Appendix — Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody
Supreme Court brief1975
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
VOLUME II (In two volumes) Pagys 273-38 me Court. U. S.
Le OD
FEB 13 1975
APPENDIX
MICHAEL RODAK, JR., CLERK
In the Supreme Court of the Gnited States
Octoser TERM 1974
No. 74-389
No. 74-428
ALBERMARLE PAPER Co., Petitioner
V.
JoserpH P. Moopy, ET AL.
HA.Lirax Loca 425, PAPERMAKERS
AND PAPERWORKERS, Petitioner
V.
JoserH P. Moopy, ET AL.
ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF CERTIORARI FILED OCTOBER 7, 1974
AND OCTOBER 15, 1974 CERTIORARI GRANTED DECEMBER 16, 1974
Be SR thle ihe
In The
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
OctToBER TERM 1974
No. 74-389
No. 74-428
ALBERMARLE PAPER Co., Petitioner
v.
JosepH P. Moopy, ET AL., Respondents
HaiFrax Loca 425, PAPERMAKERS
AND PAPERWORKERS, Petitioner
v.
JoserpH P. Moopy, Et AL., Respondents
ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
INDEX
App. Page
ET l
Complaint Filed August 25, 1966 ........2.....-cccceccceocsesessseccssevsesssscsess 6
Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for Summary
Judgment, filed November 22, 1966 .20........2.....ccceccceceeseeeeeeeeeees 11
Memorandum Opinion and Order, filed July 6, 1967 -......0...2....... 16
App. Page
Answer, Albemarle Paper Company (Virginia), filed July 26,
OI onceccencoceseevcncecenscnneneencsennsenenennstnenanssan 21
Answer, Halifax Local No. 425, filed July 28, an 25
Letter from Francis V. Lowden, Jr. to The Honorable John D.
Larkins, Judge, filed June 12, 1970 ......... a 28
Opinion and Order on Motion to Add or Join, filed September
29, 197 onn.naecnesnesoneensssnssnssnnesessnsensennssnsesnssnesnsenscsnssnssnesnnssananeenseene 30
Amended Order, filed October 15, 1970 ...........-------------e+0+++ sseabeneaite 40
Answer and Cross-Claim, Ethyl Corporation, filed December 28,
BO ac ececcecevcecereceersoscsnscnsstneneseersatecssengeeteninssesesstasessntenseeesneaes 41
Order on Supplemental Interrogatory, filed May 28, 1971 ..........-. Ad
Order on Supplemental Interrogatory and Designation of the
Class, filed Jume 15, 1971 ......------------e-se-ssnseneseessessnssensenennennnnnes 45
Order on Communications with Class Members, filed June 18,
BOTY eececececececcecenecosecseosecesesosesnscnsensensscsnssasenesnsnenensnensnseasenasassenets 48
Order on Notice to the Class, filed July 8, _ a 50
Notice to Class Members (Exhibit A to Order of July 8, 1971) ... 53
Motion for Leave of Counsel of Plaintiffs to Communicate with
Class Members, filed July 14, 1971 -.......----------0) reer 57
Motion for Clarification, filed July 14, 1971 ........-------------seeseeee 6A
Motion for Severance and the Appointment of a Master, filed
July 14, 1971 -......nn--ecccccnsseeeesnnseseeenneresecennnennnnnssaeennnsnssencnnnaenssnsas 68
Proofs of Claims, filed July 15, 19, 21, 23, and 26, 1971 ............ 70
Stipulation of Facts, filed July 26, 19710 0.....2......eeeecccecnecnneeseeees 86
Trial of the Action held before the Hon. F. T. Dupree, U.S.
District Judge for the Eastern District of North Carolina,
Wilson Division Commencing on July 26, 1971 at Raleigh,
North Carolina:
TEE csicedeeestcsiahenstsieatinicstchiaitiptiiaineniaanieninnenientenintinensainenesummniane 113
Colloquy between the Court and Counsel [Tr. 11] ................ 114
Testimony of James Alfred Jones
I, SUITE - sdestsieiascibahideinpiniihsidteiiaeptacnintatantenenerineinanencitenninieans 119
Cross, Defendant Employer (DE) [169].........0..0.0000...... 125
Testimony of Ethoria Jones
NEI UNEP canscsesesseisiasiabesnnenscenscstoseunnsnepasscesemeumesenntiinnesginnets 126
ee 127
Cross, Defendant Union, (DU) [202] ........000. 127
Transcript of Proceedings Held Before the Hon. F. T. Dupree,
Jr., U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of North
Carolina, on July 27, 1971:
I ecrrctccnncestincenvsamnsiesethinitieniaieementiiennsnemecscsnmpennagese 128
Testimony of Philmore Taylor
SCTE III sicssscositesinesinhiahinnemtanseneeniicnianbsatennsnetinetntonsconens 128
Testimony of Mack Coy Boone
ti sediniciscniengneienonmmenneenneminennetie ae 129
tic catiacdidinleaiabedapetinenbinniaimnannennmcciiins 129
Testimony of David Harding
Silica ceitarensiinconccchinntsinevetinnemernemecstnenesnnemnnts 129
IIE HII | cccereesnsecnsnssccecenestesvnenensseenesatemnenineanenisnns 130
Testimony of Johnny Easter
ATT Se 130
i cic cenabnapeentiltRtineneenpncesmnnneeeenentantanetinaneeinenene 130
App. Page
Transcript of Proceedings Held Before the Hon. F. T. Dupree,
Jr., U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of North
Carolina, on July 28, 1971:
Appearances ......-.-------cnssseessssseenssssenneneennsssennnnsennnnssssnnsnseeeeneesenns 132
Testimony of David Mills (upon oral deposition) [389] .....--- 132
Testimony of Arnold Brown (upon oral deposition) [463] .... 142
Testimony of Curtis V. Bullock (upen oral deposition)
$503) ---..-coonn----ecennsosseeseesnnseseeennnnsssseennmnnencnennnssneeeee enn 148
Testimony of John E. Bryan, Jr. (upon oral deposition )
SOO) cancers ereeenneeenenenn ne 148
Transcript of Proceedings Held Before the Hon. F. T. Dupree,
U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of North
Carolina on July 29, 1971:
APPEAFAMCes .....---------eeeennnnsseeeeeenenssnsseeeeeeennnenssnccnenenensnssenneeenenae ses 150
Testimony of Ernest Garner
Cross, DE [618] .......----------------s-seserssnsensenssnssnnsensaneenennenasenes 150
Cross, DU [624] ...-..--------------su-sasee-sossossnsenssnnsnssensnsnenenssensene 151
Testimony of Willie H. Mason
Direct [634] ——-.-------n---<on--snonnseersseeennoenennsnssnnnsenmnsnannnnnennosnens 152
Cross, DE [643] ....-------------o----so-so-corsensensensensensensnnsenennennsnners 152
Cross, DU [G50] .......--------------scnssnssensnnssensensensensnnnsennanscensennens 153
Testimony of Theodore Daniels (upon oral deposition)
Testimony of Henry Hill (upon oral deposition) [708] .....-.. 155
Testimony of Arthur Mitchell (upon oral deposition) [717] .. 156
Testimony of Clarence High
Doeenct (720) na --nn-annnnnnac-n-onmsecernseennsennnsennnsnennnnemnennennncnnonsen 157
Testimony of Nicholas C. Vrataric (upon oral deposition )
, | el 157
Iv
App. Page
Transcript of Procedings Held Before the Hon. F. T. Dupree,
U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of North
Carolina on July 30, 1971:
ADPERTANCES ............-..-.-..2-0---caceseensceceecsrecsnestecsceseressenanescssssanacseoees 160
Testimony of Dr. Joseph Tiffin
Disect, DE [852) .................... eeneapmneneseanennitaataion 160
Cross, Plaintiffs (P) [892] —.............-.-.-.-cc2---cecscscesesnsesnees 173
Testimony of Edward C. Moore, Jr. (recalled)
ee a) |) 185
NN, ee emeneninenenn 188
Testimony of John E. Bryan, Jr.
oe | <<) re 192
Testimony of Dr. Richard Barrett
DD __ | Renn 196
ef | ee 207
Testimony « Dr. Joseph Tiffin (recalled)
By the Court [972] .........-.----.--c-sssessesssessnsnsessnsenensensnsssaenees 208
Testimony of John E. Bryan, Jr. (recalled)
Diseet, DE [997] -...........-.-.--...-c.ccecseeeeseeesscsercnsnnsesssssonsnansees 211
Comma (BOGE) .-..--.-.-.---.-2aoeanneoencoceneensnssensnssnsnnsnensnanacse 235
Transcrip: of Proceedings Held Before the Hon. F. T. Dupree,
Iv, US. District Judge for the Eastern District of North
Carolina on August 3, 1971:
u
Appearances .............. eiinseinieanesiianmencennniiinannsiicstisiiimmnesd a 243
Testimony of Edward C. Moore, Jr. (recalled)
Dia, TOE 9° 1 BD) nana nana nnnnnnnnneninnnsecnenccenenosnernensesee-seseee 243
Cross (P) [2196] ........-..--..----c.-ecccceecsesnsessenereensensnenseensnenee 245
Phere IY nnn. nenensnnnnnnnnnnensnnenerecnncnossecsccscnsnnee 248
App. Page
Testimony of John E. Bryan, Jr. (upon oral deposition)
[1286] .n--ne--neesoessnessnecseseesssensnssnessneesnsennseensennssnneensasnnennacanasensses 249
Testimony of David Mills
Direct, DU [1298] ......------------ssss-seseseseseesnsnsesesenetnnannnensnsnanes 253
Cross, P [1334] .......-------sessesssseeseseesessetsnse sesensensnsansensnnenenntnas 267
Redirect [1366] .......--------+-sssssssssssssseseseseesnsnsenensnennenensnnsnsnsens 268
Transcript of Proceedings Held Before the Hon. F. T. Dupree,
Jr., U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of North
Carolina on August 4, 1971:
Appearances .....--------ccesee-senseneesssssnssnsssnsenennnsnnnsnnsenennnemnssnasenseenaees 270
Testimony of Warren Davis
Direct, DU [1378] ........-.----------esesseseseseesnssnensenenensnsnentnnenenens 270
Plaintiffs’ Exhibits :
an cccecnseesesnsnsesesenrnenengnigueenahenennNeseeteTee SSeS 273
I eieveesenivesecanessnsenenseieeeensteneneesesennetane TS eSeS CTS 283
BG one ceceeveccoveenasecocesnesossvensesnsseeesscsenssesneneenenessnseeeSDnsseeneensennnees 286
ee .ccsepevssintanininsenianienteitnecpeiteasnsenSTe tC enC ie SCOCTCeeh 291
DE ceccecnexeeesocscnsessssscnersnsnesescescusssensestenneneensenenecseenseneeneeneen 297
I ecerwnersteeeseseessesnen ontnennetieetnneritiDOnsenNennenene se neneSSSCeee® 301 '
I a eneeneccnsneeone~neresecseeesevererenteutineertasresnsensnensesentannnnneansnessesenee 305
RI cc cecuvcecenscecsereeorseserenntivennenennenieiininneeiititCaseneeacnenane 321
PZ ...... 329
TE, _____., auesecssseusesrseprenesetttnninhienettsintasGGneensteesettiennSenensee 337
I vceecsseosssencenesttinsenmsttenersteiinntSeseeteneteelitse tetas Teas 355
NI ccc vsensnersoresecensttesnnenenssneserensenensehenienserteeneasesssennisents 357
ee ss sasapemiaveeneitnanninensaenpeveisinmncnenatatsssmmsemnneseiaitainaaniansesitas 358
I ccecacwosecereesencncensensntennntnnrinetntnnsestnsSSeseneeteteCnneaSnT SSSR 359
GID ......cececcccecesececeososc0-0sssccsccresnsssccoeqporssconsssesscsoocnssssosnnocsossenecoooes 408
TT ceneseucocsrsusnsasenetevesetnieniennensennsitinssenseties—eiSsiSoTanies 413 f
P-71 .. 415
a]
Defendant Employers’ Exhibits :
SEIT OAT :ssvshesticwicapeipibcevectaaniicaabemsienpettaaniteeiiecitiaseiitminceplotdeniandiititeniians 427
SPUD chsstissintieideahetinedisiaieitinamadinattapininasainitinelenniasidanianendiis 431
TUITE? sisscsnuihschscnsscsseeiunspneecialdesiagsietacieibchebiiesiditaiierdedaalaneeahtbiidiidedsin 439
SIITED skinstiehencittilesinsaeeniinapiiadaiadadaipaaphiblbabiadsiiabe-anieaatidaptigietbaiii 458
HTT “TOR sbelphbiaedppicacaceidilbasiedeaidbiedidaeltdenstammepiasliapepibidathig pianibginatapatnancints 472
Memorandum Opinion and Order, filed November 9, 1971 ........ 473
Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment Entered on November
( ( I" eee 508
Letter from the Hon. F. T. Dupree, Judge re Plaintiffs’ Motion
to Alter or Amend, filed November 22, 1971 .00...0000..cccceeeeee 510
Opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit, entered February 20, 1973 ................c.ecscsesecsceessesesecsesee 511
Order Granting Rehearing en banc, entered June 25, 1973 ........ 538
Question Certified to the United States Supreme Court, filed
ID Th, GD ecseaticieniesientiiiianidinnididdibinsiscn ta 539
Opinion of the United States Supreme Court Answering the
Certified Question in the Negative, entered June 17, 1974 .... 542
Order of the United States Court of Appeals Rescinding Its
Order of June 25, 1973 and Denying the Petitions for Re-
hearing and Rehearing en banc, filed July 22, 1974 000000... 548
App. 273
PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT NO. 1
[ Before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission]
[Case No. AT-6-6-276 Filed May 9, 1966]
To: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
COMPLAINT OF UNFAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES
UNDER THE 1964 CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, TITLE VII
Date: Feb. 17, 1966
My name is Joe P. Moody. I am a Negro citizen of the
United States and a resident of North Carolina. My ad-
dress is Rte. 1, Box 128, Roanoke Rapids, N. C. My com-
plaint is against Halifax Local No. 425 AFL-CIO whose
GD wicesiictatiisinniecvnies I applied for work with the above
named employer on ....................-++- , and was refused work
Ped icee mn eee I applied for a position as a ................-...--+
My qualifications for the position are: (State education,
training and/or experience. ) I received a primary education
and have 14 years of experience Albermarle Paper Mfg.
Co.
I think that I was refused work because of my race or
color. (State briefly the circumstances and/or reasons upon
which the complaint is based. Such things as known, stated
or written racial employment policies, either total or partial,
can be included. )
The above named union, which is a bargaining agency for
most of the employees in the Albemarle Paper Mfg. Co.,
including myself is guilty of discriminating against Negroes
in upgraded employment. According to the guidelines of
progression in Labor Management Agreement, Halifax
Local No. 425 discriminates against Negroes in progres-
sion of policy making staff. There are no Negroes on the
negotiating staff. Negroes are not protected by the union
App. 274
in upgraded employment according to seniority in that no
Negroes have been placed in any position according to
Guidelines, page 16, entitled “Seniority.”
We have been refused redress of grievances by union
management.
1. Negroes are not permitted in meetings where negotia-
tions of grievances are in question.
2. During incliment weather, Negroes have to crawl
under flat cars without proper equipment to protect our
bodies. Whites are not required to do this and they are
furnished adequate clothing by the paper mill.
The union conspires with the company to discriminate
against Negroes.
Negroes have been refused copies of the new wage agree-
ment by the union and are paid salaries below that of
Whites performing the same type duties. For instance:
Negroes must perform any and all jobs requested of them,
including operating bulldozers, repairing cranes, etc., which
are jobs that pay up to $3.00 per hour. We are classified
and paid as laborers of $2.39 per hour.
/s/ Joe P. Moody
Signature
[ Jurat omitted in printing |
App. 275
[Before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission]
| Case No. AT-6-6-277 ]
To: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
COMPLAINT OF UNFAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES
UNDER THE 1964 CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, TITLE VII
Date: Feb. 17, 1966
My name is Joe P. Moody Age: ......... I am a Negro
citizen of the United States and a resident of North Caro-
lina. My address is Rte. 1, Box 128, Roanoke Rapids, N. C.
My complaint is against Albemarle Paper Mfg. Co., Inc.,
whose address is Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina. I applied
for work with the above named employer on ................ , and
was refused work on ................... I applied for a position as
Dh citnicthientins My qualifications for the position are: (State
education, training, and/or experience.) I received a pri-
mary education and have 14 years of experience with the
above named company.
I think that I was refused work because of my race or
color, (State briefly the circumstances and/or reasons upon
which the complaint is based. Such things as known, stated
or written racial employment policies, either total or partial,
can be included. )
I have been on my present job for twelve years. No. 1
chipper has had a promotion within a certain area. Whites
have been hired and placed in positions above me. Also
one Negro.
I am forced to repair chains, which is a mechanics job,
at a salary of $3.00 per hour to $3.12 per hour, and my
salary range is from $2.36 to $2.42 per hour. In the light
of these facts, Halifax Local No. 425 is discriminating
App. 276
against Negroes in employment, according to page 16 of
the Guidelines.
/s/ Joe P. Moody
Signature
[ Jurat omitted in printing]
App. 277
| Before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission]
{Case No. AT-6-6-283]
To: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
COMPLAINT OF UNFAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES
UNDER THE 1964 CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, TITLE VII
Date: Feb. 17, 1966
My Name is Arthur Mitchell, Age: ......... I am a Negro
citizen of the United States and a resident of North Caro-
lina. My address is Post Office Box 116, Graysburg, N. C.
My complaint is against Albemarle Paper Mfg. Co., Inc.,
whose address is Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina. I ap-
plied for work with the above named employer on ............ P
and was refused work on ................... I applied for a posi-
| My qualifications for the position are:
(State education, training, and/or experience.) I received
a primary education and have 44 years of experience as a
laborer (2nd helper Stockroom, keeping stock for machine
no. 1) with the above named company.
I think that I was refused work because of my race or
color. (State briefly the circumstances and/or reasons upon
which the complaint is based. Such things as known, stated
or written racial employment policies, either total or partial,
can be included. )
After 44 years of service with the Albemarle Paper Mfg.
Co., I was released from my job Sunday, Feb. 13, 1966, at
3:00 p.m., without compensation, only to work when called.
In this position I lose all seniority and fringe benefits.
Salary for Stockroom 2nd helper is from $2.58 to 2.70 per
hour. I was listed as a laborer at $2.39 per hour. I was
placed on “Call Board” meaning, part time work, if needed.
As a results, I lose my departmental seniority and fringe
App. 278
benefits and all persons on call are the first to be laid off
regardless of seniority. | also believe that departmental
progression is discriminating by United Papermakers and
Paperworkers, Local no. 425 AFL-CIO.
In that Negroes are relegated to certain departments and
are not permitted on basis of seniority to be promoted to
better jobs in other departments, I believe that I was re-
moved from my place of employment and replaced by White
because of my race and color.
/s/ Arthur Mitchell
Signature
| Jurat omitted in printing |
App. 279
[ Before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission]
[Case No. AT-6-6-281 ]
To: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
COMPLAINT OF UNFAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES
UNDER THE 1964 CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, TITLE VII
Date: February 17, 1966
My name is Henry Hill. | am a Negro citizen of the
United States and a resident of North Carolina. My ad-
dress is 1944 Carter Street, Roanoke Rapids, N. C. My
complaint is against Albemarle Paper Mfg. Co., Inc., whose
address is Roanoke Rapids, N. C. I applied for work with
the above named employer on .................., and was refused
work on Dismissed on Feb. 14, 1966. I applied for a posi-
I aes My qualifications for the position are:
(State education, training and/or experience.) 3rd Grade
education, and 18 years 4 months, valve puller for 14 years.
I think that I was refused work because of my race or
color. (State briefly the circumstances and/or reasons upon
which the complaint is based. Such things as known, stated
or written racial employment policies, either total or partial
can be included. )
On Monday February 14, 1966, I was removed from my
job as valve puller where I had been employed for 14 years.
I had seniority over the 2 white men working in my de-
partment. Most white men are trained on any and all jobs,
regardless of educational level at the rate of about 3 months
training. I was placed on what is called the “call board’:
meaning part-tinie work, if needed. As a result, I loose my
departmental seniority and fringe benefits, and persons on
the call board are the first to be laid off—regardless of
App. 280
seniority. I also believe that departmental progression is
discriminating by United Papermakers and Paperworkers,
local No. 425 AFL-CIO.
In that Negroes are relegated to certain departments, and
are not permitted, on the basis of seniority, to be promoted
to better jobs in other departments, I believe that I was
removed from my place of employment and replaced by
white men because of my race and color.
/s/ Henry Hill
Signature
{ Jurat omitted in printing]
App. 281
[ Before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission]
[Case No. AT-6-6-275]
To: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
COMPLAINT OF UNFAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES
UNDER THE 1964 CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, TITLE VII
Date: Feb. 17, 1966
My name is Theodore Daniels, Age: 33. I am a Negro
citizen of the United States and a resident of North Caro-
lina. My address is Rte. 2, Box 439, Roanoke Rapids. My
complaint is against Halifax Local No. 425 AFL-CIO,
whose address is Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina. I ap-
plied for work with the above named employer on ................ ;
and was refused work on ................. I applied for a posi-
BSG ccctmnnin My qualifications for the position are:
(State education, training, and/or experience.) I com-
pleted the 10th grade and have eleven years of experience
with the Albemarle Paper Mfg. Co.
I think that I was refused work because of my race or
color. (State briefly the circumstances and/or reasons upon
which the complaint is based. Such things as known, stated
or written racial employment policies, either total or partial,
can be included. )
The above named union, which is a bargaining agency
for most of the employees in the Albemarle Paper Mfg. Co.,
including myself is guilty of discriminating against Negroes
in upgraded employment. According to the guidelines of
progression in Labor Management Agreement, Halifax
Local No. 425 discriminates against Negroes in progres-
sion of policy making staff. There are no Negroes on the
negotiating staff. Negroes are not protected by the union
in upgraded employment according to seniority in that no
App. 282
Negroes have been placed in any position according to
Guidelines, page 16, entitled “Seniority.”
1. We have been refused redress of grievances by union
management.
Negroes are not permitted in meetings where negotiations
of grievances are in question.
2. During incliment weather, Negroes have to crawl
under flat cars without proper equipment to protect our
bodies. Whites are not required to do this and they are
furnished adequate clothing by the paper mill.
3. The union conspires with the company to discriminate
against Negroes.
4. Negroes have been refused copies of the new wage
agreement by the union and are paid salaries below that
of Whites performing the same type duties. For instance:
Negroes must perform any and all jobs requested of them,
including operating bulldozers, repairing cranes, etc., which
are jobs that pay up to $3.00 per hour. We are classified
and paid as laborers of $2.39 per hour.
/s/ Theodore Daniels
Signature
| Jurat omitted in printing]
App. 283
PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT NO. 5
(Affidavit of Joe P. Moody, et al., February 17, 1966)
* * *
General Patterns of Racial Discrimination As Practiced
by the Albemarle Manufacturing Paper Company,
Inc., and Halifax Local 425 AFL-CIO
I. Organizational Discrimination.
A. The above union and company have organized the
factory in departments with seniority only in the unit in
which you work. As a result, Negroes are relegated to a
particular department and do not have seniority in any
other department in the factory—usually menial jobs.
B. Since July 2nd, 1965, one Negro has been placed in
a few previously all white departments, see enclosed labor
management agreement.
II. Hiring Practices—The unreasonable tests that are
being administered to Negroes, 133 questions, require 100
correct answers for passing—other tests, perhaps adminis-
tered to other white persons consist of 50 questions, requir-
ing 18 for passing. The 3rd test has the same requirements.
It is believed that these tests are discriminatory in practice.
Secondly, Negroes with a number of years of seniority are
required to take the same tests, if they are to be promoted
to other jobs. White people are not required to take the
test for seniority promotions. And, if Negroes take the
test, even if they have worked 40 or 50 years for the com-
pany, and pass, they will lose their seniority if they enter
another department at the same company. Most of the 90
Negroes hired on all levels at the plant are in positions of
laborers or utility men, which is the lowest paying level in
App. 284
the factory. Even though they perform any and all duties
such as mechanics, machine operator, repairmen and etc.
without pay.
III. Discharging Practices of Discrimination.
A. The company and unioa have policies of placing
Negro employees on what is known as ‘Call-board.’ This is
a part-time position where you are called back to work, if
you are needed. As a result of losing regular employment,
Negroes have lost up to 44 years of seniority and all fringe
benefits due them as a results of their long record of em-
ployment. When there are permanent lay offs, the persons
in the above position are the Ist to be laid off. As a result,
a man with 44 years of seniority, may be replaced with a
man who has 6 months of seniority. We believe this to be
gross discrimination on the part of the part of the union and
management, as mentioned above.
B. Negroes are relegated to menial positions in the
factory with less pay and and opportunities for seniority
advancement in the plant. To my knowledge no Negroes
have been promoted on the seniority plan according to the
agreement of progressions, see attached guidelines.
C. Out of approximately 650 persons, more or less, there
are less than 100 Negroes employed in the plant. Ratio of
population in Halifax County, Negro, 56%, white, 44%.
Many of the departments are totally segregated, including
office, staff and management, technicians, laboratory work-
ers and supervisory staff.
D. Negro part-time workers have fewer working hours
than whites, and many of the older Negro employees are
being placed from regular to part-time employment.
App. 285
We believe that the gross discrimination is due to race
and color.
We, the undersigned, being citizens of the County of
Halifax, in the State of North Carolina, do certify that the
foregone statemen: is true to the best of our beliefs.
/s/ Joe P. Moody
/s/ Arthur Mitchell
/s/ Theodore Daniels
Signatures
[ Jurat Omitted in Printing]
App. 286
PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT NO. 14
Labor Agreement
Between
Roanoke Rapids Division, Albermarle Paper Mfg. Co., Inc.
and
United Papermakers and Paperworkers, AFL-CIO
and
Halifax Loc! No. 425
United Papermakers and Paperworkers
Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina
September 18, 1965-September 15, 1968
* * *
Section 10
Seniority
10.1.1 If employees are to be promoted or demoted, the
Management shall take into consideration seniority and
ability and when all the factors that constitute ability are
relatively equal, then seniority in keeping with established
lines of progression within a given department (as shown
on attached Appendix F) shall prevail.
10.1.2 In those cases in which an employee declines in
writing to accept a job advancement he shall by so doing
change his seniority to the lowest seniority standing among
the employees rated in that particular job in that par-
ticular department. An employee who is offered the chance
to sign a statement declining and refuses to sign the state-
ment but nevertheless declines will be considered to have
declined in writing.
App. 287
10.1.3 In cases of permanent promotions or demotions
in a department in which seniority is not followed the
Local Union President will be notified. In case of perma-
nent promotions in which a suitable employee does not exist
within a department one may be selected by the Company
from another department after discussion of the matter
with the Union Committee for the first department.
10.1.4 An employee promoted to a permanent supervisory
vacancy in his own department will accumulate departmental
seniority while acting as a supervisor in that department
for a period not to exceed six (6) months. At the end of six
month period the employee will then become a permanent
supervisor or placed back to his former position, unless
otherwise agreed by mutual agreement between the Com-
pany and the local Union.
10.2 Employees who wish to transfer from one depart-
ment (or line of progression) to another may file through
their foreman with the Personnel Department of the Com-
pany written application stating the department (or line ot
progression) and the job therein to which he wishes to be
transferred. The decision of the Company in granting or
denying such request for transfer is to be final. However,
when an employee transfers from one department (or line
of progression) to another upon his own request, his senior-
ity in the department (and line of progression) left shall
cease immediately unless within thirty (30) days from the
date of such transfer the health or physical condition of
such employee makes it advisable to transfer him back to
the department (or line of progression) left. Where the
transfer is effected at the request of the Company, his
seniority in the department (or line of progression) left
shall be retained for a period of six months from date of
transfer.
App. 288
10.3 Definitions—Job, Department, Plant Seniority
For the purposes of this Agreement there shall be three
(3) types of seniority: job seniority, department seniority
and plant seniority.
Job seniority is defined as total length of continuous serv-
ice in a job classification; seniority in a higher job(s) in the
same line of progression shall count toward job seniority in
lower job(s) in said line of progression.
Department seniority is defined as length of continuous
service in one of the departments listed in Appendix F.
Plant seniority is defined as length of continuous serv-
ice from most recent date of employment.
10.4.1 Vacancies (including increases in complement),
and reductions (including curtailments, and decreases in
complement) calling for promotions, or demotions, as noted
in 10.1.1 will be practiced as follows:
10.4.2 When the vacancy or reduction is expected to con-
tinue for a period of more than two (2) weeks, job seniority
in accordance with provisions of 10.1.1 will apply across all
shifts of the line of progression. Employees will be laid off
and rehired from the bottom job of a line of progression, in
accordance with this provision.
When applying this paragraph 10.4.2 the Company shall
have three days in which to make the move.
10.4.3 When the vacancy or reduction is expected to
continue for two (2) weeks or less, job seniority in accord-
ance with provisions of 10.1.1 will apply within the in-
dividual shifts of the line of progression. Employees will be
laid off and rehired from the bottom job of a line of pro-
gression, in accordance with this provision.
10.4.4 When the company needs an employee for a job
advancement for two (2) weeks or less, an employee will
App. 289
normally be promoted within the shift on which the vacancy
occurs, but when there is no qualified employee available
on the shift in which the vacancy occurs, the Company may
require the available qualified emtioyee with the highest
seniority to take the job advancement. In such situations of
promoting across shifts for two (2) weeks or less para-
graph 10.1.2 shall not apply to employees who refuse a
job advancement other than such available qualified em-
ployee with the highest seniority.
10.5 It is agreed that the plan for the progression of
employees in the Maintenance Department shall be as pro-
vided in Appendix C attached hereto and a part of this
Agreement.
10.6 To maintain their rehiring rights, employees who
are laid off because of lack of work must notify the Com-
pany in writing once in each thirty (30) days following date
of layoff, giving their current address and signifying their
continued interest in returning to work for the Company.
The failure of an employee to comply with the above pro-
vision within the time limit specified shall void his rehiring
rights. When employees are laid off, they will be advised
of this provision. Employees being recalled to work shall be
notified by certified mail and must return to work within
ten (10) days from date of such notice unless an extension
of time is agreed upon. A copy of said notification shall
also be sent to the Union.
10.7 In applying 10.4.2 an employee who has bypassed
another employee(s) will be deemed to have one day more
seniority than the by-passed employee(s).
10.8 If the Company makes an error in applying the
provisions of this Section with regard to layoffs, recalls,
promotions, demotions, transfers, the Company shall not
be liable for any payment to an employee as correction or
App. 290
compensation for such error for such period of time from
the time the employee or the Union knew or was aware
of the error until he or the Union brings the error to the
attention of the Company.
10.9.1 Job seniority shall be lost and all rights attrib-
utable to it forfeited by:
a. Transfer to another line of progression which extends
beyond periods specified in 10.2 above.
b. Transfer to another department which extends beyond
periods specified in 10.2 above.
c. Separation initiated by employee which shall be deemed
to include resignation and retirement.
d. Discharge.
e. Absence due either to layoff or disability or both, for
a period equal to his plant seniority at the time such absence
began, but in no event shall an employee retain seniority if
absent in excess of two years.
f. Failure to comply with Section 10.6.
10.9.2 Department seniority shall be lost and all rights
attributable to it forfeited by: (b) through (f) of para-
graph 10.9.1.
10.9.3 Plant seniority shall be lost and all rights under
this Agreement forfeited by (c) through (f) of paragraph
10.9.1.
10.9.4 During the first continuous sixty days of lay-off
an employee’s seniority shall continue to increase and if he
returns to work within this period, he shall be reinstated
without loss of seniority. During such period he shall not
receive holiday pay or other benefits unless he is recalled
within ten calendar days from the date of lay-off.
* * *
App. 291
PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT NO. 15
Labor Agreement
Between
Roanoke Rapids Division, Albemarle Paper Mfg. Co., Inc.
and
United Papermakers and Paperworkers, AFL-C1O
and
Halifax Local No. 425
United Papermakers and Paperworkers
Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina
September 23, 1968-September 15, 1971
* * *
Section 10
Seniority
10.1.1 If employees are promoted or demoted, the Man-
agement shall take into consideration seniority and ability
and when all the factors that constitute ability are relatively
equal, then seniority in keeping with established lines of
progression within a given department (as shown on at-
tached Appendix F) shall prevail.
10.1.2 An employee shall not be permitted to refuse a
promotion without the Company’s permission. An employee
may be “frozen” only by the Company. If an employee is
permitted by the Company to refuse a promotion, he shall
have his seniority changed to the lowest seniority standing
among the employees in that particular job in that par-
ticular department.
10.1.3 In cases of permanent promotions or demotions in
a department in which seniority is not followed the Local
Union President will be notified. In case of permanent pro-
motions in which a suitable employee does not exist within
a department one may be selected by the Company from
App. 292
another department after discussion of the matter with
the Union Committee for the first department.
10.1.4 An employee promoted to a permanent job outside
of the bargaining unit whom the Company decides to return
to the bargaining unit within six (6) months shall, if so
revurned by the Company, have his job, department and
plant seniority restored with additional credit on all three
types of seniority for the time spent outside the bargaining
unit. The six (6) month period may be extended by mutual
agreement between the Company and the Local Union.
10.2.1 Employees who wish to transfer from one de-
partment (or line of progression) to another may file
through their foreman with the Personnel Department of
the Company written application stating the department
(or line of progression) and the job therein to which he
wishes to be transferred. The decision of the Company in
granting or denying such request for transfer is to be final.
However, when an employee transfers from one department
(or line of progression) to another upon his own request,
his seniority in the department (and line of progression )
left shall cease immediately unless within thirty (30) days
from the date of such transfer the health or physical condi-
tion of such employee makes it advisable to transfer him
back to the department (or line of progression) left. Where
the transfer is effected at the request of the Company, his
seniority in the department (or line of progression) left
shall be retained for a period of six months from date of
transfer.
10.2.2 When the Company grants a transfer as described
in 10.2.1, then the transferred employee will be vested
with department and job seniority equal to that held in his
last job or equal to that held in the lowest job in the line
of progression from which transferred.
. App. 293
10.2.3 When the Company grants such a transfer as
described in 10.2.1, then the transferred employee will be
paid his present rate if higher than the rate of the job to
which transferred until such time as the employee pro-
gresses to a job in the new line of progression which pays
as much or more than his rate in his last classification in
his former line of progression. An employee who is per-
mitted to carry a higher rate to another department or line
of progression shall have such rate reduced to the rate of
the job to which he is transferred if the employee is deemed
at the time a “permanent” vacancy occurs in the next higher
job in the new line of progression to be unqualified for such
job, or with the Company’s approval declines a promotion
to such a job. Such an employee shall not lose his “red
circle” rate if deemed unqualified and the sole reason for
his lack of qualification is a determination by the Company
that he has not had sufficient time in the new line of progres-
sion to obtain the training and experience necessary for pro-
motion. In applying Section 10.2.1, if the Company decides
to fill a vacancy by transferring an emplovee who has made
application pursuant to the foregoing provisions and there
are on file more than one such application for the job
opening, then the Company will offer the transfer to the
senior qualified employee making application.
10.3 Definitions—Job, Department, Plant Seniority
For the purposes of this Agreement there shall be three
(3) types of seniority: job seniority, department seniority
and plant seniority.
Job seniority is defined as total length of continuous serv-
ice in a job classification; seniority in a higher job(s) in
the same line of progression shall count toward job seniority
in lower job(s) in said line of progression.
Department seniority is defined as length of continuous
service in one of the departments listed in Appendix F.
App. 294
Plant seniority is defined as length of continuous service
from most recent date of employment.
10.4.1 Vacancies (including increases in complement)
and reductions (including curtailments and decreases in
complement ) calling for promotions, or demotions, as noted
in 10.1.1 will be practiced as follows:
10.4.2 When the vacancy or reduction is expected to con-
tinue for a period of more than two (2) weeks, job seniority
in accordance with provisions of 10.1.1 will apply across
all shifts of the line of progression. Employees will be laid
off and rehired from the bottom job of a line of progres-
sion, in accordance with this provision.
When applying this paragraph 10.4.2, the Company
shall have three (3) days in which to make the move.
10.4.3 When the vacancy or reduction is expected to
continue for two (2) weeks or less, job seniority in accord-
ance with provisions of 10.1.1 will apply within the individ-
ual shifts of the line of progression. Employees will be laid
off and rehired from the bottom job of a line of progres-
sion in accordance with this provision. The provisions of
10.1.1 will also apply within the individual shifts of the line
of progression to the filling of vacancies caused by em-
ployee(s) being on vacation even though such vacation may
extend longer than two (2) weeks.
10.4.4 When the company needs an employee for a job
advancement for two (2) weeks or less, an employee will
normally be promoted within the shift on which the vacancy
occurs, but when there is no qualified employee available
on the shift in which the vacancy occurs, the Company
may require the available qualified employee with the high-
est seniority to take the job advancement. In such situations
of promoting across shifts for two (2) weeks or less para-
graph 10.1.2 shall not apply to employees who refuse a job
App. 295
advancement other than such available qualified employee
with the highest seniority.
10.5 It is agreed that the plan for the progression of —
employees in the Maintenance Department shall be as pro-
vided in Appendix C attached hereto and a part of this
Agreement.
10.6 To maintain their rehiring rights, employees who
are laid off because of lack of work must notify the Com-
pany in writing once in each thirty (30) days following
date of layoff, giving their current address and signifying
their continued interest in returning to work for the Com-
pany. The failure of an employee to comply with the above
provision within the time limit specified shall void his re-
hiring rights. When employees are laid off, they will be
advised of this provision. Employees being recalled to work
shall be notified by certified mail and must return to work
within ten (10) days from date of such notice unless
an extension of time is agreed upon. A copy of said notifica-
tion shall also be sent to the Union.
10.7 In applying 10.4.2 an employee who has by-passed
another employee(s) will be deemed to have one (1) day
more seniority than the bypassed employee(s). The above
sentence shall, effective September 23, 1968 apply only to
cases in which an employee(s) refuses a promotion and
such can be refused only with the Company’s permission.
After September 23, 1968, employees who are bypassed for
promotion because of disqualification by the Company shall
not lose seniority to those who bypass them but such by-
passed employee(s) shall not be deemed eligible for future
consideration for promotion unless they present the Com-
pany with acceptable proof that they have eliminated or
overcome the reason for the disqualification.
10.8 If the Company makes an error in applying the
App. 296
provisions of this Section with regard to layoffs, recalls,
promotions, demotions, transfers, the Company shall not
be liable for any payment to an employee as correction or
compensation for such error for such period of time from
the time the employee or the Union knew or was aware of
the error until he or the Union brings the error to the at-
tention of the Company.
10.9.1 Job seniority shall be lost and all rights attributable
to it forfeited by:
a. Transfer to another line of progression which extends
beyond periods specified in 10.2 above.
b. Transfer to another department which extends beyond
periods specified in 10.2 above.
c. Separation initiated by employee which shall be deemed
to include resignation and retirement.
d. Discharge.
e. Absence due either to layoff or disability, or both, for
a period equal to his plant seniority at the time such absence
began, but in no event shall an employee retain seniority
if absent in excess of two years.
f. Failure to comply with Section 10.6.
10.9.2 Department seniority shall be lost and all rights
attributable to it forfeited by: (b) through (f) of para-
graph 10.9.1.
10.9.3 Plant seniority shall be lost and all rights under
this Agreement forfeited by (c) through (f) of para-
graph 10.9.1.
10.9.4 During the first continuous sixty days of lay-off
an employee’s seniority shall continue to increase and if he
returns to work within this period, he shall be reinstated
without loss of seniority. During such period he shall not
receive holiday pay or other benefits unless he is recalled
within ten calendar days from the date of lay-off.
* * *
2 —————
WONDERLIC
PEnSONwel TeoT
FORM A
Se ccesnsrnemncnpuontt —
L6z ‘ddy
READ THIS PAGE CAREFULLY. DO EXACTLY AS YOU ARE TOLD.
DO NOT TURN OVER THIS PAGE UNTIL YOU ARE
- INSTRUCTED TO DO SO.
This is a test of problem solving ability. It contains various types of questions. Below is a sample question
correctly filled in:
REAP is the opposite of
1 obtain, 2 cheer, 3 continue, 4 exist, S sow
The correct answer is “sow.” (It is helpful to underline the correct word.) The correct word is numbered
5. Then write the figure 5 in the brackets at the end of the line.
Answer the next sample «uestion yourself.
Gasoline sells for 23 cents per gallon. What will 4 gallons cost? one (ened
The correct answer is 92¢. There is nothing to underline so just place “92¢” in the brackets.
Here is another example:
MINER MINOR — Do these words have
1 similar meaning, 2 contradictory, 3 mean neither same nor opposite? ............. [.—]
The correct answer is “mean neither same nor opposite” which is number 3 so all you have to do is place
a figure “3” in the brackets at the end of the line.
When the answer to a question is a letter or a number, put the letter or number in the brackets.
All letters should be printed.
This test contains 50 questions. It is unlikely that you will finish all of them, but do your best. After the
examiner tells you to begin, you will be given exactly 12 minutes to work as many as you can. Do not go
so fast that you make mistakes since you must try to get as many right as possible. The questions become
increasingly difficult, so do not skip about. Do not spend too much time on any one problem. The examiner
will not answer any questions after the test begins.
Now, lay down your pencil and wait for the examiner to tell you to begin!
Do not turn the page until you are told to do so.
Copyright 1942 by E. F. Wonderlic®
Published by E. F. Wonderlic, P. O. Bor 7, Northfield, Illinois. All rights reserved, including the right to reproduce this test or
any part thereol in any form by mimeograph, hectograph, or in any other way, whether the reproductions are sold or are
furnished free for use.
PRINTED IN U.S.A.
1% ‘ON LIGIHXad SAALLNIV'Td
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
1. The last month of the year is
1 January, 2 March, 3 July, 4 December, S$ October 000i =
2. CAPTURE is the opposite of
1 place, 2 release, 3 risk, 4 venture, 5 degrade are ee
3. Most of the items below resemble each other. Which one is least like the others?
1 January, 2 August, 3 Wednesday, 4 October, 5 December. 000000... -=
4. Answer by printing YFS or NO—Does R.S.V.P. mean “reply not necessary”? 2.0.0... ccccee =
5. In the following set of words, which word is different from the others?
1 troop, 2 league, 3 participate, 4 pack, S gang 2... ccceccecccccceeccicsereruenerenneneeees =
6. USUAL is the opposite of
l rare, 2 habitual, 3 regular, 4 stanch, 5S alway8 2.20.0 []
: eOSe®d as | 4 \ ss
8. Look at the row of numbers below. What number should come next?
8 4 2 1 % ROBO nT ee a =
9. CLIENT CUSTOMER—Do these words have
1 similar meanings, 2 contradictory, 3 mean neither same nor opposite? ............ {—]
10. Which word below is related to smell as chew is to teeth?
|. eS On L~--}
11. AUTUMN is the opposite of
1 vacation, 2 summer, 3 spring, 4 winter, 5 fall . =
12. A train travels 300 feet in ‘2 second. At this same soem how many ‘feet will it ‘travel i in 1 10 :
seconds? -_ —
13. Assume the first 2 statements are ‘true. “Is ‘the ‘final one:
1 true, 2 false, 3 not certain?
These boys are normal children. All normal children are active.
These boys are active 20. ssvapepansecetnteninnvesnenanctscmpesenqueeumnasetannsmmmnnenanetannss =
14. REMOTE is the opposite of
OL =
15. Lemons sell at 3 for 10 cents. How much will 14 dozems Cost? ..0...cccccccccccecccceeeseceveneeeneneeee » Gel
16. How many of the five items listed below are exact duplicates of each other? ....... ——
84721 84721
9210651 9210561
14201201 14210210
96101101 96101161
88884444 88884344
17. Suppose you arranged the following words so that they made a true statement. Then print
the last letter of the last word as the answer to this problem.
always ee ee Ee {—]
18. A boy is 5 years old and his sister is twice as old. When the boy is 8 years old, what will be
I adalah ree emda cert niciaterneanatlinnettineaaleeeenaiies (...J
19. IT’S ITS—Do these words have
1 similar meanings, 2 contradictory, 3 mean neither same nor opposite? .............. (......J
20. Assume that the first 2 statements are true. Is the final statement:
1 true, 2 false, 3 not certain? [ j
John is the same age as Sally. Sally is younger than Bill. John is younger than Bill. .
21. A dealer bought some cars for $4000. He sold them for $5000, making $50 on each car. How
a en a I iranian ileal pects ttecetatat alanine {—]
22. Suppose you arrange the following words so that they make a complete sentence. If it is a
true statement, put a (T) in the brackets; if false, put an (F) there.
eggs lay All chickens .......... , ssscenteunasnmnecnanee (—]
23. Two of the following proverbs have the same. meaning. “Which ones are e they?... ———
1. Many a good cow hath a bad calf.
2. Like father, like son.
3. Amiss is as good as a mile.
4. Aman is known by the company he keeps.
S. They are seeds out of the same bowl.
24. A watch lost 1 minute 18 seconds in 39 days. How many seconds did it lose per day?.......... (—1]
25. CANVASS CANVAS—Do these words have
1 similar meaning. 2 contradictory, 3 mean neither same nor opposite? ....... (__}
26. Assume the first 2 statements are true. Is the finalone: - Itrue, 2false, 3 not certain?
All Quakers are pacifists. Some of the people in this room are _— Some of the
people in this room are pacifists ............... asset — . —)
27. In 30 days a boy saved $1.00. What was his average ‘daily ‘saving? Lespustinssiesieemnelinshdeniiaiiaeninaeieaneninnemmanns - ol
28. INGENIOUS INGENUOUS—Do these words have
1 similar meanings, 2 contradictory, 3 mean neither same nor opposite? .......... a
29. Two men caught 36 fish; X caught 5 times as many as Y. How many fish did Y catch? =
862 ‘ddy
Form A
30. A rectangular bin, completely filled, holds 800 cubic feet of grain. If the bin is 8 feet wide
GE SD SRS Tey ee OOD ances cscs cen cs ects recess ese cenenveremssmsenvenssesenocorecenemmmstnnenqneenmnassnocssiinseaenenses -_
31. One number in the following series does not fit in with the pattern set by the others. What
should that number be? BRhmhth fe eS. (—..}
32. Answer this question by printing YES or NO. Does A.D. mean “In the year of our Lord”?.... [__]
33. CREDITABLE CREDULOUS—Do these words have
1 similar mooning, 2 contradictory, 3 mean neither same nor opposite? ............. -_
34. A skirt requires 2'4 yards of material. How many can be cut from 45 yards? .................. =
35. A clock was exactly on time at noon on Monday. At 2 P.M. on Wednesday, it was 25 seconds
slow. At that same rate, how much did it lose im "a hour? occ eee nenennee ee =
36. Our baseball team lost 9 games this season. This was % of all —- aman How many Anema
did they play this season? ........... pinineeniemeeaniien ——_—
37. What is the next number in this series? 1 5 25 “42s ? sseumeatinmnnensesagenuséamnecnsenssnie =
38. This geometric figure can be divided by a straight line into two parts which will fit together
42.
45.
46.
47.
in a certain way to make a perfect square. Draw such a line by joining two of the numbers.
Then write the numbers as the answer. ........cccccccce cee wee nnene ene sonenantommanin =
. Are the meanings of the following sentences 1 similar, 2 contradictory, 3 neither
similar nor contradictory? A new broom sweeps clean. Old shoes are easiest. ................... [ ]
. How many of the five items listed below are exact duplicates of each other? .....00000000..0........ [ ]
Rexford, J. D. Rockford, J. D.
Singleton, M. O. Simbleten, M. O.
Richerds, W. E. Richard, W. E.
Siegel, A. B. Seigel, A. B.
Wood, A. O. Wood, A.O.
Two of the following proverbs have similar meanings. Which ones are they? ............................. =
1. You cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.
2. He that steals an egg will steal! an ox.
3. Arrolling stone gathers no moss.
4. You cannot damage a wrecked ship.
S$. It is the impossible that happens.
This geometric figure can be divided by a straight line into two parts which will fit together
in a certain way to make a perfect square. Draw such a line by joining two of the numbers.
Then write these numbers as the answer. 00002 ...... ooo oococeeseeees
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
. Which number in the following group of numbers represents the smallest amount?
Are the meanings of the following sentences:
1 similar, 2 contradictory, 3 neither similar nor contradictory?
No honest man ever repented for his honesty. Honesty is praised and starves. ............ =
For $1.80 a grocer buys a case of oranges which contains 12 dozen. He knows that two dozen
will spoil before he sells them. At what price per dozen must he sell the good ones to
SR TE Gam UD ID irre cccsecceeress enn ccenscn se receennnnecetcsemerennesniapennnenennnscoceseesetttnetnenIDTUAESSCSTIAADRID =
In the following set of words, which word is different from the others?
1 colony, 2 companion, 3 covey, 4 crew, © QD ceecnenncene Teco
Assume that the first 2 statements are true. Is the final one: 1 true, 2 false, 3 not
certain: Great men are ridiculed. I am ridiculed. I ani a great men. .... =
48. Three men form a partnership and agree to divide the profits equally. X invests $4500, Y
49.
invests $3500 and Z invests $2000. If the profits are $1500, how much less does X receive
than if the profits were divided in proportion to the amount imvested? occ cceceeseececeeeneeee =
Four of the following 5 parts can be fitted together in such a way as to make a triangle. Which
env amicse Aa. «<8 ge fe 2. 6 Rl didaimmian =
| Kio
. In printing an article of 30.000 words, a printer decides to use two sizes of type. Using the
larger type, a printed page contains 1200 words. Using the smaller type, a page contains 1500
words. The article is allotted 22 ante in a magazine. How many ctr must be in the smaller
662 “ddy
App. 300
Sg "Rsy 8a 3 ae s ee a4
SCORING STENCIL FOR THE WONDERLIC PERSONNEL TEST
Answers must be exactly the same as shown here. There
is only one correct answer for each question. Items omitted
are counted wrong. The final score is the total number of
questions answered correctly in exactly 12 minutes.
i.
FOAM A
wg g g
ao an) be S$ «4 w & @ ole a ies of w ae Gee
$
£
3
=
>
PERSONNEL TEST
(Please Print)
READ THIS PAGE CAREFULLY. DO EXACTLY AS YOU ARE TOLD.
DO NOT TURN OVER THIS PAGE UNTIL YOU ARE
INSTRUCTED TO DO SO.
This is a test of problem solving ability. It contains various types of questions. Below is a sample question
correctly filled in:
REAP is the opposite of
1 obtain, 2 cheer, 3 continue, 4 exist, 5 sow Cs)
The correct answer is “sow.” (It is helpful to underline the correct word.) The correct word is numbered
5. Then write the figure 5 in the brackets at the end of the line.
Answer the next sample question yourself.
Gasoline sells for 23 cents per gallon. What will 4 gallons cost? |
The correct answer is 92¢. There is nothing to underline so just place “92¢” in the brackets.
Here is another example:
MINER MINOR — Do these words have
1 similar meaning, 2 contradictory, 3 mean neither same nor opposite? 00... -
The correct answer is “mean neither same nor opposite” which is number 3 so all you have to do is place
a figure “3” in the brackets at the end of the line.
When the answer to a question is a letter or a number, put the letter or number in the brackets.
All letters should be printed.
This test contains 50 questions. It is unlikely that you will finish all of them, but do your best. After the
examiner tells you to begin, you will be given exactly 12 minutes to work as many as you can. Do not go
so fast that you make mistakes since you must try to get as many right as possible. The questions become
increasingly difficult, so do not skip about. Do not spend too much time on any one problem. The examiner
will not answer any questions after the test begins.
Now, lay down your pencil and wait for the examiner to tell you to begin!
Do not turn the page until you are told to do so.
Copyright 1942 by E. F. Wonderli®
Published by E. F. Wonderlic, P. O. Box 7, Northfield, Illinois. All rights reserved, including the right to reproduce this test or
any part thereot in any form by mimeograph, hectograph, or in any other way, whether the reproductions are sold or are
BEST COPY AVAWABLE |
PRINTED IN U.S.A.
log “ddy
c ‘ON LIGIHXY S44dLLNIV 1d
1. PAIN is the opposite of
1 poison, 2 torment, 3 agony, 4 comfort, S punish . ———————
2. One number in the following series 1s omitted. What should that number be?
a a 6 COU OS eee =
3. GENEROUS is the opposite of :
1 noble, 2 popular. 3 moody, 4 neighborly, «= 5 stimgy 22... =
4. LUXURY is the opposite of :
1 plenty, 2 rapture, 3 poverty, 4 devotion, 5 faibure 2m =
S. In the following set of words. which word is different from the others?
1 Methodist. 2 Easter, 3 Lutheran, 4 Catholic, 5S Quaker... [-—]
6& LINGER is the opposite of
1 maintain, 2 hasten. 3 require. 4 remain, (OEE
7. Assume the first two statements are true. Is the final one: 1 true, 2 false. 3 not cer-
tain? The violim is in nae SED Gib Grae Se aS Se as the =? The
harp is in tune with the violin... ... » Gen
8 Suppose you arrange the following words so that ‘they make 1 a complete sentence. If it | is a
true statement, mark (T) im the brackets; if false, put an a“ s in the brackets.
fuel wood are Coal and for used 7 ——
9. FURTHER FARTHER—Do these words have
1 similar meaning. 2 contradictory, 3 mean neither same nor opposite? ——_—
10. A man’s cer traveled 16 miles in 30 minutes. How many miles an hour was it traveling? _... =
11. Are the meanings of the following sentences: 1 similar, 2 contradictory, 3 neither
similar nor contradictory?
A faithful friend is a strong defense. They never taste who always drink. ——_—
12. A dealer bought some cars for $2.000. He sold them for $2,400, scence $50 ¢ on each ¢ car.
How many cars were involved? __.. —_ —————
13. How many of the six pairs of items listed Retew ( are exact * duplicates? stetataneatiiniatinienmanans =
3421 1243
21212 21212
$58956 558956
10120210 10120710
612986895 612986896
356471201 356571201
14. A boy is 6 years old and his sister is twice as old. When the boy is 10 years old, what will be
EEE LE SEL) ELLE I ELLE AES TT AS I ¢.....}
1S. In the following set of words, which word is different from the others?
1 armada, 2 band, 3 brood, 4 boy, S crowd ... =
16. Suppose you arranged the following words so that they make a true statement. ‘Then print ‘the
last letter in the last word as the answer to this anaes
1s world The round _..... Ast ST, CT
17. VOCATION WORK—Do these ant owe
1 similar meaning, 2 contradictory, 3 neither same nor opposite? 0... []
18. Look at the row of numbers below. What number should come next?
81 27 9 3 1 % ?. oo Gen
19. This geometric figure can be divided by : a 1 Straight line into two parts which will ‘fit together in ina
certain way to make a perfect square. Draw such a line e by i joining two of the numbers. Then
write the numbers as the answer soustonaaiivaebepitiantiretities sence fame
we eee
20. How many of the five items listed below are exact duplicates of each other? ..................... =
Patterson, A. J. Paterson, A. J. -
Smith, A. O. Smith, O. A.
Bieed, O. M. Bleed. O. M.
Petersen, O. W. Peterson. O. W.
Cash, 1. O. Cash, 1. O.
21. Suppose you arrange the following words so that they make a complete sentence. If it is a
true statement. mark (T) in the brackets; if false. put an (F) in the brackets.
all are Americans countries of citizens OTTER ON
22. Assume that the first 2 statements are true. Is the final statement:
1 true, 2 false. 3 not certain? :
All red-headed boys are mischievous. Charles is red-headed. He is mischievous.._. =
23. Two of the following proverbs have similar meanings. Which ones are a — =
1. A friend in need is a friend in deed.
2. Fields have eves and woods have ears.
3. A fox is not cauctht twice in a snare
4. A setting ben never ects fat.
$. Arrolling stone gathers no moss.
24. A rectangular bin completely filled, holds 900 cubic feet of lime. If the bin is 10 feet long
and 10 feet wide, how deep 1s it? . ieeeenntecentetatiieeees NN LETROREER SS
z0g “ddy
Ferm B
25. A watch lost 1 minute and 12 seconds in 24 days. How many seconds did it lose per day? =
26. Assume that the first 2 statements are true. Is the final statement: 1 true, 2 false,
3 not certain? Most business men are progressive. Most business men aie fic pevuceuns. Some
progressive people are Republicams. ooo ceceeees-veneeevevesvevereesesveses snteiineaiehbcibiaenthpaniieeaieianenen =
27. Gasoline is 15 cents a gallon. How many gallons can you buy fora dollar? ..ss—i—sisiéw
28. Are the meanings of the following sentences: 1 similar, 2 contradictory, 3 neither
similar nor contradictory? Every pumpkin is known by its stem. Like father, like son. =
29. If 2’ tons of coal cost $20, what will 3'4 toms cost? 200 =
30. How many of the five pairs of items listed below are exact duplicates? =
Silverstein, M. O. Silverstien, M. O.
Harrisberg, L. W. Harri L.M.
Seirs, J. C. Sears, J
Wood, A. B. Woods, A. B.
Johnson, M. D. Johnson, M. D.
31. Two men caught 75 fish. A caught four times as many as B. How many fish did B catch? _ =
32. In the following set of words, which word is different from the others?
3 faculty, 2 fleet, 3 flock, 4 firiemd, — S Gree nn... ccc eceeccccccsssecesccsessnveceressessveee =
33. Assume the first 2 statements are true. Is the final one: ltrue, 2 false, 3 not certain?
Bert greeted Alice. Alice greeted Lou. Bert did not greet Lou. ss =
34. Which number in the following group of numbers represents the smallest amount?
35. A side of beef weighs 250 Ibs. The average daily beef consumption of a family is 1% Ibs.
36. Are the meanings of the following sentences: 1 similar, 2 contradictory, _ "3 neither
similar nor contradictory?
Friends agree best at a distance. Friends are one soul in two bodies... =
37. How many square yards are there in a floor which is 9 feet long by 21 feet wide? =
38. One number in the following series does not fit in with the pattern set by the others. What
should that number be? 8 9 12 13 16 17 (ee sieiaialaiie =
39. Three of the following 5 parts can be fitted together in such a way to make a triangle. Which
Ad Gwo
40. A soldier shooting at a target hits it 40% of the time. How many times must he shoot in order
(—]
bE TE EEE I LET: LTTE terre aD _ a
41. Which number in the following series represents the smallest amount?
OR Sh GR ENN ROR nig =
42. CENSOR CENSURE—Do these words have
1 similar meaning, 2 contradictory, 3 mean neither same nor opposite? __
43. Are the meanings of the following sentences: 1 similar, 2 contradictory, 3 neither
similar nor contradictory? A chip off the old block. A beggar's son struts like a ae
44. A clock was exactly on time at noon on Monday. At 8 P.M. on Tuesday it was 32 seconds slow.
At that same rate, how much did it lose im hour? ee ees eee teeters -_
4S. Are the meanings of the following sentences: 1 similar, 2 contradictory, 3 neither
similar nor contradictory? He who demands, does not command. He that complies against
LLL LALLA LEE TIEN LLIN aia =
46. For $2.40 a grocer buys a case of oranges which contains 12 dozen. He knows that two dozen
will spoil before he sells them. At what price per dozen must he sell the good ones to gain '/s
Where there's a will there is a way. The gods sell everything for labor. =
48. The hours of daylight and darkness are nearest equal in
1 June, 2 September, 3 May, 4 December... =
——_— —e =
BEST COPY AVALABLE
40613 o-12
50. Three men form a partnership and agree to divide the profits equally. X invests $5500, Y
imvests $3500, and Z invests $1000. If the profits are $3000, how much less docs X receive than
if the profits were divided in proportion to the amount invested? =
g0¢ ‘ddy
FORM B
OS9S “OS ON UONsend
4
Question No. 1.
91
5-11
SCORING STENCIL FOR THE WONDERLIC PERSONNEL TEST
Answers must be exactly the same as shown here. There
is only one correct answer for each question. Items omitted
are counted wrong. The final score is the total number of
questions answered correctly in exactly 12 minutes.
FOR.
— ae Se 8. $B ow G -
App. 304
lor T
9 ft.
FORA B
App. 305
PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT NO. 27B
FEDERAL REGISTER
Volume 35 - Number 149
Saturday, August 1, 1970 - Washington, D. C.
Pages 12311-12379
Title 29—Labor
Chapter XIV—Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission
Part 1607—Guidelines on Employee Selection
Procedures
By virture of the authority vested in it by section 713 of
title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C., sec-
tion 2000e-12, 78 Stat. 265, the Equal Employment Oppor-
tunity Commission hereby issues ‘Title 29, Chapter XIV,
§ 1607 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
These Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures
supersede and enlarge upon the Guidelines on Employment
Testing Procedures, issued by the Equal Employment Op-
portunity Commission on August 24, 1966. Because the ma-
terial herein is interpretive in nature, the provisions of the
Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring
notice of proposed rule making, opportunity for public par-
ticipation, and delay in effective date are inapplicable. The
Guidelines shall be applicable to charges and cases presently
pending or hereafter filed with the Commission.
App. 306
Sec.
1607.1 Statement of purpose.
1607.2 “Test” defined.
1607.3 Discrimination defined.
1607.4 Evidence of validity.
1607.5 Minimum standards of validation.
1607.6 Presentation of validity evidence.
1607.7. Use of other validity evidence.
1607.8 Assumption of validity.
1607.9 Continued use of tests.
1607.10 Employment agencies and employment services.
1607.11 Disparate treatment.
1607.12 Retesting.
1607.13 Other selection techniques.
1607.14 Affirmative action.
Authority: The provisions of this Part 1607 issued under
Sec. 713, 73 Stat. 265, 42 U.S.C. sec. 2000e-12.
§ 1607.1 Statement of purpose.
(a) The guidelines in this part are based on the belief
that properly validated and standardized employee selection
procedures can significantly contribute to the implementa-
tion of non-discriminatory personnel policies, as required
by title VII. It is also recognized that professionally
developed tests, when used in conjunction with other tools
of personnel assessment and complemented by sound pro-
App. 307
grams of job design, may significantly aid in the develop-
ment and maintenance of an efficient work force and, in-
deed, aid in the utilization and conservation of human re-
sources generally.
(b) An examination of charges of discrimination filed
with the Commission and an evaluation of the results of the
Commission’s compliance activities has revealed a decided
increase in total test usage and a marked increase in doubt-
ful testing practices which, based on our experience, tend
to have discriminatory effects. In many cases, persons have
come to rely almost exclusively on tests as the basis for mak-
ing the decision to hire, transfer, promote, grant member-
ship, train, refer or retain, with the result that candidates
are selected or rejected on the basis of a single test score.
Where tests are so used, minority candidates frequently ex-
perience disproportionately high rates of rejection by fail-
ing to attain score levels that have been established as mini-
mum standards for qualification.
It has also become clear that in many instances persons
are using tests as the basis for employment decisions with-
out evidence that they are valid predictors of employee job
performance. Where evidence in support of presumed rela-
tionships between test performance and job behavior is
lacking, the possibility of discrimination in the application
of test results must be recognized. A test lacking demon-
strated validity (i.e., having no known significant relation-
ship to job behavior) and yielding lower scores for classes
protected by title VII may result in the rejection of many
who have necessary qualifications for successful work per-
formance.
(c) The guidelines in this part are designed to serve as a
workable set of standards for employers, unions and em-
App. 308
ployment agencies in determining whether their selection
procedures conform with the obligations contained in title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Section 703 of title
VII places an affirmative obligation upon employers, labor
unions, and employment agencies, as defined in section 701
of the Act, not to discriminate because of race, color, re-
ligion, sex, or national origin. Subsection (h) of section 703
allows such persons “* * * to give and to act upon the re-
sults of any professionally developed ability test provided
that such test, its administration or action upon the results
is not designed, intended or used to discriminate because of
race, color, religion, sex or national origin.”
§ 1607.2 “Test” defined.
For the purpose of the guidelines in this part, the term
“test” is defined as any paper-and-pencil or performance
measure used as a basis for any employment decision. The
‘guidelines in this part apply, for example, to ability tests
which are designed to measure eligibility for hire, transfer,
promotion, membership, training, referral or retention. This
definition includes, but is not restricted to, measures of
general intelligence, mental ability and learning ability ;
specific intellectual abilities; mechanical, clerical and other
aptitudes; dexterity and coordination; knowledge and pro-
ficiency; occupational and other interests; and attitudes,
personality or temperament. The term “test” includes all
formal, scored, quantified or standardized techniques of
assessing ‘ob suitability including, in addition to the above,
specific qualifying or disqualifying personal history or back-
ground requirements, specific educational or work history
requirements, scored interviews, biographical information
blanks, interviewers’ rating scales, scored application forms,
etc.
App. 309
§ 1607.3 Discrimination defined.
The use of any test which adversely affects hiring, pro-
motion, transfer or any other employment or membership
opportunity of classes protected by title VII constitutes dis-
crimination unless: (a) the test has been validated and evi-
dences a high degree of utility as hereinafter described, and
(b) the person giving or acting upon the results of the
particular test can demonstrate that alternative suitable hir-
ing, transfer or promotion procedures are unavailable for
his use.
§ 1607.4 Evidence of validity.
(a) Each person using tests to select from among candi-
dates for a position or for membership shall have available
for inspection evidence that the tests are being used in a
manner which does not violate § 1607.3. Such evidence shall
be examined for indications of possible discrimination, such
as instances of higher rejection rates for minority candi-
dates than nonminority candidates. Furthermore, where
technically feasible, a test should be validated for each mi-
nority group with which it is used: that is, any differential
rejection rates that may exist, based on a test, must be rele-
vant to performance on the jobs in question.
(b) The term “technically feasible’ as used in these
guidelines means having or obtaining a sufficient number
of minority individuals to achieve findings of statistical
and practical significance, the opportunity to obtain un-
biased job performance criteria, etc. It is the responsibility
of the person claiming absence of technical feasibility to
positively demonstrate evidence of this absence.
App. 310
(c) Evidence of a test’s validity should consist of em-
perical data demonstrating that the test is predictive of or
significantly correlated with important elements of work
behavior which comprise or are relevant to the job or jobs
for which candidates are being evaluated.
(1) If job progression structures and seniority provi-
sions are so established that new employees will probably,
within a reasonable period of time and in a great majorty of
cases, progress to a higher level, it may be considered that
candidates are being evaluated for jobs at that higher level.
However, where job progression is not so nearly automatic,
or the time span is such that higher level jobs or employees’
potential may be expected to change in significant ways, it
shall be considered that candidates are being evaluated for
a job at or near the entry level. This point is made to under-
score the principle that attainment of or performance at a
higher level job is a relevant criterion in validating employ-
ment tests only when there is a high probability that persons
employed will in fact attain that higher level job within a
reasonable period of time.
(2) Where a test is to be used in diferent units of a
multiunit organization and no significant differences exist
between units, jobs, and applicant populations, evidence
obtained in one unit may suffice for the others. Similarly,
where the validation process requires the collection of data
throughout a multiunit organization, evidence of validity
specific to each unit may not be required. There may also
be instances where evidence of validity is appropriately ob-
tained from more than one company in the same industry.
Both in this instance and in the use of data collected
throughout a multiunit organization, evidence of validity
App. 311
specific to each unit may not be required: Provided, That no
significant differences exist between units, jobs, and appli-
cant populations.
§ 1607.5 Minimum standards for validation.
(a) For the purpose of satisfying the requirements of
this part, empirical evidence in support of a test’s validity
must be based on studies employing generally accepted pro-
cedures for determining criterion-related validity such as
those described in “Standards for Educational and Psycho-
logical Tests and Manuals” published by American Psycho-
logical Association, 1200 17th Street NW., Washington,
D.C. 20036. Evidence of content or construct validity, as
defined in that publication, may also be appropriate where
criterion-related validity is not feasible. However, evidence
for content or construct validity should be accompanied by
sufficient information from job analysis to demonstrate the
relevance of the content (in the case of job knowledge or
proficiency tests) or the construct (in the case of trait meas-
ures). Evidence of content validity alone may be accept-
able for well-developed tests that consist of suitable samples
of the essential knowledge, skills or behaviors composing
the job in question. The types of knowledge, skills or be-
haviors contemplated here do not include those which can
be acquired in a brief orientation to the job.
(b) Although any appropriate validation strategy may
be used to develop such empirical evidence, the following
minimum standards, as applicable, must be met in the re-
search approach and in the presentation of results which
constitute evidence of validity:
(1) Where a validity study is conducted in which tests
are administered to applicants, with criterion data collected
App. 312
later, the sample of subjects must be representative of the
normal or typical candidate group for the job or jobs in
question. This further assumes that the applicant sample
is representative of the minority population available for
the job or jobs in question in the local labor market. Where
a validity study is conducted in which tests are adminis-
tered to present employees, the sample must be representa-
tive of the minority groups currently included in the appli-
cant population. If it is not technically feasible to include
minority employees in validation studies conducted on the
present work force, the conduct of a validation study with-
out minority candidates does not relieve any person of his
subsequent obligation for validation when inclusion of mi-
nority candidates becomes technically feasible.
(2) Tests must be administered and scored under con-
trolled and standardized conditions, with proper safeguards
to protect the security of test scores and to insure that
scores do not enter into any judgments of employee ade-
quacy that are to be used as criterion measures. Copies of
tests and test manuals, including instructions for adminis-
tration, scoring, and interpretation of test results, that are
privately developed and/or are not available through normal
commercial channels must be included as a part of the vali-
dation evidence.
(3) The work behaviors or other criteria of employee
adequacy which the test is intended to predict or identify
must be fully described; and, additionally, in the case of
rating techniques, the appraisal form(s) and instructions to
the rater(s) must be included as a part of the validation evi-
dence. Such criteria may include measures otHer than ac-
tual work proficiency, such as training time, supervisory
App. 313
ratings, regularity of attendance and tenure. Whatever
criteria are used they must represent major or critical work
behaviors as revealed by careful job analyses.
(4) In view of the possibility of bias inherent in sub-
jective evaluations, supervisory rating techniques should be
carefully developed, and the ratings should be closely ex-
amined for evidence of bias. In addition, minorities might
obtain unfairly low performance criterion scores for rea-
sons other than supervisors’ prejudice, as, when, as new
employees, they have had less opportunity to learn job skills.
The general point is that all criteria need to be examined to
insure freedom from factors which would unfairly depress
the scores of minority groups.
(5) Differential validity. Data must be generated and re-
sults separately reported for minority and nonminority
groups wherever technically feasible. Where a minority
group is sufficiently large to constitute an identifiable factor
in the local labor market, but validation data have not been
developed and presented separately for that group, evidence
of satisfactory validity based on other groups will be re-
garded as only provisional compliance with these guide-
lines pending separate validation of the test for the minority
group in question. (See § 1607.9). A test which is differ-
entially valid may be used in groups for which it is valid
but not for those in which it is not valid. In this regard,
where a test is valid for two groups but one group charac-
teristically obtains higher test scores than the other with-
out a corresponding difference in job performance, cutoff
scores must be set so as to predict the same probability of
job success in both groups.
(c) In assessing the utility of a test the following con-
siderations will be applicable :
App. 314
(1) The relationship between the test and at least one
relevant criterion must be statistically significant. This ordi-
narily means that the relationship should be sufficiently high
as to have a probability of no more than 1 to 20 to have
occurred by chance. However, the use of a single test as
the sole selection device will be scrutinized closely when that
test is valid against only one component of job performance.
(2) In addition to statistical significance, the relation-
ship between the test and criterion should have practical
significance. The magnitude of the relationship needed for
practical significance or usefulness is affected by several
factors, including:
(i) The larger the proportion of applicants who are
hired for or placed on the job, the higher the relationship
needs to be in order to be practically useful. Conversely, a
relatively low relationship may prove useful when propor-
tionately few job vacancies are available;
(ii) The larger the proportion of applicants who become
satisfactory employees when not selected on the basis of
the test, the higher the relationship needs to be between the
test and a criterion of job success for the test to be practi-
cally useful. Conversely, a relatively low relationship may
prove useful when proportionately few applicants turn out
to be satisfactory ;
(iii) The smaller the economic and human risks involved
in hiring an unqualified applicant relative to the risks en-
tailed in rejecting a qualified applicant, the greater the re-
lationship needs to be in order to be practically useful. Con-
versely, a relatively low relationship may prove useful
when the former risks are relatively high.
App. 315
§ 1607.6 Presentation of validity evidence.
The presentation of the results of a validation study must
include graphical and statistical representations of the re-
lationships between the test and the criteria, permitting
judgments of the test’s utility in making predictions of fu-
ture work behavior. (See § 1607.5(c) concerning assessing
utility of a test.) Average scores for all tests and criteria
must be reported for all relevant subgroups, including mi-
nority and nonminority groups where differential validation —
is required. Whenever statistical adjustments are made in
validity results for less than perfect reliability or for re-
striction of score range in the test or the criterion, or both,
the supporting evidence from the validation study must be
presented in detail. Furthermore, for each test that is to be
established or continued as an operational employee selec- -
tion instrument, as a result of the validation study, the
minimum acceptable cutoff (passing) score on the test must
be reported. It is expected that each operational cutoff
score will be reasonable and consistent with normal expec-
tations of proficiency within the work force or group on
which the study was conducted.
§ 1607.7 Use of other validity studies.
In cases where the validity of a test cannot be determined
pursuant to § 1607.4 and § 1607.5 (e.g., the number of
subjects is less than that required for a technically adequate
validation study, or an appropriate criterion measure can-
not be developed), evidence from validity studies conducted
in other organizations, such as that reported in test manuals
and professional literature, may be considered acceptable
when: (a) The studies pertain to jobs which are comparable
(i.e., have basically the same task elements), and (b) there
App. 316
are no major differences in contextual variables or sample
composition which are likely to significantly affect validity.
Any person citing evidence from other validity studies as
evidence of test validity for his own jobs must substantiate
in detail job comparability and must demonstrate the ab-
sence of contextual or sample differences cited in para-
graphs (a) and (b) of this section.
§ 1607.8 Assumption of validity.
(a) Under no circumstances will the general reputation
of a test, its author or its publisher, or casual reports of
test utility be accepted in lieu of evidence of validity. Spe-
cifically ruled out are: assumptions of validity based on test
names or descriptive labels; all forms of promotional litera-
ture; data bearing on the frequency of a test’s usage; testi-
monial statements of sellers, users, or consultants; and
other nonemperical or anecdotal accounts of testing prac-
tices or testing outcomes.
(b) Although professional supervision of testing ac-
tivities may help greatly to insure technically sound and
nondiscriminatory test usage, such involvement alone shall
not be regarded as constituting satisfactory evidence of test
validity.
§ 1607.9 Continued use of tests.
Under certain conditions, a person may be permitted to
continue the use of a test which is not at the moment fully
supported by the required evidence of validity. If, for ex-
ample, determination of criterion-related validity in a spe-
cific setting is practicable and required but not yet obtained,
the use of the test may continue: Provided: (a) The person
App. 317
can cite substantial evidence of validity as described in
§ 1607.7 (a) and (b); and (b) he has in progress validation
procedures which are designed to produce, within a reason-
able time, the additional data required. It is expected also
that the person may have to alter or suspend test cutoff
scores so that score ranges broad enough to permit the
identification of criterion-related validity will be obtained.
§ 1607.10 Employment agencies and employment services.
(a) An employment service, including private employ-
ment agencies, State employment agencies, and the U.S.
Training and Employment Service, as defined in section
701(c), shall not make applicant or employee appraisals or
referrals based on the results obtained from any psycho-
logical test or other selection standard not validated in ac-
cordance with these guidelines.
(b) An employment agency or service which is requested
by an employer or union to devise a testing program is re-
quired to follow the standards for test validation as set forth
in these guidelines. An employment service is not relieved
of its obligation herein because the test user did not request
such validation or has requested the use of some lesser
standard than is provided in these guidelines.
(c) Where an employment agency or service is requested
only to administer a testing program which has been else-
where devised the employment agency or service shall re-
quest evidence of validation, as described in the guidelines
in this part, before it administers the testing program
and/or makes referral pursuant to the test results. The em-
ployment agency must furnish on request such evidence of
validation. An employment agency or service will be ex-
pected to refuse to administer a test where the employer or
App. 318
union does not supply satisfactory evidence of validation.
Reliance by the test user on the reputation of the test, its
author, or the name of the test shall not be deemed sufficient
evidence of validity (see § 1607.8(a)). An employment
agency or service may administer a testing program where
the evidence of validity comports with the standards pro-
vided in § 1607.7.
§ 1607.11 Disparate treatment.
The principle of disparate or unequal treatment must be
distinguished from the concepts of test validation. A test or
other employee selection standard—even though validated
against job performance in accordance with the guidelines
in this part—cannot be imposed upon any individual or class
protected by title VII where other employees, applicants or
members have not been subjected to that standard. Disparate
treatment, for example, occurs where members of a minority
or sex group have been denied the same employment, pro-
motion, transfer or membership opportunities as have been
made available to other employees or applicants. Those em-
ployees or applicants who have been denied equal treatment,
because of prior discriminatory practices or policies, must
at least be afforded the same opportunities as had existed
for other employees or applicants during the period of dis-
crimination. Thus, no new test or other employee selection
standard can be imposed upon a class of individuals pro-
tected by title VII who, but for prior discrimination, would
have been granted the opportunity to qualify under less
stringent selection standards previously in force.
§ 1607.12 Retesting.
Employers, unions, and employment agencies should pro-
vide an opportunity for retesting and reconsideration to
App. 319
earlier ‘failure’ candidates who have availed themselves of
more training or experience. In particular, if any applicant
or employee during the course of an interview or other em-
ployment procedure claims more education or experience,
that individual should be retested.
§ 1607.13 Other selection techniques.
Selection techniques other than tests, as defined in §
1607.2, may be improperly used so as to have the effect of
discriminating against minority groups. Such techniques in-
clude, but are not restricted to, unscored or casual interviews
and unscored application forms. Where there are data sug-
gesting employment discrimination, the person may be
called upon to present evidence concerning the validity of
his unscored procedures as well as of any tests which may
be used, the evidence of validity being of the same types re-
ferred to in $§ 1607.4 and 1607.5. Data suggesting the pos-
sibility of discrimination exist, for example, when there
are differential rates of applicant rejection from various
minority and nonminority or sex groups for the same job
or group of jobs or when there are disproportionate repre-
sentations of minority and nonminority or sex groups
among present employees in different types of jobs. If the
person is unable or unwilling to perform such validation
studies, he has the option of adjusting employment proce-
dures so as to eleminate the conditions suggestive of employ-
ment discrimination.
§ 1607.14 Affirmative action.
Nothing in these guidelines shall be interpreted as di-
minishing a person’s obligation under both title VII and
Executive Order 11246 as amended by Executive Order
App. 320
11375 to undertake affirmative action to ensure that appli-
cants or employees are treated without regard to race, color,
religion, sex, or national origin. Specifically, the use of tests
which have been validated pursuant to these guidelines does
not relieve employers, unions or employment agencies of
their obligations to take positive action in affording em-
ployment and training to members of classes protected by
title VII.
The guidelines in this part are effective upon publication
in the Federal Register.
Signed at Wash'ngton, D.C., 21st day of July 1970.
[Seal] William H. Brown, ITI,
Chat man.
[F.R. Doc. 70-9962 ; Filed, July 31, 1970; 8:40 a.m.
App. 321
PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT NO. 29
Federal Register
Volume 33. - Number 186
Tuesday, September 24,1968 - Washington, D. C.
Part II
Department Of Labor
Office of the Secretary
Validation of Employment Tests by Contractors and
Subcontractors Subject to the Provisions of
Executive Order 11246
Department Of Labor
Office of the Secretary
Employment Tests By Contractors And Subcontractors
Validation
Validation of employment tests by contractors and subcon-
tractors subject to the provisions of Executive Order 11246.
1. General. (a) The following order regarding the use
of employment tests by contractors subject to the provisions
of Executive Order 11246 is being issued in response to
numerous requests for policy guidance by Government
agencies and by contractors.
(b) Two matters regarding selection procedures are of
foremost concern to the Government: (1) Recognizing the
importance of proper procedures in the utilization and con-
servation of human resources generally, and (2) pointing
out the possible adverse effects of improper procedures on
the utilization of minority group personnel.
App. 322
(c) The order is founded on the belief that properly
validated and stardardized tesis, by virtue of their relative
objectivity and freedom from the biases that are apt to
characterize more subjective evaluation techniques, can
contribute substantially to the implementation of equitable
and nondiscriminatory personnel policies. Moreover, pro-
fessionally developed tests, carefully used in conjunction
with other tools of personnel assessment and complemented
by sound programs of training and job design, can signifi-
cantly aid in the development and maintenance of an efficient
work force.
(d) An examination by the Office of Federal Contract
Compliance of compliance reviews of contractors has af-
firmed the increasing reliance on tests in the conduct of
personnel activities. In many cases contractors have come
to rely almost exclusively on tests as the basis for making
employment and promotion decisions, with candidates some-
times selected or rejected on the basis of a single test score.
The examination also disclosed that where employment tests
are so used, minority candidates frequently experience dis-
proportionately high rates of rejection through failing to
attain score levels that have been established as minimum
standards for qualification.
(e) The examination further suggests that there has
been a decided increase since 1963 in total test usage and a
particularly notable increase in the incidence of doubtful
testing practices which, experience indicates, tend to have
racially discriminatory effects. These findings are particu-
larly evident in testing programs related to blue-collar and
clerical job categories.
(f) It has become clear that in many instances con-
tractors are using tests to determine qualification for hire,
App. 323
transfer, or promotion without evidence that they are valid
indices of performance potential. Where evidence in support
of presumed relationships between test performance and
job behavior is lacking, the possibility of discrimination in
the application of test results must be recognized. A test
lacking validity (i.e., having no significant relationship to
job behavior) and yielding lower scores for minority can-
didates may resultantly reject many who have probabilities
of successful work performance equal to those of non-
minoi ity candidates.
(g) The order that follows, dealing with basic issues
of validity and fairness in those selection programs in which
blue-collar and clerical job categories are primarily in-
volved, was developed only after extensive discussions of
the many complex problems and technical considerations
with test experts and personnel management specialists from
both academia and industry. The provisions of the order
are designed to serve as a workable set of criteria for
agencies and contractors in determining whether or not
selection practices are in compliance with Executive Order
11246.
It is recognized that the tests used by the State Employ-
ment Agencies should be similarly validated, and it is ex-
pected that the U.S. Employment Service will expand, as
necessary, its test validation program for State Agencies.
It is also recognized that test usage, as well as test valid-
ity, must be reviewed to determine its effect on the employ-
ment of minorities. For example, a test may be suspect
when it is given in a language in which a significant num-
ber of minority applicants are not proficient and where
language proficiency itself is not a bona fide requirement
for the job. Similarly, a test or other qualification standard
should not be used in a situation involving the transfer or
App. 324
promotion of minority employees when such employees
would already have occupied the positions involved without
such qualifications were it not for past discriminatory
practices.
Specific directives concerning test usage will be issued
by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance within a
short time.
2. Evidence of validity. (a) It is directed that each
agency require each contractor regularly using tests to
select from among candidates for hire, transfer or promo-
tion to jobs other than professional, technical and mana-
gerial occupations (defined as occupational groups “0”
and “1” in the “Dictionary of Occupational Titles,” Third
Ed.) to have available for inspection, within a reasonable
time, evidence that the tests are valid for their intended
purposes. Such evidence shall be examined in compliance
reviews for indications of possible discrimination, such as
instances of higher rejection rates for minority candidates
than nonminority candidates.
(b) Evidence of a test’s validity should consist of em-
pirical data demonstrating that the test is predictive of or
significantly correlated with important elements of work
behavior comprising or relevant to the job(s) for which
candidates are being evaluated.
(1) If job progression structures and seniority provisions
are so established that a new employee will probably, within
a reasonable period of time and in a great majority of cases,
progress to a higher level, it may be considered that candi-
dates are being evaluated for jobs at that higher level.
However, where job progression is not so nearly auto-
matic, or the time span is such that higher level jobs may
be expected to change in significant ways, it shall be con-
App. 325
sidered that candidates are being evaluated for a job at or
near the entry level. In the latter case, it would be appro-
priate for a contractor to institute performance or other
tests as a condition of promotion provided such tests also
have been validated pursuant to the provisions of this order.
(2) Where a test is to be used in different units of a
multiunit organization and no significant differences exist
between units, jobs, and applicant populations, evidence ob-
tained in one unit may also suffice for the other. Similarly,
where the validation process requires the collection of data
throughout a multiunit organization, evidence of validity
specific to each unit may not be required.
3. Minimum standards for validation. For the purpose
of satisfying this order, empirical evidence in support of a
test’s validity must be based on studies employing generally
accepted procedures for determining criterion-related va-
lidity, such as those described in the American Psycholog-
ical Association’s “Standards for Education and Psycho-
logical Tests and Manuals.” (Evidence of content or con-
struct validity may also be appropriate where criterion-
related validity is not technically feasible, but it should be
accompanied by sufficient information from job analyses
to demonstrate the relevance of the content in the case of
job knowledge or proficiency tests or the construct in
the case of trait measures.) Although any appropriate
validation strategy may be used to develop such empirical
evidence, the following minimum standards must be met
by any approach used so far as applicable:
(1) Where a predictive validity study is conducted, the
sample of subjects must be representative of the normal or
typical candidate group for the job(s) in question. Where
a concurrent validity study is conducted, the sample should
App. 326
be, so far as technically feasible, representative of the
minority groups currently included in the candidate popu-
lation.
(2) Tests must be administered and scored under con-
trolled and standardized conditions, with proper safeguards
employed to protect the security of test scores and insure
that scores do not enter into any judgments of individual
adequacy that are to be used as criterion measures.
(3) The work behaviors or other criteria of employee
adequacy which the test is intended to predict or identify
must be fully described. Such criteria may include measures
other than actual work proficiency, such as training time,
supervisory ratings, regularity of attendance, and tenure.
In view of the possibility of bias inherent in subjective eval-
uations, supervisory rating techniques should be developed
carefully and the ratings themselves examined closely for
evidence of bias. Whatever criteria are used, however, they
should represent major or critical work behaviors as re-
vealed by careful job analyses.
(4) Presentations of the results of a validation study
must include graphical and statistical representations of
the relationships between the test and the criteria, permit-
ting judgments of the test’s utility in making predictions
of future work behavior.
(5) Data must be generated and results reported sepa-
rately for minority and nonminority groups wherever tech-
nically feasible.
* * *
6. Assumptions of validity. (a) Under no circumstances
will the general reputation of a test, its author or its pub-
lisher, or casual reports of test utility be accepted in lieu of
evidence of validity. Specifically ruled out are: assumptions
App. 327
of validity based on test names or descriptive labels, all
forms of promotional literature, data bearing on the fre-
quency of a test’s usage, testimonial statements of sellers or
users, and other nonempirically based and ancedotal ac-
counts of testing practices or testing outcomes.
(b) Although professional supervision of testing activ-
ities may help greatly to insure technically sound and non-
discriminatory test usage, such involvement alone shall not
be regarded as constituting satisfactory evidence of test
validity.
7. Continued use of tests. Under certain conditions, a
contractor may be permitted to continue the use of a test
which is not at the moment fully supported by the required
evidence of validity. If, for example, evidence of criterion-
related validity in a specific setting is technically feasible
and required but not yet obtained, the use of the test may
continue Provided: (a) The contractor can cite substantial
evidence of validity as described in section 5 above, and
(b) he has in progress, validation procedures which are
designed to produce, within a reasonable time, the addi-
tional data required. It is expected also that the contractor
will use cut-off scores which yield score ranges broad
enough to permit the identification of criterion-related va-
lidity.
8. Affirmative action. Nothing in this order shall be in-
terpreted as diminishing a contractor’s obligation to under-
take affirmative action to ensure that applicants and current
employees are treated without regard to race, creed, color
or national origin. Specifically the use of tests which have
been validated pursuant to this order does not relieve the
contractor of his obligation to take positive and affirmative
action in affording employment and training to minority
group personnel.
App. 328
9. Definition of “test.” For the purpose of this order,
“test” is defined as any paper-and-pencil or performance
measure used to judge qualifications for hire, transfer or
promotion. This definition includes, but is not restricted to,
measures of general intelligence, mental ability, and learn-
ing ability ; specific intellectual abilities ; mechanical, clerical
and other aptitudes; knowledge and proficiency; occupa-
tional and other interests; and personality or temperament.
* * *
> tae
App. 329
PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT NO. 32
Bryan Deposition
The following excerpts are offered in evidence by plain-
tiffs from the deposition of John E. Bryan, Jr., taken by
plaintiffs December 13, 14 and 15, 1967. Each excerpt is
preceded by a reference to the page of the transcript from
which it is taken. Questions are by plaintiffs’ counsel unless
otherwise noted.
{pEP. pp. 499-510]
© Want to explain your role? A_ Ah, it might help
you to understand it if I told you about the, what I was
told about the history of it, because this affected my role in
what I did subsequent to my coming here.
© In addition to the role that you played at Albemarle?
A All right, ah, Bill Warren told me that ah, in about ’55,
"56, just prior to the installation of the number four paper
machine, which is the largest capacity paper machine, most
modern that we have, that, ah, in conjunction with others
in the plant management, he was asked to develop a testing
program to get better qualified personnel to man this ma-
chine when it went into operation. They had tried to get,
ah, better qualified people when number three machine was
installed, another large modern paper machine, a few years
earlier and, ah, had tried to hire those from outside ah, that
had a high school education, but it had not ah, worked out
satisfactorily ; some of them even with a high school educa-
tion didn’t succeed and ah,—and either quit, were let go, or
downgraded or what not, and they didn’t make it on the
machine, so they wanted to avoid this and Bill proceeded to
discuss with other people in the company the possibility of
App. 330
a testing program and to conduct a validation study. He
had, ah, at that time a Master degree in Psychology from
Purdue, and had specialized in this area. So, that he did an
extensive validation study on the Beta and the Bennett
Mechanical Comprehension test. He validated it, ah,
against the performance of the incumbent employees at the
time. He told me how he did that and so forth. Ah, from
that time on, for positions on the general extra board and the
Lines of Progression that led from that, they used the
Beta and the Bennett Mechanical Comprehension, and for
selection for the maintenance apprentice program when
it was started a few years later. He found in his validation
study that there was a significant correlation between the
scores on Beta and performance on the job, and as a result
of the statistical calculation you go through in validating
tests, he established a cut-off score of, ah, a hundred on the
Beta, now, I don’t recall the scores in regard to the Ben-
netts, but, ah, they continued to use that then not only as
for selecting people for the number four machine, but also
as a pre-employment test from that time on, the Beta, and
they were using Bennett Mechanical Comprehension. Now,
after I came here, they used it to test and I talked to Bill
Warren about it, and Bill at that time was manager of Labor
Relations in Richmond. He was still with the company, and
he told me, or I told him, ah, I just happened to mention
one day that, ah, we were using a certain score which I
don’t recall, as cut off on the Bennett for selection of new
employees, and ah, he said, “You mean that you're, ah,
you're disqualifying people if they don’t make that score?”
And I said, “Yes, this is what they were doing when I got
here, and I thought that was what you had established.”
Well. it turned out that Bill said that he did not find what
he considered to be a significant enough correlation between
App. 331
ah, the scores on the Bennett, and performance on the job,
even though it had a high face validity, and, ah, he thought
that, ah, since he left down here that they were only using
it as a guide to, ah, selection without any cut-off score, with-
out disqualifying anybody as a result, but when I found that
out, I suppose several of us were probably concerned about
it and we decided, ah, that we should not even use it at all
since its, ah, validity had not been established, in fact, it
had, ah, ah, I believe Bill said somewhat of a negative cor-
relation, so, we quit using the Bennett at that time.
© What possible way do you use this Mr. Bryan? A
That would have been, uh, probably in the latter part of
1963, and from my knowledge of tests that I acquired in
studying psychology, I am very familiar or well, I won't
say very familiar, I was familiar with the Beta, I had not
ever used it before, but I had studied its origin and de-
velopment, and usage and knew that it was a nonverbal in-
telligence test. And I recommended and it was agreed by
the local management that we should start using a Verbal
Intelligence Test, as well as the Beta; we wanted to keep
using the Beta because it had been validated locally, and I
had had experience with using the Wonderlic before, which
is a short form Verbal Intelligence Test, and knew that it
had, uh, probably more validation studies behind it than
any other short form Verbal Intelligence Test. So, after
consultation we decided to institute the Wonderlic, in addi-
tion to the Beta, in view of the fact that the mill had changed
quite a bit and it had become exceedingly more complex in
operation; whereas in early years the person who was in-
telligent but had very little Verbal facilities acquired
through formal education could, uh, perform satisfactorily
on a lot of the jobs, uh, there were very few jobs and getting
to be fewer and fewer jobs, in which this was possible, and
App. 332
we needed people that were not only intelligent, but had a
certain amount of, uh, intelligence and, uh, verbal facilities
and this sort of thing to do more and more jobs, so, we
felt, uh, in view of the fact that it is theoretically possible
on the Beta to make a high score, uh, if you are illiterate,
this was not the type of person that we needed today, to
perform a good many skilled jobs, so, we instituted the
Wonderlic and we did not, uh, validate it, uh, locally, pri-
marily, because of the, the expense of conducting such a
validation, and there were some other considerations, such
as, uh, we didn’t know whether we would get the co-opera-
tion of the employees that we’d need to validate it against
in taking the test, and we certainly have to have that, so,
we used National Norms and on my suggestion after study
of the Wonderlic and Norms had been established na-
tionally for skilled jobs, we developed a, uh, cut-off score of
eighteen (18).
© Now on the basis of this strike back, you said that
uh, Mr. Warren told you that the Beta had been validated.
Did he tell you what the validation process consisted of ?
A Yes.
© Would you explain to me what he told you? A
Yes sir, uh, he uh, took uh, people already employed in the
plant, in skilled jobs such as, uh, on number three machine.
© With the plant, I mean with the Roanoke Rapids fa-
cility? A Yes, this all pertains to Roanoke Rapids, part
of the number three machine, and he took maintenance men,
among others, and, uh, I’m sure, I think he may have taken,
uh, pulp mill personnel and perhaps some from the wood
yard, but the idea was to get people in the skilled jobs, and
he explained what he was trying to do to these people and
I think he said that he asked cooperation of the Union in
App. 333
urging them to cooperate in the taking of the test. They were
given the test on company time. Then he asked the super-
visors over these individuals to use a rank order method of,
uh, comparison in which the supervisor was given a deck of
cards that had these people that he, with whom he was
familiar with, or that he was familiar with their work he
had supervised, and he was asked to rank them in order
of, uh, his evaluation of their performance on skilled jobs
if they were in the higher skilled jobs in the Line of Pro-
gression or if they had not progressed that far, what he
thought their potential was to perform when they got to
those skilled jobs. They ranked them and this was, uh, I
believe, uh, I’m not sure, I think Bill even, uh, ran these
through the computer to get them tabulated and to get a
rank order comparison with their test scores. He did end
up with a comparison between the ranking by the super-
visor and the test scores that they made and this is how he
developed the, uh, fact that there was a high correlation
between score on the Beta and the ranking by the super-
visors, and he had as many supervisors evaluate an indi-
vidual as had sufficient knowledge of that individual’s per-
formance, for instance, uh, he’d have the first line super-
visor evaluate the individual and then the next line super-
visor would also evaluate the individual and in that way you
got four tour foreman and these people had worked under
different ones over the years so he would have each one
evaluate the people they knew, so that he could get more
than one supervisor’s evaluation.
© Would the, did you get Mr. Warren to tell you that
the validation study was conducted only as to the skilled
personnel? A_ Yes, that is correct.
Q Did Mr. Warren tell you that the sample that he used
App. 334
included both Negro and white employment? A _ Uh, no,
uh, matter of fact, uh, we didn’t discuss race at all.
© Youdidn’t discuss raceatall? A Uh huh.
© At the time that you were Personnel Manager, Mr.
Byran, do you know whether they had Negroes in the skilled
Lines of Progression? A Well, at the time that I came
here I don’t recall there being any, in, uh, the skilled Lines
of Progression. Since I have been in that job and my pres-
ent job, there have been a number who have entered the
skilled Lines of Progression.
© Did Mr. Warren tell you that the validation study,
tell you how long a period of time to make the validation
study? A_ I don't recall him telling me specifically, but
from all that he went through, I gathered that it took an
amount of weeks or maybe it might have even taken a
month or so, and he might have, it seems to me that, uh,
it’s perhaps possible that he, uh, he ran the study with maybe
the paper machine crew on one occasion and maybe the
maintenance department, uh, a little later. I vaguely recall
something to that effect.
© Did Mr. Warren tell you that the validation study
had been reduced to writing? A Well, uh, not exactly.
In that he had not written the whole thing up, uh, in what
you might do if you were doing it for purposes of a thesis,
let’s say, and uh, he did have some records of uh, the test
scores and rankings of individual employees, but that he had
uh, he had not uh, written upa synopsis of it.
© Did you read any written materials relating to the
validation studies before you made your recommendations
fora Verbal Test? A What do you mean by that?
App. 335
Q Uh, I’m asking you that, I’m asking you if you read
any reports, written reports or concerning the validation of
the Beta Examination? Whether it was a complete report
of a partial report of fragments before you made the
recommendations for the institution of the Verbal Test.
A If you mean, did I, uh, read and uh, books on tests and
measurements about—
Q No. A_ About the Beta?
Q What I'm asking is, you said that Mr. Warren con-
ducted a validation test fromthe Beta. A _ Yes sir.
© And you say you don’t know whether he did a full
written report of the validational studies. A I don’t
think he did.
© He may have made fragmentary notations? A
Yes.
Q Et cetera. I’m asking you if you read any of any-
thing in writing relation to the validational study conducted
by Mr. Warren before you made your recommendations
for the Verbal Test? A_ I don’t recall reading anything,
because as I say, he didn’t have a report, he and I just dis-
cussed the thing, uh, orally, and he told me what he had
done and what the results were and this sort of thing, uh,
and I don’t know whether he showed me at that time or
whether I saw it later, but I have seen at some time names
of people and the scores that they made and uh, that served
as a background for his putting these things together.
© Now you stated that you did have some experience
with the Wonderlic. A _ Yes sir.
© Was this one of the reasons why you recommended
the Wonderlic’s use? What experience did you have with it ?
App. 336
A Of course, I first encountered the Wonderlic in college
and courses on tests and measurement and uh, uh, studied
it there and studied, uh, the material that had been de-
veloped about its validation and use and this sort of thing
and, uh, I’ve taken the Wonderlic myself, on I don’t know
how many occasions in the, in terms of applying for jobs
with other companies. Then, uh, uh, with, I think uh, with
two previous employers uh, we used the Wonderlic.
* * *
App. 337
PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT NO. 36A
Boinest Deposition
The following excerpts are offered in evidence by plain-
tiffs from the deposition of M. Lebby Boinest, Jr., taken
by plaintiffs March 12 and 13, 1968. Each excerpt is pre-
ceded by a reference to the page of transcript from which
it is taken. Questions are by Plaintiffs’ Counsel unless
otherwise noted.
[DEP. P. 26]
Q What is your occupation? A _ I am vice-president
of the Kraft Paper Division of Albemarle Paper Company.
* * *
[DEP. Pp. 27]
Q Did you hold a position with the company prior to
becoming manager of the grocery bag plant? <A _ I did.
Q What position was that? A Paper Mill superin-
tendent of the Roanoke Rapids Operation.
© How long did you hold that position? A About
13 years.
[ DEP. PP. 33-34]
Q Now you indicated that the B Paper Mill was opened
after you went with the plant in 1952. Do you recall the
approximate year that the B Paper Mill was opened? A
The first part of the B Paper Mill went into operation on
January 23, 1953.
Q When that mill was opened, you had the responsibil-
ity for supervising that department also? A _ I did.
App. 338
Q You had the responsibility for securing employees
for that department? A No.
Q Did you discuss with the personnel manager the staf-
fing of the B Paper Mill? A Obviously.
Q Would you state the procedure you followed in staf-
fing that department? A Well, let’s see how much of it
I can recall. We transferred some skilled people in certain
paper machine Lines of Progression in our mills, in our
Richmond mill, and from our Roanoke Rapids mill some of
these boys were transferred to the new operation. Others
were hired from competitive mills to fill the upper echelons
of the Lines of Progression, Machine Tenders, Back Tend-
ers, et cetera.
Beyond that, we transferred a number of people, I don’t
know how many, from other segments of the mill at Roa-
noke Rapids, and we employed the remaining persons from
the local available labor force in the Roanoke Rapids area.
Again I can’t specifically say how many.
a
[pEP. P. 36]
Q Do you recall, Mr. Boinest, when you instituted test-
ing at the Albemarle Paper Plant in Roanoke Rapids? A
My memory is that it was sometime around 1955 or 1956.
I can’t be specific.
Q Do you recall, Mr. Boinest, when you instituted the
requirement of a high school education at the Paper Plant
in Roanoke Rapids? A _ It was sometime prior to the
startup of No. 3 machine.
Q Would you explain what No. 2 machine is? A
That was the beginning of the B Paper Mill. Excuse me.
* * *
App. 339
[ DEP. PP. 42-49]
Q Did you play a part in the determination to require
the passing of a test for employment? A Well, I don’t
know how to interpret exactly what you mean by play a
part. I was involved in a general decision on the part of
the mill management to institute a testing program. That
stemmed from the fact that we had not had in our judg-
ment particularly good selection of experienced persons at
the time of start-up of the No. 3 Paper Machine.
At the time the testing was talked about and at the time
it was instituted, the company was already making plans
for the installation of a second machine at Roanoke Rapids,
which was going to require another fairly comprehensive
staffing job in terms of people and skills, and we wanted
to do, in fact, we had to do a better job in staffing the second
machine than we had done in the case of the first one. In a
fair amount of discussion it became apparent that we should
have something beyond the stipulation of a high school
education as a condition for employment in order to get
people who could adequately staff the jobs and who had the
capabilities to move up the Lines of Progression to the top
jobs or, in the case of Paper Machines, the Machine Tend-
ers, and it was on that basis that the desire was held on the
part of the management to implement some sort of testing
program which would be a better guide than the present
one that we had, which was the high school education.
To that extent I was involved.
Q_ I was going to ask what your involvement was in the
company’s determination for a test. A Well, I will try
to reconstruct this as best I can recall it.
Q I just want to know exactly what youdid. A_ I dis-
cussed with the personnel manager and the management of
the mill the desirability of instituting a testing program
App. 340
to give the mill a better selection of employees to staff the
operations, which was in the planning stage at that point.
Q Did you play a part in the selection of a test? A
I did not. I am not a testing expert. I know nothing about
the details of tests.
Q Do you know how the company proceeded to select
the tests? A_ I believe at that point in time Mr. Warren
was the personnel manager. He had some considerable back-
ground in testing and in testing procedures, and I believe
that a fair amount of the groundwork, specifically as it in-
volved the tests which were later put into effect, was his
judgment and recommendation.
© Do you recall the first test that was instituted by the
company, the name of the test? A I donot.
© Do you recall whether the employees in the B
Paper Mill, Paper Machine Line of Progression, were
required to go back and take the tests? A Inthe B Paper-
Mill Line of Progression?
Q Yes. A _ Prior to the institution of the tests on a
regular basis, is that your question ?
Q No, at the time you instituted the tests you had al-
ready opened the B Paper Mill Department? A That’s
right.
Q Did you require the employees at the B Paper Mill,
Paper Machine Line of Progression, to take the tests? A
We did not require it. Actually in an effort to validate the
tests which were used we had to have some yardstick in
which to determine whether the tests that we were going
to consider using had any validity in terms of the types of
things we were looking for.
We had an agreement with the union on a volunteer
App. 341
basis that the members of the B Paper Mill crew would take
the test in an effort to establish a cut-off point, if you will,
or a validation of the two pieces, as I recall, of the tests,
to be used as a guideline for subsequent validation of the
tests and implementation of it as a requirement of pre-
employment in that Line of Progression.
Q Now do you know the procedure that you followed
im trying to validate the tests? A Well, I could tell you
what I know about it. What was done by agreement be-
tween the company and the union on a volunteer basis as I
recall, every member of the B Paper Mill Lines of Pro-
. gression, the Paper Machine and the Stock Room agreed
on a voluntary basis to take the tests that was being pro-
posed on the condition that the scores of individuals would
not be identified to supervision and that in no case would
the results of the tests be detrimental to the position of any-
body who agreed to take the tests on a voluntary basis.
The test was conducted by the personne! department on
a group basis, shift by shift. The paper, answer sheets or
whatever was involved in it were taken by the personnel
manager. The things were graded and those numbers were
never knowledge to anyone in supervision in the mill. It
was done on a voluntary, cooperative basis between the
company and the union.
© And you are stating that the employees in the B
Paper Mill participated in the testing? A That was the
group which we were trying to establish qualifications for,
so that was the logical group to take the tests.
Q Did the employees in the A Paper Mill take the test?
A They did not.
Q Did the employees in Wood Yard Department take
thetest? A Ido not know.
App. 342
Q Did the employees in the Boiler Room Department
take the test? A I don’t know.
Q Did the employees in the Pulp Mill Department take
thetest? A I donot know.
© The only employees taking the test were the em-
ployees in the B Paper Mill? A That was the only one I
was interested in.
OQ Did any negro take the test? A So far as I am
concerned at that point in time they did not, since none of
them were in that Line of Progression.
QI believe you stated you were giving the test, a vol-
untary test, to select the score or the cut-off score to the
employees of the B Paper Mill? A _ It was an attempt to
validate these two tests, whatever they were. It was to
determine what would be an acceptable level in light of
employees on their jobs and their relative performance on
those jobs.
Q How did you select the cut-off scores? A_ I don’t
know that.
Q All you know you gave the employees the test in the
B Paper Mill? A That’s right.
OQ You don’t know how the cut-off score was selected?
A We had already agreed we would not know the score,
and | did not know the score of anyone who took it, nor
did anyone under my supervision. That was a part of the
agreement.
© Did you know or did you subsequently learn the
cut-off score? A Idid not.
QO Do you know presently the cut-off score? A I
do not.
App. 343
© You don’t know how then you selected the cut-off
score? All that you know is that you had these employees
take these tests? A That’s right.
Q You indicated that you considered the job perform-
ance of theemployees? A_ Right.
© How did you consider the job performance of the
employees? A The job performance of each individual
employee within the crew was evaluated, and I can say
this was a subjective judgment as to how he performed the
job which he was occupying. In most of the cases, because
we had rotation of people across shifts within the paper
mill group, we had more than one supervisor within the
B Paper Mill who would be conversant with the perform-
ance of each employee on his shift. That was not true in
all cases, but in most cases it was true.
We did, in fact, have each first line supervisor or fore-
man, together with the assistant superintendent and myself,
who had direct first hand knowledge of performance of in-
dividuals’ job performance, and their ability to progress
up the Line of Progression, and this was supplied to the
personnel department, I assume, for a comparison of scores.
Q Did you have any written standards or criterions
for evaluation of job performances? A We did not.
© Did you pass personally on the job performance on
each individual who took the test? A No, not directly.
I was sufficiently far removed that I couldn’t. I was not
capable of making a first hand judgment of every employee.
Q And each supervisor or foreman made his own de-
termination of a job performance of an individual? A
Yes.
Q And you stated this was subjective? It had to be?
A Noother basis.
App. 344
Q And you state further that only white employees were
tested and evaluated in their job performance? A Only
incumbents in the job were tested.
* * *
| pEP. pp. 50-51]
Q You indicated that you felt that the high school
education was not the best determinant of job performance.
Do you recall why the company continued to use a high
school education or a test? A Well, I will go back and
qualify what I said about a high school education. The
complexities of jobs in some of these Lines of Progression
that we are talking about are such that the company was
convinced that a high school education was a starting
point, and it was a necessity in terms of an individual being
capable or qualified to get to the top of the Lines of Pro-
gression that a high school diploma was a beginning point,
and that was a minimum.
Now there were some high school graduates whom [|
suspect, I know there were some high school graduates who
didn’t have the capability to do these jobs either, who didn’t
have the inate ability to acquire the knowledge necessary
to staff some of these jobs higher up in the Lines of Pro-
gression.
It isn’t an indictment of the people. It’s the facts of
life, and in a broad spectrum basis a high school education
per se doesn’t qualify people to be skilled paper machine
operators, so the company felt it was necessary to go be-
yond that in an effort to adequately staff the operation, and
that was what was done. That was why we went beyond,
pure and simply, the high school education requirement.
Q My question, however, is why you continued to ac-
cept a high school education or a test score? A Iam not
—_
App. 345
aware that we did. At the time we are talking about we
required a high school education and a test.
* * *
[DEP. PP. 53-54]
Q So you do not know of a comparison of any others
who were not required to take the test and the ones that
took the test in the B Paper Mill, Paper Machine Line of
Progression, A _ All I can say is, high school education
good or bad, we had a far better crew on the second paper
machine than we did on the first. For what reason, I don’t
know, but the performance and skills of the people on
that machine in operating practice, the record will clearly
indicate that the performance of the operation was ex-
tremely better.
. Se
Q Now did you at any time make any correlation be-
tween what you describe as the better performance when
the new machine opened up in the B Paper Mill and the
test score? A_ I told you I did not.
* * *
[pEP. PP. 60-61 |
© How do you go about promoting efficiency in pro-
duction at the Albemarle Paper Plant in Roanoke Rapids?
A Well, I would say you put together the best possible
management personnel. You staff the operations with the
best available work force, and you provide them with the
best tools which your money allows you to acquire. You put
those tools and people together and attempt to manage
them on an as efficient basis as your knowledge allows
you to do.
* * *
App. 346
{pip. PP. 68-80]
By Mr. Lowden: Cross Examination
Q What changes were made in the mill in the early
1950s? A Well, in terms of equipment, when I went to
Roanoke Rapids in 1952, the mill as I recall had a pro-
ductive capability of about 300 tons a day of pulp and
approximately 50 tons a day of paper from the two small
paper machines. With the disparity between pulp and
paper production being consumed in the Richmond opera-
tion, which we shipped pulp to, in 1952, when I went to
Roanoke Rapids, that was the situation.
In 1953 we started up the B Paper Mill in terms of the
No. 3 Paper Machine which was a production unit capable
of 200 to 250 tons of production a day, and we had es-
sentially installed about 6 million 500 thousand dollars of
equipment to produce this paper.
We obviously had to build up the productive capabilities
of the pulp mill in order to sustain production for the three
paper machines there and three in Richmond, for which we
had to still produce pulp; so there were rather broad changes
in the plant actually.
There was a substantial investment and a lot of new
equipment, a lot of sophisticated equipment which was
new and different to us, new and different to the industry.
The technology of the pulp and paper industry at that
point was moving ahead as rapidly as within any 5 or 6 year
history of the industry, so the mill in terms of equipment
and in terms of jobs and in terms of opportunities changed
substantially during the early 1950s.
* * *
© It was at that time that you instituted the require-
ment of a high school education? A The technology of
—
App. 347
the industry having moved, the demands of the skills were
changing drastically. People who could operate what I
would chose to call horse-and-buggy type of operations
could no longer do those types of things. In the Paper
Machine, for example, a Paper Machine producing 10 or
15 tons a day is a small, slow-moving installation. It doesn’t
require the knowledge, the skills to the same degree that
are attendant to a machine which is moving at speeds of
1,500-1,800 feet a minute, which a man can no longer
depend on his eyesight, on his feel for the job, but he rather
must rely on what has now become substantially sophisti-
cated technical pieces of equipment in order to staff the jobs
and man it, so the requirements for skills at this time
changed just as did the hardware.
© The No. 3 Paper Machine, at the time that you
staffed that, would you go over again just how you went
about doing that? A No.3 Machine?
Q No.3 Machine, yes. A _ Inthe staffing of the No. 3
Machine, we took an inventory essentially of the skills and
the people which we had in the Albemarle organization, both
in Roanoke Rapids and in Richmond. We determined that
we had a small nucleus of people who were performing in
the A Paper Mill at Roanoke Rapids who had a capability
in our judgment to perform certain jobs in the B Paper
Mill.
For instance, a man who had been a machine tender,
the top man in the line in the No. 1 paper machine, I
remember specifically was transferred to the B Paper Mill
as a back tender on the No. 3 machine, one step down the
line in terms of progression, but in our judgment had the
ability to learn that job and ultimately to progress to the
top job on that line. He did exactly that, that particular
individual.
App. 348
In the course of the thing we determined that we had a
limited number of people who had these abilities in the
Roanoke Rapids plant. We then looked to the Richmond
operation and we transferred some 6 or 7 out of the
Browns’ Island and Hollywood operation to Roanoke Rapids
to similar jobs on the No. 3 paper machine.
We still didn’t have enough skills to staff a machine. We
went out into the industry where these other skills were,
and we hired people, I testified earlier, as far away as
Antioch, California, and we hired one or two people from
the Union-Camp plant at Franklin, Virginia and we hired
one from a plant at Mobile, Alabama and from the plant
in Pensacola, Florida, specifically qualified skilled people to
fit into these lines in the upper echelons.
Having done that, we then made available the remaining
openings to other people within the Roanoke Rapids plant
on a basis that they could request transfer and, if they,
in the judgment of the company, were capable of filling
these lower jobs and then progressing up the line, then we
considered those for those jobs.
Having done all that, we still didn’t have enough, and
we then went to the outside and we stipulated that these
people must have high school educations.
© Now I believe you testified that as a result of the
experience in staffing the No. 3 machine, you were dissatis-
fied with the method of selecting people? A Well, I don’t
know that I could agree that we were dissatisfied. We were
less than pleased with the results.
Q Allright, can you explain that a little more in detail ?
A Well, some of our judgments as to peoples’ ability to
progress along the Line of Progression simply didn’t pan
out. People who we thought had the capabilities to move
App. 349
ahead and learn the jobs in an orderly sequence simply dem-
onstrated by their performance they did not have this abil-
ity, and those that had transferred from other departments,
some were actual transferred back to the department from
which they had originally come, and others were eliminated
through just normal attrition.
There were some people we hired from the outside new
to the operation, from a physical standpoint, from an in-
terest standpoint, despite the fact that they were high school
graduates, it simply wasn’t their cup of tea and didn’t
want to do this kind of work and did not perform well. I
wouldn’t say we were completely dissatisfied, but we were
less than pleased with the way it came out.
Q Then, if I understood you, the next step in between
the time you had the staffing of the No. 3 Paper Machine
and before you began staffing the No. 4 Paper Machine the
tests were instituted for people who were going to come
to the No.4 machine? A _ This is correct. We were seek-
ing some measure, some yardstick. I guess we could argue
about whether it was a good yardstick or a bad one, but it
was a yardstick available to us which we thought was
better than what we had been using, and we implemented the
testing procedure which has been talked about before, purely
and simply, to attempt to change the direction of our ex-
perience relative to the first machine, hopefully, to not have
the mortality rate among people who came on to the job.
It certainly doesn’t work to the company’s benefit or to
the people either to put them in jobs which they are not
qualified to do.
© Turning your attention to the Lines of Progression,
not specifically these, but the ones that were in existence,
in practice say in 1952, were these lines in your opinion
established on the basis of the racial characteristics of the
App. 350
people or were there other reasons for the development of
those Lines of Progression? A In my judgment there
was never any conscious attempt to look at Lines of Pro-
gression within the framework of race at all. You must
understand that the problems attendant to the operation of
a pulp and paper mill and its complexities require that you
have an orderly evolution and an orderly training program,
and most of our training must be done on the job.
We must have a device by which we can move people
along the progression from the lower jobs to the higher
ones and they must have an opportunity to be trained in
the course of doing this. This is the reason for the Lines of
Progression.
They have no basis in race as far as I am concerned or
that I am aware of, and as far as I am personally con-
cerned, whenever these things were started, whether 1952,
1954, as far as I am concerned none of these Lines had
any basis for saying that these people go in this Line of
Progression or this job because they are negroes or because
they are whites. They were put in these Lines of Progres-
sion and moved along this way because in the opinion of
the management of the company they had the ability to
perform this job or that job and they had the capabilities to
move from this job to that job, and I am bound to say at this
time some of this had to be subjective. It didn’t have a
genesis in race.
* * *
By Mr. Chambers: Redirect Examination
Q With going right back to what you just said in
your denial of consideration of race and establishment of
Lines of Progression, the company has submitted in its
answers to interrogatories, and I would like for you to
App. 351
explain why you have only Negro employees in the Service
Line of Progression in the Wood Yard Department? A
Mr. Chambers, I think it is important that we understand
what, at least, what I understand and other people have
testified in this case, I understand. We are working with a
group of people primarily in the Roanoke Rapids general
geographical location. Some are Negroes; some are whites.
Within the framework of that group of people down there
we have people who have historically, conceivably been
denied opportunities for education and these sorts of things,
which I am perfectly willing to agree have happened. I
don’t feel that this company can be held 100 percent ac-
countable for the fact that these people have not in all cases
gotten an education or been denied an education or had a
desire to get an education or a desire to equip themselves
to accept jobs requiring certain skills in our industry, or
in anybody else’s industry.
The facts of the case are we have to work with what is
there. The Negro population in the Roanoke Rapids area,
by and large, does not have from an educational standpoint
in many cases, in most cases, in the majority of the cases in
the Roanoke Rapids area sufficient educational qualifications
to meet the job requirements of many of these jobs in the
Lines of Progression.
They do have the qualifications and ability to do some of
these jobs, and I think the records at our mill at Roanoke
Rapids will clearly suggest that there have been oppor-
tunities for these people of limited background, which I
cannot criticize them for, and I don’t think this is a result
as far as their own efforts are concerned that they haven’t
gotten these things, but the fact is these things exist, and
that is what we have to work with. These people have
filled the jobs and have done the jobs which they were cap-
App. 352
able of doing, which their qualifications equip them to do,
and I don’t suggest to you, sir, for one minute that these
happened to be because they were negroes or because they
were whites. There are white people in that mill who don’t
have these capabilities or qualifications either.
QO At one point there, will you explain why they are in
different Lines of Progression, the whites who do not have
the capabilities or qualifications? A I think this is the
more of the times which we find ourselves. Certain jobs
have been considered within this plant negro jobs over the
years, going way back prior to my going there and, as such,
the social mores of the society said these are negro jobs,
and we couldn’t get white people to fill those jobs. I am not
suggesting that it is right or wrong. I am suggesting only
that that is a fact of life. That is something that has oc-
curred, right or wrong, which I submit we are not, cannot
be held liable for that.
Q You are admitting then that you did have negro
jobs and white jobs at the Roanoke Rapids plant? A_ I
am suggesting that we had Lines of Progression which
happened to evolve in completely or predominantly the
negro on the one hand and completely or predominantly the
white on the other. | submit this evolution did not have
the genesis in race per se.
Q Then you are speaking from your knowledge of how
they had their evolution? A_ I can only speak from the
point that I have direct knowledge, and that is from my
experience in the mill this is the way it evolved.
Q Are you stating that all negroes at your plant are
incapable of filling jobs which are filled predominantly by
whites? A _ I did not say that or infer it.
App. 353
Q Would you say that in your Yard Crew Department
you have no negroes in the Wood Yard Department who
can perform one of those job positions, and even including
the top position ?
Mr. Lowden: Top position of what ?
Q Yard Crew Line of Progression? A Are you say-
ing that none of these negroes in this line could perform
in these lines ? Is that your question ?
Q That is correct. A _ I can’t testify to that. I don’t
know.
Q You made a statement just a moment ago that in
your experience in the Roanoke Rapids area the negroes
were incapable of performing the jobs that are predom-
inantly filled with whites? A_ I didn’t say that, I don’t
think.
Q Are you saying that? A No, I don’t say that.
Q Are yau saying that there are no negroes employed
at your plant which were capable of performing jobs that
are filled predominantly by whites? A I suspect that
there are some.
Q Then can you explain why they are not in the white
Line of Progression? A _ I can only surmise.
Q Would you give us your reasoning or opinion on
that? A_ I would suggest that they haven’t indicated an
interest in being in those Lines of Progression.
Q Is it your testimony now that the negro employees
have not indicated an interest in the Yard Crew Line of
Progression and that is why they are not in the line? A
I cannot testify direct to that, but I can tell you in terms of
B Paper Mill, which I am thoroughly familiar with and
App. 354
have been for a number of years, that this line was from
1953 to this date, so far as I know, staffed almost com-
pletely with transfers from other departments.
Q Weare going to come to that, but first of all with
the Wood Yard Department, in your general statement in
answer to Mr. Lowden that you do not think that your
Lines of Progression were racially oriented— A _ I do
not think that.
Q I was trying to get the basis of your opinion and
trying to get some explanation for negro Lines of Pro-
gression and white Lines of Progression, which I think
your previous testimony indicated existed at the Roanoke
Rapids plant. A Well, again I don’t know how to testify
specifically to the qualifications of any individual employees
in the Lines of Progression in the Wood Yard Department.
Q Then your answer to Mr. Lowden’s question has to
be taken with that qualification; is that correct? A In
response to Mr. Lowden’s question I was not attempting
to recite specific cases relative to individual jobs within
any department of the mill. I was attempting to respond to
his questions within the general framework of what I
believed to be the genesis and the evolution of the Lines of
Progression as presently existing in Roanoke Rapids.
App. 355
PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT NO. 58
Moody Deposition
The following excerpts are offered in evidence by plain-
tiffs from the deposition of Joseph P. Moody, taken by
defendants November 9, 1966. Each excerpt is preceded
by a reference to the page of the transcript from which it
is taken. Questions are by Defendant Albemarle Counsel
unless otherwise noted.
[ DEP. P. 4]
© Would you state your name, please? A _ Joe P.
Moody.
[ DEP. PP. 6-7]
By Mr. Chambers:
Q Before you began working for Albemarle Paper
Company, did you work for any other employer? A_ Yes,
I used to work for the city.
© What city would that be? A Roanoke Rapids City.
© What type of work did you do there? A _ I used
to clean up aside of the streets, clean up leaves, help pour
cement—anything like that.
© Did you ever work for anyone else? A Well, I
used to farm—practically all my life—raised up on the farm
—cut a little pulpwood.
Q Who was youremployer? A Farming, you mean?
Q Yes. A_ I farmed some for Mr. Hubert Floyd.
He’s dead now. After I stopped farming, I went to the pulp-
wood—cut a little pulpwood for Mr. Biddy Shaw. Then,
App. 356
I left there and went to the city and then after I left the
city, I got a job with Rust Engineers down here on this
No. 3 mill at Albemarle Paper Company. After I left
there, Mr. Buster Seay, Personnel Manager at Albemarle
Paper Company, he was up on the yard one day and I asked
him about a job. He told me to come over next morning—_
“see about staring you to work.”
* * *
[pDEP. PP. 47-48]
Q What type oi education do you have, Mr. Moody?
How many grades did you attend school? A Well, I
started to go to school, never got out of the primer.
Q In which grade did you finish your education? A
I never go none much.
Q Did you ever finish the first grade? A No, I did
not.
© Have you taken any courses since you have been
working for Albemarle Paper Company—correspondence
courses, night courses or any type of courses—to improve
yourself? A No, I have thought about going to school
a couple of times but all my knowledge of the (I am not
bragging, hope people don’t think I is bragging on the little
understanding I is got) that my understanding that what
I received come from the Man above. He and I deals a lot
together and He shows me which way to go.
* * *
App. 357
PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT NO. 60
Hill Deposition
The following excerpts are offered in evidence by plain-
tiffs from the deposition of Henry Hill, taken by.defendants
November 9, 1966. Each excerpt is preceded by a reference
to the page of the transcript from which it is taken. Ques-
tions are by Defendant Albemarle counsel unless otherwise
noted.
[peEp. Pp. 108]
Q State your name, please. A Henry Hill.
x * *
[pEP. Pp. 113]
By Mr. Chambers:
We would like to tender an objection for the reason
that the witness has the same problem that your former
witness had. He cannot read.
* * *
App. 358
PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT NO. 61
Mitchell Deposition
The following excerpts are offered in evidence by plain-
tiffs from the deposition ot Arthur Mitchell, taken by de-
fendants November 9, 1966. Each excerpt is preceded by
a reference to the page of the transcript from which it is
taken. Questions are by Defendant Albemarle counsel un-
less otherwise noted.
[pEP. p. 125]
* * *
© Will you state your name, please? A My name is
Arthur Mitchell.
[pEP. p. 127]
© In what manner do you believe the company is dis-
criminating against you? A Well, what I think about it,
I work all them many years there, and that is all you might
say I know how to do, and they take me out of there and
put me in a different place doing something I can’t do. That
is the part I don’t think was right.
* * *
[pEP. Pp. 132]
A Well, they didn’t never call me no more. After they
told me then, didn’t never call me for to take no tests.
* * *
App. 359
PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT NO. 62
Katzell Deposition
The following excerpts are offered in evidence by plain-
tiffs from the deposition of Raymond A. Katzell, taken by
Defendant May 21, 1969. Each exceprt is preceded by a
reference to the page of the transcript from which it is
taken. Questions are by Defendant Albemarle Counsel un-
less otherwise noted.
[pDEP. PP. 2-8]
Being first duly sworn, was examined and testified as
follows:
Examination by Mr. Lowden:
Q Dr. Katzell, would you please state your name and
address for the record, please? A Raymond A. Katzell,
1 Barry Drive, Glen Cove, New York.
© Your present occupation? A _ Iam a psychologist.
© Are you connected with New York University? A
Yes. I am Professor of Psychology and head of the Depart-
ment of Psychology at New York University.
() Doetor, this case involves a charge by certain Negro
employees at the Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina, paper
mill, the Albemarle Paper Company, and the case has been
going on for some time. And we asked the plaintiffs some
depositions, one of which was: state the names of people
who have knowledge of the case, amd ™ answer to that they
did not include your name, but ine! ded Mr. Richard Bar-
rett. But we were subsequently told Ut should have been
yo. So that—in order to shorten this down, I would like for
you to state for the record the geteral areas in which you
App. 360
have knowledge of this case. A Well, I have read some
of the trial testimony that has been taken earlier—the testi-
mony of Mr. Palmer and Mr. Bryant. I have also examined
certain other documents that describe the organization and
the progression lines of the paper mill. I have been given
some general oral information about the context of the
case and the nature of it by Mr. Robert Belton who is an
attorney with the [NAACP, Legal Defense Fund,] and
also had some conversation with Mr. Chambers.
I believe this would represent the major source of infor-
mation that I have about the case.
© And did they employ you to testify in the matter?
A Yes, they have.
© And is the area of your testimony going to be limited
to testing or are you going the testify about other matters
in addition tothat? A As I understand, it is the former;
it is the area of testing.
Q So that you and I can just talk about that then. Doc-
tor, as a psychologist, I assume that you are familiar with
the Beta—let me get the name of it right—you are familiar
with the Revised Beta Examination? A Yes, Iam.
© Are you familiar with the development of the Beta
Test which was originally developed by ‘he Army in World
Warl? A_ Yes, lam.
© Could you describe for us how the original Beta Test
was developed? A Well, an effort was made to develop
various pictorial amd other kinds of non-verbal questions
so that a test of mental ability could be used with military
recruits of little or no literacy. I don’t recall the names of
the principals who [were] involved in actually devising
these kinds of questions but they were psychologists asso-
—
App. 361
ciated with the United States Army, World War I. And
the test was administered to large groups of recruits in the
Army, and related, among other things, to the military
occupations that these recruits—military and civilian occu-
pations—that these groups occupied.
© And the purpose was to measure an individual’s in-
telligence? A Yes, general intelligence and general men-
tal ability.
Q You would say it was originally devised—the exami-
nation was professionally developed? A Yes, I would.
Q Now, it’s been revised once or twice by Mr. Kellogg
and Mr. Morton, in the ee ly thirties, and then I think I
have—the one that I have in my hand was revised in 1946.
Do you have any knowledge of Mr. E. C. Kellogg and Mr.
N. W. Merton? A None, other than their association
with this particular test.
Q Do you know © they are psychologists? A _ I do
not.
Q Would you say the revisions were professionally de-
veloped? A _ It is my impression from the information
contained in the test manual that it was professionally de-
veloped, yes.
Q Does the Beta Examination and the Revised Beta
Examination have a “igh correlefon with individual tests
of intelligence? A It has a ewbstantial correlation. I
wouldn’t characterizy «* «s m@h. Sor chat is a matter of word
meaning.
Q So that yout would be your epmion, then, if |
could summarize it, * would Se your emmion that the Re-
vised Beta Examina’ on &as a high correlation with in-
App. 362
dividual intelligence and that it is an attempt to do that by
means of a culture free examination? A _ I didn’t use the
words “culture free.” It is an attempt to do so by means of
a non-verbal examination.
© Would you*know what would be the average raw
score—lI believe the right words are—of an average high
school graduate on the Revised Beta? A No. I don’t re-
member the specific figures.
© I will hand you a copy of the Revised Beta Manual
and ask you what the correlation is with the Otis S-A Test?
Mr. Chambers: I don’t understand that question.
© (Mr. Lowden) Do you understand my question?
A Yes, I do. According to Table VI, on page ten of the
Manual, a correlation of .71 is reported for a group of 198
subjects between the Otis S-A Test of Mental Ability and
the Revised Beta.
Mr. Chambers: Was the question the correlation between
the Otis Test and the Revised Beta Test ?
A Yes.
Mr. Chambers: I take it that Dr. Katzell was being
asked about a document entitled “Revised Beta Examination
Manual,” Revised 1957?
A Yes.
© (Mr. Lowden) Doctor, are you familiar with the
Wonderlic Personnel Test? A _ Yes.
© Could you tell us what that is a test of? A _ It is
also a test of general mental ability, however, this, unlike
the Beta, is a test which uses—is substantially verbal in
nature, but purports to measure the same general kind of
intellectual capacity.
App. 363
© Unlike the Beta Test, if you also gave a person the
Wonderlic Personnel Test, would it give you some idea as
to whether or not they can read and write, more so than the
Beta Test would? A_ Yes.
© Can you tell us how the Wonderlic Test was de-
veloped? Would you like to leok at this? A_ It was de-
veloped by Mr. E. F. Wonderlic, whose name it bears, and
by recollection it was—the nature of the items were de-
rived from various other kinds of mental ability tests which
had prior been used as vocabulary, word meaning, [verbal]
reasoning items, arithmetic reasoning, for example.
© To shorten the question: do you know—would you
say the Wonderlic Test was professionally developed? A
Yes, I would.
© And you agree it does measure intelligence? A
That, Mr. Lowden, as you perhaps know, is a question that
isn’t readily answered, because psychologists are by no
means in agreement of what intelligence means. | would—
if you could rephrase your question—
Q Allright. A —as to whether this is a representa-
tive of a type of test intended to gauge general mental
ability, ability to learn and think in abstract terms, I would
answer: yes, that this is a characteristic example of that
type of test.
* * *
[pEp. pp. 12-20]
By Mr. Chambers:
Q In your work with the United States Department of
Labor have you performed any services in connection with
the development of testing guidelines for the Office of
Federal Contract and Compliance? A _ Yes, sir. In the
App. 364
process of developing the order, the executive order [on
validation] of tests for employment purposes, the Office of
Federal Contract and Compliance invited a number of
specialists from industry, education, labor unions, to meet
with them from time to time to propose the features of that
order and to review drafts. I had some service in that ca-
pacity. Last fall I was asked to serve as co-chairman of an
advisory committee on selection and tests which the OFCC
established to assist in the administration of the—well, ad-
ministration and interpretation of the order which was
issued last September by then Secretary of Labor Wirtz.
I accepted that appointment and I am still so serving.
© Now, the order that you are referring to, was this
order dealing with testing by industries receiving contracts
with the federal government? A _ That is correct.
© Testing of employees? A _ Correct.
© Orapplicants foremployment? A _ Correct.
© Have you in your work performed any services for
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in con-
nection with its guidelines for testing? A No, I have not,
although in my work with the OFCC I have conferred
with representatives of the EEOC.
© About their guidelines? A About their guidelines,
yes, sir.
© Was your—one of the objectives of the work by the
OFCC in connection with testing to establish some guide-
lines to prevent racial discrimination by employers? A
That is correct.
© In the use of tests? A That is correct. Tests and
other selection procedures, I might add.
App. 365
© Do you recall the most recent guidelines of the
OFCC? A Yes.
© Fortesting? A _ In general terms I do, yes.
© Do you recall the date that that set of guidelines—
A I believe the date was 1966.
Mr. Chambers: For the record, we have a set of guide-
lines from the OFCC. A_ From the OFCC or EEOC?
Mr. Lowden: From the OFCC.
A Was your prior question about OFCC or EEOC?
I’m sorry. I thought you were asking about the EEOC. The
1966 date—the OFCC order was issued [in 1968].
* * *
© (Mr. Chambers) Dr. Katzell, in connection with the
guidelines for testing, one of the questions put to you by
counsel for the defendant about the Revised Beta and
Wonderlic being professionally developed, would you state
for the record what you understand “professionally de-
veloped” to mean? A_ The term is used in somewhat
different senses. My interpretation of the sense in which
Mr. Lowden—the sense in which Mr. Lowden intended the
question is whether in the process of constructing the test
originally professional considerations guided the selection
of items and checking out their suitability, and it was in
that sense—my interpretation of that sense of the question
that I answered in the affirmative, that it was my opinion
that it was professionally developed. The term “profession-
ally developed”’ has also been used in a broader sense to r
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.