# Opposition Brief — Lee Way Motor Freight, Inc. v. Jones

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385605_0856%3A3

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Opposition Brief
- **Published:** January 1, 1971
- **Citation:** 401 U.S. 954

## Text

e
2 )
Pn nansarat me | wn ax ieeaieenmaine int Ret oc eaneNBOI a, 4

ae 7?

ee Se > SS Sas we,
721 (7h Cir. 1969)

eh8.22% (g&6
~*=o ‘s s Bou
RTS HSE

>’

z
48

1 3

\ n
\
= ,

Rate wf Alabama v. United Sates, 504 F.2d $83.
S80 (Sth Cir, £962), aff por coriam 271 US.
87 (1982)

Turner v. Bouche, $96 US. 346, 360, 90 S.A.
S82 (1970) ' os

United Rates v. Dillon Supply Co., 429 F.24 800
(4th Oir., 1970)

United States v. Bloctrical Workers (IBEW).

_ Lewal 88, 428 F.2d 144 (1970, cor dead De-
comber 7, 1970)

United States v. Hayes tat. Corp. 415 F.2d 1038
(Sth Cir, 1989)
United Rates v. Hinds County School Board, 417
F.2d 852. BSB (Sth Cir. 1969), con. den'd

80 SCY. 612 (1970)
United States v. Local 189, 28? F.Supp. 39.44

(ELD. La. 1968) aff 416 F.2d 980 (Sth
Cir, 1969)

United States v. Metal Workers fat'l Ass’n.. Local
§®, 416 F.2d 123 (8th Cir. 1969)

UNITED STATES STATUTES
28 U.S.C. §1254¢1)

CIVIL QIGHTS ACT oF 1964
Title VI. Sections 703( a). 703¢j) and 706(¢)
Title Vil. §§2000e-2000e-15
Title 42. § (a) (§$703a

° MISCELLANEOUS
110 Cong. Rec. 7213 ( April 8, 1964)

5. 8,9
5.8

2.9.10

2
3

Soe inininnennsemenienen

S82547 Baz vit th
ne An
ile bp ii if
ged bad ge
Pen FP al VE Ht ay
jee at tat qe
| 5 4 FL 13! rE lf iH
“yf 1 tt -fa

ty Lit

g41;52
ili
E4

44 1

He

ee

743

Bee

fii iy

th Hi

iifite Ha

alias tu

na HH
é

i
i

oft rejected employers’ contention that Tithe VII of the
Civil Rights “Act does not encompass the present and
thority has rejected such contention. While it is true that
the Act was imtended to have prospective application,
relief is called for to remedy present and continuing
effects of past discriméaation. Local 53 of intermational
Association of Heat & Frost Iinsuietors and Asbestos
Workers v. Vogier, 407 F.26.A047 (C.A. Sth, 1959),

U. S. v. Local 189, 282 F.Supp. 39-44 (E. D. La., 1968)
aff'd 416 F.2d 980 (Sth Cir. 1969), Quaries v. Philip
Morris, Inc. 279 FSupp. 505-516 (E.D. Va. 1968),
U.S. v. Hayes int. Corp., 415 F.2d 1038 (Sth Cir. 1969).

termined, but which. in fact, incorporate and perpetuate
| pre-Title VII discrimination are unlawful. See, c.g,
Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 420 F.2d 1225 (Sth Cir.,
1970). cert. granted 399 U.S. 926 (1970); Local 189,
Papermakers and Paperworkers v. United States, 416
F.2d 980 (Sth Cir. 1969), cert. den’'d 397 US. 919
(1970); United States v. Electrical Workers (IBEW),
Local 38, 428 F.2d 144 (1970, cert. den’'d December 7,
1970; United States v. Sheet Metal Workers Int'l. Ass'n.,
Local 36, 416 F.2d 123 (8th Cir. 1969). Title VII
_ therefore requires elimination of job standards which have
the effect of locking Negroes into the position to which
they were restricted under prior overtly discriminating
practices.

Tare le era Te
i
! ! f Ht th

td

- [ype sutltisal a)

“ . - ..
Stinieaimed OG

Petiti ,

repo engl

any merit to

TH
i RARE

ERE
aE
jaqi
Sua?
jstty3
gage -o
Ht
LTTE

s
indeed, in Parham v. Southwestern Bell & Tele. Co.,
— F.2d . 3 CCH EPD, 8021 page 690 (8th Cir..
1970). ( Violation established by statistics which “revealed
an extraordinary small number of black employees”):
United States v. Haves International Corp., 415 F.2d
1038, 1043 (statistical evidence “amply demonstrates a
preliminary showing” suflicient to support preliminary
injunction); United States ¥. Sheet Metal Workers, Local
36, supra; United States v. Dillon Supply Co., 429 F.2d
800 (4th Cir., 1970). The legislative history of Title VU
shows that Congress intended statistical information. to
be used as evidence of discriminatory practices, 110 Cong.

Rec. 7213 (April 8, 1964).

There can be no doubt that the decision of the Court
of Appeals with respect to ‘the adequacy of the proof
showing a violation of Title VII is consistent with re-
spected authority and Congressional intent. This case does
not warrant this court's attention.

Amicus on page 3. note 2 of its brief erroneously states
that:

“It was stipulated that during the two year period
preceeding the filing of the suit, Lee Way in addition

to ‘searching diligently’ a ee

community or governmental sponsored program in
an effort to correct racial imbalance in its over-the-
road driver classification.”

There was no such stipulation of fact. It was only stip-
ulated that if the executive vice-president of Lee Way
Motor was called as a witness he would testify to certain
set out facts. This is a far cry from a stipulation of a fact.

~

involving 703(j). indeed, because of the enormous, un-
controvertible, racial imbalance in Petitioner's work force,
even if Plaintifli succeed in becoming line drivers the
effect will be imperceptible. To inject 703(j) into this
case would nullify the purposes of the act against con- .
tinuing effects of past discrimination, U. S. v. Electrical
Workers (IBEW) Local 38, 428 F.2d at 149, emasculate
the heart of the Act and open wide the door to open
as well as subtle violations. Petitioner's interpretation of

judicial decisions recognizing that it is “the duty of the
courts to make sure the Act works, and the intent of
Congress is not hampered by a combination of strict con-
struction of the statute and a battle with semantics.”
Culpepper v. Reynolds Metals Co., 421 F.2d 888, 891
(Sth Cir. 1970). See also, Bowe v. Colgate-Palmolive Co.,
416 F.2d 711, 721 (7th Cir. 1969) (“This grant of

10
authority (under 706(¢'' should be broadly read so as to
eHlectively terminate th: practice and make its victims
whole.”); Rosen v. Public Service Electric and Gas Co..

409 F.2d 775, 781 (3ed Cir. 1969).

authority granted to : uader Section 706(g) and that the

remedy in this case vas entirely appropriate. The question

does not warrant review by this Court.

The opinion of the Court of Appeals is grounded on

sound legal principles and recognized authority. It is there-
fore respectfully prayed that Petitioner's application for a

writ be denied.

il ‘i
APPENDIX
Title 42, US.C.A., § 2000c-2. Uniawjul
practices—t-mployer practices (703 a)

(a) it shall be an unlawiul employment practice for
an cmploy r—

or Abe

[Ramee en

or in violation of section 2000e-3(a). of this title.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385605_0856%3A3. Public record. Not legal advice.