not effectively solve instant controversy, board being thus required to present acceptable program which would eliminate minority isolation in its schools. Quality Education For All Children, Inc. v School Board (DC Ill) 362 F Supp 985.
All faculty vacancies were ordered to be filled with reference to seniority unless transfer would not help to promote in faculty of school in which vacancy existed, racial percentage within 5 percent of percentage of black teachers within entire school system but if racial composition of excess teachers and teachers returning from leave precluded adherence to foregoing procedure, then such teachers were to be placed according to pre-existing practice. Armstrong v O'Connell (DC Wis) 416 F Supp 1344.
District Court concluded that existence of almost total segregation of races in elementary schools in Nevada school district, coupled with fact that composition of teaching staffs of certain schools were almost completely black, established prima facie case of violation of substantive constitutional rights, requiring assignment of faculty members without regard to race and in such manner that no school could be identified as primarily for one race or the other, court saying that faculty desegregation is important goal in basic task of achieving school system wholly free from racial discrimination. Kelly v Guinn (CA9 Nev) 456 F2d 100, cert den 413 US 919, 37 L Ed 2d 1041, 93 S Ct 3048.
Court found school board guilty of deliberate discrimination, and stated that its duty was to allocate faculty and professional staff members so that no school was identifiable by racial composition of its faculty as being tailored for heavy concentration of black or white students where, inter alia, there had never been a black teacher, administrator, or other certificated employee assigned to 5 of district's elementary schools, even though 30 percent of district's students were black. Spangler v Pasadena City Board of Education (DC Cal) 311 F Supp 501.
An order to desegregate all faculty personnel so that by 1970 the faculty ratio of white to nonwhite in each school would be the same as the faculty ratio of white to nonwhite in the entire school system, subject to a reasonable tolerance of approximately 10 percent, was held a necessary initial step in the effort to cure the evil of racial segregation in the school system, in Board of Education v Dowell (1967, CA10 Okla) 375 F 2d 158, cert den 387 US 931, 18 L Ed 2d 993, 87 S Ct 2054, where the court found that little or nothing had been done during the 6-year period between 1955 and the filing of the case to integrate the staffs of schools that were all white or all nonwhite.
Where, in prior school year, 39 of 59 predominantly white elementary schools had no Negro teachers and an additional 10 schools had but 1 Negro teacher, and 16 predominantly white junior schools and 8 of 9 predominantly white senior high schools had either no Negro faculty member or a single Negro teacher, court ordered original plan of school district calling for faculty desegragation, whereby faculty of each school in system would be 11% Negro and 89% white, reinstated rather than more flexible plan approved by District Court, calling for each predominantly Negro school to have one-third white faculty and remaining black teachers to be equitably distributed among predominantly white shcools. U. S. v Board of Education (CA10 Okla) 429 F2d 1253, later app (CA10 Okla) 459 F2d 720, vacated on other grounds 413 US 916, 37 L Ed 2d 1038, 93 S Ct 3048, conformed to (CA10 Okla) 492 F2d 1189 (District Court ordered to vacate judgment and, after hearing on present conditions, to render judgment accordingly).
For cases from other Courts of Appeals in other circuits, ordering integration of school faculties in substantially same terms, see:
 
Fourth Circuit-
 
Bradley v School Board of Richmond (DC Va) 325 F Supp 828.
 
Seventh Circuit--
 
Burns v Board of School Comrs. (DC Ind) 302 F Supp 309, affd (CA7) 437 F2d 1143.
 
Ninth Circuit--
 
Johnson v San Francisco Unified School Dist. (DC Cal) 339 F Supp 1315 vacated on other grounds (CA9 Cal) 500 F2d 349. 

FOOTNOTES 
 n1  The question under discussion has arisen in state courts as well. For such a case, see Londerholm v Unified School Dist. (1967) 199 Kan 312, 430 P2d 188. 
 n2  This annotation is limited to a discussion of policies or actions discriminating, or allegedly discriminating, against a teacher because of the teacher's race, and questions arising from, or dealing with, discrimination, whether statutory or otherwise, merely on the basis of the individual's membership in, or association with, organizations or groups of whatever kind, present distinct problems, as do cases concerning the employment or discharge of teachers because of their activities, such as participation in demonstrations or protests against segregation. 
 n3  The only kind of assignment that is within the scope of this annotation is assignment to particular schools. Thus cases involving assignment of particular teaching duties within a school are excluded. 
 n4  Monroe v Board of Comrs. (1967, CA6 Tenn) 380 F2d 955, vacated on other grounds 391 US 450, 20 L Ed 733, 88 S Ct 1700. 
 n5   § §  3 , infra. 
 n6  See 15 Am Jur 2d, Civil Rights, §  57. 
 n7   § §  3  4 , infra. 
 n8   §  3[a] , infra. 
 n9   §  3[b] , infra. 
 n10   §  4[a] , infra. 
 n11   §  4[b] , infra. 
 n12   § §  5 , infra. 
 n13   §  5 , infra. 
 n14   §  6[a] , infra. 
 n15   §  6[b] , infra. 
 n16   §  7 , infra. 
 n17   § §  8 , infra. 
 n18   § §  8 , infra. 
 n19   §  8 , infra. 
 n20   §  9 , infra. 
 n21   §  10 , infra. 
 n22   §  11 , infra. 
 n23   § §  12 , infra. 
 n24   §  12 , infra. 
 n25   §  13 , infra. 
 n26   §  14 , infra. 
 n27   §  15 , infra. 
 n28  See 
22 Am Jur Proofs of Facts 563, Dismissal of Teachers for Cause. 
 n29  For a good example of a proper equitable remedy, fashioned in detail to fit the circumstances of the particular case, see Smith v Board of Education (1966, CA8 Ark) 365 F2d 770, infra  §  6[a] . 
 n30  Wall v Stanly County Board of Education (1967, CA4 NC) 378 F2d 275; North Carolina Teachers Asso. v Asheboro City Board of Education (1968, CA4 NC) 393 F2d 736, 3 ALR Fed 299. 
 n31  Wall v Stanly County Board of Education (1967, CA4 NC) 378 F2d 275. See generally the annotation in 22 ALR3d 1047 entitled "Elements and measure of damages in action by schoolteacher for wrongful discharge." 
 n32  Clark v Board of Education (1966, CA8 Ark) 369 F2d 661, reh den 374 F2d 569. 
 n33   § §  12 , infra. 
 n34   §  6 , infra. 
 n35  Clark v Board of Education (1966, CA8 Ark) 369 F2d 661, reh den 374 F2d 569. 
 n36  Rogers v Paul (1965) 382 US 198, 15 L Ed 265, 86 S Ct 358. 
 n37  Yarbrough v Hulbert-West Memphis School Dist. (1967, CA8 Ark) 380 F2d 962. 
 n38  Rogers v Paul (1965) 382 US 198, 15 L Ed 265, 86 S Ct 358; Kemp v Beasley (1968, CA8 Ark) 389 F2d 178. 
 n39  Teel v Pitt County Board of Education (1967, DC NC) 272 F Supp 703. 
 n40  Lee v Macon County Board of Education (1967, DC Ala) 267 F Supp 458, affd Wallace v United States, 389 US 215, 19 L Ed 422, 88 S Ct 415. 
 n41  Mapp v Board of Education (1967, DC Tenn) 274 F Supp 455. 
 n42  Wheeler v Durham City Board of Education (1966, CA4 NC) 363 F2d 738; Smith v Board of Education (1966, CA8 Ark) 365 F2d 770; Yarbrough v Hulbert-West Memphis School Dist. (1967, CA8 Ark) 380 F2d 962; Betts v County School Board (1967, DC Va) 269 F Supp 593; Coppedge v Franklin County Board of Education (1967, DC NC) 273 F Supp 289, affd (CA4) 394 F2d 410. 
 n43  Lee v Macon County Board of Education (1967, DC Ala) 267 F Supp 458, affd Wallace v United States, 389 US 215, 19 L Ed 422, 88 S Ct 415. 
 n44  Kelley v Altheimer, Arkansas Public School Dist. (1967, CA8 Ark) 378 F2d 483. 
 n45  Adams v Mathews (1968, CA5 Ga, La, Miss and Tex) 403 F2d 181. 
 n46  Clark v Board of Education (1966, CA8 Ark) 369 F2d 661, reh den 374 F2d 569. 
 n47  Adams v Mathews (1968, CA5 Ga, La, Miss and Tex) 403 F2d 181. 
 n48  Smith v Board of Education (1966, CA8 Ark) 365 F2d 770. 
 n49  Northcross v Board of Education (1964, CA6 Tenn) 333 F2d 661. 
 n50  Franklin v County School Board (1966, CA4 Va) 360 F2d 325; Wall v Stanly County Board of Education (1967, CA4 NC) 378 F2d 275; Rolfe v County Board of Education (1968, CA6 Tenn) 391 F2d 77; North Carolina Teachers Asso. v Asheboro City Board of Education (1968, CA4 NC) 393 F2d 736, 3 ALR Fed 299. 
 n51  Adams v School Dist. (1967, DC SC) 271 F Supp 579; Brunson v Board of Trustees (1967, DC SC) 271 F Supp 586. 
 n52  United States v Jefferson County Board of Education (1967, CA5 Ala and La) 380 F2d 385; Stell v Board of Public Education (1967, CA5 Ga) 387 F2d 486; United States v School Dist. (1968, DC Ill) 286 F Supp 786, affd (CA7) 404 F2d 1125; United States by Clark v Plaquemines Parish School Board (1967, DC La) 291 F Supp 841. 
 n53  United States v School Dist. (1968, DC Ill) 286 F Supp 786, affd (CA7) 404 F2d 1125. 
 n54  Kemp v Beasley (1968, CA8 Ark) 389 F2d 178.
 n55  Kemp v Beasley (1968, CA8 Ark) 389 F2d 178, supra.
 n56  Mapp v Board of Education (1967, DC Tenn) 274 F Supp 455.
 n57  Wright v County School Board (1966, DC Va) 252 F Supp 378. 
 n58  Brown v County School Board (1965, DC Va) 245 F Supp 549. 
 n59  North Carolina Teachers Asso. v Asheboro City Board of Education (1968, CA4 NC) 393 F2d 736, 3 ALR Fed 299. 
 n60  Wall v Stanly County Board of Education (1967, CA4 NC) 378 F2d 275; North Carolina Teachers Asso. v Asheboro City Board of Education (1968, CA4 NC) 393 F2d 736, 3 ALR Fed 299. 
 n61  United States v Jefferson County Board of Education (1967, CA5 Ala and La) 380 F2d 385; Stell v Board of Public Education (1967, CA5 Ga) 387 F2d 486; United States by Clark v Plaquemines Parish School Board (1967, DC La) 291 F Supp 841. 
 n62  North Carolina Teachers Asso. v Asheboro City Board of Education (1968, CA4 NC) 393 F2d 736, 3 ALR Fed 299. 
 n63  North Carolina Teachers Asso. v Asheboro City Board of Education (1968, CA4 NC) 393 F2d 736, 3 ALR Fed 299, supra. 
 n64  Smith v Board of Education (1966, CA8 Ark) 365 F2d 770. 
 n65  Teel v Pitt County Board of Education (1967, DC NC) 272 F Supp 703. 
 n66  
 
Fourth Circuit-
 
Wall v Stanly County Board of Education (1967, CA4 NC) 378 F2d 275.
North Carolina Teachers Asso. v Asheboro City Board of Education (1968, CA4 NC) 393 F2d 736, 3 ALR Fed 299.
 
Fifth Circuit--
 
Stell v Board of Public Education (1967, CA5 Ga) 387 F2d 486.
United States by Clark v Plaquemines Parish School Board (1967, DC La) 291 F Supp 841.
Williams v Kimbrough (1969, DC LA) 59 CCH Lab Cas P 9202.
United States v Jefferson County Board of Education (1967, CA5 Ala and La) 380 F2d 385.
 
Sixth Circuit--
 
Rolfe v County Board of Education (1968, CA6 Tenn) 391 F2d 77. .
 n67  Smith v Board of Education (1966, CA8 Ark) 365 F2d 770. 
 n68  Smith v Board of Education (1966, CA8 Ark) 365 F2d 770, supra. 
 n69  Smith v Board of Education (1966, CA8 Ark) 365 F2d 770, supra. 
 n70  Williams v Kimbrough (1969, DC La) DC LA) 59 CCH Lab Cas P 9202. 
 n71  Williams v Kimbrough (1969, DC La) DC LA) 59 CCH Lab Cas P 9202, supra. 
 n72  Williams v Kimbrough (1969, DC La) DC LA) 59 CCH Lab Cas P 9202, supra. 
 n73  United States v Board of Education (1968, CA5 Ala) 396 F2d 44. 
 n74  
 
Fourth Circuit-
 
Buford v Morganton City Board of Education (1965, DC NC) 244 F Supp 437.
 
Fifth Circuit--
 
Williams v Kimbrough (1969, DC La) 59 CCH Lab Cas P 9202..
 
Eighth Circuit-
 
Brooks v School Dist. (1959, CA8 Mo) 267 F2d 733, cert den 361 US 894, 4 L Ed 151, 80 S Ct 196.
Kemp v Beasley (1968, CA8 Ark) 389 F2d 178. .
 n75  Williams v Kimbrough (1969, DC La) 59 CCH Lab Cas P 9202. 
 n76  Brooks v School Dist. (1959, CA8 Mo) 267 F2d 733, cert den 361 US 894, 4 L Ed 151, 80 S Ct 196; Buford v Morganton City Board of Education (1965, DC NC) 244 F Supp 437. 
 n77  Rolfe v County Board of Education (1968, CA6 Tenn) 391 F2d 77. 
 n78  North Carolina Teachers Asso. v Asheboro City Board of Education (1968, CA4 NC) 393 F2d 736, 3 ALR Fed 299; Williams v Kimbrough (1969, DC La) 59 CCH Lab Cas P 9202. 
 n79  North Carolina Teachers Asso. v Asheboro City Board of Education (1968, CA4 NC) 393 F2d 736, 3 ALR Fed 299; Williams v Kimbrough (1969, DC La) 59 CCH Lab Cas P 9202.
 n80  North Carolina Teachers Asso. v Asheboro City Board of Education (1968, CA4 NC) 393 F2d 736, 3 ALR Fed 299; Williams v Kimbrough (1969, DC La) 59 CCH Lab Cas P 9202. 
 n81  United States v School Dist. (1968, DC Ill) 286 F Supp 786, affd (CA7) 404 F2d 1125. 
 n82  Kelley v Altheimer, Arkansas Public School Dist. (1967, CA8 Ark) 378 F2d 483; Brown v County School Board (1965, DC Va) 245 F Supp 549. 
 n83  Wright v county School Board (1966, DC Va) 252 F Supp 378. 
 n84  United States v Board of Education (1968, CA5 Ala) 396 F2d 44. 
 n85  United States v Board of Education (1968, CA5 Ala) 396 F2d 44, supra. 
 n86  Monroe v Board of Comrs. (1967, CA6 Tenn) 380 F2d 955, vacated on other grounds 391 US 450, 20 L Ed 733, 80 S Ct 1700. 
 n87  Jackson v Marvell School Dist. (1968, CA8 Ark) 389 F2d 740. 
 n88  United States v Montgomery County Board of Education (1969) 395 US 225, 23 L Ed 263, 89 S Ct 1670. 
 n89  Kier v County School Board (1966, DC Va) 249 F Supp 239. 
 n90  Bell v School Board of Staunton (1966, DC Va) 249 F Supp 249. 
 n91  Kier v County School Board (1966, DC Va) 249 F Supp 239. 
 n92  United States v Board of Education (1968, CA5 Ala) 396 F2d 44; Montgomery County Board of Education v Carr (1968, CA5 Ala) 400 F2d 1, reh den 402 F2d 782, revd on other grounds United States v Montgomery County Board of Education, 395 US 225, 23 L Ed 263, 89 S Ct 1670; Lee v Macon County Board of Education (1968, DC Ala) 292 F Supp 363. 
 n93  Brewer v School Board of Norfolk (1968, CA4 Va) 397 F2d 37. 
 n94  Wright v County School Board (1966, DC Va) 252 F Supp 378. 
 n95  Brewer v School Board of Norfolk (1968, CA4 Va) 397 F2d 37. 
 n96  Montgomery County Board of Education v Carr (1968, CA5 Ala) 400 F2d 1, reh den 402 F2d 782, revd on other grounds Montgomery County Board of Education v Carr (1968, CA5 Ala) 395 US 225, 23 L Ed 263, 89 S Ct 1670. 
 n97  Montgomery County Board of Education v Carr (1968, CA5 Ala), supra. 
 n98  Montgomery County Board of Education v Carr (1968, CA5 Ala), supra. 
 n99  Montgomery County Board of Education v Carr (1968, CA5 Ala), supra. 
 n100  Kemp v Beasley (1968, CA8 Ark) 389 F2d 178. 
 n101  Clark v Board of Education (1966, CA8 Ark) 369 F2d 661, reh den 374 F2d 569. 
 n102  Teel v Pitt County Board of Education (1967, DC NC) 272 F Supp 703. 
 n103  Bowman v County School Board (1967, CA4 Va) 382 F2d 326, vacated on other grounds Green v County School Board, 391 US 430, 20 L Ed 716, 88 S Ct 1689. 
 n104  Yarbrough v Hulbert-West Memphis School Dist. (1967, CA8 Ark) 380 F2d 962. 
 n105  Wright v County School Board (1966, DC Va) 252 F Supp 378. 
 n106  Wright v County School Board (1966, DC Va), supra. 
 n107  Kemp v Beasley (1968, CA8 Ark) 389 F2d 178. 
 n108  Montgomery County Board of Education v Carr (1968, CA5 Ala) 400 F2d 1, reh den 402 F2d 782, revd on other grounds Montgomery County Board of Education v Carr (CA5 Ala), 395 US 225, 23 L Ed 263, 89 S Ct 1670. 
 n109  Kemp v Beasley (1968, CA8 Ark) 389 F2d 178. 
 n110  Teel v Pitt County Board of Education (1967, DC NC) 272 F Supp 703. But see Coppedge v Franklin County Board of Education (1967, DC NC) 273 F Supp 289, affd (CA4) 394 F 2d 410, infra  §  12 , where the court ordered that if the assignment of teachers on a voluntary basis did not result in significant faculty desegregation of every school in the system for the next school year, to the extent that at least two teachers of the minority race (white or nonwhite) would be on each desegregated faculty, the board should make the required number of involuntary transfers. 
 n111  
 
Fifth Circuit--
 
United States v Board of Education (1968, CA5 Ala) 396 F2d 44.
Montgomery County Board of Education v Carr (1968, CA5 Ala) 400 F2d 1, reh den 402 F2d 782, revd on other grounds United States v Montgomery County Board of Education, 395 US 225, 23 L Ed 263, 89 S Ct 1670.
Lee v Macon County Board of Education (1968, DC Ala) 292 F Supp 363.
 
Sixth Circuit--
 
Monroe v Board of Comrs. (1967, CA6 Tenn) 380 F2d 955, vacated on other grounds 391 US 450, 20 L Ed 733, 88 S Ct 1700.
 
Seventh Circuit--
 
United States v School Dist. (1968, DC Ill) 286 F Supp 786, affd (CA7) 404 F2d 1125. .
 n112  Lee v Macon County Board of Education (1968, DC Ala) 292 F Supp 363. 
 n113  United States v School Dist. (1968, DC Ill) 286 F Supp 786, affd (CA7) 404 F2d 1125. 
 n114  Haney v County Board of Education (1968, DC Ark) 284 F Supp 916. 
 n115  Beckett v School Board of Norfolk (1967, DC Va) 269 F Supp 118. 
 n116  Bradley v School Board of Richmond (1965) 382 US 103, 15 L Ed 187, 86 S Ct 224; Mapp v Board of Education (1967, CA6 Tenn) 373 F2d 75.  

 JURISDICTIONAL TABLE OF CASES and STATUTES (Go to beginning) 

                            JURISDICTIONAL TABLE OF CASES AND STATUTES
SUPREME COURT
 
Arlington Heights v Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 US 252, 50 L Ed 2d 450, 97 S Ct 555  --§  7
Board of Education v Davis (1981) 454 US 904, 70 L Ed 2d 223, 102 S Ct 413  --§  14
Board of Education v Davis (1982, US) 74 L Ed 2d 146, 103 S Ct 178  --§  14
Board of Education v Harris (1979) 444 US 130, 62 L Ed 2d 275, 100 S Ct 363, 21 CCH EPD P 30368A  --§  5
Bradley v School Board of Richmond (1965) 382 US 103, 15 L Ed 187, 86 S Ct 224  --§  11
Brown v Board of Education (1954) 347 US 483, 98 L Ed 873, 74 S Ct 686, 38 ALR2d 1180, supp op 349 US 294, 99 L Ed 1083, 75 S Ct 753  --§  14
Davis v Board of School Comrs.  402 US 33, 28 L Ed 2d 577, 91 S Ct 1289  --§ §  9  11  13
Davis v Board of School Comrs.  402 US 33, 28 L Ed 2d 577, 91 S Ct 1289, conformed to (CA5 Ala) 445 F2d 318  --§  12
Dayton Board of Education v Brinkman 443 US 526, 61 L Ed 2d 720, 99 S Ct 2971, reh den 444 US 887, 62 L Ed 2d 121, 100 S Ct 186  --§  7
Dayton Board of Education v Brinkman, 433 US 406, 53 L Ed 2d 851, 97 S Ct 2766, on remand (CA6 Ohio) 561 F2d 652, on remand (SD Ohio) 446 F Supp 1232, revd CA6 Ohio) 583 F 2d 243, affd 443 US 526, 61 L Ed 2d 720, 99 S Ct 2971, reh den 444 US 887, 62 L Ed 2d 121, 100 S Ct 186  --§  7
Dayton Board of Education v Brinkman, 443 US 526, 61 L Ed 2d 720, 99 S Ct 2971, reh den 444 US 887, 62 L Ed 2d 121, 100 S Ct 186  --§  7
Dayton Board of Education v Brinkman, 443 US 526, 61 S Ct 720, 99 S Ct 2971, reh den 444 US 887, 62 L Ed 2d 121, 100 S Ct 186  --§  15
Hazelwood School Dist. v United States, 433 US 299, 53 L Ed 2d 768, 97 S Ct 2736  --§ §  5  6[a]  7  10
Keyes v. School Dist. No. 1, Denver, Colo., 413 U.S. 189, 93 S. Ct. 2686, 37 L. Ed. 2d 548 (1973)  --§  7
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v Green, 411 US 792, 36 L Ed 2d 668, 93 S Ct 1817  --§  5
Milliken v Bradley, 418 US 717, 41 L Ed 1069 41, 94 S Ct 3112, on remand (ED Mich) 402 F Supp 1096, later op (DC Mich) 411 943 F Supp affd, cause remanded (CA6 Mich) 540 F 2d 229, affd 433 US 267, 53 L Ed 2d 745, 97 S Ct 2749 and on remand (ED Mich) 460 F Supp 299, remanded on other grounds (CA6 Mich) 620 F 2d 1143, cert den 499 US 870, 66 L Ed 2d 89, 101 S Ct 207  --§  15
Rogers v Paul (1965) 382 US 198, 15 L Ed 265, 86 S Ct 358  --§  3[a]
Rogers v Paul (1965) 382 US 198, 15 L Ed 2d 265, 86 S Ct 358  --§  3[b]
St. Francis College v Al-Khazraji (1987) 481 US 604, 95 L Ed 2d 582, 107 S Ct 2022, 43 BNA FEP Cas 1305, 43 CCH EPD P 37018, reh den (US) 97 L Ed 2d 749, 107 S Ct 3244, 43 CCH EPD P 37130  --§  4[b]
Swann v Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 US 1, 28 L Ed 2d 554, 91 S Ct 1267, reh den 403 US 912, 29 L Ed 2d 689, 91 S Ct 2200  --§  12
Swann v Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 US 1, 28 L Ed 2d 554, 91 S Ct 1267, reh den 403 US 912, 29 L Ed 2d 689, 91 S Ct 2200, reh den 403 US 912, 29 L Ed 2d 689, 91 S Ct 2201  --§ §  9  12  13
United States v Montgomery County Board of Education (1969) 395 US 225, 23 L Ed 263, 89 S Ct 1670  --§  8
United States v Montgomery County Board of Education (1969) 395 US 225, 23 L Ed 2d 263, 89 S Ct 1670  --§  13
United States v Montgomery County Board of Education, 395 US 225, 23 L Ed 263, 89 S Ct 1670  --§  8
Wygant v Jackson Board of Education (1986, US) 90 L Ed 2d 260, 106 S Ct 1842, 40 BNA FEP Cas 1321, 40 CCH EPD P 36106  --§  4[a]
FIRST CIRCUIT
 
Morgan v Hennigan (DC Mass) 379 F Supp 410, affd (CA1 Mass) 509 F2d 580, cert den 421 US 963, 44 L Ed 2d 449, 95 S Ct 1950, later proceeding (CA1 Mass) 689 F2d 265, later proceeding (DC Mass) 554 F Supp 169, affd (CA1 Mass) 726 F2d 11, 38 FR Serv 2d 638, later proceeding (DC Mass) 620 F Supp 214, affd (CA1 Mass) 831 F2d 313, 94 ALR Fed 629 and supp op (DC Mass) 388 F Supp 581, 14 BNA FEP Cas 308, affd (CA1 Mass) 530 F2d 431, 14 BNA FEP Cas 312, 11 CCH EPD 10636, cert den 426 US 935, 49 L Ed 2d 386, 96 S Ct 2648, 96 S Ct 2649, 24 BNA FEP Cas 1515, 12 CCH EPD P 10977, reh den 429 US 873, 50 L Ed 2d 156, 97 S Ct 193 and reh den 429 US 1125, 51 L Ed 2d 577, 97 S Ct 1166, later proceeding (DC Mass) 612 F Supp 1060, 38 BNA FEP Cas 481, 38 CCH EPD P 35550, later proceeding (DC Mass) 617 F Supp 1316, 38 CCH EPD P 35551 and later proceeding (CA1 Mass) 726 F 2d 33, later proceeding (DC Mass) 602 F Supp 806  --§  6[a]
Morgan v Kerrigan (1975, DC Mass) 388 F Supp 581, 14 BNA FEP Cas 308, affd (CA1 Mass) 530 F2d 431, 14 BNA FEP Cas 312, 11 CCH EPD P 10636, cert den 426 US 935, 49 L Ed 2d 386, 96 S Ct 2648, 96 S Ct 2649, 24 BNA FEP Cas 1515, 12 CCH EPD P 10977, reh den 429 US 873, 50 L Ed 2d 156, 97 S Ct 193 and reh den 429 US 1125, 51 L Ed 2d 577, 97 S Ct 1166, later proceeding (DC Mass) 612 F Supp 1060, 38 BNA FEP Cas 481, 38 CCH EPD P 35550, later proceeding (DC Mass) 617 F Supp 1316, 38 CCH EPD P 35551, later proceeding (DC Mass) 620 F Supp 214, affd (CA1 Mass) 831 F2d 313, 94 ALR Fed 629  --§  9
Morgan v Kerrigan (1976, CA1 Mass) 530 F2d 431, 14 BNA FEP Cas 312, 11 CCH EPD P 10636, cert den 426 US 935, 49 L Ed 2d 386, 96 S Ct 2648, 96 S Ct 2649, 24 BNA FEP Cas 1515, 12 CCH EPD P 10977, reh den 429 US 873, 50 L Ed 2d 156, 97 S Ct 193 and reh den 429 US 1125, 51 L Ed 2d 577, 97 S Ct 1166, later proceeding (DC Mass) 612 F Supp 1060, 38 BNA FEP Cas 481, 38 CCH EPD P 35550, later proceeding (DC Mass) 617 F Supp 1316, 38 CCH EPD P 35551, later proceeding (DC Mass) 620 F Supp 214, affd (CA1 Mass) 831 F2d 313, 94 ALR Fed 629  --§  15
Morgan v Kerrigan (CA1 Mass) 509 F2d 580, cert den 421 US 963, 44 L Ed 2d 449, 95 S Ct 1950, later proceeding (CA1 Mass) 689 F2d 265, later proceeding (DC Mass) 554 F Supp 169, affd (CA1 Mass) 726 F2d 11, 38 FR Serv 2d 638, later proceeding (DC Mass) 620 F Supp 214, affd (CA1 Mass) 831 F2d 313, 94 ALR Fed 629  --§ §  3[a]  6[a]
Morgan v Kerrigan (CA1 Mass) 530 F2d 431, 14 BNA FEP Cas 312, 11 CCH EPD P 10636, cert den 426 US 935, 49 L Ed 2d 386, 96 S Ct 2648, 96 S Ct 2649, 24 BNA FEP Cas 1515, 12 CCH EPD P 10977, reh den 429 US 873, 50 L Ed 2d 156, 97 S Ct 193 and reh den 429 US 1125, 51 L Ed 2d 577, 97 S Ct 1166, later proceeding (DC Mass) 612 F Supp 1060, 38 BNA FEP Cas 481, 38 CCH EPD P 35550, later proceeding (DC Mass) 617 F Supp 1316, 38 CCH EPD P 35551, later proceeding (DC Mass) 620 F Supp 214, affd (CA1 Mass) 831 F2d 313, 94 ALR Fed 629  --§  4[b]
Morgan v O'Bryant (1982, CA1 Mass) 671 F2d 23, 28 BNA FEP Cas 58, 28 CCH EPD P 32544, later proceeding 687 F2d 510, 29 BNA FEP Cas 1353 and cert den 459 US 827, 74 L Ed 2d 64, 103 S Ct 62, 29 BNA FEP Cas 1752, 30 CCH EPD P 33063, reh den 459 US 1059, 74 L Ed 2d 625, 103 S Ct 478, 30 CCH EPD P 33157 and reh den 463 US 1215, 77 L Ed 2d 1401, 103 S Ct 3556, 32 CCH EPD P 33682 and cert den 459 US 881, 74 L Ed 2d 146, 103 S Ct 178, 29 BNA FEP Cas 1560, 30 CCH EPD P 33063, reh den 463 US 1215, 77 L Ed 2d 1401, 103 S Ct 3556, later proceeding (DC Mass) 612 F Supp 1060, 38 BNA FEP Cas 481, 38 CCH EPD P 35550, later proceeding (DC Mass) 617 F Supp 1316, 38 CCH EPD P 35551, later proceeding (DC Mass) 620 F Supp 214, affd (CA1 Mass) 831 F2d 313, 94 ALR Fed 629  --§  9
SECOND CIRCUIT
 
Arthur v Nyquist (1983, CA2 NY) 712 F2d 816, 32 BNA FEP Cas 822, 32 CCH EPD P 33737, cert den (US) 80 L Ed 2d 456, 104 S Ct 1907, 33 CCH EPD P 34289 and cert den (US) 82 L Ed 2d 856, 104 S Ct 3555, 34 BNA FEP Cas 1887, 34 CCH EPD P 34447  --§  15
Arthur v Nyquist (CA2 NY) 573 F2d 134  --§ §  5  6[a]  7
Chance v Board of Examiners, etc. (DC NY) 330 F Supp 203, affd (CA2 NY) 458 F2d 1167  --§  4[b]
Moore v Kibbee (DC NY) 381 F Supp 834  --§ §  4[a]  6[b]
THIRD CIRCUIT
 
De Felice v Philadelphia Board of Education (DC Pa) 306 F Supp 1345, affd (CA3) 432 F2d 1358  --§  7
Evans v Buchanan (DC Del) 416 F Supp 328, app dismd 429 US 973, 50 L Ed 2d 579, 97 S Ct 475, 97 S Ct 476 and affd on other grounds (CA3 Del) 555 F2d 373, cert den 434 US 880, 54 L Ed 2d 160, 98 S Ct 235, 98 S Ct 236, reh den 434 US 944, 54 L Ed 2d 306, 98 S Ct 442, 98 S Ct 443  --§  15
Jones v. School Dist. of Philadelphia, 198 F.3d 403, 140 Ed. Law Rep. 496, 81 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1682 (3d Cir. 1999)  --§  7
Kromnick v School Dist. (1984, CA3 Pa) 739 F2d 894, 35 BNA FEP Cas 538, 34 CCH EPD P 34525, cert den 469 US 1107, 83 L Ed 2d 777, 105 S Ct 782, 36 BNA FEP Cas 976, 35 CCH EPD P 34854  --§ §  4[a]  7  9  15
Morris v Board of Education of Laurel School Dist. (DC Del) 401 F Supp 188  --§  6[b]
Morris v Board of Education of Lourel School Dist. (DC Del) 401 F Supp 188  --§  5
Pennsylvania v Delaware Valley Citizens' Council for Clean Air, 483 US 711, 97 L Ed 2d 585, 107 S Ct 3078, 45 BNA FEP Cas 1750, 17 ELR 20929, on remand (CA3 Pa) 826 F2d 238) and later proceeding (DC Md) 742 F Supp 1275, 53 BNA FEP Cas 785, 54 CCH EPD P 40293 and affd in part and revd in part on other gnds (CA4 Md) 758 L Ed 2d 983  --§  12
Porcelli v Titus (CA3 NJ) 431 F2d 1254, cert den 402 US 944, 29 L Ed 2d 112, 91 S Ct 1612  --§  8
FOURTH CIRCUIT
 
Adams v School Dist. (1967, DC SC) 271 F Supp 579  --§  4[a]
Adams v School Dist. (CA4 Va) 444 F2d 99, cert den 404 US 912, 30 L Ed 2d 186, 92 S Ct 230, and later app (CA4 Va) 456 F2d 943, cert den 406 US 933, 32 L Ed 2d 1136, 92 S Ct 1778, and cert den 409 US 892, 34 L Ed 2d 149, 93 S Ct 109, and later app (CA4 Va) 500 F2d 1129  --§  12
Beckett v School Board of Norfolk (1967, DC Va) 269 F Supp 118  --§ §  11  12
Bell v School Board of Staunton (1966, DC Va) 249 F Supp 249  --§ §  8  12
Betts v County School Board (1967, DC Va) 269 F Supp 593  --§ §  3[a]  12
Bowman v County School Board (1967, CA4 Va) 382 F2d 326  --§ §  10  12
Bradley v School Board of Richmond (DC Va) 317 F Supp 555  --§  12
Bradley v School Board of Richmond (DC Va) 325 F Supp 828  --§  15
Brewer v School Board of Norfolk (1968, CA4 Va) 397 F2d 37  --§ §  9  12
Brewer v School Board of Norfolk (CA4 Va) 434 F2d 408, cert den 399 US 929, 26 L Ed 2d 796, 90 S Ct 2247  --§ §  9  12
Brown v County School Board (1965, DC Va) 245 F Supp 549  --§ §  3[b]  4[a]  5
Brunson v Board of Trustees (1967, DC SC) 271 F Supp 586  --§  4[a]
Buford v Morganton City Board of Education (1965, DC NC) 244 F Supp 437  --§ §  5  6[b]
Cannady v Person County Board of Education (DC NC) 375 F Supp 689  --§  6[b]
Chambers v Hendersonville City Board of Education (1966, CA4 NC) 364 F2d 189  --§  6[a]
Christmas v Board of Education (1964, DC Md) 231 F Supp 331  --§  12
Coppedge v Franklin County Board of Education (1967, DC NC) 273 F Supp 289, affd (CA4) 394 F 2d 410  --§  11
Coppedge v Franklin County Board of Education (1967, DC NC) 273 F Supp 289, affd (CA4) 394 F2d 410  --§ §  3[a]  12
Downing v School Board of Chesapeake (CA4 Va) 455 F2d 1153  --§  7
Evans v Harnett County Bd. of Education (1982, CA4 NC) 684 F2d 304, 29 BNA FEP Cas 672, 29 CCH EPD P 32947  --§  6[a]
Felder v Harnett County Board of Education (CA4 NC) 409 F2d 1070  --§  12
Franklin v County School Board (1966, CA4 Va) 360 F2d 325  --§ §  4[a]  6[a]
Green v County School Board, 391 US 430, 20 L Ed 2d 716, 88 S Ct 1689  --§  12
Green v County School Board, 391 US 430, 20 L Ed 716, 88 S Ct 1689  --§  10
Horton v Orange County Board of Education (DC NC) 342 F Supp 1244, mod on other grounds (CA4) 464 F2d 536  --§  6[b]
Jackson v School Board of Lynchburg (1963, CA4 Va) 321 F2d 230  --§  3[b]
James v Beaufort County Board of Education (DC NC) 348 F Supp 711, affd (CA4) 465 F2d 477, supp op 472 F2d 177, cert den 413 US 920, 37 L Ed 2d 1041, 93 S Ct 3053  --§  6[a]
Kier v County School Board (1966, DC Va) 249 F Supp 239  --§ §  3[b]  8  12
McAdoo v Toll (1985, DC Md) 615 F Supp 1309, 38 BNA FEP Cas 1248  --§  6[b]
Morton v Charles County Board of Education (CA4 Md) 520 F2d 871, cert den 423 US 1034, 46 L Ed 2d 408, 96 S Ct 566  --§ §  5  6[b]  12
Morton v Charles County Board of Education (DC Md) 373 F Supp 394, 7 BNA FEP Cas 948, 8 CCH EPD P 9457, affd (CA4 Md) 520 F2d 871, 11 BNA FEP Cas 677, 10 CCH EPD P 10323A, cert den 423 US 1034, 46 L Ed 2d 408, 96 S Ct 566, 11 BNA FEP Cas 1310, 10 CCH EPD P 10542  --§  6[a]
Nesbit v Statesville City Board of Education (CA4 NC Va) 418 F2d 1040  --§  12
Nesbit v Statesville City Board of Education (CA4 NC) 418 F2d 1040  --§  9
North Carolina Teachers Asso. v Asheboro City Board of Education (1968, CA4 NC) 393 F2d 736, 3 ALR Fed 299  --§ §  2[b]  4[a]  4[b]  5  6[a]
Reynolds v Abbeville County School Dist. (CA4 SC) 554 F2d 638  --§ §  3[a]  4[a]  4[b]  5  6[a]  7
School Board (1966, DC Va) 252 F Supp 378  --§  8
Swann v Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education (1965, DC NC) 243 F Supp 667, affd (CA4) 369 F2d 29  --§  12
Teel v Pitt County Board of Education (1967, DC NC) 272 F Supp 703  --§ §  3[a]  4[b]  10  11  12
Thompson v County School Board (1966, DC Va) 252 F Supp 546  --§  12
United States ex rel. Clark v Chesterfield County School Dist. (CA4 SC) 484 F2d 70  --§ §  4[b]  6[b]
United States v North Carolina (DC NC) 425 F Supp 789  --§  4[b]
Vaughns v Board of Education (1983, DC Md) 574 F Supp 1280, later proceeding (DC Md) 598 F Supp 1262, affd (CA4 Md) 770 F2d 1244, 38 CCH EPD P 35727  --§  12
Wall v Stanly County Board of Education (1967, CA4 NC) 378 F2d 275  --§ §  2[b]  4[a]  4[b]  6[a]
Walston v County School Board (CA4 Va) 492 F2d 919  --§ §  4[b]  6[a]
Walston v School Board (CA4 Va) 566 F2d 1201  --§  6[b]
Wheeler v Durham City Board of Education (1966, CA4 NC) 363 F2d 738  --§ §  3[a]  3[b]  12
Williams v Albemarle City Board of Education (CA4 NC) 508 F2d 1242  --§  3[a]
Williams v Hyde County Board of Education (CA4 NC) 490 F2d 1231  --§  6[b]
Wright v County School Board (1966, DC Va)  --§  10
Wright v County School Board (1966, DC Va) 252 F Supp 378  --§ §  4[a]  9  10  12
FIFTH CIRCUIT
 
Acree v. County Bd. of Ed. of Richmond County, 301 F. Supp. 1285 (S.D. Ga. 1969)  --§  13
Adams v Mathews (1968, CA5 Ga, La, Miss and Tex) 403 F2d 181  --§  3[a]
Adams v Rankin County Board of Education (CA5 Miss) 524 F2d 928  --§  6[b]
Allen v. Board of Public Instruction of Broward County, Fla., 312 F. Supp. 1127 (S.D. Fla. 1970), order aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 432 F.2d 362 (5th Cir. 1970)  --§  13
Anthony v Marshall County Board of Education (CA5 Miss) 419 F2d 1211  --§ §  9  11  13
Archie v Alabama Institute for Deaf & Blind (1968, CA5 Ala) 395 F2d 765  --§  13
Armstead v Starkville Municipal Separate School Dist. (DC Miss) 325 F Supp 560, affd in part and revd in part on other grounds (CA5) 461 F2d 276  --§ §  4[b]  13
Armstead v Starkville Municipal Separate School Dist. (DC Miss) 331 F Supp 567  --§ §  6[a]  6[b]
Arvizu v Waco Independent School Dist. (CA5 Tex) 495 F2d 499, reh den (CA5 Tex) 496 F2d 1309  --§  13
Arvizu v Waco Independent School Dist. (DC Tex) 373 F Supp 1264, revd on other grounds (CA5 Tex) 495 F2d 499, reh den (CA5 Tex) 496 F2d 1309  --§  9
Austin v Maxwell (CA5 Fla) 456 F2d 1237  --§  6[b]
Baker v Columbus Municipal Separate School Dist. (DC Miss) 329 F Supp 706, affd (CA5 Miss) 462 F2d 1112  --§ §  4[b]  13
Banks v Claiborne Parish School Board (CA5 La) 425 F2d 1040  --§  13
Barnes v Jones County School Dist. (CA5 Miss) 544 F2d 804  --§  5
Bassett v Atlanta Independent School Dist. (CA5 Tex) 485 F2d 1268  --§  6[a]
Bennett v Burke County Board of Education (CA5 Ga) 419 F2d 1211  --§ §  9  11  13
Bennett v Evans (CA5 Ga) 419 F2d 1211  --§ §  9  11  13
Bivins v Bibb County Board of Education (CA5 Ga) 419 F2d 1211  --§ §  9  11  13
Blunt v Marion County School Board (CA5 Fla) 515 F2d 951  --§  6[b]
Board of Public Instruction v Braxton (1964, CA5 Fla) 326 F2d 616, cert den 377 US 924, 12 L Ed 2d 216, 84 S Ct 1223  --§  13
Bonner v Texas City Independent School Dist. (DC Tex) 305 F Supp 600  --§  6[b]
Bradley v Board of Public Instruction (CA5 Fla) 431 F2d 1377, cert den 402 US 943, 29 L Ed 2d 111, 91 S Ct 1608  --§  13
Braxton v Board of Public Instruction (CA5 Fla) 449 F2d 158  --§  7
Braxton v. Board of Public Instruction of Duval County, Fla., 303 F. Supp. 958, 2 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 835, 2 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P 10126, 61 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P 9362 (M.D. Fla. 1969)  --§  6[a]
Brown v Board of Education (CA5 Ala) 419 F2d 1211  --§ §  9  11  13
Brown v Board of Education (CA5 Ala) 446 F2d 75  --§  13
Brown v Board of Education). Ft. Bend Independent School Dist. v Stafford (1981, CA5) 651 F2d 1133  --§  13
Carter v Morehouse Parish School Board (CA5 La) 441 F2d 380, cert den 404 US 880, 30 L Ed 2d 161, 92 S Ct 201  --§  4[b]
Carter v West Feliciana Parish School Board (CA5 La) 419 F2d 1211, vacated on other grounds 396 US 226, 24 L Ed 2d 382, 90 S Ct 467, and revd on other grounds 396 US 290, 24 L Ed 2d 477, 90 S Ct 608, reh den 396 US 1053, 24 L Ed 2d 698, 90 S Ct 705  --§ §  9  11  13
Cisneros v Corpus Christi Independent School Dist. (CA5 Tex) 467 F2d 142, cert den 413 US 920, 37 L Ed 2d 1041, 93 S Ct 3053 and cert den 413 US 922, 37 L Ed 2d 1044, 93 S Ct 3052, reh den 414 US 881, 38 L Ed 2d 129, 94 S Ct 31  --§  13
Cisneros v Corpus Christi Independent School Dist. (CA5 Tex) 467 F2d 142, cert den 413 US 920, 37 L Ed 2d 1041, 93 S Ct 3053, and cert den 413 US 922, 37 L Ed 2d 1044, 93 S Ct 3052, reh den 414 US 881, 38 L Ed 2d 129, 94 S Ct 31  --§  9
Cisneros v Corpus Christi Independent School Dist. (CA5 Tex) 467 F2d 142, cert den 413 US 920, 922, 37 L Ed 2d 1041, 1044, 93 S Ct 3053, 3052, reh den 414 US 881, 38 L Ed 2d 129, 94 S Ct 31  --§  13
Clark v Plaquemines Parish School Board (1967, DC La) 291 F Supp 841  --§  13
Conley v Lake Charles School Board (CA5 La) 434 F2d 35  --§  6[b]
Conley v Lake Charles School Board (DC La) 314 F Supp 1282, affd in part and revd in part on other grounds (CA5) 434 F2d 35  --§  13
Cornist v Richland Parish School Board (CA5 La) 495 F2d 189 (disapproved on other grounds Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v Wilderness Soc.  421 US 240, 44 L Ed 2d 141, 95 S Ct 1612)  --§  6[a]
Cornist v. Richland Parish School Bd., 495 F.2d 189, 7 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P 9411 (5th Cir. 1974)  --§  13
Cousin v Board of Trustees (1980, ND Miss) 488 F Supp 75, 28 BNA FEP Cas 166, revd on other grounds (CA5 Miss) 648 F2d 293, 28 BNA FEP Cas 172, 26 CCH EPD P 31894, vacated on other grounds (CA5 Miss) 661 F2d 377, 28 BNA FEP Cas 177  --§ §  5  6[b]
Cousin v Board of Trustees (1984, CA5 Miss) 726 F2d 262, 38 BNA FEP Cas 46, 33 CCH EPD P 34211, reh den (CA5 Miss) 733 F2d 905  --§  13
Davis v Board of School Comrs. (1966, CA5 Ala) 364 F2d 896  --§  13
Davis v Board of School Comrs. (CA5 Ala) 419 F2d 1211  --§ §  9  11  13
Dooley v Ft. Worth Independent School Dist. (1987, ND Tex) 686 F Supp 1194, 46 BNA FEP Cas 1710, 3 BNA IER Cas 1462  --§ §  6[b]  7
Foster v Board of Education (CA5 Ala) 431 F2d 648  --§  6[b]
Gay v Wheeler (DC Tex) 363 F Supp 764  --§  6[b]
George v Davis (CA5 La) 419 F2d 1211  --§ §  9  11  13
George v Davis (DC La) 365 F Supp 446, affd without op (CA5 La) 493 F2d 663, reh den (CA5 La) 494 F2d 1296  --§  13
Glover v Daniel (CA5 Ga) 434 F2d 617  --§  6[b]
Graves v Walton County Board of Education (CA5 Ga) 410 F2d 1153  --§  6[b]
Graves v. Walton County Bd. of Ed., 300 F. Supp. 188 (M.D. Ga. 1968), judgment aff'd, 410 F.2d 1152 (5th Cir. 1969) and judgment aff'd, 410 F.2d 1153 (5th Cir. 1969)  --§  13
Griffin v Lancaster (DC La) 400 F Supp 421  --§  6[b]
Hall v St. Helena Parish School Board (CA5 La) 417 F2d 801, cert den 396 US 904, 24 L Ed 2d 180, 90 S Ct 218  --§  8
Hardy v Porter (ND Miss) 443 F Supp 1164, 26 BNA FEP Cas 1206, affd, remanded on other grounds (CA5 Miss) 613 F2d 112, 26 BNA FEP Cas 1260, 22 CCH EPD P 30723  --§ §  5  7
Harris v St. John the Baptist Parish School Board (CA5 La) 419 F2d 1211  --§ §  9  11  13
Horton v Lawrence County Board of Education (CA5 Ala) 449 F2d 793  --§  7
Horton v. Lawrence County Bd. of Ed., 320 F. Supp. 790, 3 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1147, 4 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P 7590 (N.D. Ala. 1970), order rev'd, 449 F.2d 793, 3 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1153, 4 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P 7559 (5th Cir. 1971)  --§  9
Jennings v Meridian Municipal Separate School Dist. (CA5 Miss) 453 F2d 413  --§  6[b]
Johnson v Chapel Hill Independent School Dist. (1988, CA5 Tex) 853 F2d 375, 47 BNA FEP Cas 1498, 47 CCH EPD P 38227  --§  6[a]
Jones v Birdsong (1980, ND Miss) 530 F Supp 221, affd (CA5 Miss) 679 F2d 24, 29 CCH EPD P 32699, 34 FR Serv 2d 234, reh den (CA5 Miss) 683 F2d 417  --§  13
Lee v Macon County Board of Education (CA5 Ala) 453 F2d 1104  --§  6[a]
Lee v Macon County Board of Education (CA5 Ala) 456 F2d 1371  --§  7
Lee v Macon County Board of Education (CA5 Ala) 470 F2d 958  --§  6[b]
Lee v Macon County Board of Education (CA5 Ala) 498 F2d 1090  --§  2[b]
Lee v Monroe County Bd. of Education (1981, CA5 Ala) 640 F2d 755, 25 CCH EPD P 31719  --§  7
Lee v Pickens County School System (CA5 Ala) 563 F2d 143  --§  4[b]
Lee v Pickens County System (CA5 Ala) 563 F2d 143  --§  5
Lee v Roanoke City Board of Education (CA5 Ala) 466 F2d 1378  --§ §  6[a]  13
Lee v Walker County School System (CA5 Ala) 594 F2d 156  --§ §  6[b]  7
Lockett v Board of Education (CA5 Ga) 447 F2d 472  --§  13
Mannings v Board of Public Instruction (CA5 Fla) 427 F2d 874  --§  13
Mays v Board of Public Instruction (CA5 Fla) 428 F2d 809  --§ §  11  13
McCormick v Attala County Board of Education (DC Miss) 407 F Supp 586, 18 BNA FEP Cas 1750, 12 CCH EPD P 10967, vacated (CA5 Miss) 541 F2d 1094, 18 BNA FEP Cas 1759, 12 CCH EPD P 11231, on remand (ND Miss) 424 F Supp 1382, 18 BNA FEP Cas 1760, 14 CCH EPD P 7721  --§  9
McCormick v Attala County Board of Education (DC Miss) 407 F Supp 586, 18 BNA FEP Cas 1750, 12 CCH EPD P 10967, vacated on other grounds (CA5 Miss) 541 F2d 1094, 18 BNA FEP Cas 1759, 12 CCH EPD P 11231, on remand (ND Miss) 424 F Supp 1382, 18 BNA FEP Cas 1760, 14 CCH EPD P 7721  --§  6[a]
McDonald v Marlin Independent School Dist. (DC Tex) 313 F Supp 1162, 2 BNA FEP Cas 910, 2 CCH EPD P 10275, affd (CA5 Tex) 427 F2d 1367, 2 BNA FEP Cas 912, 2 CCH EPD P 10262  --§  6[b]
McLaurin v Columbia Municipal Separate School Dist. (CA5 Miss) 478 F2d 348, reh den (CA5 Miss) 486 F2d 1049, later app (CA5 Miss) 530 F2d 661  --§ §  6[a]  13
McLaurin v Columbia Municipal Separate School Dist. (CA5 Miss) 530 F2d 661  --§  13
Miller v Board of Education (CA5 Ala) 482 F2d 1234  --§  13
Montgomery County Board of Education v Carr (1968, CA5 Ala)  --§  9
Montgomery County Board of Education v Carr (1968, CA5 Ala) 400 F2d 1, reh den 402 F2d 782  --§ §  8  9  10
Montgomery County Board of Education v Carr (1968, CA5 Ala) 400 F2d 1, reh den 402 F2d 782, revd on other grounds United States v Montgomery County Board of Education, 395 US 225, 23 L Ed 263, 89 S Ct 1670  --§  11
Montgomery County Board of Education v Carr (1968, CA5 Ala) 395 US 225, 23 L Ed 263, 89 S Ct 1670  --§  9
Montgomery County Board of Education v Carr (CA5 Ala), 395 US 225, 23 L Ed 263, 89 S Ct 1670  --§  10
Montgomery v Starkville Municipal Separate School Dist. (1987, ND Miss) 665 F Supp 487, affd (CA5 Miss) 854 F2d 127  --§  6[b]
Moore v Tangipahoa Parish School Board (1968, DC La) 290 F Supp 96  --§  13
Moore v Tangipahoa Parish School Board (CA5 La) 594 F2d 489  --§  6[b]
Morales v Shannon (DC Tex) 366 F Supp 813  --§  6[b]
Moses v Washington Parish School Board (DC La) 304 F Supp 1112  --§  4[b]
Negroes. Cisneros v Corpus Christi Independent School Dist. (DC Tex) 324 F Supp 599, supp op (DC Tex) 330 F Supp 1377, affd in part and mod in part on other grounds (CA5 Tex) 467 F2d 142, cert den 413 US 920, 922, 37 L Ed 2d 1041, 1044, 93 S Ct 3052, 3053, reh den 414 US 881, 38 L Ed 2d 129, 94 S Ct 31  --§  3[a]
Negroes. Cisneros v Corpus Christi Independent School Dist. (DC Tex) 324 F Supp 599, supp op (DC Tex) 330 F Supp 1377, affd in part and mod in part on other grounds (CA5 Tex) 467 F2d 142, cert den 413 US 920, 922, 37 L Ed 2d 1041, 1044, 93 S Ct 3053, 3052, reh den 414 US 881, 38 L Ed 2d 129, 94 S Ct 31  --§  8
Pickens v Okolona Municipal Separate School Dist. (CA5 Miss) 527 F2d 358  --§  6[b]
Pickens v Okolona Municipal Separate School Dist. (DC Miss) 380 F Supp 1036, affd (CA5 Miss) 527 F2d 358  --§  13
Price v Denison Independent School Dist. Board of Education (1965, CA5 Tex) 348 F2d 1010  --§  13
Pulliam v Board of Trustees (1979, ND Miss) 488 F Supp 1  --§ §  5  6[b]
Quarles v Oxford Municipal Separate School Dist. (1989, CA5 Miss) 868 F2d 750, 13 FR Serv 3d 599  --§ §  6[b]  7
Roper v Effingham County Board of Education (CA5 Ga) 528 F2d 1024  --§ §  5  6[b]
Singleton v Jackson Municipal Separate School Dist. (1966, CA5 Miss) 355 F2d 865  --§  13
Singleton v Jackson Municipal Separate School Dist. (CA5 Miss) 419 F2d 1211, revd on other grounds 396 US 290, 24 L Ed 2d 477, 90 S Ct 608, reh den 396 US 1053, 24 L Ed 2d 698, 90 S Ct 705  --§ §  4[b]  5
Singleton v Jackson Municipal Separate School Dist. (CA5 Miss) 419 F2d 1211, revd on other grounds 396 US 290, 24 L Ed 2d 477, 90 S Ct 608, reh den 396 US 1053, 24 L Ed 2d 698, 90 S Ct 705, and conformed to (CA5) 425 F2d 1211, and later app (CA5 Miss) 426 F2d 1364, mod on other grounds (CA5 Miss) 430 F2d 368, and later app (CA5 Miss) 432 F2d 927, cert den 402 US 944, 29 L Ed 2d 112, 91 S Ct 1611  --§  13
Singleton v Jackson Municipal Separate School Dist. (CA5 Miss) 419 F2d 1211, revd on other grounds 396 US 290, 24 L Ed 2d 477, 90 S Ct 608, reh den 396 US 1053, 24 L Ed 2d 698, 90 S Ct 705, later app 426 F2d 1364, mod on other grounds 430 F2d 368, later app 432 F2d 927, cert den 402 US 944, 29 L Ed 2d 112, 91 S Ct 1611  --§ §  9  11  13
Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate School Dist., 419 F.2d 1211, 9 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1122, 7 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P 9412 (5th Cir. 1969), judgment vacated in part, stay granted, 396 U.S. 226, 90 S. Ct. 467, 24 L. Ed. 2d 382 (1969) and cert. granted, judgment rev'd, 396 U.S. 290, 90 S. Ct. 608, 24 L. Ed. 2d 477 (1970)  --§  13
Smith v Board of Public Instruction (CA5 Fla) 438 F2d 1209, cert den 404 US 865, 30 L Ed 2d 108, 92 S Ct 61  --§  6[b]
Smith v Concordia Parish School Board (CA5 La) 419 F2d 1211  --§ §  9  11  13
Smith v Concordia Parish School Board (CA5 La) 445 F2d 285  --§  13
Smith v Concordia Parish School Board (CA5 La) 493 F2d 8, cert den 420 US 907, 42 L Ed 2d 836, 95 S Ct 824, and on remand (DC La) 387 F Supp 887  --§  13
Smith v Concordia Parish School Board (DC La) 331 F Supp 330  --§  6[b]
Sparks v Griffin (CA5 Tex) 460 F2d 433  --§  6[a]
Stell v Board of Public Education (1967, CA5 Ga) 387 F2d 486  --§ §  4[a]  4[b]
Stell v Board of Public Education (1967, CA5 Ga) 387 L Ed 2d 486  --§  13
Stout v Jefferson County Board of Education (CA5 Ala) 419 F2d 1211  --§ §  9  11  13
Taylor v Coahoma County School Dist. (DC Miss) 330 F Supp 174, affd (CA5) 444 F2d 221  --§  13
Thomie v Houston County Board of Education (CA5 Ga) 419 F2d 1211  --§ §  9  11  13
Thompson v Madison County Board of Education (CA5 Miss) 496 F2d 682  --§  13
Torrence v Oxford Municipal School Dist. (1985, ND Miss) 615 F Supp 321, 38 BNA FEP Cas 1799, affd without op (CA5 Miss) 793 F2d 1289, cert den 479 US 985, 93 L Ed 2d 578, 107 S Ct 575  --§  6[b]
U. S. by Mitchell v Board of Education (CA5 Ala) 417 F2d 838  --§  13
U. S. by Mitchell v Board of Education (CA5 Ga) 417 F2d 848  --§  13
U. S. v Board of Education (CA5 Ga) 469 F2d 1315  --§  7
U. S. v Georgia (CA5 Ga) 445 F2d 303  --§  13
U. S. v Greenwood Municipal Separate School Dist. (CA5 Miss) 406 F2d 1086, cert den 395 US 907, 23 L Ed 2d 220, 89 S Ct 1749  --§ §  11  13
U. S. v Hale County Board of Education (CA5 Ala) 445 F2d 1330  --§  13
U. S. v Hinds County School Board (CA5 Miss) 417 F2d 852, cert den 396 US 1032, 24 L Ed 2d 531, 90 S Ct 612  --§  13
U. S. v Hinds County School Board (CA5 Miss) 433 F2d 598  --§  13
U. S. v Hinds County School Board (CA5 Miss) 433 F2d 605  --§  13
U. S. v Hinds County School Board (CA5 Miss) 433 F2d 611  --§  13
U. S. v Hinds County School Board (CA5 Miss) 433 F2d 622  --§  13
U. S. v Indianola Municipal Separate School Dist. (CA5 Miss) 410 F2d 626, cert den 396 US 1011, 24 L Ed 2d 503, 90 S Ct 571  --§  13
U. S. v Perry County Board of Education (CA5 Ala) 445 F2d 302  --§  13
U. S. v Plaquemines Parish School Board (DC La) 336 F Supp 992  --§  13
U. S. v Texas (DC Tex) 330 F Supp 235, mod on other grounds (CA5) 447 F2d 441, cert den 404 US 1016, 30 L Ed 2d 663, 92 S Ct 675  --§  13
U. S. v Texas Education Agency (CA5 Tex) 459 F2d 600  --§  4[a]
U. S. v Wilcox County Board of Education (CA5 Ala) 454 F2d 1144, later app (CA5 Ala) 494 F2d 575, reh den (CA5 Ala) 495 F2d 1372, and cert den 419 US 1031, 42 L Ed 2d 306, 95 S Ct 512, cert den 402 US 944, 29 L Ed 2d 112, 91 S Ct 1611  --§  13
U.S. v Mathews (CA5 Tex) 419 F2d 1211  --§ §  9  11  13
U.S. v Texas Education Agency (CA5 Tex) 459 F2d 600  --§  6[a]
U.S. v Tunica County School Dist. (DC Miss) 323 F Supp 1019, affd (CA5) 440 F2d 377  --§  13
U.S. v. Board of Ed. of Lincoln County, 301 F. Supp. 1024 (S.D. Ga. 1969)  --§ §  3[a]  13
United States by Clark v Plaquemines Parish School Board (1967, DC La) 291 F Supp 841  --§ §  4[a]  4[b]
United States v Board of Education (1968, CA5 Ala) 396 F2d 44  --§ §  4[b]  8  11  13
United States v Coffeeville Consol. School Dist. (CA5 Miss) 513 F2d 244  --§  13
United States v Gadsden County School Dist. (CA5 Fla) 539 F2d 1369, reh den (CA5 Fla) 542 F2d 1174  --§ §  4[b]  7
United States v Jefferson County Board of Education (1967, CA5 Ala and La) 380 F2d 385  --§ §  4[a]  4[b]  13
United States v Texas Education Agency (1981, ED Tex) 510 F Supp 994  --§  8
Ward v Kelly (CA5 Miss) 515 F2d 908  --§  8
Williams v Iberville Parish School Board (DC La) 314 F Supp 1104  --§  7
Williams v Kimbrough (1969, DC LA) 59 CCH Lab Cas P 9202  --§  4[b]
Williams v Kimbrough (1969, DC La) 59 CCH Lab Cas P 9202  --§ §  5  6[a]  7
Williams v Kimbrough (1969, DC La) DC LA) 59 CCH Lab Cas P 9202  --§  4[b]
Williams v Kimbrough (DC La) 59 CCH Lab Cas P 9202, discussed at 3 ALR Fed 345, is also reported in 295 F Supp 578  --§  7
Wright v Board of Public Instruction (CA5 Fla) 419 F2d 1211  --§ §  9  11  13
Wright v Houston Independent School Dist. (DC Tex) 393 F Supp 1149  --§  13
Youngblood v Board of Public Instruction (CA5 Fla) 419 F2d 1211  --§ §  9  11  13
SIXTH CIRCUIT
 
Bradley v Milliken (CA6 Mich) 540 F2d 229, affd 433 US 267, 53 L Ed 2d L Ed 2d, 97 S Ct 2749 and on remand (ED Mich) 460 F Supp 299, remanded (CA6 Mich) 620 F2d 1143, cert den (US) 66 L Ed 2d 89, 101 S Ct 207  --§  15
Bradley v Milliken (ED Mich) 460 F Supp 322  --§  15
Caldwell v Craighead (CA6 Tenn) 432 F2d 213, cert den 402 US 953, 29 L Ed 2d 123, 91 S Ct 1617  --§  6[b]
Cooper v Williamson County Bd. of Education (1983, MD Tenn) 587 F Supp 1082, 33 CCH EPD P 34071  --§ §  6[a]  7
Davis v School Dist. (DC Mich) 309 F Supp 734, affd (CA6) 443 F2d 573, cert den 404 US 913, 30 L Ed 2d 186, 92 S Ct 233, and later app (CA6 Mich) 474 F2d 46, later app (CA6 Mich) 487 F2d 890  --§  5
Davis v School Dist. Inc. (DC Mich) 309 F Supp 734, affd (CA6) 443 F2d 573, cert den 404 US 913, 30 L Ed 2d 186, 92 S Ct 233 and later app (CA6 Mich) 474 F2d 46, later app (CA6 Mich) 487 F2d 890  --§  15
Deal v Cincinnati Board of Education (CA6 Ohio) 419 F2d 1387, cert den 402 US 962, 29 L Ed 2d 128, 91 S Ct 1630  --§ §  6[b]  7
Hatton v County Board of Education (CA6 Tenn) 422 F2d 457  --§  6[a]
Higgins v Board of Education (CA6 Mich) 508 F2d 779  --§  7
Hill v Franklin County Board of Education (1968, CA6 Tenn) 390 F2d 583  --§ §  6[a]  6[b]
Hull v Cuyahoga Valley Joint Vocational School Dist. Bd. of Educ. (1991, CA6 Ohio) 926 F2d 505, 55 BNA FEP Cas 269, 55 CCH EPD P 40582  --§  6[a]
Kelley v Metropolitan County Board of Education (DC Tenn) 317 F Supp 980  --§  15
Mapp v Board of Education (1963, CA6 Tenn) 319 F2d 571  --§  3[b]
Mapp v Board of Education (1967, CA6 Tenn) 373 F2d 75  --§  11
Mapp v Board of Education (1967, DC Tenn) 274 F Supp 455  --§ §  3[a]  4[a]
Mapp v Board of Education (DC Tenn) 329 F Supp 1374, supp op (DC Tenn) 341 F Supp 193, affd (CA6 Tenn) 477 F2d 851, cert den 414 US 1022, 38 L Ed 2d 313, 94 S Ct 445, 446  --§  15
McFerren v County Board of Education (CA6 Tenn) 455 F2d 199, cert den 407 US 934, 32 L Ed 2d 817, 92 S Ct 2461  --§  6[a]
Monroe v Board Comrs. (1964, DC Tenn) 229 F Supp 580  --§  3[b]
Monroe v Board of Comrs. (1963, DC Tenn) 221 F Supp 968  --§  3[b]
Monroe v Board of Comrs. (1967, CA6 Tenn) 380 F2d 955, vacated on other grounds 391 US 450, 20 L Ed 2d 733, 88 S Ct 1700  --§  15
Monroe v Board of Comrs. (1967, CA6 Tenn) 380 F2d 955, vacated on other grounds 391 US 450, 20 L Ed 733, 80 S Ct 1700  --§  8
Monroe v Board of Comrs. (1967, CA6 Tenn) 380 F2d 955, vacated on other grounds 391 US 450, 20 L Ed 733, 88 S Ct 1700  --§ §  2[a]  11
Monroe v Board of Comrs. (CA6 Tenn) 427 F2d 1005  --§  15
NAACP v Lansing Board of Education (DC Mich) 429 F Supp 583, affd (CA6 Mich) 559 F2d 1042, cert den 434 US 997, 54 L Ed 2d 491, 98 S Ct 635 and affd without op (CA6 Mich) 571 F2d 582, cert den 438 US 907, 57 L Ed 2d 1150, 98 S Ct 3126  --§  7
Northcross v Board of Education (1964, CA6 Tenn) 333 F2d 661  --§ §  3[b]  4[a]
Northcross v Board of Education (DC Tenn) 312 F Supp 1150, remanded on other grounds (CA6) 444 F2d 1179  --§  15
Oliver v Kalamazoo Bd. of Education (1981, WD Mich) 526 F Supp 131  --§  9
Oliver v Kalamazoo Board of Education (1980, WD Mich) 498 F Supp 732, 23 BNA FEP Cas 1677  --§  15
Oliver v Kalamazoo Board of Education (DC Mich) 346 F Supp 766, affd (CA6) 448 F2d 635  --§  6[a]
Oliver v Michigan State Board of Education (CA6 Mich) 508 F2d 178, cert den 421 US 963, 44 L Ed 2d 449, 95 S Ct 1950  --§  7
Robinson v Shelby County Board of Education (DC Tenn) 311 F Supp 97, remanded on other grounds (CA6) 442 F2d 255  --§  15
Rolfe v County Board of Education (1968, CA6 Tenn) 391 F2d 77  --§ §  4[a]  4[b]  5  6[a]
United States v School Dist. (ED Mich) 460 F Supp 352, vacated on other grounds (CA6 Mich) 616 F2d 895  --§  11
Wygant v Jackson Bd. of Education (1982, ED Mich) 546 F Supp 1195, 29 BNA FEP Cas 1359, 30 CCH EPD P 33199  --§ §  4[a]  6[b]  9  15
SEVENTH CIRCUIT
 
Armstrong v Brennan (CA7 Wis) 539 F2d 625  --§  7
Armstrong v O'Connell (DC Wis) 416 F Supp 1344  --§  15
Burns v Board of School Comrs. (DC Ind) 302 F Supp 309, affd (CA7) 437 F2d 1143  --§ §  7  15
Carpenter v Board of Regents (1984, CA7 Wis) 728 F2d 911, 34 BNA FEP Cas 248, 33 CCH EPD P 34199  --§ §  4[b]  6[b]
Mohr v. Chicago School Reform Bd. of Trustees of Bd. of Educ. of City of Chicago, 993 F. Supp. 1155, 125 Ed. Law Rep. 452 (N.D. Ill. 1998)  --§  6[b]
Quality Education For All Children, Inc. v School Board (DC Ill) 362 F Supp 985  --§ §  3[a]  15
Robbins v Board of Education (DC Ill) 313 F Supp 642  --§  6[b]
U. S. v School Dist. (DC Ill) 301 F Supp 201, mod on other grounds (CA7) 432 F2d 1147, cert den 402 US 943, 29 L Ed 2d 111, 91 S Ct 1610  --§  15
U.S. v School Dist. (DC Ill) 301 F Supp 201, mod on other grounds (CA7) 432 F2d 1147, cert den 402 US 943, 29 L Ed 2d 111, 91 S Ct 1610  --§ §  5  7
United States v School Dist. (1968, DC Ill) 286 F Supp 786, affd (CA7) 404 F2d 1125  --§ §  4[a]  5  11  15
EIGHTH CIRCUIT
 
Alexander v Warren, Arkansas, School Dist. (CA8 Ark) 464 F2d 471  --§  6[b]
Arkansas Education Asso. v Board of Education (CA8 Ark) 446 F2d 763  --§  6[a]
Blount v Ladue School Dist. (DC Mo) 321 F Supp 1245  --§  6[b]
Booker v Special School Dist. (DC Minn) 351 F Supp 799  --§ §  3[a]  5  8  11  14
Brooks v School Dist. (1959, CA8 Mo) 267 F2d 733, cert den 361 US 894, 4 L Ed 151, 80 S Ct 196  --§  5
Brooks v School Dist. (1959, CA8 Mo) 267 F2d 733, cert den 361 US 894, 4 L Ed 2d 151, 80 S Ct 196  --§  6[b]
Cato v Collins (CA8 Ark) 539 F2d 656  --§  6[b]
Cato v Collins (DC Ark) 394 F Supp 629 aff'd on other grounds (CA8 Ark) 539 F 2d 656  --§  5
Cato v Parham (DC Ark) 316 F Supp 678  --§  14
Christian v Board of Education (CA8 Ark) 440 F2d 608  --§  14
Clark v Board of Education (1966, CA8 Ark) 369 F2d 661, reh den 374 F2d 569  --§ §  2[b]  3[a]  9  14
Clark v Board of Education (CA8 Ark) 426 F2d 1035, cert den 402 US 952, 29 L Ed 2d 122, 91 S Ct 1608  --§  14
Clark v Board of Education (CA8 Ark) 449 F2d 493, cert den 405 US 936, 30 L Ed 2d 812, 92 S Ct 954  --§  14
Clark v Board of Education (CA8 Ark) 465 F2d 1044, cert den 413 US 923, 37 L Ed 2d 1044, 93 S Ct 3054  --§  14
Clark v Mann (CA8 Ark) 562 F2d 1104  --§  6[a]
Davis v Board of Education (1980, CA8 Ark) 635 F2d 730  --§  14
Davis v Board of Education (1981, ED Ark) 520 F Supp 108  --§  14
Davis v Board of Education (1982, CA8 Ark) 674 F2d 684  --§  14
Davis v Board of Education (CA8 Ark) 449 F2d 500  --§  14
Gossin v Huskey (DC Mo) 348 F Supp 689, affd without op (CA8 Mo) 475 F2d 1407  --§  7
Graves v Board of Education (DC Ark) 299 F Supp 843  --§ §  9  14
Graves v Board of Education (DC Ark) 302 F Supp 136  --§  14
Haney v County Board of Education (1968, DC Ark) 284 F Supp 916  --§ §  6[b]  11
Hegler v Board of Education (CA8 Ark) 447 F2d 1078  --§  6[a]
Jackson v Marvell School Dist. (1968, CA8 Ark) 389 F2d 740  --§ §  8  14
Jackson v Wheatley School Dist. (CA8 Ark) 430 F2d 1359, later app (CA8 Ark) 464 F2d 411, later app (CA8 Ark) 489 F2d 608  --§  6[a]
Kelley v Altheimer, Arkansas Public School Dist. (1967, CA8 Ark) 378 F2d 483  --§ §  3[a]  5  14
Kemp v Beasley (1968, CA8 Ark) 389 F2d 178  --§ §  3[a]  4[a]  5  9  10  14
Kemp v Beasley (CA8 Ark) 423 F2d 851  --§  14
King v University of Minnesota (1985, CA8 Minn) 774 F2d 224, 40 BNA FEP Cas 391, cert den (US) 89 L Ed 2d 893, 106 S Ct 1491, 40 BNA FEP Cas 704  --§  6[b]
Little Rock School Dist. v Pulaski County Special School Dist. (1987, ED Ark) 663 F Supp 1557  --§ §  11  14
MacDonald v Ferguson Reorganized School Dist. (1981, ED Mo) 530 F Supp 469  --§  14
McBeth v Board of Education (DC Ark) 300 F Supp 1270  --§  6[a]
Moore v Board of Education (CA8 Ark) 448 F2d 709  --§ §  6[a]  14
Oliver v Moberly Missouri School Dist. (DC Mo) 427 F Supp 82  --§ §  5  6[a]  6[b]
Scoggins v Board of Education (1988, CA8 Ark) 853 F2d 1472, 47 BNA FEP Cas 985, 47 CCH EPD P 38193, 12 FR Serv 3d 185  --§  6[b]
Sherpell v Humnoke School Dist.  No. 5 (1990, ED Ark) 750 F Supp 971  --§  6[b]
Smith v Board of Education (1966, CA8 Ark) 365 F2d 770  --§ §  2[b]  3[a]  3[b]  4[a]  4[b]  6[a]
Thomas v Board of Education (CA8 Ark) 457 F2d 1268  --§ §  5  6[b]
Tims v Board of Education (CA8 Ark) 452 F2d 551  --§  6[b]
U. S. v Cotton Plant School Dist. (CA8 Ark) 479 F2d 671  --§  6[a]
United States v School Dist. (DC Mo) 399 F Supp 322  --§  8
United States v School Dist. (DC Mo) 399 F Supp 322 vacated on other grounds (CA8 Mo) 539 F2d 655  --§  4[a]
Walton v Nashville, Arkansas Special School Dist. (1968, CA8 Ark) 401 F2d 137  --§  6[b]
Williams v Anderson (CA8 Ark) 562 F2d 1081  --§  7
Yarbrough v Hulbert-West Memphis School Dist. (1967, CA8 Ark) 380 F2d 962  --§ §  3[a]  10  14
NINTH CIRCUIT
 
Diaz v San Jose Unified School Dist. (1984, CA9 Cal) 733 F2d 660, cert den (US) 85 L Ed 2d 497, 105 S Ct 2140, later proceeding (ND Cal) 633 F Supp 808  --§  7
Johnson v San Francisco Unified School Dist. (CA9 Cal) 500 F2d 349  --§  5
Johnson v San Francisco Unified School Dist. (DC Cal) 339 F Supp 1315 vacated on other grounds (CA9 Cal) 500 F2d 349  --§  15
Kelly v Guinn (CA9 Nev) 456 F2d 100, cert den 413 US 919, 37 L Ed 2d 1041, 93 S Ct 3048  --§  15
Spangler v Pasadena City Board of Education (DC Cal) 311 F Supp 501  --§  15
Stanford Daily v Zurcher (CA9 Cal) 550 F2d 464, revd on other grounds 436 US 547, 56 L Ed 2d 525, 98 S Ct 1970, reh den 439 US 885, 58 L Ed 2d 200, 99 S Ct 231, 99 S Ct 232) and reh den (CA5 La) 517 F 2d 1032  --§  13
Zaslawsky v Board of Education (1979, CA9 Cal) 610 F2d 661  --§  11
TENTH CIRCUIT
 
Board of Education v Dowell (1967, CA10 Okla) 375 F 2d 158, cert den 387 US 931, 18 L Ed 2d 993, 87 S Ct 2054  --§  15
Board of Education v Dowell (1967, CA10 Okla) 375 F2d 158, cert den 387 US 931, 18 L Ed 2d 993, 87 S Ct 2054  --§  7
Ginwright v Unified School Dist.  No. 457 (1991, DC Kan) 756 F Supp 1458  --§  6[a]
Londerholm v Unified School Dist. (1967) 199 Kan 312, 430 P2d 188  --§  1[a]
Otero v Mesa County Valley School Dist. (CA10 Colo) 568 F2d 1312  --§  3[a]
U. S. v Board of Education (CA10 Okla) 429 F2d 1253, later app (CA10 Okla) 459 F2d 720, vacated on other grounds 413 US 916, 37 L Ed 2d 1038, 93 S Ct 3048, conformed to (CA10 Okla) 492 F2d 1189  --§  15
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
 
Ellison v Chilton County Bd. of Educ. (1995, MD Ala) 894 F Supp 415  --§  6[b]
Harris v Birmingham Bd. of Education (1982, ND Ala) 537 F Supp 716  --§ §  5  8
Harris v Bullock County Board of Education (1966, DC Ala) 253 F Supp 276  --§  13
Horton v Lawrence County Board of Education (DC Ala) 320 F Supp 790, revd on other grounds (CA5) 449 F2d 793  --§ §  6[b]  13
Lee v Macon County Board of Education (1967, DC Ala) 267 F Supp 458  --§ §  3[a]  13
Lee v Macon County Board of Education (1968, DC Ala) 292 F Supp 363  --§ §  8  11
Lee v Macon County Board of Education (DC Ala) 321 F Supp 1  --§  13
Lee v Washington County Board of Education (SD Ala) 456 F Supp 1175  --§  6[a]
Ramsey v Hopkins (DC Ala) 320 F Supp 477, remanded on other grounds (CA5) 447 F2d 128  --§  6[b]
Roberts v Houston County Bd. of Educ. (1993, MD Ala) 819 F Supp 1019  --§  6[a]
Schwartz v Florida (1980, ND Fla) 494 F Supp 574, 23 BNA FEP Cas 203  --§ §  5  6[a]
U. S. v Board of Education (DC Ga) 331 F Supp 466  --§  13
United States v Baldwin County Bd. of Education (1982, MD Ga) 544 F Supp 367  --§ §  3[b]  6[b]
United States v Choctow County Board of Education (1966, DC Ala) 259 F Supp 408  --§  13
Wallace v United States, 389 US 215, 19 L Ed 2d 422, 88 S Ct 415  --§  13
Wallace v United States, 389 US 215, 19 L Ed 422, 88 S Ct 415  --§  3[a]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
 
Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v Wilderness Soc.  421 US 240, 44 L Ed 2d 141, 95 S Ct 1612)  --§  13
UNITED STATES CODE
 
42 U.S.C.A. §  1981 See  --§ §  4[b]  6[a]
42 U.S.C.A. §  1983 See  --§  6[a]
42 U.S.C.A. § §  2000 See  --§ §  4[b]  5  10  --§  7  --§  15 

 INDEX OF TERMS (Go to beginning) 

Ability as factor  §  6 
Acceptance of authority as factor  §  12 
Activities, employment or discharge based upon, excluded  §  1[a] 
Administrative employees  § §  7  10 
Affirmative action, duty to take  § §  8  14 
All-Negro and all-white schools  § §  3[a]  6[b]  7  12  14 
Assignment, discrimination in  §  7 
Association of teachers, action by  § §  3[b]  6[a] 
Availability of teachers as factor  § §  9  13 
Blind and deaf, state institute for  §  13 
Burden of proof. Presumptions and burden of proof, infra
Certification requirements  §  13 
Civil Rights Act of 1964  §  13 
Class actions  §  3[b] 
Clear and convincing proof, requirement of  § §  5  6[a] 
Closing of schools, effect of  § §  4[a]  6[a] 
Competence as factor  §  12 
Constitutional issues, generally  § §  3  4 
Cultural background as factor  §  12 
Deaf and blind, state institute for  §  13 
Discretion of school board  §  6[b] 
Displaced teachers as result of desegregation, hiring, retention, assignment, or transfer of  § §  6  7 
Due process, generally  § §  3  4 
Duty of school board, generally  §  8 
Educational standards, lowering of  § §  4[a]  14 
Eighth Circuit cases  §  14 
Elimination of discrimination  § §  8 
Encouraging transfers, duty of  §  12 
Equal protection, generally  § §  3  4 
Evaluation of qualifications, generally  §  4[b] 
Existence of discrimination  § §  5 
Faculties, segregation of, generally  §  3 
Fifth Circuit cases  §  13 
Fitness as factor  §  12 
Flexibility  § §  9  13 
Fourteenth Amendment, generally  § §  3  4 
Fourth Circuit cases  §  12 
Freedom of choice plan  § §  4[a]  12 
General rules  § §  8 
Geographic plan of integration  § §  8  12 
Good faith as no longer test  § §  8  13  14 
Gradual integration  §  10 
Hearing on issue of allocation  § §  3[b]  11  13 
Hiring, discrimination in  §  6 
History of discrimination, presumption arising from  § §  5  6[a] 
Inferences. Presumptions and burden of proof, infra
Initiative as factor  §  12 
Intangible factors, use in determining qualifications  §  6[b] 
Introduction  §  1 
Language factors and patterns  §  12 
Leadership as factor  §  6[b] 
Loyalty to system as factor  §  12 
Mathematical ratios  § §  9  12 
Miscellaneous Circuits, cases from  §  15 
New applicants, all displaced teachers to be treated as  § §  4[a]  6[a] 
Objective standards, requirement of  § §  4  6 
One-room school, transfer to  §  7 
Organization of teachers, action by  § §  3[b]  6[a] 
Other discrimination, desegregation plan as disguise for  § §  4[a]  6[a] 
Parents, action by  §  3[b] 
Particular plans and orders  § §  12 
Particular practices  §  4 
Parties to action, standing of  §  3[b] 
Percentages and proportions  § §  9  12 
Personality as factor  § §  6[b]  12 
Plantation, assignment to school on  §  7 
Practice pointers  §  2[b] 
Predominant race of students as predicate for assignment  §  4[a] 
Preliminary matters  § §  1  2 
Presumptions and burden of proof  § §  5  6[a] 
Professional attitude as factor  §  12 
Pupils--
-assigning themselves  §  8 
-denial of rights of  § §  3  4[a]  13 
-standing to sue  §  3[b] 
Qualifications, evaluation of, generally  §  4[b] 
Quality of education, necessity of proof as to adverse effect upon  §  4[a] 
Quotas  § §  9  12 
Racial balancing--
-distinguished from desegregation  §  12 
-duty to achieve  §  8 
Rapport with pupils as factor  §  6[a] 
Reduction in number of students and faculty, effect of  §  4[a] 
Re-employment or re-assignment of displaced teachers  § §  4[a]  6[b]  7  12  14 
Related matters  §  1[b] 
Responsibility, ability to accept as factor  §  12 
Retention, discrimination in  §  6 
Scope of annotation  §  1[a] 
Speech patterns as factor  §  6[a] 
Standing to sue  §  3[b] 
Students. Pupils, supra
Substantial integration, requirement of  § §  3[a]  13 
Sudden disproportionate decimation in ranks of Negro teachers  § §  5  6[a] 
Summary  §  2 
Temperament as factor  §  6[b] 
Tenure  §  4[b] 
Time to eliminate discrimination  §  10 
Token faculty desegregation  § §  9  12  14 
Training as factor  §  12 
Transcript of teaching qualifications, requirement of  §  6[b] 
Transfer, discrimination in  §  7 
Vacancies, filling of  § §  4[a]  6[b]  12  14 
Voluntary and involuntary transfers  §  11 
Working to full capacity as factor  §  12 

ENCYCLOPEDIAS, TREATISES, and SPECIALIZED SERVICES (Go to beginning) 

 Annotations
See the related annotations listed in §  1[b].    
 
    REFERENCES
 The following references may be of related or collateral interest to the user of this annotation.

 Federal Statutes
 
 20 U.S.C.A. § §  1651
 42 U.S.C.A. § §  1981-1983
 42 U.S.C.A. §  1981
 42 U.S.C.A. §  1985(3)
 42 U.S.C.A. § §  2000
 42 U.S.C.A. §  2000e-3(a)
 42 U.S.C.A. §  2000e-5(a) and (e
 42 U.S.C.A. §  2000e-5(k)
 42 U.S.C.A. §  2000h-2
 
 Encyclopedias and Texts
 
Am Jur (1st ed § §  216, 217, 219)
 15 Am Jur 2d, Civil Rights §  57
 
 Practice Aids
 
 22 Am Jur Proofs of Facts 563, Dismissal of Teachers for Cause
  2 Am Jur Proofs of Facts 2d 187, Employment Discrimination--Statistics
  5 Am Jur Pleading & Practice Forms 2d, Civil Rights, Forms 44
 22 Am Jur Pleading & Practice Forms 2d, Schools, Complaint in federal court--For declaratory and injunctive relief--To determine validity of refusal to renew contract of probationary teacher and to enjoin racial discrimination in renewal of contract, Forms 76.
 22 Am Jur Pleading & Practice Forms 2d, Schools, Complaint in federal court--For writ of mandamus--To compel re-employment of teacher following desegregation of school system, Forms 75.
 
 Digests and Indexes
 
ALR Digests, Civil Rights §  3
ALR Digests, Schools § §  31, 42
ALR Quick Index, Discrimination; Schoolteachers
Federal Quick Index, Civil Rights
L Ed Digest, Civil Rights § §  6, 7.5
L Ed Digest, Schools §  1 

 LAW REVIEW ARTICLES (Go to beginning) 

Civil rights--racial discrimination in teacher hiring and assignment forbidden. 45 NC L Rev 166
Desegregation of public school faculties. 51 Iowa L Rev 681
Discrimination in the hiring and assignment of teachers in public school systems. 64 Mich L Rev 692
Lieberman, Teachers and the Fourteenth amendment--The Role of the Faculty in the Desegregation Process. 46 NC L Rev 313 

ARTICLE OUTLINE (Go to beginning) 

I.     Preliminary matters
 
§  1     Introduction
§  1[a]     Scope
§  1[b]     Related matters
 
§  2     Summary
§  2[a]     Generally
§  2[b]     Practice pointers
 
II.     Constitutional issues
 
§  3     Segregation of faculties in general
§  3[a]     Generally
§  3[b]     Standing to sue
 
§  4     Particular practices
§  4[a]     Generally
§  4[b]     Evaluation of qualifications; tenure
 
III.     Existence of discrimination
 
§  5     Presumptions and burden of proof
 
§  6     Discrimination in hiring or retention
§  6[a]     Held established
§  6[b]     Held not established
 
§  7     Discrimination in assignment or transfer
 
IV.     Elimination of discrimination
A.     General rules
 
§  8     School board's duty, generally
 
§  9     Flexibility; quotas.
 
§  10     Time
 
§  11     Voluntary and involuntary transfers
 
B.     Particular plans and orders
 
§  12     Fourth Circuit cases
 
§  13     Fifth Circuit cases
 
§  14     Eighth Circuit cases
 
§  15     Cases from other circuits