# Appendix — McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386414_0147%3A01 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1973 - **Citation:** 411 U.S. 792 ## 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 [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386414_0147%3A01. Public record. Not legal advice.