U-46: No need to present defense in suit

In a 14-page court filing, attorneys for Elgin Area School District U-46 argue the Chicago law firm suing the district for racial discrimination has not proved its case.

Because of that, U-46's attorneys argue, the school district does not even have to present a legal defense to the plaintiffs' claims, presented during six days of trial at the beginning of March.

The district's legal maneuver has put the trial on hold until U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman decides whether the plaintiffs' case has enough merit to continue.

While the move is largely procedural, Gettleman said it would help clarify the issues in the case — and there is always a chance the judge could rule for U-46, ending the case after six years of litigation.

If Gettleman does not find U-46's arguments persuasive, the trial is scheduled to resume in early June, with U-46 set to call its witnesses to the stand in the first phase of the federal class-action trial.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of five black and Hispanic families in U-46, claims the district relegated minorities to inferior schools, denied them access to gifted programs and failed to provide adequate bilingual services.

Earlier this month, plaintiffs tried to show U-46 had discriminated against black and Hispanic students by sending them to neighborhood schools that were more crowded and used more mobile classrooms. Those conditions, plaintiffs' attorneys argued, were inferior to conditions at predominantly white schools.

U-46's filing, though, says the plaintiffs did not prove the district intentionally discriminated against minorities. Plaintiffs must show intentional discrimination to prove U-46 violated the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

“Rather, board members and U-46 administrators consistently testified that the (student assignment) plan was adopted to facilitate the opening of new schools, to accommodate projected enrollment growth, and, to the extent practicable, to create compact, contiguous attendance boundaries that gave children stable assignments at schools close to home,” U-46's filing says.

The plaintiffs' other key legal claim, filed under the Illinois Civil Rights Act, requires them to show the district's policies had a disparate (negative) impact on minorities.

In its recent filing, U-46 denies this as well, saying the plaintiffs provided no evidence of overcrowding at high-minority schools and failed to show crowding at those schools was caused by the 2004 boundary changes that sparked the lawsuit.

U-46's attorneys argue in the filing that the plaintiffs used a measure of crowding that is not commonly accepted — comparing building utilization rates to the district average rather than looking at the absolute capacity of a building. For example, a school could use only 90 percent of its classroom space but because the district average is, say, 80 percent, that building would be deemed overcrowded under the plaintiffs' standard.

Further, the district argues, the plaintiffs did not prove that students who attended mobile classrooms suffered any physical injuries or performed worse than students in permanent classrooms.

Attorneys for the district and the plaintiffs could not be reached immediately for comment. The plaintiffs' response is due April 19, with oral arguments set for May 5.