Greenberg Remark on Moody v. Albermarle Paper Company and Williams v. Albermarle City Board of Education Discrimination Cases

Press Release
June 17, 1974

Cite this item

Greenberg Remark on Moody v. Albermarle Paper Company and Williams v. Albermarle City Board of Education Discrimination Cases preview

Document text

The following text has been generated automatically during the document scanning process. It may contain errors, omissions, or incorrect formatting. Please refer to the PDF document if this text is not usable.

Download

By downloading, publishing, or reusing the Materials outside of the Website, you hereby confirm and attest that you have read and agree to the LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use linked below. We draw your attention to the following:

For those Materials owned by LDF, your use of the Material outside the Site is solely for one or more of the following (the “Permitted Purposes”):

Non-commercial research and private study;
Teaching, scholarship and instruction (including distance learning);
Non-commercial print and non-commercial online use;
Criticism, comment or news reporting; or
For people with visual disabilities (See Section 121 of the Copyright Act).
For those Materials not owned by LDF you understand that:
- It is your responsibility to determine whether the way you plan to use the materials falls within the copyright exception of Fair Use.
- For any use outside of Fair Use, it is your responsibility to seek and obtain all required permissions from any existing rights holders.

LDF hereby grants you the right to use LDF owned Materials for the Permitted Purposes without seeking further permission from LDF.

If you publish or redistribute any Materials (including excerpts and quotes), you must include a credit line and/or proper citation to the source of the Material. However, you may not use the name of LDF in any manner which creates any false association between you and LDF or that incorrectly implies any sponsorship or endorsement of you by LDF.

NOTICE: Uses that do not comply with these Terms or that do not fall under Fair Use (or another exception) may make you liable for copyright infringement.

Read the full LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use Here.

I agree to the terms and conditions for use of this content.

If you would like to use this content in other ways, contact us at

Collection
- Press Releases
Creator
- LDF
Taxonomy
Identifier
- 98a187ef-ba92-ee11-be37-00224827e97b

Cite this item

Press Releases, Volume 6. Greenberg Remark on Moody v. Albermarle Paper Company and Williams v. Albermarle City Board of Education Discrimination Cases, 1974. 98a187ef-ba92-ee11-be37-00224827e97b. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/0b210849-5874-4b5d-8fa4-133b7568de39/greenberg-remark-on-moody-v-albermarle-paper-company-and-williams-v-albermarle-city-board-of-education-discrimination-cases. Accessed May 17, 2025.

Copied!

    ay 

IBY NYPR70 

/FROM PR NEWSWIRE=-NYC 212-832-9400/LA 213-626-5501/MIA 305-576-5020/ 

TO CITY DESK 

NEW YORK, JUNE 17 -- “IT IS ASTONISHING THAT SUCH AN APPARENTLY 

MINOR, TECHNICAL ISSUE SHOULD HAVE TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT,” SAID 

JACK GREENBERG DIRECTOR-COUNSUL OF THE NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE FUND. 

“BUT ONLY THE SUPREME COURT COULD DECIDE THIS PARTICULAR CASE.” 

GREENBERG WAS REFERRING TO A DECISION THIS MORNING BY THE UNITED 

STATES SUPREME COURT IN MOODY VS. ALBERMARLE PAPER COMPANY AND 

WILLIAMS VS. ALBEMARLE CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION, TWO EMPLOYMENT 

DISCRIMINATION CASES ORIGINALLY BROUGHT IN NORTH CAROLINA. 

THE SUPREME COURT DECIDED, BY UNANIMOUS VOTE, THAT SENIOR CIRCUIT 

JUBGES COULD NOT PARTICIPATE IN ADJUDICATING REQUESTS FOR EN BANC 

/FULL-COURT/ REHEARINGS BEFORE COURTS, ALTHOUGH THEY COULD SIT DURING 

THE REHEARINGS THEMSELVES IF THE REQUESTS WERE GRANTED BY THE OTHER 

ACTIVE JUDGES. 

SENIOR CIRCUIT JUDGES ARE RETIRED AND SEMI-RETIRED JUDGES OF 

THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS, WHICH ARE ONE RANK ABOVE 

FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS /TRIAL COURTS/ AND ONE RANK BELOW THE SUPREME 

COURT. 

THERE ARE 11 FEDERAL CIRCUITS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY, AND EACH 

CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAS BETWEEN 3 AND 16 JUDGES. A SENIOR 

JUBGE MAY GENERALLY SIT DURING THE REHEARING OF A CASE IN WHICH HE 

PARTICIPATED WHILE ON REGULAR ACTIVE SERVICE. 

THE SUPREME COURT‘S DECISION WILL REGULARIZE THE PRACTICE AMONG 

THE 11 CIRCUIT COURTS. THE IMMEDIATE RESULTS TO GRANT THE LEGAL 

DEFENSE FUND'S PETITION FOR REHEARING IN WILLIAMS AND TO DENY A 

SIMILAR PETITION BY FUND OPPONENTS IN MOODY. 

MOODY IS A CASE INVOLVING DISCRIMINATORY SENIORITY AND TESTING 

PRACTICES IN THE PAPER INDUSTRY. WILLIAMS IS A TEACHER DISMISSAL 

CASE. 

“DESPITE THE SEEMINGLY MINOR NATURE OF THE CASE," GREENBERG SAID, 

"11 LAWYERS WORKED ON OUR SIDE OF THE CASE. AND, OF COURSE, A 

LOT HAS TURNED ON THE DECISION.” 

BESIDES GREENBERG THE LDF ATTORNEYS INCLUDED MORRIS J. BALLER, 

ROBERT BELTON, NORMAN J. CHACHKIN, J.» LEVONNE /CAP L,V/ CHAMBERS, 

THOMAS T. CLAYTON, BARRY L. GOLDSTEIN, JOSEPH P. HUDSON, JAMES M. 

NABRIT, III, CONRAD 0. PEAR SON AND ALBERT J. ROSENTHAL. 

=0< 

/CONTACT -= RICK KOYLE OF NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE FUND AT 212-586-8397/

Copyright notice

This collection and the tools to navigate it (the “Collection”) are available to the public for general educational and research purposes, as well as to preserve and contextualize the history of the content and materials it contains (the “Materials”). Like other archival collections, such as those found in libraries, LDF owns the physical source Materials that have been digitized for the Collection; however, LDF does not own the underlying copyright or other rights in all items and there are limits on how you can use the Materials. By accessing and using the Material, you acknowledge your agreement to the Terms. If you do not agree, please do not use the Materials.

Additional info

To the extent that LDF includes information about the Materials’ origins or ownership or provides summaries or transcripts of original source Materials, LDF does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of such information, transcripts or summaries, and shall not be responsible for any inaccuracies.

Greenberg Remark on Moody v. Albermarle Paper Company and Williams v. Albermarle City Board of Education Discrimination Cases

Collection

Creator

Taxonomy

Identifier

Cite this item

Copyright notice

Additional info

You may also be interested in