Motion For Order To Show Cause

Case 3:65-cv-11297-RGJ Document 144 Filed 06/24/16 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 2367
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MONROE DIVISION
)
JIMMY ANDREWS, et al.,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
)
)
Plaintiff-Intervenor, )
)
v.
)
)
MONROE CITY SCHOOL BOARD, et al., )
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 65-11297

JUDGE ROBERT G. JAMES
MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Plaintiff-Intervenor United States of America (United States) hereby moves
this Court, for the reasons set forth in the attached Memorandum in Support, to
issue an Order to Show Cause why the Monroe City School Board, its individual
members, and the Monroe City Schools superintendent (collectively, Defendants)
should not be held in contempt for failure to comply with this Courts December 11,
2015 Consent Decree, as amended on January 12, 2016, March 24, 2016, and April
14, 2016.
WHEREFORE, the United States respectfully requests that an order issue
requiring Defendants to show cause why they should not be held in contempt.
Dated: June 24, 2016
Respectfully submitted,
For Plaintiff-Intervenor United States of

America:
VANITA GUPTA
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney
General
/s/ Michaele N. Turnage Young
/s/ Kelly D. Gardner
SHAHEENA SIMONS
FRANZ MARSHALL
MICHAELE N. TURNAGE YOUNG (CA
Bar# 247796)
KELLY D. GARDNER (DC Bar#
1002900)
Educational Opportunities Section
U.S. Dept. of Justice, Civil Rights Div.
950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, PHB 4300
Washington, D.C. 20530
Tel: (202) 305-4282
STEPHANIE A. FINLEY
United States Attorney
/s/ Katherine W. Vincent
KATHERINE W. VINCENT (LA #18717)
Assistant United States Attorney
800 Lafayette Street, Suite 2200
Lafayette, LA 70501-6832
Tel: (337) 262-6618
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that, on this 24th day of June 2016, I served a copy of the
foregoing Motion For An Order To Show Cause via CM/ECF on all counsel of record
so registered.
MICHAELE N. TURNAGE YOUNG
Case 3:65-cv-11297-RGJ Document 144-1 Filed 06/24/16 Page 1 of 28 PageID #: 2370

MONROE DIVISION
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff-Intervenor, )
)
v.
)
)
MONROE CITY SCHOOL BOARD, et al., )
)
Defendants.
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR UNITED

STATES MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE
MONROE CITY SCHOOL BOARD, ITS INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS, AND
THE MONROE CITY SCHOOLS SUPERINTENDENT SHOULD NOT BE
HELD IN CONTEMPT FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE
DECEMBER 11, 2015 CONSENT DECREE, AS AMENDED
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1
II.
BACKGROUND .................................................................................................. 1
III.
LEGAL STANDARD ........................................................................................... 3
IV.
ARGUMENT ....................................................................................................... 6
A. The Defendants Should Be Ordered To Show Cause Why They Should Not Be
Held In Contempt For Failure To Meet 90% of the Deadlines Set Forth In
The Consent Decree. ........................................................................................... 6
B. The Defendants Should Be Ordered To Show Cause Why They Should Not Be
Held In Contempt For Their Continued Failure To Take Required Steps To
Desegregate The Districts Faculty. ................................................................... 8
1.
The Defendants Failed To Comply In Full With The Section VI.A.2.i

Requirement That They Review The Racial Make-Up And Credentials Of
Their Faculty. ................................................................................................ 8
2.
The Defendants Failed To Sufficiently Revise And Finalize Their Section

VI.A.2.ii(2)(b) Plan to Desegregate Their Faculty By Persuading Teachers
And Administrators To Voluntarily Transfer Schools. .............................. 11
3.
The Defendants Failed to Submit A Compliant Mandatory Faculty

Reassignment Plan And Produce Certain Information About The Districts
Faculty As Required By Section VI.A.2.iii. ................................................. 13
C. The Defendants Should Be Ordered To Show Cause Why They Should Not Be
Improve The Medical Magnet Program. .......................................................... 15
1.
The Defendants Failed To Implement The Medical Magnet Experts

Recommendations As Required By Section VI.D.1.i. ................................. 15
2.
The Defendants Failed To Provide Evidence of Their Attempt To

Negotiate Transition Assistance (e.g. Discounted Tuition) For Carroll
Medical Magnet Students Who Later Enroll As Full-Time Students At
ULM And LDCC As Required By Section VI.D.1.ii. .................................. 16
3.
The Defendants Failed to Prominently Feature Information About

Applying To The Carroll Medical Magnet Program On Each High Schools
Homepage As Required By Section VI.D.1.iv. ............................................ 17
D. The Defendants Should Be Ordered To Show Cause Why They Should Not Be
Equalize Access To Specialized Academic Programs. ..................................... 19
1.
The Defendants Failed to Address All of the IDRAs Recommendations In

The Districts Plan For Equalizing Access To Specialized Academic
Programs Without Providing The United States Advance Written
ii
Justification For Why Certain Recommendations Were Not Addressed As

Required By Section VI.C.1.v. ..................................................................... 19
E. The Defendants Should Be Ordered To Show Cause Why They Should Not Be
Held In Contempt For Failure To Comply With Section V.B.2 Of The Consent
Decree, Which Requires The Board To Give The ICM The Information And
Personnel She Needs To Timely Report Information As Required By Sections
VI.C.2, VI.D.2, And VII. .................................................................................... 20
V.
CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 21
iii
Table of Authorities
Cases
Am. Airlines, Inc. v. Allied Pilots Assn, 228 F.3d 574 (5th Cir. 2000)........................ 4
Frew v. Hawkins, 540 U.S. 431 (2004).......................................................................... 3
Intl Union, United Mine Workers of Am. v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821 (1994) ................ 5
Local 28 of Sheet Metal Workers Intl Assn v. E.E.O.C., 478 U.S. 421 (1986) .......... 5
Rambo v. Morehouse Parish Sch. Bd., 37 F. Supp. 2d 482 (W.D. La. 1999) ............... 4
Spallone v. United States, 493 U.S. 265 (1990) ............................................................ 3
Test Masters Educ. Servs., Inc. v. Singh, 428 F.3d 559 (5th Cir. 2005) ...................... 5
Travelhost, Inc. v. Blandford, 68 F.3d 958 (5th Cir. 1995) .......................................... 4
United States v. Alcoa, Inc., 533 F.3d 278 (5th Cir. 2008)........................................... 5
United States v. Latneys Funeral Home, Inc., 41 F. Supp. 3d 24 (D.D.C. 2014) ....... 5
United States v. United Mine Workers of Am., 330 U.S. 258 (1947) .......................... 5
Whitfield v. Pennington, 832 F.2d 909 (5th Cir. 1987) ................................................ 3
iv
I.
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff-Intervenor United States respectfully submits this memorandum in
support of its motion for an order to show cause why the Monroe City School Board,
its individual members, and the Monroe City Schools superintendent (together, the
Defendants) should not be held in contempt for failure to comply with the
December 11, 2015 Consent Decree, as amended on January 12, 2016, March 24,
2016, and April 14, 2016.1
II.
BACKGROUND
On December 11, 2015, the Court entered a Consent Decree in this matter,
requiring the Defendants to take remedial actions that would desegregate the
Districts faculty and administrative staff, improve and make viable the medical
magnet program at Carroll High School, and equalize access to course offerings, all
of which would help the District achieve unitary status on all remaining Green
factors. ECF No. 113.
The Defendants have repeatedly violated this Courts orders over the past six
months by failing to comply with 90% of the deadlines for which they were
responsible and failing to cure their noncompliance with at least eight provisions
Although the Court, pursuant to the agreement of the parties, amended the Consent Decree
by extending certain deadlines on January 12, 2016, March 24, 2016, and April 14, 2016, and the
latest iteration of the Consent Decree is properly referred to as the Second Amended Consent Decree,
see ECF Nos. 113, 117, 133, and 141, this memorandum will refer to the Second Amended Consent
Decree as the Consent Decree since the substantive requirements other than the dates of some
deadlines have remained the same.
1
despite notification of the failures by their counsel2 (hereinafter, Counsel) and

numerous letters, emails, phone calls, and several in-person meetings with the
United States requesting that the District immediately comply.3 The Defendants
failure to meet 18 of the 20 deadlines for which they have been responsible thus far
has caused the Independent Court Monitor (ICM), the Medical Magnet Expert,
and the United States to miss six additional deadlines and has made matters
more difficult for others assisting the District in its pursuit of unitary status. As a
result, to date, at least 24 Consent Decree deadlines have not been timely met.
The Defendants failure to comply is undisputed. Indeed, in response to three
of the 10 letters the United States sent urging compliance, Counsel admitted: The
concerns raised in each of your letters are substantiated. The Board and the
Superintendent agree that immediate action is required to address each point. Ex.
O. Despite these and other promises, the Defendants have failed to comply. In fact,
the Defendants have repeatedly failed to aid Counsels attempts to achieve
compliance. For example, in a May 13, 2016 email, Counsel wrote, I am
encountering difficulty in obtaining information needed to confirm compliance. Ex.
P. Likewise, on April 29, 2016, Counsel wrote, Im sorry to advise that I still do not
Counsels attempts to elicit compliance have often been in vain. See, e.g., Ex. A (a May 8,
2016 email wherein Counsel wrote, I have routed your letter of May 6, 2016 requesting corrective
action to the Superintendent and to the Board officers, with a request that immediate action be
taken.); see also Ex. B (an April 29, 2016 email wherein Counsel wrote, Ive informed the
administration of the urgency of this situation and that it is important to provide update[d]
information.).
2
The United States has communicated with the District almost every single week since the
Consent Decree was entered. See, e.g., Exs. C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, and M. The United States
informed the Board on February 1, February 8, February 18, March 4, March 9, April 22, and May
20 that the United States may seek further relief from the Court if the Board continued its failure to
meet the Consent Decrees deadlines. Exs. C, D, N, G, and L.
3
have information to provide in response to your request for updated information on

compliance with the consent decree deadlines. Ex. B. He also noted, [t]he
Superintendent . . . wants to know why it is necessary to provide a response to the
DOJ inquiry. Id.
The Defendants cannot be allowed to continue to fail to comply with the
Consent Decree when the constitutional rights of the children and citizens of
Monroe, Louisiana hang in the balance. The United States respectfully requests
that this Court take urgent and extraordinary action to compel compliance with its
orders.
III.
LEGAL STANDARD
It is well-established that a district court retains power to enforce consent
decrees entered in its cases. See, e.g., Frew v. Hawkins, 540 U.S. 431, 440 (2004)
(Federal courts are not reduced to approving consent decrees and hoping for
compliance. Once entered, a consent decree may be enforced.); Spallone v. United
States, 493 U.S. 265, 276 (1990); Whitfield v. Pennington, 832 F.2d 909, 913 (5th
Cir. 1987) (A consent order, while founded on the agreement of the parties, is
nevertheless a judicial act, enforceable by sanctions including a citation for
contempt.). Consistent with this principle, the Consent Decree at issue in this case
explicitly states that until the District achieves unitary status, the Court will
continue to have supervision of this case to ensure that the District undertakes in
good faith its obligations under [the decree] and federal law. Consent Decree
VIII, ECF No. 141 at 37.
To demonstrate that a party to a consent decree should be held in contempt, a

movant must prove by clear and convincing evidence 1) that a court order was in
effect, 2) that the order required certain conduct by the respondent, and 3) that the
respondent failed to comply with the courts order. Am. Airlines, Inc. v. Allied
Pilots Assn, 228 F.3d 574, 581 (5th Cir. 2000) (quoting Martin v. Trinity Indus.,
Inc., 959 F.2d 45, 47 (5th Cir. 1992)); see also Travelhost, Inc. v. Blandford, 68 F.3d
958, 961 (5th Cir. 1995) (A party commits contempt when he violates a definite and
specific order of the court requiring him to perform or refrain from performing a
particular act or acts with knowledge of the courts order. (internal quotation
omitted)). Clear and convincing evidence is that proof which is so clear, direct and
weighty and convincing as to enable the fact finder to come to a clear conviction,
without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise facts of the case. Travelhost, Inc., 68
F.3d at 961 (internal quotation omitted).
When establishing a partys actions as contemptuous, a movant need not
demonstrate that those actions (or inactions) are willful but only that they fall short
of compliance with the courts order. Am. Airlines, 228 F.3d at 581. In general, the
lack of malicious intent or the presence of good faith belief in the rectitude of ones
position cannot serve to sterilize conduct otherwise contemptuous. Rambo v.
Morehouse Parish Sch. Bd., 37 F. Supp. 2d 482, 486 (W.D. La. 1999) (internal
quotation omitted).
Once a district court makes a finding of contempt, it enjoys broad discretion
in assessing sanctions to protect the sanctity of its decrees and legal process. Test
Masters Educ. Servs., Inc. v. Singh, 428 F.3d 559, 582 (5th Cir. 2005). Indeed, the
remedies a court adopts need not match those requested by a party or originally
provided by the courts earlier judgment. United States v. Alcoa, Inc., 533 F.3d
278, 288 (5th Cir. 2008).
[S]anctions in civil contempt proceedings may be employed . . . to coerce the
defendant into compliance with the courts order. Local 28 of Sheet Metal Workers
Intl Assn v. E.E.O.C., 478 U.S. 421, 443 (1986) (quoting United States v. United
Mine Workers of Am., 330 U.S. 258, 303-04 (1947)) (other citations omitted). The
arsenal of sanctions available to a court for civil contempt includes compensatory
and coercive fines, as well as imprisonment. United States v. Latneys Funeral
Home, Inc., 41 F. Supp. 3d 24, 36 (D.D.C. 2014). Since civil contempt sanctions are
avoidable through obedience, they may be imposed in an ordinary civil
proceeding upon notice and an opportunity to be heard. Intl Union, United Mine
Workers of Am. v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 827 (1994).

A court imposing sanctions to coerce compliance must consider the character
and magnitude of the harm threatened by continued contumacy, and the probable
effectiveness of any suggested sanction in bringing about the result desired.
United Mine Workers of Am., 330 U.S. at 304 (citations omitted). [A] court which
has returned a conviction for contempt must, in fixing the amount of a fine to be
imposed . . . as a means of securing future compliance, consider the amount of
defendants financial resources and the consequent seriousness of the burden to
that particular defendant. Id.
IV.
ARGUMENT
A.
The Defendants Should Be Ordered To Show Cause Why They Should

Not Be Held In Contempt For Failure To Meet 90% of the Deadlines
Set Forth In The Consent Decree.
The Defendants failure to meet the following deadlines shows a pattern of

noncompliance and demonstrates why granting this motion is particularly
appropriate:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
A December 15, 2015 deadline by which the District was to employ a

Medical Magnet Expert, ECF No. 141 at 31;
A January 11, 2016 deadline by which the District was to request the
assistance of the Equity Assistance Center for the Intercultural
Development Research Association (the IDRA) in improving equal
access to course offerings and advising students and/or parents about
course selection, id. at 26;
A January 11, 2016 deadline by which the District was to designate a
central office administrator to work with the IDRA, id. at 28;
A January 15, 2016 deadline by which the District was to contact the
University of Louisiana at Monroe (ULM) and the Louisiana Delta
Community College (LDCC) to negotiate the establishment of a
mentoring program and seek transition assistance for medical magnet
students who later enroll as full-time students at ULM or LDCC, id. at
31;
A January 15, 2016 deadline by which the District was to contact at
least three local hospitals and/or medical centers to negotiate
shadowing opportunities for medical magnet students, id. at 32;
A February 9, 2016 deadline by which the District was to enter into a
contract for IDRAs assistance with equalizing access to course
offerings, id. at 26;
A February 9, 2016 deadline by which the District was to enter into a
contract for IDRAs assistance with specialized academic programs, id.
at 27;
A March 22, 2016 deadline by which the District was to arrange a
conference call with the IDRA and United States to update them as to
the Districts progress in equalizing access to course offerings since the
submission of the First Quarterly Report, id. at 26-27;
An April 4, 2016 deadline by which the District was to ensure that the
homepages of its high schools websites prominently featured certain
information about the medical magnet program, id. at 32;
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
An April 4, 2016 deadline by which the District was to complete a

review of the racial makeup and credentials of its faculty, ECF No. 141
at 20;
An April 15, 2016 deadline by which the District was to implement all
of the Medical Magnet Experts recommendations (unless it first
provided the United States with written justification why any
recommendation should not be implemented), id. at 31;
An April 18, 2016 deadline by which the District was to arrange a
conference call with the IDRA and United States to update them as to
the Districts progress in equalizing access to course offerings since the
submission of the Second Quarterly Report, id. at 26-27;
An April 19, 2016 deadline by which the District was to submit to the
United States a draft incentive plan for desegregating its faculty by
persuading teachers and administrators to voluntarily transfer schools
(the incentive plan), id. at 21;
A May 16, 2016 deadline by which the District was to revise and
finalize its incentive plan, id.;
A May 16, 2016 deadline by which the District was to inform its faculty
of the incentive plan, id. at 22;
A May 25, 2016 deadline by which the District was to require
statements of intent from faculty members who were volunteering to
transfer, id.;
A June 1, 2016 deadline by which the District was to submit a plan for
ensuring equal access to specialized academic programs that
implemented the IDRAs recommendations regarding equalizing access
to specialized academic programs unless the District first provides the
United States with written justification why any such recommendation
should be excluded, id. at 30; and
A June 6, 2016 deadline by which the District was to submit to the
United States a mandatory faculty reassignment plan and certain
information about each of its faculty members if voluntary faculty
desegregation measures had failed, id.
In total, the Defendants timely met just two deadlines, and did so only because this
Court extended those deadlines.
///
///
///
///
7
B.

Not Be Held In Contempt For Their Continued Failure To Take
Required Steps To Desegregate The Districts Faculty.
1.
The Defendants Failed To Comply In Full With The Section

VI.A.2.i Requirement That They Review The Racial Make-Up
And Credentials Of Their Faculty.
According to Section VI.A.2.i of the Consent Decree, by April 4, 2016, the

District was required to have completed a review of the racial make-up and
credentials of the faculty in its schools District-wide. ECF No. 141 at 20. This
review was to include consideration of a number of factors when evaluating
credentials, including professional degrees, certifications, subject matter expertise,
years of experience, performance reviews, qualifications of gifted teachers,
qualifications of advanced placement teachers, training, and other indicia of quality
and effectiveness. Id.
On April 5, 2016, the ICM submitted what she said was the Districts Section
VI.A.2.i review. See Ex. Q. However, that review failed to comply with the Consent
Decree by omitting: (a) all of the information required by Section VI.A.2.i, and (b) a
key of abbreviations and codes used therein as required by Section VII. Id. After
the United States wrote the Board on April 22, 2016 detailing deficiencies, Ex. G,
the ICM submitted what she said was the Districts revised Section VI.A.2.i review,
Ex. R, and a key on May 3, 2016, Ex. S. The May 3, 2016 review still did not
contain all of the required information. See Exs. R & S. In particular, the revised
review lacked any information about the racial make-up and credentials of
principals and many other administrators. See Ex. R. Where faculty members
were listed, the revised review often omitted required information such as faculty
members years of experience or performance ratings. See id. Although the
Defendants provided a revision of the key of codes and abbreviations on May 13,
2016, that revision still violated Section VII by leaving more than 70 codes and
abbreviations undefined. Compare Ex. P at 4-8 with Ex. S.
On May 6 and 12, 2016, the ICM forwarded two charts sent to her by the
Superintendent and a District Human Resources employee one for teachers, Ex. U
at 5, and one for principals and assistant principals, Ex. T at 4. The chart for
teachers shows the number of teachers the District believes would need to move
from each school to desegregate the Districts faculty. See Ex. U at 5. The chart for
principals and assistant principals merely showed the number of principals and
assistant principals, by race, that serve each school. See Ex. T at 4. Neither the
ICM nor the Superintendent or District Human Resources employee advised
whether these charts were submitted to satisfy Section VI.A.2.i, but if so, they are
clearly deficient. See Exs. T & U.
In letters dated May 6 and May 20, 2016, which addressed the May 3 review,
the United States advised the Defendants of their failure to provide a faculty review
that comports with Section VI.A.2.i and requested that the Defendants cure the
noncompliance no later than June 1, 2016. See Exs. H & L. Counsel responded to
the United States May 6, 2016 letter in a May 8, 2016 email, writing: It is evident
that the errors and inconsistencies that you raise are easily substantiated by what
is revealed (or not revealed) regarding staffing credentials in the spreadsheet. Ex.
A. Counsel wrote that it was his expectation that the School District will be able to
address these matters and make the needed corrections immediately. Id.
In his May 23, 2016 response to the United States May 20, 2016 letter
repeating the earlier requests for compliance, Counsel said that the District would
correct the two charts provided, perform an analysis of administrators, verify the
raw teacher demographic data included in the charts, identify faculty by position
held, and analyze transfers necessary to equalize faculty credentials. Ex. O. To
date, the Defendants have not provided information indicating that they have taken
the action promised,4 much less a compliant Section VI.A.2.i review.
As the Defendants have acknowledged,5 their noncompliance with Section
VI.A.2.i leaves them, the United States, and others charged with implementing the
Consent Decree unable to identify, with precision, the number and type of faculty
who need to transfer, be reassigned, or be assigned to desegregate the Districts
faculty. Moreover, the Defendants failure to timely comply with Section VI.A.2.i
has hindered the United States and the Defendants ability to comply with seven
other deadlines that depended on timely compliance with Section VI.A.2.i.
On June 14, 2016, the ICM sent the United States several documents without indicating
whether the documents were being provided on behalf of the District or to satisfy Section VI.A.2.i.
See Ex. V. In any event, the documents do not cure the Defendants noncompliance with that
provision, as they do not reveal sufficient information about faculty credentials or show which
principals, assistant principals, deans of students, curriculum coordinators, accountability
specialists, or counselors would need to transfer to meet the requirements of the Consent Decree.
4
Indeed, as Counsel noted in his May 23, 2016 letter: It is agreed that detailed school-specific
information indicating which personnel are needed at which schools is essential in order to correctly
determine how many black teachers/principals/administrators, or white
teachers/principals/administrators are needed to transfer in or out of a school. Ex. O. Counsel also
noted, In addition, the same type information is needed to identify the number of
highly effective teachers, credentialed teachers and teachers with less than three years
experience that need to transfer out of individual schools to achieve the staffing balance
required for compliance with the Consent Decree. Id.
5
10
2.
The Defendants Failed To Sufficiently Revise And Finalize Their

Section VI.A.2.ii(2)(b) Plan to Desegregate Their Faculty By
Persuading Teachers And Administrators To Voluntarily
Transfer Schools.
Section VI.A.2.ii(2)(b) provides that if the District chooses to desegregate its

faculty by persuading teachers and administrators to voluntarily transfer to new
schools, then the District must submit its draft incentive plan encouraging such
transfers to the United States for comment by April 19, 2016. See ECF No. 141 at
21. Contrary to this requirement and in spite of the United States April 22, 2016
letter requesting the Defendants to comply, the Defendants did not submit the
Districts draft incentive plan until May 11, 2016 (more than three weeks after the
deadline). See Ex. W. This delay prevented the United States from meeting the
May 3, 2016 deadline for commenting on the draft and caused the District to miss
the May 16, 2016 deadline for finalizing and distributing the incentive plan to
teachers.6 See ECF No. 141 at 21-22.
The United States wrote to the Board on May 19 and 20, 2016 requesting
revisions of the May 11, 2016 incentive plan and urging compliance. See Exs. J &
L. On May 23, 2016, Counsel admitted that the Defendants had failed to comply:
We acknowledge that an error was made in the interpretation of Consent Decree
Section VI.A.1.i, because District-wide counts and percentages encompassing all
schools were used in forming the staffing plan for each school, instead of Districtwide counts for the grade levels served by the school, as required by the Consent
Although the ICM gave the United States a copy of the draft incentive plan on May 6, 2016,
the Consent Decree requires the Board to submit its plan directly to the United States so that it is
clear that the plan is, in fact, the Boards plan, rather than an individuals draft that has yet to be
adopted by the Board as an entity.
6
11
Decree. Ex. O. Counsel added: The notice to teachers and administrators

regarding the transfer needs and requirements of the District will be revised. Id.
Although Counsel submitted a revised draft incentive plan on June 1, 2016,
Ex. X, and the ICM forwarded the superintendents revision of the June 1, 2016
submission on June 6, 2016, Ex. Y, the ICM notified the United States on the
evening of June 6, 2016 that neither the revised incentive plan submitted on June 1
nor the plan submitted on June 6 had been approved by the Board, Ex. AA. The
District submitted, through the ICM, a Board-approved revised incentive plan on
June 8, 2016 (more than three weeks after the effective deadline), and the District
resubmitted that revision on June 17, 2016, but even that revision is deficient.7 See
Exs. Z & EE.
The revised incentive plan does not provide any incentives whatsoever to
persuade administrators to engage in voluntary desegregative transfers, and the
notice announcing the incentive plan fails to advise that incentives will be offered to
principals. See id. Moreover, given the absence of a compliant Section VI.A.2.i
review of the racial makeup and credentials of the Districts faculty, there is no
basis to assess whether the number of teachers and administrators the District
seeks to persuade to transfer is reasonably calculated to comply with the Consent
Decrees requirement that the racial composition and qualifications of a given
In addition, the Board informed the United States on June 1, 2016 that nearly half of the
provisions of their draft incentive plan were implemented prior to the Boards submission of the draft
plan to the United States, see Ex. X, thereby depriving the United States of the opportunity to
comment and ensure those aspects of the plan were reasonably calculated to meet the Consent
Decrees requirements.
7
12
schools faculty shall not indicate that the school is intended for black students or
white students.
3.
The Defendants Failed to Submit A Compliant Mandatory

Faculty Reassignment Plan And Produce Certain Information
About The Districts Faculty As Required By Section VI.A.2.iii.
Section VI.A.2.iii required the District to do the following by June 6, 2016 if

voluntary faculty desegregation measures failed: (a) send the United States a
mandatory faculty reassignment plan, and (b) produce information disclosing, for
each teacher and administrator in the District, the individuals race, whether the
individual is credentialed, whether the individual has less than three years of
teaching experience or experience as an administrator, whether the individual has
been deemed highly qualified, and the individuals last performance rating. ECF
No. 141 at 22. However, the Defendants failed to provide either the mandatory
faculty reassignment plan or the information about the Districts faculty.
Notwithstanding this failure, the ICM notified the United States on June 8,
2016 that three days earlier the superintendent completed a plan to transfer nine
teachers, two principals, and three assistant principals listed on an untitled, onepage document sent by the ICM on June 6, 2016.8 See Ex. Z; see also Ex. Y at 11
(the untitled, one-page document). That plan had not been approved by the Board,
nor had it previously been submitted to the United States. See Ex. Z. On June 9,
2016, the United States asked Counsel whether the non-board-approved, untitled,
one-page document was the superintendents Section VI.A.2.iii mandatory faculty
In the email from the superintendent attaching the untitled, one-page document that the
ICM forwarded to the United States on June 6, 2016, the superintendent stated that he was
submitting a plan in compliance with Section V.A.2.ii.2, which does not exist. See Ex Y.
8
13
reassignment plan. Counsel was unable to provide an answer. As of the date of

this motion, Counsel still had not provided an answer.
Even accepting the untitled, one-page document, Ex. Y at 11, as the Districts
mandatory faculty reassignment plan, the plan falls far short of the Consent
Decrees requirements. First, the document lists the planned transfer of only nine
teachers, which is significantly fewer than the 48 teachers the District agreed
needed to be transferred under the Consent Decree.9 See Ex. Z at 9 (The Districts
incentive plan agreeing that the Consent Decree requires at least 48 teachers to be
transferred). Second, a number of schools the District agreed needed to transfer or
receive faculty do not appear on the document. See id. Third, the document lacks
any proposals for the transfer of administrators and fails to propose sufficient
transfers of principals and assistant principals to satisfy the Consent Decree. See
Ex. Y at 11. Although the Defendants failed to provide sufficient information per
Section VI.A.2.iii to allow the United States to verify whether transferring two
principals and three assistant principals complies with the Consent Decree, the
Consent Decree indicates that, based on the distribution of principals in the District
at the time (at the beginning of the 2015-16 school year), the District could comply
with the Consent Decrees provision regarding principals by having four white
principals trade school assignments with four black principals. See ECF No. 141 at
The United States calculation of the number of teacher transfers needed was based on data
provided by the District. The United States pointed out to the District in a May 19, 2016 letter that
this data was inconsistent with both the information on the Districts own website and the Districts
Section VI.A.2.i review of the racial makeup and credentials of its faculty, but the District has not
reconciled these inconsistencies or provided a correction. See Ex. J. Nevertheless, on June 1, 8, and
17, 2016, the District adopted the United States conclusion that 48 teachers would need to transfer
by including the United States calculation in their incentive plan. See Ex. X at 9, Ex. Z at 9, & Ex.
EE at 7.
9
14
18 n.7. The untitled, one-page document does not provide for such trades,
indicating that the Defendants have again failed to comply. See Ex. Y at 11.
C.

Required Steps To Improve The Medical Magnet Program.
1.
The Defendants Failed To Implement The Medical Magnet

Experts Recommendations As Required By Section VI.D.1.i.
Section VI.D.1.i of the Consent Decree requires that the District implement
all recommendations outlined in the [Medical Magnet Experts] report no later than
April 15, 2016. ECF No. 141 at 31. Although the District received these
recommendations by March 1, 2016, see Ex. CC, a May 2, 2016 email from the ICM
indicated that, as of April 28, 2016, the Medical Magnet Experts recommendations
had not been implemented, see Ex. BB at 4. The Districts May 11, 2016 response to
an April 22, 2016 letter from the United States outlining deficiencies in the
Districts compliance further confirmed that the Medical Magnet Experts
recommendations had not been implemented. See Ex. W at 10. On May 20, 2016,
the United States reminded the Defendants of the noncompliance with Section
VI.D.1.i and requested that the noncompliance be cured by June 1, 2016. See Ex. L.
The Defendants have failed to provide information indicating that all of the
recommendations have been implemented.
To the extent the Defendants have provided a strategic plan that identifies a
goal of increasing student enrollment/opportunities in the medical magnet program
and outlines the actions the District intends to take to meet that goal, the strategic
plan does not account for all of the Medical Magnet Experts recommendations. See
15
Ex. DD at 9-10; see also Ex. EE at 18-19. The strategic plan is silent, for example,
on those recommendations pertaining to the hiring of staff and the need for facility
upgrades. See Ex. DD at 9-10; see also Ex. EE at 18-19. The strategic plan also
neglects to allocate funding for the implementation of the recommendations. See
Ex. DD at 9-10; see also Ex. EE at 18-19. This is in direct violation of the Consent
Decrees requirement that the District implement all of the Medical Magnet
Experts recommendations or provide written justification to the United States why
such recommendations should not be implemented. See ECF No. 141 at 31. Since
the Defendants have failed to implement all of the Medical Magnet Experts
recommendations or explain why they have not done so, they have failed to comply
with Section VI.D.1.i.
2.
The Defendants Failed To Provide Evidence of Their Attempt To

Negotiate Transition Assistance (e.g. Discounted Tuition) For
Carroll Medical Magnet Students Who Later Enroll As FullTime Students At ULM And LDCC As Required By Section
VI.D.1.ii.
Per Section VI.D.1.ii of the Consent Decree, by January 15, 2016, the Board
was to contact ULM and LDCC to negotiate transition assistance opportunities
(such as discounted tuition) for medical magnet students who later enroll as fulltime students at ULM or LDCC. ECF No. 141 at 31-32. However, the Defendants
have failed to describe efforts to negotiate transition assistance such as
discounted tuition for Carroll medical magnet students who may later enroll as
full-time students at ULM or LDCC. In response to the United States April 22,
2016 written request for documentation describing efforts the District has made to
16
negotiate transition assistance at ULM, including information indicating when the

District contacted ULM and the person with whom the District spoke, the
Defendants stated: ULM and Delta students who are enrolled currently in district
high schools are able to take dual enrollment classes at reduced tuition rates that
are paid for by the school district. However, post-secondary rates are not available.
See Ex. W at 6. This response does not indicate that the District has contacted
ULM to negotiate transition assistance, let alone identify the details of such
contact. See id. The response is therefore insufficient to demonstrate compliance
with Section VI.D.1.ii. Despite the United States May 20, 2016 letter reiterating
its April 22, 2016 request that the District comply with Section VI.D.1.ii, the
Defendants have failed to provide information indicating that they have taken
further action to cure their noncompliance with Section VI.D.1.ii. See Ex. L.
3.
The Defendants Failed to Prominently Feature Information

About Applying To The Carroll Medical Magnet Program On
Each High Schools Homepage As Required By Section VI.D.1.iv.
Per Section VI.D.1.iv, by April 4, 2016, the District was to ensure that the
homepage of the website for each of its high schools prominently features
information regarding the medical magnet program, including at a minimum, a
description of the medical magnet program and specific guidance regarding the
timeline and process for applying for admission to the program. ECF No. 141 at
32. While the homepages of each of the Districts high schools now contain
information about the medical magnet program and links to a timeline and
Recruitment Form, there is no specific guidance regarding the process for applying
17
for admission to the medical magnet program. See generally Ex. FF. In particular,
there is no link to a program application. See generally id. Nor are there any
instructions describing how a student and his or her family can find and submit
such an application. See generally id.
In addition, the timeline does not provide specific dates indicating when
applications are due or when other important deadlines occur. See Ex. FF at 30.
For example, the timeline notes, May Screening and selection of candidates for
the program for the upcoming school year, notification to parents/students of
acceptance/rejection (opportunity for second chance), completion of parent/student
contracts for program. Id. This is particularly problematic given that the links
leading to the medical magnet programs course offerings and recruitment form did
not work until sometime in May after the United States asked in its April 22,
2016 letter for these problems to be fixed. Given this delay, the date applications
were due may have passed before the application deadline was properly announced
and before interested students and parents could access either the recruitment form
or information about course offerings.
Additionally, the description of the medical magnet program appears under
the latest news, recent news, or headlines and features RSS feed section of
each of the homepages. See Ex. FF at 4, 7, & 9. Although the Defendants have
acknowledged that the medical magnet program information is under recent news
and will remain thus allowing it to always be featured prominently on the web
pages, Ex. W at 7-8, the United States review of the Boards homepage has made
18
clear that information about the medical magnet program becomes increasingly less
prominent as the District posts more recent news. See Ex. HH at 8-10. On April
22, 2016 and May 20, 2016, the United States reminded the Defendants of the
failure to comply with the requirements of Section VI.D.1.iv and requested that the
noncompliance be cured no later than June 1, 2016. The Defendants have not
provided any information indicating that they have taken corrective action. A
recent review of the relevant homepages indicates that the failures have not been
cured.
D.

Required Steps To Equalize Access To Specialized Academic Programs.
1.
The Defendants Failed to Address All of the IDRAs

Recommendations In The Districts Plan For Equalizing Access
To Specialized Academic Programs Without Providing The
United States Advance Written Justification For Why Certain
Recommendations Were Not Addressed As Required By Section
VI.C.1.v.
The United States wrote on April 22, 2016 and May 19, 2016 and spoke to the
Defendants on May 18, 2016 about the Districts anticipated noncompliance with
Section VI.C.1.v, which required the submission, by June 1, 2016, of a plan
implementing the IDRAs recommendations for equalizing access to specialized
academic programs unless the District first provides the United States with
written justification why any such recommendation should be excluded. ECF No.
141 at 30.
As Counsel noted in his May 23, 2016 letter: It is agreed that the May 12,
2016 District Strategic Improvement Plan [(which contained the Districts plan for
19
equalizing access to specialized academic programs)] is not sufficiently

comprehensive enough in content to describe the type [of] formal plan required in
Consent Decree Section VI.C.1.v. needed to achieve the outcomes specified. Ex. O.
Counsel added: Furthermore, it is agreed that the Strategic Improvement Plan
does not encompass all of the recommendations made by the IDRA, including those
identified in your May 19, 2016 letter. Id. Although the Defendants submitted,
both directly and through the ICM, a revised plan for equalizing access to
specialized academic programs, the revised plan fails to address two of the IDRAs
recommendations. See Ex. DD at 12-17; see also Ex. EE at 21-26. The District did
not provide advance written notice to the United States explaining why two of
IDRAs recommendations would not be implemented. Accordingly, the Defendants
failed to comply with Section VI.C.1.v.
E.

Not Be Held In Contempt For Failure To Comply With Section V.B.2
Of The Consent Decree, Which Requires The Board To Give The ICM
The Information And Personnel She Needs To Timely Report
Information As Required By Sections VI.C.2, VI.D.2, And VII.
Section V.B.2 provides: The District will work with the Independent Court
Monitor in good faith to ensure that the Independent Court Monitor has the
appropriate information and personnel s/he needs to ensure the timely completion
of the reports discussed in Sections VI.C.2, VI.D.2, and VII. ECF No. 141 at 15.
However, the Defendants have not given the ICM the assistance she needs to
complete the required reporting. See, e.g., Ex. BB at 5 (In a May 2, 2016 email, the
ICM wrote to the District: All Documentation must be emailed to [me] as soon as
20
possible. These activities should have been completed within the first and second
quarterly report . . . .); see also Ex. GG at 4 (A May 4, 2016 email indicates the ICM
wrote the following to the District: Please email the missing components from the
first and second quarterly reports related to training and the list of courses. You
received a data request regarding the information needed. Again, I havent
received the information.). The United States asked the Defendants on March 9,
2016, April 22, 2016, and May 20, 2016 to ensure the ICM received the information
she needed to fulfill her duties. See, e.g., Exs. G & L. However, the Defendants
continue to fail to do so. For example, the Defendants still have not given the ICM
the information required by Sections VI.D.2.i (requiring documentation of the
Districts efforts to negotiate with ULM and LDCC to establish, inter alia,
transition assistance for medical magnet students) and VII.B.8 (requiring certain
information about the Districts faculty).
V.
CONCLUSION
The United States moves the Court to order the Defendants to show cause
why they should not be held in contempt for failing to: (1) meet 90% of the
deadlines for which they have been responsible to date, and (2) cure their
noncompliance with Sections VI.A.2.i, VI.A.2.ii(2)(b), VI.A.2.iii, VI.D.1.i, VI.D.1.ii,
VI.D.1.iv, VI.C.1.v, and V.B.2 of the Consent Decree. The United States
respectfully requests that if the Defendants have not brought the District into
compliance with the cited Sections within two weeks of a finding of contempt, that
the Court: (1) order the Defendants, as individuals, to pay a civil fine of $100 per
21
day for each day that the Defendants continue to fail to comply with the Consent
Decree, and (2) double the amount of that civil fine for each calendar week of
continued noncompliance.
The United States further requests the following relief, and any additional
relief that the Court deems appropriate: given the failure to prominently feature
required information about the medical magnet program on the Districts high
schools websites, the United States moves the Court to order the Defendants to
extend the deadline for medical magnet program applications for the 2016-17 school
year to at least a month after the District has cured its noncompliance with Section
VI.D.1.iv.
Dated: June 23, 2016
Respectfully submitted,
For Plaintiff-Intervenor United States of

America:
VANITA GUPTA
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney
General
SHAHEENA SIMONS
FRANZ MARSHALL
MICHAELE N. TURNAGE YOUNG (CA
Bar# 247796)
KELLY D. GARDNER (DC Bar#
1002900)
Educational Opportunities Section
U.S. Dept. of Justice, Civil Rights Div.
950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, PHB 4300
Washington, D.C. 20530
22
Tel: (202) 305-4282

STEPHANIE A. FINLEY
United States Attorney
/s/ Katherine W. Vincent
KATHERINE W. VINCENT (LA #18717)
Assistant United States Attorney
800 Lafayette Street, Suite 2200
Lafayette, LA 70501-6832
Tel: (337) 262-6618
23
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that, on this 24th day of June 2016, I served a copy of the
foregoing Memorandum In Support Of Plaintiff-Intervenor United States Motion
For An Order To Show Cause Why The Monroe City School Board, Its Individual
Members, And The Monroe City Schools Superintendent Should Not Be Held In
Contempt For Failure To Comply With The December 11, 2015 Consent Decree, As
Amended via CM/ECF on all counsel of record so registered.
MICHAELE N. TURNAGE YOUNG
24
Exhibit FF
Screenshot of Neville High Schools

Homepage Taken on June 22, 2016
Screenshot of Carroll High

Schools homepage taken on
June 22, 2016
Screenshot of Wossman
High Schools homepage
taken on June 22, 2016
Clicking the Read More link

included in the mention of the
medical magnet program on Neville
High Schools homepage leads to
the following webpage (screenshot
taken on June 22, 2016).

medical magnet program on Carroll
High Schools homepage leads to

medical magnet program on Wossman
High Schools homepage leads to the
following webpage (screenshot taken
on June 23, 2016).
Clicking the CHS Medical Magnet

Program Homepage link
included on the webpages shown in
pages 11-18 of this Exhibit produces
Clicking the Recruitment Form link

included on the webpages shown in
pages 12, 15, 17, and 22 of this Exhibit
produces the following pdf
(downloaded on June 22, 2016).
CARROLL HIGH SCHOOL

MEDICAL MAGNET PROGRAM
Recruitment Form
(Please Print)
Students Name: _______________________________________ Sex: M ___ F ___
Address: _____________________________ Zip: ________ DOB: ____________

Parent/Guardians Name: _______________________________________________
Home Phone: _____________ Cell Phone: _______ Present School: ___________
Ethnicity(ies) African-American ___ Asian ___ Hispanic ___ White ___ Other ___
Select the Track You Are Interested in Pursuing:
___ Certified Nurse Assistant (Intro. to Health Occ., Med. Term, CNA)
___ Pharmacy Tech** (Intro. to Health Occ., Med. Term, Pharmacy Tech)
___ Sports Medicine (Intro. to Health Occ., Med. Term, Sports Med. I & II,
Sports Medicine III)
___ First Responder*
*First Responder may be taken in any track after student has earned one (1) Carnegie
unit in science, has a 2.0 GPA, and has reached the age of 16.
**Pharmacy Tech requires a composite 2.5 GPA and 3.0 GPA in mathematics and
science courses.
For Further Information:

Mrs. Shandria Newton
Program Coordinator
(318) 387-8441 Ext. 1067
shandria.newton@mcschools.net
Choose a Career; Define a Future
Clicking the Medical Magnet Course

Offerings link included on the
webpages shown in pages 12, 15, 17,
and 22 of this Exhibit produces the
following pdf (downloaded on June 22,
2016).
CHS MEDICAL MAGNET PROGRAM COURSE DESCRIPTIONS

Students desirous of enrolling in the CHS Medical Magnet Program do not have any specific pre-requisite
courses that they must take at the middle/junior high school level. Because the program is sequential, as set
up, students need to apply, undergo an interview process with a parent/guardian, and begin their
coursework at the high school level no later than their sophomore year (would need to take both
Introduction to Health Occupations and Medical Terminology) in order to be on target to participate in
clinical.
AHEC of a Summer Career Exploration (080200)
Grades: 9-10
Credit: .5
This program is an exploratory experience which provides an opportunity for students to work in a health care
environment. Emphasis is placed on career opportunities in health care while focusing on requirements and skills
necessary for pursuing a career in the medical profession. Educational workshops and group discussions serve as the
focus of this program. Topics include, but are not limited to personal qualities of health workers, interpersonal
communication skills, current health issues, medical communication skills, , medical terminology, hospital orientation,
financial aid for post-secondary education, health professional shortage areas, and CPR certification. Work-based
learning includes job shadowing and service learning.
Students must complete applications and be selected by AHEC (Area Health Education Center) to participate in this
program.
First Responder (090711)

Grades: 10-12
Credit: 1
The First Responder course is a foundation for the Emergency Medical Technician Education Program. Students
will receive in-depth training for most medical emergencies. The students will also become a registered First
Responder through the State of Louisiana and will obtain certification in CPR (BLS Health Care Provider CPR)
through the American Red Cross. Some of the topics to be covered include first aid, burn treatment, childbirth,
patient extrication, human anatomy, AED training, CPR, airway management, hemorrhage control, bandaging, simple
spinal immobilization, and simple splinting and infection control. Upon completion of the course, students can pursue
specialty career fields such as EMT, CNA, LPN, RN, or MD. This course is also a valuable program for community
service programs, such as a fire department volunteer.
In order to receive certification, the student must meet the following requirements: (1) must attend 90% of the total
course hours, (2) must pass the course with a 70% or better, (3) must pass the written and practical exams that are
administered as part of the course, and (4) must submit an accurate and complete certification application and fee to
the Bureau of EMS.
Prerequisites: Student must be at least 16 years old of age to enroll, must have an overall GPA of 2.0 or better, be in
good physical health and able to perform the duties of a First Responder, have certification in Professional Rescuer
Level CPR (Heartsaver CPR)), complete a criminal background affidavit in their own handwriting, no physical or
psychological dependence on substances other than those recognized as therapeutic treatments for valid medical
conditions for which they are currently under the care of a physician, a Letter of Good Standing from the high scool
principal/guidance counselor verifying the required GPA which must be submitted to the Bureau of EMS with the
initial roster and student applications
Introduction to Health Occupations (090930)

Grades: 9-12
Credit: 1
This is an introductory course designed to provide the student with an exploratory experience that offers information
on a variety of health care medical career fields. Education and responsibilities of various health careers will be
explored, along with basic concepts common to all health careers. These concepts include medical terminology, safety
and accident prevention, professionalism, legal aspects, computers in health care, and an introduction to anatomy and
physiology. Appropriate work-based learning strategies for this course include service learning, job shadowing, and
field trips to various health facilities. Opportunities for application of clinical and leadership skills are provided by
participation in vocational student organizations suited to the students goal of learning the specifics of each role and
that factors that affect professional performance.
Medical Terminology (090151)

Grades: 10-12
Credit: 1
This course provides students with the ability to identify medical terms by analyzing their components. Emphasis is
placed on defining medical prefixes, root words, suffixes, and abbreviations. The primary focus is on skill
development, both oral and written, of the language utilized for communication in the health care professions.
Opportunities for application of clinical and leadership skills are provided by participation in career and technical
student organization activities.
Nurse Assistant (020251)

Grades: 11-12
Credit: 2
This two-hour blocked course is designed to prepare students to become Certified Nursing Assistants in the state of
Louisiana. The Nurse Assistant Certificate Program prepares students for employment in long-term care facilities,
home health agencies, and hospitals where basic bedside nursing care is needed. Classroom instruction (200 hours of
classroom/theory) includes an introduction to health care, essential OBRA skills required for certification, body
structure and function, and the job-seeking process, with an introduction to computer skills, as they relate to the health
care industry. Students participate in a minimum of 100 hours of clinical experience through internships at nursing
homes, acute hospitals, and/or other health care facilities under the supervision of the instructor (10 hours simulated
clinical experience, 90 hours on site clinical experience with a minimum of 40 hours in a nursing home).
Reinforced in this course are medical terminology, science, mathematics, written and oral communication, as well as
basic nursing assistant clinical skills. Instruction in CPR and First Aid is presented/reinforced in this course.
Students successfully completing the course with the required grade in clinical experience, a grade of 70% or better on
the written examination, and performance assessment will be eligible to become Certified Nursing Assistants in the
state of Louisiana.
Prerequisite: Minimum 17 years of age to participate; must have successfully completed Introduction to Health
Occupations and Medical Terminology prior to enrollment.
Pharmacy Technician (090005)

Grade: 12
Credit: 2
This two-hour blocked course is designed to prepare students to take the National Pharmacy Technician Certification
Board examination. The course introduces students to the different areas of pharmacy technician practice. Emphasis
is placed on pharmacology, drug dosage calculations, pharmacy law, stock inventory, infection control, compounding,
maintaining records, anatomy and physiology, and pharmacy terminology. Major emphasis is placed on assisting the
Pharmacist in serving patients, maintaining medication and inventory control systems, and participating in the
administration and management of pharmacy practice. Appropriate work-based strategies include service learning,
field trips, and job shadowing. During the spring semester, students will partner with area pharmacists/ULM College
of Pharmacy to obtain observation hours needed for class.
Prerequisite: Graduating senior, reliable transportation for spring observations, 18 prior to high school graduation,
minimum overall GPA of 2.5 and a minimum GPA of 3.0 in mathematics and science courses. Students must have a
minimum ACT of 20 (if no ACT score available, then student must have a minimum overall GPA of 3.2), completion
of the PTCB exam prior to graduation (PTCB exam is the final exam and a passing score is required for students to
receive course credit.)
Sports Medicine I (090720)
Grades: 11-12
Credit: .5
This course will provide an overview of the field of sports medicine as well as expose students to fundamental skills
involved in a sports medicine healthcare setting. Students will learn about the study of medicine and how the field of
sports medicine is unique in its focus and delivery of healthcare. Topics covered in this class include an examination
of the different career paths in the sports medicine field and how each medical profession contributes to a coordinated
sports medicine healthcare delivery team. An emphasis on the professional aspects involved in becoming a healthcare
provider is also covered. Students will be provided the opportunity to examine a sports medicine facility and explore
their policies, procedures and protocols utilized in patient care. A cornerstone of the field of sports medicine is risk
management and injury prevention. Students will explore a variety of topics in injury prevention and be able to
participate in skills that healthcare providers utilize to reduce injuries to sports medicine settings. Important skills that
healthcare providers are oriented to during their professional career are basic life support fo adults and pediatrics.
Students are given the opportunity to obtain American Heart Association Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) in the
Schools certification.
Sports Medicine II (090721)
Grades: 11-12
Credit: .5
This course will provide students with an overview of the pathology of sports injuries and basic management skills.
Students will learn about the bodys response to an injury and how to apply emergency action principles and skills. An
emphasis is placed on an athletes psychological and sociological response to an injury and coping strategies utilized by
healthcare professions to assist them in recovery. Students will also learn the systematic process healthcare
professionals use when evaluating an injury and planning a rehabilitation plan.
Sports Medicine III (090722)
Grade: 12
Credit: 1
This course will provide an overview of common injuries and illnesses in sports and management strategies utilized by
healthcare professionals. Students will also work on a variety of projects that require them to synthesize information
learned from previous sports medicine courses. Students will learn how to analyze information relevant to the study of
sports medicine and investigate it through a systematic process.
Prerequisite: Sports Medicine I and Sports Medicine II with a C or better in each
Clicking the Medical Magnet

Recruitment Timeline link included
on the webpages shown in pages 12,
15, 17, and 22 of this Exhibit produces
the following webpage (screenshot taken
on June 22, 2016).
Exhibit HH

MONROE DIVISION

Plaintiffs,
Plaintiff-Intervenor,
v.
MONROE CITY SCHOOL BOARD, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR UNITED

STATES MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Before the court is Plaintiff-Intervenor United States motion for an order to
show cause why the Monroe City School Board, its individual members, and the
Monroe City Schools superintendent (together, the Defendants) should not be
held in contempt for failure to comply with the December 11, 2015 Consent
Decree, as amended on January 12, 2016, March 24, 2016, and April 14, 2016.
For good cause shown, the court hereby grants the United States motion. A
hearing will be scheduled by further order for the Defendants to show cause why
they should not be held in contempt.
Dated: June __, 2016
______________________________
The Honorable Robert G. James
United States District Judge for the
Western District of Louisiana

Motion For Order To Show Cause

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Motion For Order To Show Cause

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Case 3:65-cv-11297-RGJ Document 144 Filed 06/24/16 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 2367

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Civil Action No. 65-11297

MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Case 3:65-cv-11297-RGJ Document 144 Filed 06/24/16 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 2368

For Plaintiff-Intervenor United States of

Case 3:65-cv-11297-RGJ Document 144 Filed 06/24/16 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 2369

Case 3:65-cv-11297-RGJ Document 144-1 Filed 06/24/16 Page 1 of 28 PageID #: 2370

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Civil Action No. 65-11297

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR UNITED

Case 3:65-cv-11297-RGJ Document 144-1 Filed 06/24/16 Page 2 of 28 PageID #: 2371

LEGAL STANDARD ........................................................................................... 3

The Defendants Failed To Comply In Full With The Section VI.A.2.i

The Defendants Failed To Sufficiently Revise And Finalize Their Section

The Defendants Failed to Submit A Compliant Mandatory Faculty

The Defendants Failed To Implement The Medical Magnet Experts

The Defendants Failed To Provide Evidence of Their Attempt To

The Defendants Failed to Prominently Feature Information About

The Defendants Failed to Address All of the IDRAs Recommendations In

Case 3:65-cv-11297-RGJ Document 144-1 Filed 06/24/16 Page 3 of 28 PageID #: 2372

Justification For Why Certain Recommendations Were Not Addressed As

Case 3:65-cv-11297-RGJ Document 144-1 Filed 06/24/16 Page 4 of 28 PageID #: 2373

Case 3:65-cv-11297-RGJ Document 144-1 Filed 06/24/16 Page 5 of 28 PageID #: 2374

Case 3:65-cv-11297-RGJ Document 144-1 Filed 06/24/16 Page 6 of 28 PageID #: 2375

despite notification of the failures by their counsel2 (hereinafter, Counsel) and

Case 3:65-cv-11297-RGJ Document 144-1 Filed 06/24/16 Page 7 of 28 PageID #: 2376

have information to provide in response to your request for updated information on

Case 3:65-cv-11297-RGJ Document 144-1 Filed 06/24/16 Page 8 of 28 PageID #: 2377

To demonstrate that a party to a consent decree should be held in contempt, a

Case 3:65-cv-11297-RGJ Document 144-1 Filed 06/24/16 Page 9 of 28 PageID #: 2378

Workers of Am. v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 827 (1994).

Case 3:65-cv-11297-RGJ Document 144-1 Filed 06/24/16 Page 10 of 28 PageID #: 2379

The Defendants Should Be Ordered To Show Cause Why They Should

The Defendants failure to meet the following deadlines shows a pattern of

A December 15, 2015 deadline by which the District was to employ a

Case 3:65-cv-11297-RGJ Document 144-1 Filed 06/24/16 Page 11 of 28 PageID #: 2380

An April 4, 2016 deadline by which the District was to complete a

Case 3:65-cv-11297-RGJ Document 144-1 Filed 06/24/16 Page 12 of 28 PageID #: 2381

The Defendants Should Be Ordered To Show Cause Why They Should

The Defendants Failed To Comply In Full With The Section

According to Section VI.A.2.i of the Consent Decree, by April 4, 2016, the

Case 3:65-cv-11297-RGJ Document 144-1 Filed 06/24/16 Page 13 of 28 PageID #: 2382

Case 3:65-cv-11297-RGJ Document 144-1 Filed 06/24/16 Page 14 of 28 PageID #: 2383

Case 3:65-cv-11297-RGJ Document 144-1 Filed 06/24/16 Page 15 of 28 PageID #: 2384

The Defendants Failed To Sufficiently Revise And Finalize Their

Section VI.A.2.ii(2)(b) provides that if the District chooses to desegregate its

Case 3:65-cv-11297-RGJ Document 144-1 Filed 06/24/16 Page 16 of 28 PageID #: 2385

Decree. Ex. O. Counsel added: The notice to teachers and administrators

Case 3:65-cv-11297-RGJ Document 144-1 Filed 06/24/16 Page 17 of 28 PageID #: 2386

The Defendants Failed to Submit A Compliant Mandatory

Section VI.A.2.iii required the District to do the following by June 6, 2016 if

Case 3:65-cv-11297-RGJ Document 144-1 Filed 06/24/16 Page 18 of 28 PageID #: 2387

reassignment plan. Counsel was unable to provide an answer. As of the date of

Case 3:65-cv-11297-RGJ Document 144-1 Filed 06/24/16 Page 19 of 28 PageID #: 2388

The Defendants Should Be Ordered To Show Cause Why They Should

The Defendants Failed To Implement The Medical Magnet

Case 3:65-cv-11297-RGJ Document 144-1 Filed 06/24/16 Page 20 of 28 PageID #: 2389

The Defendants Failed To Provide Evidence of Their Attempt To

Case 3:65-cv-11297-RGJ Document 144-1 Filed 06/24/16 Page 21 of 28 PageID #: 2390

negotiate transition assistance at ULM, including information indicating when the

The Defendants Failed to Prominently Feature Information

Students Name: _____________________________________ Sex: M _ F ___

Address: _________________ Zip: DOB: