Raymond Gruender On Voting Rights
Gruender Opposed Voting Rights
Gruender Was Part Of The Majority That Ruled Individuals And Groups Could Not Sue Under Section 2 Of The Voting Rights Act
Gruender Ruled That Private Citizens Could Not Sue To Protect Their Voting Rights. According to the Nation, “Last Monday, just before Thanksgiving, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit tried to pull a villain move on the 15th Amendment of the Constitution by gluing shut the mouths of Black people fighting for the right to vote. In a shocking and legally dubious decision, the circuit ruled in Arkansas State Conference NAACP v. Arkansas Public Policy Panel that private citizens could not sue to protect their voting rights under the law that is literally named The Voting Rights Act.” [Nation, 11/29/23]
Gruender Joined The Majority In Ruling Against The NAACP. According to the Associated Press, “When those details are missing, it is not our place to fill in the gaps, except when ‘text and structure’ require it,’ U.S. Circuit Judge David R. Stras wrote for the majority in an opinion joined by Judge Raymond W. Gruender. Stras was nominated by former President Donald Trump and Gruender by former President George W. Bush.”[Associated Press, 11/20/23]
The Nation: The Ruling Made The Voting Rights Act “Functionally Inoperable.” According to the Nation, “Of course, Stras isn’t trying to take the right to sue away from any bigoted website designer who doesn’t want to serve same-sex couples, or any white man who is angry that their mediocre child missed out on their first choice of a university. Instead, Stras is focused on stopping groups like the NAACP from suing on just one topic: voting rights. In so doing, this ruling doesn’t merely weaken the Voting Rights Act; it makes the law functionally inoperable.” [Nation, 11/29/23]
January 2024: The Eighth Circuit Announced It Would Not Rehear The Case
January 2024: The Eighth Circuit Announced It Refused To Rehear The Case. According to the NAACP, “Today, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals announced it will not rehear the Arkansas State Conference NAACP v. Arkansas Board of Apportionment voting case. Lead plaintiff, the Arkansas State Conference of the NAACP is challenging the Arkansas State House map, arguing that the map unlawfully suppresses Black voting power and violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Today’s decision comes following an appeal in a 2-1 ruling in November where the Eighth Circuit panel backed a district court decision that determined private parties cannot pursue legal action to protect their voting rights under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.” [NAACP, 1/30/24]
2009: Gruender Joined The Majority And Ruled That The City Of Martin South Dakota Did Not Violate Section 2 Of The Voting Rights Act
2009: South Dakota District Courts Ruled That The City Of Martin Violated Section 2 Of The Voting Rights Act
2009: A South Dakota District Court Found That The City Of Martin Violated Section 2 Of The Voting Rights Act. According to Cottier v. City of Martin via Case Text, “On remand, having been directed to accept that the plaintiffs established all three Gingles preconditions for a Section 2 vote dilution claim, the district court found based on the totality of the circumstances that Ordinance 122 violated Section 2. Cottier v. City of Martin, 466 F.Supp.2d 1175 (D.S.D. 2006). The City declined to propose a remedy, asserting that there was no possible remedy for the violation found by the court.” [Cottier v. City of Martin, No. 07-1628. Via Case Text, 9/23/09]
Gruender And The Eighth Circuit Of Appeals Overturned The Lower Court’s Ruling
The Eighth Circuit Of Appeals Reversed The Lower Court’s Decision And Sided With The City Of Martin South Dakota That Native American Voters Were Not Being Disenfranchised. According to Cottier v. City of Martin via Case Text, “This appeal involves a claim that the City of Martin, South Dakota, and several of its officials violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. § 1973(b). The plaintiffs contend that the defendants adopted and maintained an ordinance that impaired the ability of Native American Indians to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice in city elections. Sitting en banc, we conclude that the district court properly dismissed the action in its order of March 22, 2005, which was reversed by a panel of this court. We therefore vacate the court’s later judgment of February 9, 2007, and remand with directions to dismiss the action.” [Cottier v. City of Martin, No. 07-1628. Via Case Text, 9/23/09]
- Gruender Ruled In The Majority For The City Of Martin South Dakota. According to SCOTUS Blog, “Gruender’s record in voting rights cases has varied. In Cottier v. City of Martin, in 2010, he joined an en banc opinion (written by Judge Steven Colloton, who is also on Trump’s shortlist) overruling a previous en banc decision in favor of the plaintiffs; in determining that it should not be bound by the previous decision, the en banc court invoked federalism principles, deeming it ‘exceptionally important for a federal court to ensure that there is a proven violation … before ordering a city in South Dakota to undertake significant changes in its electoral process.’ The court went on to conclude that the plaintiffs had not established the requisite preconditions for a vote dilution claim under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act because they had not demonstrated that ‘the white majority’ in Martin voted sufficiently as a bloc to enable it usually to defeat the minority’s preferred candidate in city council elections.” [SCOTUS Blog, 1/12/17]
November 2010: The Supreme Court Denied To Hear The Case
November 2010: The Supreme Court Denied Cert And Refused To Hear The Case. According to the Turtle Talk, self-described as the “The Leading Blog On Legal Issues In Indian Country,” The Supreme Court denied cert in the case. [Turtle Talk-Blog On Native American Legal Issues, 11/15/10]
Raymond Gruender On The Environment
Gruender Ruled To Relax Food Safety Standards On A Harmful Pesticide Known To Cause Brain Development Issues In Children’s Brains
Gruender Was Part Of The Majority That Tossed The Environmental Protection Agency’s Ban On A Pesticide Linked To Problems With Children’s Brain Development
Chlorpyrifos Was A Harmful Neurotoxin That Causes Harm To Developing Brains Of Children
Research Into Chlorpyrifos Proved That Exposure To It Could Irreversibly Harm Developing Brains Of Children. According to the National Resources Defense Council, “Chlorpyrifos, part of a family of nerve agents developed during World War II, is a potent neurotoxin that research shows can permanently and irreversibly harm the developing brains of children. Exposure in early life to chlorpyrifos—on favorite fruits like apples and berries, via drinking water contaminated by agricultural runoff and through drifting air from nearby farm fields—can increase risk of developmental delays, learning disabilities, lower IQ scores, and ADHD. It can also lead to respiratory problems and diminished lung function.” [National Resources Defense Council, 9/17/21]
Chlorpyrifos Was Part Of A Family Of Neurotoxins Developed During World War II. According to the National Resources Defense Council, “Chlorpyrifos, part of a family of nerve agents developed during World War II, is a potent neurotoxin that research shows can permanently and irreversibly harm the developing brains of children. Exposure in early life to chlorpyrifos—on favorite fruits like apples and berries, via drinking water contaminated by agricultural runoff and through drifting air from nearby farm fields—can increase risk of developmental delays, learning disabilities, lower IQ scores, and ADHD. It can also lead to respiratory problems and diminished lung function.” [National Resources Defense Council, 9/17/21]
2022: The Environmental Protection Agency’s Instituted A Full Ban On Chlorpyrifos
2022: The Environmental Protection Agency Ban On Chlorpyrifos Went Into Full Effect. According to the Wildlife Management Institute, “Required to act by a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in April 2021, EPA issued a final rule in August 2021— that went into full effect February 28, 2022—stating that “EPA is unable to conclude that the risk from aggregate exposure from the use of chlorpyrifos meets the safety standard of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). Accordingly, EPA is revoking all tolerances for chlorpyrifos.’ On November 2, 2023, the 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals decided to vacate EPA’s 2021 decision to cancel all food tolerances for chlorpyrifos and sent it back to the agency.”[Wildlife Management Institute, 11/23]
November 2023: The Eighth Circuit Of Appeals Vacated The Ban
November 2023: The Eighth Circuit Of Appeals Vacated The Ban. According to the Wildlife Management Institute, “Required to act by a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in April 2021, EPA issued a final rule in August 2021— that went into full effect February 28, 2022—stating that “EPA is unable to conclude that the risk from aggregate exposure from the use of chlorpyrifos meets the safety standard of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). Accordingly, EPA is revoking all tolerances for chlorpyrifos.” On November 2, 2023, the 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals decided to vacate EPA’s 2021 decision to cancel all food tolerances for chlorpyrifos and sent it back to the agency.”[Wildlife Management Institute, 11/23]
- November 2023: Gruender Was Part Of The Majority That Ruled To Remove The Ban. According to The Hill, “The ruling comes from Judges Lavenski Smith, Raymond Gruender and David Stras, two of whom were appointed by former President George W. Bush and one of whom was appointed by former President Trump.” [The Hill, 11/2/23]
Raymond Gruender On Affirmative Action
Gruender Ruled That A White Woman Was A Victim Of Affirmative Action
Gruender Reversed A District Court’s Decision That Ruled A Teacher Was Not A Victim Of Affirmative Action
In Humphries vs. Pulaski County Special School District, A Teacher Sued Her School District Asserting She Was Denied Promotions Due To Her Race And Affirmative Action
Humphries First Filed A Claim With The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Alleging She Was Denied An Assistant Principal Position Due To Her Race. According to Humphries v. Pulaski County Special School District via Case Text, “In August 2005, Humphries filed a claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (‘EEOC’), alleging that the District repeatedly denied her an assistant principal position based on her race. After receiving a notice from the EEOC regarding her right to sue, Humphries filed suit in the district court on May 24, 2006, contending that the District discriminated against her based on her race when it failed to promote her to the assistant principal positions and that the District breached its contract with her by failing to give priority consideration to current employees when filling the assistant principal positions. Humphries filed an amended complaint on September 26, 2007, which added the allegation that she was denied the director of counseling services position because of her race.” [Humphries v. Pulaski County Special School District via Case Text, 9/3/09]
Humphries Filed A Complaint Arguing She Did Not Receive An Assistant Principal Position And Was Denied A Director Of Counseling Services Role Due To Her Race. According to Humphries v. Pulaski County Special School District via Case Text, “In August 2005, Humphries filed a claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (‘EEOC’), alleging that the District repeatedly denied her an assistant principal position based on her race. After receiving a notice from the EEOC regarding her right to sue, Humphries filed suit in the district court on May 24, 2006, contending that the District discriminated against her based on her race when it failed to promote her to the assistant principal positions and that the District breached its contract with her by failing to give priority consideration to current employees when filling the assistant principal positions. Humphries filed an amended complaint on September 26, 2007, which added the allegation that she was denied the director of counseling services position because of her race.” [Humphries v. Pulaski County Special School District via Case Text, 9/3/09]
The District Court Ruled In The School District’s Favor That Humphries Was Not Discriminated Against
The District Court Granted A Summary Judgment To The District And Ruled Humphries Did Not Give Evidence To Prove She Was Discriminated Against Due To Affirmative Action. According to Humphries v. Pulaski County Special School District via Case Text, “The district court granted summary judgment to the District, holding that Humphries failed to set forth direct evidence of unlawful discrimination because she ‘presented no evidence that the `affirmative action’ plan played any part in the District’s decisions not to promote her.’ The court further held that even if Humphries could establish that the District followed its affirmative action plan in failing to promote her, Humphries could not establish that its plan was invalid.”[Humphries v. Pulaski County Special School District via Case Text, 9/3/09]
Gruender Was Part Of The 8th Circuit Appeals Panel That Reversed The District Court’s Ruling
Gruender And The Eighth Circuit Of Appeals Panel Ruled En Banc To Reverse The District Court’s Ruling That She Was Not Discriminated Against When She Applied For Assistant Principal. According to Humphries v. Pulaski County Special School District via Case Text, “For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the District with respect to Humphries’s assistant principal claims, affirm the grant of summary judgment on her director of counseling claim, and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. We also reinstate Humphries’s state law claims so that the district court may reconsider whether to hear the state law claims along with the federal claims.”[Humphries v. Pulaski County Special School District via Case Text, 9/3/09]
- Gruender Authored The Opinion For The Eighth Court Of Appeals That Reversed. According to SCOTUS Blog, “Gruender also wrote for an appeals court panel in Humphries v. Pulaski County Special School District, a 2009 reverse-affirmative-action case arising in the context of school desegregation. The plaintiff, a white educator, claimed that she was denied several positions within the school district based on her race. The district court granted summary judgment for the school district, and the court of appeals reversed.” [SCOTUS Blog, 1/12/17]
Gruender And The Eighth Circuit Granted Humphries A Summary Judgement That She Was Discriminated Against In Her Job Search For Director Of Counseling
The Eighth Circuit Of Appeals And Gruender Granted Humphries A Summary Judgement And Ruled That She Was Discriminated Against When She Applied For The Director Of Counseling Services. According to Humphries v. Pulaski County Special School District via Case Text, “For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the District with respect to Humphries’s assistant principal claims, affirm the grant of summary judgment on her director of counseling claim, and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. We also reinstate Humphries’s state law claims so that the district court may reconsider whether to hear the state law claims along with the federal claims.”[Humphries v. Pulaski County Special School District via Case Text, 9/3/09]
Raymond Gruender On Women
Gruender Was Anti-Women On The Bench
Gruender Was On The Majority That Ruled A Peeping Tom Did Not Constitute A Hostile Workplace Due To The Victim Being Unaware It Was Happening
Jill Cottrill And Mary Combs Accused Their Employer, MFA, Of Discriminating Against Them Via Title VII Of The Civil Rights Act
Jill Cottrill And Mary Combs Appealed The District Court’s Summary Judgement That Ruled They Were Not Discriminated Against In Violation Of Title VII Of The Civil Rights Act. According to Cottrill v. MFA, Inc., No. 05-1748 , via a PDF of the case, “Jill Cottrill (‘Cottrill’) and Mary Combs (‘Combs’) appeal the district court’s order granting summary judgment to MFA, Incorporated, doing business as MFA Agri-Services, Inc. (‘MFA’). Appellants brought suit against MFA alleging sex discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the grant of summary judgment to MFA.”[Cottrill v. MFA, Inc., No. 05-1748, via PDF, Accessed 6/26/24]
- Title VII Of The Civil Rights Act Protected Employees From Gender-Based Discrimination. According to the Federal Trade Commission, “Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, as amended, protects employees and job applicants from employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin. Title VII protection covers the full spectrum of employment decisions, including recruitment, selections, terminations, and other decisions concerning terms and conditions of employment.” [FTC.gov, Accessed 6/26/24]
Cottrill And Combs Brought A Lawsuit After Their Manager Installed A Peephole In The Women’s Bathroom And MFA’s Subsequent Response
A Peephole Was Installed By Cottrill And Combs’s MFA Manager, Scott Adkins, To Spy On The Women’s Bathroom. According to Cottrill v. MFA, Inc., No. 05-1748 , via a PDF of the case, “Cottrill was hired by MFA as a bookkeeper in 1987 and Combs as a part-time bookkeeper in July of 2001. The Albany facility contained one women’s restroom, consisting of a single room with a sink, toilet and mirror. The manager of the facility and the appellants’ supervisor, Scott Adkins, remodeled this restroom in 1997. During the remodeling, Adkins constructed a peephole through one wall in order to view Cottrill while she was in the women’s restroom.[…]Between 1997 and 2001, Adkins used the peephole to observe Cottrill in the restroom two or three times a day. Cottrill did not know or have any suspicion that Adkins was viewing her through the peephole. Adkins also stated that he unintentionally viewed Combs in the restroom once or twice after she began working in the Albany facility in 2001.”[Cottrill v. MFA, Inc., No. 05-1748, via PDF, Accessed 6/26/24]
Cottrill Accused MFA Of A Hostile Work Environment In Regards To Their Investigation Of The Peephole
Cottrill Contended That MFA Managers Had Her Act As Bait And In An Embarrassing Manner In Order To Catch Adkins Viewing The Peephole. According to Cottrill v. MFA, Inc., No. 05-1748 , via a PDF of the case, “Janice Schuerman, the vice president responsible for human resources, was notified about the discovery of the peephole and may have been told about the idea of using surveillance equipment. There is no indication in the record, however, that she or anyone from her department was involved in the decision to have Cottrill lure Adkins into peeping by using the restroom four different times while he watched. Instead three male managers with other responsibilities devised the scenario in which Cottrill was required to play an embarrassing and demeaning role, repeatedly serving as bait while engaging in what are normally very private acts (as opposed to combing her hair or checking her makeup, for example), despite the considerable circumstantial evidence that existed about Adkins’ surreptitious spying.” [Cottrill v. MFA, Inc., No. 05-1748, via PDF, Accessed 6/26/24]
Cottrill Successfully Got Adkins On Camera Using The Peephole And He Pled Guilty To A Class C Felony
Cottrill Had Video Evidence Of Adkins Using The Peephole To Spy On Her. According to Cottrill v. MFA, Inc., No. 05-1748 , via a PDF of the case, “On Monday, October 21, Cottrill came to work and used the women’s restroom four times. Cottrill left the Albany facility between 9:45 and 10:00 a.m. and brought her husband home from the hospital. That night the appellants and their husbands, Bryan, Skiles and David Cottrill met at the home of Cottrill’s mother-in-law to view the tape. The tape showed Adkins entering the breakroom and looking through the peephole each time Cottrill used the restroom.” [Cottrill v. MFA, Inc., No. 05-1748, via PDF, Accessed 6/26/24]
Adkins Admitted To The Peephole A Pled Guilty To A Class C Felony For Invasion Of Privacy. According to Cottrill v. MFA, Inc., No. 05-1748 , via a PDF of the case, MFA offered counseling to Cottrill and Combs and fully cooperated with law enforcement. Adkins denied placing any foreign substances on the toilet seat or toilet paper holder. However, he admitted to the peeping and pleaded guilty to a class ‘C’ felony of invasion of privacy.” [Cottrill v. MFA, Inc., No. 05-1748, via PDF, Accessed 6/26/24]
Cottrill Accused MFA Of Harassment In Retaliation For Her Filing A Workers Compensation Claim For Therapy After The Incident
Cottrill Accused MFA Of Harassment After She Filed A Workers Compensation Claim For Therapy And Counseling. According to Cottrill v. MFA, Inc., No. 05-1748 , via a PDF of the case, “Although Cottrill was offered and received counseling after Adkins was discharged, she testified that Bryan first delayed her worker compensation claim to pay for the counseling and then only ‘reluctantly’ authorized it. He then persistently asked her when she would be ‘about done’ and shamed her publicly by telling her new manager to make sure that all her fellow employees knew how much worker compensation claims like hers were costing the company. Bryan also told her that she should simply ‘get over’ and ‘forget’ what had happened, became highly critical of her work, and forced her manager to go over what she did ‘with a fine-tooth comb.’”[Cottrill v. MFA, Inc., No. 05-1748, via PDF, Accessed 6/26/24]
Gruender And The Majority On The Panel Of The Eighth Circuit Court Of Appeals Ruled In MFA’s Favor Due To Cottrill And Combs Being Unaware Of The Peephole
Gruender Was On The Majority Of The Eighth Circuit Court Of Appeals That Found, Cottrill Was Not Aware Of Being Peeped On, And Therefore, Could Not Use It To Establish Her Claim That MFA Was A Hostile Work Environment. According to Cottrill v. MFA, Inc., No. 05-1748, via a PDF of the case, “We first consider Cottrill’s hostile work environment claim. Cottrill was not aware of the peeping, stating in her deposition that she did not know that Adkins was viewing her. Because she did not subjectively perceive the peeping, Cottrill may not rely on the peeping to establish that her work environment was hostile.” [Cottrill v. MFA, Inc., No. 05-1748, via PDF, Accessed 6/26/24]
- Gruender Was On The Majority That Ruled Against The Women. According to SCOTUS Blog, “And in 2006, in Cottrill v. MFA, Inc., Gruender wrote for a panel that came to the same conclusion in a case in which an employee’s supervisor had installed a peephole in the woman’s rest room. Gruender noted that a ‘Title VII plaintiff ’may only rely on evidence relating to harassment of which she was aware during the time that she was allegedly subject to a hostile work environment’; the panel, over the dissent of one judge, held that aside ‘from the peeping activities of Adkins, which Cottrill did not subjectively perceive,’ the other conditions the employee objected to ‘were not so objectively hostile as to poison Cottrill’s work environment.’” [SCOTUS Blog, 1/12/17]
Raymond Gruender On Education
Gruender Ruled Against Safe Schools
Gruender Consistently Ruled Against Safe Schools
2004: The Little Rock School District Asked To Be Given Unitary Status And The District Court Gave Them A Compliance Remedy (2004 Remedy) To Follow In Order To Receive Unitary Status
2004: Little Rock School District Asked To Be Declared Unitary But The District Court Concluded They Had Not Complied With Their Obligations. According to Little Rock School District vs. The State of Arkansas, “On March 15, 2004, following what it believed was its substantial compliance with section 2.7.1 and the 2002 Remedy, LRSD asked to be declared unitary. Joshua opposed the request. On June 30, 2004, the district court concluded that LRSD had not substantially complied with its obligations, denied unitary status, and imposed a new compliance remedy (2004 Remedy). It is from this judgment that LRSD now appeals.” [Little Rock School District vs. The State of Arkansas, No. 04-2923, 6/26/06]
- Schools Achieved Unitary Status When Were Able To Demonstrate The District Was No Longer Operating Segregated School Systems. According to the Midwest and Plains Equity Assistance Center, “Unitary status is achieved when a school district demonstrates it is no longer operating dual segregated school systems, has implemented its school desegregation order in good faith, and eliminated past vestiges of school segregation to the extent possible under the Green factors.” [Midwest and Plains Equity Assistance Center, Accessed 6/26/24]
Remedy 2004 Included The Hiring Of A Professional With A P.H.D. To Improve Academic Achievement In African Americans
Remedy 2004 Mandated That Little Rock School District Higher Staff That Would Help Improve Academic Achievement With African Americans. According to Little Rock School District vs. The State of Arkansas, “LRSD must promptly hire a highly trained team of professionals to reinvigorate PRE. These individuals must have experience in: (a) preparing and overseeing the preparation of formal program evaluations; and (b) formulating a comprehensive program assessment process that can be used to determine the effectiveness of specific academic programs designed to improve the achievement of African-American students. I expect the director of PRE to have a Ph.D.; to have extensive experience in designing, preparing and overseeing the preparation of program evaluations; and to have a good understanding of statistics and regression analysis. I also expect LRSD to hire experienced statisticians and the other appropriate support personnel necessary to operate a first-rate PRE Department.” [Little Rock School District vs. The State of Arkansas, No. 04-2923, 6/26/06]
2006: Gruender Dissented From The Eighth Circuit And Wrote That The District Court Abused Their Discretion In Imposing The 2004 Remedy On The Little Rock School District
Gruender Dissented From The Court Because He Found “The District Court Abused Its Discretion In Imposing The 2004 Remedy.” According to Gruender’s dissent in Little Rock School District vs. The State of Arkansas, “Like the Court, I would affirm the district court’s finding that LRSD was not in substantial compliance with section 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan as embodied in the 2002 Remedy. However, I respectfully dissent from the Court’s judgment because I find that the district court abused its discretion in imposing the 2004 Remedy.” [Little Rock School District vs. The State of Arkansas, No. 04-2923, 6/26/06]
- Gruender Wrote The Dissent. According to Gruender’s dissent in Little Rock School District vs. The State of Arkansas, “GRUENDER, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part.” [Little Rock School District vs. The State of Arkansas, No. 04-2923, 6/26/06]
2011: Three Arkansas Public Schools Appealed The District Court’s Decision Denying Them Unitary Status
2011: Three Arkansas School Districts Appealed The District Court’s Decision To Deny Them Unitary Status. According to Little Rock School District v. Arkansas via PDF, “In these consolidated appeals regarding continuing school desegregation efforts in the Little Rock, Arkansas metropolitan area, North Little Rock School District (‘NLRSD’) and Pulaski County Special School District (‘PCSSD’) each appeal the -3- district court’s denial of their petitions for a declaration of unitary status.” [Little Rock School District v. Arkansas, No. 11-2130, 12/28/11]
2011: Gruender And The Majority Of The Eighth District Court Of Appeals Argued For The Reversal Of The Partial Denial Of North Little Rock School District’s Unitary Status Claim And For Them To Be Granted Unitary Status In Full
2011: Gruender And The Eighth District Court Of Appeals Directed The District Court To Declare Unitary Status For The North Little Rock School District. According to Little Rock School District v. Arkansas via PDF, “For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the partial denial of NLRSD’s petition and direct the district court to declare unitary status for NLRSD, affirm the partial denial of PCSSD’s petition for unitary status, vacate the portion of the order terminating of the State’s funding obligations, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.” [Little Rock School District v. Arkansas, No. 11-2130, 12/28/11]
- 2011: Gruender Wrote For A Panel Of Appeals The Court’s Decision To Reverse A District Order That Denied North Little Rock School District Be Granted Unitary Status. According to SCOTUS Blog, “In Little Rock School District v. Arkansas, in 2011, Gruender wrote for a panel of the appeals court in related, consolidated school-desegregation cases. The court reversed a district court order denying the request of the North Little Rock School District to be freed from federal desegregation monitoring in the area of staff recruitment, concluding that “there was no basis for the district court to impose upon NLRSD, with no advance notice, a more extensive set of collection and reporting requirements with respect to staff recruiting.” [SCOTUS Blog, 1/12/17]