# Appendix — Daniels v. Southern California Rapid Transit District

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385006_2505%3A2

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Appendix
- **Published:** January 1, 1980
- **Citation:** 449 U.S. 835

## Text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385006_2505%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.