Appendix — McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
Supreme Court brief1973
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
In The
ange COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
OCTOBER TERM, 1972
McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORPORATION,
Petitioner,
vs.
PERCY GREEN,
Respondent.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES
© COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
APPENDIX
li
Defendant's objections to plaintiff’s interrogatories,
Order sustaining objections
Plaintiff’s motion for production of documents for in-
spection, copying or photographing
Defendant’s objections to plaintiff’s motion for pro-
duction of documents for inspection, copying or
Order re defendant’s objections to motion for produc-
tion of documents
Amended complaint under Equal Employment Oppor-
tunity Act
Defendant’s motion to strike and dismiss for failure
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted 28
Order striking portion of amended complaint
Memorandum of court dated May 13, 1969
Notice to take depositions
Motion of defendant to quash notice
Affidavit of George S. Roudebush
Letter from Sim F. Beam, M.D. Pd.
Affidavit of C. L. Windsor
Order re motion to quash notice to take depositions. 41
Memorandum of court dated July 30, 1969
Amendment to amended complaint
Judgment dated September 25, 197J00 45
Notice of appeal filed October 5, 1970
Judgment filed March 30, 1972
Order on petition for rehearing
Plaintiff's Evidence
Percy Green, II—
Direct Examination
Cross-Examination
Peter C. Robertson—
Direct Examination
Oross-Examination
Percy Green, II (Recalled)
Redirect Examination
Recross-Examination
Redirect Examination
Recross- Examination
Colloquy between court and counsel
James T. Connell—
Direct Examination
Cross-Examination
Betti Green—
Direct Examination
Edward T. Foote—
Direct Examination
Louis Gilden—
Direct Examination
Reading from deposition of Charles L. Windsor ..
l
VVV PETS . ĩĩ 00
/ —õ—A—A—A TATA cabcnekach
v
Volume II
: Plaintiff's Exhibits
1—Application for employment
2—Employee release
Personnel security questionnaire ............... 519
Personnel rating chart . 525
6—Confidential reference information — 526
SE Me UO ³Ü¹ 0 ²˙ ;- 528
J A. · 529
$—Employee VV reckon nee 530
10—Employee review ............... . 531
11—Personnel rating chart ............ V 532
—Fersonnel rating chart... 533
Personnel rating chart ........................ 534
14—Personnel rating chart. . 535
15—Personnel rating ES ee es 536
16—Pereonnel rating chart. 537
Personnel rating chart ........................ 538
16—Employee release record ...................... 539
, 547
Service record Zw.. d0N gdh bck ci 550
r transfer .......................... 552
%—Letter from De Vry Technical Institute ........ 554
ES oe ees 555
E for transfer .......................... 556
W- Application for me ͤ V 557
A—aApplication for employment... 561
ing course record ........................ 565
| %—(Portions of records) „ 566
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
Percy H. Green, 7
Plaintiff,
vs. ;
*
Cause No.
McDonnell Douglas Corporation, a . Beep (3)
Corporation (Formerly Known ’ :
as McDonnell Aircraft Corpora- *
: tion), é
Defendant. ,
DOCKET ENTRIES
Date Proceedings
1968
Apr. 15 Complaint filed and summons issued. (7
July 3 Answer filed. i
Sept. 10 Plff's interrogatories to deft, filed.
Plff's request for admissions, filed.
Oct. 18 Answers of deft McDonnell-Douglas Corp to in-
terrogatories filed.
Answers in part of said deft and objection to
plff’s request for admissions filed.
Oct. 24 PIff’s interrogatories (set No. 2) filed.
Above objections and file to Judge Meredith.
Jan. 13
Deft’s objections to plff’s interrogatories (Set
No. 2) filed. Argument requested.
Deft’s objections to plff’s interrogatories, Set No.
2, argued and submitted.
Order filed sustaining deft’s objections to plff’s
Interrogatories (Set No. 2).
Motion of plff for production of documents for
inspection, copying or photographing filed.
Deft’s objections to plff's motion for production
of documents for inspection, copying or photo-
graphing, filed. Argument requested.
Plff’s motion for production of documents for
inspection, copying or photographing and deft’s
objections to said motion, argued and submitted.
Order filed sustaining deft’s objections to plff’s
motion for production of documents as to Para-
. graphs 1 through 11 and 19 through 21 and over-
Mar. 20
Mar. 21
Apr. 11
May 13
ruling as to Paragraphs 12 through 18 except
that these requirements are limited to the month
of July 1965.
Plff's amended complaint filed by leave.
Motions of deft to strike and to dismiss for fail-
ure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted filed. Argument requested.
Deft’s motions to strike and to dismiss for fail-
ure to state a claim upon which relief can be
.
granted argued and submitted.
Memorandum Opinion filed. Order filed granting
motion of deft to strike and dismiss certain por-
June 23
July 30
1970
Jan. 12
Jan. 13
3
tions of plff’s amended complaint alleging em-
ployment discrimination against plff for the rea-
son of race and striking same.
Motion of deft to quash Notice to take Deposi-
tions and Subpoenas filed. Argument requested.
Memorandum and order on motion of deft to
quash certain of plff’s notices to take deposi-
tions, filed.
Memorandum incorporated in and made a part
of order. Motion of deft granted and notices to
take depos. of Robert C. Krone and James S. Me-
Donnell quashed, on condition that officer or
managing agent of deft appear & have his depo-
sition taken within ten days. Subpoena directed
to Ivan Rutherford directing him to produce
security records of plff quashed.
Parties appear by their respective counsel and
announce ready for trial. Evidence on behalf of
plff. on trial of cause before the Court com-
menced, Further proceedings on trial postponed
until tomorrow at 10 A.M.
Again come the parties; whereupon the introduc-
tion of evidence on behalf of plff on trial of
cause before the Ct. is resumed, and concluded.
Oral motion of deft. for judgment in its favor
made at close of plff’s case and ruling thereon
reserved by the Court. Evidence on behalf of
deft. commenced but not concluded. Deft. granted
one week after conclusion of this hearing in
which to submit an additional exhibit.
Further proceedings of trial postponed until to-
morrow at 10 A.M.
2
Jan. 14 Again come the parties; whereupon the introduc-
Sept. 25
tion of evidence on behalf of deft. is resumed but
not concluded and further proceedings on trial
postponed until tomorrow at 10 A.M.
Jan. 15 Again come the parties; whereupon the introduc-
tion of evidence on behalf of deft. is resumed
and concluded. Evidence on behalf of plff. in re-
buttal is commenced and concluded.
Plff. granted 30 days after filing of transcript by
Ct. Reporter in which to submit proposed find-
ings of fact, conclusions of law and brief. Deft.
granted 30 days thereafter to file its proposed
findings of fact, conclusions of law and answer-
ing brief.
Plff. granted 15 days thereafter to respond cause
to be submitted after receipt of final brief.
Aug. 24 Plff's request to amend his complaint by inter-
lineation in accordance with memo. filed, pre-
sented and denied.
Memorandum Opinion filed. Judgment filed and
entered incorporating and making such Memo-
randum a part of this judgment, granting judg-
ment to the defendant and dismissing plff’s com-
plaint with prejudice, the costs herein to be paid
by plff.
Oct. 5 Plff's Notice of Appeal from order of May 13,
1969, striking from amended complaint alle-
gations of employment discriminating against
plff. for reason of race and from final judgment
entered in this cause on Sept. 25, 1970, granting
judgment to deft. and dismissing plff’s complaint
with prejudice and assessing costs against plff.,
filed.
9
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
Percy Green, Appellant,
v.
McDonnell Douglas Corporation, Appellee.
Apr. 15
Mar. 30
No. 20,596.
Docketed on Appeal from the Eastern District
of Missouri,
Argued and submitted to Judges Johnsen, Lay
and Bright. Arg. com. by Louis Gilden for aplnt;
cont. by Gaylord C. Burke for aplee; concl. by
Gilden.
Majority opinion by J. Bright; Concurring opin-
ion by J. Lay; Dissenting opinion by J. Johnsen.
Judgment: Judgment of D.Ct. reversed. Cause
remanded to D.Ct. for proceedings consistent
with opinion.
Petition of appellee for rehearing en banc.
Order on Petition of appellee for rehearing en
banc, with modification of majority opinion and
suppl dissenting opinion to dissenting opinion
filed Mar. 30, 1972 attached. Petition denied.
Mandate issued.
3
May 24 Order: Mandate recalled; Clerk of D. Ct. to re-
turn same to this Ct. Aplee gr to June 2 to file
pet. for rehr.
May 25 Mandate returned from D. Ct.
June 2 Appellee’s Renewed Petition for Rehearing En
Bane.
June 28 Order: Renewed pet. for rehearing en banc de-
nied by evenly divided Court. Pet. for reh de-
nied with J. Johnsen dissenting.
July 7 Order: Aplee’s mtn for stay of mandate pending
pet. for certiorari gr for period of 90 days from
June 28. Stay to continue if cert. gr.
Oct. 6 Statement of counsel for appellant for atty. fees.
Oct. 13 Response of appellee to applt’s request for al-
lowance of atty’s fees.
Nov. 2° Order: Louis Gilden awarded fee of $1,750 to be
taxed against appellee. Judge Johnsen dissents
from award of fee.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
(Title omitted in printing)
COMPLAINT UNDER EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY ACT
(Filed April 15, 1968)
Comes now the plaintiff and states: 0
1. That the defendant is and was at all times herein-
after mentioned a corporation cone s and existing un-
der and by virtue of law. ;
‘ia lina
2. That said defendant is a person engaged in indus-
try affecting commerce, having one hundred employees or
more in each of twenty or more calendar weeks and that
the defendant’s principal place of business is located in
St. Louis County, within this district.
3. That on or about the 14th day of September, 1965,
plaintiff filed a complaint with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission of the United States under 42
USC. A., Sec. 2000 in which he alleged that he was dis-
criminated against for employment by the defendant for
the reasons of race and because of his involvement in the
Civil Rights movement. That a copy of said complaint
is attached hereto and made a part hereof and marked
Plaintiff’s Exhibit ‘‘A’’.
4. That thereafter, the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission of the United States deferred said complaint
to the Missouri Commission on Human Rights in accord-
ance with the aforestated Act.
5. That the deferral period for the Missouri Commis-
sion on Human Rights to seek relief for the plaintiff ex-
pired, and thereafter the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission of the United States commenced its proceed-
ings and its investigation of the facts alleged in plaintiff’s
complaint before it. That said Commission instituted its
proceedings pursuant to a request of the plaintiff filed
with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of
the United States within two hundred ten days after the
unlawful employment practice occurred, to-wit: July 26,
1965, and thereafter. That the jurisdiction was requested
on copy of letter dated January 21, 1966, from the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, and said letter is
marked Plaintiff’s Exhibit ‘‘B’’ and is made a part
hereof.
6. That thereafter the Equal Employment Opportunity
— of the United States undertook its investiga-
8
tion and review of plaintiff’s case, and on the 8th day of
May, 1967, rendered its decision that reasonable cause
exists to believe that defendant violated Section 704(a)
of the Civil nares 1964 by refusing to accept the
plaintiff for empl t because of his involvement in
civil rights activities. The decision of the Equal Employ-
ment Opportunity Commission is attached hereto and
made a part hereof and marked Plaintiff's Exhibit C“.
That plaintiff was further notified by the Commission of
the findings on June 8, 1967, by letter which is attached
hereto and made a part hereof and marked Plaintiff's
Exhibit ‘‘D’’.
7. That thereafter on March 19, 1968, plaintiff was
notified by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commis-
sion of the United States that conciliation efforts with
defendant had failed to achieve voluntary compliance by
the defendant under the law, and that plaintiff may insti-
tute a civil action in the Federal District Court; that a
copy of said notice of right to sue within thirty days is
attached hereto and made a part hereof, and marked
Plaintiff’s Exhibit E“.
8. That the defendant has intentionally engaged in an
unlawful employment practice in that said defendant has
discriminated against plaintiff by denying him employ-
ment because he has opposed practices made an unlawful
employment practice by the law, and that plaintiff has
been denied employment because of his involvement in
civil rights activities.
9. That the plaintiff has lost wages by reason of the
unlawful employment practices of the defendant, and
plaintiff has also earned less money in other employment
than he would have earned had he been employed by this
defendant.
Wherefore, plaintiff prays that this Court find that the
defendant has intentionally engaged in an unlawful em-
ployment practice by having denied the plaintiff employ-
ment because he has opposed practices made an unlawful
employment practice by the law governing equal employ-
ment opportunities; that the Court further enjoin de-
fendant from engaging in this unlawful employment prac-
tice that this Court further order the defendant to hire
plaintiff in the position for which he applied for employ-
ment and that the defendant be ordered to pay to plain-
tiff all lost back pay, because of said unlawful employ-
ment practice; that the defendant be ordered to pay
plaintiff’s attorney reasonable attorney’s fees in accord-
ance with the law, and that said attorney’s fees be as-
sessed against defendant as costs in this action; and fur-
ther, that the defendant be ordered to pay all costs in this
action.
Js, Percy H. Green
(Affidavit omitted in printing)
/s/ Louis Gilden
Attorney for Plaintiff
722 Chestnut Street
St. Louis, Missouri 63101
CHestnut 1-6607
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
(Title omitted in printing)
ANSWER
(Filed July 3, 1968)
Comes now defendant McDonnell Douglas Corporation
and for its answer to the complaint filed herein states to
wthe Court as follows:
2 —
1. Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph 1
of the complaint.
2. Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph 2
of the complaint.
3. Defendant is without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the alle-
gations in paragraph 3 of the complaint except de-
fendant admits that plaintiff filed a charge against
defendant with the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission under Title 42, U.S. C. A., Section 2000e-5,
alleging plaintiff ‘‘was discriminated against for em-
ployment by the defendant for the reasons of race
and because of his involvement in the civil rights
movement.
4. Defendant is without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allega-
tions in paragraph 4 of the complaint.
5. Defendant is without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allega-
tions in paragraph 5 of the complaint.
6. Defendant is without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allega-
tions in paragraph 6 of the complaint.
7. Defendant is without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allega-
tions in paragraph 7 of the complaint, except defend-
ant admits that on or about March 19, 1968, plaintiff
was notified by the office of the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission that plaintiff may institute
civil action in the Federal District Court in accordance
with Section 2000e-5(e), Title 42, U.S. C. A.
8. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 8
of the complaint.
3
9. Defendant denies the allegation that plaintiff has
lost wages by reason of the unlawful employment
practices of the defendant and further defendant is
without knowledge or information sufficient to form
a belief as to the truth of the allegations that plain-
tiff has also earned less money in other employment
than he would have earned had he been employed by
defendant.
Wherefore, having fully answered, defendant prays that
it be dismissed from this ‘action with its costs.
/s/ Gaylord C. Burke
Edward T. Foote
Attorneys for Defendant _
1600 Boatmen’s Bank Building
314 North Broadway
St. Louis, Missouri 63102
CHestnut 1-6646
Bryan, Cave, McPheeters & McRoberts
Of Counsel
(Certificate of service omitted in printing)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
(Title omitted in printing)
PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES,
SET NO. 2
(Filed October 24, 1968)
Comes now the plaintiff and propounds the following
interrogatories under Rule 33 of the Rules of Civil Pro-
cedure:
*
1. State the monthly number of the total work force em-
ployed by your company in its St. Louis City-St. Louis
County facilities from January 1, 1961, to date.
2. State whether these employees are divided into job
classifications, and if so, state the classifications and the
basis for such classifications.
3. State separately the monthly number of whites and
non-whites holding each of the classifications set forth in
response to interrogatory No. 2 from January 1, 1961, to
date.
4. State separately the monthly number of white and
non-white persons hired to fill jobs in each classification
mentioned in interrogatory No. 2 from January 1, 1961, to
date. 3
5. State separately the monthly number of whites and
non-whites transferred from one classification to another
from January 1, 1961, to date.
6. State the criteria by which eligibility for transfer
from one classification to another is determined.
7. State separately the monthly number of whites and
non-whites who applied for transfers from one classifica-
tion to another from January 1, 1961, to date.
8. State whether or not your St. Louis City-St. Louis
County facilities maintain any line of progression, and if
so, further state:
a. The name and structure of each line of progression
in effect as of January 1, 1961, and modifications or addi-
tions affected at one year intervals thereafter to date.
b. State the pattern of movement from one job to an-
other in each line according to i“ seniority and ii“
race, from January 1, 1961, to date.
iin
9. State the seniority system or measure and any other
standard including those relating to qualifications, that is
currently applied to determine or select the employee that
will be promoted to a vacancy above the entry level of a
line of progression, and if such standards vary from those
imposed as of January 1, 1961, state:
a. The differing provisions in effect as of January 1,
1961, and January 1, 1964.
b. The reasons any changes were effected.
10. State separately the seniority of white and non-
white employees in each classification mentioned in inter-
rogatory No, 2 and in each line of progression mentioned
in interrogatory No. 6.
11. Describe all the requirements for initial employment
at the St. Louis City-St. Louis County facilities, including
requirements that the applicant pass an oral examination
or written test; further state:
a. If written tests are required, the jobs and/or lines
of progression for which a written test is required; in ad-
dition, state
i) The applicants who are required to pass a written
test as a condition of transfer or employment;
ii) The applicants who are exempt from such
written tests;
iii) The weight given to the scores of such a written
test in the decisions to hire or transfer.
b. If oral tests or interviews are required, the job
and/or lines of progression for which such test or inter-
view is required; in addition state
i) The applicants who are required to submit to
such a test or interview and the criteria by which the ap-
plicant is rated;
3
ii) The applicants who are exempt from such a test
or interview;
iii) The purpose of euch test or interview;
iv) The weight given to the rating resulting from
such an interview or test in the decision to hire or trans-
fer.
12. State separately the monthly numbers of white and
non-white applicants who the company has refused to hire
or transfer from January 1, 1961, to date; and further state
separately,
a. The number of whites and non-whites who were re-
fused employment or transfer because of failure to meet
the standards ruling the written test.
b. The number of whites and non-whites who were
refused employment or transfer because of an interview or
oral test.
13. Attach copies or identify specifically the documents
in which the teste and standards described in interroga-
tories No. 11 and No. 12 are contained.
/s/ Louis Gilden
Attorney for Plaintiff
722 Chestnut Street
St. Louis, Missouri 63101
Hestnut 1-6607
(Certificate of service omitted in printing)
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
(Title omitted in printing)
DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S
INTERROGATORIES, SET NUMBER TWO
(Filed November 13, 1968)
Defendant McDonnell Douglas Corporation objects to
Plaintiff’s interrogatories, set number 2, numbers 1
through 13, including all sub-paragraphs, on the follow-
ing grounds:
1, The interrogatories on their face are irrelevant to
the issues raised by the pleadings. In particular:
(a) Interrogatories 1 through 5, 7, 8 (a) and (b),
9 (a) and (b), 10 and 12 (a) and (b) concern a
period nearly eight years long, from January 1, 1961
to date; whereas, the pleadings raise issues concern-
ing only one incident of alleged discrimination, on
July 26, 1965.
(b) Interrogatories 1 through 4 concern all em-
ployees at Defendant’s plant for an eight year period;
whereas, the issues in this case concern only one
employee on one day.
(c) The pleadings raise no issues whatever of trans-
fers from one classification to another; whereas, in-
terrogatories 5, 6 and 7 demand information about
all ‘‘transfers’’ since January 1, 1961, and the „ori-
teria by which eligibility for transfer“ is determined.
(d) The pleadings raise no issues about any ‘‘line
45 of progression; whereas, interrogatories 8 through
10, including the sub-paragraphs thereof, demand in-
— —
formation about the line of progression since Jan.
uary 1, 1961.
(e) The pleadings raise issues about one man in
one job and at one time; whereas, interrogatory 11,
including sub-paragraphs thereof, is a blanket de-
mand about requirements for all jobs at Defendant's
plant.
(f) The pleadings raise issues about one man and
his qualifications for one job at one time; but inter-
rogatory 12 concerns an gight year period and thou-
sands of jobs and applicants, whose qualifications
have no oonceivable relevance to this proceeding.
2. Answers to these interrogatories would be excep.
tionally burdensome to prepare, as is shown on the at-
tached Affidavit.
3. None of-the interrogatories seeks information which
could reasonably be calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence.
Gaylord C. Burke
Edward T. Foote
1600 Boatmen’s Bank Building
314 North Broadway
L St. Louis, Missouri
Chestnut 1-6646
(Certificate of service omitted in printing)
Affidavit
(Title omitted in printing)
John M. Kozonasky, on his oath, states:
1. I am Supervisor of Personnel Records at St. Louis
for McDonnell Douglas Corporation, Defendant in a case
„
now pending in the United States District Court, Eastern
District of Missouri, Eastern Division, Cause No. 68 C
187 (2).
2. I have read Plaintiff’s interrogatories, Set No. 2,
served on McDonnell Douglas Corporation on October 25,
1968. I have investigated the work which would be
necessary to answer these interrogatories.
3. I have determined that since January 1, 1961, De-
fendant has received over 662,000 applications for em-
ployment at its St. Louis location and it has employed
over 69,000 new employes there. Over the period from
January 1, 1961 to date, there have been approximately
1400 different job classifications at Defendant’s St. Louis
plant. In order to answer Plaintiff's interrogatories De-
fendant would have to review all applications for em-
ployment which are still available and would then have
to review records of all employees actually employed
during this period (over 110,000) in order to distribute
them among 1,400 job classifications. In addition, all
existing change of status records would have to be re-
viewed, and these number in the tens of thousands. It
is my estimate that it would take three people working
a normal forty hour work week approximately three to
six months to obtain the information requested in Plain-
tiff’s interrogatories.
/s/ John M. Kozonasky
(Acknowladgment omitted in printing)
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
(Title omitted in printing)
ORDER
(Filed December 31, 1968)
This matter is pending on defendant’s objections to
plaintiff’s interrogatories, Set No. 2, being interrogatories
1 through 13. The Court has been advised by oral argu-
ment and briefs of the parties, and the objection of the
defendant to these interrogatories on the ground that
to answer these interrogatories would take three men
working from three to six months to obtain the answers
will be sustained. This is oppressive to the defendant.
It Is Hereby Ordered that the objection of the defend
ant be and the same is sustained.
Dated this 3lst day of December, 1968.
/s/ James H. Meredith
United States District Judge
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
(Title omitted in printing)
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS FOR INSPECTION, OOP.
ING OR PHOTOGRAPHING es"
(Filed January 13, 1969)
Comes now the plaintiff and under Rule 34 moves the
Court for an Order upon the defendant to produce and
1
permit the inspection and copying or photographing of
the following designated documents, papers, books, or
records which contain evidence which is in the possession
of the defendant, and states he has good cause for this
Motion in that this Court has heretofore entered an Order
sustaining objection by defendant to plaintiff’s Interroga-
tories, Set No. 2, upon the grounds that to answer said
interrogatories would be oppressive to defendant; that
the information requested in said interrogatories is the
same as that covered by this Motion, except that plaintiff
would have the burden of obtaining the information from
the books and records of the defendant. Said books and
records of the defendant are material in that they may
contain the evidence that establishes that the defendant
violated the law by refusing to accept the plaintiff for
employment because of his involvement in civil rights
activities and because he has opposed practices of the
defendant made an unlawful employment practice by the
law.
Plaintiff moves the production of the documents which
contain the following information:
1. The monthly number of the total work force employed
by defendant in its St. Louis City-St. Louis County facili-
ties from January 1, 1961, to date.
2. How these employees are divided into job classifica-
tions and the basis for such classifications.
3. The monthly number of whites and non-whites, males
and females, holding each of the classifications set forth in
2 above from January 1, 1961, to date.
4 The monthly number of white and non-white per-
sons, male and female, hired to fill jobs in each classifi-
cation ‘mentioned in 2 above from January 1, 1961, to
=e
5. The monthly number of whites, non-whites, males,
and females transferred from one classification to another
from January 1, 1961, to date.
6. The criteria by which eligibility for transfer from
one classification to another is determined.
7. The monthly number of whites, non-whites, males
and females who applied for transfers from one classifica-
tion to another from January 1, 1961, to date.
8. The line of progression in effect as of January 1,
1961, and modifications or additions affected at one year
intervals thereafter to date.
9. The pattern of movement from one job to another
in each line according to 1) seniority and 2) race, from
January 1, 1961, to date.
10. The seniority system or measure and any other
standard including those relating to qualifications that
is currently applied to determine or select the employee
that will be promoted to a vacancy above the entry level
of a line of progression as of this date and as of January
1, 1961.
11. The seniority of white and non-white employees in
each classification mentioned in 2 above and in each line
of progression mentioned in 6 above.
12. The requirements for initial employment at the St.
Louis City-St. Louis County facilities, including require-
ments that the applicant pass an oral examination or
written. test.
13. The written tests that are required, including the
jobs and/or lines of progression for which a ways test
is required; in addition,
a. The applicants who are required to pass a written
test as a condition of transfer or employment;
J
3
b. The applicants who are exempt from such written
tests ;
c. The weight given to the scores of such a written
test in the decisions to hire or transfer.
14. If oral tests or interviews are required, the job
and/or lines of progression for which such test or inter-
view is required.
15. The applicants who are required to submit to such
a test or interview and the criteria by which the appli-
cant is rated.
16. The applicants who are exempt from such a test or
interview.
17. The purpose of such test or interview.
18. The weight given to the rating, resulting from such
an interview or test in the decision to hire or transfer.
19. The monthly numbers of white and non-white, male
and female applicants who the company has refused to
hire or transfer from January 1, 1961, to date.
20. The number of whites, non-whites, males and females
who were refused employment or transfer because of fail-
ure to meet the standards ruling the written test.
21. The number of whites, non-whites, males, and females
who were refused employment or transfer because of an in-
terview or oral test.
/s/ Louis Gilden
Attorney for Plaintiff
722 Chestnut Street
St. Louis, Missouri 63101
‘CH 1-6607
(Certificate of Service omitted in printing)
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
(Title omitted in printing)
DEFENDANT'S OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF’S MO.
TION FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FOR
INSPECTION, COPYING OR PHOTOGRAPHING
(Filed January 21, 1969)
Comes now defendant, McDonnell Douglas Corporation,
and objects to plaintiff’s motion for production of docu-
ments, for inspection, copying or photographing on the fol-
lowing grounds:
1. The information sought is identical to that sought in
plaintiff’s interrogatories, set Number 2, previously filed
with the court, to which defendant’s objections were sus-
tained.
2. Part of the basis for defendant’s objections to those
interrogatories was that on their face they were irrelevant
to the issues raised by the pleadings, For the same reasons
presented in defendant’s objections to plaintiff’s interroga-
tories, set Number 2, the information sought and the docu-
ments to be inspected under this motion are irrelevant to
the issues raised by the pleadings.
3. None of the documents requested in plaintiff’s motion
could reasonably be calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. _—
4. Compliance with this motion would be extremely bur-
densome and time consuming.
—23—
Gaylord C. Burke
Edward T. Foote
1600 Boatmen’s Bank Building
314 North Broadway
St. Louis, Missouri 63102
CHestnut 1-6646
Bryan, Cave, McPheeters & McRoberts
Of Counsel
Notice
Please take notice that the undersigned will call these
objections up for argument in this court on February 14,
1969. :
Edward T. Foote
(Certificate of Service omitted in printing)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
(Title omitted in printing)
ORDER
(Filed February 14, 1969)
This matter is pending on objections to the plaintiff’s
motion for production of documents sought by the plain-
tiff. The plaintiff filed a complaint with the Equal Em-
ployment Opportunity Commission of the United States
under 42 U.S.C. 2000 in which he alleged that he was dis-
criminated against for employment by the defendant for
5 the Teasons of race and because of his involvement in the
sili cies
Civil Rights movement.“ The Equal Employment Oppor-
tunity Commission found that the alleged violation oe-
curred on July 26, 1965, that the date of filing the com-
plaint was September 14, 1965, and the date of service
was August 1, 1966, and in the findings held as follows:
„Although Respondent denies that Charging Party’s
involvement in civil rights activities was the reason
for rejecting his application for employment, a spe
cific finding of the prior investigative report prepared
by the U. S. Navy was that civil rights activity was
a factor in Respondent’s refusal to accept Charging
Party’s application.“
There is no allegation in the complaint that the reason
plaintiff was not employed was because he is a negro.
Plaintiff, in his motion to produce, seeks to elicit from
the defendant: the monthly number of total work forces
employed by defendant from January 1, 1951, to date; the
job classifications and the basis for such classifications; the
monthly number of whites and non-whites, males and fe-
males, holding each classification from January 1961 to
date, plus a breakdown of whites and non-whites for trans-
fers, applications, etc., on a monthly basis from 1961 to
date. All of these matters requested by the plaintiff show-
ing employment and the pattern of employment are com-
pletely unrelated to the suit in question and they are not
calculated to the discovery of any admissible evidence
and no good cause has been shown to justify production
of some seventy thousand files which would be required
under this motion. The Court will require the defendant
to furnish to the plaintiff the documents showing the re-
quirements for initial employment, the written tests re-
quired, the oral tests or interviews required, those exempt
from oral tests or interviews, the purpose of the tests or
interviews, the weight given to the rating resulting from
such an interview or test, all as set out in the plaintiff’s
3
motion, paragraphs Nos. 12 through 18. This will be lim-
ited to the requirements for the month of July 1965. In
all other respects the motion will be denied.
It Is Hereby Ordered that the defendant’s objections to
the plaintiff’s motion, paragraphs 1 through 11 and 19
through 21 are sustained,
It Is Further Ordered that the defendant’s objections to
the plaintiff’s motion, paragraphs 12 through 18, are over-
ruled, except that these, requirements are limited to the
month of July, 1965.
Dated this 14th day of February, 1969.
/s/ James H. Meredith
United States District Judge
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
(Title omitted in printing)
AMENDED COMPLAINT UNDER EQUAL
EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY ACT
(Filed March 20, 1969)
Comes now the plaintiff and by leave of Court files this
his First Amended Complaint and states:
J. That the defendant is and was at all times herein-
after mentioned a corporation organized and existing un-
der and by virtue of law.
2. That said defendant is a person engaged in industry
affecting commerce, having one hundred employees or
More in each of twenty or more calendar weeks and that
*
3
the defendant’s principal place of business is located in
St. Louis County, within this distriot.
3. That on or about the 14th day of September, 1965,
plaintiff filed a complaint with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission of the United States under 42
U.S. C. A., Sec. 2000 in which he alleged that he was dis-
criminated against for employment by the defendant for
the reasons of race and because of his involvement in the
Civil Rights movement. That a copy of said complaint is
attached hereto and made a part hereof and marked Plain-
tiff’s Exhibit A.
4. That thereafter, the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission of the United States deferred said complaint
to the Missouri Commission on Human Rights i in accord-
ance with the aforestated Act. —
5. That the deferral period for the Missouri Commission
on Human Rights to seek relief for the plaintiff expired,
and thereafter the Equal Employment Opportunity Com-
mission of the United States commenced its proceedings
and its investigation of the facts alleged in plaintiff’s com-
plaint before it. That said Commission instituted its pro-
ceedings pursuant to a request of the plaintiff filed with
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of the
United States within two hundred ten days after the un-
lawful employment practice occurred, to-wit: July 26,
1965, and thereafter. That the jurisdiction was requested
on copy of letter dated January 21, 1966, from the Equal
Employment Opportunity ‘Commission, and said letter is
marked Plaintiff’s Exhibit B and is made a part hereof.
6. That thereafter the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission of the United States. undertook its investiga-
tion and review of plaintiff’s case, and on the 8th’ day of
May, 1967, rendered its decision that reasonable cause
exists to believe that defendant violated Section 704(a) of
„
me pe
plaintiff for employment because of his involvement in
civil rights activities. The decision of the Equal Employ-
ment Opportunity Commission is attached hereto and made
a part hereof and marked Plaintiff’s Exhibit C. That
plaintiff was further notified by the Commission of the
findings on June 8, 1967, by letter which is attached
hereto and made a part hereof and marked Plaintiff’s
Exhibit D. N
7. That thereafter on March 19, 1968, plaintiff was noti-
fied by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of
the United States that conciliation efforts with defendant
had failed to achieve voluntary compliance by the defend-
ant under the law, and that plaintiff may institute a civil
action in the Federal District Court; that a copy of said
notice of right to sue within thirty days is attached hereto
and made a part hereof, and marked Plaintiff’s Exhibit E.
8, That the defendant has intentionally engaged in an
unlawful employment practice in that said defendant has
discriminated against plaintiff by denying him employment
because he has opposed practices made an unlawful em-
ployment practice by the law; that plaintiff has been denied
employment because of his involvement in civil rights ac-
tivities; and that he has further been denied employment
because of his race and color. .
9. That the plaintiff has lost wages by reason of the un-
lawful employment practices of the defendant, and plaintiff
has also earned less money in other employment than he
would have earned had he been employed by this defend-
ant.
Wherefore, plaintiff prays that this Court find that the
defendant has intentionally engaged in unlawful employ-
ment practices by having denied the plaintiff employment
because he has opposed practices made an unlawful em-
Ployment practice by the law; that he has been denied em-
‘Ployment because of his involvement in Civil Rights ac-
+
tivities; and further that he has been discriminated against
because the defendant has denied him employment because
of his race and color; that the Court further enjoin de-
fendant from engaging in these unlawful employment
practices; that this Court further order the defendant to
hire plaintiff in the position for which he applied for
employment and that the defendant be ordered to pay to
plaintiff all lost back pay, because of said unlawful em-
ployment practices; that the defendant be ordered to pay
plaintiff’s attorney reasonable attorney’s fees in accord-
ance with the law, and that said attorney’s fees be as-
sessed against defendant as costs in this action; and fur-
ther, that the defendant be ordered to pay all costs in this
action.
/s/ Percy Green, Plaintiff
Louis Gilden
Attorney for Plaintiff
722 Chestnut Street
St. Louis, Missouri 63101
CHestnut 1-6607
(Affidavit and certificate of service omitted in printing)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
(Title omitted in printing)
DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS TO STRIKE AND TO 18
MISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON —
WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED
(Filed March 21, 1969) ¥
Defendant McDonnell Douglas Corporation moves this
court to strike as impertinent, immaterial and scandalous
the following portions of plaintiff’s amended complaint:
.
ree Uae
1. In paragraph 8, the last clause alleging: [Alnd
that he has further been denied employment because of
his race and color.
2. In the prayer, the following clause: [ Alnd further
that he has been discriminated against because the de-
fendant has denied him employment because of his race
and color;’’
Defendant McDonnell Douglas Corporation moves this
court to dismiss those portions of the complaint quoted
above for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, because they are beyond the scope of the find-
ings of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,
as specifically alleged in paragraph 6 of the amended com-
plaint and attachment D, which is incorporated by refer-
ence into the amended complaint.
Gaylord C. Burke
Edward T. Foote
1600 Boatmen’s Bank Building
St. Louis, Missouri 63102
CH 1-6646
Bryan, Cave, McPheeters
& McRoberts
Of Counsel
(Certificate of service omitted in printing)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
Percy H. Green, A
Plaintiff,
vB.
McDonnell-Douglas Corporation, > No. 68 C 187 (2)
formerly known as McDonnell
Aircraft Corporation, a corpora-
tion,
Defendant. J
ORDER
(Filed May 13, 1969)
This matter is pending on a motion by the defendant
to strike and dismiss certain portions of plaintiff's
amended complaint. A memorandum filed this date is
hereby incorporated in and made a part of this order.
Accordingly,
It Is Hereby Ordered that the motion of the defendant
is granted and that portion of the amended complaint al-
leging employment discrimination against — for
reason of race is stricken.
Dated this 13th day of May, 1969.
/s/ James H. Meredith °.
United States District Judge
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
Percy H. Green, ‘
Plaintiff,
vs.
MeDonnell-Douglas Corporation, | No. 68 0 187 (2).
Formerly Known as McDonnell
Aircraft Corporation, a Corpora-
tion,
Defendant. :
MEMORANDUM
(Filed May 13, 1969)
This matter is pending on a motion by the defendant to
strike and dismiss certain portions of the plaintiff’s
amended complaint. The plaintiff filed this action against
the defendant, McDonnell-Douglas Corporation, on April
15, 1968, alleging a cause of action under Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e, et seq.).
A short background of the plaintiff’s complaints, as re-
flected by the pleadings, is necessary to place the present
motion in perspective.
The plaintiff alleges that he is a negro who has been
active in civil rights activities in the St. Louis area. He
applied to McDonnell Aircraft Corporation for a job, and
was told that nothing was available at that time. He filed
& complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5, alleging em-
yment discrimination against him for reasons of race
and involvement in civil rights activities. The Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission found that reason.
able cause existed to believe that the defendant refused
to accept the plaintiff for employment because of his in-
volvement in civil rights activities. No finding was made
by the Commission as to discrimination due to race. Con-
ciliation failed and the plaintiff was notified on March 19,
1968, that he had thirty days to commence a civil action.
The present action was filed on April 15, 1968, alleging
violation of Title VII, denial of employment because of
involvement in civil rights activities. The amended com-
plaint, filed on March 20, 1969, alleges denial of employ-
ment because of civil rights activities and also because
of race.
The defendant, in its motion to strike, contends that
this Court is without jurisdiction on the issue of dis-
crimination due to race, because the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission did not make a finding of rea-
sonable cause on this ground. The plaintiff contends that
this Court has jurisdiction regardless of the finding by
the Commission. He contends that the only jurisdictional
requirements to commencing a civil suit under Title VI
are the filing of a charge with the Commission and the
receipt of notification from the Commission.
The enforcement provisions of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 are found in 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5:
„(a) Whenever it is charged in writing under oath
by a person claiming to be aggrieved . . . that an
employer . . . has engaged in an unlawful employ-
ment practice, the Commission . . . shall make an
investigation of such charge . . . If the Commission
shall determine, after such investigation, that there
is reasonable cause to believe that the charge is true,
the Commission shall endeavor to eliminate any such
28
alleged unlawful employment practice by informal
methods of conference, conciliation, and persuasion.’’
„e) II. . . the Commission has been unable to
obtain voluntary compliance with this subchapter, the
Commission shall so notify the person aggrieved and
a civil action may, within thirty days thereafter,
be brought against the respondent named in the
charge
„(H) Each United States district court . . . shall
have jurisdiction of actions brought under this sub-
chapter.’’
The jurisdictional prerequisites to maintaining a suit
in the United States district courts under Title VII have
been the source of much recent litigation. However, none
of these cases considers the question of whether it is
necessary for the Equal Employment Opportunity Com-
mission to make a finding of reasonable cause. The cases
hold that an individual may not bypass the Commission
ad go directly to the courts. Stebbins v. Nationwide
Matual Ins. Oo., 382 F.2d 267 (4th Cir. 1967). The fol-
lowing have been held to be jurisdictional elements: (1)
acharge must be filed with the Equal Employment Com-
mission, and (2) the complainant must receive the statu-
tory notice from the Commission that it has been unable
to obtain voluntary compliance. Dent v. St. Louis-San
Francisco Ry., 406 F.2d 399 (5th Cir. 1969). Choate v.
Caterpillar Tractor Oo., 402 F.2d 357 (7th Cir. 1968).
Sekolowski v. Swift and Oo., 286 F.Supp. 775 (D.Minn.
1968). It has also been held that suit may not be brought
against an employer unless he was named in the charge
led with the Commission. Mickel v. South Carolina State
mployment Service, 377 F.2d 239 (4th Cir. 1967), cert.
ened 389 U.S. 877 (1967). The United States District
kor the Central District of California, in Edwards
dern American Rockwell Corp., 291 F.Supp. 199
i
(1968), dismissed a civil action under Title VII, holding
that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over al-
legations not presented to the Commission in the com-
plaint’s charge. It also stated that the findings of
reasonable cause and an attempt to conciliate’’ by the
Commission were not jurisdictional. This latter holding,
insofar as it relates to an actual attempt at conciliation,
is in line with other decisions. The holding as to a find-
ing of reasonable cause is unique, and is not supported
by any reasoning or discussion by that Court. Conse-
quently, it is not very helpful in the present case.
The decisions of courts construing this statute have
uniformly held that notice by the Equal Employment Op-
portunity Commission that it has been unable to effect
reconciliation is a jurisdictional prerequisite to civil suit.
If there has not been a finding of reasonable cause to
believe that the statute had been violated by a specific
conduct, there would not have been any occasion for
reconciliation. The finding of reasonable cause would of
necessity be part of the jurisdictional element of notice
that the Commission has been unable to effect recon-
ciliation.
That a finding of reasonable cause by the Commission
is necessary for the complainant to maintain a civil suit
is supported by comparing House Bill 7152 with the above-
quoted provisions of 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5. The present tert
of Title VII originated as a Senate substitute to the Title
VII provisions of House Bill 7152. The House Bill, inso-
far as it related to enforcement provisions, provided in
§ 707:
%a). . . If two or more members of the Com-
mission shall determine, after such investigation, that
there is reasonable cause to believe that the charge
is true, the Commission shall endeavor to eliminate
8
methods of conference, conciliation, and persuasion
99
*
**(b) If the Commission has failed to effect the
elimination of an unlawful employment praotice and
to obtain voluntary compliance with this title, the
Commission, if it determines there is reasonable cause
to believe the respondent has engaged in, or is en-
gaging in, an unlawful employment praotice, shall,
within ninety days, bring a civil action to prevent
the respondent from engaging in such unlawful em-
ployment practice,.
„e) If the Commission has failed or declined to
bring a civil action within the time required under
subsection (b), the person claiming to be aggrieved
may, if one member of the Commission gives permis-
sion in writing, bring a civil action to obtain re-
ef.
Under this version of Title VII, the charging party
needed only the permission of a single member of the
Commission to bring a civil suit, even if the charge was
rejected by the Commission for lack of merit. The absence
of a provision in the Senate substitute to provide for such
a contingent is striking.
There is an absence of the usual keys to legislative in-
tent because there are no committee reports for either
te House Bill or the Senate substitute. The only legis-
lative debate touching upon the problem is found at 110
Congressional Record 14186-92, Senate, June 17, 1964. Two
distinctly opposite views of the role of the Commission
atid its findings as related to civil suits are presented, and
Me not of benefit to the Court.
+ fhe plaintiff’s complaint to the Commission in the
‘Present action included allegations of discrimination upon
3 me | bases. The Commission found reasonable cause to be-
lieve that the plaintiff had been discriminated against be-
cause of his civil rights activities. The Commission men-
tioned the race allegation and then dropped it, without
any finding as to reasonable cause. Under these circum-
stances, the plaintiff may not maintain a civil action under
Title VII based upon the allegation of discrimination in
employment due to race. Therefore, the defendant’s motion
to strike that portion of the amended complaint which
alleges denial of employment due to race will be granted.
Dated this 13th day of May, 1969.
/s/ James H. Meredith
United States District Judge
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
a gs EASTERN DIVISION
(Title Omitted in Printing)
NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITIONS
(Filed May 27, 1969)
To: Edward T. Foote
Boatmen’s Bank Building
St. Louis, Missouri
Please take notice that on June 16, 1969 at the hour of
10:00 a.m. we shall cause the depositions of Ivan Ruther-
ford, C. M. O’Donnell, Robert Krone, James S. McDon-
nell, William J. Langton, Robert J. Lennahan, and How-
ard N. Morley to be taken at this office at 722 Chestnut
Street, St. Louis, Missouri, before an authorized Notary
a
Public for purposes of discovery, at which time and place
you may appear if you so see fit.
Dated this 26 day of May, 1969.
/s/ Louis Gilden
722 Chestnut Street
St. Louis, Missouri 63101
CH 1-6607
(Certificate of Service Omitted in Printing)
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
(Title omitted in printing)
MOTION OF DEFENDANT McDONNELL DOUGLAS
CORPORATION TO QUASH NOTICE TO TAKE
DEPOSITIONS AND SUBPOENAS
(Filed June 23, 1969)
Defendant McDonnell Douglas Corporation moves the
Court to quash plaintiff’s subpoenas and notice to take
depositions of Robert C. Krone and James G. McDonnell
and Ivan Rutherford on the following grounds:
_ 1. Robert C. Krone is recovering from a serious
__ heart attack and has been advised by his physician
that being deposed in the immediate future might
jeopardize his health. See attached affidavit.
2. James S. McDonnell, Chairman of the Board of
~ McDonnell Douglas Corporation, had nothing whatever
to do with the facts alleged in plaintiff’s complaint,
and has no first-hand knowledge of plaintiff’s experi-
a ene at McDonnell Douglas Corporation. His deposi-
4 ai 432:
tion would not reasonably lead to the discovery of ad-
missible evidence and is being demanded merely to
harass. See attached affidavit.
3. (Security Records relating to plaintiff have no
possible relevance to this case, and could not reason-
ably lead to discovery of admissible evidence. See at-
tached affidavit.
Thomas S. McPheeters, Jr.
Edward T. Foote
Attorneys for Defendant
1600 Boatmen’s Bank Building
314 North Broadway
St. Louis, Missouri 63102
241-6646
Bryan, Cave, McPheeters & McRoberts
Of Counsel
(Certificate of service omitted in printing)
Affidavit
(Title omitted in printing)
George S. Roudebush, being duly sworn, on his oath
states as follows:
1. I am Vice President-General Counsel of McDonnell
Douglas Corporation and held that position during July
1965, except that the company was then known as Me-
Donnell Aircraft Corporation.
2. During July 1965 J. S. McDonnell was Chairman of
the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer of the
company and David S. Lewis was President ‘and Chief
Operating Officer; all matters of employment at that time
were under the jurisdiction of Robert C. Krone, who re-
ported to David S. Lewis. J. S. McDonnell, as Chief Execu-
ill
iil was
tive Officer, was informed of various employment matters,
but took no part in any decision relative to the employ-
ment of Percy Green.
3. Robert C. Krone has suffered a heart attack and is
under the care of a physician and cannot presently testify
at a deposition. The certificate of Sim F. Beam, M. D.
dated June 4, 1969 to that effect is attached as Exhibit A.
Js, George S. Roudebush
(Acknowledgment omitted in printing)
‘Sim F. Beam, M.D.
Clayton Medical Building
35 North Central
Clayton, Missouri 63105
June 4, 1969 a
To Whom It May Concern:
This is to certify Robert C. Krone is unable to make a
deposition on June 16, 1969 because of ill health. It would
be distinctly disadvantageous to his condition to make
such an effort.
The date that such could be done safely cannot be ac-
curately stated. Surely not earlier than two months could
it be considered.
Signed Sim F. Beam, M. D.
B: mb
3
Affidavit
(Title omitted in printing)
C. L. Windsor, on his oath states:
1. I am Manager, Personnel Services, McDonnell Doug-
las Corporation (hereafter ‘¢McDonnell’’). ae
2. I was personally involved in all the decisions concern-
ing the application for employment at McDonnell made by
Percy H. Green on 26 July 1965.
3. The Security Records in the McDonnell Security
Office were not referred to by anyone in the McDonnell
Personnel Office regarding Mr. Green’s application for em-
ployment. Those files were and are located in the McDon-
nell Security Office which is in a building separate from
the Personnel Office.
4. No one from the Security Office was consulted about
Mr. Green’s application for employment.
5. The above statements are made to the best of my
knowledge and belief.
Ja, C. L. Windsor
(Acknowledgment omitted in printing)
—
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
Percy H. Green, q
Plaintiff,
vs.
McDonnell Douglas Corporation, ¢ No. 68 C 187 (2).
_ Formerly Known as McDonnell
Aircraft: Corporation, a Corpo-
ration,
Defendant. - J
ORDER
(Filed July 30, 1969)
This matter is pending on a motion by the defendant to
quash certain of plaintiff’s notices to take depositions. A
memorandum filed this date is hereby incorporated in and
made a part of this order. Accordingly,
It Is Hereby Ordered that the motion of the defendant
is granted and the notices to take depositions of Robert C.
Krone and James S. McDonnell are quashed, on condition
that an officer or managing agent of the defendant who
has knowledge of the issues in controversy be directed to
appear and have his deposition taken at the place in-
dicated in plaintiff’s motion within ten days from date.
The subpoena directed to Ivan Rutherford directing him
to produce the security records of the plaintiff is also
quashed.
Dated this 30th day of July, 1969.
„ James H. Meredith
United States District Judge
tens
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
Percy H. Green, 4
Plaintiff,
vs.
McDonnell Douglas Corporation, , No. 68 C 187 (2).
Formerly Known as McDonnell
Aireraft Corporation, a Corpo-
ration,
Defendant. J
MEMORANDUM
(Filed July 30, 1969)
On May 7, 1969, plaintiff filed a notice to take deposi-
tions and subsequently served subpoenas on several officers
and agents of defendant McDonnell Douglas Corporation.
Defendant has moved to quash certain of plaintiff’s sub-
poenas.
Defendant moves to quash the notice to take the depo
sition of Robert C. Krone on the ground that Mr. Krone
is recovering from a heart attack. The motion is sup
ported by an affidavit from Mr. Krone’s physician. De-
fendant also moves to quash the notice to take the depo-
sition of James S. McDonnell, Chairman of the Board of
McDonnell Douglas Corporation, on the grounds that he
has no first-hand knowledge of plaintiff’s relations with
defendant McDonnell Douglas Corporation, that his depo-
sition would not reasonably lead to the discovery of ad-
missible evidence and that the deposition was requested
merely to harass. Under Rule 30(b), F.R.C.P., this Court
— —
has the power to issue an order for the protection of a
deponent for good cause shown. Mr. Krone’s illness is of
such a nature that a protective order should be issued.
He may be deposed at a later date should his condition
warrant. Defendant’s motion with respect to Mr. McDon-
nell is also supported by an affidavit to the effect that he
has no knowledge of Mr. Green’s relations with the de-
fendant. This Court has discretion with regard to the
taking of the deposition of corporate officers and may
change the manner of taking the deposition or direct that
the deposition not be takeri when it appears that the offi-
cial has no first-hand knowledge of the factual setting of
the case. Skookum Company, Inc. v. Sutherlin Machine
Works, Inc., 33 F.R.D. 19 (D.Ore. 1963); Colonial Capi-
tal Co. v. General Motors Corp., 29 F. R. D. 514 (D. Conn.
1961); 4 Moore’s Fed. Prac. 630.06 (2d Ed. 1968).
Therefore, a protective order under Rule 30(b) will be
issued for Mr. Krone and Mr. McDonnell on condition that
an officer or managing agent of defendant who has knowl-
edge of the issues in controversy be directed to appear
and have his deposition taken at the place indicated in
plaintiff’s notice and within ten days from date.
Defendant moves to quash the subpoena duces tecum
issued to Ivan Rutherford directing him to appear with
the defendant’s ‘‘Security Records“ relating to plaintiff.
For the purposes of this memorandum, plaintiff’s sub-
poena should be considered as a motion for the production
of documents under Rule 34, F.R.C.P. Rule 34 requires
the showing of good cause by the moving party. In this
case plaintiff has made no showing of cause. On the other
hand, the defendant has filed an affidavit by the manager
of its personnel services that the security records were not
used during the consideration of Mr. Green’s application
for employment and that Security Office personnel were
not consulted in the decision regarding Mr. Green’s appli-
8
cation. Therefore, this Court will enter an order quashing
the subpoena duces tecum for Ivan Rutherford to produce
plaintiff’s security records.
Dated this 30th day of July, 1969.
/s/ James H. Meredith
United States District Judge
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
(Title omitted in printing)
AMENDMENT
(Filed August 24, 1970)
Comes now the plaintiff and moves to amend his
Amended Petition pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 15(b) in conformity and in accordance with the
evidence adduced, by adding the following words to para-
graph 8, page 2 of the amended complaint:
‘“‘{t]}hat said discrimination is a violation of 42 U.S.C.
61981 in that it was based on race, color, and civil
rights activities.“
Louis Gilden
Attorney for Plaintiff
722 Chestnut Street
St. Louis, Missouri 63101
(Certificate of service omitted in printing)
>
3
*
eile
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
Percy H. Green, ,
Plaintiff,
3 No. 68 C 187 (2).
MeDonnell-Douglas Corporation,
Defendant. J
JUDGMENT
(Filed September 25, 1970)
A memorandum dated this day is hereby incorporated
in and made a part of this judgment.
‘It Is Hereby Ordered, Adjudged, and Decreed that judg-
ment is granted to the defendant. Plaintiff’s complaint is
dismissed with ptejudice.
Costs are assessed against the plaintiff.
' Dated this 25th day of September, 1970.
James H. Meredith
United States District Judge
The Memorandum Opinion of the District Court dated
September 25, 1970, is printed in Appendix D to the Pe-
tition for Writ of Certiorari filed in this case, pp. A-40
through A-49, and is officially reported at 318 F.Supp. 846,
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
Percy H. Green, 7
- Plaintiff,
= 680 187 (2)
McDonnell-Douglas Corp.,
Defendant. —
NOTICE OF APPEAL
{Filed October 5, 1970)
Notice is hereby given that Percy Green, plaintiff above
named, hereby appeals to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Highth Circuit from the order of the
Court dated May 13, 1969, striking from the Amended
Complaint the allegations of employment discrimination
against plaintiff for the reason of race and from the final
judgment entered in this action on the 25th day of Sep
tember, 1970, granting judgment to defendant and dis
missing plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice and assessing
costs against plaintiff.
/a, Louis Gilden
Attorney for Plaintiff
722 Chestnut Street
St. Louis, Missouri 63103
241-6607
(Certificate of Service omitted in printing)
“or
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
No. 20596—September Term, 1971
Percy H. Green, '
Appellant,
Vs.
McDonnell-Douglas Corporation, 68 O 187
Formerly Known as McDonnell
Aircraft Corporation, a Corpora-
tion,
Appellee. )
JUDGMENT
(Filed March 30, 1972)
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri.
“This Cause came on to be heard on the record from
the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Missouri and was argued by counsel.
On Consideration Whereof, it is now here ordered and
adjudged by this Court, that the judgment of the said
District Court, in this cause, be, and the same is hereby,
And it is further ordered and adjudged by this Court
that this be and is hereby remanded to the said District
Court for further proceedings consistent with the ma-
jority opinion of this Court this day filed herein.
yr.
8
The Majority, Concurring and Dissenting Opinion of
the Court of Appeals dated March 30, 1972, are printed
in Appendix A to the Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed
in this case, pp. A-1 through A-29.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
No. 20,596
Percy H. Green,
Plaintiff-Appellant, |
v. f On Petition
for Rehearing.
McDonnell Douglas Corporation,
Defendant-Appellee. |
ORDER ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
FCued May 12, 1972)
Before Johnsen, Lay, and Bright, Circuit Judges
In response to a petition by McDonnell-Douglas Corpora-
tion for a rehearing, the majority of the court have decided
to modify the court’s opinion by striking Part V thereof
and substituting a revised Part V, which is set forth belov.
Judge Lay joins in the revised opinion and adheres to
Judge Johnsen dissents and files a supplemental dis
senting opinion, which is set forth below.
In light of these modifications, the court denies Me-
Donnell-Douglas Corporation’s * for a rehearing en
bane for the reason that the petition has failed to obtain
the vote of a majority of the Circuit Judges who are in
regular active service. A rehearing before the panel is
likewise denied.
The denial of the rehearing is without prejudice to the
right of either party to file a petition for a rehearing on
the court’s modified opinion.
The Revised Majority Opinion and the Supplemental
Dissenting Opinion dated May 12, 1972, are printed in
Appendix B to Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed in this
case, at pp. A-31 through A-38. The original and subse-
quent opinions are reported at 463 F. 2d 337.
.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
No. 20596 September Term, 1971
Rey H. Green, bith 1 Appeal from the
Ppeliant, | United States“ Dis-
| 2 triot Court for the
MeDonnell-Douglas Corp., ete., : 2 20
2 Missouri.
Appellee. -
ORDER
(Filed June 28, 1972)
The Court having considered renewed petition for re-
ne en bane filed by counsel for appellee, it is now
e Ordered that the petition for rehearing en banc be,
t is is hereby, ante by an evenly divided Court.
a woe
Treating the petition for rehearing en banc as also being
intended as a petition for rehearing to the original panel
in the case, the petition for rehearing is denied by such
panel, with Johnsen, Senior Circuit Judge, dissenting.
June 28, 1972
[1*] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
Percy H. Green, »
Plaintiff,
vs. No. 68 C 187.
Court No. 2.
Me Donnell-Douglas Corporation,
Defendant. -
St. Louis, Missouri
January 12, 1970
TRANSCRIPT OF TRIAL
Transcript of testimony adduced and proceedings had
during the trial of above-styled cause before
| Honorable James H. Meredith
Judge of the District Court of the United States, Eastern
District of Missouri, Eastern Division, presiding in Court
No. 2 thereof.
Appearances
Mr. Louis Gilden, attorney for plaintiff.
Mr. Edward T. Foote, attorney for defendant.
F
The Court: Yes.
* Numbers appearing in brackets in text indicate page num
bers of original stenographie trial transcript.
satis
Mr. Gilden: Your Honor, this is a matter that has been
brought under Title 7 of the 1964 Civil Rights Act known
as the Equal Employment Opportunity Act. I have talked
to Mr. Foote prior to the trial here this morning, and we
do have a stipulation we would like to give to the Court.
The Court: Very well.
Mr. Gilden: The stipulation is that Mr. Green did file a
complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunities Com-
mission of the United States, and the complaint that is
attached to our Petition’is the complaint that has been
filed; that the matter was then referred to the Missouri
Commission on Human Rights, that that was done; that
the Missouri Commission on Human Rights then undertook
an investigation of this matter and that the United States
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as well insti-
tuted an investigation of the matter and made findings in
this matter; that their findings are attached to this com-
plaint. And I think Mr. Foote has agreed that the Equal
Employment Opportunities Commission did make the find-
ings; and that there was a reasonable cause finding that
was made on May 8th, 1967 that a reasonable cause ex-
isted to believe that McDonnell-Douglas did violate Section
704(a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I think that is at-
tached as Exhibit C. That the additional jurisdictional mat-
ter of notifi- [3] cation by the Equal Employment Oppor-
tunity Commission of the United States to the plaintiff was
made that conciliation efforts had failed with the McDon-
nell Corporation: and that Mr. Green was then given what
is known as a thirty-day letter, and I believe that is attached
as Exhibit E to the complaint; and that he, of course, then
filed suit within thirty days as required by law. Is that
correct?
Mr. Foote: That stipulation is correct, Your Honor, with
this modification, that we will reserve the right, if we
may, to object to the introduction of the report of the
fin
conclusions by the Civil Rights Commission, but we will
stipulate that they so concluded as stated by Mr. Gilden.
The Court: Very well.
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
PERCY GREEN, n
was called as a witness and being first duly sworn to tell
the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth,
testified as follows:
Direct Examination, by Mr. Gilden
Q. Will you please state your name? A. Percy Green.
Q. Where do you live? A. 2987 Lawton Place.
Q. Are you presently employed? A. No, I am not.
[4] Q. How long have you been unemployed? A. Since
June 13th of 1969.
Q. Mr. Green, were you employed by McDonnell-Douglas
Corporation known as McDonnell Aircraft Corporation at
one time? A. Yes, I was.
Q. When did you commence your employment? A. Au-
gust 28, 1964.
Q. When did you first start working there? A. I’m sorry,
August 27, 1956. *
Q. What grade were you at the time you first obtained
employment at McDonnell Aircraft Corporation? A.
Grade 3.
Q. Grade 3 of what, sir? A. Radio, electric mechanic.
. Did your grade increase after that time? A. "Yes, it
A
Q. Did it go to grade 2 after that? A. Les, sir.
wel i
. In what year did that happen? A. That happened
about 57, 1957.
Q. Then did it go to grade 1 after that? A. Yes.
Q. What year did that occur? [5] A. About 58, between
57 and 58.
Q. What kind of work were you doing when you were
in grade 17 A. In grade 1 I was doing a type of work
similar to that of grade 3. I also did much more compli-
cated work on the flight line, some testing and trouble-
shooting.
Q. What department were you in at the time you were
grade 1? A. I was in the department that was called ex-
perimental. I first was in Department 156 and I later
transferred out to the experimental department where a
lot more sophisticated work was being done.
Q. What kind of equipment or product was McDonnell
Aircraft Corporation making that you were performing
work on? A. They were making two types of aircraft, one
was called the Demon, a Navy plane, the other was called
the F-101 Air Force.
Q. All right. Now you remained in grade 1 until what
time, Mr. Green? A. I remained in grade 1 up until I was
drafted; I was at the bottom of grade 1 by the way. I was
drafted in 1958.
Q. Into the Army? A. Into the Army.
Q. How long were you in service? [6] A. Twenty-one
months.
. What kind of discharge did you receive? A. Honor-
able.
An honorable discharge? A. Yes,
After you received your honorable discharge did you
2 to work for McDonnell Aircraft Corporation? A.
es, I did.
2
3
Q. When did that occur? A. It occurred about May of
1960, or June; I think I was released in May and I started
back to work sometime in June.
Mr. Foote: Your Honor, may the record show that Mr.
Gilden has asked me for the personnel file of Percy Green
and I am herewith presenting it to him.
The Court: Very well.
Q. (By Mr. Gilden) Now when you went back to work
at McDonnell Aircraft Corporation in May or June of
1960, what department did you go into A. I was assigned
to Department 174.
Q. What kind of work was that? A. That was side
panels for the forward fuselage of the FOH, I believe it
was.
Q. Was that an experimental airplane? A. No, it wasn’t.
It was in the beginning stage of the [7] FOH Phantom.
O. What does that mean, Mr. Green! A. Well, it was
sub-assembly for the, you know, this FOH was a Navy
aircraft, and it was at the beginning stage, and I was
assigned to the sub-assembly of the forward fuselage,
which entailed routing of wire bundles, splicing various
wires and so on and so forth.
O. Was this similar to the type of work you had per-
formed prior to the time you entered the service? A. Yes,
it was, sir. It was similar.
Q. Were you also a grade 1 at the time of your return
to McDonnell Aircraft Corporation? A. Yes. At the time
that I returned I was at the top of grade 1.
Q. Do you know what your salary was at that particular
time? A. I don’t know, I believe it was about two dollars
or something an hour. .
Q. Now did you remain in that particular grade for some
time, then? A. Yes.
J. For what period of time? A. I remained in that grade
up until which time later I requested a transfer.
[8] Q. What year was that, Mr. Green? A. That was in
19—You mean when I finally got the transfert
Q. No. When you asked for a transfer on the first oc-
casion? A. On the first occasion I requested a transfer
from 174 to Department 156; however, there was no in-
crease in pay or anything. But Department 156, which
was considered as the wiré crib, was more or less like a
transit operation, in order to move up, in order to move
into other departments.
Q Did you actually get transferred into 1561 A. Yes,
I did. A
Q All right. How long were you in Department 156?
A. I was in Department 156 for approximately two, three,
four months, before I requested an additional transfer to
Department 189.
Q. What was Department 189?
Mr. Foote: Your Honor, I am going to enter an objec-
tion at this point. Mr. Green has established his employ-
ment at McDonnell-Douglas. We will be glad to stipulate
that he was an employee, and that he later was laid off
for lack of work and get to the issues at hand in this
lawsuit which are, as I understand it, that he was refused
employment allegedly because of discriminatory reasons
when he came back and [9] reapplied. The Civil Rights
Act took effect on July 2nd, 1965. Many, many cases hold
that it is prospective and not retroactive in application.
Any more details as to Mr. Green’s former employment
at McDonnell-Douglas I do not believe are relevant to this
case. —
The Court: What is the purpose of the history of his
employment
—56—
Mr. Gilden: Your Honor, the reason I am getting into
it, of course I am not testifying here for Mr. Green, but I
think that if Mr. Green were permitted to testify, he will
testify as to the discriminatory practices on the part of
McDonnell Aircraft Corporation prior to the time that he
was laid off in 1964. And these discriminatory practices
actually gave rise to the discrimination that occurred after
the effective date of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. I wish
the Court to know about Qualls v. Philip Morris Company,
271 Fed.(2d) 842. That said, and this was the holding
of the Court, the present consequence of past discrimina-
tion acts are not outside the coverage of the act. It is
just a question of showing the discrimination that occurred
while he was employed prior to the time that he was
laid off which gave rise to the discrimination that oc
curred in 1965.
The Court: The objection is overruled. Proceed.
Q. (By Mr. Gilden) Now I am sorry—Will you give
[10] me the last question, ma’am?
(Question read by the reporter, as follows:
„What was Department 1897“
Q. (By Mr. Gilden) All right. A. Department 189 was
considered as being the beginning stages of the electrical,
of the electronic equipment division. It was just in the
beginning stage.
Q. Were they working on any particular phase of pro-
duction? A. Yes.
Q. What were they working ont A. At that time they
were working on the, if I can remember, the direct radar
scope camera and also the nose steering gear. 72
Q. Was this on the Gemini project or on an airplane!
A. This was of the airplane.
. Of the airplane itself? A. That is right.
3
Q. Were you actually moved into Department 1891 A.
Yes.
Q. For what period of time did you remain there? A.
I remained there—I remained there in that department
up until the change. That department developed into later
Department 966. The title was still the same, Electronic
[11] Equipment Division but it was on a broader scope,
which at that particular time produced a lot of other
Navy and Air Force electronic equipment.
Q. Mr. Green, during this period of time had you had
security clearance? A. Yes. I had a confidential security
clearance when‘I first was hired.
. Did that remain with you during this whole time?
A. Ves.
Q. Now after weer department—you said *
966 was almost the same as Department 189 except the
number? A. That is correct.
How long did you remain in Department 9661 A.
Iremained in Department 966 up until I was finally trans-
ferred to Department 948 or 958.
Q. What was Department 948 or 958? A. It was Re-
search and Development.
Was that considered a promotion? Were you in fact
later transferred to that department? A. Yes, later I
was transferred in 1963 to that department.
Q. Was that considered a promotion at that particular
time when you-—
Mr. Foote: Object to the question, Your Honor. I [12]
don’t think the proper foundation has been laid and I
don’t think he is asking for an opinion—considered by
whom !
ur. Gilden: I think a man can testify if he believes he
— ae
Mr. Foote: Well, if the question is whether he believes
he was promoted, that is fine.
Mr. Gilden: That is all I am trying to find out.
The Court: OK.
Mr. Foote: I will withdraw the objection.
Q. (By Mr. Gilden) Did you believe you were promoted
at the time you moved into this other department! A.
Yes.
Q. Were you given another classification at the time
you went into this department? A. Yes, the classification
I was given at that time was Research and Development
technician B. a
Q. Do you know when the transfer was made, what year
and what month? A. The transfer finally was made in
1963, the second time that I applied for the transfer.
. When did you first make the first request for a trans-
fer? A. The first request was made sometime in 1962.
what month? [13] A. Approximately August or
September, I believe.
Q. Now when you requested this transfer, whom did you
talk to on the first occasion? A. The first occasion I
talked with a section chief there in charge of the tech-
nicians by the name of Ed Sinecki. ;
. Ed Sinecki? A. Yes.
Q. Do you know whether he is still with the McDonnell
Corporation? A. No, I do not know.
Q. He was called the section chief? A. Something to
that effect.
Q. All right. A. He was over all of the technieians.
Q. Did you put your request in through him? A. Yes
Q. Did you have a conversation with him? A. Yes.
ihn
. Can you tell us what that conversation was? A.
Yes. At the time I requested to be transferred in 1962
he told me at the time that I would be making too much of
a sacrifice and that the work up there was dirty and that
it was not the wisest thing to do. He began to ask me
about my appearance.
{14] Q. How were you dressed at that particular time?
What was your attire?
Mr. Foote: I will object to the relevance of that, Your
Honor. a
Mr. Gilden: Well, the relevance, Your Honor, is that,
here again it is for Mr. Green to testify to is that the
nature of his dress was one of the factors in discussion
and goes into the whole question of discrimination at that
corporation.
The Court: Overruled.
A. I was dressed the same as other persons that was
dressed in that kind of work, the production type work. I
believe I had Levi’s, a T-shirt, your know.
Q. Did you have a beard at that time! A. Ves.
Q. What did he say about your dress at that time?
A. Well, he said that he prefer persons in that department
who would dress casually because they had a number of
sales persons to come through and interview—not to in-
terview, but who come through and to look at the de-
partment and so on and so forth. And that——
Q. Was he referring to the department that you were
in at that time before the transfer was made? A. No. No.
He was referring to the department that I was applying
for.
[15] Q. I see. A. From my remarks to him was that,
how could he tell how I would dress before I was actually
given the transfer, that I was dressed according to the
BY production persons worked, I mean dressed.
a ee
. Now did you-— A. (Continuing) He then be-
gan 5
Q. I am sorry, go ahead. A. He then began to imply
that instead of following an example
Mr. Foote: I object to any testimony of what Mr. Sin-
ecki may or may not have implied.
The Court: Sustained.
A. He told me that—he told me that upon me being
transferred into that department, don’t say I didn't warn
you.
Q. (By Mr. Gilden) About what? A. About the great
chances of me being terminated; that I would be confined
to the menial and dirty work; and that he had a fellow
at one time that worked ten years in the production area,
roduction end of things there at McDonnell, and upon
ing transferred into the department, within a week’s
as laid off. And he just reiterated the great pos-
sibilities of ne being terminated upon insisting upon com-
ing into that department.
[186] Q. Why at that time did you want to transfer to
this department? A. I wanted to be transferred to that
department because of the kind of work I was doing at
the time was—was testing, troubleshooting, supporting
the engineers and various details regarding the equip-
ment I was working on. And at the same time it would
have given me a lot more exposure advancement into the
field of technology and advance in pay.
Q. All right. Now at this particular time on this first
occasion in which you asked to be transferred to this
department 958, had you taken any training courses with
McDonnell Aircraft Corporation? A. Yes. 3
Q. How many training courses have you taken! A.
Oh, I taken a number of them. I guess, I think they
would total, I taken blueprint reading at one time, I taken
ail.
4
many others, and my final course out there was in the
field of electronics.
Q. Do you know what year that was in? A, It was
in 62 over into I will say—I think it began in 62 and
it was about a fourteen or fifteen week course, and I
think I finally finished or completed that course in May
of, May 14th, 1964.
Q. Were these courses offered at the plant at McDon-
nell [17] Aircraft? A. Yes,
Q. They were on your own time! A. Ves.
Q. They would be before work or after work? A. After
work.
Q. After work? A. Yes. I was working during the
day so I had to go to school in the evening.
Q. All right. Now after you had this first conversation
with Mr. Sinecki and he told you what you have already
indicated in testimony here, did you then make a transfer
to Department 9581 A. No, I didn't. I was frightened.
I was frightened to the extent that he would actually
terminate me because of his terms of wanting me
Mr. Foote: I will object to that question and move
that it be stricken from the record as not responsive.
The Court: Sustained. It may be stricken.
Q. (By Mr. Gilden) Based upon your conversation with
Mr. Sinecki did you make a transfer? A. No, I backed
4
Did you decide not to make a transfer? A. I decided
not to.
{18} Q. All right. Then you continued working in this
department 966 then for what period of time before you
made application again? A. Approximately a year later.
Do you know when you asked for transfer gn the
ond occasion? A. I believe it was sometime aby.
Q. What year? A. 1963.
Q. Do you know whom you talked to on that occasion,
the time you requested transfert A. Let's see. Yes, |
talked with Mr. Sinecki and Bob Godefroid this time.
J. Who is Mr. Bob Godefroid? A. Bob Godefroid was
the immediate supervisor under Ed Sinecki.
Q. Did you make a request through their offices then,
these two gentlemen? A. Yes, I made a request again.
Q. Did they have a conversation with you on the second
occasion? A. Yes, they did.
. Can you tell us what that conversation was? A
The conversation was basically the same as in 1962. [19]
There was constant talk about the layoff and the, and the
loss of seniority.
Mr. Foote: Your Honor, may we have who said what!
Q. (By Mr. Gilden) Will you tell us who said it, Mr.
Green! A. All right. Ed Sinecki once again reiterated
his statement about the darned chance I am taking for
giving up my seven years’ seniority to come into his
department; and that once again there is a great chance
of me being laid off. He said this about three or four
times during our conversatiom He mentioned, he talked
about the dress again.
Q. What did he say about the dress? A. He asked
me about my sunglasses, my tinted glasses, my eyeglasses,
and I explained to him that they were tinted prescribed
by, you know, an eye specialist. And he reiterated about
the dirty work. I replied by saying that the work I have
been doing all along has been, you know, rather dirty.
I’m not afraid of geting my hands dirty and so forth
and so on, and that I would like an opportunity, just to
prove myself. Well, the conversation just went ‘backward
and forth around me giving up my seven years’ seniority
and the dress.
iis.
Were you at that time a member of the Labor
Union? A. Yes.
mat union was that? [20] A. The International
Hlectrical, no, the International, ILA. U. W., or one of those
the Machinists Union. It would be Local 9, the regulur
Machinists Union that still exists there.
Q. This new department that you asked for the change
to, was that non-union or union work? A. That was non-
union.
. You would have a non-union classification, is that
correct? A. That is right.
Q. Was that also explained to you at that time? A.
Yes.
. And you were willing to accept a non-union status?
A. That is right. —
Q. Now did a change actually take place then, Mr.
Green? A. Yes. The change taken place just before I
had another conversation with a fellow by the name of
Mr. Burgess.
Before you had the conversation with Mr. Birge
the transfer took place? A. Yes.
Q. All right. Now do you know when the transfer was
made to this new department of 189, I am sorry, this
would be—— A. 964.
Q. 964, I'm sorry? [21] A. 966.
Q. 966% A. I am sorry.
Q When did the transfer take place to Department
966 A. That was from Department—that was when 189
was changed. I think you mean the transfer took place
from Department 966 into Ed Sinecki’s department, which
was either Department 948 or 9——
581 A. 958.
I meant 958. When did the change take place to
Department 9581 A. That transfer taken place about
ptember of 63.
Seed
Q. All right. Now what kind of work were you doing
prior to the time that you transferred to Department 968
A. I was doing testing, troubleshooting and repair; you
know, testing various pieces of electronic equipment. And
if the equipment didn’t function, then it was my job to
troubleshoot it and to make it function per engineering
_ procedures, you know, the test procedures that the en.
gineers have written up. And then also it was my duty
to find the mistake and then repair it and then sell it
to the McDonnell inspectors, and then sell it to the Navy
inspectors before it could be shipped off to the Depart.
ment of the Navy.
[22] Q. All right. Was this a Navy aircraft that was being
worked on at the time? Was that why the Navy was in.
terested? A. No, this was support equipment, ground sup.
port equipment, at this particular time. It was a much
more sophisticated piece of equipment than what I was
working on prior to the department change from Depart-
ment. 189 to Department 966.
Q. What kind of work was being. performed at tiat
time in Department 9581 A. What kind of work was 1
doing there?
Q. What kind of work were they doing in Department
9581 A. In 958 they were doing design work, and a great
deal of the work was work the same as I was doing prior
to my transfer. Some was troubleshooting various pieces
and testing equipment and repairing it, in other words the
greatest part of this work was the same identical work I
was doing.
Q. You felt you had the qualifications to make the
transfer? A. I sure did.
Q. You had the ability and capacity to do this work!
A. Absolutely.
Q. Who was in charge of Department 958 to your know/-
edge at that time? A. Ed Sinecki was still in charge at
the time.
*
7
-Q When you transferred to Department 958 were you
given [23] a tour of the department? A. No.
What is a tour, Mr. Green, based upon your informa-
tion? A. The tour is to show a technician of the many
- different facets of the department, to meet some of the
_ oher-persons, the engineers and the other technicians, and
do familiarize a person to the nature of the work and so
en and so forth.
‘Q You were not given a tour then? A. No.
Q Were you given a training period at the time the
transfer was made? A. No.
Tou went through no training courses for the work
you were to perform? A. No.
Lon remained in that department from September
1963 up until what date? A. August the 28th, 1964.
Q. What happened on that particular date? A: I was
terminated. I was—well, the term that they used was
Q. While you were working in this particular depart-
ment [24] 958 what kind of work did you perform? A. I
was confined to menial tasks of making wire bundles for
panels. Mainly my work was fabricating wire bundles for
panels, various panels for the Gemini simulator.
Q The Gemini simulator, was it the Gemini program
at that time? A. Yes.
Fart of the satellite program? A. That is right, part
of the space program.
Were there men in that particular department using
the talents that you had had-prior to the time that you
had moved over to this department, doing the same kind
of work that you had performed before! A. Oh yes, cer-
tainly.
Lou were not given the same work that you had
fo before you were now in Department 958? A.
No, I wasn’t. I was given a type of job that—lI was given
the kind of job that I had conducted when I first come
to McDonnell, and that was, you know, in 1956. I was
given, you know, the building of the wire bundles, routing
wire.
Q. You started off then in grade 3, would you consider
that about a grade 3 level? A. Absolutely.
Q. That you started out with when you first went to
work [25] at McDonnell Aircraft Corporation? A. That’s
right. ;
Q. Therefore you knew the kind of work you had per.
formed before and you knew the work that you were doing
now, and the work you had performed before you went
to the department was more sophisticated A. (Inter-
rupting) That’s right.
Q. And had needed more talent to perform? A. Yes.
Q. Is that right? A. Yes.
Mr. Foote: Your. Honor, I object to the question as lead-
ing and also asking for the opinion of this witness.
The Court: I will sustain the objection.
Q. (By Mr. Gilden) I will ack Wu, Mr. Green, whether
or not the talents you were called upon in Department 958
to perform was comparable to the talent that you needed
to perform the work before you went to the department!
Mr. Foote: I will object to that question as asking for
this witness’s opinion and his interpretation of whatever
talent, the word ‘‘talent’’, means.
The Court: Overruled.
Q. (By, Mr. Gilden) You may answer the question, Mr.
Green. [26] A. The work—I’m sorry.
Q. Let’s rephrase it for you. You were moved over to
Department 958, correct? A. That’s right.
age Saad
8
28
All right. The work you were doing in Department
958 was comparable, you have already testified, to grade
that you performed and did the work when you first
went with McDonnell Aircraft Corporation? A. That is
right.
. Did you have the capacity to do better work than
you did and were given in Department 9587 A. Absolutely.
Certainly.
Q. Did you have the capacity to perform the work that
other members were performing that required greater
talent? A. Absolutely.
Were you given the opportunity to perform this
work? A. No.
At any time while you worked in this department
A. There were a few times where I was given a litle module
card.
Q. What was that answer, a module card?
The Court: Speak into the microphone.
A. I’m sorry. A module card, patch circuit, you know,
is actually what it is. I was given an opportunity to test
that [27] once in awhile. And—But that was so few—I
mean the times that I had an opportunity to do this was so
few that it was just like I hadn’t really had any opportu-
nity to do any test work. It is a little patch circuit that
vou just stick it in and a light triggers, and if it don’t,
something is wrong with the transistor, and I might have
to replace it or something.
Q. (By Mr. Gilden) Now while you were in this de-
partment were you ever offered a job at Cape Kennedy?
A. Yes. Bob Godefroid, about two or three weeks, I mean
about two or three months after I was in the department,
asked me would I, you know, would I take, would I go
on a trip, a field trip, to Cape Kennedy. And I told him,
I said, yes. You know, and I hadn’t heard anything else
about it up until one time I did ask the lead or group
engineer, by the name of Hammonds I believe, whatever
happened to the request to go to Cape Kennedy. So his
reply was well they had enough persons or they cancelled
it or something to that effect. But I never was really given
a reason why. And neither do I recall of any of the other
technicians from the section that I was in going.
Q. Getting back to the year 1962 when you first made
the request for transfer to Department 958 and then be-
tween that time and the time that you finally made the
transfer, were there any other men that were transferred
from the other departments, 189 or 966, to this new depart.
ment 958? [28] A. Yes. A fellow by the name What really
inepired me was a fellow by the name of Leo Jeffress, who
was requested, He was a union person who had more
seniority than myself, and the department that I later
requested a transfer to requested
Mr. Foote: I will object to this testimony as hearsay,
Your Honor.
The Witness: No, this is——
Q. (By Mr. Gilden) Do you know that another man was
transferred! A. Yes. I Kno
Mr. Foote: I object to that as having no proper founda-
tion. I don’t believe he has established how he knows any-
thing like that.
The Court: I will sustain the objection.
Q. (By Mr. Gilden) Do you know whether any members
were transferred from your department of 189 or 966 to
Department 958 after you were told in 1962 that you
shouldn’t make the transfer? A. Yes.
Q. All right. Who were the people that made the trans-
fert A. The person that made a transfer was one Dave
Lowe, and the other person was Leo Jeffress.
Q. Were they white or black people? [29] A. White.
ie OB cess
All right. Now in Department 958 that you went to,
how many people were in that department when you
worked there? A. I would say it was approximately one
hundred technicians that was in the whole entire depart-
ment.
How many black people were in that department?
A. Zero. None.
. Prior to the time you came in? A. That is right.
Q. You were the only black person at the time you
were employed, is that correct? A. That is right.
Q. Now getting back to the Cape Kennedy, Oape Ca-
naveral thing, you were never given any reason why the
transfer was not made? A. No, I never was given any
reason.
Q. But you were in agreement that you would make the
transfer? A. Absolutely; yes.
Q. All right. Now in August 1960--strike that. During
this period of time up until August 1964, were you engaged
in any Civil Rights activities in the Metropolitan St. Louis
community? A. I was.
[30] Q. Were you a member of any organization during
that period of time? A. Yes.
. What organization or organizations were you a mem-
ber of at that particular time ! A. I was only a member o
one and that organization was CORE. :
CORE! A. Yes.
When did you join CORE to your knowledge? A.
I believe it was in 1960, around 1961.
Q. Were you given any particular job or chairmanship
while you were a member of that organization? A. In
1963, let’s see, in 1964 about January I became the Em-
ployment Committee chairman.
©Q For whom! A. For CORE.
—
Q. All right. Now as Employment Committee chairman
were you engaged in any Civil Rights protest activities in
the Metropolitan St. Louis community? A. Yes.
Q: What type protest were you performing at that par-
ticular time? A. In 647
[81] Q. Yes. A. I believe we were still at the Jefferson
Bank situation there, for jobs at the Jefferson Bank for
. blacks. And we was in the committee—well let's see. I think
that was the only protest demonstrations that were going
at that particular time. But it was winding itself up
around January of 64, and it was—I became the employ-
ment chairman just before that project was ended.
Q. From January 1, 1964 to August 1964, were you
engaged in any Civil Rights protests in the community!
A. Yes.
Q. What was that protest? A. It was the Gateway Arch
and the construction industry.
Q. The construction industry around the Gateway Arch!
A. That. is right.
Q. When did that begin, Mr. Green? A. That began in
January 1964, with the research and all the other, the
actual protesting began in July, early July.
. Of 19649 A. I would say 1964.
Q. Did you participate personally in the demonstra-
tions at the Arch? A. Yes.
Did you do anything—Strike that. What did [32]
you do by way of your own demonstration? A. Well, I
participated in the picket lines and on July the 14th of
1964 myself and another fellow, I can’t recall his name
now, climbed the Gateway Arch.
Q. Now on that particular date were you still em-
ployed by McDonnell Aircraft Corporation in Department
9587 A. Yes, I was.
Q. Did your climbing of the Arch in any way interfere
with any of your duties at McDonnell Aircraft Corpora-
3
tion? A. No, they did not, because at the time that I
climbed the Arch I was working on the third shift. The
climbing of the Arch was done during the day. However,
I was working, I was asked to go on the third shift.
Mr. Foote: I object. The answer is not responsive to
the question.
A. No, it didn’t interfere.
Q. (By Mr. Gilden) It did not interfere? A. No.
Q. Now at any time up, until August of 1964, did any
of your Civil Rights activities interfere with your em-
ployment in any way? A. No. In no way or form.
Q. Were you ever late for work because of your Civil
Rights activities? [33] A. No.
Were you ever absent from work because of your
Civil Rights activities? A. No. I went—The only time
that I was late or maybe absent a few times was after I
found out that my mother had cancer.
Q. Was that after you had made the switch into a ae
ticular department? A. That is right.
Q. What department was that, Mr. Green! A. That
was in Department 958 when I became a research and de-
velopment technician.
Q. For what period of.time did you have some absences
because of your mother’s illness? A. It was at the—Oh,
I guess about—After I was on the third shift. It was
about that time when, you know, my family discovered
that.
Q. Then after, you say on a few occasions you were ab-
sent, is that correct? A. That is right.
Q. After that did you have a good work employment
record? A. Yes.
At McDonnell. Aircraft Corporation! A. That's
a *
— 72
[34] Q. You said you climbed ROA on July 14th, 19641
A. That is right.
Q. Do you know of your own knowledge the effective
date of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act? A. The
Equal Employment Opportunity Act, the effective date
as pertains to employment was the 2nd of July, 1965.
Q. July 2nd, 1965? A. That is right.
Q. Do you know when it was enacted of your own
knowledge? A. Well, the Bill itself was a year prior to
July the 2nd, 1964, but the employment end of it was en-
acted in 65.
Q. You mean the enforcement date, the beginning? A.
The enforcement date.
Q. Now in August of 1963, you have already testified
that you were laid off, is that correct? A. August of 64.
Q. 64, I’m sorry, is that correct! A. Yes.
Q. Now when did you first receive information about
your layoff? A. I received that information about a week
or maybe a week and a half before the termination date.
Q. How did you receive this information? A. Bob Gode-
froid went around and asked certain [35] persons, and he
finally come up to me and said that he was asking—that
I was asked to report over to a certain room for testing,
and that there were eighteen of us, and we were slated
for layoffs, ad that we were required to go over and
take a test in order to see whether we could be placed
elsewhere.
Q. At that particular time, Mr. Green, were you still
the only black employee in that department? A. That is
nicht.
Q. Then you would have been one of the eighteen to be
laid off or given tests, is that correct? A. That is right.
Q. Did you then go over to the room to take the test?
A. Yes. I went over to that room and the fellow there .
*
a ae
said that the test wasn’t mandatory and I—He asked
whether there was any questions and I raised my hand,
and he recognized me. I told him that I would like to not
take the test because I had just finished an electronics
course On my own time there at McDonnell and that the
same time that I think that my work record speaks for
itself as far as being placed in some other department,
and that could I be excused. And he said yes. And I was
the only person who did not take the test. So I come—I
went—I then left the testing area, the testing room, and
returned to my work station.
[36] Q. Did you later request a meeting with any of the
supervisory personnel? A. Yes.
Q. Who were they? A. I asked to speak with Godefroid
and Ed Sinecki.
Q. Did you in fact hold a meeting with them? A. Yes,
I did.
Q. Can you tell us what Mr. Sinecki said and what Mr.
Godefroid said? A. Well, first I asked Godefroid and
Sinecki how could they determine who were to be placed
on the—placed on the layoff list. They then replied to me
about, he then told me about a totem pole, and I didn’t
understand. I asked him would he be kind enough to ex-
plain to me how does it work and everything. And he
began to tell me that this opinion of placing various per-
sons at various points on the totem pole was his own
evaluation plus Ed Sinecki’s and some of the engineers.
Q Were you told how men were placed on this totem
pole? A. Im sorry.
Q. What went into placement on the totem pole? Were
you told how it was made up? A. No, he never did really
tell me, he just said it was based on his observations of
the work and so on and so forth.
[87] Q. Were you ever shown a copy of this totem pole?
4 Ummm a
*
7 —
a
Q. I mean at that time. A. Not that I can—No, I don’t
think I was,
Q. Were you ever told that men above you on the totem
pole were also being laid offf A. No.
Q. You weren’t told your placement on the totem pole
at all? A. No. He just told me that I häppened to fall
within the eighteen persons that were being laid off.
Q. Were you told at that time when a decision was
made for layoff? A. I’m sorry, you said
Q. Do you know when the decision was made for lay-
offs? Were you told the date? A. No, I never was told.
Q. What else transpired at that meeting? A. Well, I
asked him asked him that—lI told him, I said in lieu
of my past record and my job performance, even though
I had undergone all of the tests that was perpetrated
upon me, the harassment and some of the other things
you know——
Mr. ‘Foote: I object to that answer as not responsive
and a gratuitous statement of this witness’s opinions and
not [38] proper evidence.
Mr. Gilden: You are objecting to the whole answer, or
just to the
Mr. Foote: To the word ‘‘harassment’’.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. (By Mr. Gilden) Just go on, Mr. Green. A. And the
treatment, and I never did, rebuttal, I pointed out that
my work performance was certainly considered by a num-
ber of the engineers, even though it was menial work, but
it was high quality, and that I couldn’t really understand
how I could fall within that jurisdiction, when there were
so many other persons that couldn’t do and their quality
of work wasn’t near up to the expectations.
es
0. Was any more said about your taking the test? A.
Well, yes. I think at this point he asked, Why didn’t
you take the test!“ I told him, I said, Well, I think
that it wouldn’t be to my best interest to take the test
with men who were already slated for layoff.’’ I told
him, just to prove that I was capable and competent more
so than the persons that you are retaining, I would love
to take a test with the persons that you plan to retain,
and that if my score doesn’t beat, I mean if my score
wasn’t better than three-quarters of the persons that you
plan to retain, that I would be willing to be laid off.
[39] O. What did they say to that! A. Well, they said
no dice, you know. We can’t do it.
Q. They did not give the test then, to your knowledge,
to the men that were retained, is that correct? A. No.
Q. Was any more said after that particular conversa-
tion with Mr. Sinecki and Mr. Godefroid? A. Yes. I then
asked could I have permission to speak with someone in
personnel, their immediate supervisor.
Q. Was a meeting set up for you then after that? A.
I originally wanted to have a meeting with Dave Lewis
who was the president of the firm. He was out of town
so they say at that time. And they told me that the chain
of command would be to go to George Peck who was the
general manager over EED. So I said, well
Tell us what the initials E.E.D. stand fort A. The
Electronic Equipment Division.
Q. That was the division that you were in, is that cor-
rect? A. That is right.
Q. That was the kind of work you had been perform-
ing! A. That is right.
All right, go ahead. A. So, finally I was given an
opportunity to meet with [40] Mr. George Peck in his
office, and at that time was when he was accompanied
by Mr. Windsor, Duke Windsor.
>
a
O. Do you know Mr. Windsor’s title at that time! A.
Yes. He was second in command to R. C. Krone, who was
vice president of personnel at that time, so I believe his
title was general manager or something to that effect.
Q. What happened at this particular meeting! A. At
this meeting we discussed the layoff situation and the
totem pole bit. And Mr. Peck reassured me that he would
take a look at my record and so on and so forth, and that
he couldn’t understand either, you know, that, you know,
with the work record that I had and so on and so forth,
that they wouldn’t be able to place me elsewhere if they
couldn’t keep me there. However, during the course of
the conversation Duke Windsor, thumbing through my
personnel file, asked me about the Arch situation. He
asked me do I feel whether or not I am going to be con-
vieted for climbing the Arch and I told him
Q. Was this the first time you had ever met Mr. Wind-
sort A. Yes.
Q. That was your first A. (Interrupting) That was
the first time that I met him.
Q. I see. All right. A. And I noticed that that clip-
ping, you know, the newspaper clipping was in my file.
And I asked him could I see [41] it and he said, well,
yes, no.
Q. He said what? A. No, I wasn’t allowed to look at
my file. So the meeting ended, and Mr. Peck said he
would look at my record and that he would talk with me
later.
Q. What was your purpose in the meeting? Why did
you call the meeting? A. Well, I called the meeting—the
purpose of the meeting was to get some better answers
than what I was getting for being laid off, than what I
received for being laid off.
Q. Was it your purpose to remain on the job? A. The
primary purpose was to show that there was an error in
wh a
my being terminated with my long service with the com-
pany and my better job performance and so on and 80
forth.
Q. All right. A. And I wanted to give the company an
opportunity to study the situation and to make the neces-
sary changes. So Mr. Peck said, well, he would look at
my record and he would, you know, call me back, let me
know something.
Q. Do you know how long before your termination you
had this meeting? A. It must have been—I think I had
about a week left.
Q. All right. [42] A. Sure enough, Mr. Peck called me
back over and he said, at this time Windsor wasn’t pres-
ent, and he told me he didn’t, you know, he didn’t under-
stand how this come about either. But that is the way
the game was played, so to speak, you know, and that,
you know, even though he is sympathetic, there is very
little that he could do about it, you know, and that was
basically it.
Q. Did you have any meetings with any other super-
visory personnel after that meeting? A. Yes. After that
I requested to meet Mr. Krone.
Were you given the opportunity of meeting with
him? A. Yes.
Q. When did that meeting take place? A. One meeting
taken place—one meeting took place about two days be-
fore the—about three days prior to my actual layoff, and
this meeting was held in Mr. Krone’s office.
. Who was present at that particular time? A. Mr.
Krone and Duke Windsor.
Q. What was stated in your presence? A. It was stated
that I was not—that he would investigate the situation;
that he doubt very seriously whether I was laid off; and
that they were trying like everything in order to get me
Placed in some other department that I would be doing
ion
about the same kind of work; and that he was certainly
[43] looking into the matter; and the day of the layoff,
about four hours prior to, you know, the quitting time, I
was asked to come over.
Q. Over where? A. Over to Mr. Krone’s office where
Duke Windsor was present again, and we had a four.
hour session. And Mr. Krone informed me that he had
investigated the situation; that there was no acts of dis-
crimination; that he had tried and tried and tried in
order to place me in some other department; and all this
was seconded by Mr. Windsor, you know.
Q. Had you made any complaints about discrimination
about being a black man prior to that meeting? A. Did
I complain of discrimination?
Q. Against you because of your color to anybody in
any department? A. Well, yes. Yes, I made mention of
that to Sinecki and also to Mr. Peck on the way up, you
know, that it seemed awful strange to me of me being the
only black person in the department and the only black
person who ever been in that department, you know, for
them to see fit in order to cut me out of the picture. And
this was reiterated even in the presence of Mr. Krone
and Windsor. Of course, they taken exceptions to it
They began to say, well, they mentioned the totem pole
also. And they began to say, well, you can rest assured
after my investigation it is no base for such a charge,
[44] and that you remember you was warned prior to
coming into this department, you are coming in at your
own risk. I pointed out, I say, well, is there any way I
would be judged on the merit of my work, and one thing
led into another. And Mr. Windsor had some input and
we exchanged various a
—
Q. Was there any decision then to retain you or were
you to be laid off! A. No, there was no decision to retain
me. It was that you will be laid off until we happen to
ilies
find a place for you, and if so, you know, we will call
you and let you know.
Q. At the time that you had this conversation, this last
one, before being laid off, with Mr. Krone, he told you
that he had done an in-house work-up on your matter?
A. I’m sorry. ;
Q. He had done some work inside the corporation on
the charges that you had made? A. Yes. That is what
he said. a
Q. Did he have papers in front of him at that particu-
lar time showing he had done a work-up? A. No.
Q. At the time that he talked to yout A. No. No. It
was just strictly off-the-cuff type of conversation.
Q. Were you in fact laid off? [45] A. Yes.
Q. Can you tell the date of that layoff? A. Yes. On my
birthday, August the 28th, 1964.
Q. Now on August the 28th, 1964, were you still chair-
man of the Employment Committee of CORE? A. Yes.
Q. Shortly thereafter was there a demonstration in front
of Mr. McDonnell’s home? A. Shortly thereafter? Let's
see. Shortly thereafter—first there was some communica-
tion from the organization to
Mr. Foote: I don’t believe that is responsive to the ques-
tion, Your Honor.
Q. (By Mr. Green) Was there a demonstration? A. Yes,
it was a demonstration.
Was there any correspondence between the organiza-
tion and the McDonnell Aircraft Corporation? A. Les.
Q. Were there any demands placed upon McDonnell Air-
craft Corporation by CORE? A. Yes.
Q What were these demands? A. These demands was,
me, that I be reinstated into my job, reinstated as far as
ty’ job was concerned; two, that they upgrade and hire
vite
more black persons into the better-paying jobs, [46] you
know. One was hiring and the other was upgrading, and
the reinstatement of myself I believe it was.
Q. Did you, after your layoff, at any time, file any
charges of discrimination against McDonnell Aircraft be-
cause of the layoff with any federal or state agencies? A.
Yes. I filed charges with the President’s Commission on—
the President’s committee or commission on Civil Rights
activities.
Q. Was that the commission that Franklin Delano
Roosevelt, Jr. held at that time as chairman! A. I don't
think 80. 1 think this was the commission that was exist-
ing before the Equal Employment Opportunities Commis-
sion, Franklin Delano Roosevelt taken over the E.E.C.
O. That's right. A. And I filed——
Q. Who else did you file charges with? A. I filed com-
plaints with the Justice Department. I filed complaints
with the Navy Department, the Department of Defense,
you know, about five different agencies. I don’t recall
exactly the names.
Q. Were these complaints filed after CORE had made
its demands or prior to the time CORE made its demands,
do you know? A. Always prior to the demands. I filed the
complaints always before the demands.
[47] Q. Before the demands were made by the organiza
tion? A. That is correct.
Q. Based upon the complaint that you made with the
federal and state agencies, were you interviewed by any
man from any federal or state agencies after that? A. Tes.
Q. Whom were you interviewed by! A. I was inter
viewed by at that time a Lt. Wolf, who was from the
Navy Department. I was interviewed by a Mr. Peter
Robinson from the Missouri Commission on Human Rights.
I was also interviewed by a fellow by the name of Morley.
Q. Howard Morley? A. Howard Morley.
3
Who was he associated with? A. He was associated
with the federal people.
. Would that be the Federal Office of Contract Com-
pliance, do you know? A. I think so.
Q. Or was he with the Navy Department? A. Well, I
can’t recall. It seemed like to me he was working with a
combination of both the Compliance as well as the Navy.
I don’t really know.
Q. They all interviewed yon subsequent to your charges
being placed with these various agencies, is that correct?
[48] A. That is right.
Now did you participate in the picketing at Mr. Mc-
Donnell's home? A. Yes.
Q. Did you know where Mr. McDonnell lived at that
particular time? A. Les.
Q. Where did he live? A. No. 1 Glenview Drive, Ladue.
Where did the picketing take place, Mr. Green? A.
Ittaken place on, is it Warson Road? It taken place there
at the intersection of Glenview Drive and that busy sec-
tion, I don’t recall the name of that street. I don’t know
whether it is Warson Road or what it is.
Q. Did any of this picketing take place on Mr. McDon-
well’s property? A. No. There was an arrest situation.
Q. Who was arrested? A. A lady by the name of Judy
Weston.
QI see. Were you arrested at that particular time?
A, No.
Q. You stated that the picketing did not take place on
is property? A. No. 1
(@] Q. Was there any injury to any person or property
ising out of that picketing? A. No) None. In fact.
1 k. Now after you left the employment of MeDon-
ll Aircraft Corporation and you were laid off on August
28th, 1964, did you go to work after that? A. No, I was
unemployed for.a whole entire year.
Q. How much were you making on the date of your
layoff? A. I was making better than three dollars an
hour. 5
Q. How many hours a week were you working! A. I
was working forty hours a week.
Q. Was there also some overtime during this period,
if you know? A. It was some periodically.
Q. You said you were unemployed. For what period
of time were you unemployed? A. I was unemployed
from August 28th, 1964, up until sometime about the
middle of September of 65.
Q. Where did you go to work in September of 1965!
A. I went to work for Bianco Manufacturing Company.
Q. What was your job or title at Bianco Manufacturing
Company? A. Inspector.
. How long did you work there? [50] A. I worked
there from that period up until about June 1966.
Q. Did I ask you to bring your records with you, your
employment records with you this morning? Do you have
those as to what you earned during the years 1965 and
667 A. Yes, I have that out there.
Q. Well, we will get to that a little bit later. A. OK.
Q. Now did anything unusual occur in the month of
July, 1965, with respect to the McDonnell Aircraft Cor-
poration? A. In July 65
Q. Right. A. July of 65. July the 2nd of 65, yes,
another demonstration taken place. That was to focus
the attention upon the enforcement of the 1964 Civil
Rights Act as it pertained to employment. And that
demonstration taken place, it was a series of demon-
strations.
W aies
Q. Was this in honor of the observance of the effective
date of the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Act,
is that correct, Mr. Green? A. Yes.
Q. Is that correct, Mr. Green? A. Correct, yes.
Q. It was July 2nd, 1965751] A. That is right.
Q. CORE was engaged A. (Interrupting) No.
Q. Which organization? A.\ACTION.
Q. When did you switch over from CORE to ACTION?
A. In October of 64.
Q. In October of 64 you made the move into a new
organizational structure, is that correct? A. That is right.
Q. That name was ACTION! A. That is right. At
that time it was called Action Council to Improve Op-
portunites for Negroes.
Q. Was the basic purpose or philosophy of ACTION
at its inception the question of equal opportunities for
blacks in employment? A. That is right.
Q. That was basically the work you had done before
with CORE, is that correct? A. That is right.
Q. And that was a carry-over into the work that :
ACTION was performing? A. That is right, somewhat.
Q. Now what was your title with ACTION on July
2nd, 1965, [52] the effective date of the 64 Civil Rights
Act? A. Chairman.
. Chairman of ACTION! A. That is right.
Q. What series of demonstrations took place on July
2nd, 19651 A. We were demonstrating at Union Electric
for better paying jobs for the black male, and there was
also a picket line later went up to the Roberts Building.
. Who was housed or tenants in the Roberts Building?
A. The McDonnell personnel.
. Where was the Roberts Building located? A. Twelfth
and Delmar, I believe.
3
. Did you demonstrate in front of the Roberts Build.
ing on that particular date? A. Les.
Q. What was the purpose of that demonstration? A.
To focus upon the enforcement of the 1964 Civil Rights
Act as pertained to employment.
Q. Were you arrested arising out of that demonstra-
tion? A. No.
Q. You were not? A. No.
Q. Were you arrested at all on that particular date
aris- [53] ing out of any of these demonstrations that
took place on the effective date of the lawt A. No.
Q. Was there any injury to persons or property arising
out of the demonstration in front of the Roberts Building!
A. No.
Q. After July 2nd, 1965, did you have occasion to go
to the premises of McDonnell Aircraft Corporation? A.
Tes.
Q. What was the purpose of going there? A. Employ-
ment.
Q. To get a job? A. Yes.
Q. What day did you go there to get a job! A. I went
there—let’s see. The ad appeared July 25th. I went
there on July 26th. I went there July 26th, that was a
Monday I believe, 1965.
Mr. Gilden: Will you mark this Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1!
(Thereupon, the document above referred to was
marked by the reporter for identification as Plaintiff's
Exhibit 1.)
Q. (By Mr. Gilden) Mr. Green, I will hand you what
has been marked Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1 and ask you if
this is the application for employment that you filled out
at that time? .
[54] The Court: Plaintiff's Exhibit what?
|
wa
Mr. Gilden: Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1, Your Honor.
A. Yes, this is it.
Q. This is it? A. Yes.
Q. What is the date of that application? A. 7-26-65.
Mr, Gilden: I would like to introduce into evidence
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1.
Mr. Foote: No objection, Your Honor.
The Court: It may be réceived.
Q. (By Mr. Gilden) What time did you get down to
McDonnell Aircraft on that particular date? A. Oh, it
was early that morning, approximately 8:00, 8:30, 8:15.
. Did anybody come with you? A. Yes.
Q. Who did you have with you? A. At that time Betti
Ruffin. :
Q. Is she in any way related to you at present? A. Yes.
Q. What is she? A. Wife. 0
Q. She is your wife? At that time you were not mar-
ried? [55] A. No.
J. She came with you? A. Yes,
Q. What office did you go to for your application for
employment? A. Personnel office.
. All right. Were there other people there in attend-
ance at the time you walked in? A. Yes, there was a few
other persons.
Al right. Can you tell me whether there is a re-
veptionist? Just tell me what happened? A. Well, 1—
the receptionist was present. And I went up to her and
requested an application. She gave it to me. And I sat
down and filled it out. Then I returned it to her, and
she told me to have a seat. At that point the application
Bees behind the scene, you know, to the interviewing,
I vould assume.
8
Q. Do you know what happened to the application of
your own knowledge? A. No. She taken the application
and then she taken it in the back there somewhere.
Q. All right. She walked back with it you meant
A. Yes.
Q. All right. [56] A. And Betti and I were sitting
there, and we were observing various things. Finally
we observed a black fellow who came up into a little
vestibule, so to speak, and he just kept, you know, watch-
ing and carrying on, you know, looking at me. I couldn't
believe it at first. But every so often he kept glancing
over. So we sat there and sat there and sat there, and
then finally a person called us up to the window. A
fellow I later learned to be Mr. Johnson, and I was at
the point, at that time I was observing the time, the
number of persons in the place and also observing their
badge number and everything.
Q. Was he white or black? A. Oh, he was 8
Q. White? A. Ves. And he told me, Well, thank you
very much for submitting your application at McDonnell.
We will call you as soon as we find a place that we can
use you.“ Well, Betti and I both was up there. So I
asked him, I said, ‘‘Well I have an ad here that was
published in yesterday’s paper. Are you telling me that
you have filled up all of the grade 2’s and what not!“
So he said, ‘‘Well, I am sorry. Thank you very much
for putting in your application. As soon as we find some-
thing for you, we will call you. I asked him the ques-
tion again. I showed him the ad. He become very nervous
and he [57] finally told me, he said, ‘‘Well, listen, I
have other people. I have to work, I have to wait on
them, and would you be kind enough to remove, yourself
from the premises!“ So I asked him, I said, “Would
you be kind enough to let me speak to your immediate
supervisor !“ Once again in a trembly voice he said,
„J am going to ask you again, would you kindly leave
oa Wis
the premises! And at that point I said, Well, thank
you very much. And Betti and I left.
Q. Did you hear any more from anyone after you made
application for employment? A. No.
Q. From the company? A. No.
Q. Were you ever sent a letter that you had been ac-
cepted for employment? A. No. And the ad just kept
appearing in the papers thereafter?
Q. What job were you applying for at McDonnell Air-
craft on July 26, 19651 A. I was applying for the grade
2 radio electric mechanic.
Q. Was that the job that had been advertised in the
newspaper the day before? A. That is right.
Q. Do you know what newspaper it was in to your
knowledge? [58] A. The Post-Dispatch.
Q. All right. They were looking: for certain people
to fill these positions? A. Right. That is right.
Q. You were never accepted for employment, were you!
A. No, I wasn’t.
Q. After July 26, 1965, did you ever have any personal
contact with any of the officers or supervisory personnel
of Ma ell Aircraft Corporation later known as Mo-
Donnell-Do..gias? Corporation, or McDonnell Corporation?
4 Had I had any contact with any of the
Q. Supervisory or officers or anyone else in corporate
positions with the company? A. Nothing that I can recall.
I don’t know whether that was—I don’t know whether
Mr. Krone was speaking some place and I attended that
meeting or not. I don’t believe so. After. 65, after the
26th day of 65, of July of 65, I don’t believe that I had
any other contact.
Q. Had you, after you didn’t receive any response to
your application, I assume you received no response at
all, yes or no? A. No, I didn’t receive any response.
5
Q. Either rejection or acceptance? A. No.
[59] Q. You received nothing? A. Nothing.
Q. Did you file a charge then with the Equal Employ-
ment Opportunity Commission? A. Yes.
Q. Did you also file a charge with the Missouri Com-
missiof on Human Rights? A. I did.
Q. After—strike that. These meetings with Mr. Rob-
ertson and Mr. Morley, that you testified to before, were
they meetings held before you had applied for employ-
ment in July of 1965 to your knowledge? A. No. They
were—these meetings that I had with those fellows taken
place after the filing of the complaint.
Q. Which complaint are you talking about? The one
on the layoff or the one where you were refused a job!
A. Well, it was an investigation when I was immediately
laid off.
Q. All right. A. Then after I filed the other 888
J believe it was in September of 65, Howard Morley, I
believe, and some other persons conducted the investiga-
tions. I’m not sure whether Peter Robinson was—I’m
not sure whether Peter Robinson was with the Equal
Employment Opportunities Commission [60] during this
latter.
Q. You were interviewed, were you not? A. Yes.
Q. Pursuant to this charge of discrimination? A. Yes.
Q. Based upon the fact that you-were not hired, is that
correct? A. That is right.
Q. Mr. Green, how far did you go in school? A. I
finished Vashon.
Q. High School? A. High School. Here in the City
of St. Louis. I also studied electronics from Devry Techni-
cal Institution, 4141 Delmar Avenue, Chicago, a corre
spondence.
Q. Is that a correspondence course? A. Yes.
—
Q. In addition to that you have already testified you
had certain training programs at McDonnell Aircraft
Corporation? A. That is right. Also when I was drafted
I was sent to Ft. Monmouth, New Jersey, to study the
missile and radar system. :
Q. Missile systems? A. And radar.
Q. Now did McDonnell Aircraft at the time you re-
turned [61] from the Army know about your prior ex-
perience in the Army? A. Yes, but it was just dis-
regarded.
Q. I see.
Mr. Foote: I will object to that answer as not respon-
sive to the question and ask that it be stricken as an
opinion of this witness.
The Court: It may be stricken.
Q. (By Mr. Gilden) Now after you weren’t hired—
strike that.
The Court: How much longer is his testimony?
Mr. Gilden: Oh, I think I have a lot of documentary
evidence to get in, Judge.
The Court: Let's take a recess until 1:30.
(Thereupon, the Court declared a recess until 1:30 p.m.
the same day, January 12, 1970,
During the recess, at the request of counsel for the
Plaintiff, Plaintiff's Exhibits 2 through 32 were marked
by the reporter for identification.
At 1:30 p.m. on January 12, 1970, court was duly re-
convened, the parties appeared and the following pro-
ceedings were had:) N
3
[62] Afternoon Session
Monday, January 12, 1970; 1:30 O’Clock P.M.
Mr. Gilden: Your Honor, before we start there are two
depositions that should be filed with the Court, the deposi-
tion of Percy Green taken May 2nd, 1969, and July 2nd,
1969. They were in my possession for signature, but Mr.
Foote and I stipulated they may be filed without signature
by agreement.
Mr. Foote: That is correct, Your Honor.
The Court: Very well.
PEROY GREEN, n
recalled, having been heretofore duly sworn, testified fur-
ther as follows:
Direct Examination (Continued), by Mr. Gilden
Q. Mr. Green, you have already testified, I believe, that
after September. 1964, you were unemployed for some time
is that correct? A. That i is correct.
Q. What was your first employment after September
1964? A. My first employment was for Bianco Manufac-
turing Company.
Q. That began when? A. The middle or the latter por-
tion of September 1965.
How long did that job last? [63] A. I worked there
up until 66, June.
Q. Of 19661 A. Right.
Q. Where did you work after that? A. After that I went
to work for the Jewish Employment and Vocational
Service.
Q. When did you start that employment? A. June or
July of 66.
icc
Q. How long did that last? A. That lasted up until
68, June.
Q. June of 68? A. That is right.
Q. Where did you work after that? A. A construction
job, Opportunity: program.
Q. When did you start that job? A. June 69, June 68
up until I was—up until June 13th, 69.
Q. June 13th, 691 A. That is right.
Q. Where were you employed after that? A. Unem-
ployed.
Q. You have been employed since June 13th, 1969? A.
That is right.
Q. Now, have I.asked you to bring a record of your
[64] earnings from the time of July 1964 into court this
afternoon? A. Yes.
Q. Do you have the record of your earnings with you!
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Do you want to get that, Mr. Green? A. ( Witness
leaves the stand and returns with some documents.)
Q. In the year 1964 what were you earning? -
Mr. Foote: Objection, Your Honor. I don’t believe this is
the best evidence. There has been no foundation laid to
show the W-2 forms or original documents are destroyed
or are not in existence or in Mr. Green’s possession.
Mr. Gilden: He can testify what he made during the
course of a year and that would be sufficient evidence; it
is not necessary that he have W-2’s, that isn’t the best
evidence. His own testimony would substantiate his earn-
ings.
Mr. Foote: The best evidence are the documents re-
flecting how much he was paid, not his recollection several
Years later.
The Court: Is this a document he made up from his own
memory?
The Witness: No, it is not. This is a document I made
up from my——
Q. (By Mr. Gilden) Tax records? [65] A. Yes.
Mr. Foote: I think the best evidence then would be the
tax records, Your Honor, that purport to support this
document and any questions relating to it.
The Court: I will sustain the objection.
Q. (By Mr. Gilden) Where are your tax records now,
Mr. Green? Are they in your possession here this after-
noon? A. No, not in my possession at the moment, they
are at home.
Q. They are at-home? A. Yes.
Q. Now you have testified that you picketed Union
Electric Company did you not? A. That is right.
Q. When did you do that? A. This began in 65 along
with the picketing of the other utilities and other com-
panies. :
Q. What were the ‘other companies and other utilities
that you—was it you or your organization that was picket-
ing? A. It was the organization.
. That would be ACTION? A. ACTION.
Q. What companies did they picket? A. Southwestern
Bell, Union Electric, Laclede Gas, [66] Globe-Democrat,
Krey Packing Company, Wonder Bread.
Q. Is that also known as Continental Baking? A. Con-
tinental Baking.
Q. When did you picket Union Electric!
Mr. Foote: Objection. Was the question when did you
picket?
\
— 93 —
Q. (By Mr. Gilden) When did the organization picket
Union Electric? A. It began in 65 shortly—let’s see now.
65, it started in April. It was about between April—well,
it was between April and June of 65. We started with
Southwestern Bell and went to Laclede Gas, went back
to Southwestern Bell and then the Union Electric and then
from Union Electric to, by that fime it brought us up
into July and that is when we went into the McDonnell
and Roberts Building and shortly thereafter the Globe-
Democrat Building. 1
Q. When did you start with Southwestern Bell? A. April
of 65.
Q. Then you went from there to Laclede Gas? A. La-
elede Gas.
_ Q. When did you start commencing pratest demonstra-
tions there? A. At Laclede Gas about one week later.
Q. Where did you go from Laclede Gas, to Union Elec-
tric? [67] A. No. We went back to Southwestern Bell.
Q. When would that have been? A. That should have
been in the latter portion of May.
Q. Of 19651 A. 1965.
Q. Then from the Telephone Company you went where?
A. To Union Electric.
Q. When would that have been? A. That should have
been around June.
Q. Of 65? A. 65.
Q. Then from the Electric Company where did you got
A. We went back to Laclede Gas.
Q. When would that have been? A. About the four—
about the latter portion of June.
Q. Of 19— A. Of 1965.
Q. From there you went where? A. Back to Union
Electric.
Ree.”
ae
Q. That would have been when? A. That should have
been about the Ist of July, July the 2nd of 65. And we
also, during thp same day we went to McDonnell.
Q. Were these demonstrations widely publicized in the
[68] St. Louis metropolitan community? A. Some of them.
Most of them were picket lines and there were also other
types of non-violent type demonstrations.
. During all this protest demonstration of the utility
companies and the other companies, was there ever any
violence to persons? A. No.
Q. Any destruction of property of any kind? A. No, no.
Q. There was therefore no injury to person or property?
A. No, absolutely not.
Q. At any time? A. No, no.
Q. All right. During this whole time that you have
talked about from March or April 1965 through, until
July of 1965, were you chairman of ACTION during that
period’ of time? A. Yes.
Q. Did you ever have any protest demonstrations at
any companies other than utilities? A. Yes.
Q. Which companies were these? A. C. W. Gates Real
Estate Company, The Gateway National Bank, the Police
Department, the
Q. What I was trying to get at, the other companies, you
[69] have testified to Continental Baking Company, you
protested there, is that correct? A. Yes.
Q. When did that take place? A. That taken place I
believe in 66, I think it is 66.
Q. 19661 Do you know what month that was in?
Mr. Foote: I object to any further testimony about any
picketing that may have taken place after July 26, 1965.
I don’t believe it is relevant.
The Court: What do you say, Mr. Gilden?
=
Mr. Gilden: Well, I think if there were discriminatory
practices at this company in 1966 and this discrimination
had taken place even though it was in 1966 and incor-
porated past discrimination policies of this company, it’
could be incorporated in this lawsuit.
The Court: What does the picketing have to do with this
lawsuit after the time he was laid off?
Mr. Gilden: I will let Your Honor rule on the matter.
The Court: I am asking you.
Mr. Gilden: Well, I believe that it would have nothing
to do with the refusal to hire in July 1965, certainly.
Mr. Foote: As I understand the lawsuit, that is what it
is all about, the refusal to hire, so Your Honor, I think it
is irrelevant. wx
[70] The Court: I will sustain the objection.
Q. (By Mr. Gilden) Now did you also picket Krey Pack-
ing Company? A. Yes.
Q. When did that take place? A. That taken place in
66 also.
Q. That was in 66?
Mr. Foote: I make the same objection, Your Honor.
The Court: The same ruling.
Q. (By Mr. Gilden) Now while you were working in De-
partment 958, that is the department in which you were
the lab technician B, is that correct? A. That is right.
Q. Did you ever have any dealings with Mr. Godefroid
in that department? A. Yes.
Q. When did you start having some dealings with him?
A. Immediately after I was given the title of research and
development technician. I was given a panel that was al-
ready started by someone else, and my job at that time
was to finish the panel. It was a panel that had a num-
*
3
ber of wires that was routed and it had to be fabricated.
And the wire bundle had many, many, many mistakes
in it. However, Mr. Godefroid, you know, constantly in-
formed me that I had to [71] hurry up and get rid of
that, hurry up and finish this panel. I told him that while
checking the panel and the routing of the wire it was
impossible to push, for me to hurry up on the job because
of the many mistakes. And he said, now you claim that
you, you know, that you wanted to be a technician, you
claimed to be a technician. Now we have to push and get
this work out, you know. So every so many hours he kept
coming back and he kept trying to check on the progress
that I was making on the wire bundle. And I was con-
stantly telling him of the many errors I had discovered.
And he constantly pushed, hurry up, hurry up, hurry up,
and so on and so forth. So finally he went and got some-
one else to come down and take a look at the panel, and
I explained it to them, that person, I don’t recall this per-
son’s name. However, after I had explained the many
errors and showed it to this other person, the engineer,
he was an engineer, I believe, he told me then to tear up
the whole entire bundle and he wanted me to build the
bundle all over.
Q. Did you do that then? A. I did that.
Q. Was that useful then? A. Absolutely.
Q. The package you prepared? A. Absolutely it was.
[72] Q. Did you know why he had given you this bundle
that had some errors in it? A. I—At the time I didn’t
really know why, but I had suspicions. I didn’t know the
exact reason why.
Q. Do you know whether he was doing that with
any other employee in your department? A. Nat that I
oo ö
Mr. Foote: Excuse me. I object to the form of the ques-
tion. What do you mean by doing that?
1
Mr. Gilden: Well, giving these packaged components
with errors in it for someone to work up like the one he
had given you.
A. Not to my knowledge.
Mr. Gilden: All right.
Your Honor has ruled on the tax records here, and Mr.
Green has stated he has them at home. Can I produce
them, I believe the matter will be laid over until tomorrow
morning, can I submit them to the Court at that time in
evidence:
The Court: Lou can recall him to the witness stand and
introduce them.
Mr. Gilden: For that purpose!
The Court: Yes.
Mr. Gilden: Thank you.
Your Honor, I have taken from the McDonnell file on
[73] Perey Green, his personnel file, Exhibits 2 through
82, and I have showed these exhibits to Mr. Foote and
they can be accepted.
Is that correct, Mr. Foote, as evidence in this matter?
I will offer them as evidence in this matter.
Mr. Foote: I have no objection to their being received
in evidence, Your Honor.
The Court: Very well, they will be received.
Mr. Gilden: Your Honor, I have finished my direct ex-
amination.
The Court: Cross-examine. |
Cross-Examination, by Mr. Foote
0. Mr. Green, referring to your testimony about your
first request for transfer into Department 958, I believe
*
„
you testified you had a conversation with Mr. Sinecki, is
that right? A. That is right.
Q. There was some discussion about the tinted glasses
you were wearing? A. That is right.
Q. Is it true, Mr. Green, that during the discussion Mr.
Sinecki informed you that the work in the department was
of [74] a very close and detailed nature and that the rea-
son for his inquiry about your dark glasses was as to
whether or not they would get in the way of your perform-
ing that work? A. No.
Q. Do you have any recollection at all of any discussion
about the detailed nature of the work in connection with
your dark glasses? A. Yes. Because Mr. Sinecki seen the
type of work I was doing prior to me coming over into
the department and the nature of the work in the depart-
ment that I was in was very, very little different in the
department that he was in charge of.
Q. Isn’t it true that he mentioned to you that the reason
for his question about the dark glasses was because of
the detailed nature in the lab, the detailed nature of the
work there? Don’t you remember him saying that to you!
A. I don’t recall the—he might have but I don’t recall it.
Q. You do remember the discussion about the dark
glasses? A. I remember about the glasses, about the beard,
about the way I was dressed and so on and so forth.
Q. Turning to the discussion about the form of dress,
the lab is separate, physically apart from the production
part of the plant, isn’t it? A. At that particular time it
wasn’t necessarily—they [75] had portions of the lab that
was part of production, you see it was intermingling the
peoples. a
Q. I understand that but it was physically located by
itself, separate from most of the production facilities? A.
Most of it, yes.
—
Q. And the people in that lab worked for this specific
department, E.E.D., as you have identified it, is that cor-
rect? A. Yes.
Q. And those people were often visited, is it not cor-
“rect, by people from the outside, that is sales people, Gov-
ernment people and so forth? A. Well, the whole entire
E.E.D. was visited.
Q. That is right. When Mr. Sinecki mentioned dress to
you he gave as his reason that there were outside visitors
and they expected the dress to be less casual than it was
in the plant for this reason, did he not? A. Yes, but
Q. My question is just what he said to you: Did he not
say it was because of the visitors they expected a little
different kind of dress? A. Yes.
Q. Isn’t it a fact? A. Yes.
Q. Isn’t it also a fact that the dress worn by other [76]
people in the E. E. D. Nas different from that worn in the
plant as a general thing, is that not true! A. Partly.
Q. Isn’t it also true that the young ladies who worked
in the E.E.D. were requested not to wear slacks or shorts
but rather were requested to wear dresses or skirts, which
was different from the rules and regulations for ladieswear
out in the plant, isn’t that true, Mr. Green? A. I don’t
recall that. If you mean the office personnel, yes. But if
you are meaning person who were working at the bench,
that was not true; that is not true.
Q. I am not talking about the union representatives who
were assigned to E.E.D. but the technicians? A. The fe-
male technicians?
Q. That is correct. Do you remember their dress? A.
The only dress that I recall of any female technician, they
were wearing pants. I don’t recall any of them wearing
dresses.
Do you recall whether the person you are thinking of
was a technician or a member of the union? A. In fact I
1
am trying to remember as to whether I recall any female
technicians.
Q. There were female employees in the E.E.D., were
there not? [77] A. Yes, it was, in the production end of it.
Q. Now in the discussion of the layoff, I believe you
testified that Mr. Sinecki told you in this first interview
that there was a good chance of people being laid off in
the E.E.D., isn’t that right? A. He told me in a threaten-
ing fashion.
Mr. Foote: I object to that answer and move that it be
stricken from the record as not responsive and volunteer-
ing information.
The Court: Answer the questions, Mr. Green.
The Witness: What was the question again?
Q. (By. Mr. Foote) The question was whether he told
you that there was a good chance that there would be a
layoff of personnel of the E.E.D.? That is what you testi-
fied, isn’t it? That he told you that? A. Yes.
Q. That there was a good possibility of there being lay-
offs? A. A very, very good possibility.
Q. That’s right. He also told you, in fact gave you a
specific instance of someone whom he knew who was trans-
ferred into E.E.D. and was shortly thereafter laid off, isn’t
that true? A. Yes. That was an example that he gave.
[78] C. That's right. Did he explain to you what work
was being done at that time, that is in 1962, your first
request, in the RE. D. 1 A. No.
Q. Did you know * work was being done in general!
A. In general. 8
Q. What was being done? A. In 1962?
Q. Yes, sir. A. It was the developing—it was the de-
velopment of an electronic company to do nothing but
— 101 —
electronic equipment. It was supposed to be bidding on
independent projects of various electronic equipment.
Q. The actual work that the department was doing was
what? Was it building something, ground support? A.
Yes. Ground support. It was ground support equipment
plus, you know, I can’t say that I know all of what was
being done but basically they were doing most of the
ground support equipment for the FOH Phantom,
Q. After this conversation with Mr. Sinecki where he
told you of the high chance of a layoff and he told you
that the work that was being done was pretty routine and
so forth, is it not true that you decided not to apply for
the job? A. Well, I can’t say that I decided without cer-
tain [79] things.
Q. I am not asking you how you decided, Mr. Green.
The question, I think, can be answered yes or no. The
question was whether you decided yourself to withdraw
the application and not apply for Department 958? Is that
not true? A. Well, I was frightened.
Mr. Foote: I object to that answer and I move that it
be stricken as not responsive to the question.
A. What answer do you want me to give?
Q. The question was whether you, yourself, decided not
to apply to 958 after Mr. Sinecki’s conversation in 1962?
A. Well, I had no other choice.
Mr. Foote: I object to that answer.
A. Yes, yes.
Q. You decided, didn’t you, Mr. Green, didn’t you say,
look, I’m not going to apply here after all, when you
learned there was a good chance of a layoff? A. No, that
Was not how I determined, that is not how I made that
. decision.
= $63 —
Q. I didn’t ask you how you made the decision, my
question was what was the decision? Is it not true that
you decided? A. The decision was
Q. Excuse me, sir. Let me finish my question. [80] A.
OK.
Q. The question was whether you decided yourself to
take your name out of the hat for 958 in 19627 In other
words, isn’t it a fact that you decided yourself not to
apply for that job after you learned of the possibility of
a layoff? A. I don’t understand the question. I later de-
cided to not—I decided to take my name out of the
Q. (Interrupting) That was the question, you under-
stood it. A. (Continuing) ——but not because
Q. I didn’t ask you why. A. I mean you just gave me
a reason why.
Q. The question is was it not after you talked to Mr.
Sinecki and learned of the layoffs and had this conversa-
tion with him, was it not after that that you personally
decided yourself to take your name out of the running!
A. It wasn’t after I learned of the layoff. Lou see, this is
what I am saying. I taken my name out of the hat because
of other reasons.
Q. It was your decision though, wasn’t it? A. That is
right. But it wasn’t because I learned of the layoff possi-
bility.
Q. The question was, was it not after you had your con-
versation with Mr. Sinecki that you personally decided not
[81] to apply for this job? A. That is better; yes.
Q. So you remained a member of the union? A. That is
right.
Q. The LA. M., Machinists District 91 A. That is right.
Q. Then some time later, approximately a year as I re-
member your testimony, you reapplied? A. Reapplied.
3
. For Department 958? A. That is right. It could have
deen like 958 or 948.
Q. Well — A. I don’t know which.
Q. Whatever the department was it was E. E. D. A. OK.
Q. We will call it the E. E. D. A. OK.
Q. At the time you reapplied did you know what kind of
work the E.E.D. was doing then? A. That is right. The
same as it was when I first applied.
Q. Were they building the Gemini simulator, was that
part of their work, was that their work or part of it? A.
That was part of it.
[82] Q. You knew, did you not, that the Gemini simulator
was a project to be completed sometime in the fairly near
future, didn’t you? A. No, I didn’t know in the near fu-
ture but I did know that they were—I didn’t know how
long it was going to take, but I did know that it was
being built along. with other equipment.
Q. But you did know, did you not, that the Gemini was
not a continuing production item, that it was a one-shot
affair and it was for the Gemini Project and that was it,
did you not? A. No, I knew that at McDonnell there is
no sustained project ever.
Q. My question, Mr. Green, excuse me, the question was
about Gemini only. McDonnell is a big place. We are
talking about the Gemini simulator project. Isn’t it a fact
that when you went and applied again to get into E. E. D.
you knew that Gemini was a one-shot affair! A. No, I
didn’t know that.
Q. All right, sir. After you requested a second time to
move into E.E.D. you had another conversation with Mr.
Sinecki, didn’t you? A. That’s right.
Q. During the second conversation Mr. Sinecki told you
again that there was a good chance that people would be
laid [83] off, didn’t he! A. I had a good chance that I
would be laid off.
—
Q. Mr. Green, my question was people would be laid off.
That can be answered yes or no, he didn't say that. A.
Ok. Ves or no. I mean he didn't say that.
Q. Are you saying that he did not tell you that there
was a good chance that people would be laid off A. As I
remember he told me that there was a good chance that
I would be laid off.
Q. This was during the interview when you were re-
questing to come into the department, isn’t that right!
A. That is right.
Q. You knew at the time of this interview and at the
time of your request that employees in Department 958
or the E.E.D., were what is known as free enterprise em-
ployees, didn’t you? A. No, I didn’t.
Q. Employees who who were not union members? A
Oh. OK.
Q. As distinguished from union members. A. Yes, sir.
Q. And at the time you made the second request “you
had seven or eight years seniority in the union, didn’t
yout A. Seven years, yes.
[84] Q. During the conversation with Mr. Sinecki there
was some discussion about loss of seniority, wasn’t there!
A. Yes, that’s right.
Q. You knew at the time, and Mr. Sinecki told you if
you came into E. E. D. you would lose your union seniority,
didn’t he! A. I knew that before Mr. Sinecki ever even
asked me about it.
Q. You knew it when you went in to see him! A
That’s right. ’
Q. That you would lose it? A. That is right.
Q. This is also one of the things that he told you, is
that not correct? A. Yes. |
sain
Q. That you would lose your union seniority? A. The
point was I already knew that. I have been around that
well.
Q. I understand that. The question was what Mr. Si-
necki said. A. OK.
Q. He told you that you could lose your union seniority
and you also discussed that there was a possibility that
you could be laid off, isn’t that right? [85] A. That is
right.
Q. What was the exact description of your job title
when you were assigned to the E.E.D.? Was it technician
BY A. Yes.
Q. Technician Grade B! A. Yes. It was research de-
velopment technician B.
Q. There were other technicians in the department that
were called technicians Grade A, were there not? A. Yes.
Q. When you were transferred will you tell the Court
exactly what kind of work you were doing? What kind
of work was it? What physically did you do after you
were transferred? A. After I was transferred from——
. To the E. E. D.! A. To EE.D.? I was fabricating
panels. I was wiring up panels for the Gemini simulator.
Q. Were you also building wire bundles? A. Yes, sir.
I mean it was a panel and then I had a layout, a wire lay-
out, or something similar to a blueprint, where I had to
cut various lengths of wire and wire it and, you know,
just build it from scratch from the panel
Q. Um hum. Build it from scratch from the panel? In
other words, by the time you were through it was a wire
bundle? [86] A. That is right.
That is the kind of work—— A. (Interrupting)
That is the kind of work it was, however, the project that
L was put on immediately after I was given the classifica-
tion was a panel that had already been started.
8
O. That is right, somebody else had made a mistake!
A. That's right, there was many, many mistakes, multi-
ple mistakes; it was a shod job.
Q. But after that job that you testified to this after-
noon, then the bulk of your work was building electrical
panels, putting together wire cables, and connecting them
in the right place, is that right? A. That is right. That
was the bulk of my work.
Q. There was, however, in addition to that some testing
work you were doing, isn’t that right? A. Yes, very, very
little.
Q. I understand that is your recollection, but there was
some testing work, was there not? A. Yes.
Q. You were given the work to test these bundles and
whatever else after they were put together, is that what
testing work means? A. No. Not in the sense that I un-
derstand testing.
[87] C. Would you describe what kind of testing work
you did? A. The type of testing work I was speaking of
was the type whereby one would troubleshoot a circuit.
Q. Um hum? A. To determine whether or not it is a
functionable circuit.
Q. Uh hum? A. I was given some Micky Mouse testing.
Q. What does that mean? A. Taking continuity checks,
you know, to see whether or not a wire over here is prop-
erly routed over there. You have a little battery, a con-
tinuity checker, where you put the test at one end of the
wire and you fish around until the battery light lights up,
you know.
O. Was this testing which was required to be’ done in
connection with your assignments in the E.E.D., that is
with building the Gemini or whatever? A. Yes, continuity
checks.
sc IE sees
Q. This was testing which was part of the work being
done in that lab, is that correct? A. Yes, but it is the very
lowest grade of testing.
Q. Have you described fully all of the kind of work
that you were assigned when you were in E. E. D. A.
Yes, I, first of all I spent a great deal of time on [88] the
simulator.
Q. Um hum! A. As it pertained to fabrication.
Q. Um hum! Let me interrupt you there if I may. I
don’t mean to stop your answer and we will continue with
it. But while you were doing this work on the simulator
is it not a fact that other lab technicians were also work-
ing on that simulator and doing similar work? A. Yes.
Yes,
Q. Let’s move on to the next assignment that you had.
A. All right. The other assignment was at various inter-
vals I was given, oh I guess, a stack of module cards, you
know, printed circuit cards to check out.
Q. Um hum. This was testing work? A. This was ‘test-
ing work where you have power on the circuit board it-
self.
Q. How long did you stay in that assignment? A. Oh,
I guess, you know, in all I would assume all the test work
I conducted there, it could all be put in in about two
weeks.
Q. I see. Now this testing work that you were doing,
were there also other employees in the E.E.D. who were
doing that, that is lab technicians Grade B who were
doing the same kind of work while you were there? [89]
4 There were some.
There were some other employees who were doing
identical work, similar or the same kind, not identical,
. only you were doing that, but similar work, that
. these circuits while you were doing it and
. While you were there, is that correct? A. Yes,
— 108 —
Q. All right, sir. What was the next assignment that
you had in B. E. D. ! A. The next assignment was—let’s
see. The next assignment was—ended up in a transfer.
You see first of all I went into the third shift. Then after
awhile I went back on days; then I was sent over to what
was called the prototype lab layout.
Q. Were you the only one sent there, Mr. Green! A.
No.
Q. How many others were sent there? A. How many
other black ones?
Q. No. The question was how many other people! A.
Oh. I can’t recall but it was some.
Q. You asked me whether the question was how many
other black ones. I understood your testimony to be that
you were the only black man in the E.E.D., isn’t that
correct? A. That’s right.
[90] C. All right, sir. There were a number of other men
sent over and they would have been white men from the
E. E. D. at the time you were transferred, isn’t that cor-
rect? A. That is right.
Q. What kind of work did you do there? A. Fabrication.
Q. Did these other white men who were sent over with
you at this time do the same kind of work during this
assignment? A. Yes.
Q. All right. After that assignment where were you
sent? A. I was sent home. That is when the layoff came.
O. I see. This was the work that carried you up to Au-
gust 28th, the day you were laid off? A. That's right.
Q. Isn’t it true, Mr. Green, looking back over your ex-
perience in the E.E.D. that each job that you were given
was also being given to other technicians in the, depart
ment? A. Not those technicians that had the type know-
how
Q. Mr. Green, wait a minute. The question was just the
technicians, not your opinion of how qu
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.