Familias Unidas Por La Educación v. El Paso Indep. Sch. Dist.

633 F.Supp.3d 888

FAMILIAS UNIDAS POR LA EDUCACIÓN, Plaintiff, v. EL PASO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant.

EP-20-CV-170-DB

United States District Court, W.D. Texas, El Paso Division

Filed October 3, 2022

Signed September 3, 2022

Margaret Barnes, Paulina Almanza, Veronica Carbajal, Texas Rio Grande Legal Aid, Inc., El Paso, TX, Peter Eammon McGraw, Randall Phillip Hiroshige, Texas RioGrande Legal Aid Inc., Brownsville, TX, Sesenu Yebio Woldemariam, Texas RioGrande Legal Aid, San Antonio, TX, Susan L. Watson, Texas RioGrande Legal Aid, Inc., Nashville, TN, for Plaintiff.

Deborah Clarke Trejo, Kemp Smith LLP, Austin, TX, Mark N. Osborn, Shelly W. Rivas, Sergio M. Estrada, Kemp Smith LLP, El Paso, TX, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING EL PASO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

DAVID BRIONES, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

On this day, the Court considered Defendant El Paso Independent School District's ("EPISD") Motion for Summary Judgment, filed on May 10, 2022. ECF No. 87. EPISD argues that Plaintiff Familias Unidas Por La Education ("Familias Unidas") lacks evidence to support its Complaint and that the Court should dismiss its suit. Mot. for Summ. J. 2, ECF No. 87. Familias Unidas filed a timely Response, ECF No. 104, and EPISD filed a timely Reply, ECF No. 107.

This case stems from a decision by EPISD in 2019 to close three elementary schools—Beall, Burleson, and Alta Vista—in or near Chamizal, a "working-class, immigrant, Mexican-American" neighborhood. Am. Compl. 1-2, 5 ECF No. 24. Familias Unidas argues that in making that decision, EPISD violated the Equal Protection Clause and Title VI by intentionally discriminating against Hispanic and Mexican American students and families on the basis of race. Id. at 44-47. EPISD maintains that Familias Unidas' Complaint contains no evidence of intentional discrimination and that the decisions to close the elementary schools in 2019 was a "reasonable decision following consideration of many relevant factors." Mot. for Summ. J. 6, ECF No. 87.

The Court finds that Familias Unidas has produced evidence that is sufficiently detailed to establish a genuine issue concerning every essential element of the case. That being the case, the Court will deny EPISD's Motion for Summary Judgment.

BACKGROUND

In the summer of 2020, Familias Unidas filed a lawsuit charging that EPISD intentionally discriminated against Mexican and Mexican American students, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, when it closed three elementary schools. Compl., ECF No. 1; Am. Compl. ¶¶ 300, 305, 311, ECF No 24. The lawsuit was brought by Familias Unidas, a nonprofit made up of parents, guardians and caregivers of the children who attended the schools that were closed. Am. Compl. ¶ 5, ECF No. 24.

During the last decade, declining student enrollment in Central El Paso led to decreases in revenue for EPISD and required the district to reduce expenditures. Resp. 3, ECF No. 104. At the same time that EPISD's enrollment and revenue was waning, the District engaged in a cheating scandal that targeted Limited English Proficiency ("LEP") students in the Southside of El Paso. Resp. 3, ECF No. 104. Following the emergence of the cheating scandal in 2010, the Texas Education Agency lowered EPISD's accreditation status and installed a Board of Managers to govern the District from May 2013 to May 2015. Resp. 4, ECF No. 104. The decrease in resources and the change in governance influenced EPISD's decision, in 2016 and then again in 2019, to close two sets of schools in Central El Paso. Resp. 3-5, ECF No. 104.

Following the cheating scandal, the Board of Managers commissioned Jacobs Project Management Co. ("Jacobs"), an engineering and construction firm, to create a "master plan . . . for future facility use including renovations, additions, new construction, replacements, consolidation, and/or disposition." Am. Compl. 14, ECF No. 24; Resp. 3, ECF No. 104. With respect to schools near the Chamizal area, that master plan recommended closing Beall Elementary and investing millions of dollars to modernize Douglass, closing Zavala and investing millions of dollars to modernize Burleson, and closing Alta Vista and consolidating those students into Crockett, Coldwell, and Moreno, as well as modernizing Crockett and Coldwell. Resp. 4, ECF No. 104.

When the Board of Trustees was reinstated in 2015, it created a Facilities Advisory Committee ("FAC"), whose role was to review the Jacobs plan and bring back recommendations for the Board's approval. Id.; Mot. for Summ. J. 3-4, ECF No. 87. The FAC ultimately recommended a $668 million bond, which was used to close and consolidate twelve elementary schools in EPISD in 2016. Importantly, the bond provided construction funding to modernize the schools that were consolidated at this time. Mot. for Summ. J. 3-4, ECF No. 87; Id. at 5. At this point Beall, Burleson, and Alta Vista, the schools at issue here, remained open. Am. Compl. 16, ECF No. 24.

After the approval of the 2016 bond-supported closures, the district's financial problems worsened. Mot. for Summ. J. 4, ECF No. 87. EPISD holds that it implemented various cost reduction strategies, but that in 2018 it recognized that it needed to close more schools to cut expenses further and to avoid cutting teacher salaries or laying off teachers. Id.

In December of 2018, the Board publicly presented two options for the additional school closures, one of which included closing Beall, Burleson, and Alta Vista. Resp. 5, ECF No. 104. Less than two months later, the Board voted to close the three schools, even though one of them—Alta Vista—lacked representation at the time. Id. at 5-6. While the schools that closed and consolidated in 2016 ("2016 Bond Schools") received bond funding for renovations, the schools that were closed in 2019 ("2019 Schools") did not receive any bond funding to improve the new campuses where the students were sent. Am. Compl. 30, ECF No. 24; Mot. for Summ. J. 5, ECF No 87.

LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate when "view[ing] the facts in the light most favorable to the non-movant" and "draw[ing] all reasonable inferences in [his] favor," "there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Coleman v. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist., 113 F.3d 528, 533 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)). "A fact is 'material' if its resolution in favor of one party might affect the outcome of the lawsuit under governing law." Hamilton v. Segue Software Inc., 232 F.3d 473, 477 (5th Cir. 2000) (per curiam). "An issue is 'genuine' if the evidence is sufficient for a reasonable jury to return a verdict of the nonmoving party." Id.

"A party seeking summary judgment always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion and identifying those portions of the record which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." E.E. O. C. v. LHC Grp., Inc., 773 F.3d 688, 694 (5th Cir. 2014) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986)). "Once the moving party has demonstrated the absence of a material fact issue, the nonmoving party must go beyond the pleadings and designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." McCarty v. Hillstone Rest. Grp., Inc., 864 F.3d 354, 357 (5th Cir. 2017). The burden of showing "specific facts" that establish a "genuine issue concerning every essential component of the case" cannot be met "by some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts, by conclusory allegations, by unsubstantiated assertions, or by only a scintilla of evidence." Id.

In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, courts "refrain from making credibility determinations or weighing the evidence." Turner v. Baylor Richardson Med. Ctr., 476 F.3d 337, 343 (5th Cir. 2007) (internal quotations omitted). That is, courts refrain from "determin[ing] the truth of the matter." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).

ANALYSIS

Familias Unidas charges EPISD with violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 300, 305, 311, ECF No 24. The Supreme Court has interpreted Title VI as a statute designed to "halt federal funding of entities that violate a prohibition of racial discrimination similar to that of the Constitution." Regents of Univ. of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 284, 98 S.Ct. 2733, 57 L.Ed.2d 750 (1978). Thus, the Court will apply the same constitutional law analysis to the Equal Protection violation charge and the Title VI charge.

Plaintiffs can prove violations of the Equal Protection Clause and Title VI in one of two ways: through direct evidence or circumstantial evidence. Civil Rights Division, Title VI Legal Manual, Section VI at 4 (Updated April 22, 2021). Plaintiffs that rely on circumstantial evidence must show both discriminatory effect and discriminatory intent. Id.; Vill. of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 264-65 (1977). Here, Familias Unidas relies on circumstantial evidence to prove its claims. Thus, it must provide evidence of both discriminatory effect and intent.

Discriminatory effect can be shown by providing evidence that a similarly situated group of a different race was not persecuted. United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 465, 116 S.Ct. 1480, 134 L.Ed.2d 687 (1996). Persecution is often demonstrated through statistics showing that people of a certain race were disparately impacted by a harmful policy. In rare cases where courts can discern a drastic disparate impact that is "unexplainable on grounds other than race," discriminatory effect may be sufficient to prove a constitutional violation—that is, to prove discriminatory effect and discriminatory intent. Arlington Heights...