Appendix — Daniels v. Southern California Rapid Transit District

Wiwee fh... tone eae

SUPREME COURT JR, CLERR

OF THE UNITED STATES

October Term, 1979

No. 79=1934

FLOYD H. DANIELS,

Petitioner,

vs.

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RAPID TRANSIT

DISTRICT, a public corporation;

and JACK R, GILSTRAP, as General

Manager of the SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT,

Respondents.

SUPPLEMENTARY APPENDIX

FLOYD H. DANIELS

4650 Coliseum Street, Apt. #1

Los Angeles, California 90016

(213) 296-4588 - 788-9450, Ext. 40

In Propria Persona

IN ‘THE

SUPREME COURT

OF THE UNITED STATES

October Term, 1979

FLOYD H. DANIELS,

Petitioner,

Vs.

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RAPID TRANSIT

DISTRICT, a public corporation;

and JACK R, GILSTRAP, as General

Manager of the SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT,

Respondents.

SUPPLEMENTARY APPENDIX

FLOYD H. DANIELS

4650 Coliseum Street, Apt. #1

Los Angeles, California 90016

(213) 296-4588 - 788-9450, Ext. 40

In Propria Persona

TOPICAL INDEX

SUPPLEMENTARY APPENDIX

A. FINAL ORDERS, MEMORANDUM,

AND JUDGMENT

FINAL ORDER, Court of Appeals

MEMORANDUM, Court of Appeals

FINAL ORDER, District Court

JUDGMENT, District Court

B. EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT "A", AMENDED JUDGMENT

(Final), District Court

EXHIBIT "B", A Letter Of An

Agreement For Reinstatement

EXHIBIT "C'', A Photostat Copy Of

A Check, Dated June 22, 1977,

From Respondents To

Petitioner

EXHIBIT "D", A Letter, Dated June

rb 1977, From Petitioner To

Respondents

EXHIBIT "E", A Letter Dated July

15, 1977, From Petitioner To

Respondents, Requesting

Rienstatement

13

15

16

19

_

“

Page

EXHIBIT "F", A Letter, Dated August

15, 1977, From Petitioner To :

8

Respondents

EXHIBIT "G", A Letter, Dated August

16, 1977, From Respondents To

Petitioner, In Which Respondents

Denied Petitioner's Request For

Reinstatement 32

ii.

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

October Term, 1979

No. 1934

FLOYD H. DANIELS,

Petitioner,

vs.

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RAPID TRANSIT

DISTRICT, a public corporation;

and JACK R, GILSTRAP, as General

Manager of the SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT,

Respondents.

SUPPLEMENTARY APPENDIX

This Supplementary Appendix is one,

and the very same one, that was filed with

Petitioner's "Petition For A Writ Of

Certiorari To The United States Court Of

Appeals For The Ninth Circuit}’ dated June

6, 1980; which is a true copy of the

lower Courts' Rulings; and Exhibits, that

are typed with a larger type, in accord-

ance with the Rules of this United States

Supreme Court.

A. FINAL ORDERS, MEMORANDUM, AND

JUDGMENT.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FLOYD H. DANIELS, )

Plaintiff-Appellant, )

vs. ) No. 78-2007

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RAPID ) ORDER

TRANSIT DISTRICT, a public

corporation; and JACK R. )

GILSTRAP, as General Manager

of the Southern California )

Rapid Transit District,

Defendants~Appellees,

Before: TRASK and FLETCHER, Circuit

Judges, and SOLOMON, *District

Judge

The panel as constituted in the

above case has voted to deny the petition

for rehearing.

The petition for rehearing is

denied, Filed April 21, 1980.

*Honorable Gus J. Solomon, Senior United

States District Judge for the District of

Oregon, sitting by designation.

rH

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Filed

Mar. 12,

FLOYD H. DANIELS, 1980,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

vs. No. 78-2007

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RAPID MEMORANDUM

TRANSIT DISTRICT, a public

corporation; and JACK R,

GILSTRAP, as General Manager

of the Southern California

Rapid Transit District.

Defendants-Appellees,

Appeal from the United States

District Court for the Central District

of California.

Before: TRASK and FLETCHER, Circuit

Judges, and SOLOMON, *District

Judge.

Floyd H. Daniels, a black man, was

a bus driver for the Southern California

Rapid Transit District (Transit District).

In April 1970, he was discharged after a

hearing for violating company rules on

unauthorized dual employment and the

phetersia I sick reports. These matters

came to light as a result of an investi-

*Honorable Gus J. Solomon, Senior United

States District Judge for the District of

Oregon, Sitting by designation.

_

gation by the Transit District when he was

arrested for the attempted rape of a

passenger on his bus, a charge on which

he was acquitted,

In November 1977, Daniels filed the

ue se action against the Transit District

and its general manager (appellees) which

is now before the court. In it he con-

tends, as he had in two prior actions,

that because of his race he was terminated.

He again sought reinstatement and a

— been wrongrully discharged in

1 .

The appellees filed a motion to

dismiss on the ground that under the

doctrine of res judicata the adverse

a in the two prior actions barred

Daniels from maintaining this action and

on the further ground that this action

was barred by the statute of Limitations.

The district court granted the

motion and ordered the complaint dismissed

on the ground that the by soe against

Daniels in the prior district court action

barred the present action on the doctrine

of res judicata. Shortly thereafter,

Daniels filed a motion to reconsider (civ.

R. 59(e)) the ruling and judgment. On

April 10, 1978, the district court denied

the motion for reconsideration, and again,

"ordered, adjudged and decreed that plain-

tiff take nothing by his complaint."

Daniels appealed from that order.

The standard of review on a Rule

59(e) motion is whether there was a

4,

manifest abuse of discretion. Walker v.

Bank of America, 268 F.2d 16, 25 (Sth Cir.),

cert, denied, 61 U.S. 903 (1959).

Pleadings in civil rights action

must be Liberally construed, Thomas v.

TOUT ON. 545 F.2d 1171 (9th Cir. 1976),

particularly when brought 553) s=" Haines

Even with this standard, our review

of the record shows no abuse of discretion

in the denial of the motion to reconsider,

Moreover, we reject appellees’ contention

that we are limited to that issue. We have

considered whether the court properly dis-

missed the action on the Transit District's

motion for summary judgment.

v. Kerner, 404 U.S, 519 (1

Daniels contends that the present

action encompasses matters outside the

scope of the prior state and federal

actions and that his claim is therefore

not identical with that set forth in the

prior actions.

Daniels sought the same kind of re-

lief in each action filed. All of them

arose out of the same set of facts culmi-

nating in the termination of his employ-

ment by the transit District in 1970.

The state court judgment based on

the Transit District's motion for summary

judgment and the prior federal district

court's judgment ased on the Transit

District's motion to dismiss on the

ground that Daniels’ claim was time barred

were both judgments on the merits.

De

Where a claim is based on the same

asserted wrong that was the subject of a

prior action, and where the parties are

the same, res judicata will bar the sub-

sequent action because a prior judgment

on the merits will not on y bar every

claim that was raised in the prior action

but will also preclude every other legal

circ on ground for recovery that might

ave be

en asserted. See Scoggin v.

Schrunk, 552 F.2d 6 (Sth Ce 1975),

Cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1066 (1976).

There is no merit of Daniels'

attempt to overcome the running of the

statute of limitations by asserting that

the Transit District's refusal to meet

his 1977 demand for unconditional rein-

statement constitutes grounds for a new

claim. A request for reinstatement does

not revive an earlier claim based on a

discriminatory termination, particularly

when the earlier termination was held to

be lawful. United Airlines v. Evans,

431 U.S. 555 sco v. United

Airlines, 574 F.2d i rd cte—1978).

AFFIRMED,

*

MUSICK, PEELER & GARRETT

Attorneys At Law

One Wilshire Boulevard

Los Angeles, California 90017

Telephone (213) 629-3322

Filed April

STEVEN D. WEINSTEIN 10, 1978

Attorneys for Defendants

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RAPID

TRANSIT DISTRICT and JACK

R. GILSTRAP,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FLOYD H, DANIELS

Plaintiff, Civil No.

77-4103-AAH

ORDER

vs.

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RAPID

TRANSIT DISTRICT, a public

corporation; and JACK R,

GILSTRAP, as General Manager

of the SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT,

Defendants.

The Motion of the Plaintiff, FLOYD

H. DANIELS, to Alter or Amend Judgment,

designated by the Plaintiff as a Motion

for Reconsideration, duly and get

came on for hearing before the HONORABLE

A. ANDREW HAUK, District Judge, on the

27th day of March 1978, the Plaintiff

appearing in propria persona, and the

r

Defendants appearing by their counsel,

MUSICK, PEELER & GARRETT by STEVEN D,

WEINSTEIN, and the Court having consider-

ed the Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsider-

ation of the Judgment entered on February

7, 1978, and the case having been fully

argued, and the matter having been sub-

mitted, and the Court having found that

the Motion for Reconsideration raises no

new matters and is without merit, and the

Court having found that Defendants' Motion

to Dismiss the Complaint for Failure to

State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be

Granted was properly granted, and the

Court having advised and cautioned the

Plaintiff regarding provisions imposing

sanctions for vexatious litigation, in-

cluding Local Rule 3(i) of the United

States District Court of the Central

District of California:

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUGED AND DECREED

that Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration ;

be denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND

DECREED that Plaintiff take nothing by his

Complaint file herein.

DATED: Los Angeles, California,

this 10th day of April _, 1978.

is A, Andrew Hauk

>

MUSICK, PEELER & GARRETT

Attorneys At Law.

One Wilshire Boulevard

Los Angeles, California 90017

Telephone (213) 629-3322 riled Feb.

6, 1978.

STEVEN D, WEINSTEIN

Attorneys for Defendants Entered

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RAPID Feb. 7, 1978.

TRANSIT DISTRICT and JACK

R, GILSTRAP,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FLOYD H. DANIELS,

Plaintiff,

vs. Civil No.

77-4103-AAH

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RAPID

TRANSIT DISTRICT, a public JUDGMENT

corporation; and JACK R,

GILSTRAP, as General Manager

of the SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA )

RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT,

Defendants.

The Motion of the Defendants,

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT

and JACK R, GILSTRAP, duly and regularl

came on for hearing before the HONORABL

A. ANDREW HAUK, District Judge, on the

23rd day of January, 1978, the Plaintiff

appearing in propria persona, and the

Defendants appearing by their counsel

9.

MUSICK, PEELER & GARRETT by STEVEN D,

WEINSTEIN, and the Court having con-

sidered the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

the Complaint for Failure to State A Claim

Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted and

other matters submitted to the Court in

connection with said Motion, and the case

having been fully argued, and the matter

having been submitted, and the Court

having found that the Complaint fails to

state a claim upon which relief can be

whiney in that Plaintiff's claims are

arred by the doctrine of res "yacar hag

F

by the prior court action of Floyd H.

Daniels v. Southern California Ra id

Transit District, et al., No. ov Fe 290

EAC, and the Court having found it un-

necessary to make a determination based

on the other grounds presented by the

Defendants's Motion:

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DEREEED,

that Defendants' Motion by granted;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED

AND DECREED, that Plaintiff take nothing

by his Complaint on file herein.

DATED: Los Angeles, California,

this 6th day of February 1978.

if A, Andrew Hauk

>

10.

B. EXHIBITS

MUSICK, PEELER & GARRETT

Attorneys At Law

One Wilshire Boulevard

Los Angeles, California 90017

Telephone (213) 629-3322 Filed June 12,

MICHAEL W, CONLON Entered June

Attorneys for Defendants Lee: Beto

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FLOYD H. DANIELS, )

Plaintiff,

vs. NO, CV

290 EAC

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RAPID

TRANSIT DISTRICT, a public )AMENDED

corporation; and JACK R, JUDGMENT

GILSTRAP, as General Manager

of the SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT,

Defendants.

The Motion of the Plaintiff, FLOYD

H. DANIELS, to vacate Judgment and the

Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendants

SOUTHERN CALIFO RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT

and JACK R, GILSTRAP, duly and regularly

came on for hearing before the Honorable

E, Avery a District Judge, on the 9th

day of June, $75, the Plaintiff appearing

il. EXHIBIT "A"

by his counsel, McSherry and Dickey, and

the Defendants appearing by their counsel,

Musick, Peeler and Garrett, and the Court

having considered the Plaintiff's Motion

to Vacate Judgment, and the case having

been fully argued, and the matter having

been submitted, and Defendants withdrawing

their Motion for Summary Judgment and the

Court having found that that portion of

Plaintiff's Complaint brought pursuant to

42 U.S.C. Section 1981 is an action

brought under Statute which Section re-

quires an action brought pursuant thereto

to allege a racial discrimination and that

Plaintiff does not allege racial discrimi-

nation, and the Court having found that

the Plaintiff's actions brought pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 and 42 U.S.C,

1983 failed to state a claim upon which

relief can be granted in that Plaintiff's

claims are barred by C.C.P., 338(1):

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED,

that Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate Judgment

be denied;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED

AND DECREED, that Plaintiff take nothing

by his Complaint on file herein.

DATED: Los Angeles, California,

this 1lth day of June, 1975.

S/ E. Avery Crar

Page #2 of

12. Exhibit "A"

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT

1060 South Broadway

Los Angeles, Ca. 90015

Telephone (313) 749-6977

January 28, 1971

REGISTERED MAIL

RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Mr. Floyd H. Daniels

4650 Coliseum Street - Apt. #1

Los Angeles, California 90016

Dear Mr. Daniels:

This letter will inform you that

agreement has now been reached between

Southern California Rapid Transit District

and United Transportation Union, pursuant

to the terms of which the District is to

(1) compensate you for the period June 20

through re: 18, 1970, plus accrud vacation

time, and (2) offer to you reinstatement

upon the conditions that such offer be

accepted within five days after receipt of

this letter and that you sever your em-

ployment by the Los Angeles City School

System.

We accordingly enclose a check pay-

able to your order in the amount of

$1,098.24, representing the above mentioned

compensation after 3 gd ra deductions.

In addition, we hereby offer you reinstate-

ment upon the conditions above specified,

which are that you accept the offer and

sever your School employment within the

permitted five-day period, Your

failure to comply with these conditions

13, EXHIBIT "B"

during such five-day period will, of

course, automatically result in the

permanent loss of an reinstatement rights

on your part.

Very truly yours,

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT

/S/ By George F. Goehler

Manager of Operations

DPE/MLR:eh

cc: M.L. Rise

J.S. Wilkens

J.T. Johnston

Page #2 of

Exhibit "B"

14,

| en ee ae Seathers Califerata

eipece:: ** ' " RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT

ee me 4 . * LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 16-104 as

ET 2) OPERATION FUND A Me ee

PAY TO THE ORDER OF». eo eee pal oh ihe aes

F.H. DANIELS “s |. 965228 |oé22p7 1S wet 098%, 24| “

‘ 4650 COLISEUM ST., APT, 1 — :

LOS ANGELES, CA, $0016 Be enc rreg: |

i ; tS emnw— Fs

ee $4 1 a! ite : ASSISTANT TREASURER

Want plAmecten EGuicusra ose Ff.

¢ -, 3 Js ease. ad

a en a eB

| w2asz26r ae 2omn OMe foon.9qa0 Rane dhncvdicaeee back coca

.

a SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT

425 SOUTH MAIN, LOS ANGE ES, CALIFORNIA 90013

REMITTANCE ADVICE

ie NO, 83877

FM. DAUIELS 065226 062277. *te98, 24

4659 COLISCUN ST., APT. 1 P

LOS ANGELES, CA, $0016

inVOICE Oris TRIG@uTion nec

oarr oa ve youn nO avaount ce ay shed wat a..Qunet awoun’t cn

TO REPLACE ACCOUNT

STALE DATE, PAYROLL

ACCOUNT SPECIAL

CHICK NO,| 0309681

ISSUED PAYABLE TO ,

YOUR] ORDER ON 1-28-1971

1098 24) 1990 | 1099 24 i

| ;

| ;

| ‘

15. Exhibit "'c"

Floyd H. Daniels

4650 Coliseum Street, #1

Los Angeles, Ca. 90016

June 25, 1977

Telephone (213) 296-4588

Mr. John S. Wilkens, Manager of Employee

Relations

Southern “alifornia Rapid Transit District

425 South Main

Los Angeles, California 90013

Dear Sir:

As a result of my visit to the Southern

California Rapid Transit District Head-

quarters at 425 South Main on June 21,

1977, Floyd H. Daniels, received on June

24, 1977, a check from the District in the

amount of $1,098.24, as part of an agree-

ment between the Southern California Rapid

Transit District and United Transportation

Union in a letter to me on January 28,

1971. The letter is inclosed.

I want to thank you for the kind and

friendly service I received on my visit

to the District Headquarters. It was great.

As you know, another check for the same

amount above was sent to me with the in-

closed letter on January 28, 1971; and,

on the advice of my Attorney, this check

was returned to your Headquarters in a

letter by my Attorney at the time on

February 27, 1971.

In eerageern number one of the inclosed

letter from the District dated January

28, 1971, there were two (2) ggreements ;

EXHIBIT "D"

16.

and the District only complied with the

number (1) agreement when the District

sent me the check dated June 22, 1977.

The two (2) agreements are:

"(1) Compensate you for the

period June 20 through July

18, 1970, plus accrued vacation

time."

For the above, this is the check in the

amount of $1,098.24, the District sent to

me dated June 22, 1977,

"(2) Offer to you reinstatement

upon the conditions that such

offer be accepted within five

days after receipt of this letter

and that you sever your employ-

ment by the Los Angeles City

School System,"

Since the District has complied with agree-

ment number (1), I am now asking the

District to kindly consider the number (2)

part of the agreement with modifications.

The modifications are that the District

consider striking the followings from

agreement (2), which is, "and that you

sever your employment by the Los Angeles

City School System,"

I am kindly asking the District to modify

agreement (2), because You, Mr. Wilkens,

and I, Floyd H. Daniels, both know that

it has been substantiated that there were

Bus Operator (Caucasian), employed by the

Southern California Rapid Transit District

who were performing dual employment long

Page #2 of

17. Exhibit "D"

~~ S

before I, Floyd H. Daniels, started per-

forming dual employment. These Bus

Operators Employees (Caucasian), were per-

forming dual employment at the time the

inclosed letter was written; and, these

Bus Operators Employees(Caucasian) have

been continued to perform dual employment

until the present time.

So, to require Me, Floyd H. Daniels, at

this time to sever my employment with the

Los Angeles City School System would be

Racial Discrimination.

I went into one of the District's Division

Headquarters, and a sign read, "EQUAL EM-

PLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY IS THE LAW." "DIS-

CRIMINATION IS PROHIBITED by the Civil

Rights Act of 1964, and by Executive

Order Number 11246,"

As I entered your very fine personnel

office,I agent read the sign and I asked

myself, "if the District really intended

for this to apply for all Citizens, in-

cluding Me, Floyd H. Daniels?"

Therefore, I am writing this letter to

inform the District that I have received

the check in the amount of $1,098.24; and,

I have accepted the check. Also, I am

available and ready for reinstatement as

a Bus rod yi with all rights, privileges,

and seniority. It is my desire not to be

just a Bus Operator, but one of the top

Bus Operators of the Southern California

Rapid Transit District.

I told Ms. Showers in personnel that you

were a fine gentleman, and that I highly

Page #3 of

18. Exhibit "D"

respected you for your integrity and honor.

This is why I addressed this letter to you.

If you are not the appropriate Officer to

consider this matter, kindly refer this

letter to the appropriate Officer, or

Officers for consideration.

It is requested that the above matter be

considered with the best of integrity and

dignity.

May God bless you and all of your fellow

officers of the Southern California Rapid

Transit District.

Very truly yours,

Floyd H. Daniels

: Fil Page #4 of

is . Exhibit "D"

Floyd H. Daniels

4650 Coliseum Street, #1

Los Angeles, Ca. 90016

July 15, 1977

Telephone (213) 296-4588

Mr. John S. Wilken, Manager of Employee

Relations

Southern California Rapid Transit District

425 South Main Street

Los Angeles, California 90013

Dear Mr. Wilkens:

In receipt of your letter dated July 12,

1977 regarding my offer to accept rein-

Statement as a bus operator for the

19, ESHIBIT "E"

Southern California Rapid Transit District,

I hereby give my reply.

First of all, the letter dated January 28,

1971, signed by George F, Goehler, the

Manager of Operations at that time, was an

agreement between the Southern California

Rapid Transit District and the United

Transportation Union. I have attached

hereto, two letters, one (1) from the

District, and one (1) from the Union that

led uP to this agreement between the Union

and the District in the letter to me, dated

January 28, 1971.

The two (2) agreements in the letter dated

January 28, 1971 were all in one (1)

sentence, as follows:

"This letter will inform you

that agreement has now been

reached between Southern

California Rapid Transit Dis-

trict and United Transportation

Union, pursuant to the terms of

which the District is to (1) com-

age you for the period June

0 through July 18, 1970, plus

accured vacation time, and (2)

offer to you reinstatement upon

the condititions that such offer

be accepted within five days after

receipt of this letter and that

you sever your employment by the

Los Angeles City School System,"

I did not accept the check for $1,098.24,

I sent it back to the District, and at the

same time, I did not accept reinstatement.

Instead, my Attorney at that time, and I

Page #2 of

20. Exhibit "E"

went to Court,

When I came into your personnel office

on June 21, 1977, the accured vacation

time in the amount of $590.63 was due me.

This is substantiated by the "Tender of

Wages Due", attached hereto. However, the

District elected to pay me, also, for the

period June 20 through July 18, i970,

which was the agreement between the Union

and District, which amounted to $880.79.

$880.79 + 590.63 = $1,471.42. After de-

ductions, the net amount was $1,098.24,

The above is the amount of the check that

I did not accept, and instead, returned

it back to the District in a letter dated

February 27, 1971.

The Auditor for the District came into the

personnel Office on June 21, 1977, showed

me the old check, and said, "I had to con-

tact Mr. Wilkens, who was in a ype and

get his approval to replace this check with

another check, and we will get it out

tomorrow.'' The check was made and wpdated

to June 22, 1977, I received the check on

June 24, 1577, and on June 25, 1977, I

made an offer to accept reinstatement as

a bus operator in a letter to you. You,

Mr. Wilkens, considered it fair and in

order to adjust the date of the check

that I did not accept and returned to the

District on February 27, 1971. You ordered

prepared and issued to me another check

dated June 22, 1977.

If the District reconsidered and re-adjust-

ed the date of the check that I did not

accept, but returned it to the District,

Page #3 of

! w

21. Exhibit "E

which was agreement (1) between the Union

and District in the letter dated January

28, 1971; it is only fair and just that

the District consider it is fair and in

order to reconsider and adjust agreement

(2) between the District and Union in the

Same letter, same paragraph, and

Same sentence.

I stated to you in my letter dated June

25, 1977, that it had been substantiated

that there were Bus Operator (Caucasian)

employed by the Southern California Rapid

Transit District who were performing dual

employment Long before I, Floyd H. Daniels,

started performing dual employment. These

Bus Operator Employees (Caucasian) were

performing dual employment at the time the

letter dated January 28, 1971, was written.

It was demanded that I, Floyd H. Daniels,

sever my outside employment, while the Bus

Operator Employees (Caucasian) who were

performing outside employment were not

demanded that they sever their outside

employment, This is Racial Discrimination.

These Bus Operator Employees (Caucasian)

have continued to perform dual employment

up until the present time. If, I, Floyd

H. Daniels, is not reinstated as a bus

operator, this is also, Racial Discrimi-

nation.

In my letter dated June 25, 1977, I stated

that the U.S, Civil Rights Act of 1964, not

the California Laws, being violated by the

District. This is U.S. Title VII. I now

call your attention to Title 42, Section

1981 of the United States Code being vio-

lated by the District.

You mentioned the Courts in your letter

29. Page #4 of

Exhibit "E"

dated July 12, 1977. This is an independ-

ent style of action. This action started

when eh District prepared and sent the

check in the amount of $1,098.24. There-

fore, the Courts have not decided on this

action.

As you are aware, I, Floyd H. Daniels,

have never resigned as a Bus Operator from

the Southern California Rapid Transit

District.

I am hereby advising the District that I,

Floyd H. Daniels, accept the offer of

reinstatement with full seniority unimpair-

ed from the date of my hiring; and, I be

treated and extended the same privileges

as other employees of the Southern

California Rapid Transit District.

I, Floyd H. Daniels, is hereby advising

the District to make the offer of rein-

statement effective Sunday, August 14,

pg

I, Floyd H. Daniels, will come to work on

time and perform my duties as a bus ope-

rator just as other employee are required.

I will come to work every day I am suppose

to come to work. This outside employment

wil] not affect my performance as a bus

operator. This is reflected by my pre-

viously dual employment. I had 65 demerits

when I started performing dual employment;

and, I had reduced these demerits down to

to 15 demerits before I was taken out of

service. Also, I had no chargeable acci-

dents; and, only one miss-out, which was

due to a misunderstanding of the schedule

for Veterans Day. Page #5 of

Exhibit "E"

23.

Mr. Wilkens, since the above two (2)

agreements were between the District and

Union, I am sending Mr. Earl R, Clark,

General Chairman, United Transportation

Union, a copy of this letter, and a copy

of my letter to you dated June 25, 1977;

and a copy of your letter to me, dated

July 12, 1977.

I am hereby, kindly requesting Mr. Earl

R. Clark, General Chairman, United Trans-

Portation Union, excute in the writing of

a letter to you stating the United Trans-

portation Union's position regarding my

offer to accept reinstatement effective

Sunday, August 14, 1977; and, a copy of

that letter be sent to me for my record.

Mr. Wilkens, I am hereby, kindly request-

ing a written answer from you of the

Southern California Rapid Transit District's

position regarding my offer to accept

reinstatement as a bus operator effective

Sunday, August 14, 1977.

Yours very truly

Floyc H. Daniels

UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION

January 4, 1971

Mr. George S. Goehler

Manager of Operations

So, Calif. Rapid Transit District

1060 South Broadway

Los Angeles, California 90015

Dear Mr. Goehler: Page #6 of

24, Exhibit "E"

Re: Operator Floyd H, Daniels, Badge #2921

Thank you for your letter of December 18,

1970, in which you offered to conpensate

Operator Daniels for the period June 20

to July 18, 1970. The General Committee

of Adjustment considered your proposal

and has accepted it subject to the follow-

ing proviso: That Operator Daniels be

offered reinstatement to his former position

with the District, and be given five days

in which to accept said offer of reinstate-

ment. )

It is understood, of course, that this

offer of reinstatement would be based up-

on the conditions set forth in your letter

of June 11, 1970, which was accepted by

Mr. K.R. Moore's letter of June 15, 1970,

where it says in part:

"In the event of Operator Daniels

is exonerated of the pending

charge of attempted rape, he must

then make an election as to

whether he desires to work for the

District as a bus driver or for

the Los Angeles School District

as a teacher. It is agreed that

he cannot do both."

Would you kindly advise us at your earliest

convenience whether this condition to the

proposed settlement is satisfactory.

Yours very truly,

/S/ Earl R. Clark

Earl R. Clark

General Chairman

Page #7 of

25. Exhibit "E"

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT

January 22, 1971

Mr. Earl R. Clark, General Chairman

United Transportation Union

1725 West Sixth Street, Suite 407

Los Angeles, California 90017

Dear Mr. Clark:

Thank you for you letter of January

4, 1971, in response to our letter of

December 18, 1970, with respect to the

Floyd H. Daniels case.

This will confirm that we are now

in agreement that Operator Daniels will

be (1) compensated for the period June

20 through July 18, 1970, and (2) offered

reinstatement by the District upon the

conditions that he accept such offer with-

in five days after its receipt and sever

any employment by the Los Angeles City

School System.

We will accordingly proceed promptly

with such payment and re-employment offer,

furnishing you of course, with appropriate

copies including a copy of an response

from Operator Daniels.

Very truly yours,

/S/ Geogre F, Goehler

George F,. Goehler,

Manager of Operations

Page #8 of

Exhibit "E"

26.

=F

ute 29.08, LOS ANGELES METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY

TENDER OF WAGES DUE

Date July 1, 19 _TO._

DEPARTMENT. LOCATION

—___ Toanaportation 3207

To Employee __iovd H. Duniels Index No 2922

$590.63 [FS* in cash is hereby tendered to you in full payment of balance

of wages due upon your ogra this instant. Vacation Tine of, 66-69 be,

157 Bre. 30 Min. = $590.63, Gross. ie

, Sy? = “ge Se

oF Preis

T sxcoant: the above payment.

refuse to receive

HhMoud Phlinuk

Signature of Enployes

In our presence, the above tender was made to. and refused by, said employee

at the time and place of his/her discharge. aii

_ Ves loys, Witness

wv

Witness

Page #9 of

Exhibit "E"

27.

Floyd H. Daniels

4650 Coliseum Street, #1

Los Angeles, Ca. 90016

August 15, i977

Mr. John S. Wilkens, Manager of Employee

Relations

Southern California Rapid Transit District

425 South Main Street

Los Angeles, California 90013

Dear Mr. Wilkens:

On July 15, 1977, I wrote you a letter

advising the Southern California Rapid

Transit District that I, Floyd H. Daniels,

accept the offer of reinstatement with

seniority unimpaired from the date of my

hiring; and, that I be treated and extend-

ed the same privileges as other employees

of the Southern California Rapid Transit

District; and, this offer for reinstate-

pees be made effective Sunday, August 14,

The reinstatement date effective Sunday,

August 14, 1977, has now expired; and I

have not received any notification from

You and the Southern California Rapid

Transit District. I have reasonable con-

cluded that the thirty (30) days was ample

time for You and the Southern California

Rapid Transit District to notify Me, Floyd

H. Daniels, of my offer for reinstatement

as a Bus Operator.

I am now advising You and the Southern

California Rapid Transit District to

reinstate Me, Floyd H. Daniels, in accord-

ance with the terms of the letter, dated

July 15, 1977, within thirty (30) days

' EXHIBIT "F"

28.

from the above date of this letter,

August 15, 1977, to you; which will be

September 14, 1977, with the exception of

ao following quoted paragraph of the

etter:

"I am hereby yy [shan Mr.Earl C,

Clark, General Chairman, United

Transportation . Union to execute

in writing of a letter to you

stating the Union's position re-

garding my offer to accept rein-

Statement effective Sunday, August

14, 1977; and, a copy of that letter

be sent to me for my record,"

I, hereby, withdraw the above quoted

paragraph because I have talked with both

Mr. Earl R, Clark, General Chairman, and

Mr. William C. Haag, Local Chairman,

#1565; and, both men have notified me

that I, Floyd H. Daniels, should be rein-

stated in accordance with the terms of

my letter to age dated July 15, 1977.

Both Mr. Clark and Mr. Haag have also

offered their services to serve as wit-

nesses in my behalf in Court, if necessary.

Therefore, it is only fair that I with-

draw the above quoted paragraph because

if you had talked to me and likewise noti-

fied me of my reinstatement; I, Floyd H.

Daniels, would have been reinstated and

working effective Sunday, August 14, 1977.

I have had the opportunity to visit some

of the District's employees who are per-

forming outside employment, and they have

showed me their outside employment with

pride and dignity. This I could not, and

can not do, because of You and the

Page #2 of

29. Exhibit "F"

Southern California Rapid Transit District.

Floyd H. Daniels, is a natural born

Gleiage of these United States of America.

I had the opportunity of being drafted

into the U.S, Navy during World War II;

and, I served in those dangerous waters

of the great Pacific Ocean helping to

preserve and protect this great Country's

Independence, and the very precious

Liberties and Civil Rights it stand for.

I am a Teacher for the Los Angeles School

System. As a Teacher, I am charged to

teach your children, my children, and

other children of parents who are Livin

in the Los Angeles Unified School District

the truths about developing their minds

and bodies in order to be good United

States Citizens in order to enjoy and

protect their Civil Rights. I, Floyd H.

Daniels, can not effectively teach these

truths if I am not afforded my own Civil

Rights; and do not protect, and pursue

my Civil Rights.

When You and the Southern California

Rapid Transit District failed to rein-

statement Me, Floyd H. Daniels, to the

service of the District as a Bus Operator

effective Sunday, August 14, 1977, you

have in fact indicated that I, Floyd H.

Daniels, is an inferior United States

Citizen; and also, an inferior Teacher

for the Los Angeles Unified School System.

This is immorally wrong, disgraceful, and

nlawful on the part , You, as Manager of

Employee Relations, and the Southern

California Rapit Transit District to impose

this — of Racial Discrimination on Me,

Floyd H. Daniels, because of my Race a

Negro (Black) Page #3 of

40. Exhibit "F"

Therefore, if I, Floyd H. Daniels, is not

reinstated by You and the Southern

California Rapid Transit District to the

service as a Bus Operator as effective

of Sunday, August 14, 1977; and, and with-

in thirty (30) days from the date of this

letter to You, the termination date being

ge ocryn € September 14, 1977; I, Floyd

H. Daniels, have no choice but to secure

the services of an Attorney, and file a

Complaint in the Federal District Court

for reinstatement as a Bus Operator, and

punitive and exemplary damages in the

amount of One Milliam Dollars

($1,000,000.00) tax-free, plus attorney

fees, court cost, and for such other and

further relief as the Court may deem just.

Yours very truly,

Floyd H. Daniels

Page #4 of

My

31. Exhibit °F

Southern California

Rapid Transit District

425 South Main Street

Los Angeles, Ca. 90013

August 16, 1977

Mr. Floyd H. Daniels

4650 Coliseum Street, #1

Los Angeles, California 90016

Dear Mr. Daniels:

This will acknowledge receipt of your

letters dated July 15, 1977 and August

15, 1977. Please be advised that there

has been no change in the District's

position as set forth in my letter to

you dated July 12, 1977.

As you did not meet the conditions

established by the District and the

United Transportation Union for your rein-

Statement in 1971, you were terminated as

an employee of the District at that time.

Your termination in 1971 was final for

all purposes at that time and is not

subject to reconsideration,

Sincerely,

/S/ John S, Wilkens

John S. Wilkens

Manager of Employee Relations

EXHIBIT "'G"

32.

All Exhibits in this Supplementary

Appendix are true typed copies of each

and every Exhibit to the best of my

knowledge and belief to be true.

Each and every Exhibit have the

same Alphabetical Listing in this

Supplementary Appendix as they have in

the original Appendix. Only the Page

Numbers are different.

DATED: June 12, 1980.

Respectfully submitted

By

oyd H. Daniels

In Propria Persona

33.