Court filings concerning enforcement of the settlement agreement with the state, motion for asamicus curiae concerning the Servicemaster contract, PCSSD's motion seeking equitable relief, and LRSD final program and planning and budgeting tool for 1996-97 and September program

District Court, brief in support of Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) response to respondent Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) motion to dismiss Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) ''amendment and supplement'' to its second motion to enforce settlement agreement with the state; District Court, motion for temporary restraining order; District Court, brief in support of motion for temporary restraining order; Court of Appeals, motion to strike certain portions of the Joshua intervenors' appellee/appellant's brief; District Court, Knight, et al., response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion seeking equitable relief; District Court, brief in suopport of Knight, et al., response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion seeking equitable relief; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) response to motion for temporary restraining order; District Court, brief in opposition to motion for temporary restraining order; District Court, motion for enlargement of time; District Court, motion of the Joshua intervenors to be heard asamicus curiae concerning the Servicemaster contract issue; District Court, motion for hearing; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) reply to Knight, et al., response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion seeking equitable relief; District Court, brief in support of Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) reply to Knight, et al., response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion seeking equitable relief; District Court, order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) supplemental motion for costs and attorneys' fees as to the state defendants; District Court, brief in further support of Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) supplemental motion for costs and attorneys' fees as to the state defendants; District Court, memorandum opinion and order; District Court, Joshua intervenors' motion for an award of attorneys' fees; District Court, motion for order; District Court, notice of appeal; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, notice of filing, Little Rock School District (LRSD) final program and planning and budgeting tool for 1996-97 and September program and planning and budgeting tool; Chancery Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas, motion to intervene by the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. BLYTHEVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT; BRYANT SCHOOL DISTRICT; FORT SMITH SCHOOL DISTRICT; WEST MEMPHIS SCHOOL DISTRICT; ALTUS-DENNING SCHOOL DISTRICT; ASHDOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT; BARTON-LEXA SCHOOL DISTRICT; BATESVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT; BIGGERS-REYNO SCHOOL DISTRICT; BLACK ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT; BRIGHT STAR SCHOOL DISTRICT; BRINKLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT; CENTERPOINT SCHOOL DISTRICT; CLARENDON SCHOOL DISTRICT; COTTON PLANT SCHOOL DISTRICT; CUTTER MORNING STAR SCHOOL DISTRICT; PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INT ERVEN ORS INT ERVEN ORS SEP 5 1996 Office of Dss~regation Mcrn1Grn1~ DEWITT SCHOOL DISTRICT; DOLLARWAY SCHOOL DISTRICT; -------r FOREMAN SCHOOL DISTRICT; FOUNTAIN LAKE SCHOOL DISTRICT; GILLETT SCHOOL DISTRICT; GLEN ROSE SCHOOL DISTRICT; GUY-PERKINS SCHOOL DISTRICT; HOXIE SCHOOL DISTRICT; JONESBORO SCHOOL DISTRICT; KIRBY SCHOOL DISTRICT; LAVACA SCHOOL DISTRICT; LEWISVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT, MAGAZINE SCHOOL DISTRICT; MALVERN SCHOOL DISTRICT; MAMMOTH SPRING SCHOOL DISTRICT; MANILA SCHOOL DISTRICT; MAYNARD SCHOOL DISTRICT, NORTHEAST ARKANSAS SCHOOL DISTRICT; ODEN SCHOOL DISTRICT; OZ~..RK SCHOO~ DISTRICT; PLAINVIEW-ROVER SCHOOL DISTRICT; POCAHONTAS SCHOOL DISTRICT; PRAIRIE GROVE SCHOOL DISTRICT; SOUTH CONWAY SCHOOL DISTRICT; SPRING HILL SCHOOL DISTRICT; STAMPS SCHOOL DISTRICT; STEPHENS SCHOOL DISTRICT; TURRELL SCHOOL DISTRICT; VAN BUREN SCHOOL DISTRICT; WARREN SCHOOL DISTRICT; WATSON CHAPEL SCHOOL DISTRICT; WEST FORK SCHOOL DISTRICT; WHITE HALL SCHOOL DISTRICT; WINSLOW SCHOOL DISTRICT; WONDERVIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT; and YELLVILLE-SUMMIT SCHOOL DISTRICT BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PCSSD'S RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION'S MOTION TO DISMISS PCSSD'S "AMENDMENT INT ERVEN ORS AND SUPPLEMENT" TO ITS SECOND MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE PCSSD adopts and incorporates by reference its brief dated August 5, 1996 which was served in support of its response to ADE's motion to dismiss or have this court abstain from considering PCSSD's second motion to enforce settlement agreement with the State. The PCSSD has no sericus quarrel with the State's description of the "status of Lake View II" as set forth at page 2 of the State's brief. The State's Exhaustion Argument Simply stated, the new minimum salary law, an unfunded mandate, substantially interferes with the PCSSD's ability to desegregate by requiring, absent a temporary waiver, the shifting of scarce resources away from instructional activities and desegregation related activities into a salary structure1 This law was imposed without regard, apparently, to the publicly known financial circumstances of the PCSSD and without regard to the fact that the PCSSD is one of four school districts in the state which collectively bargains with it~ certified employees. Thus, whatever policy considerations might underpin the passage of the minimum salary law elsewhere in the State, those policy reasons could not apply in the PCSSD where the District and the union have historically agreed (admittedly, often after much rancor) upon a salary schedule for all certified employees. 1The main thrust of the relief sought by the PCSSD on this issue is for the State to provide the funds for compliance with the law. This is not a case about administrative remedies. In any event, any waiver that could be obtained by the PCSSD is limited to two years. The impact of the minimum salary law will be into the next century at a minimum. That the passage of the minimum salary law substantially interferes with the PCSSD's ability to desegregate was amply demonstrated on August 19, 1996 when the teachers in the PCSSD went on strike. Simply put, to the extent that the existence of the minimum salary law was a key component of the dispute which led to the strike, it "substantially interfered" with the ability of the PCSSD to desegregate. For a further amplification of this cause and effect scenario, the PCSSD respectfully incorporates by reference the proceedings had in this Court on August 28, 1996, the ruling which issued at the end of those proceedings, and the motion and brief filed by the PCSSD on August 27, 1996. Because the granting of a waiver would only postpone the legal issues and the effects of the minimum salary for a maximum of two years in the context of a case that has been ongoing since 1982, the PCSSD respectfully submits that the minimum salary law issue should be considered in tandem with the other issues raised by the respective PCSSD motions to enforce the settlement agreement. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays that the relief sought by State defendants be denied and that under the particular circumstances 3 of this case, that abstention should not lie. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Ave., Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 By ; "11 ' M. SamELlones III (76060) Atta~ eys or Pulas i County Speci' 1 hool District CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On September 3 , 1996, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following persons of record:. Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge & Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 William P. Thompson and James M. Llewellyn, Jr. Thompson & Llewellyn 412 South 18th Street P. o. Box 818 Fort Smith, Arkansas 72902-0818 4 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 410 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SEP O 6 1996 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION JAMES W McCORMACK, CLERK By: --------- DEP. CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. REC ,V .. SEP 1996 DEFENDANTS INIERVENORS INIERVENORS Office of Desegregation Monitonn~ BLYTHEVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. INIERVENORS MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER Knight, et al. Intervenors, by and through their attorneys, ROACHELL LAW FIRM, for their Motion, state on information and belief: 1. On Thursday, August 29, 1996, the court held a hearing on the Motion of PCS SD for Injunctive Relief with regard to PACT and those of its members who were then engaged in a strike against the District over pay and other related issues. This hearing was commenced upon approximately fifteen (15) hours notice to counsel for the Knight, et al. Intervenors. 2. At the conclusion of the hearing, citing desegregation obligations of the District and PACT in addition to contractual obligations of PACT to the District as contained in the Master Contract between those parties, the Court ordered the teachers back to work on Tuesday, September 3, 1996. Further, the Court ordered PACT and the District to mediate the disputes between them before Mr. Gus Taylor, Chief Conciliator of the United States Department of Justice. 3. As ordered, the teachers returned the work on September 3, 1996, and on September 4, 1996, began the mediation process with Mr. Taylor. Schools were closed by the Board August 19-23; August 26-27; August 29-30. 4. It was clearly the intent of the Court's Order requiring mediation that the parties should mediate in good faith and without retaliation by the District against those teachers engaged in the strike. 5. Despite the Order of the Court for the teachers to return to work which undercut any negotiating position they may have had, the following relevant events have taken place since the order was delivered from the bench: (a) The District has engaged in pay practices which docked three days pay for every classroom teacher regardless of their circumstances on the first regularly scheduled payday. The District has announced actions to dock each classroom teacher regardless of their circumstances for five to seven (5-7) days in the second regularly scheduled pay period which means that there is a potential for many of the District's teachers on that payday to actually owe the District money. (b) The District has docked the pay of classroom teachers who crossed the picket line and worked on the one day that the board voted to hold school open. 2 ( c) Classroom teachers on paid leave of absence were docked the same number of days as teachers who were out on strike. Teachers on paid disability leave were docked the same pay as regular classroom teachers in spite of the fact that they did not participate in the strike. (d) At least one teacher on paid administrative suspension pending termination hearings was docked the same as other classroom teachers. (e) On the other hand, psychological examiners; speech therapists; support staff; and building level administrators were not docked any pay and no docking of pay is planned for the next regularly scheduled pay period. (f) The District is violating the master contract between the parties with regard to pay when schools are closed. For instance, the master contract does not provide for teachers to get their pay docked for such closures of school as inclement weather and the District did not dock pay after the 1988 Strike. (g) Not only are the actions with regard to docking pay contrary to the court's intent in its ruling from the bench, but also, the actions of the District in docking pay of classroom teachers is clearly retaliatory in nature contrary to the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. (h) The District has made an administrative decision that all makeup days will occur at the end of the school year and it did not alter the twenty-six (26) pay periods set forth in the Master Contract 3 6. The actions of the District seriously jeopardize the success of the mediation process and the successful implementation of the District's Desegregation Plan. 7. AH the Data phase factors for Preliminary Relief are in favor of PACT. WHEREFORE, Knight Intervenors pray that the court order an immediate hearing and, following said hearing, to make such temporary and permanent orders and rulings as will protect the integrity of the mediation process; protect the classroom teachers of the District from retaliation for the exercise of their constitutional rights; uphold their master contract; grant them attorney's fees; and all other relief to which they may be entitled. 4 ~ctfully submitted, '---~ I~ Richard W. Roachell Arkansas Bar No. 78132 ROACHELL LAW FIRM 401 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 504 The Lyon Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 375-5550 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Richard W. Roachell, do hereby certify and state that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was mailed, postage prepaid, on September 6, 1996 to the following persons: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P. A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 William P. Thompson and James M. Llewellyn, Jr. Thompson and Llewellyn 412 South 18th Street P. 0. Box 818 Fort Smith, Arkansas 72902-0818 5 Mr. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 M. Samuel Jones III WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard W. Roachell IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. BLYTHEVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS SEP O 6 1996 JAMES W McCORMACK, CLERK By: ------D~E...,..P . ...,.C-LE=R-K PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INIERVENOR.5 INIERVENOR.5 INIERVENOR.5 BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER It is clear that the actions of the School District in docking teachers' pay is contrary to the Court's intent in its ruling from the bench after the hearing of August 29, 1996. Teachers' pay was not docked subsequent to the teacher strike of 1988. Furthermore, the master contract between the parties provides that there shall be twenty-six (26) pay periods during the school year and provides no docking of pay provisions for any circumstances such as inclement weather or other incidents or other circumstances that may interrupt the school year. Even though the Court undercut the bargaining position of the teachers by ordering them back to work, the teachers did honor the Court's Orders and have returned to the bargaining table with Mr. Taylor as mediator. This mediation process which the Court clearly intended to resolve the issues between the parties is severely threatened by the District's retaliatory action against select members of the teacher union in an effort by the District to crush the union or render it ineffective by creating economic hardship among its members. The- events that have taken place and the disparate impact of the docking of pay of the classroom teachers show that the District is bent not upon settlement of the division between the parties and healing the riff between them, but rather to punish the classroom teachers who will now have to wait until the end of the school year to receive their pay. The District did not change the twenty-six (26) period pay provisions of the master contract. Further, that some teachers at the next pay period may actually owe the District money creates such economic hardship with its attendant morale problem in the classroom teachers that the successful implementation of the District's Desegregation Plan may be irreparably harmed. Finally, the rights of freedom of speech and association guaranteed to all citizens of this country, including public employees, has been violated by the District's retaliatory action. To remedy this situation, the Court should, temporarily and permanently enjoin the District from deviating from its normal pay practices without singling out any sub-group of PACT for docking of pay; grant them attorneys fees and all other relief to which they may be entitled. 2 ~tfully submitted, ~~.C)__J__ Richard W. Roachell Arkansas Bar No. 78132 ROACHELL LAW FIRM 401 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 504 The Lyon Building Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 I (501) 375-5550 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Richard W. Roachell, do hereby certify and state that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was mailed, postage prepaid, on September 6, 1996 to the following persons: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P. A 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 7220 I Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 William P. Thompson and James M. Llewellyn, Jr. Thompson and Llewellyn 412 South 18th Street P. 0. Box 818 Fort Smith, Arkansas 72902-0818 3 Mr. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 M. Samuel Jones III WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCB Y Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 ~.~ Richard W. Roachell RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT SEP 1 0 1996 Off ice of Desegregauon Morntonng LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 96-047EALR SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES L.P. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. MOTION TO STRIKE CERTAIN PORTIONS APPELLANT APPELLEE APPELLEE OF THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS APPELLEE/ APPELLANT'S BRJEF ServiceMaster Management Services L.P. ("ServiceMaster"), for its motion to strike certain portions of the brief filed by the Joshua Intervenors ("Joshua") states: - ... -.,... ___... .... ~ 1. Joshua requested in a letter filed with the Court dated August 21, 1996, that it be heard with respect to "argument one" of the Little Rock School District ("LRSD") Brief as an appellee and that it be heard with respect to "argument two" of the LRSD Brief, which involves ServiceMaster, as an appellant. 2. ServiceMaster filed a response to Joshua's Motion on August 23, 1996, whereas ServiceMaster objected to Joshua's request that it be heard as an appellant with respect to argument two of the LRSD Brief. 3. On August 23, 1996, the Court granted Joshua's motion for an extension of time within which to file a brief as an appellee, and the Court denied, without prejudice, ServiceMaster's response, subject to renewal when the brief by Joshua is filed if circumstances warrant. 624\MOTSTRIK.909 1 4. The brief filed by Joshua is titled: "Brief of Appellee/Appellant Mrs. Lorene Joshua, ET AL." In addition, in its Brief, Joshua took the position of an appellee and appellant. 5. The following references are made in the Joshua Brief with respect to ServiceMaster: Issues Presented on Appeal, Issue number 3, page 1 of the Joshua Brief; Statement of the Case, Part B, page 11-12 of the Brief; and, Argument, Argument B, page 17-19 of the Brief. 6. Joshua advances arguments with respect to ServiceMaster which may only be properly made as an appellant in the case. 7. Joshua was served with a copy of the District Court's Order dated March 11, 1995, and failed to file an appeal of its own accord with respect to the District Court's Order concerning argument two, the ServiceMaster issue, as prescribed by the Rules of Appellate - Procedure. In addition, this appeal is not and cannot be characterized as a cross-appeal. 8. The status of Joshua in this appeal filed by the LRSD can only be entertained as an appellee with respect to argument one presented by the LRSD. WHEREFORE, ServiceMaster requests that all portions of Joshua's Brief which make reference to ServiceMaster be stricken as they are prejudicial to appellee ServiceMaster. 624\MOTSTRIK.909 2 Respectfully submitted, GIROIR & GREGORY, PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION 111 CENTER STREET, SUITE 1900 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 (501) 372-3000 and - - John C. Everett, #70022 EVERETT, MARS & STILLS P.O. Box 1646 Fayetteville, AR 72702 (501) 443-0292 Attorneys for ServiceMaster Management Services BJYoseS.M:owe~ry, %~ Bar #90l23 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion to Strike Portions of the Joshua's Intervenors Brief has been served on the following people by depositing copy of the same in the United States mail on this 9th day of September, 1996. Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge & Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 17223 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Travis Creed Roachell Law Firm 401 West Capital, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones Jack, Lyon & Jones, P.A. 3400 TCBY Bldg. Capitol & Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 624\MOTSTRIK.909 3 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey & Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Elizabeth Boyter Arkansas Dept. of Education 4 State Capital Mall Little Rock, AR 72201 624\MOTSTRIK.909 4 C IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT' ~- - ' "~As EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS .C._':_"," ) -A ") - --~ .) - - ') WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-8'6- PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. RE: c erv~~ DEFENDANfS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INIERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. SEP 1 1 1996 Oifioo of D(<Svc.grsgation Mon~or~VENORS BLYTHEVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. INIERVENORS KNIGHT, ET AL., RESPONSE TO PCSSD'S MOTION SEEKING EQUITABLE RELIEF Knight, et al. Intervenors, by and through their attorneys, ROACHELL LAW FIRM, for their Response to PCSSD's Motion Seeking Equitable Relief, state: 1. Admit paragraph 1 to the extent that the Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers' (PACT) job action continued until September 3, 1996, when the Court ordered PACT members back to work. 2. Deny paragraph 2. Asserts affirmatively that PACT' s job action does not prevent PCSSD from delivering the educational services and desegregation programs outlined in the Desegregation Plan and by orders of this Court. Asserts affirmatively that the job action is only delaying the execution of the Desegregation Plan and orders of this Court for the current school year. 3. Denies paragraph 3. Asserts affirmatively that PACT is currently involved in litigation involving the precise issue of PACT' s job action in Pulaski County Chancery Court, Sixth Division, in the case Mike Wilson, et al. v. Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers, No. IJ96-5788. .: ...... . Asserts affirmatively that PACT has filed a Motion for Joinder of PCS SD in that action because PCS SD is a necessary party to that action. Asserts affirmatively that they were not aware as of the date of the preliminary hearing of any breach of contract by the PCS SD except the Teacher Minimum Salary law. 4. Denies paragraph 4. 5. Denies each and every allegation ofPCSSD's Motion not specifically admitted herein. WHEREFORE, Knight lntervenors pray for an order of this Court denying PCSSD's Motion Seeking Equitable Relief; that the Court allow PACT to continue its job action pending resolution of the dispute between PCS SD and PACT; and for all other proper legal and equitable relief. Respectfully submitted, ~ . 0--L_ Richard W. Roachell Arkansas Bar No. 78132 ROACHELL LAW FIRM 401 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 504 The Lyon Building Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 I (501) 375-5550 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Richard W. Roachell, do hereby certify and state that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was mailed, postage prepaid, on September 10, 1996 to the following persons: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P. A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 7220 I Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street 2 Mr. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 7220 I M. Samuel Jones III WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 200 West Capitol A venue Little Rock, AR 7220 I Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 William P. Thompson and James M. Llewellyn, Jr. Thompson and Llewellyn 412 South 18th Street P. 0 . Box 818 Fort Smith, Arkansas 72902-0818 3 Mr. Stephen W Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard W. Roachell IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT S::? : ~ .:.~3 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS J,.< .. ~c: ','/ i~:~:-.:? ~,. -. .=. ~ cL----~ WESTERN DIVISION B, -_______ _- _ '' LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. BLYTHEVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF KNIGHT, ET AL.. RESPONSE TO PCSSD'S MOTION SEEKING EQUITABLE RELIEF Statement of tlte Facts L,_:-c .. :::--.r< PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INIERVENORS INIERVENORS INIERVENORS Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) and Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (PACT) were unable to agree on teaching contracts for the 1996-97 school year before the school year began. PACT began a job action because of the failed contract negotiations. Several parents filed a complaint in Pulaski County Chancery Court, asking the Court for injunctive relief Mike Wilson, et al. v. Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers, et al., Case No. U96-5788 . The Court denied Plaintiffs requests, and refused to order PACT teachers back to work at the time of the hearing. PACT filed a Motion Seeking Equitable Relief on or about August 27, 1996, in the abovecaptioned case. The Court held a hearing on August 28, 1996. The Court ordered teachers in PCSSD back to work on September 3, 1996. Argument At issue is whether the PCSSD has met its burden for this Court to issue a temporary restraining order or preliminary .injunction pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. PCSSD must show (1) the threat of irreparable harm; (2) the state of balance between this harm and the injury that granting the injunction will inflict on other parties litigant; (3) the probability that the movant will succeed on the merits; and ( 4) public interest. Dataphase Systems, Inc. v. C.L. Systems, Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 114 (8th Cir. 1981). There is no threat of irreparable harm on the PCSSD or desegregation because of the teacher strike. The Eighth Circuit has given this Court much discretion to modify details and marginal issues related to the Settlement Agreement. 949 F.2d 253 (1991). The agreed timetables for school are details and/or marginal issues within the Court's discretion to modify. A mere delay in the school year is a detail and/or marginal issue that the Court can modify. Thus, PACT' s job action does not affect the Desegregation case in a substantial way, and neither does it cause irreparable harm to the school district. However, the Court's order that broke PACT's job action greatly injures the bargaining position of PACT with PCS SD. "The right to strike, as an important symbol of a free society, should not be denied unless such a strike would substantially injury paramount interests of the larger community." County Sanitation District No. 2, 69.9 P.2d at 848. Furthermore, PACT joined the Desegregation case to protect its bargaining position. "An injunction does not settle a dispute -- it simply disables one of the parties." Burlington Northern R .. Co. at 107 S. Ct.1854. PACT's bargaining position has been disabled because of the injunction. 2 Furthermore, it is a matter of public _policy in the state of Arkansas to allow organized labor to bargain collectively. "Freedom of organized labor to bargain collectively ... is declared to be the public policy of the state under Arkansas Constitution, Amendment 34." Ark. Code Ann. 11-3-301. Therefore, there is a great interest in letting PACT maintain its bargaining position with PCS SD by allowing it to continue in its peaceful job action. On the one hand, the Court's order renders moot the issue of the probability of success on the merits because ordering teachers back to work means that PCS SD has succeeded on the merits, only to the great detriment to the teachers' bargaining power. On the other hand, because the matter has been directed to federal mediators, success on the merits means that PCS SD and PACT agree to contract terms for the l 996-97 school year. This result would be no more of a success for PCS SD than it would be for PACT. PCSSD contends that it cannot afford to raise teachers' pay. However, the Courts have said repeatedly that lack of money is no excuse. PCSSD must be made to comply with Act 917 of the 1995 legislature for the 1996-97 school year. WHEREFORE, Knight Intervenors pray for an order of this Court denying PCS SD' s Motion Seeking Equitable Relief; that the Court allow PACT to continue its job action pending resolution of the dispute between PCSSD and PACT; and for all other proper legal and equitable relief Respectfully submitted, 3 ~.c:u___ Richard W. Roachell Arkansas Bar No. 78132 ROACHELL LAW FIRM 401 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 504 The Lyon Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Richard W. Roachell, do hereby certify and state that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was mailed, postage prepaid, on September 10, 1996 to the following persons: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P. A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Ste. 510 20 I East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 William P. Thompson and James M. Llewellyn, Jr. Thompson and Llewellyn 412 South 18th Street P. 0. Box 818 Fort Smith, Arkansas 72902-0818 4 Mr. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 M. Samuel Jones ill WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 7220 I Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 7220 I ~.0--L_ Richard W. Roachell 11:20 WRIGHT LINDSEY & JENN I t--!GS NO.083 POO9/ O20 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. NO. LRC-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL blSTRICT NO. 1, et al. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. BLYTHEVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. PCSSD's RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Pulaski County Special School District ("PCSSD"), for its response to the motion - of Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers ("PACT") for a temporary restraining order to prohibit PCSSD from "docking" teachers' pay for strike days, states: 1. PACT cannot demonstrate any of the Dataphase requirements lo warrant this Court's granting of injunctive relief. 2. PACT must show (1) the threat of irreparable harm, (2) the state of balance between this harm and the injury that granting the injunction will inflict on other parties litigant, (3) the probability that movant will succeed on the merits, and (4) the public interest. 3, PACT cannot establish irreparable harm. It seeks money -- and it is beyond peradventure that purported injury which can be recompensed by monetary damages is not irreparable harm. 11 : 21 WRIGHT LINDSEY & JENNINGS NO. 083 P010/ 02O 4. This Court has