## Facts

- Cloverdale Junior High School used a homecoming-queen election system dividing candidates into “Black” and “White” categories and requiring students to declare a race to participate.
- The system was suspended for one year but later reinstated after complaints from white students and parents.
- Bethany Godby, a biracial student, was nominated in both racial categories in her homeroom but was required to select only one.
- Godby ran as the “White” candidate; she claimed she won her homeroom vote (including after a re-vote) but her name was not placed on the school-wide ballot.
- The homecoming director reviewed Godby’s school records after the first vote and saw a racial designation listing her as “Black.”
- Godby alleged she was excluded from the “White” ballot position because of that racial designation; school officials disputed that she had won or was eligible.
- Godby sued the Montgomery County Board of Education and several officials and teachers under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, 1986, Title VI, and Alabama tort theories.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether the racially separated homecoming election system constituted an unconstitutional racial classification under the Equal Protection Clause actionable under § 1983.
2. Whether the Montgomery County Board of Education could be liable under § 1983 based on an official policy or widespread custom maintaining the race-based election.
3. Whether individual school officials were entitled to qualified immunity on the federal claims.
4. Whether Title VI and Alabama tort claims (including negligent supervision and invasion of privacy) survived summary judgment, and against which defendants.

## Decision

- The court granted summary judgment in part and denied it in part.
- The court held the race-based homecoming election system was subject to strict scrutiny and lacked a compelling justification and narrow tailoring, permitting the Equal Protection–based challenge to proceed.
- The court found sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude the system reflected a policy or longstanding custom attributable to the Board, so claims against the Board survived in relevant part.
- The court granted summary judgment for individual defendants on most or all federal claims on qualified-immunity grounds.
- The court dismissed some state-law claims (particularly against individual defendants) while allowing only those claims properly supported and directed at appropriate parties to proceed.

## Legal Principles

- Governmental sorting of students by race is a racial classification subject to strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause.
- To survive strict scrutiny, the government must show a compelling interest and narrow tailoring; generalized goals of participation or representation, without more, are insufficient.
- A school board may be liable under § 1983 when an unconstitutional practice is maintained as an official policy or as a persistent, well-settled custom (including when reinstated following community pressure).
- Individual officials sued under § 1983 are shielded by qualified immunity unless their conduct violates clearly established law in the specific context at issue.
- Title VI claims track intentional race-discrimination principles in federally funded programs; viability depends on proof of discriminatory treatment and proper attribution to the recipient entity.

## Conclusion

The court ruled that a school’s dual-track “Black/White” homecoming election system likely violated equal protection because it classified students by race without a compelling, narrowly tailored justification, allowed related claims to proceed against the school board under a policy-or-custom theory, and largely insulated individual officials from damages liability through qualified immunity while narrowing ancillary statutory and state-law claims at summary judgment.


Godby v. Montgomery Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 996 F. Supp. 1390 (M.D. Ala. 1998)