Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Mendoza Plaintiffs respond to USP

Mendoza Plaintiffs respond to USP

Ratings: (0)|Views: 554 |Likes:
Published by DA Morales
The Latino plaintiffs respond to TUSD.
The Latino plaintiffs respond to TUSD.

More info:

Published by: DA Morales on Dec 15, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

12/15/2012

pdf

text

original

 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728 
MENDOZA PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE CONCERNING THE PROPOSED UNITARY STATUS PLAN
LOIS D. THOMPSON, Cal. Bar No. 093245 (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)lthompson@proskauer.comJENNIFER L. ROCHE, Cal. Bar No. 254538 (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) jroche@proskauer.comPROSKAUER ROSE LLP2049 Century Park East, 32nd FloorLos Angeles, California 90067-3206Telephone: (310) 557-2900Facsimile: (310) 557-2193NANCY RAMIREZ, Cal. Bar. No. 152629 (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)nramirez@maldef.orgMEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE ANDEDUCATIONAL FUND (MALDEF)634 S. Spring St.11th FloorTelephone: (213) 629-2512 ext. 121Facsimile: (213) 629-0266Attorneys for Mendoza PlaintiffsUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONARoy and Josie Fisher, et al.,Plaintiffs,v.United States of America,Plaintiff-Intervenors,v.Anita Lohr, et al.,Defendants,Sidney L. Sutton, et al.,Defendant-Intervenors,Case No. 4:74-CV-00090-DCB
MENDOZA PLAINTIFFS’RESPONSE CONCERNING THEPROPOSED UNITARY STATUSPLAN DATED DECEMBER 10, 2012
Case 4:74-cv-00090-DCB Document 1413 Filed 12/14/12 Page 1 of 24
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728 - 1 -
MENDOZA PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE CONCERNING THE PROPOSED UNITARY STATUS PLAN
Maria Mendoza, et al.,Plaintiffs,United States of America,Plaintiff-Intervenor,v.Tucson United School District No. One, et al.,Defendants.Case No. CV 74-204 TUC DCB
I.
 
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
The Mendoza Plaintiffs submit the within Mendoza Plaintiffs’ ResponseConcerning the Proposed Unitary Status Plan Dated December 10, 2012 (“MendozaResponse”) pursuant to this Court’s Orders of September 11, September 24, and October31, 2012 to address objections to the proposed Unitary Status Plan (“USP” or “Plan”)discussed in the Legal Memorandum of Objections to Joint Proposed Unitary Status PlanNoting Areas of Disagreement (“District Objections”) filed by the District (Docket No.1407), the objection lodged by amicus, the State of Arizona, to the provision of the USPrelating to culturally relevant curriculum, and certain changes made to the version of theUSP previously filed with the Court to add clarity and/or in response to public comment.It is unfortunate that the District elected to commence its memorandum to the Courtwith assertions that it neither “acknowledge[s] nor admit[s] that vestiges of the segregatedsystem remain in the District” and “does not acknowledge or agree that the obligations it isundertaking pursuant to the …USP are necessary or required to achieve unitary status.”District Objections at 2:14-17. The absence of 
any
acknowledgement by the District thatthis case was remanded to the District Court for on-going supervision because the “Districtfailed the good faith inquiry
and 
[because the District Court had] raised significantquestions as to whether the District had eliminated the vestiges of racial discrimination tothe extent practicable….” (
Fisher v. Tucson
, 652 F.3d 1131, 1140 (2011); emphasis added)
Case 4:74-cv-00090-DCB Document 1413 Filed 12/14/12 Page 2 of 24
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728 - 2 -
MENDOZA PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE CONCERNING THE PROPOSED UNITARY STATUS PLAN
is of grave concern. It suggests that the District has yet to recognize that before it canobtain unitary status and be released from this Court’s supervision, it must satisfy thisCourt that it has eliminated all vestiges of discrimination and demonstrate a “‘
history
of good-faith compliance’” sufficient to establish that “it has accepted the principle of racialequality and will not suffer intentional discrimination in the future.’”
 Id 
. at 1142; emphasisin original; citations omitted.The District’s refusal to acknowledge its on-going and substantial obligations alsounderscores why the Plan before this Court is so important. In the absence of anyconcession by the District about what it must do to achieve unitary status, all parties andthe Court must look to the Plan to set those benchmarks. It is for that reason among othersthat both the Mendoza Plaintiffs and the Fisher Plaintiffs have sought more explicit goalsfor District performance than the District would like – hence some of the objectionsdiscussed in detail in the Mendoza Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Support of ObjectionsAsserted to Joint Proposed Unitary Status Plan Filed November 9, 2012 (“MendozaObjections”) and repeated in response to certain edits made in the December 10 Plan.It is because of the District’s on-going refusal to acknowledge its derelictions aswell as its past failure “ ‘to monitor, track, review and analyze the effectiveness’ of itsprograms and policies” (
Fisher 
at 1140) that the Plan includes substantial and specificreporting and monitoring requirements. It also is for that reason that the Plan provides --over the District’s objection -- for an Implementation Committee of three independentexpert advisors to assist the Special Master in monitoring and overseeing theimplementation of the Plan. In the particular circumstances of this case, such a committeeis eminently reasonable – and necessary.The Mendoza Plaintiffs will provide their full response to each of the District’sobjections below. However, given certain inaccurate or incomplete assertions made by theDistrict, it first is necessary to address the section on “procedural history” in the District’sObjections.
Case 4:74-cv-00090-DCB Document 1413 Filed 12/14/12 Page 3 of 24

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->