Moore et al v. Tangipahoa Parish School Board et al, No. 2:1965cv15556 - Document 1549 (E.D. La. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS: IT IS ORDERED that the 1548 Court Compliance Officer's (CCO) recommended framework is ADOPTED, as set forth in document. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 8/22/2018.(jls)

Download PDF
Moore et al v. Tangipahoa Parish School Board et al Doc. 1549 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA M.C. MOORE, ET AL. CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 65-15556 TANGIPAHOA PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL. SECTION "B"(1) ORDER AND REASONS Considering the “Court Compliance Officer’s Recommendation for a Framework for use of Interim Staff Appointments” (Rec. Doc. 1548), and the fact that no objections have been filed,1 IT IS ORDERED that the Court Compliance Officer’s (CCO) recommended framework (Rec. Doc. 1548) is ADOPTED. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(f). As envisioned by the Court’s Order and Reasons that instructed the CCO to develop a framework for the use of interim appointments, see Rec. Doc. 1544 at 1, 14-19, the proposed framework balances the Board’s practical need to adequately staff its schools, sometimes on short notice, with the remedial purposes of the staff hiring order (Rec. Doc. 866). The framework allows interim appointments that are limited in duration, see Rec. Doc. 1548 at 3, ensures that the Board will provide notice when making an interim appointment, see id. at 3-4, and provides for prompt review by the CCO of any proposed interim appointments, see id. at 4. Importantly, the framework also makes clear that interim 1 “Any objections to the recommended framework [were] due no later than ten (10) days after” August 6, 2018. Rec. Doc. 1544 at 1. 1 Dockets.Justia.com appointments are not a substitute for, nor may they delay, permanent hiring in compliance with the staff hiring order (Rec. Doc. 866). See Rec. Doc. 1548 at 3, 4. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 22nd day of August, 2018. ___________________________________ SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.