# Appendix — Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386414_0443%3A01 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1974 - **Citation:** 419 U.S. 1068 ## Text In The SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OcroBER TERM 1974 No. 74-389 No. 74-428 ALBERMARLE PAPER Co., Petitioner v. JoserpH P. Moopy, ET AL., Respondents Ha.iFax Loca 425, PAPERMAKERS AND PAPERWORKERS, Petitioner V. JosepH P. Moopy, Ef AL., Respondents ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT INDEX App. Page Relevant: Dockets Entries ornare eee 1 Bi Te Me of) ce Ba 4s G2 bs. gmap een Oe an nee eee ee 6 Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment, filed November 22, 1966 ..........0..........::c.ccscecsceeeeeeee 11 Memorandum Opinion and Order, filed July 6, 1967 ........0.0........ 16 i ata — - i lait Te at RSs Ercan s Se ae Jd ‘ App. Page Answer, Albemarle Paper Company (Virginia), filed July 26, BPI eniiec ss ccctebacdapheseesiadetoissesanstcysuveseisd seenictaraungacinidiosebiopeseucessoseeas 21 Answer, Halifax Local No. 425, filed July 28, 1967 _.0..02000002..... 25 Letter from Francis V. Lowden, Jr. to The Honorable John D. Larkins, Judge, filed June 12, 1970 000-0... penne 28 Opinion and Order on Motion to Add or Join, filed September |, | a op ree ne ie na ean ee 30 Amended Order, filed October 15, 1970 0020000000 ccececececec cece eee 40 Answer and Cross-Claim, Ethyl Corporation, filed December 28, 1970 ............- welch nbaaeirend lg ea nants Dieniesiereetemeetavasdeenenesbuysaseeemensite ices 41 Order on Supplemental Interrogatory, filed May 28, 1971 ............ 44 Order on Supplemental Interrogatory and Designation of the me, FU Fe 1D F987 Bini vcsi css iced ccseeerersmetnsisinthanveerteee 45 Order on Communications with Class Members, filed June 18, DE nccaseinreeiee Aaaapievailp eens acon eens lads ues eaedin ebdiaea digs oe 48 Order on Notice to the Class, filed July 8, 1971-00002 .. 50 Notice to Class Members (Exhibit A to Order of July 8, 1971) .. 53 Motion for Leave of Counsel of Plaintiffs to Communicate with Class Members, filed July 14, 1971 uw... eee eeececeeeceeeees 57 Motion for Clarification, filed July 14, 1971 2200... 64 Motion for Severance and the Appointment of a Master, filed Velly 14,1978 ccc peaeniess ie Daycaditeessueutaindevedeeacas areca 68 Proofs of Claims, filed July 15, 19, 21, 23, and 26, 1971... 70 ii ETT ET ENOL FLT PAT IIT ILL OEIC OO NA Pe pH OM EMOTE OD IBMT TG Sta Rien Stipulation of Facts, filed July 26, 1971 00 86 Trial of the Action held before the Hon. F. T. Dupree, U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Wilson Division Commencing on July 26, 1971 at Raleigh, North Carolina: Appearances oo... plore ealaaa eee ten eae eederedesouatapsineessesestas 113 Colloquy between the Court and Counsel [Tr. Wy 114 Testimony of James Alfred ‘ones Direct [USS] neces cccccccecceesccseesvestenteseesessveseeseceeceeeeeeeeee 119 Cross, Defendant Employer (DE) [169]....00.00000000....... 125 Testimony of Ethoria Jones Direct [173] occ occ iepecneanceesebeeresacceens 126 Cross, DE [187] ....... Pitinas dv edbeocstandayiedaze5 beheandotasavvedicaaieetta-ssen 127 Cross, Defendant Union, (DU) [202] 00000000000. 127 Transcript of Proceedings Held Before the Hon. F. T. Dupree, Jr., U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of North Carolina, on July 27, 1971: Appearances ......0.0.0........ beter bea Santana tot assielsdotatcanssenceccandeseenecesaecs .. 128 Testimony of Philmore Taylor : OS oD) OK) rr 128 Testimony of Mack Coy Boone Bice A) C9 a eeennee nn veer ve OE 129 Cross, DU (332) oon... 2. eeeeccssccssssssscesessssseceenenessencsssscaccesevene 129 Testimony of David Harding se ee ee ee 129 By the Court [344] 20 cccecccssnececeeesssssnesnens 130 Testimony of Johnny Easter Direct [361] 02.0200. Sganeprerdsesebackevatiesshaabeddseraacasversictcoe 130 M68 DL SGL | csssccacesscsscncsinnsepsinesicsSneacencessepyecugqeeztseseenncens 130 ERLE RE TLL EO t Oapengr pare ae TLE E LE DIES OIE ES hy DE Eat IOP gene PN ge op Sere acne JEP SE Magee App. Page Transcript of Proceedings Held Before the Hon. F. T. Dupree, Jr., U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of North Carolina, on July 28, 1971: Apppearances |...............000.. jratnenn sixcheesanieeineseninneaceeasnnnotemeaned 132 Testimony of David Mills (upon oral deposition) [389] ........ 132 Testimony of Arnold Brown (upon oral deposition) [463] .... 142 Testimony of Curtis V. Bullock (upon oral deposition) [503] 0... eee (pete ewbeaepaca ieontcstcocene-useviesieausicacesoaiaene desu oieetse 148 Testimony of John E. Bryan, Jr. (upon oral deposition ) DIS re acer cee canst cece srrence ne teecrcd sec daemea iol Reanlepomaeaanteersanintes 148 Transcript of Proceedings Held Before the Hon. F. T. Dupree, U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of North Carolina on July 29, 1971: Appearances ..........2....eeeeceeeeeceececeeeeeeeeees 150 Testimony of Ernest Garner CIOOR, TA TGR aceonncheteeneseteriaa tine 150 COG TIT A acctieseecaieinn: 151 Testimony of Willie H. Mason TIRCCE TI scecsscticsniesictestic ven cersavoteeciuciasideiccescbegubnaeactoe 152 ee, TIRE LRG iscsi setae tee tse eaten 152 OU I I insist teenie oieemenpees 153 Testimony of Theodore Daniels (upon oral deposition) 4 Secon eneTe sty oes anal ateneetehesacectcoedighoniniepibeeinestes 154 Testimony of Henry Hill (upon oral deposition) [708] ........ 155 Testimony of Arthur Mitchell (upon oral deposition) [717] .. 156 Testimony of Clarence High ORE SFE ccs ect iccseeorneerirernicucnninasrosacaee 157 Testimony of Nicholas C. Vrataric (upon oral deposition) UPR bee e sect e cnet es someone teertese cso d enka rors aeons 157 iv — ae ne ee ee App. Page Transcript of Procedings Held Before the Hon. F. T. Dupree, U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of North Carolina on July 30, 1971: Appearances ............... soinienkbbepneaeesteiya ake dice coe ueveensicnesenie@ibaciaaies 160 Testimony of Dr. Joseph Tiffin Direct, DE [852] oo...0c.c.c0-cccccccscssssesessssssssssesssevessesevsesssseseeee 160 Cross, Plaintiffs (P) [892] .2.0........ccececccccceeccespeeeeeeeeeeeeee 173 Testimony of Edward C. Moore, Jr. (recalled) PRCCE, TIE TGIF) oss sicscescssiitsssniciccnsusescensvenyssessinonncossoensooievcsnse 185 Croan, BP [GES] o.nccccncsseieninsscossessencsseonessssocerssenesouseersesceseasoreses 188 Testimony of John E. Bryan, Jr. Direct, DE [933] -.....02202000000020000.2--- sin otasianesulbeninccmnnncteaysceconis 192 Testimony of Dr. Richard Barrett ; Direct, P [944] oo... cece cece cece ceeeeeeececeeeeeereeeeneeeeeeeeees 196 OS oe DO be 6 0) 207 Testimony of Dr. Joseph Tiffin (recalled) By the Court [972] .202202..20..0..c2cccecccecesceeecencecececceteceneeeeeesesees 208 Testimony of John E. Bryan, Jr. (recalled) 9 a 5 a |g, nee nn ee 211 NR TN Bs ssnccesitce wicemtesnentec nese aiaevapsibinnbctenbenendedusste 235 Transcript of Proceedings Held Before the Hon. F. T. Dupree, Jr., U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of North Carolina on August 3, 1971: PRN aires ctrsiaf entero enteric etnies 243 Testimony of Edward C. Moore, Jr. (recalled ) m,n Fae | 5 |) [ene CN 243 Crom. (PF) [1996] .....5......1 P sepet da ontaeioae sei aastemonieioreces 245 Redirect [1249] 0000000. een 248 v / App. Page Testimony of John E. Bryan, Jr. (upon oral deposition) DR lacie areccarentccanvty sens Lccwrshnedeomateniness sleet eames 249 Testimony of David Mills Direct; DU [1298] ......... sieecacioiesectnninshaesantnensonccustakonereans 253 Cross, P [1334] ...:.....206.....2...c:cn00--0 shoe detente ois sapiesicitandsairoen 267 Redirect [1366] 000 ee eeeensaeaneed 268 — . ; Transcript of Proceedings Held Before the Hon. F. T. Dupree, Jr., U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of North Carolina on August 4, 1971: { Appearances ................ gecvseacoeceesnecsonennsscnees Finavyestuessayuvaasestsres uses _ 270 Testimony of Warren Davis : Direct, DU [1378] 0.000.000... dralepihulensi0eteripeoe: seteender 270 Plaintiffs’ Exhibits ; . App. Page Defendant Employers’ Exhibits: DE-2 ooo eee pevnesadbeigs dinsiveahesesesianainte carvestbointanseeticslcotioees 427 DI cds ca cisarnencescsantnneeeinmisgntnaweveutieeamanddchesncoupeicnediaencsranimbtenteeuNatas 431 CP BE nsxsnnvescdcatnnnsossontavaducksavebdnncsrvsinetitebaveseeiiariatsenanpevisenpwnmzesiewanes 439 | D) Days Se speerentrocbanysaehsetscsttySbeoumnnires 458 Defendant Union's Exhibits : | D) OY cs 472 Memorandum Opinion and Order, filed November 9, 1971 ........ 473 Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment Entered on November 9, 1971, filed November 22, 1971 200.0... ccee eee cece 508 Letter from the Hon. F. T. Dupree, Judge re Plaintiffs’ Motion to Alter or Amend, filed November 22, 1971 200000000000000ceew... 510 Opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, entered February 20, 1973 2000000000000 eee cee 5i1 Order Granting Rehearing en banc, entered June 25, 1973 ...... 538 Question Certified to the United States Supreme Court, filed CINE i I Seki tac cepsanigspiesniien teh snilatcemibtaieretthacanieiies aptoail . 539 Opinion of the United States Supreme Court Answering the Certified Question in the Negative, entered June 17, 1974... 542 Order of the, United States Court of Appeals Rescinding Its Order of June 25, 1973 and Denying the Petitions for Re- hearing and Rehearing en banc, filed July 22, 1974 0000. 548 ‘an CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF RELEVANT DOCKET ENTRIES Aug. 25, 1966—Plaintiffs’ Complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District cf North Carolina, Wil- son Division. Sept. 26, 1966—Defendant, Halifax Local 425’s Motion to Dismiss filed. Sept. 26, 1966—Defendant, United Papermakers and Paperworkers International Union’s Motion to Dismiss filed. Sept. 28, 1966—-Defendant, Halifax Local 425’s Amended Motion to Dismiss filed. Oct. 5, 1966—Defendant, Albemarle Paper Co.’s Motion for Summary Judgment filed. Oct. 7, 1966—Defendant Albemarle Paper Co.’s Motion for Summary Judgment filed. Nov. 22, 1966—Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Opposition to Summary Judgment filed. Dec. 20, 1966—Defendants, United Papermakers and Paperworkers and Halifax Local 425’s Motion for Sum- mary Judgment filed. Jan. 9, 1967—Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants United Papermakers and Paperworkers and Halifax Local 425 Motions for Summary Judgment and Motion to Dismiss filed. July 26, 1967—Defendant, Albemarle Paper Co.’s Answer filed. July 26, 1967—Defendant Albemarle Paper Co.’s Motion to Dismiss filed. July 28, 1967—Defendant Halifax Local 425’s Answer filed. App. 2 Nov. 24, 1967—Order and Memorandum Opinion entered denying Defendant, Albemarle Paper Co.’s Motion to Dismiss. f June 25, 1970—Plaintiffs’ Motion to Add or Join Parties Defendant filed. Aug. 20, 1970—Defendant, Albemarle Paper Co.’s Motion to Dismiss filed. Sept. 29, 1970—Order and Opinion entered that Motion to Add or Join the Albemarle Paper Co., a Delaware Corpo- ration, the Hoerner Waldorf Corp., the First Alpaco Corp., and the Ethyl Corp. is allowed and Motion to Dismiss on behalf of Defendant, Albemarle Paper Co., a Virginia Corporation, as to it and to all parties herein joined as parties-defendant is denied. Oct. 15, 1970—Amended Order entered. Dec. 3, 1970—Defendant, Albemarle Paper Co.'s (Dela- ware) Answer filed. Dec. 3, 1970—Defendant, Hoerner. Waldorf Corp.’s An- ~ swer filed. . Dec. 28, 1970—Defendant, Ethyl Corp.’s Answer and Cross-Claim filed. Mar. 15, 1971—Defendant, Ethyl Corp.’s Notice of Dis- missal of Cross-Claim filed. May 28, 1971—Order entered requiring Plaintiffs to an- swer Supplemental Interrogatory no later than June 25, 1971. June 15, 1971—Order entered defining class and directing *Plaintiffs to answer Supplemental Interrogatory by July 10, 1971. App. 3 June 18, 1971—Order entered directing that all parties and their counsel are forbidden directly or indirectly to com- municate concerning this action with any potential or actual class member not a formal party to action without consent and approval of proposed communication of the Court. July 8, 1971—Order entered directing Notice to members of the class. July 14, 1971—Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave of Counsel for Plaintiffs to Communicate with Class Members for Pur- poses of Trial Preparation filed. July 14, 1971—Plaintiffs’ Motion for Clarification filed. July 14, 1971—Plaintiffs’ Motion for Severance and the Appointment of a Master filed. July 25, 1971—Trial commenced before the Hon, F. T. Dupree, Judge, United States District Court. Nov. 11, 1971—Order and Memorandum Opinion entered enjoining Defendants from discriminating against Negro employees and setting out certain procedures to be fol- lowed. Nov. 22, 1971—Plaintiffs’ Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment filed. Dec. 7, 1971— Plaintiffs’ Notice of Appeal filed. Jan. 3, 1972—Order entered exrerine time for transmittal of record on appeal. Mar. 13, 1972—Record on appeal filed and appeal docketed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. App. 4 May 3, 1972—Order entered allowing Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to participate as Amicus Cu- riae. May 8, 1972—Order entered extending time to file ap- pellee’s brief and reply brief. May 22, 1972—Appellant’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief to May 29, 1972 filed and Motion granted. Aug. 17, 1972—Appellant’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply Brief to August 22, 1972, filed and Motion granted. Oct. 3, 1972—Cause argued before Boreman, Bryan and Craven, Circuit Judges and submitted. Feb. 20, 1973—Opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit filed. Feb. 20, 1973—Judgment of the District Court reversed. Judgment filed. Mar. 6, 1973—Petition for Rehearing and Suggestion of a Rehearing En Banc, filed. Mar. 6, 1973—Petition for Rehearing En Banc on Behalf of Appellee, Halifax Local 425, et al. filed. June 25, 1973—Order Granting a Rehearing En Banc filed. Aug. 31, 1973—Appellant’s Supplemental Brief on Re- hearing En Banc filed. Aug. 31, 1973—Appellee Employer’s Supplemental Brief filed. Sept. 4, 1973—-Amicus Curiae Brief for the United States and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed. Oct. 28, 1973—Cause argued En Banc before Hayns- worth, Chief Judge, Boreman, and Bryan, Senior Circuit App. 5 Judges, Winter, Craven, Butzner, Russell, Field and Widener, Circuit Judges and submitted. Dec. 5, 1973—Certificate mailed to Clerk of the United States Supreme Court. Dec. 5, 1973—Held in abeyance pending decision of the Supreme Court of the United States on Court of Ap- peals’ Certificate. July 22, 1974—Order rescinding the Court of Appeals’ Order of June 25, 1973 and denying the Petitions for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc filed. “Aug. 9, 1974—Certified copy of Order of the Supreme Court regarding question to the Court answered in the negative. Aug. 29, 1974—Motion of Halifax Local 425 for recall and stay of mandate filed. Sept. 4, 1974Appellee, Employers’ Motion to Recall Is- suance of Mandate filed. Sept. 13, 1974—Order recalling and staying mandate, not to exceed thirty (30) days, pending application for cer- tiorari, filed. Oct. 7, 1974—Notice evidencing the filing of Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in the Supreme Court October 7, 1974 filed (No. 74-389). Oct. 22, 1974—Certificate evidencing the docketing of the case in the Supreme Court October 15, 1974 filed (No. 74-428). Dec. 23, 1974—Order Granting Certiorari December 16, 1974 in No. 74-389. Dec. 23, 1974—Order Granting Certiorari December 16, 1974 in No. 74-428. * * * : oR y App. 6 In The UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE Eastern District Of North Carolina Wilson Division Civil Action No. 989 Joseph P. Mcody, Theodore Daniels, Heriry Hill and Arthur Mitchell, Plaintiffs, V. Aibemarle Paper Company ; United Papermakers and Paperworkers, A.F.L.-C.1.O. and Halifax Local No. 425, United Papermakers and Paperworkers, A.F.L.-C.I.O., Defendants. COMPLAINT [Filed August 25, 1966] I The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343 and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, this being a suit in equity authorized and instituted pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq., providing for injunctive and other relief against racial dis- crimination in employment. II Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated pursuant to Rule 23(a) EUR Gy Ai RP DANE LOR IO ELIE PM App. 7 and (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. There are common questions of law and fact affecting the rights of others seeking equal employment opportunities without dis- crimination on the basis of race and color who are so numerous as to make it impracticable to bring them all in- dividually before the Court; the claims and defenses of the plaintiffs are typical of the claims and defenses of the class; and the plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. The defendants have adopted rules and policies and have refused to eliminate same, which ~ have deprived and will continue to deprive the plaintiffs and others of their class of their rights to equal employ- ment opportunities without regard to their race or color as secured to them by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. Ill This is a proceeding for a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants frem maintaining any policy, practice, cus- tom or usage of withholding, denying, attempting to with- hold or deny, and depriving or attempting to deprive or otherwise interfering with or limiting the rights of plain- tiffs and others of their class to equal employment oppor- tunities at the Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina plant of defendant Albemarle Paper Company without discrimina- tion on the ground of race or color. IV Plaintiffs Joseph P. Moody, Theodo:e Daniels, Henry Hill'and Arthur Mitchell are Negro citizens of the United States and the State of North Carolina, residing in the County of Halifax, North Carolina. Plaintiffs are and have been employed at the Albemarle Paper Company plant at Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina, for several years. App. 8 Vv A. Defendant Albemarle Paper Company is a corpora- tion incorporated under the laws of the State of Virginia, and authorized as a junior corporation to do business in the State of North Carolina, with power to sue and be sued in its corporate name. Said defendant operates a paper plant in the City of Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina, proc- essing wood and pulp into paper. Said defendant is an employer in an industry which affects interstate commerce and employs more than 100 employees. B. Defendants United Papermakers and Paperworkers, A.F.L.-C.1.O. and its Halifax Local No. 425 (hereinafter referred to as “Union’’) are international and local labor organizations representing the employees of defendant Albemarle Paper Company in dealing and negotiating with said company concerning terms, conditions and privileges of employment. The Union is engaged in an industry which affects interstate commerce and has more than 100 mem- bers. VI A. Defendant Albemarle Paper Company has followed and presently follows a practice and policy of limiting and classifying its employees on the basis of race or color. De- fendant company maintains segregated eating and rest rooms and medical facilities for its employees. All matters regarding compensation, terms, conditions and privileges of employment of plaintiffs and the class they represent have been governed by collective bargaining agreement entered into by defendants Albemarle Paper Company and the Union. B. Defendants have entered into labor agreements to gov- ern the terms, conditions, privileges, wages and benefits App. 9 of employees of the Albemarle Paper Company plant at Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina, which have included provisions for a seniority system designed to and having the effect of discriminating against plaintiffs and others of their class solely because of their race and color. The last such agreement was executed by defendants in August, 1965 and extends through August, 1968. C. Defendants have limited the employment opportunities of plaintiffs and other Negro employees, and discriminated against plaintiffs and other Negro employees in the compen- sation, terms, conditions and privileges of employment because of race and color. VII Defendants’ discrimination against plaintiffs and others of their class with respect to terms, conditions and privi- leges of employment and classification of plaintiffs and others of their class in employment were intended to deny and have had the effect of denying the plaintiffs and others of their class equal employment opportunities and to other- -wise adversely affect their status as employees solely be- cause of their race and color in violation of their rights secured to them by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. Vill Neither the State of North Carolina nor the County of Halifax nor the City of Roanoke Rapids has a law pro- hibiting the unlawful practices alleged herein. On or about May 9, 1966, the plaintiffs filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Comission al- leging denial by defendants of their rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. On or about August 1, 1966, the plaintiffs received i —— OL OPPO GIO ELLIO LILLLEV GIS LL LLG LED IELTS LEE ANODE ELE LES. RI TI NRE SG! PP REYNE RIE IE App. 10 a letter from the Commission advising that their right to maintain civil actions for relief in the United States Dis- trict Court. IX Plaintiffs have no plain, adequate or complete remedy at law to redress the wrongs alleged herein and this suit for a permanent injunction is their only means of securing adequate relief. Plaintiffs and the class they represent are now suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable injury from defendants’ policy, practice, custom and usage as set forth herein unless and until enjoined by this Court. Wherefore, plaintiffs respectfully pray this Court ad- vance this cause on the docket, order a speedy hearing at the earliest practicable date; cause this case to be in every way expedited, and upon such hearing to: 1. Grant plaintiffs and the class they represent a perma- nent injunction enjoining defendants, Albemarle Paper Company and the Union, their agents, successors, em- ployees, attorneys and those acting in concert and participa- tion with them and at their direction from continuing or maintaining any policy, practice, custom or usage of de- nying, abridging, withholding, conditioning, limiting or otherwise interfering with the rights of the plaintiffs and ‘ others of their class to equal employment opportunities including equal rights to employment, equal terms, condi- tions and privileges of employment as secured by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. 2. Allow plaintiffs their costs herein, including reason- able attorneys’ fees and such other additional relief as may appear to the Court to be equitable and just. Respectfully submitted, /s/ J. LeVonne Chambers App. 11 In The UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE Eastern District of North Carolina Wilson Division [ Title Omitted in Printing] PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT | Filed November 22, 1966] II This Action May Properly Be Brought as a Class Action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 23(a) and (b) (as amended effective July 1, 1966) ,~_ set forth the requirements for bringing a class action. The ™ basic requirements of Rule 23(a)—(1) sizeable class, (2) common questions of law or fact, (3) claims typical of class presented by plaintiffs and, (4) adequate representa- tion of class by plaintiffs—all are duly alleged by plaintiffs and are obviously met. We do not understand defendant to challenge plaintiffs’ credential regarding any of these re- quirements and they, therefore, stand as alleged. It may be noted that regarding he isa (2), defendant expressly concedes that “there dré questions which relate to all mem- — PE LRN LTA TE OTIS RIS mera: [PRN NEN MISES 6 SRE IN SPC AT RES MOLDY SALT OL TTA TR RE IED App. 12 bers of the class.as well as questions which relate to the Plaintiffs.” _ The special requirements; set forth in Rule 23(b) are also by plaintiffs. Rule 23(b) sets forth three special situa- tions, any one of whic: will justify a class action. Plain- tiffs seek to maintain this class action under subdivision (b) (2) of Rule 23 which requires that “the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief. or corre- sponding declaratory relief with respect to the class — as a whole.” ' Plaintiffs’ action does not merely fall under subdivision (b) (2). Rather plaintiffs’ action is the model which (b) (2) was designed to include. The comment of the advisory committee which prepared the new Rule 23 makes this crystal clear. “Subdivision (b) (2). This subdivision is intended to reach situations where a party has taken action or refused to take action with respect to a class, and final relief of an injunctive nature or of a corresponding declaratory nature, settling the legality of the behavior with respect to the class as a whole, is appropriate. De- claratory relief ‘corresponds’ to injunctive relief when as a practical matter it affords injunctive relief or serves as a basis for later injunctive relief. The sub- division does not extend to cases in which the appro- priate final relief relates exclusively or predominantly to money damages. Action or inaction is directed to a’ class within the meaning of this subdivision even if it 8 Defendant’s Memorandum, p. 15. App. 13 has taken effect or is threatened only as to one or a few members of the class, provided it is based on grounds which have general application to the class. Illustrative are various actions in the civil-rights field where a party is charged with discriminating unlaw- fully against a class, usually one whose members are incapable of specific enumeration.” Advisory Commit- tee Note to amended Rule 23, 86 Sup. Ct. No. 11, Yellow Supp. at 34 (1966) (Emphasis added). Plaintiffs so abundantly meet all of the requirements of Rule 23 that defendant could not seriously challenge plain- tiffs’ credentials under the Rule. To defendant’s credit, it does not attempt to do so. As we understand defendant’s positicn, it does not question whether plaintiffs meet the requirements of Rule 23, but rather suggests that class actions are prohibited by Title VII even to a party who qualifies under Rule 23. Defendant advances two points in support of this position: (1) Plaintiffs should not be permitted to sue on behalf of other members of their class since the other members have not exhausted their remedies before the Commission. ' (2) The scheme of Title VII is such that the Attorney General is vested with exclusive authority to bring class actions. This memorandum will take up defendant’s points in order. 1. Plaintiffs Have The Right To Sue For Other Class Members Who Have Not Exhausted Their Remedies. It is important to understand the exact nature of the class relief being sought by plaintiffs. No money damages are sought for any member of the class not before the ‘4 i — SLY LMON EA A EIT LENE LISA EL SNE OL EOE EEO LEO GSE PETES ALERT 2 REAR FE eM App. 14 court, nor is specific relief in the way of job changes, promotions or the like being sought for any member of the class not before the court. The only relief sought for the class as a whole is that defendants be enjoined from treat- ing the class as a separate group and discriminating against the class as a whole in the future (Complaint, Para. IX). The issye of discrimination against the class as a whole is the essence of this action and it was the essence of the complaints filed before the Commission. The proof involved in establishing this discrimination will necessarily include not only proof of plaintiffs’ treatment but also proof of the treatment of all other Negroes employed by defendant. This common issue of class discrimination has been pre- sented to the Commission as fully as it can be presented. There is no need for, and indeed no sense in, presenting this common issue to the Commission time and again when the Commission has once shown an inability to resolve it. It may well be that any employee seeking separate and specific relief such as an individual promotion should first address his individual grievance to the Commission. But the matter of specific individual relief for other class members is not before this Court. The only class issue is the common one of enjoining general class discrimination in the future. With regard to this relief there are no specificaily aggrieved individuals since no specific individual can be aggrieved by a possible future event. The grievatice is a class grievance and it must be presented by representatives of the class if it is to be presented at all. The point was Well made by Judge Gray in Hall v. Werthan Bag Corp., 251 F.Supp. 184 (M.D. Tenn. 1966). That case, like the instant case, involved a Title VII class action where a broad injunction against future discrimina- tion was sought. In addition, specific relief for the named individual plaintiffs was sought. In ruling that a class ac- App. 15 tion on the common issue of class discrimination -was proper, Judge Gray stated: ) “Racial discrimination is by definition a class dis- crimination. If it exists, it applies throughout the class. .. . [A]lthough the actual effects of a discrim- inatory policy may . . . vary throughout the class, the existence of the discriminatory policy threatens the entire class. And whether the Damoclean threat of a racially discriminatory policy hangs over the racial class is a question of fact common to all members of the class. . * -* In regard to the injunctive relief sought in this case, _. . the purpose of the requirement of resort to the Commission has already been served. In regard to whatever back pay or reinstatement might be sought as ancillary relief, however, the purpose of the ad- ministrative remedies requirement has been satisfied only as to Robert Hall, for the Commission has not attempted conciliation in regard to rectifying any al- leged injuries which other Negro employees or would- be employees may claim to have suffered as a result of the defendant’s alleged discrimination. Upon consideration, therefore, the court is of the opinion that the complaint properly states a class ac- tion under Rule 23(a) insofar as it seeks a prohibitive injunction.” 251 F.Supp. at 186, 188. In the instant case, plaintiffs ask that this Court adhere to the sound distinction drawn by Judge Gray between the class injunctive relief and ancillary specific individual relief. * * * — £15 POON NRE RIA SRI EUS BI AT AT I PRET RARER PARSE SERN” A WRENNER App. 16 In The UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE Eastern District of North Carolina Wilson Division C.A. No. 989 Joseph P. Moody, Theodore Daniels, Henry Hill, and Arthur Mitchell, : Plaintiffs, v. Albemarle Paper Company ; United Papermakers and Paperworkers, A.F.L.-C.I.O. and Halifax Local No. 425, United Papermakers and Paperworkers, A.F.L.-C.IO., Defendants, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Intervenor. MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER [Filed July 6, 1967] Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf and on behalf of other Negroes similarly situated under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., alleging violations by their employer, their local union, and CE Pe ee ee App. 17 the defendant international union of their rights to equal employment opportunities. Jurisdiction in this Court is provided by the Act and by 28 U.S.C. § 1343. Several motions have been filed by the defendants and are now before the Court for ruling. Within 20 days of service of the complaint, the local union moved to dismiss the action or in lieu thereof to quash the return of service of the summons upon the grounds that service had been improperly made and that the complaint fails to state a claim against the local union upon which relief may be granted. In a separate motion filed on the same date, and within 20 days of service upon it, the international union likewise moved to dismiss the action or in lieu thereof to quash the return of summons upon the grounds that service was improperly made and that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief against it may be granted. The employer, Albermarle Paper Company, has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment upon the following grounds: (1) that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, for the reason that plaintiffs have not exhausted their administrative remedies before the Equal Employ- ment Opportunity Commission as is required by Section 706(e) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e- 5(e); (2) that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted in a class action. Oral argu- ment was presented at a hearing requested by the parties, and numerous briefs and memorandums of law have been submitted in support of the parties’ respective positions. The objections to the sufficiency of service of process upon the local union and the international union were withdrawn at the hearing, leaving for decision the jurisdictional ques- tions and that of whether the complaint states a claim for relief as to each defendant. eR D App. 18 The Court is of the opinion that only one of the motions, that of the international union, has merit. Jurisdictional pre- requisites for institution of an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 have been the subject of much recent litigation. See. e.g., Hall v. Werthan Bag Corp., 251 F.Supp. 184 (M.D. Tenn. 1966); Dent v. St. Louis-San Francisco Rwy Co., 265 F.Supp. 56 (N.D. Ala. 1967); Robinson v. Lorillard, Civil Action No. C-141-G- 166 (M.D.N.C. 1967); Quarles vy. Phillip Morris, Inc., Civil Action No. 4544 (E.D. Va. 1967) ; Evenson v. North- west Airlines, Inc., Civil Action No. 3961, 35 U.S.L. Week 2601 (E.D. Va. 1967); Anthony v. Brooks, Civil.Action No. 9947 (N.D. Ga. 1967) ; Mickel v. South Carolina State Employment Service, No. 11069 (4th Cir. May 3, 1967). From a reading of the foregoing cases, it appears that the better rules regarding jurisdictional prerequisites and the propriety of entertaining an action under Title VII are as follows: = 1. Subject Matter Jurisdiction. After an aggrieved party has filed a written complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and has received notice from the Commission that voluntary compliance within sixty days irom receipt of the complaint by the Commission has not been effected, no further formal efforts toward conciliation by the Commission are necessary to open the district courts to a private civil action by the complainant against a re- spondent named in the charge theretofore filed with the Commission. To the extent that Dent, supra, is inconsistent with this ruling, it is disapproved and not followed. 2. In Personam Jurisdiction. (a) Parties Plaintiff: All potential parties plaintiff in a class action seeking relief under the Act are not required SRY API OTSA HEP CREE App. 19 to have all joined in as a group or class in the prior written complaint to the Commission. This Court approves and adopts the rationale of Hall, supra, in this respect. (b) Parties Defendant: Although, as indicated, all plaintiffs in a class action under the provisions of Title VII are not required individually to exhaust their administra- tive remedies before the Commssion where some members of the class have already done so, it is a quite different matter as to who may be made a party defendant: a plain- tiff or a class of plaintiffs may institute a civil action in federal district court under Section 706(e) of the Act against only an employer. employment agency, or labor organization which was a respondent named in the charge filed with the Commission. Whether this be treated as a question of subject matter jurisdiction or personal jurisdic- tion, the requirement that all defendants be named in the charge filed with the Commission goes to the competence of a district court to entertain the action in respect to the party in question (international union), as defined in clear lan- guage of the statute. Mickel v. South Carolina State Em- ployment Service, supra. The contention that the local union is the agent of the international union is without merit-the records indicating that the local is merely af- filiated with the international and enjoys an autonomous existence. This is insufficient to establish responsibility of the international for any alleged unlawful conduct on the part of the local. ORDER It is therefore Ordered that the Motion to Dismiss filed by Halifax Local No. 425, United Papermakers and Paper- workers, A.F.L.-C.1.O. be, and the same is hereby denied ; App. 20 It is Further Ordered that the Motion of United Paper- makers and Paperworkers, A.F.L.-C.I.O. (International) to dismiss be, and the same is hereby allowed; It is Further Ordered that the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Albemarle Paper Company be, and the same is hereby denied. It is Further Ordered that the Clerk shall serve copies of this Memorandum Opinion and Order upon all counsel of record. Let this Order be entered forthwith. /s/ John D. Larkins, Jr. John D. Larkins, Jr. United States District Judge eo ea tke int Sea Mn AD ie . App. 21 In The UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT. . FOR THE Eastern District of North Carolina Wilson Division (Civil Action No. 989) { Title Omitted in Printing] ANSWER [Filed July 26, 1967] Defendant, Albemarle Paper Company, for answer to the complaint served on it in this action, says: 1. Defendant admits the enactment of the Acts of Con- gress as alleged in paragraph 1 of the Complaint, but dertes that they are applicable in the premises and, further an- swering, Defendant denies that it has deprived Plaintiffs of any rights secured them by any of the Acts whose exist- ence is alleged in paragraph 1 of the Complaint, or other- wise. 2 Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 2 of the Complaint. “ 3. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 3 of the Complaint. 4. Defendant admits the allegations of paragraph 4 of the Complaint. PLE TNL OIE IO App. 22 5. Defendant admits the allegations of paragraph 5 of the Complaint. 6. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 6 of the Complaint. 7. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 7 of the Complaint. 8. Defendant admits that neither the State of North Carolina nor the County of Halifax nor the City of Roa- noke Rapids have enacted laws or ordinances regulating unlawful employment practices. Defendant is without knowledge as to the remainder of the allegations of para- graph 8 of the Complaint and accordingly denies the same, except that Defendant admits that on or about August 11, 1966, it received copies of Complaints of “Unfair Employ- ment Practices Under the 1964 Civil Rights Act Title 7,” signed by the Plaintiffs and verified on February 20, 1966. 9. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 9 of the Complaint and denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to any of the relief prayed for, or any other relief. A ffirmative Defenses First Defense: The Complaint fails to state a claim against Defendant upon which relief may be granted. Second Defense: The Complaint is barred by the Statute of Limitations inasmuch as there is no allegation in the Complaint that the alleged conduct occurred within 90 days prior to the ps at & Someone RISA Ae Re B00 CRE RSIS PE greens .— PORE TE es LEARY RT ARLE are; VO OAR RR NR REE US se : - FRC LG GE RG App. 23 filing of charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Third Defense: The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted in a class action, in that the rights, if any, of the members of the alleged class are several and not joint and there is no common question of law or fact that is affecting the rights of the members of the alleged class, and no common relief can be granted in this action. Fourth Defense: The Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action and the’ Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted because the Plaintiffs have not exhausted their remedies before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as required by Section 706(e) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5. ' Fifth Defense: The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted in a class action because the Plaintiffs have not notified the members of the class of their right to participate in, or be excluded from, this action as required by Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Sixth Defense: The Complaint should be dismissed because the Interna- tional Union, United Papermakers and Paperworkers, AFL-CIO, is an indispensable party to this action. Dee eg ae ee ete App. 24 Wherefore, having fully answered, Defendant prays that this action be dismissed and that it be awarded its costs herein expended, including reasonable attorneys’ fees. Albemarle Paper Company, Its Counsel Francis V. Lowden, Jr. Paul M. Thompson Hunton, Williams, Gay, Powell & Gibson 700 East Main Street ~ Richmond, Virginia 23212 Allsbrook, Benton, Knott, Allsbrook & Cranford P. O. Box 108 Kidd Building Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina 27870 Of Counsel [ Certificate of Service Omitted in Printing] App. 25 In The UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE © Eastern District of North Carolina Wilson Division (Civil Action No. 989) [ Title Omitted in Printing] _ ANSWER [Filed July 28, 1967] The defendant, Halifax Local No. 425, United Paper- makers and Paperworkers, A.F.L.-C.1.O., one of the above named defendants answering the Complaint of the plaintiffs says: 1. Paragraph 1 of the plaintiffs’ Complaint is admitted. 2. Paragraph 2 of the plaintiffs’ Complaint is denied. ‘ 3. Answering paragraph 3 of the plaintiffs’ Complaint, it is admitted that the nature of the relief sought by the plaintiffs is injunctive; however, this defendant has not committed any acts for which they shotld be subjected to the relief sought by the plaintiffs and, t lerefore, the re- maining allegations of paragraph 3 are denied. 4. Paragraph 4 of the plaintiffs’ Complaint is admitted. 5. Answering paragraph 5-of ' the aintiffs’ Complaint, this answering defendant admits te aera of said paragraph as the same pertain to thi answering defendant. Except as admitted, this defen Ant denies the remainder of the allegations of said paragraph. 6. The allegations of paragraph 6 of the plaintiffs’ Com- plaint are denied. , { >) bY NO RRC ea IR Leumi ete ene ter on nse ees Beme--..... ey Ot ELLE EEE ELLE IDES IDI LIE LIE SOMES AMIEL AIMS IO SONI N OEE RE AER Rn App. 26 | 7. The allegations of paragraph 7 of the plaisitifis’ Com- paint are denied. 8. This answering defendant does not have sufficient in- formation as to the allegations in paragraph 8 of the plain- tiffs’ Complaint to form a reasonable belief as to the truth or falsity thereof, and, therefore, denies the same. 9. The allegations of paragraph 9 of the plaintiffs’ Com- plaint are denied. ; For A First Further Answer And Defense, This An- swering Defendant Alleges: 1. Administrative remedies for persons alleging denial of rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e et seq. are provided by said Act. 2. The plaintiffs herein have failed to exhaust the ad- — ‘ministrative remedies before the Equal Employment Op- portunity Commission as provided by the Civil Rights Act. . of 1964, prior to the institution of this action, and such remedies are required to be exhausted prior to the institu- tion of an action of the nature herein brought by the plain- tiffs. And For A Second Further Answer And Defense, This Answering Defendant Alleges :' The plaintiffs have failed to exhaust the conciliation rem- edies provided in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 aca the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. ; And For A Third Further ‘Answer And Defense, This Answering Defendant Alleges : 1. The Constitution of United Papermakers and Paper- workers, A.F.L.-C.1.O. and particularly Article IX, Section 9, Subsections a and b provides contractual remedies and procedures for employees who allege a denial of rights in - connection with their employment. , App. 27 2. The plaintiffs have failed to exhaust the remedies and procedures provided them under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement pertaining to their employment and remedies provided by the Constitution of United Paper- makers and Paperworkers A.F.L.-C.I.O. and specifically those provisions of said Constitution contained in Article IX, Section 9, Subsections a and b. Wherefore, the defendant, Halifax Local No. 425, United .Papermakers and Paperworkers, A.F.L.-C.I.O., having fully answered the Complaint of the plaintiffs prays the Court that the plaintiffs’ action be dismissed against this defendant, that the cost of this action be taxed against the plaintiffs, and for such other relief as may appear to be just and proper. Respectfully submitted, James B. Ledford 623 E. Trade Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 Bonner D. Sawyer Hillsboro, North Carolina Warren Woods 1735 K Street, N.W. Washington, D. C. 20006 Attorneys for Defendant Halifax Local No. 425, United Papermakers and Paperworkers, A.F.L.-C.1.0. [Certificate of Service Omitted in Printing] i — LOLOL LALA ELON LE LIN LEI SEBEL ELEN IE GLA LION SPL 1 1 ARAB SITE ORG POR ON App. 28 ° In The UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE Eastern District of North Carolina Wilson Division [ Title Omitted In Printing] LETTER OF JUNE 12, 1970 June 12, 1970 - Moody v. Albemarle Paper Compainy, Civil Action No. 989 ~ Honorable John D. Larkins United States District Judge _ Eastern District of North Carolina Trenton, North Carolina Dear Judge Larkins: Counsel for the parties in the above action met in Roa- noke Rapids, North Carolina, on June 4, 1970, for the purpose of stipulating certain facts which would make unnecessary (1) the introduction of the voluminous per- sonnel records copied by plaintiffs and (2) the answer to defendant’s supplemental interrogatory. | At the outset of the meeting it developed that the plain- tiffs would not agree not to introduce the documents afore- said if the stipulation were worked out. Since all counsel were present we did spend the day working -out some App. 29 stipulated facts, in preparation for pretrial conference, but the basic problem remains unsolved. Therefore, the defendant, Albemarle Paper Company, requests the Court to require plaintiffs to answer the sup- plemental interrogatory. . As you know, the assets of Albemarle Paper Company were sold on October 31, 1968. We understand the plain- tiffsswill move the Court within the next ten days to make the new corporation a party. The new corporation desires an opportunity to be heard on this motion. One of the reasons assigned by Counsel for plaintiffs for refusing to agree not to introduce the voluminous docu- ments is that they now think they may have a claim for monetary damages. The Court will note that no such dam- ages were sought in the complaint and have not been men- tioned during the first three.and one-half years this case has been pending. I mention this at this time in order that the record will show that the defendants take the position that damages are not an issue in this case unless the Court permits an amendment to the complaint, an action which defendants would strenuously oppose at this late date. Sincerely yours, Francis V. Lowden, Jr. cc: Robert Belton, Esq. Julian R. Alisbrook, Jr., Esq. Warren W. Woods, Esq. RCE Sey SP eee a eye Pe Bek App. 30 In The UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE Eastern District Of North Carolina Wilson Division No. 989—Civil Joseph P. Moody, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Albemarle Paper Company, et al., Defendants. OPINION AND ORDER [ Filed September 29, 1970] LARKINS, District Judge: This cause is now before the court upon the several mo- tions below-listed in a civil action instituted by the Plain- tiffs upon the alleged deprivation of their rights to equal employment opportunities pursuant to the provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; 42, United . States Code Annotated, Section 2000, et seq., jurisdiction in the court being grounded in the “Act” and pursuant to the provisions of Title 28, United States Code Annotated, Section 1343. App. 31 The specific motions before the court for its determina- tion presently are as follows: (1) Plaintiffs’ Motion to Add or Join the Albemarle Paper Company, the Hoerner Waldorf Corporation, the First Alpaco Corporation and the Ethyl Corpo- ration as parties defendant pursuant to the provi- sions of Rules 19, 20 and 25(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedures; and, (2) Motion of Defendant Albemarle Paper Company, (“old” Albemarle), to Dismiss. Issues have been joined by the parties Memoranda of Law in support and opposition to and of the motion to add or join parties and in support of the motion to dis- miss, and opposition. The court will first look to the merits of Plaintiffs’ col- lective motions to add or join the parties above-named. ' Then a determination upon Defendant “old” Albemarle’s Motion to Dismiss will be made. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW This action was originally instituted on August 25, 1966, with Albemarle Paper Company, a Virginia corporation, being named defendant in the original suit. Although at that time and until October 31, 1968, ‘‘old’’ Albemarle was a wholly owned subsidiary of Ethyl Corporation; neither Ethyl, Hoerner Waldorf, Alpaco, nor Albemarle Paper Company (a Delaware corporation—hereinafter referred to as “new” Albemarle) were named as parties defendant. Of course “new” Albemarle had not been formed at that time. , On October 31, 1968, pursuant to an agreement dated ~ October 25, 1968, between Ethyl Corporation, Albemarle — Cire... oeREEYRE ENN marenRenERRRT ES RA Le RI aR App. 32 Paper Company, Interstate Bag Company, Inc., a Virginia corporation, and Hoerner Waldorf Corporation, a Dela- ware corporation, “old” Albemarle transferred all of its property and assets, real, personal, tangible and intangible located in Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina, to Albemarle Paper Company, a Delaware corporation, i.e., “new” Albe- marle. This was done by deed, bill of sale and related docu- ments. On that same date, “old” Albemarle, by amendment to its charter, changed its name to First Alpaco Corpora- tion. And Hoerner Waldorf paid to the account of First Alpaco Corporation a specified amount of money for the assets of “old’’ Albemarle, including those at Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina. Since October 31, 1968, “old” Albemarle has had no control over any property or person working at its former mill in Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina. At no time did First Alpaco Corporation ever own any property or control any person working at the former mill of “old’’ Albemarle. On February 20, 1969, First Alpaco Corporation was merged into Ethyl Corporation. (Affidavit of Frederick P. Waren, Secretary of Ethyl Corporation). “New” Albemarle, being the nominee of Hoerner Wal- dorf pursuant to the original agreement of October 25, 1968, presently has all management and control over the Roanoke Rapids facility in question—that being the situs of the alleged deprivation of Plaintiffs’ rights. In response to the plaintiffs’ motions to add or join parties, the corporations therein named have relied primar- ily on this court’s earlier ruling in this same case reported in 271 F. Supp. 27 (E.D.N.C., 1967). There this court, in allowing the motion of the international union to dis- miss, held that where the international union was not named by plaintiffs in their complaint filed with the equal employ- ment opportunity commission charging the demul of rights . t ~\ ~ a en 7 App. 33 to equal employment opportunities, the plaintiffs were not entitled to join the international union as a party defendant in a class action brought under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This court said then that “the requirement that all defendants be named in the charge filed with the Commis- sion goes to the competence of a district court to entertain the action... .” But the decision there is distinguishable from the issue now directly in litigation. That determination establishing that the international must have been named in the charges before the E.E.O.C., was based on the fact that the local union (said union having been named before the E.E.O.C.) was autonomous in nature and was not an agent of the international union so as to permit the international union to be joined by plaintiffs as a party defendant. The court stated: “The contention that the local union is the agent of the international union is without merit, the records indicating that the local is merely affiliated with the international and enjoys an autonomous existence. This is insufficient to establish responsibility of the inter- national for any alleged unlawful conduct on the part of the local.” Moody v. Albemarle, 271 F. Supp. 27, 29 (E.D.N.C., 1967). In other words, the international union was not, to any extent, viewed by the court as being the successor in interest to the local union—the local being a separate entity unto itself. Further, a distinction between the issue there and that herein presented lies in the fact that at no time between the filing of charges by the plaintiffs before the E.E.O.C. and institution of the suit in this court had the stance or posture ) — PE RRS IE oP NRPS COLLET - . : y REE GREELY IE NEI TE ERT EEF NE WIEN TEC II MOONS OE AES NY SEE App. 34 of the international union changed. While, as per the corpo- rations herein sought to be joined, two of these companies, Fifst Alpaco Corporation and Albemarle Paper Company, a Delaware corporation, were not in existence at the time of filing of charges with the E-E.O.C. or institution of the suit in district court. Neither did Hoerner Waldorf Corpo- ration have any interest in the charges or the suit. Now, Hoerner Waldorf, as the parent Corporation of “New” Albemarle surely would have an interest in protecti.g its “nominee” and wholly owned subsidiary from liability. Only Ethyl Corporation, though it has engaged in some corporate shuffling involving liquidation of assets, stands now in substantially the same position as parent of Alpaco Corporation, as it did at the time of the filing of charges before the E.E.O.C. as the parent of “Old” Albemarle Paper Company. However, even that stance is questionable in its simi- larity to the position of Ethyl Corporation at the time of the filing of charges before the E.E.O.C., because of the fact that on February 20, 1969, First Alpaco one was merged into Ethyl Corporation. The fact situation before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Mickel v. South Carolina Employment Service, 377 F.2d 239, (4th circ., 1967), was startlingly. similar to those present in the earlier Moody ruling in that (1) there was a potential party-defendant in existence at the time of filing of charges before the E.E.O.C. which was not joined and (2) that party was not considered by the court to have been an agent of any party named in those charges before the E.E.O.C. In both instances the court determined that requisite jurisdiction had not been satisfied. There is no doubt that conciliation is a jurisdictional prerequisite to institution of a civil action under the Civil © __ —— ee eee Otera App. 35 . Rights Act of 1964 dealing with equal employment op- portunities, and further that an action so instituted without complying with such jurisdictional prerequisitemust be dis- missed. Civil: Rights Act of 1964 § 706(a,d,e), Title 42 U.S.C.A., § 2000e-5(a,d,e). Mickel v. South Carolina Emp. Serv., supra. However, the court is of the considered opinion that when an aggrieved party has brought charges against a named respondent before the E.E.O.C., thusly complying with jurisdictional prerequisites, and has instituted suit in the district court against that same party, he should be allowed to pursue his alleged claims for relief against the party defendant even though his course of purswit may lead him through that dark and dismal forest known to all as the corporate reshuffle. And the court is impressed with the argument of counsel for the plaintiffs that if the deci- sions of Mickel and Moody I are considered by the court to be applicable to the facts at bar then “all employers charged before EEOC with violations of Title VII could easily escape liability by transferring its interest subsequent to filing of a Title VII suit in Federal Court.” The court further agrees that, “If the court were then to find that the original employer-defendant had been or is presently guilty of a violation of the Title VII, an aggrieved party would have an empty victory because injunctive relief would not be appropriate and the original defendant would not be able to respond in damages because its assets had been transferred.” . . Moreover, to require plaintiffs on the facts in this case to now go before EEOC as to these proposed de- fendants would subject plaintiffs to a possible never ending treadmill.” The court sees as one of its duties, the avoidance of a multiplicity of suits. And the court finds that clearly it was TERRE LEO VEE App. 36 not the intent of Congress, in passing Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to create multiplicity or loophole. Rule 25(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides in part as follows: “In case of any transfer of interest the action may be continued by or against the original party unless the court upon motion directs the person to whom the interest is transferred to be substituted in the action or joined with the original party.” The motion for joinder of parties having been made, and it appearing to the court that any or all of the parties sought to be added or joined have or could have the burden of liability in the event of a determination of liability being made, the court finds that Albemarle Paper Company, a Delaware corporation, the First Alpaco Corporation, Ethyl Corporation and Hoerner Waldorf Corporation should be joined as parties-defendant and the motion of plaintiffs should be allowed. It was the intent of Congress, as evidenced by Section 706 (a,d,e) of Title VII, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, clearly, that all possible parties-defendant in Federal court be included as respondents to charges filed with the E.E.O.C. The obvious purpose therein was to subject all original claims to the possibility of conciliation at the administrative level before entrance into suit in the district court. This purpose is effectuated by the requirement that administrative remedies be exhausted by plaintiffs as to all defendants which were available to them at the time of filing of charges with E.E.O.C. But the purpose of prior conciliation is not enhanced by requiring that plaintiffs exhaust administrative remedies as to new potential parties-defendant where those parties . App. 37 are either substituted for original parties as successors in — interest or are newly formed (at a time subsequent to the filing of charges with the E.E.O.C.). Rule 25(c) was specifically created to resolve this situation. Using the rule does not expand any federal jurisdiction, but only makes right what has the odorous property of being an unfair procedural obstacle. No longer must we contend with the procedural traps of the Common Law, for we live in an enlightened age of the Federal Rules. And until finer tools are created, this court will utilize these Rules as they were intended to so be used. Defendant “old” Albemarle Paper Company has moved the court to dismiss the case both as to it, the present de- fendant, and as to all those whom the plaintiffs have sought to join as Defendants essentially on the following grounds: That it, the Defendant “old” Albemarle is no longer in existence, all its interests in the plant and facility in Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina having been trans- ferred out to other named parties in the motion to add or join, and no money damages specifically having been prayed for by plaintiffs, then the injunctive relief sought by plaintiffs not being possible as against a non-existent defendant, the whole matter should be dropped. Defendant “old” Albemarle further asserts several rea- sons why the action should be dismissed which involve the merits of the dispute here in question, and of course, as we are not yet to the merits of this litigation, much to the chagrin of the court, these contentions can not be considered upon the motion to dismiss. Rule 54(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure pro- vides in part: “except as to a party against whom a judg- — UF ALE SLIT SFE LOLA AL ALLE EN Tera PRN . App. 38 ment is entered by default every final judgment shall grant the relief to which the party in- whose favor it is rendered is entitled, even if the party has not demanded such relief in his pleadings.” The possibility of an award of money damages upon a determination of liability is still with us. It is not yet the proper time to drop the plaintiffs’ claims, which are, at least, litigable. However, in view of the fact that “old’’ Albemarle is no longer in existence, the court having found that all the interests originally held by it have been transferred out to the parties named in the motion to add or join; and further in view of the fact that usage of the terms “old” and “new” Albemarle is becoming tiresome, and Rule 25(c) providing that in the case of any transfer of interest the court may direct that the person or persons to whom the interests were transferred be substituted in the action for the original party, the court is wont to allow the motion to dismiss as to “old” Albemarle. But, in the interest of justice in the case at bar, the court finds that the more proper step to be taken is to keep the original party defendant in the liti- gation, even though it has now been dissolved, and allow the motion to add or join parties as to all those parties sought to be joined. The court having considered the excellent Brief Amicus Curiae of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed in support of plaintiffs’ position with respect to their motion along with responsive briefs thereto, the court finds that the “Public Policy” sought to be served by Title VII is best served by taking the abovestated action. +? Order Now Therefore) in accordance with the foregoing, it is Ordered, that the Motion to Add or Join the Albemarle Paper Company, a Delaware corporation, the Hoerner Wal- App. 39 dorf Corporation, the First Alpaco Corporation, and the Ethyl Corporation be and the same is hereby Allowed, and, Further Ordered, that the Motion to Dismiss on the part of Defendant Albemarle Paper Company, a Virginia cor- poration, as to it and all parties herein joined as parties- defendant, be and the sameis hereby, Denied; and, Further Ordered, that the Clerk shall serve copies of this Opinion and Order upon all Counsel of Record. . Let this Order be entered forthwith. /s/ John D. Larkins, Jr. John D. Larkins, Jr. , United States District Judge — Trenton, North Carolina September 28, 1970 _ App. 40 In The UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE Eastern District of North Carolina - Wilson Division ' [Title Omitted In Printing] AMENDED ORDER [Filed October 15, 1970] Larkins, District Judge: It Appearing To The Court, that certain wording in the Opinion and Order in this matter of the court dated Sep- tember 28, 1970, may be or is ambiguous or misleading; Now Therefore, It Is Ordered, that’‘Line 17, Paragraph 3 of Page 5 of the Opinion and Order, which has heretofore read: : “There is no doubt that conciliation is a juriedic- oe be amended to read: > “There is no doubt that aaa to the possibility of conciliation is a jurisdic-” and, _ Further Ordered, that the Clerk shall serve _— of this Order upon All Counsel of Record. Let this Order be entered forthwith. /s/ John D. Larkins, Jr. John D. Larkins, Jr. United States District Judge Trenton, North Carolina October 14, 1970 App. 41 In The UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE Eastern District of North Carolina ‘ Wilson Division (Civil Action No. 989) [ Title Omitted In Printing] ANSWER AND CROSS CLAIM OF ETHYL CORPORATION [Filed December 28, 1970] [Answer Omitted In Printing] Cross-Claim Against Defendant, Hoerner Waldorf Corporation And Albemarle Paper Company, (Delaware) 1. Prior to July 2, 1965, and until October 31, 1968, the Albemarle Paper Company, a Virginia corporation, was a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant, Ethyl Corporation. 2. By agreement dated October 25, 1968, between De- fendant Ethyl Corporation, Defendant Hoerner-Waldorf Corporation, and others, certain assets of Albemarle Paper Company, a Virginia corporation, including the mill at Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina, were transferred to the nominee of Defendant Hoerner-Waldorf Corporation. This agreement provided in pertinent part that Defendant Hoer- ner-Waldorf Corporation would assume and pay “all lia- bilities of Albemarle and Interstate resulting from their respective operations in the ordinary course of their busi- - ness prior to the closing date.” (Section 1.03(b)). This agreement further provided that Defendant Hoerner-Wal- App. 42 dorf Corporation would indemnify and hold harmless De- ( \ fendant Ethyl Corporation “from and against any claim or , expense from or in connection with liabilities or obligations assumed by Hoerner-Waldorf under Section 1.03... and / all guarantees or contingent liabilities or obligations of Sellers with regard to the foregoing.” (Section 1.05): In Exhibit I to the agreement of October 25, 1968, Defendant Ethyl Corporation expressly disclosed to Defendant Hoer- ner-Waldorf Corporation the existence of this lawsuit. Pur- suant to this agreement, Hoerner-Waldorf Corporation, a Delaware corporation, delivered at the closing of the sale and purchase of assets a General Assumption of Obliga- tions and Liabilities dated October 31, 1968, by which liabilities and obligations of Albemarle Paper Company, a Virginia corporation, were express!y assumed and Ethyl Corporation and Albemarle Paper Company, a Virginia corporation, were indemnified against any future claim or expense arising from the liabilities and obligations so as- sumed. 3. On September 29, 1970, the Court added the Ethyl Corporation as a Defendant in this action. Defendant Ethyl Corporation has requested the Defendant Hoerner-Wal- ij dorf Corporation to defend this action on behalf of De- fendant Ethyl Corporation and to hold it harmless against any claim, expense, judgment or liability of or against De- fendant Ethyl Corporation or Albemarle Paper Company, a Virginia corporation, arising out of this action or the defense thereof. 4. Defendants Hoerner-Waldorf Corporation and Albe- marle Paper Company, a Deleware corporation, have re- fused the request of Defendant Ethyl Corporation and by so doing Defendants Hoerner-Waldorf Corporation and Albemarle Paper Company, a Delaware corporation, have App. 43 breached the express terms of the agreements previously mentioned herein. Wherefore, the. Defendant Ethyl Corporation demands judgment against the Defendant Hoerner-Waldorf Corpo- ration and/or Albemarle Paper Company, a Delaware cor- poration, for’any sum which may be recovered herein by the Plaintiffs against this Defendant and/or its costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees. Ethyl Corporation Its Counsel Charles F. Blanchard, Esq. Yarborough, Blanchard, Tucker & Yarborough Wachovia Bank Building Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 ( Counsel for Defendant, Ethyl Corporation Dated: December 28, 1970 [ Certificate of Service Omitted in Printing] es : meerere. ST eR ea Behe x - a App. 44 In The UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE Eastern District Of North Carolina Wilson Division [ Title Omitted In Printing] ORDER [Filed May 28, 1971] This cause was heard by the undersigned on May 17, 1971, on the motion of defendant Albemarle Paper Com- pany to compel responsive answers to its supplemental in- terrogatory as follows: “List the specific names of each employee or former employee whose personnel record or records in any way establishes or tends to establish any discrimina- tion by Albemarle Paper Company in its employment practices and explain how such record or records show discrimination giving the specific dates and instances.” The Court has considered the pleadings and memoranda and heard arguments of counsel for all parties and is of ‘the opinion that defendant’s motion to compel responsive answers to the supplemental interrogatory should be granted. It Is Therefore, Ordered, Adjudged And Decreed: That the Plaintiffs answer the supplemental interroga- tory in a responsive, complete and specific manner no later than June 25, 1971. The Clerk will mail conformed copies of this order to all interested counsel. This 28th day of May, 1971. /s/ F. T. Dupree, Jr. Judge, United States District Court App. 45 In The UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE Eastern District of North Carolina Wilson Division [ Title Omitted In Printing] (Civil Action No. 989) ORDER [Filed June 15, 1971] At a hearing held on May 17, 1971, the motion of the de- fendant, Albemarle Paper Company, that plaintiffs be re- quired to answer a supplemental interrogatory served on plaintiffs on April 24, 1969, was allowed, and at the request of the court counsel for said defendant submitted an order directing plaintiffs to answer the interrogatory which order was signed and entered herein under date of May 28, 1971. Thereafter a communication was received from courtsel for plaintiffs objecting to the form of this order, and the court thereupon ordered further hearing on the matter to be held on June 10, 1971. At this second hearing which was attended by all in- terested counsel motion of Albemarle Paper Company to compel answers to its supplemental interrogatory was re- considered, and also considered were the matters of defining the class in this class action; the question of whether or not damages will be recoverable; and the matter of notice to be ae — : App. 46 given to the members of the class. The court thereupon made the following rulings and it is ORDERED: 1. Plaintiffs are directed to answer the supplemental interrogatory of Albemarle Paper Company in a responsive and complete manner, and more specifically plaintiffs are directed to indicate in their. answers where the records presently in possession of plaintiffs show that each member of the class represented by plaintiffs, who is claiming dam- ages of the defendants by reason of the alleged racially dis- criminatory employment practices of the defendants was denied because of race the opportunity to fill a vacancy ina job for which the member was qualified on and after July 2, 1965; a statement as to each such member of the class as to how he was personally and specifically discriminated against ; and the amount of damages being claimed. 2. The time in which plaintiffs may answer the supple- mental interrogatory is extended to and including July 10, 1971. 3. Final ruling as to whether any member of the class may recover damages in this action is reserved. 4. The court designates the class which plaintiffs repre- sent as follows: (a) All Negroes employed at the Roanoke Rapids plant of Albemarle Paper Company as of June 30, 1967. (b) All Negroes employed at said plant after June 30, 1967, except those whose initial permanent posi- tions were not job classifications limited to or pre- dominantly staffed by Negroes. App. 47 (c) All Negroes who may hereafter apply for or be employed at said Roanoke Rapids plant who may be affected by the alleged racially discriminatory employ- ment practices of the defendants. 5. Counsel are directed to submit suggested forms of notice to be directed to the members of the class under the provisions of Rule 23(c)(2) on or before June 25, 1971. 6. The trial date for the action, July 26, 1971, at 10 o'clock a.m. in Courtroom No. 1, Federal Building, Raleigh, North Carolina, remains unchanged. 7. Except as herein modified the order of May 28, 1971, remains in full force and effect, and the directives and pro- visions of the court’s memorandum of the conference on . May 17, 1971, are by this reference incorporated herein. This June 15, 1971. /s/ F.T. Dupree, Jr. United States cere Judge Pern eee . _ — OR AAS BA id et ra App. 48 \ In The UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE Eastern District of North Carolina Wilson Division [Title Omitted In Printing] (Civil Action No. 989) ORDER [Filed June 18, 1971] In this case, as in all class actions, there exists the po- tential of abuse of the procedure, intentional and inadvertent, unless procedures are devised and employed to anticipate abuse. The judges of this court have under consideration an amendment to the local rules to guard against the potential abuses of the class action processes. Meanwhile, in order to avoid misunderstanding, the court on its own motion makes the following ruling with respect to the future con- duct of counsel in this case, and it is ORDERED: All parties hereto and their counsel are forbidden directly or indirectly, orally or in writing, to communicate concern- ing this action with any potential or actual class member not a formal party to the action without the consent and approval of the proposed communication by order of this court. Any such proposed communication shall be presented — sesenieihnieiaiasianantaenias App. 49 to this court in writing with a designation of or description of all addressees and with a motion and proposed order for prior approval by this court of the proposed communication. The communications forbidden include, but are not limited to, (a) solicitation directly or indirectly of legal representa- tion of potential and actual class members who are not formal parties to the class action; (b) solicitation of fees and expenses and agreements to pay fees and expenses from potential and actual class members who are not formal parties to the class action; (c) solicitation by formal parties to the class action of requests by class members to opt out of the action under subparagraph (b)(3) of Rule 23; and (d) communications from counsel or a party which may tend to misrepresent the status, pur- poses and effects of this class action, and of any actual or potential orders herein which may create impressions tend- ing, without cause, to reflect adversely on any party, the counsel, the courts, or the administration of justice. The obligations and prohibitions of this order are not exclusive, and all other ethical, legal and equitable obligations remain unaffected by the order. Neither does the order forbid com- munications between any attorney and his client, or a pros- pective client, who has on the initiative of the client or prospective client consulted with, employed or proposed to employ the attorney. This June 18, 1971. /s/ F. T. Dupree, Jr. United States District Judge App. 50 In The UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE Eastern District of North Carolina Wilson Division [ Title Omitted In Printing] (Civil Action No. 989) ORDER [Filed July 8, 1971] Upon Consideration of the suggested forms of notice submitted to the court by counsel pursuant to the order of June 15, 1971, and other matters presently requiring the court’s attention, it is now ORDERED: 1. Notice (a) The notice to be given to the class affected by this action shall be in the form attached hereto and marked Ex- hibit A. (b) A copy of the notice shall be mailed by first class mail in the official envelopes of the Clerk of this court to each Negro employed at the Roanoke Rapids plant of Albe- marle Paper Company as of June 30, 1967, and to all Negroes employed at said plant after that date except those whose initial permanent positions were not job classi- fications limited to or predominantly staffed by Negroes. (c) The notice shall be published in the Daily Herald, a newspaper published in Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina, in its editions of July 8, July 12, July 15 and July 19, 1971. nS ane eZ App. 51 (d) Albemarle Paper Company shall post a copy of the notice on each of its bulletin boards in its Roanoke Rapids plant and keep the same posted for thirty days from the date of this order. (e) The cost of mailing and publishing the notices shall be paid by the plaintiffs but shall be taxable as costs against the losing party in the case. (f) Notwithstanding the provisions of the notice re- quiring filing of proofs of claim by July 22, 1971, the court will on or before August 6, 1971, entertain a motion by any interested member of the class for an extension of time in wiiich to file claim upon a showing that the failure to file the claim timely was due to circumstances beyond the class member’s control. 2. Damages (a) In view of the ruling of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of Robinson y. Lorillard Corporation, No. 15,098, and related cases decided July 1, 1971, this court now rules that damages may be recovered in this action if the plaintiffs prevail. (b) It is hoped that the damage claims, if found to be allowable, may be heard and determined at the trial, but if such claims become too numerous or complicated, this phase of the case may be referred toa special master. 3. Attorney's Fees (a) In the event plaintiffs prevail, it would appear from the Robinson case cited above that notwithstanding the language of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k), plaintiffs will be en- ee. PRR ee mcnep se App. 52 titled to counsel fees as a matter of right absent a showing of such special ci-cumstances as would render an award of counsel fees unjust. Counsel are directed to brief this ques- tion and be prepared to argue the same at the time of the trial. (b) In the event attorney’s fees are claimed, counsel for plaintiffs are directed to file with the court at the time of the trial upon = court’s request the details of any fee ar- rangement which\they have with plaintiffs or anyone act- ing on their behalf, an itemized statement of their time and expenses incurred and the amount, if any, received on account to date and the source of same. 4. Stipulations — (a) Counsel are directed to file with the court on or be- fore July 16, 1971, the stipulation of facts and a pretrial order incorporating all matters referred to in paragraph 7 of the court’s memorandum of the conference of May 17, , 1971. \ 5. Trial Briefs (a) Counsel are directed to file with the court trial briefs covering all anticipated questions of substantive, procedural and evidence law on or before July 16, 1971. This July 6, 1971. /s/ F. T. Dupree, Jr. United States District Judge App. 53 In The UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE Eastern District of North Carolina Wilson Division [ Title Omitted in Printing] (Civil Action No. 989) NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION [Filed July 8, 1971] (Exhibit A to Order of July 8, 1971) To: All Black Empluyees Of Albemarle Paper Company ' At Its Roanoke Rapids Plant In Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina, And All Members Of The Class As Herein Defined: Notice Is Hereby Given That: On August 25, 1966, a civil action was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina by Joseph P. Moody, Theodore Daniels, Henry Hill and Arthur Mitchell as plaintiffs seeking relief under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This law pro- hibits discrimination in employment on the ground of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. The defendants in the case are Albemarle Paper Company, a Virginia corpo- ration, Albemarle Paper Company, a Delaware corporation, RE SRSLY OG GE App. 54 Ethyl Corporation, Hoerner-Waldorf and Halifax Local .No. 425, United Papermakers and Paperworkers, AFL- | Ss On June 15, 1971, the court entered an order allowing the action to be prosecuted as a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the class was defined as (1) all Negroes employed at the Roanoke Rapids plant of Albemarle Paper Company as of June 30, 1967; (2) all Negroes employed at said plant after June 30, 1967, except those whose initial permanent positions were not job classifications limited to or predominantly staffed by Negroes; and (3) all Negroes who may hereafter apply for or be employed at said Roanoke Rapids plant who may be affected by the alleged racially discriminatory TT _ment practices of the defendants. Plaintiffs’ complaint seeks relief from alleged ‘teilally discriminatory practices and policies against black em- ployees and potential black employees who are, have been or may be employed at the Roanoke Rapids plant of Albe- marle Paper Company; relief in the form of back pay for | any black employees who may be found to have been dis- criminated against because of race since July 2, 1965; an injunction against the use of or reliance on any tests and/or educational requirements not shown to be lawful in deter- mining qualifications for the employment and promotions of black employees at the Roanoke Rapids plant; and to have the court require the institution of a plant seniority system for filling job vacancies. The defendants have denied the material allegations of plaintiffs’ complaint and deny all liability. This notice in no way indicates any view of the court as to the merits of the action but is merely to advise you of the pendency of the suit and of your rights under it. DEEP E Se eae : App. 55 The case is set for trial in Courtroom No. 1, United States Courthouse, 310 New Bern Avenue, Raleigh, North Carolina, beginning at 10 o’clock a.m., July 26, 1971. Your rights may be affected by this action, and if you believe that you have been discriminated against by any of the defendants in employment opportunities at Albemarle Paper Company on account of race and have a lawful claim against any defendant by reason thereof : (a) the court will exclude you from the class repre- sented by the attorneys for the plaintiffs if you request exclusion in writing addressed to the Clerk of the United States District Court, Eastern District of North Carolina, P. O. Box’ 25670, Raleigh, North Carolina, ‘27611, and postmarked not later than July 22, 1971. If you elect to be excluded from the class, you will be free to pursue on your own behalf whatever legal rights you may have. (b) if you do not request exclusion from the class by July 22, 1971, you will be included in such class and any judgment, whether favorabie or not, including any judgment approving any settlement of this action, will be binding upon you. ~ (c) if you do not request exclusion from the class but prefer in connection with your individual claim to be represented by your own attorney rather than by the attorneys for the plaintiffs herein, you may enter an appearance through your attorney but not later than July 22, 1971. (d) in the event you are claiming damages of any of the defendants by reason of any alleged racially dis- criminatory practice, you must file your written proof of claim under oath with the Clerk of the U. S. Dis- a ne ' App. 56 trict Court at the address shown herein stating the details of such alleged discrimination and the amount of damages you are claiming. Such claim must be mailed not later than July 22, 1971, or it will be for- ever barred. eIf you have any questions concerning this notice, you may write or call the Office of the Clerk of the United States District Court, P. O. Box 25670, Raleigh, North Carolina, 27611, Telephone No. (919) 755-4370. This July 6, 1971. /s/ F. T. Dupree, Jr. United States District Judge App. 57 In The UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE Eastern District of North Carolina Wilson Division [ Title Omitted in Printing] (Civil Action No. 989) MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS TO * COMMUNICATE WITH CLASS MEMBERS FOR PURPOSES OF TRIAL PREPARATION [Filed July 14, 1971] Plaintiffs move the Court, pursuant to its order entered on June 18, 1971, for entry of an order granting counsel for "plaintiffs leave to contact, communicate, and discuss with actual and potential members of the class, for the pur- pose of adequately preparing plaintiffs’ case for trial. Communication with actual and potential class members is necessary to enable counsel for plaintiffs to discuss with class members the nature of their testimony at trial; to obtain and review testimony which may be helpful in pre- paring plaintiffs’ rebuttal testimony; to explain and dis- cuss on a continuing basis the status of the proceedings; to assist counsel for plaintiffs in reviewing evidence which may be helpful in the cross-examination of the defendants’ witnesses ; and to discuss back pay claims. As grounds for this motion, plaintiffs show the Court as follows: 3 : ‘ x SSI oy Marae — a SE TEEN INO NL RNR EE NC ter: OOS eMt eng wey — SREY Rewer a eS he SEY oo _ App. 58 1. On August 25, 1966, the complaint was filed in the instant case under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the plaintiffs designated the action as a class ac- tion pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil ‘Procedure. 2. The then defendants challenged the right of plaintiffs to prosecute this action as a class action. After several hear- ings in the matter, the Court in its July 6, 1967 Memo- randum, Opinion and Order allowed the class action. 3. On or about September .24, 1968 plaintiffs, pursuant to the September 18, 1968 Order of the Court, submitted their statement of the designation of class. 4. Since the institution of this action, counsel for the plaintiffs have met periodically with the named plaintiffs in this case as well as other black employees of Albemarle Paper Company. These meetings have taken place in the office of counsel for the plaintiffs, in Raleigh, North Caro- lina and in Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina. The purpose of \these meetings has been to advise plaintiffs and other black employees of Albemarle Paper Company of the prog- res$ and status of the case and to obtain information which might be useful in the presentation of their claims. No at- tempt was made by counsel to record the names and ad- dresses of all the black employees who attended the various meetings. Plaintiffs will show to the Court that in addition to the named plaintiffs and those persons listed below, Her- man Johnson, Carlton Belfield, John Jarrell, Jake Alston, Joe Bradley, Joe Rook, Mack Johnson and Marvin Harri- ~ son have attended meetings on occasion. 5. In addition to the named plaintiffs, the following em- ployees or former employees have formally retained counsel for the plaintiffs to represent them in this matter: Arthur App. 59 T. Kearney, Route 1, Box 127, Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina ; Eulis K. Lawson, 124 Matthews, Roanoke Rapids, North Caroliia; William Townes, Route 2, Box 216, Roa- noke Rapids, North Carolina; James Mallory, 109 Prospect Street, Weldon, North Carolina; Frank Mayo, Route 2, Box 381-M, Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina; W. H. Mason, Street Route, Box 87B, Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina; E. R. Hardy, 334 E. Littleton Road, Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina; Philmore Taylor, 1940-A Carter Street, Roancke Rapids, North Carolina; Lonnie Lee, Box 132, Gaston, North Carolina; Julius Love, Valentine, Vir- ginia; Moses Vincent, Garysburg, North Carolina; M. C. Boone, Post Office Box 38, Garysburg, North Carolina; James Alfred Jones, 118 Lincoln Avenue, Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina; Ernest Garner, 1929 Glover Street, Roa- noke Rapids, North Carolina; Ernest Hawkins, 1901 Glov- er Street, Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina; Johnnie E. Roberts, Post Office Box 453, Gaston, North Carolina; Clarence High, Route 2, Box 381], Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina ; Julian Peebles, Route 2, Box 279, Halifax, North Carolina; Marvin Harrison, 154 Carver Street. Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina; Charlie D. King, Star Route, Box 145, Emporia, Virginia; Eugene Neville, 130 Lincoln Ave- nue, Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina; Willie Ashe, Route 2, Box 278, Littleton, North Carolina; W. M. Martin, Route 1, Box 431, Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina; Perry M. Cowan, 524 First Street. Weldon, North Carolina; William Garris, Route 1, Box 249 Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina; Jesse Mallory, Garysburg, North Carolina; Al- phonso Owens, Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina; William T. Vassor, Garysburg, North Carolina; A. N. Johnson, Route 1, Box 213, Jackson, North Carolina. *>- App. 60 6. Counsel for the plaintiffs have assumed that since the initiation of this action they have represented other black employees of Albemarle Paper Company in addition to the named plaintiffs and this is particularly true since the order of the Court of August 6, 1967. Furthermore, it is apparent that many of the black employees of Albemarle Paper Company have relied on the representation of counsel for the plaintiffs to protect their interest in this action be- cause from time to time counsel for the plaintiffs have re- ceived communications from black employees of Albemarle other than the named plaintiffs to discuss the status of the case and/or to request advice from counsel @m what action should or should not be taken with respect to their status as employees of Albemarle Paper Company. 7. Plaintiffs recognize that an individual has a right to select his own counsel to prosecute any of his claims and that his choice of counsel should be unfettered. Plaintiffs submit that the willingness of a number of the black em- ployees of Albemarle Paper Company to rely on and con- sult with present counsel in assisting in the preparation of this claim establishes a prima facie showing that the répte- sentation of present counsel is adequate. 8. The notice of July 6, 1971 to some class cia provides in one part that if a member does not indicate to the Court by July 22, 1971 that he chooses not be repre- sented by present counsel, then any judgment favorable or unfavorable will be binding upon him. The notice in an- other part requires members to submit a statement to the Court in writing, under oath, of the amount of back pay he has suffered if unlawful discrimination is found and pro- vides that his claim for back pay, if not noted by July 22, 1971, will be forever barred. Counsel cannot affectively represent the interest of a class member if he is prohibited tlhe hee deren eds OR? App. 61 from discussing all relief to which that member is entitled if a violation is established. Plaintiffs submit that the terms of the present order affectively prohibits counsel for plain- tiffs from discussing a member’s or a potential member’s claim freely and advising him of all relief to which he may be entitled. 9. Plaintiffs submit that the ruling of the Court limiting communication between counsel and plaintiffs and actual and potential members of their class, particularly at this stage of the proceedings, raises serious questions under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guaranteeing the right to free speech and association and decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in NAACP vy. Button, 371 U.S. 415 (1963). See also United Transportation Union, Petitioner v. The State Board of Michigan, 39 U.S.L.W. 4428 (1970) and Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Virginia State Bar, 377 U.S. 1 (1964). Since the mailing of the notice by the Court, black em- ployees of Albemarle Paper Company have contacted the named members in this-action requesting advice and ex- planation of the notice and requesting that Joe P. Moody contact present counsel for advice. The only advice allow- able under the present orders is that contact be made with the Clerk of the Court. Counsel for plaintiffs have so ad- vised the named plaintiffs that this could be the only ex- tent to which they could discuss the present status of the , case. Attached herewith in support of this motion is the Affi- davit of Joe P. Moody. Wherefore, for the reasons stated above, plaintiffs re- spectfully request the Court to enter an order granting a SFL RNR OD RTS App. 62 leave to counsel for plaintiffs to communicate with actual and potential class members for the purposes stated above. This 13th day of July, 1971. Respectfully submitted, ORO RRRRR Ree RRR R RRO RR RRR Ree meee ee eRe Ree eee ae eRe e ee een aeeeeae Robert Belton j. LeVonne Chambers Chambers, Stein, Ferguson & Lanning 237 West Trade Street Charlotte, North Carolina T. T. Clayton 307 West Franklin Street Warrenton, North Carolina Conrad O. Pearson 203% East Chapel Hill Street Durham, North Carolina Jack Greenberg William Robinson 10 Columbus Circle New York, New York 10019 Attorneys for Plaiutiffs App. 63 State Of North Carolina ) Mecklenburg County ) Affidavit Joe P. Moody first being duly sworn deposes and says: 1. My name is Joe P. Moody and I reside at Route 1 Box 128, Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina. I am a plaintiff in the case styled Joe P. Moody, et al., v. Albemarle Paper Company, et al., C.A. No. 989, pending in the United States. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. 2. After receiving notice from the Clerk for the United States District Court advising of the pendency of the law- suit, I was approached by several black persons who were employees or former employees of Albemarle Paper Com- pany requesting some explanation of the notice. 3. Iam of the opinion that many of the persons who have received notices from the Clerk do not completely under- stand the content of the notice nor what they are obligated to do pursuant to the Notice. The foregoing has been read to me and is fully under- stood by me to be accurate and true. /s/ Joe P. Moody Joe P. Moody [ Jurat Omitted in Printing] sh. STS teaye TK op eee ENS sant Mra a aS p+ - FEY OC TNO Pa as eM ee ae 4 Poa — ‘ Jyh EDI PRA PAR ere SOMES. R 7 ‘ Ys * y FED EIS SOOT ae es Rt tg Boe CREA LEY TTA OS ; Sees a at Ss E p App. 64 In The UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT : FOR THE Eastern District of North Carolina Wilson Division [ Title Omitted in Printing] (Civil Action No. 989) MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION { [Filed July 14, 1971] Plaintiffs move the Court, by their iene “at- torney, for clarification of the Notice, dated July 6, 1971, directed to all black employees of Albemarle Paper Com- pany at its Roanoke Rapids plant Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina and all members of the class as designated in the Order of June 15, 1971. The basis for this motion is as follows: 1. Paragraph (b) on page 2 of the Notice provides, “i _you do not request exclusion from the class by July 22, 1971, you will be included in such class and any judgment, whether favorable or not, including any judgment approv- ing any settlement of the action, will be binding upon you.” Paragraph (d) on page 2 of the Notice provides, “in the event you are claiming damages of any of the de- fendants by reason of any alleged racially discriminatory practice, you must file your written proof of claim under App. 65 oath with the Clerk of the U.S. District Court at the ad- dress shown herein stating the details of such alleged dis- crimination and the amount of damages you are claiming. Such claim must be mailed not later than July 22, 1971, or it will be forever barred.” 2. According to paragraph (b) referred to above, failure of a class member to request exclusion results in a binding judgment on that member whether favorable or unfavor- able. Further, failure to request exclusion means that pres- ent counsel must represent that member in the trial of this matter. On the other hand, failure to request exclusion and failure to file proof of damages under oath by July 22, 1971, results in the barring of the damage claim of that member notwithstanding the fact that he is represented by (counsel and counsel have been ordered not to discuss the case with members who are not formal parties to the action unless permission is received from the Court. Plaintiffs sub- mit that this posture of the case seriously diminishes the opportunity for counsel to advise class members. y aie, 3. Paragraph (b) speaks in terms of “judgment” and “settlement.” We submit that reference to judgment in paragraph (b) in the Notice encompasses all the relief to which the class members may be entitled after trial or any settlement, including damages. Plaintiffs contend that back pay is not a separate and distinct kind of relief which should not be included in the judgment; the effect of para- graph (b) is to make this distinction. See Robinson v. Lonillard, Slip Op., pp. 25-28, No. 15, 098 (4th Cir. July 1, 1971). , 4. Plaintiffs submit that the law is unclear on the method by which back pay, if allowed, should be computed. Plain- tiffs have submitted a suggested method of computation in \t- App. 66 } their Further Answers to Interrogatories filed on July 10, 1971. While plaintiffs may urge the court to adopt the method of computation as suggested in Further Answers, the court has not yet decided that this will be the method of computation. This raises a question of how actual or potential members of the class are to compute the damages by July 22, 1971. 5. The Notice provides that if any of the actual or po- tential class members have questions concerning the Notice, then he may write or call the office of the clerk of the U.S. District Court. Is the clerk authorized to advise those per- sons who may call how their damages are to be computed when the court itself has not made such a determination? If the clerk is not authorized to so advise, is the clerk authorized to refer him to, or appoint, an attorney to assist him in computing his back pay claim if the member ques- tions the adequacy of Present counsel? See 706(e) of Title VII. 6. Assuming that a persons does not contact the clerk of Court plaintiffs’ counsel, under the Notice, will represent _ him, but is plaintiffs’ counsel barred from making a claim for-damages for back pay on the part of that person after July 22, 1971? 7. Counsel for the plaintiffs were aided in responding to the requirement that plaintiffs specify the amount of back pay that each member claims to have suffered by records copied pursuant to an Order of the court; these records were incomplete. These records have not been made available to actual or potential members of the class. To re- quire the class members to specify the amount of darnages without the aid of such records and more particularly without the aid of an attorney, is to require class mem- bers to do without necessary assistance. Aide enh ete GN peal tele rnaia ot sired Zoe — ~ 7 App. 67 Wherefore, plaintiffs respectfully pray the Court to clarify its Notice of July 6, 1971. | This 13th day of July, 1971. Respectfully submitted, OR RR mee eR ROEM ROE EOE H EERE EEE E eee eee eee Robert Belton J. LeVonne Chambers Chambers, Stein, Ferguson & Lanning 237 West Trade Street | Charlotte, North Carolina T. T. Clayton 307 West Franklin Street. Warrenton, North Carolina Conrad O. Pearson : 203% East Chapel Hill Street Durham, North Carolina Jack Greenberg William Robinson 10 Columbus Circle New York, New York 10019 \ Attorneys for Plaintiffs _ App. 68 In The UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORTHE ' é Eastern District of North Carolina : [Title Omitted In Printing] (Civil Action No, 989) _ MOTION FOR SEVERANCE AND THE APPOINTMENT OF A MASTER [Filed July 14, 1971] ! Plaintiffs move, by the undersign attorney, for entry of an order by the court that the issue of the determination of the amount of back pay be the subject of a special proceeding separate and apart from the determination of , the issue of liability. Plaintiffs further move the court to refer matter of the determination of the amount of. back ' pay to a special master, pursuant to Rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, should the court find that the plaintiffs or any of their class have suffered an economic © loss as a result of the complanied of racially discriminatory employment practices by any or all of the defendants. As grounds for this Motion, Plaintiffs show the court _ as follows: ~~ 1. The severance a the Yale of the amount of back pay ‘from the determination of liability would expedite the final determination of this matter. The court may make a finding on evidence introduced to establish a violation of Title VII, that plaintiffs have not made out their claim and _ therefore the Court would not have to reach the issue of , back pay or determination of the amount. 2. Pizintiffs submit that the determination of the amount ot back pay, should the Court decide that back pay is ap- / MAA j IST OEY oy) aa ? ’ / App. 69 ' propriate, will involve the examination of employees’ rec- ords, qualifications of employees and mathematical compu- tation of claims. These are matters which should be re- ferred to a special master. 3. In this connection we call the Court’s attention to Robinson v. Lorillard, No. 15,098 (4th Cir. July 1, 1971) and Sprogis.v. United Air Lines, ...... >. es , 3 EPD Para. 8239 (No. 18481, June 16, 1971). This 13th day of July 1971. Respectfully submitted, Robert Belton J. LeVonne Chambers Chambers, Stein, Ferguson & Lanning 237 West Trade Street Charlotte, North Carolina ~ T. T. Clayton 307 West Franklin Street Warrenton, North Carolina Conrad O. Pearson 203% East Chapel Hill Street Durham, North Carolina tt ie ancien App. 70 In The 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE Eastern District of North Carolina Wilson Division [Title Omitted In Printing] PROOF OF CLAIM [ Filed July 15, 1971] 124 Matthew Street Roanoke Rapids, N. C. July 14,1971 ~ To whom it may concern: I have been employed at Albemarle Paper Mill since 1950. I have worked on a regular job there for 13 years. During that time I have worked on different jobs. During that time my seniority was taken from me and I had to work under the authority of men who had not been working there even as much as half the time that I have. Also, I was told that the only time that I would have a job was when » someone went on vacation or if someone was sick. Furthermore, they made #€ necessary for me to install a phone. I have had to sit at home many timés in order to wait for a call. If I missed three calls I was not even allowed to get a slip to the employment office so that I could draw un- employment. They have hired quite a number of men since then, but I am still on the board filling out vacation and sick calls. j ! j ' App. 71 I cannot give any figures on what they owe me, but I do want my backpay and to 40 hours a week. Also I would like to have my seniority back and to be placed where I should be. I’m afraid I don’t know where that should be, but my regular job was unloading salt cake. I am a part of a discriminated group. I want my rights and a regular job back. : Thank you for what you have tried to do. Yours truly, /s/ Mr. Eulis K. Lawson App. 72 In The UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE ( Eastern District of North Carolina Wilson Division [Title Omitted In Printing] \ PROOF OF CLAIM [Filed July 19, 1971] Star Route, Box 88-A Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina 27870 July 17, 1971 ‘ Clerk of the United States District Court Post Office Box 25670 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 Dear Sir: It is my concern to remain with Joseph P. Moody, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Albemarle Paper Company, et al., Defendants —Civil No. 989. In reply to the notice filed with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina Wilson Division on August 25, 1966, iby Plaintiffs, I have been employed with the Albemarle ‘Paper Company, Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina, since 1947. I am in no position to determine an unpaid amount in salary up to date in ac- cordance to my position of employment. Yours truly, /s/ Johnie Easter, App. 73 In The UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE d Eastern District of North Carolina Wilson Division [ Title Omitted In Printing] PROOF OF CLAIM [Filed July 19, 1971] Clerk of the U/nited States District Court Eastern Distriict of North Carolina P. O. Box 25670 Raleigh, Nortlh Carolina 27611 Re; Joseph P.- Moody et al., vs. Albemarle Paper Company Civil No. 989 Dear Sirs: I wish to be a part of the above named Civil Action, I accepted employment with Albemarle Paper Company, Roa- noke Rapids JPlant on, December 1950. I was forced to seek employment elsewhere on, January 1966, due to the dis- criminatory pifactices of this employer. I wish to claim back pay, but ue to the inability to state where I would be on present seniiority list, due to the discriminatory practices of the above named employer, I ask that after all, factors are settled which pertain to seniority, that.I be awarded back pay in lire with my employment date with this com- pany. App. 74 The above named employer discriminated against me in the form of testing by stating that I did not have the ability to hold positions, as the results of this testing. I am now a resident of the state of New Jersey, have passed the re- quirements of this state as a Shift Engineer, Power Plant Operator. I request that the present Attorneys for the Plaintiffs, also be considered as my Attorneys, My present address is as follows. Theodore Roosevelt Brown, 138 North 14th Street, East Orange New Jersey, I enter this claim as a Class Action, because of race, under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I Theodore Roosevelt Borwn [sic], here by state under oath, that I have read the above and, sign the above under my own will. /s/ Theodore Roosevelt Brown’ [Jurat Omitting In Printing] a a ne App. 75 In The UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE Eastern District of North Carolina Wilson Division [Title Omitted In Printing] - PROOF OF CLAIM [Filed July 21, 1971] Ethoria Jones 133 Lincoln Ave. Roanoke Rapids, N. C. 27870 Dear Sirs: I have filed a Claim with Mr. Joseph P. Moody attorney for damages. i was on Lay off for Over a year, and i Was Put on Call Board for Over 3 years. When the younger White Men was working. On some Jobs that i Now Opprate, But Before i Was not given the chance. iam still on Call Board and these same White men are still working. Some of the Jobs the Black Man is working, i did have the chance to work until the last past year. Now the dates and the times i can not send you to day. for Mr. Joseph P. Moody attorney have that information. the Amount of Damages i Cant say. Because for years this have went on. Over me. And all Other Black men at the Plant. Yours truly /s/ Ethoria Jones 133 Lincoln Ave. Roanoke Rapids, N. C. phone—537-9990. 27870 ° App. 76 In The UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE Eastern District of North Carolina Wilson Division [ Title Omitted In Printing] PROOF OF CLAIM [Filed July 23, 1971] Clerk of the United States District Court Eastern District of North Carolina oe P.O. Box 25670 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 a} Re; Joseph P. Moody et al, vs Albemarle Paper Company Civil No. 989 a Dear Sirs: I wish to be a part of the above named Civil Action: I accepted employment with Albemarle Paper Company, Roanoke Rapids Plant at Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina. Due to discriminatory practices of this employer, some were forced to seek employment elsewhere. I wish to claim back pay, but due to the inability to state where I would be on the present seniority list; due to the discriminatory practices of the above named employer, I ask that after all factors are settled which pertain to seniority, that I be awarded back pay in line with my employment date with this com- pany. The above named employer discriminated against me in the form of testing, by stating that I did not have the ability to hold positions, as the results of this testing. App. 77 I request that the present Attorneys for the Plaintiffs, also be considered as my Attorneys. My present address and name is attached. I enter this claim as a Class Action; hecsiials of race, under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I have read the above, and sign the above under my own will. Name/Address Thomas Kearsey, Rba, Box 127 R.R. Leroy Jordan, 515 West First St., Weldon, N. C. William Thomas Vasser, Box 187, Garysburg, N.C. Willie Joseph Bradley, 112 Prospect Ave., Weldon, N. C. Jack Norton, P. O. Box 165, Garysburg, N. C. Alexander Sledge, 706 W. F St., Weldon, N. C. Reny Cowan, 524 W. First St., Weldon, N. C. Leon Quick, P. O. Box 441, Roanoke Rapids, N. C. Clarence Daniel, Roanoke Rapids, N. C. Elizah Daniel, Roanoke Rapids, N. C. Cecil M. Pierce, Rte. 2, Box 487, (Deceased) East Hawkins, 1903 Glover St., Roanoke Rapids, N. C. ( Deceased ) W. M. Martin, Rte. 1, Box 431, Roanoke Rapids, N. C. Asa Roone, R 2, Box 50B, Roanoke Rapids, N. C. William Garris, R. 1, Box 29, Garysburg, N. C. Moses L. Garner, noua 1, Box 129A, Roanoke Rapids, N.C. App. 78 Name/Address Hosea Roberts, 605 West Ist St., Weldon, N. C. Robert McNair, Jr., 407 County Rd. (Deceased) Paul C. Ingram, 1214 Snead Willie H. Mason, Star Rt. Box 87 Jimmy V. Love, Route 626, Box 52, Valentine, Va. Andrew M. Johnson, Rte. 1, Box 213, Jackson, N. C. Otis Jones, Route 1, Box 107, Roanoke Rapids, N. C. Eugene Neville, 130 Ligon St., Roanoke Rapids, N. C. Willard Bufield, Box 30, Rt. 1, Garysburg, N. C. F. B, Hardy, 334 E. Littleton Rd., Roanoke Rapids, N. C. Richard Squire, 1914 Glover St., Roanoke Rapids, N. C. Robie Mason, Star Rt., Box 134B, Emporia, Va. Isaac M. Weaver, Rt. 2, Box 52, Lawrenceville, Va. Eugene Vincent, Box 53, Henrico, N. C. (Deceased) Mack Coy Boone, P. O. Box 38, Garysburg, N. C. Sandy L. Johnson, 127 Poplar St., Roanoke Rapids, N. C. William Town, RFD 216, Roanoke Rapids, N. C. | Ernest Gardner, 1929 Glover St., Roanoke Rapids, N. C. James Mallory, 109 Prospect Ave., Weldon, N. C. James Alfred Jones, 118 Lincoln Ave., Roanoke Rapids, N.C. ' TA Peer pe pal - App. 79 Name/A ddress Jeremiah Webb, 307 Holm Dr., Weldon, N. C. Frank Mayo, Rt. 2, Box 381M, Roanoke Rapids, N. C. Charlie D. King, Star Route, Box 145, Emporia, Va. Johnie E. Roberts, P. O. Box 453, Gaston, N. C. Nonnie King, Star Route, Box 34, Roanoke Rapids, N. C. Johnie Easter, Star Route, Box 88-A. Roanoke Rapids, N.C. Julian Peebles, Rte 2, Box 279, Halifax, N. C. ag | ean ot, AW , 154 Carver St., Roanoke Rapids, N. C. Lonnie Lastrom, Box 132 _ J. T. Martin, 1939 Church St., Roanoke Rapids, N. C. James Harris, Box 234, Garysburg, N. C. ( Deceased ) Clarence High, Rt. 2, Box 381J, Roanoke Rapids, N.C. “Amos Harris, Henrico, N. C., Box 55 Eulis K. Lawson, 124 Matthews St.. Roanoke Rapids, N. C. Alfred P. Kidd, Route 1, Box 15C. Garysburg, N. C. Willi Jones, 307 Kitchen St., Roanoke Rapids, N. C. Jake Alston, Rt. 3, Box 326T, Littleton, N. C. Robert Lee Alston, 127 Poplar St., Roanoke Rapids. N. C. Gilbert Lee Harding, Rt. 1, Box 137, Pleasant Hill, * Where deletions occur, individual handwriting was illegible. App. 80 Name/Address Davie Daniel Harding, Jr., Rt. 1, Box 9, Pleasant Hill Herman Johnson, Route 2, Box 439C, Roanoke N.C. Samuel Moody, Star Rt. Box 23B, Roanoke Rapids, N. C. Carlton Belfield, P. O. Box 187, Gaston, N. C- Willie A. Ashe, Rte. 2, Box 272, Littleton, N. C. Mason Vincent, Rt. 211, Box 54, Garysburg, N. C. Ethoria Jones, 133 Lincoln Ave., Roanoke Rapids, N. C. 27870 R. R. Scott, Rt 1, Box 166, Garysburg, N. C. Eugene Harris, P. O. Box 121, Seaboard, N. C. L. G. Cooke, 308 Poplar St., Weldon, N. C. pids, [Jurat Omitted In Printing] Clerk of the United States District Court Eastern District of North Carolina P. O. Box 25670 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 Re; Joseph P. Moody et al, vs Albemarle Paper Company Civil No. 989 Dear Sirs: I wish to be a part of the above named Civil Action: I accepted employment with Albemarle Paper Company, Roanoke Rapids Plant at Roanoke Rapids, North Caro- lina. Due to discriminatory practices of this employer, some were forced to seek employment elsewhere. I wish to claim App. 81 back pay, but due to the inability to state where I would be on the present seniority list; due to the discriminatory prac- tices of the above named employer, I ask that after all factors are settled which pertain to seniority, that I be awarded back pay in line with my employment date with this company. The above named employer discriminated against me in _ the form of testing, by stating that I did not have the ability to hold positions, as the results of this testing. I request that the present Attorneys for the Plaintiffs, also be considered as my Attorneys. My present address and name is attached. I enter this claim as a Class Action; because of race, un- der the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I have read the above, and signed the above under my own will. Name/Address Jesse Mallory, Rt. ...., Box 20A, Garysburg, N. C. Robert E. Coleman, Box 121, Garysburg, N.C. Edward S. Lee, Box 22, Garysburg N. C. John Juniaiso Jarrell, Rt. 1, Box 151, Roanoke Rapids, N.C. Wom Jarrells, Rt. 1, Box 342, Roanoke Rapids, N. C. Alphonso Owens, Star Rt., Box 82, Roanoke Rapids, N. C. Walter Woul, Jr., P. O. Box 78, Garysburg, N. C. [Jurat Omitted In Printing] App. 82 / lu ek Oe : UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT | FOR THE . Eastern District of North Carolina Wilson Division [ Title Omitted In Printing] PROOF OF CLAIM [Filed July 23, 1971] Clerk of the United States District Court Eastern District of North Carolina P. O. Box 25670 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 Re; Joseph P. Moody et al vs Albemarle Paper Company Civil No. 989 Dear Sirs: I wish to be a part of the above named Civil Action: I accepted employment with Albemarle Paper Company, Roanoke Rapids Plant at Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina. Due to discriminatory practices of this employer, some were forced to seek employment elsewhere. I wish to claim back pay, but due to the inability to state where I would be on the present seniority list; due to the discriminatory practices of the above named employer, I ask that after all factors are settled which pertain to seniority, that I be awarded back pay in line with my employment date with this company. The above named employer discriminated against me in App. 83 the form of testing, by stating that I did not have the ability to. hold positions, as the results of this testing. I request that the present Attorneys for the Plaintiffs, also be considered as my Attorneys. My present address and name is attached. | I enter this claim as a Class Action; because of race, un- der the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I have read the above and signed the above under my own will. /s/ Charlie C. Jones Rt. 1, Box 138 Roanoke Rapids, N. C. /s/ Clarence Sorrell Henrico, N. C. [Jurat Omitted In Printing ] App. 84 © In The UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE Eastern District of North Carolina Wilson Division [ Title Omitted In Printing] PROOF OF CLAIM [Filed July 26, 1971] Clerk of the United States District Court . Eastern District of North Carolina pe P. O. Box 25670 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 Re; Joseph P. Moody et al, vs Albemarle Paper Company Civil No. 989 . — Dear Sirs: I wish to be a part of the above named Civil Action: I accepted employment with Albemarle ‘Paper Company, Roanoke Rapids Plant at Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina. Due to discriminatory practices of this employer, some were forced to seek employment elsewhere. I wish to claim back pay, but due to the inability to state where I would be on the present seniority list ; due to the discriminatory practices of the above named employer, I ask that after all factors are settled which pertain to seniority, that I be awarded back payin line with my employment date with this com- pany. App. 85 » The above named employer discriminated against me in the form of testing, by stating that I did not have the ability to hold positions, as the results of this testing. I request that the present Attorneys for the Plaintiffs, also be considered as my Attorneys. My present address and name is attached. I enter this claim as a Class Action; because of race, under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I have read the above, and sign the above under my own will. a Name/Address Robert Avon, Box 3-9, Roanoke Rapids, N. C. Joe Bagett, Jr., Box 1343, Roanoke Rapids, N. C. Robert Paul, Jr., 503 West First St., Weldon, N. C. Adolphus L. Scott, 10 Popular St., Weldon, N. C. Thornton M. Majette, Garysburg, Box 135 [Jurat Omitted In Printing] App. 86 In The UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT | FOR THE | Eastern District Of North Carolina Wilson Division [ Title Omitted In Printing] STIPULATION OF FACTS [ Filed July 25, 1971 and admitted in evidence as a joint unnumbered exhibit (R. 37) ] It is hereby stipulated by and among counsel for the plaintiffs ; counsel for the defendant, Albemarle Paper Com- pany, a Virginia corporation; counsel for the defendant, . Albemarle Paper Company, a Delaware corporation, coun- sel for the defendant Hoerner Waldorf, a Delaware corpo-- - ration, counsel for the defendant, Ethyl Corporation, a Virginia corporation and counsel for the defendant, Hali- fax Local No. 425, United Papermakers and Paperworkers, AFL-CIO, that the following facts are true to the best of the knowledge and belief of all parties : Exhibit A ‘1. Plaintiffs Joseph P. Moody, Theodore Daniels, Henry | Hill and Arthur Mitchell are Negro citizens of the United | States and the State of North Carolina, residing in the County of Halifax, North Carolina. 2. Defendant Albemarle Paper Company, the Virginia corporation, operated a pulp and paper plant in Roanoke \ 3 SKS eee aN IEA SS bh App. 87 Rapids, North Carolina at the time this action was filed on August 25, 1966. Albemarle Paper Company (Virginia) was at the time suit was filed a wholly owned subsidiary of defendant Ethyl Corporation, a Virginia corporation. On October 31, 1968, during the pendency of this action, the Roanoke Rapids plant was transferred to defendant Albe- marle Paper Company, a Delaware corporation, which is a subsidiary of defendant Hoerner Waldorf Corporation, also a Delaware corporation. Since November 1, 1968, the Roanoke Rapids plant has been operated by the Albemarle Paper Company (Delaware). The particular plant here involved is the Roanoke Rapids plant. 3. Plaintiffs Moody, Daniels and Hill were employed at the Roanoke Rapids plant for several years. Plaintiff Moody was initially employed in September, 1952. Plaintiff Hill was initially employed in October, 1947. Plaintiff Mitchell was initially employed in 1922; and he retired during the pendency of this action. Plaintiff Daniels, in- itially employed in 1955, has been promoted to the position of Service Crew Foreman, a position outside the collective bargaining unit. 4. As of June 30, 1967, approximately 637 persons were employed in production and maintenance jobs at the Roa- noke Rapids plant. Of these approximately 120 were Negroes ; 517 were white. 5. Defendant Halifax Local No. 425, United Paper- makers and Paperworkers, AFL-CIO “the Union,” is a local labor organization which is and has been a party to collective bargaining agreements with Albemarle Paper Company (Virginia) pertainin [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_0443%3A01. Public record. Not legal advice.