Federal Judge Appears Skeptical in FAMU Discrimination Case
U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle said that class-action attorneys will have to provide more evidence to show that the alleged discrimination can be traced to segregation.
June 15, 2023 at 03:29 PM
4 minute read
While allowing attorneys to revise the case, a federal judge issued a ruling this week that indicated skepticism about key parts of a potential class-action lawsuit alleging state discrimination against Florida A&M University.
U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle on Monday dismissed a version of the lawsuit filed in January, though he gave attorneys for a group of students until July 3 to file a revised case. Hinkle, however, said the attorneys will have to provide more evidence to show that the alleged discrimination can be traced to segregation.
"The first amended complaint [the version dismissed Monday] alleges differences between FAMU and other public universities, including in funding, quality of faculty, graduation rates, and mission statements, but the first amended complaint is short on facts tying these differences to the segregated-by-law system," Hinkle wrote.
Hinkle focused, in part, on allegations that FAMU, the state's only historically Black public university, has suffered because of duplication of programs with nearby Florida State University and other schools. But Hinkle pointed to the massive growth in Florida since passage of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an anti-discrimination law at issue in the case.
"When Title VI was adopted, Florida's population was about 5.7 million, and the state had only three public universities — two white and one black," Hinkle wrote. "Florida now has 12 public universities serving a population of over 22 million. Of course there are duplicated programs at the 12 universities, but the assertion they were created to maintain segregation, rather than to accommodate the enormous population increase, is implausible."
As an example of duplication, attorneys for the plaintiffs have cited a joint engineering program shared by FAMU and Florida State. Also, they have pointed to a FAMU law school that was closed in the 1960s and revived decades later at an Orlando campus. The closure of the original FAMU law school came as a Florida State law school opened.
But Hinkle's ruling raised doubts about the arguments.
"The first amended complaint addresses colleges of law and engineering but does so inconsistently — apparently asserting FSU and FAMU should have neither separate colleges [as in law] nor a joint college [as in engineering]," he wrote. "Either way, the first amended complaint does not adequately allege that the current situation is a vestige of the segregated-by-law system."
Hinkle questioned attorneys about such issues during a June 1 hearing but did not formally rule until this week.
Attorneys for six FAMU students filed an initial version of the lawsuit in September and an amended version in January. They have sought an injunction against state practices that they say violate the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution and Title VI.
An important issue in the case is whether state decisions are "traceable" to de jure segregation, or segregation sanctioned by law.
"Throughout its history and up to the present, Florida has intentionally and consistently engaged in racial discrimination by maintaining a dual and unequal system of higher education, including by providing disparate funding and duplicating non-core FAMU programs, that has and continues to perpetuate de jure segregation in Florida's higher education system and has prevented FAMU from achieving parity with Florida's public traditionally white institutions," the January version of the lawsuit said.
But attorneys for the state have disputed such arguments.
"The challenged policy or practice must not only be traceable to de jure segregation, it must also have continuing segregative effects," attorneys for the state wrote in a February motion to dismiss the case. "Here, plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged that the challenged policies are traceable to de jure segregation or that they have segregative effects."
Jim Saunders reports for the News Service of Florida.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDivided State Court Reinstates Dispute Over Replacement Vehicles Fees
5 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute read'They Got All Bent Out of Shape:' Parkland Lawyers Clash With Each Other
Courts of Appeal Conflicted Over Rule 1.442(c)(3) When Claims for Damages Involve a Husband and Wife
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250