San Francisco NAACP v. San Francisco Unified School District

Citations: 59 F. Supp. 2d 1021; 1999 WL 605660Docket: C-78-1445 WHO, C-94-2418 WHO

Court: District Court, N.D. California; July 2, 1999; Federal District Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

In the case of **San Francisco NAACP v. San Francisco Unified School District**, two related desegregation lawsuits were filed to address educational equity for approximately 65,000 diverse schoolchildren in San Francisco. The first action, initiated by the San Francisco NAACP in 1978, sought to desegregate the school district on behalf of all current and future school-age children. The defendants included the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD), its Board Members, and the California State Board of Education along with its officials. A Consent Decree was previously approved by the court in 1983 to resolve the NAACP action. After years of contentious litigation and demographic changes within the district, the parties have reached a stipulated settlement, which the court deems a fair, reasonable, and adequate resolution of the ongoing disputes. The opinion reflects a commitment to President John F. Kennedy's ideal of equal opportunity for all children to develop their talents.

Paragraph 13 of the amended Consent Decree establishes racial and ethnic guidelines for assigning students within the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD). It mandates that each school must have at least four racial/ethnic groups, with no group exceeding 45% of the enrollment in regular schools or 40% in alternative schools. The decree identifies nine racial/ethnic categories for this purpose: Spanish-surname, Other White, African-American, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Filipino, American Indian, and Other Non-White. 

In 1994, students of Chinese descent initiated the Ho action, claiming that the student assignment plan under paragraph 13 amounts to race discrimination, violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The lawsuit was later amended to include the NAACP as a defendant. In March 1996, the court certified the Ho action as a class action for all school-age children of Chinese descent in San Francisco. 

In May 1997, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. Following this, the plaintiffs appealed, seeking a writ of mandamus to halt trial proceedings. The Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal in June 1998 for lack of jurisdiction and denied the writ petition but provided guidance for the trial, confirming that race-based student assignment by a state actor is subject to strict scrutiny. The Ninth Circuit determined that the burden of justification for such racial classifications lies with the defendants, who must demonstrate that paragraph 13 is still necessary to address any existing vestiges of racism that justified its adoption in 1983. The court criticized the defendants' evidence as insufficient and emphasized the need for concrete proof linking current conditions to past discriminatory practices. It concluded that a trial was necessary to address these issues promptly.

Trial was initially set for September 22, 1998, but revealed significant unpreparedness from the defendants during an informal status conference on August 28, 1998. The Court, while expressing frustration over the lack of trial preparation, vacated the trial date and referred the case for settlement discussions with a special master. After unsuccessful negotiations, a new trial date was established for February 16, 1999. In the interim, plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction against the defendants regarding the implementation of paragraph 13, which the Court denied on December 10, 1998, citing insufficient evidence of irreparable harm despite the defendants' weak likelihood of success at trial. The Court ordered the SFUSD to propose a race-neutral student assignment plan by February 1, 1999.

On the trial's scheduled start date, the parties requested a delay to finalize a settlement, which was granted after the Court's in-camera discussions indicated imminent resolution. The parties successfully reached a settlement, which received tentative approval from the Court, with a fairness hearing scheduled for April 20, 1999. 

Key terms of the settlement include: 
A. Modification of the Consent Decree from the NAACP action to terminate by December 31, 2002, with provisions for any party to seek unitary status before this date, anticipating that governmental defendants will have addressed segregation issues by then. 
B. Development of a new student assignment plan by the SFUSD and the State Superintendent consistent with the settlement criteria, subject to review by the San Francisco NAACP and the Ho plaintiffs. 
C. Acknowledgment of SFUSD's authority to set admission criteria that may consider various factors, including diversity, but prohibiting race or ethnicity as the primary factor, except as necessary for language needs or legal compliance. 
D. Modification allowing the SFUSD to optionally request racial or ethnic identification upon enrollment, with clear communication that it is voluntary and carries no adverse consequences.

Proposed modifications for student assignments starting in the 2000-01 school year require Court approval and will replace specified paragraphs of the Consent Decree. If the parties cannot agree on these modifications by October 1, 1999, any party may seek Court approval for their individual plans under the Consent Decree. Upon approval, the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) will publicize the changes and provide training for personnel involved in student assignments. The SFUSD must also report the racial composition of schools by October 15, 2000, and October 15, 2001, and will engage in discussions if concerns arise regarding racial or ethnic concentration affecting educational goals. If agreements on modifications cannot be reached, the SFUSD will work with the State Monitor to propose changes. A preliminary injunction will be established to ensure that student assignments are not based on race or ethnicity, except as necessary for language needs or legal compliance. This injunction will take effect upon Court approval. The San Francisco NAACP and Ho plaintiffs will not claim violations of the Fourteenth Amendment related to racial issues stemming from the injunction. The parties will collaborate to propose modifications and report on the implementation of the Consent Decree, with updates provided to the Court and relevant stakeholders.

A class action cannot be dismissed or settled without court approval, and all class members must be notified of any proposed dismissal or settlement as directed by the court, according to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e). This rule aims to protect unnamed class members from unfair settlements when class representatives may compromise before the action concludes. The evaluation standard for a proposed settlement focuses on its fundamental fairness, adequacy, and reasonableness.

The Ninth Circuit outlines procedural obligations for notifying the class about a proposed settlement, ensuring no group is systematically excluded from notice. Members must be informed of their right to object to the settlement and class definition, and substantial objections must be recorded and addressed by the court. Frivolous objections require only a brief explanation on the record.

In this case, the Court mandated notice of the proposed settlement and the fairness hearing to be distributed among class members of the Ho and NAACP actions. The SFUSD was instructed to publish the notice in multiple local newspapers and translate it into Chinese and Spanish, as well as post it in relevant school locations. The Court determined that the notice method was sufficient to reach class members and complied with due process and Rule 23 requirements.

Although complaints were raised regarding the absence of notice at Balboa and Lowell High Schools, the Court found that adequate notice was provided through newspaper publications and student newspaper coverage. Despite a misunderstanding regarding posting at Lowell High School, the Court concluded that students there were sufficiently informed about the fairness hearing. The notice allowed for comments on the proposed settlement, and all received comments and requests for participation in the hearing were included in the record.

In assessing the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of a settlement, the Court must weigh several factors, including the strength of the plaintiffs' case, the risks and complexities of continued litigation, the likelihood of maintaining class action status, the settlement amount, the extent of discovery completed, counsel's experience, any governmental involvement, and the class members' reactions. The Ninth Circuit emphasizes that this list is not exhaustive and that the importance of each factor varies based on the claims and facts of the case. The focus is on whether the settlement is fair and free from collusion rather than whether it could be improved. 

The strength of the plaintiffs' case is highlighted, particularly regarding the constitutionality of a race-based student assignment plan, which faces strict scrutiny under Supreme Court precedents. The defendants, particularly the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD), struggle to demonstrate that current issues stem from past discriminatory practices, with the Ninth Circuit criticizing their evidence as lacking substance. The Court notes that the defendants failed to adequately identify the discriminatory policies that justified the original 1983 Consent Decree, leading to a conclusion that they are unlikely to prevail at trial based on the evidence presented.

Orders issued on January 28 and February 11, 1999, by the Court struck down several defendants' expert reports for being overly conclusory and not meeting Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The remaining expert reports provided minimal evidence linking current issues in the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) to prior government racial discrimination. At trial, the State Board of Education aligned with plaintiffs against the constitutionality of a race-based assignment plan and sought to dissolve the Consent Decree. The State Superintendent concurred that the plan was no longer justifiable but aimed to propose modifications to retain the Consent Decree’s other aspects. Only the NAACP and SFUSD supported the original plan, indicating the defendants' weak chances of success at trial, especially given stringent proof burdens from higher courts, favoring a settlement.

The second factor considered was the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of continued litigation. The anticipated trial would be lengthy and complex, with seventy prospective witnesses and over 3,000 exhibits identified. Even post-trial, further appeals were expected, potentially extending litigation for years, with significant costs likely borne by taxpayers. The trial's divisive nature was highlighted by extensive media coverage and community concern. Thus, a settlement was deemed preferable to a protracted trial.

The third factor addressed the risk of maintaining class action status. The Ho plaintiffs had moved to redefine the class in the NAACP action, proposing a subclass for Chinese students, which raised issues about class definitions and conflicting remedies sought. This could necessitate new counsel for the subclasses, prolonging the process and incurring additional expenses, thereby favoring a settlement.

The fourth factor regarding the amount offered in settlement was not applicable as there was no monetary settlement in this case.

The fifth factor indicates that since the action settled on the trial day, discovery was complete, allowing both parties to understand each other's case strengths and weaknesses, which supports the settlement. The sixth and seventh factors highlight the extensive experience of counsel involved in class action and school desegregation litigation. Counsel for the plaintiffs has a history of representing similar cases, and Professor David Levine's expertise in relevant legal subjects enhances their credibility. The SFUSD and NAACP were represented by experienced legal teams who have been active in this litigation for 16 years. Governmental participants included the State Superintendent of Education and the State Board of Education, both represented by knowledgeable counsel, whose agreement on the settlement terms further supports its validity.

The final factor examines class member reactions to the settlement. The Court received one supportive comment from the Asian American Legal Foundation and twenty opposing comments, including objections from Dr. Gary Orfield. Some opposing letters represented multiple signatures, suggesting broader discontent. However, the single support letter praised the settlement for promoting educational quality and anti-discrimination. The Court notes that the notification process implied that only those dissatisfied needed to respond, thus the limited support does not indicate widespread opposition to the settlement.

The Court received over 65,000 letters from class members in the NAACP and Ho actions, with only twenty letters opposing the settlement, indicating minimal opposition. The Court will address the objections collectively by issue rather than individually. The Ho plaintiffs filed a motion to strike certain objections due to lack of standing, arguing that only individuals who are class members or authorized representatives may object, as outlined in the notice of the fairness hearing. The notice requires written comments to include identification of the commenter as a current or eligible student in the San Francisco public school system or as their parent or guardian. The Court agrees with the Ho plaintiffs' motion to strike objections from individuals who do not meet these criteria, specifically naming several individuals and the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, as they failed to demonstrate standing under Rule 23(e). Conversely, the Court denies the motion to strike objections from Chinese For Affirmative Action (CAA), Multicultural Education, Training and Advocacy, Inc. (META), and the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Northern California (ACLU), as they have been granted amicus status and their interests were acknowledged previously, allowing their objections to be considered despite technical standing issues.

The Court grants the Ho plaintiffs' motion to strike objections from Tania Kappner, Ronald T. Cruz, Mark Airgood, Yvette Felarca, Joyce Schon, Heather Bergman, and Shanta Driver of the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action By Any Means Necessary. Conversely, it denies the motion to strike objections from CAA, META, and the ACLU. The Court addresses the substance of the remaining objections to the proposed settlement, noting that many stem from misunderstandings regarding the settlement's terms and applicable desegregation law.

Concerns raised include potential resegregation within SFUSD schools, as articulated by Dr. Orfield and student Rayshone Bow, who argues that the proposed settlement will harm minority students by limiting access to diverse educational environments. However, the settlement does not prevent SFUSD from promoting a diverse student body. It clarifies that while race or ethnicity cannot be the primary factor in student admissions, diversity can still be pursued through other means, consistent with state and federal law.

The Court highlights the Supreme Court's constraints on government use of race, indicating that the original race-based student assignment plan was unlikely to survive judicial scrutiny. The proposed settlement replaces this plan, allowing SFUSD to adopt a nonrace-based approach to student assignments that considers socioeconomic factors without leading to ethnic resegregation. Expert testimony from David Ely supports the feasibility of such a system, suggesting that it can maintain diversity. Given the probable unconstitutionality of the race-based plan, the Court permits the exploration of this new system.

The proposed settlement allows modifications to the Consent Decree if identifiable racial or ethnic concentrations adversely impact the San Francisco Unified School District's (SFUSD) educational goals. The agreement permits the SFUSD to pursue a diverse student body without relying on race-based assignments, deemed fair given the low likelihood of defendants successfully defending the constitutionality of the existing race-based plan in court. Concerns were raised, particularly regarding the decline of African-American and Latino students at Lowell High School, especially since student assignments for the 1999-2000 school year were made under significant time constraints, hindering the creation of a new non-race-based system. The Ninth Circuit has mandated that if defendants cannot demonstrate the constitutionality of the race-based plan, it must be revised due to the plaintiffs' irreparable harm from unconstitutional racial classifications. Consequently, the parties and the Court had to act quickly to establish student assignments for that year, with a commitment to developing a new assignment system for future years. The settlement is designed to enable the SFUSD to strive for diversity without prioritizing race, acknowledging the risk of racial identification in schools while allowing for potential adjustments to the Consent Decree. Additionally, objections regarding the arbitrary termination date of December 31, 2002, are addressed; this date is subject to Court approval and aims to ensure that the SFUSD will have taken practical steps towards desegregation by then, rather than serving as an automatic end to the Consent Decree.

The Court will not dissolve the Consent Decree if evidence of lingering segregation exists. Supreme Court precedent indicates that desegregation plans are not meant to be permanent; local authority can be displaced only if there is a constitutional violation by local authorities. The dissolution of a decree is appropriate after a reasonable compliance period, recognizing the value of local control, provided that the school district has acted in good faith and eliminated vestiges of discrimination as much as practicable. The Supreme Court supports incremental termination of desegregation decrees, allowing for a gradual transition of control as compliance is achieved. The current Consent Decree has been effective for sixteen years, with a proposed goal for the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) to remedy segregation by December 31, 2002, addressing concerns about the decree's potential permanence. However, objections have been raised by CAA and META regarding inadequate proposals for the needs of monolingual, limited-English proficient students, emphasizing that the original Consent Decree was not designed to address these educational issues. A separate decree from Lau v. Nichols already addressed limited English proficient students. Nonetheless, the Ninth Circuit has suggested that language issues are relevant to the desegregation goals of the Consent Decree, underscoring the necessity for sensitivity to bilingual concerns in the case.

The proposed settlement in the Ho action allows for the assignment of students by race or ethnicity to meet their language needs, particularly for limited English proficient students. The Consent Decree Advisory Committee is focused on improving education for these students, and the settlement does not prevent the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) from addressing related educational issues. Some parties, including Dr. Orfield, object to the optional self-identification of race or ethnicity by parents and students, arguing it conflicts with the requirement for the SFUSD to provide racial composition data for its schools. They assert that without mandatory identification, the SFUSD cannot deliver accurate racial data, which has been a key concern in the litigation, as the Ho plaintiffs claim that mandatory identification violates the Equal Protection Clause.

The settlement stipulates that the SFUSD will not require racial identification unless mandated by state or federal law, and the parties agreed to the settlement's terms. The defendants likely would not have succeeded at trial regarding the constitutionality of the race-based assignment plan, and the settlement helps avoid a potentially divisive trial. While the Court acknowledges that paragraph D may limit the SFUSD's ability to accurately report racial composition, it emphasizes that it cannot alter the settlement agreement. Ultimately, despite some concerns regarding paragraph D, the Court finds the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and beneficial for the community, prioritizing the avoidance of a racially charged trial over potential shortcomings in data collection.

The Court determined that paragraph D of the settlement is not so unfair as to invalidate the entire agreement. META raised concerns regarding the lack of meaningful representation for the Latino community in the settlement negotiations, asserting that neither party involved adequately represents Latino students in the SFUSD. Similarly, Dr. Orfield expressed that representatives from Latino students, other Chinese communities, immigrants, and limited English proficient children were excluded from the negotiations. The Court acknowledged these concerns but emphasized that it had previously denied motions to intervene from CAA and META in 1993, concluding that the NAACP sufficiently represented the interests of minority schoolchildren due to a shared goal of desegregation and improving educational outcomes. The Court noted that the ongoing success of desegregation efforts and educational improvement relies more on the effective utilization of Consent Decree funds and educational policies than on legal action against noncompliance.

The Court allowed CAA and META to obtain amicus status to propose representatives for the Advisory Committee, leading to the appointment of Dr. Laureen Chew and Dr. J. David Ramirez, who continue to serve on the committee. The Court also recognized the potential future inability of current parties to represent the interests of these amici curiae groups, allowing for future motions to intervene without prejudice. The proposed settlement aims to eliminate race-based student assignments, with no evidence presented that such assignments are necessary to address historical discrimination. META failed to demonstrate that its absence from the litigation has harmed Latino students' interests concerning race-based assignments. The Court encouraged any interested parties to present evidence regarding ongoing discrimination and to file motions to intervene if they believe their interests are inadequately represented. All parties involved have acknowledged existing problems within SFUSD but have not established a link between these current issues and the prior discrimination that justified the 1983 Consent Decree.

META or any interested party may attempt to demonstrate causation related to past constitutional violations, benefiting San Francisco students. The Consent Decree, established in 1983 to address these violations, will remain in effect until its objectives are met. The Supreme Court requires that any party seeking to terminate a desegregation decree must show compliance and that remnants of discrimination have been sufficiently addressed. Additionally, any party opposing the settlement has three years to intervene and present evidence if they believe segregation persists and is not adequately addressed. Dr. Orfield recommends increased court oversight following the proposed settlement's approval, which includes requiring parties to respond to recent reports and submitting a plan to address identified issues. The court will hold annual hearings to monitor progress. The court orders the following: 1) approval of the proposed settlement as fair and reasonable; 2) granting the Ho plaintiffs’ motion to strike certain objections to the settlement; 3) denial of motions to strike objections from CAA, META, and ACLU; 4) submission of a modified Consent Decree and preliminary injunction by August 6, 1999.

By October 1, 1999, the parties are required to submit a proposed student assignment plan for the 2000-01 school year for court approval, in accordance with the settlement agreement. If consensus is not reached, parties must file a motion by the same date for a court order on their proposed plan. A public hearing on the proposed plans is scheduled for November 5, 1999, at 10:00 a.m. Additionally, by August 6, 1999, parties involved in the NAACP action must provide a stipulated briefing schedule to address findings from recent reports by the Consent Decree Advisory Committee and Monitor Stuart Biegel, including plans to tackle identified issues in the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD). If a party disputes any identified problem, they must present evidence supporting their position. A proposed hearing date within six months will also be submitted to discuss these issues.

Key changes to the student assignment process include the elimination of racial/ethnic guidelines in school assignments and the removal of Priority 5 from the random selection process. Parents seeking to apply to SFUSD schools must complete specific application forms, which will be utilized during defined application periods. The random selection process will be adjusted to include all priorities except Priority 5 and will no longer consider racial/ethnic guidelines.

A significant legal issue revolves around the burden of proof, with ongoing disputes between the parties regarding who holds this burden. Despite the Ninth Circuit's resolution of this issue, defendants maintain that plaintiffs are responsible for proving their case, arguing that the Ninth Circuit's decision conflicts with Supreme Court precedent. The Court expressed concern that this disagreement could hinder the development of a robust factual record for trial. Consequently, it will request a special master to summarize the evidence submitted in the NAACP action prior to 1983.

The Court indicated its intention to appoint expert witnesses under Rule 706 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, prompting the plaintiffs to seek a writ of mandamus from the Ninth Circuit, claiming interference with the adversary system. On December 14, 1998, the Ninth Circuit granted the writ, determining that the Court had improperly assumed the defendants' evidentiary burden by appointing a special master to review existing evidence. While allowing the special master to report findings to the parties, the Ninth Circuit restricted the Court from considering these findings unless submitted by a party. Consequently, the responsibility for evidence gathering shifted entirely to the defendants, who were unprepared to present evidence at trial due to disputes over the burden of proof. The State Board of Education approved the proposed settlement on March 10, 1999. The Court noted that, despite the order being unpublished, it could reference it under the "law of the case" exception to Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. META raised objections regarding the proposed settlement's provisions for terminating the Consent Decree in 2002, optional reporting of racial and ethnic data, and insufficient attention to limited English-proficient students. However, these concerns were previously addressed and did not warrant rejecting the settlement. CAA and META filed motions to intervene on behalf of various individuals and organizations, which the Court acknowledged for convenience.