Comfort ex rel. Neumyer v. Lynn School Committee

263 F.Supp.2d 209

Samantha J. COMFORT, on behalf of her minor child and friend, Elizabeth NEUMYER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. LYNN SCHOOL COMMITTEE, et al., Defendants, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Defendant-Intervenor.

Todd Bollen, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Lynn School Committee, et al., Defendants.

No. C.A.99-11811-NG.

No. C.A.01-10365-NG.

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts.

June 6, 2003.

Chester Darling, Boston, MA, for Plaintiffs.

John C. Mihos, Lynn, MA, for Lynn School Committee, Patricia Capano, Frank M. Carrabba, Steven F. Duffy, George Mazareas, William McDonald, Timothy Mc-Manus, Madelyn Barry, Donna Coppola, Carolyn Murphy, Loretta Cuffe O'Donnell Patricia A. Crutchfield, Edwin J. Delattre defendants.

George S. Markopoulos, City Solicitor' Office, Lynn, MA, for City of Lynn, defendant. M.A, for Patrick J. Mc Manus, defendant.

John C. Mihos, Lynn, MA, George S. Markopoulos, City Solicitor's Office, Lynn, MA, for Patrick J. McManus, defendant.

Richard W. Cole, John R. Hitt, Attorney General's Office, Boston, M.A, for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, defendant.

Ranjana A. Chand Burke, Attorney General's Office, Boston, M.A, for James Peyser, Robert Schaefer, William K. Irwin, Jr., Abigail Thernstrom, defendants.

Ross Wiener, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC, for U.S., defendant.

Norman J. Chachkin, NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc., Nadine M. Cohen, Lawyers Committee for Civ. Rights, for Pamela Freeman, Barbara Murkison, Anthony Murkison, Northshore Chapter of Nat. Ass'n for Advancement of Colored People, defendants.

GERTNER, District Judge.

                               TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION..................................................213
II.PROCEDURAL HISTORY................................................215
A. The Comfort Litigation............................................216
        1. Parties...................................................216
        2. Preliminary Injunction ...................................216
        3. Motions to Dismiss........................................217
     B. The Bollen Litigation........................................217
III. TRIAL...........................................................218
     A. Plaintiffs'Case..............................................218
     B. Defendants'Case..............................................219
          1. The Administrators: ....................................219
          2. The Parents and Students:...............................220
          3. Defendants'Experts:.....................................220
     C. Plaintiffs'Rebuttal..........................................221
IV. FINDINGS OF FACT.................................................222
     A. The Racial Imbalance Act.....................................222
     B. Racial Imbalance in Lynn's Public Schools....................224
          1. 1977: The First Warning.................................225
          2. 1979: Washington, the First Magnet School...............225
          3. 1980s: Profound Changes in Lynn.........................225
          4. 1986: A Series of Failed Voluntary Plans................226
          5. 1987-1988: Greater Imbalance; More Accusations..........226
          6. 1988-1990: Drafting the Current Plan.............................227
     C. The Current Plan.............................................228
     D. Continuous Monitoring........................................230
     E. A Current Snapshot of the Lynn School District...............230
            1. Residential Segregation and Geographical Separation...230
            2. "White Flight" and Its Decline after Implementation of the Lynn
                       Plan...............................................230
            3. Racial Balance or Imbalance............................231
            4. The Special Problem of Poverty.........................232
            5. School Construction and Renovation.....................232
            6. "Magnet" Schools.......................................232
     F. The Lynn Schools at Present...................................232
              1. Observations by Participants.........................233

              2.  Expert Testimony...............................................................233
                      a. Dr. Orfield: Desegregation Expert.......................................234
                      b. Drs. Dovidio and Killen: Social Psychologists...........................236
                             (1) Intergroup Contact Theory.......................................236
                             (2) "Critical Mass".................................................237
                             (3) Impact of Resegregation ........................................238
                      c. Nancy McArdle: Limitations Imposed by the Demographics in
                          Lynn...................................................................238
                      d.   Plaintiffs' Rebuttal..................................................239
   LEGAL ANALYSIS ...............................................................................240
       A. Jurisdictional Issues .................................................................240
              1. Amendments to Prior Decisions (Comfort Plaintiffs)..............................240
              2. Partial Motion to Dismiss (Bollen Plaintiffs) ..................................241
                      a. Claims for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief............................241
                      b. Nominal Damages.........................................................243
        B. Equal Protection.......................................................................243
              1. Strict or Intermediate Scrutiny?.................................................244
              2. Facial Challenge to the Racial Imbalance Act.....................................246
              3. The Strict Scrutiny Standard ....................................................249
                      a. Compelling State Interest................................................249
                      b. Narrow Tailoring.........................................................251
                            (1) Are the means necessary; are there adequate race-neutral
                                     alternatives?................................................251
                             (2) Is the policy proportional to the compelling interest ...........251
                             (3) What Is the Impact on Third Parties? ............................253
                             (4) Miscellaneous Concerns: Deference to School Boards' "Narrow
                                 Tailoring........................................................253
               4. The Goals of the Plan ..........................................................255
                      a. Curricular Goals: "Promoting Racial and Ethnic Diversity,"
                         "Increasing Educational Opportunities for All Students and
                              Improving the Quality of Education," "Ensuring Safety"..................255
                             (1) Are These Curricular Goals Compelling State Interests? ..........255
                             (2) Is the Plan Narrowly Tailored to These Compelling Interests
                                                   ........................................................256
                                    (a) Are the Plan's Means Necessary to Achieve its Ends?.......256
                                    (b) Proportionality of the Means..............................257
                                    (c) Minimal Burden on Third Parties; the Issue of Stigma......257
                              (3) Plaintiffs' Arguments Do Not Apply in Lynn......................259
                                    (a) a White/nonwhite Distinction Is Appropriate...............259
                                    (b) Additional Resources Would Not Have Been Adequate
                                         to Accomplish the Curricular Goals; the Significance
                                         of "Critical Mass".......................................260
                      b. Remedying the Effects of De Facto Segregation: "Reducing
                           Minority Isolation"....................................................264
                              (1) Is this Remedial Interest Compelling?...........................264
                              (2) Is the Lynn Plan Narrowly Tailored to this Compelling
                                     Interest?....................................................266
                              (3) Race-Neutral Alternatives are not Feasible......................267
                     c. Interest (5): "Providing an Education to All Students that
                          Satisfies Federal and State Constitutional Requirements"................269
                              (1) The Command and Promise of Brown v. Board of Edu
                                      cation ......................................................269
                               (2) State Constitutional Requirements..............................271
                   C. Other Federal Claims........................................................272
                          1. TitleVI..............................................................272
                          2. 42 U.S.C. § 1981 ...............................................272
                          3. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985, 1986 ...................................273
                   D. Article 111 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights......................273

          1. Applicable

...