BRIAN A. JACKSON, Chief Judge.
This matter involves school redistricting in Ascension Parish, State of Louisiana and allegations that the school attendance rezoning plan violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
On February 18, 2014, this matter came before the Court for a non-jury trial on the merits. (Docs. 195, 196.) Having considered the parties pretrial and post-trial submissions, the evidence introduced at the trial, and the arguments presented by counsel, the Court finds that Plaintiff Darrin Kenny Lewis, Sr. ("Lewis") has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Option 2f
It is uncontested that this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
The Ascension Parish School District (the "District") is a political subdivision of the State of Louisiana, governed by the Ascension Parish School Board (the "School Board"). The District operates four high schools in Southeast Louisiana: Donaldsonville High School
In the early 2000's, Ascension Parish began experiencing significant population growth in the Dutchtown area of the Parish. In 2002, the School Board opened Dutchtown High School to address student population growth. However, by 2006, the enrollment at Dutchtown Middle School, a Dutchtown High School feeder school, had risen to more than 1,000 students.
In December 2004, the School Board established a "Growth Impact Committee" to develop a plan to address the student population growth in the Dutchtown area of East Ascension Parish. According to Superintendent Donald Songy
On January 15, 2008, the School Board adopted school attendance rezoning plan 2f ("Option 2f"). Option 2f re-drew the school attendance zone lines so that approximately 339 students from the Dutchtown attendance zone and the St. Amant High School attendance zone were moved to the East Ascension High School attendance zone as of the 2008-2009 school year. Option 2f also moved Duplessis Primary School from the Dutchtown High School attendance zone to the East Ascension High School attendance zone, assigned one new middle school to the East Ascension High School attendance zone, assigned two new primary schools to the Dutchtown High School attendance zone, assigned one new primary school to the East Ascension High School attendance zone, and assigned three new primary schools to the St. Amant High School attendance zone.
Shortly after the School Board's adoption of Option 2f, Lewis, the father of two African American schoolchildren assigned to the East Ascension High School attendance zone
Lewis's First Amended Complaint alleges that the School Board's "actions since the construction of Dutchtown High School and in the adoption of Plan 2f were taken to ensure that East Ascension High School would maintain a disproportionately large non-white minority population, leaving the remaining two East Bank schools as predominantly white." (Doc. 26, ¶ 13.) Lewis further alleges that Option 2f feeds a disproportionate number of at-risk
On April 30, 2009, the School Board filed a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment. (Docs. 36, 40.) Lewis filed a memoranda in opposition, but did not cross-move for summary judgment. (Docs. 45, 49.) Subsequently, this Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, granted the School Board's motion for summary judgment, dismissed Lewis's claims, and entered a judgment in favor of the School Board. (Docs. 61, 66, 67.) Lewis appealed the District Court's ruling and judgment, in part. (Doc. 68.)
On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part. (Doc. 76.) Specifically, the Court held that "[b]ecause factual questions exist as to
Id. at 352.
In accordance with the Fifth Circuit's decision, the Court granted the parties time to conduct additional discovery. (Docs. 80, 84, 104.) Following additional discovery, the parties filed cross motions for summary judgment. (Docs. 107, 108.) After careful review of the summary judgment evidence, the Court denied Lewis's motion for summary judgment and granted in part and denied in part the School Board's motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 183.) Specifically, the Court dismissed Lewis's claim that Option 2f employs an explicit racial classification. (Doc. 183, p. 27.) The Court also denied the School Board's request that the Court dismiss Lewis's Equal Protection Clause claim on the basis that Varando and Child B were similarly situated to white students in the East Ascension High School attendance zone. (Doc. 183, p. 30.) The Court further denied the School Board's request that the Court dismiss Lewis's Equal Protection Clause claim because genuine disputes of material fact existed as to: (1) whether Option 2f has a discriminatory impact on nonwhite students in the East Ascension High School attendance zone; and (2) whether the School Board acted with a discriminatory purpose when it adopted Option 2f. (Doc. 183, pp. 32, 38.) Neither party filed a motion for reconsideration
On February 18, 2014, this matter came before the Court for a non-jury trial on the merits. (Docs. 195, 196.) Following the trial on the merits, the parties were granted leave to file post-trial briefs, including proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. (Docs. 190, 191, 194.)
The following findings of fact are uncontroverted or supported by the evidence in the record. Where a particular fact was controverted, the Court weighed the evidence and determined that the evidence presented by the party supporting that fact was more persuasive.
1. In the early 2000's, Ascension Parish began experiencing significant population growth in the Dutchtown area of the Parish.
2. In 2002, the United States Department of Justice approved the School Board's plan to address the population growth in the Dutchtown area by constructing Dutchtown High School and implementing a new school attendance zone "feeder plan" that included the newly-constructed Dutchtown High School. However, by 2006, the enrollment at Dutchtown Middle School, a Dutchtown High School feeder school, had risen to more than 1,000 students.
3. In 2004, following this Court's dismissal of a longstanding desegregation case against the District, the School Board began exploring alternative solutions to student population growth in the Dutchtown area. Later that year, the School Board established a "Growth Impact Committee."
4. On December 7, 2004, School Board member and Growth Impact Committee Chairman Troy James Gautreau, Sr.
5. According to Songy, the District's goal was to move approximately 450 students out of the Dutchtown Middle School attendance zone, and thus, out of the Dutchtown High School attendance zone, and into other east bank schools with capacity for growth.
6. Prior to the School Board's adoption of Option 2f, the School Board held several public meetings, during which it afforded members of the public the opportunity to comment on the proposed attendance re-zoning plans.
7. To facilitate the School Board's assessment of potential attendance re-zoning plans, Songy, Gautreau, and other members of the School Board requested Demographics Application Specialist David Duplechein ("Duplechein") generate demographic data for several plans.
8. Using the District's "Edulog"
9. In 2004, Gautreau presented a PowerPoint presentation to the School Board and unidentified District Administrators entitled, "East Side Re-district Impact."
10. Gautreau's presentation concluded that the 2002 school attendance zone "feeder plan" had not alleviated the overcrowding issues plaguing several of the District's primary and middle schools.
11. Gautreau's presentation also showed that, since the implementation of the 2002 school attendance zone "feeder plan," the percentage of at-risk students at the primary schools in the East Ascension High School feeder zone had increased, and the average School Performance Scores ("SPS") at the primary schools in the East Ascension High School feeder zone had decreased. Gautreau's presentation also showed an increase in the percentage of at-risk students and lower average SPS scores at middle schools in the East Ascension High School feeder zone. Gautreau's presentation further showed decreased student enrollment, an increase in the percentage of at-risk students, lower average SPS scores, and lower standardized test scores at East Ascension High School.
12. Gautreau's presentation also included a delineated list of the "effects" of a higher at-risk student population, including: (1) an "[i]ncrease in discipline problems;" (2) "[i]ncrease[d] pressure for high stakes testing;" and (3) an "[i]ncrease [in] teacher frustration and lower morale."
13. Gautreau's presentation further emphasized that "...
14. It is unclear whether Gautreau developed this PowerPoint presentation using demographic data from the Edulog computer program.
15. It is also unclear how many, if any, School Board members considered this PowerPoint presentation when they voted to adopt Option 2f.
16. Subsequently, Gautreau prepared another PowerPoint presentation, entitled "Proposed Re-districting Options." Gautreau presented this PowerPoint presentation to the School Board in 2006 or 2007.
17. Gautreau's presentation examined what he identified as the "Duplessis Feeder Option" (i.e., Option 2f) and the "Prairieville Feeder Option" (i.e., Option 3). Specifically, Gautreau examined the: (1) then-current racial demographics at each of the high schools; (2) projected total enrollment at several primary schools under the Duplessis Feeder Option and Prairieville Feeder Option; (3) projected the total enrollment at several middle schools under the Duplessis Feeder Option and Prairieville Feeder Option; (4) projected the percentage of "black" versus "white" students at several primary schools under the Duplessis Feeder Option and Prairieville Feeder Option; (5) projected the percentage of "black" versus "white" students at several middle schools under the Duplessis Feeder Option and Prairieville Feeder Option; (6) projected the percentage of "Title I" versus "paid" students at several primary schools under the Duplessis Feeder Option and Prairieville Feeder Option; and (7) projected the percentage of "Title I" versus "paid" students at several middle schools under the Duplessis Feeder Option and Prairieville Feeder Option.
19. It is unclear whether Gautreau developed this PowerPoint presentation using demographic data from the Edulog computer program.
20. It is also unclear how many, if any, School Board members considered this PowerPoint presentation when they voted to adopt Option 2f.
21. Sometime after 2007, Gautreau created a chart using demographic data from the Edulog computer program. The chart included projections of the total enrollment, "Minority %," and "At-Risk %" at each of the three high schools on the east bank under "Option 2," "Option 2c," "Option 2d," "Option 2e," "Option 2f," and "Option 3."
22. Specifically, Gautreau's chart showed that Option 2f would result in an increase in student enrollment at East Ascension High School from 1,241 in 2007 to 1,658 in 2012; an increase in student enrollment at Dutchtown High School from 1,695 in 2007 to 1,751 in 2012; and an increase in student enrollment at St. Amant High School from 1,633 in 2007 to 1,762 in 2012.
23. Gautreau's chart also showed that Option 2f would result in an increase in "Minority %" at East Ascension High School from 43 percent in 2007 to 47 percent in 2012; a decrease in "Minority %" at Dutchtown High School from 26 percent in 2007 to 25 percent in 2012; and an increase in "Minority %" at St. Amant High School from 12 percent in 2007 to 15 percent in 2012.
24. Gautreau's chart further showed that Option 2f would result in an increase in "At-Risk %" at East Ascension High School from 43 percent in 2007 to 57 percent in 2012; an increase in "At-Risk %" at Dutchtown High School from 19 percent in 2007 to 26 percent in 2012; and an increase in "At-Risk %" at St. Amant High School from 24 percent in 2007 to 36 percent in 2012.
25. It is also unclear how many, if any, School Board members considered this chart when they voted to adopt Option 2f.
26. On or about January 15, 2008, Songy created a chart entitled, "Statistical Analysis of Options 1, 2, 2f, and 3." Using the demographic data generated by Duplechein using the Edulog computer program, Songy projected the total enrollment, percentage of "African-American" students, and percentage of "free and reduced lunch" students at each of the "K-5," "K-8," "6-8," and "9-12" schools on the east bank under four potential attendance re-zoning plans (i.e., Option 1, Option 2, Option 2f, and Option 3).
27. Songy's chart showed that, upon implementation of Option 2f, enrollment at East Ascension High School would increase from 1,194 to 1,566 students; enrollment at Dutchtown High School would decrease from 1,670 to 1,374 students; and enrollment at St. Amant High School would increase from 1,585 to 1,605 students.
28. Songy's chart also showed that, upon implementation of Option 2f, the percentage of African American students at East Ascension High School would decrease from 35.1 percent to 32 percent; the percentage of African American students at Dutchtown High School would increase from 19.5 percent to 21 percent; and the percentage of African American students at St. Amant High School would increase from 9.8 percent to 10 percent.
30. Songy's chart included projections based on the District's October 2007 student enrollment data only. In other words, Songy's chart did not project the enrollment and demographic effects of the four potential school attendance re-zoning plans beyond the 2007-2008 school year.
31. Songy's chart also included enrollment and demographic projections for six primary schools that did not exist at the time of the vote.
32. Immediately before the January 15, 2008 School Board meeting, Songy provided each School Board member with a copy of the "Statistical Analysis of Options 1, 2, 2f, and 3" chart. As such, each School Board member was in possession of Songy's chart at the time of the vote.
33. It is unclear which, if any, School Board members were in possession of Gautreau's chart and/or PowerPoint presentations at the time of the vote.
34. On January 15, 2008, the School Board met in a regular session at a public Board meeting at the Courthouse in Gonzales, Louisiana.
35. Item thirteen on the School Board's agenda was the adoption of revised school attendance zones.
36. Prior to the vote, Gautreau addressed the School Board and the public. According to Gautreau, an important criteria when selecting a school attendance rezoning plan was maintaining the District's current unitary status and moving the least amount of students as possible. Gautreau informed the public that Option 2f or Option 3 needed to be passed by the School Board that night, and that some people would be upset with the School Board's decision.
37. After motions to adopt Option 2f and Option 3 were made and seconded, and each School Board member offered opinions on the best option, the floor was opened for public comment only. Nineteen members of the public made comments on the record.
38. Neither party submitted into evidence a transcript of each Board member's comments, nor a transcript of the public comments.
39. Following the public comments, the School Board took a vote on Option 3. Four School Board members voted for the plan: Kerry Diez ("Diez"), Gautreau, John Murphy ("Murphy"), and Patricia Russo ("Russo"). Six School Board members voted against the plan: Steve Broussard ("Broussard"), Catherine Davis ("Davis"), Jody Elisar ("Elisar"), Harold Jarreau ("Jarreau"), Taft Kleinpeter ("Kleinpeter"), and A.J. Nickens ("Nickens").
40. Next, the School Board took a vote on Option 2f. Six School Board members voted for Option 2f: Broussard, Davis, Elisar, Jarreau, Kleinpeter, and Nickens. Four School Board members voted against Option 2f: Diez, Gautreau, Murphy, and Russo.
41. Four of the six School Board members who voted for Option 2f testified during the trial. All four testified that they were aware of the demographic projections under Option 2f at the time of the vote.
42. Four of the six School Board members who voted for Option 2f testified that, at the time of the vote, they were aware that students who receive free or reduced lunch (i.e., "at-risk") often experience more academic challenges and have lower standardized test scores than students who do not.
43. During the trial, Songy, the current Superintendent, Dr. Pujol, and former School Board member Davis testified that the District, through funding from the federal government, provides additional resources to schools with high number or high percentages of students from low-income families (i.e., Title I schools).
44. During the trial, Dr. Pujol further testified that: (1) the District hires "premier professionals" at East Ascension High School; (2) the District has not had difficulty recruiting teachers to work at schools in the East Ascension High School attendance zone; (3) the District has not had more difficulty retaining teachers at schools in the East Ascension High School feeder zone versus the two other attendance zones; (4) the teacher turnover rate at each of the high schools on the east bank is the same; (5) students at each of the high schools on the east bank are offered the same courses; (6) the course curriculum at each of the high schools on the east bank is the same; and (7) each of the high schools on the east bank experienced roughly the same amount of discipline issues. Such evidence was not refuted by Lewis.
45. Option 2f was implemented beginning with the 2008-2009 school year.
46. Under Option 2f, students on the east bank of the Mississippi River are assigned to schools, and thus, a school attendance zone, based on their physical residential address.
47. Under this "feeder plan," each primary school "feeds" into a specific middle school, which in turn "feeds" into a specific high school.
48. The hard-copy documents that make up Option 2f consist of boundary maps, geographical descriptions of the
49. Option 2f re-drew the school attendance zone lines so that several students from the Dutchtown attendance zone and the St. Amant High School attendance zone were moved to the East Ascension High School attendance zone. As a result of the School Board's implementation of Option 2f, 339 students were placed in a different school attendance zone during the 2008-2009 school year.
50. Option 2f also moved Duplessis Primary School, a Title I school, from the Dutchtown High School attendance zone to the East Ascension High School attendance zone. As result, all five of the primary schools in the East Ascension High School attendance zone are Title I schools.
51. Option 2f further assigned one new middle school to the East Ascension High School attendance zone (i.e., Central), two new primary schools to the Dutchtown High School attendance zone (i.e., Prairieville and Spanish Lake), one new primary school to the East Ascension High School attendance zone (i.e., Pecan Grove), and three new primary schools to the St. Amant High School attendance zone (i.e., Lakeside, Sorrento, St. Amant).
52. The Louisiana Department of Education's official enrollment data reflects the following changes in total student enrollment at each of the east bank high schools since the Board's implementation of Option 2f:
53. The Louisiana Department of Education's official enrollment data reflects the following changes in racial demographics at each of the east bank high schools since the Board's implementation of Option 2f:
54. The Louisiana Department of Education's official enrollment data reflects the following changes in socioeconomic demographics at each of the east bank high schools since the Board's implementation of Option 2f:
55. It is undisputed that the average ACT scores for the 2013 graduating classes at the three east bank high schools were as follows:
56. Dr. Pujol testified that following implementation of the State of Louisiana's requirement that all high school students take the ACT examination, the average ACT score at all three high schools on the east bank declined. Dr. Pujol further testified that the average ACT score at St. Amant High School fell by 1.2 points,
57. According to the Louisiana Department of Education, since the implementation of Option 2f, School Performance Scores ("SPS")
58. In 2012 and 2013, East Ascension High School received an "A" rating from the Louisiana Department of Education.
59. In 2013, East Ascension High School was ranked in the top ten percent of all state high schools without selective admission standards, the highest in-state ranking ever in its history.
60. According to Dr. Pujol's uncontroverted testimony, the graduation rate at East Ascension High School is currently at its highest rate.
61. Lewis failed to produce any other evidence regarding student performance at schools in the East Ascension High School attendance zone.
"Section 1983 imposes liability on anyone who, under color of state law, deprives a person `of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.' ... [T]his provision [also] safeguards certain rights conferred by federal statutes." Blessing v. Freestone, 520 U.S. 329, 340, 117 S.Ct. 1353, 137 L.Ed.2d 569 (1997) (citing Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 1, 100 S.Ct. 2502, 65 L.Ed.2d 555 (1980)).
Here, the gravamen of Lewis's Section 1983 claim is that the School Board has denied nonwhite students in the East Ascension High School attendance zone equal educational opportunities, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, by adopting a school rezoning plan that "feeds" a disproportionate number of at-risk students into the East Ascension High School attendance zone.
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment commands that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. The central purpose of the Clause "is to prevent the States from purposely discriminating between individuals on the basis of race." Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630, 642, 113 S.Ct. 2816, 125 L.Ed.2d 511 (1993) (citing Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 239, 96 S.Ct. 2040, 48 L.Ed.2d 597 (1976)). Indeed, "[d]istinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry are by their very nature odious to a free people, and therefore are contrary to our traditions and hence constitutionally suspect." Fisher v. Univ. of Tx. at Austin, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 133 S.Ct. 2411, 2418, 186 L.Ed.2d 474, 485 (2013) (internal quotations and citations omitted). "[B]ecause racial characteristics so seldom provide a relevant basis for disparate treatment, the Equal Protection Clause demands that racial classifications ... be subjected to the most rigid scrutiny." Id. at ___-___, 133 S.Ct. at 2418-19, 186 L.Ed.2d at 485 (internal quotations and citations omitted). Accordingly, "[l]aws that explicitly distinguish between individuals on racial grounds fall within the core" of the Equal Protection Clause's prohibition, Reno, 509 U.S. at 642, 113 S.Ct. 2816, and are subject
A violation of the Equal Protection Clause can be shown when: (1) a law or policy explicitly classifies on the basis of race; (2) a facially neutral law or policy is applied differently on the basis of race; or (3) a facially neutral law or policy that is applied evenhandedly is motivated by discriminatory intent and has a racially discriminatory impact. Lower Merion, 665 F.3d at 543 (citing cases).
A "racial classification, regardless of purported motivation, is presumptively invalid and can be upheld only upon an extraordinary justification." Pers. Adm'r of Mass. v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256, 272, 99 S.Ct. 2282, 60 L.Ed.2d 870 (1979). Indeed, "[i]t is well established that when the government distributes burdens or benefits on the basis of individual racial classifications, that action is reviewed under strict scrutiny." Parents Involved, 551 U.S. at 720, 127 S.Ct. 2738; see also Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 326, 123 S.Ct. 2325, 156 L.Ed.2d 304 (2003) (quoting Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 227, 115 S.Ct. 2097, 132 L.Ed.2d 158 (1995)). "A statute or policy utilizes a `racial classification' when, on its face, it explicitly distinguishes between people on the basis of some protected category." Hayden v. Cnty. of Nassau, 180 F.3d 42, 48 (2d Cir.1999) (citing cases).
Here, Lewis alleges that Option 2f expressly classifies students on the basis of race. The Court concludes that this argument is without merit.
First, as noted above, the Court previously rejected Lewis's claim that Option 2f employs an explicit racial classification in its Ruling and Order denying Lewis's motion for summary judgment and granting in part and denying the School Board's motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 183.) As also noted above, Lewis failed to file a motion for reconsideration or seek appeal of the Court's Ruling and Order to the Fifth Circuit.
Second, a review of the evidence supports the conclusion that Option 2f does not employ an explicit racial classification. Option 2f is facially race neutral, assigning students to schools based solely on the geographical area in which they live. Option 2f, on its face, neither uses racial classification as a factor in school assignments, nor distributes any burdens or benefits on the basis of racial classification. Indeed, Lewis failed to point to any provision of Option 2f that classifies students on the basis of race, or uses race as a factor in school assignment.
Further, the School Board's consideration of the projected enrollment and percentage of nonwhite and "at-risk" students under the potential school attendance rezoning plans does not amount to a rezoning plan that assigns students on the basis of race. Parents Involved, 551 U.S. at 745, 127 S.Ct. 2738 (the prohibition against
In sum, the Court finds that the record evidence in this case does not support the conclusion that Option 2f employs an explicit racial classification.
The second alternative to establish a violation of the Equal Protection Clause is to show that a facially neutral law or policy is applied differently on the basis of race, is also inapplicable here. There is no evidence that the District has applied Option 2f differently on the basis of race. Indeed, Lewis failed to present any evidence that the District enforces Option 2f in some areas of the Parish or against some students while not enforcing Option 2f in other areas of the Parish or against other students. In other words, Lewis does not allege, nor did he present any evidence, that Option 2f is enforced in a discriminatory manner.
To establish a violation of the Equal Protection Clause under the third alternative, the plaintiff must prove that the government action: (1) had a discriminatory effect; and (2) was motivated by a discriminatory purpose. Village of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 264-66, 97 S.Ct. 555, 50 L.Ed.2d 450 (1977), Davis, 426 U.S. at 239-42, 96 S.Ct. 2040. If Option 2f is found to have a discriminatory impact and the School Board is found to have acted with a discriminatory purpose, strict scrutiny places the burden on the School Board to prove that its actions were narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest. Parents Involved, 551 U.S. at 720, 127 S.Ct. 2738.
Although discriminatory impact alone is not dispositive, a plaintiff must show discriminatory impact in order to prove an equal protection violation. Discriminatory impact must be shown to establish an equal protection violation because "plaintiffs must show that they have been injured as a result" of the government action to ensure that courts "can impose a meaningful remedy." Lower Merion, 665 F.3d at 550-51 (quoting Garza v. County of Los Angeles, 918 F.2d 763, 771 (9th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1028, 111 S.Ct. 681, 112 L.Ed.2d 673 (1991)). Indeed, "no case in [the Supreme] Court has held that a legislative act may violate equal protection solely because of the motivations of the men who voted for it." Palmer v. Thompson, 403 U.S. 217, 224, 91 S.Ct. 1940, 29 L.Ed.2d 438 (1971).
As a prerequisite to an equal protection claim, "the plaintiff must prove that similarly situated individuals were treated differently."
The Fifth Circuit has made clear that "there is no precise formula to determine whether an individual is similarly situated to comparators." Lindquist v. City of Pasadena, 669 F.3d 225, 233 (5th Cir.2012). Rather, the "similarly situated" inquiry "depend[s] substantially on the facts and context of the case," "is case-specific," and "requires [the court] to consider `the full variety of factors that an objectively reasonable ... decisionmaker would have found relevant in making the challenged decision.'" Id., at 233-34 (quoting Griffin Indus., Inc. v. Irvin, 496 F.3d 1189, 1203 (11th Cir.2007)). See also Jennings, 383 F.3d at 1214 ("the degree to which others are viewed as similarly situated depends substantially on the facts and context of the case.").
First, the Court must determine whether nonwhite students in the East Ascension High School attendance zone are similarly situated to white students in the same attendance zone or white students in the Dutchtown High School and St. Amant High School attendance zones. As noted above, the white comparators must be those students who stand in the same situation as the nonwhite students in the East Ascension High School attendance zone in relation to the challenged government action.
Neither party cited to, nor has the Court identified, a factually analogous case in the Fifth Circuit. However, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently confronted a similar issue in Lower Merion. There, the court considered whether the school redistricting plan in Lower Merion, Pennsylvania discriminated against nonwhite students on the basis of race, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Id., 665 F.3d 524 (3d Cir.2011). Like the case at bar, Lower Merion's rezoning "feeder plan" reassigned students to schools within the school district based on their physical address. The plaintiffs were African American students who lived in an area that was redistricted to a different school. In determining whether the plaintiffs had established discriminatory impact, the Third Circuit first considered whether the plaintiffs had established that similarly situated students of a different race were treated differently. Id. at 550. The Third Circuit
Id.
Here, the record evidence shows that both nonwhite and white students are assigned to the East Ascension High School attendance zone. Indeed, according to the record evidence, 41.8 percent of the students assigned to East Ascension High School are white.
The record evidence further shows that both nonwhite and white students in the East Ascension High School attendance zone are assigned to schools in that zone without the choice to attend schools in the Dutchtown High School or St. Amant High School attendance zones. Indeed, the record evidence shows that nonwhite and white students are assigned to schools based on their physical residential address. As such, white students in the East Ascension High School attendance zone are subjected to the same alleged academic conditions as nonwhite students in that zone.
By contrast, white students in the Dutchtown High School and St. Amant High School attendance zones are not subjected to the same alleged academic conditions as nonwhite students in the East Ascension High School attendance zone, as — based on Lewis's own allegations — a lower percentage of at-risk students attend schools in those attendance zones.
In other words, Lewis failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that nonwhite students in the East Ascension High School attendance zone stand in the same situation as white students in the Dutchtown High School and St. Amant High School attendance zones. Rather, the record evidence supports the conclusion that the students who stand in the same situation as the nonwhite students in the East Ascension High School attendance zone are the white students in that same zone. Accordingly, the Court concludes that nonwhite students in the East Ascension High School attendance zone are similarly situated to white students in the same zone and not white students in the Dutchtown High School and St. Amant High School attendance zones.
Further, Lewis failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Option 2f treats similarly situated students of a different race in a different manner. Indeed, nothing in record supports the conclusion that nonwhite students in the East Ascension High School attendance zone are treated differently than white students in
In sum, the Court concludes that Lewis has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that nonwhite students in the East Ascension High School attendance zone are similarly situated to white students in the Dutchtown High School and St. Amant High School attendance zones. The Court further concludes that Lewis has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Option 2f treats similarly situated students of a different race in a different manner.
Even en if the Court were to conclude that Option 2f treats similarly situated students of a different race in a different manner, the record evidence does not support the conclusion that Option 2f has had a disproportionately adverse effect on nonwhite students in the East Ascension High School attendance zone.
It is undisputed that the majority of the District's nonwhite students attend schools in the East Ascension High School feeder zone. It is also undisputed that East Ascension High School is the only majority nonwhite high school in the District. It is further undisputed that one of the two middle schools and three of the five primary schools in the East Ascension High School attendance zone are majority nonwhite.
During the trial, Lewis presented evidence that Option 2f has resulted in an increase in the nonwhite student population at schools in the East Ascension High School attendance zone:
Percentage of Nonwhite Students at
Schools in the East Ascension
Parish Attendance Zone
Percentage of Percentage of Percentage of
Nonwhite Nonwhite Nonwhite
Students — Students — Students —
October 2007 October 2008 October 2013
East Ascension High School 42.1 42.51 52.8
Central Middle NA NA 36.7
Gonzales Middle 64.9 67.80 74.5
Central Primary 25.9 25.71 37.3
Duplessis Primary 36.3 36.82 40.0
Gonzales Primary 73.2 71.05 74.0
G.W. Carver Primary 63.2 70.20 75.1
Pecan Grove Primary NA 69.01 75.7
The record evidence also shows that the majority of the District's at-risk students attend schools in the East Ascension High School feeder zone. It is also undisputed that East Ascension High School is the only majority at-risk high school in the District. It is further undisputed that all of the primary and middle schools in the East Ascension High School attendance zone are majority at-risk.
Percentage of At-Risk Students at
Schools in the East Ascension
Parish Attendance Zone
Percentage of Percentage of Percentage of
At-Risk At-Risk At-Risk
Students — Students — Students —
October 2007 October 2008 October 2013
East Ascension High School 40.37 44.41 51.83
Central Middle NA NA 51.69
Gonzales Middle 68.19 71.72 81.02
Central Primary 42.54 40.87 57.22
Duplessis Primary 38.08 38.83 56.74
Gonzales Primary 81.29 75.28 85.39
G.W. Carver Primary 72.37 74.69 85.33
Pecan Grove Primary NA 72.53 84.47
In sum, the record evidence shows that the majority of the District's nonwhite students attend schools where the majority of students are at-risk. According to Lewis, a disproportionate amount of at-risk students at a school results in unequal educational opportunities for students at that school. As such, Lewis alleges that the at-risk student population in the East Ascension High School attendance zone has a disproportionately adverse impact on nonwhite students in that attendance zone.
However, evidence of an increase in the percentage of nonwhite and at-risk students at schools in the East Ascension High School zone, without more, is insufficient to establish disparate impact. Indeed, the Supreme Court has "rejected the idea that `a law, neutral on its face and serving ends otherwise within the power of government to pursue, is invalid under the Equal Protection Clause simply because it may affect a greater proportion of one race than another.'" Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 375, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996) (Thomas, J., concurring) (citing Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 242, 96 S.Ct. 2040, 48 L.Ed.2d 597 (1976)). See also Feeney, 442 U.S. at 273, 99 S.Ct. 2282 (recognizing "the settled rule that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal laws, not equal results."). Indeed, "[d]isproportionate impact is not irrelevant, but it is not the sole touchstone of an invidious racial discrimination forbidden by the Constitution. Standing alone, it does not trigger the rule ..." Washington, 426 U.S. at 242, 96 S.Ct. 2040. As such, evidence that a greater proportion of at-risk students attend majority nonwhite schools, without more, is unavailing.
The only objective evidence of student performance introduced by Lewis at trial were the average ACT scores for the graduating class of 2013. This data showed the following:
Average ACT Score — Class of 2013
Louisiana East Ascension Dutchtown St. Amant
National State High School High School High School
#of Test Takers 1,799,243 45,305 347 452 395
Average ACT Score 20.9 19.5 19.4 21.3 20.3
During the trial, the School Board introduced the student performance scores for each of the schools in the District for multiple academic years. According to Dr. Pujol's uncontroverted testimony, student performance scores at the primary and middle school levels are based on standardized tests only.
In contrast, student performance scores at the high school level are calculated as follows: (1) 25 percent of the score is based on end-of-course test results; (2) 25 percent of the score is based on ACT scores; (3) 25 percent of the score is based on the number of students who graduate and receive a diploma within four years; and (4) 25 percent of the score is based on students' "graduation index" or credentials (i.e., advanced placement courses, entry-based certifications, etc.).
The record evidence shows that the student performance scores at East Ascension High School have gradually increased since the implementation of Option 2f. In 2012, East Ascension High School received student performance score of 127.3 and an "A" rating from the Louisiana Department of Education. In 2013, East Ascension High School received student performance score of 135.2 and an "A" rating from the Louisiana Department of Education.
While East Ascension High School's 2013 student performance score was 28.1 points lower that Dutchtown High School and 14.5 points lower than St. Amant High School, Lewis failed to introduce evidence to establish that these differences are statistically significant, or that such differences are the result of unequal educational opportunities due to a higher percentage of at-risk students at East Ascension High School. Lewis also failed to introduce evidence to establish that student performance scores at the primary and middle schools in the East Ascension High School attendance zone are the result of unequal educational opportunities due to a higher percentage of at-risk students at those schools.
Instead, Lewis points to the percentage of students at East Ascension High School who passed advance placement exams versus the percentage of students at Dutchtown High School and St. Amant High School who passed advanced placement exams during two academic years. While the record evidence shows that a lower percentage of students at East Ascension High School passed advanced placement exams during one academic year, Lewis failed to introduce evidence to establish that these differences are statistically significant, or the result of unequal educational opportunities due to a higher percentage of at-risk students at East Ascension High School. Further, Lewis failed to introduce
Finally, Lewis presented the testimony of Percy Bates, Ph.D. ("Bates"), who was qualified as an expert on the impact of a disproportionate number of at-risk students on an academic environment.
According to Dr. Bates, a "high concentration" of at-risk students at a school adversely affects the quality of the teachers and achievement of the students. Dr. Bates further testified that, in his opinion, the disproportionate number of at-risk students at East Ascension High School has negatively impacted the educational opportunities and academic achievement of the students. However, when questioned about the basis of his opinion, Dr. Bates testified that his opinion was based on the general research findings of other experts, student performance scores from 2006 and 2007, iLEAP
According to Dr. Bates, Option 2f resulted in "clear and visible inequities" in teacher quality and academic performance among students. However, Dr. Bates failed to support this conclusion with any evidence or data. Indeed, when questioned whether he had conducted any research regarding the number or qualifications of teachers in the East Ascension High School attendance zone versus the other two attendance zones, Dr. Bates testified that he did not. Dr. Bates further testified that he had not researched the course offerings, curriculum, or quality of instruction at schools in the East Ascension High School attendance zone versus schools in the other two attendance zones.
According to Dr. Bates, Option 2f negatively impacted the quality of the educational opportunities offered to Varnado and Child B. However, when questioned about the basis of his opinion, Dr. Bates testified that he did not interview Varnado or Child B or attempt to determine what educational opportunities were offered to them when they attended schools in the East Ascension High School attendance zone.
Further, in Dr. Bates's opinion, "the heavy concentration of minority and at-risk students at East Ascension High School places an undue burden on everyone concerned: the school, the students, and the teaching staff."
It is clear from Dr. Bates's testimony that he formed his opinions based on educational research conducted by other experts and his own experiences evaluating other school districts. However, such generalized opinions are of little to no value to the Court because Dr. Bates failed to conduct an analysis of the evidence and data in this case. Indeed, it is uncontroverted that Dr. Bates did not evaluate any of the evidence or data made available after the implementation of Option 2f. While Dr. Bates's research findings in other districts and the general research findings of other experts can be instructive, his failure to conduct an independent analysis in this case renders his opinions meaningless.
In sum, the Court concludes that Lewis has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that nonwhite students in the East Ascension High School attendance zone are similarly situated to white students in the Dutchtown High School and St. Amant High School attendance zones. The Court further concludes that Lewis has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Option 2f treats similarly situated students of a different race in a different manner.
Even if the Court were to conclude that Option 2f treats similarly situated students of a different race in a different manner, Lewis has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Option 2f has had a disproportionately adverse impact on nonwhite students in the East Ascension High School attendance zone.
As noted above, in order to establish a violation of the Equal Protection Clause, some showing of injury must be made. Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 264-66, 97 S.Ct. 555; Davis, 426 U.S. at 239-42, 96 S.Ct. 2040; Palmer, 403 U.S. at 224, 91 S.Ct. 1940; Irby v. Virginia State Bd. of Elections, 889 F.2d 1352, 1358-59 (4th Cir. 1989). Here, the record evidence casts considerable doubt on Lewis's allegation that Option 2f has resulted in unequal educational opportunities for nonwhite students in the East Ascension High School attendance zone.
Having failed to prove discriminatory impact by a preponderance of the evidence, Lewis cannot establish a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Accordingly, the Court need not consider whether the School Board acted with a discriminatory intent or purpose.
The Court finds that Lewis has not satisfied his burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the Ascension Parish School Board's adoption of Option 2f violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Accordingly,
A final judgment shall issue by separate order.
