IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

_____________________________________

BARBARA GRUTTER

for herself and all others
similarly situated,

             Plaintiff,

      v.

LEE BOLLINGER, JEFFREY LEHMAN,
DENNIS SHIELDS, AND THE BOARD OF
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
MICHIGAN, and

             Defendants.

      -and-

KIMBERLY JAMES, ET.AL.

             Intervening Defendants.

_____________________________________


)
)
)
)
)
)     Civil Action # 97-75928
)     Hon. Bernard Friedman
)     Hon. Virginia Morgan
)
)     PLAINTIFFS RENEWED MOTION FOR
)     PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGEMENT
)     ON LIABILITY
)
)
)
)
)
)     CLASS ACTION
)
)
)
)
)
)

      Plaintiff and the class, by and through counsel, hereby respectfully move the Court for an Order as follows:

      1.     Granting summary judgment on liability, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, in favor of Plaintiff and the class and against Defendants The Board of Regents of the University of Michigan ("University"); Lee Bollinger and Jeffrey Lehman, in their official capacities as President of the University of Michigan and Dean of the University of Michigan Law School, respectively.

      2.     Declaring that the University; Lee Bollinger and Jeffrey Lehman, acting in their official capacities, have violated Plaintiff's rights and the rights of the class under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; and (with respect to the University) Title 42 U.S.C. §2000d (Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964); and (with respect to Defendants Bollinger and Lehman, acting in their official capacities) Title 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983.

      3.     Permanently enjoining the University; Lee Bollinger and Jeffrey Lehman, acting in their official capacities, from engaging in the future in illegal race discrimination practices in admission of students to the Law School.       The motion is brought on the basis of the accompanying memorandum of law, affidavit and exhibits.

      On April 29, 1999, the undersigned counsel had a conference with attorneys for defendants, explained the nature of the motion and its legal basis, and requested but did not obtain concurrence in the relief sought.

Dated: October 10, 2000 MASLON EDELMAN BORMAN & BRAND LLP

By:_____________________________________
Kirk O. Kolbo, #151129
David F. Herr, #44441
R. Lawrence Purdy, #88675
3300 Wells Fargo Center
90 South Seventh Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
612/672-8200

Kerry L. Morgan
PENTIUK, COUVREUR & KOBILJAK, P.C.
Suite 230, Superior Place
20300 Superior Street
Taylor, MI 48180-6303
734/374-8930

Michael E. Rosman
Michael P. McDonald
CENTER FOR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS
1233 20th Street, NW
Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20036
202/833-8400

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

_____________________________________

BARBARA GRUTTER

for herself and all others
similarly situated,

             Plaintiff,

      v.

LEE BOLLINGER, JEFFREY LEHMAN,
DENNIS SHIELDS, AND THE BOARD OF
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
MICHIGAN, and

             Defendants.

      -and-

KIMBERLY JAMES, ET.AL.

             Intervening Defendants.

_____________________________________


)
)
)
)
)
)     Civil Action # 97-75928
)     Hon. Bernard Friedman
)     Hon. Virginia Morgan
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)     CLASS ACTION
)
)
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFF'S RENEWED MOTION FOR PARTIAL
SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY


TABLE OF CONTENTS

PRINCIPAL CONTROLLING AUTHORITIES ii
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED iii
INDEX TO EXHIBITS iv
INTRODUCTION 1
UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS 2
ARGUMENT 3
CONCLUSION 10

-i-

 

PRINCIPAL CONTROLLING AUTHORITIES


CASES

Adarand Constructors v Pena, 515 U.S. 200 (1995)

City of Richmond v J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469 (1989)

Regents of Univ. of California v Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978)

Runyan v McCrary, 427 U.S. 160 (1976)

Shaw v Hunt, 517 U.S. 899 (1996)

STATUTES

42 U.S.C. § 1981

42 U.S.C. § 1983

42 U.S.C. § 2000d

42 U.S.C. § 2000d-7(a)(1)

-ii-

 

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED

          1.     Whether the record shows that there is no genuine issues of any material fact and that plaintiff and the class are entitled as a matter of law to partial summary judgment on liability because defendants' race-conscious admissions policies and practices for the University of Michigan Law School ("Law School") violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 2000d under the rationale articulated by Justice Powell in Regents of University of California v Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978).

          2.     Whether the record shows that there is no genuine issues of any material fact and that plaintiff and the class are entitled as a matter of law to partial summary judgment on liability under 42 U.S.C. § 2000d because defendants claim that their race-conscious admissions policies and practices are motivated by an interest in "diversity", which is not a "compelling governmental interest" for strict scrutiny analysis under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

          3.     Whether the record shows that there is no genuine issue of any material fact and that plaintiff and the class are entitled as a matter of law to partial summary judgment on liability against defendants Bollinger and Lehman acting in their official capacity, for violating 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983.

-iii-

 

INDEX TO EXHIBITS
TAB DESCRIPTION
A Law School Admissions Policy, dated April 22, 1992
B Admissions Grid of LSAT & GPA for Applicants to the Fall 1999 First-Year Law School Class

-iv-

continue with next section

Grutter briefs – Table of Contents


Questions? Comments? Please send e-mail to diversitymatters@umich.edu.
Site last updated: September 5, 2012.   Copyright © 1997–2013 Regents of the University of Michigan.

Site redesign by U-M Marketing Communications.