This cause came before the Court on defendants' Motion for a Declaration of Unitary Status and Final Dismissal (filed December 17, 1999) and the plaintiff-parties' responses thereto opposing the Motion. Preliminary Response of Plaintiffs in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Unitary Status (filed January 20, 2000) and United States' Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Unitary Status and in Support of Motion for Scheduling Order (filed January 20, 2000).
The parties have engaged in extensive informal discovery and negotiations regarding issues one or more of them contend are raised by the Motion. As a result of these negotiations, the parties have reached an Agreement, which is attached to and incorporated herein. The Agreement includes: a new Long-Range Plan for facilities and student assignments to which the Monroe plaintiffs and the United States have agreed, and which defendants have agreed to implement, subject to receipt of funding therefor; and various other measures to be implemented by defendants (including academic programs and activities, and faculty and staff assignments). The Agreement also establishes procedures for the resolution of issues that may arise in the course of its implementation by the parties.
The parties have reached their Agreement subject to the Court's approval. The Agreement provides that enforcement by the Court shall be necessary only in the event that the parties are unable to resolve their differences themselves or through specified means of alternate dispute resolution. In the Agreement, the parties pledge to move the Court for removal of this matter from the active docket upon the defendants' receipt of a commitment for full funding of the capital components of their Long-Range Plan; if necessary, in limited circumstances described in the Agreement, this matter may be returned to the active docket.
After reviewing the terms of this Agreement and the attachments thereto, as well as the record in this case, the Court concludes that approval of the parties' Agreement, as an Order of the Court, is fair, equitable and consistent with applicable law. The Court further concludes that the parties' Agreement, if properly implemented, will further desegregation of the Jackson-Madison County Schools and establish an orderly path toward the school system's attainment of unitary status in the areas of facilities, student assignments, student transportation, faculty and staff assignments and extra-curricular activities.
It is, therefore, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: 1. that the parties' Agreement, including the attachments thereto, are hereby approved and entered as an Order of the Court; and accordingly,
2. that defendants, the Monroe plaintiffs and the United States are hereby directed fully to implement the provisions of the Agreement;
3. further, the Monroe plaintiffs shall have sixty (60) days from the date of entry of this Order to make application for attorneys' fees and costs. The parties shall endeavor to resolve this matter without a hearing. In the event the parties conclude that a hearing is necessary, the parties shall so notify the Court.
SO ORDERED, this ______ day of December, 2000.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Approved and Agreed:
Richard H. Dinkins, Esq.
Dodson, Parker, Dinkins & Behm
306 Gay Street, 400 Realtors Building
Nashville, Tennessee 37219
Helen Norton, Esq.
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
Michael S. Maurer, Esq.
Daniel B. Kohrman, Esq.
Sunil Mansukhani, Esq.
United States Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
601 D Street, N.W., Suite 4300
Washington, DC 20530
Counsel for Plaintiff
United States of America
Elaine Jones, Esq.
Norman J. Chachkin, Esq.
NAACP Legal Defense
Educational Fund, Inc.
99 Hudson Street, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10013
Counsel for Plaintiffs
Brenda K. Monroe, et al.
Jerry D. Kizer, Jr., Esq.
Rainey, Kizer, Butler, Reviere & Bell, P.L.C
105 South Highland Avenue
Jackson, Tennessee 38302
Counsel for Defendants, the Jackson-
Madison County School System Board of Education, et al.