Rogers v Holiday Inn of America Brief of Appellant

    MULTILITH RECORD 

IN THE

UNITED STATES

COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 25069

REVEREND T. Y. ROGERS, JR.,

Appella nt

versus

VICTOR ROGERS and HOLIDAY INN OF AMERICA,

Appellees,

Appeal
for

from the United States District Court 
the Northern District of Alabama.



PAGE NO.
Complaint ----------------------------------  1
Motion for Preliminary Injunction --------- 5
Motion to Dismiss----------------  ---------- 8
Order Granting Motion to Dismiss the

Complaint with Leave--------------------  11
Amendment to Bill of Complaint --— ---------  12
Motion to Dismiss Complaint at Last Amended- 13
Order Dismissing Pretrial Hearing --------- 15
Amendment to Bill of Complaint-----------— 16
Motion to Dismiss Complaint as Last Amended- 17
Order Denying Motion to Dismiss the

Complaint-------------------------------- 18
Answer-------------------------------------  19
Order on Pre-Trial Hearing----------------  20
Judgment-----------------------------------  21
Order Denying Prayer of Plaintiffs for

Injunctive Relief -----------------------  22
Notice of Appeal--------------------------- 22
Bond for Costs on Appeal------------------  23
Order Extending T i m e ----------------------  24
Clerk's Certificate -----------------------  26
Transcript of Proceedings -----------------  27

T. Y. Rogers, Jr. ---------------------  28
Victor L. Rogers----------------------  34

I N D E X



1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA,

WESTERN DIVISION
REV. T. Y. ROGERS, JR.,
REV. W. L. HERZFELD,
Individually and on behalf 
of others similarly situated,

PLAINTIFFS. CIVIL ACTION NO. CA65-136
V. (Filed Feb 25. 1965)

HOLIDAY INN OF AMERICA,
A Corporation,

DEFENDANT.
COMPLAINT

I
Jurisdiction of this court is invoked pursuant to Title 

28, U.S.C., Sections 1343 (3) and 1343 (4). This is a suit 
in equity authorized by and pursuant to Title II of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964 (Pi. 88-352; 78 Stat. 241) and Title 42 
U.S.C., Sec. 1983. This action seeks to redress the depriva­
tion of rights, privileges and immunities secured by the 
Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, 
the Commerce Clause (Article 1, Sec. 8, Clause 3) of the 
Constitution of the United States and by Title II of the 
Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S. C., Sec. 1981.

II
This is a suit for injunctive relief against disceimin- 

ation in a place of public accommodation pursuant to the pro­
visions of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pi.



2

88-352; 78 Stat. 241.)
III

Plaintiffs are Negro citizens of the United States re­
siding in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. They bring this action on 
their own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated 
pursuant to Rule 23 (a) (3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Members of the class in behalf of whom plain­
tiffs sue are so numerous as to make it impracticable to 
bring them all individually before this court but there are 
common questions of law and fact affecting their rights and 
the rights of other Negroes similarly situated to use the 
goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and accom­
modations of the place of public accomodations described be­
low without discrimination of segregation on the ground of 
race or color. Plaintiffs and the members of the class on 
whose behalf they sue have common grievances arising out of 
common wrongs and common relief is sought by plaintiffs for 
themselves and for each member of the class. Plaintiffs 
fairly and adequately represent the interest of the class.

IV
The defendant is Holiday Inn of America, A Corporation. 

The above defendant operates motels throughout the United 
States and operates a particular motel on Highway 82 By-pass 
in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, and offers its facilities to the 
public generally.



3

V
On or about January 20, 1965, the plaintiffs, Rev. T.Y. 

Rogers, Jr. and Rev. W. L. Herzfeld, requested rooms at the 
Holiday Inn of America, located on U. S. Highway 82 By-pass, 
but were refused rooms by the management and were informed 
by the management that no rooms could be sold to the plain­
tiffs. Both plaintiffs are ministers of the gospel and have 
their own pulpits in Tuscaloosa, and were not disorderly at 
the time of their application. They were refused service 
because they are Negroes.

VI
Plaintiffs allege that the owners of the above named 

public accommodation have deprived the plaintiffs and the 
members of the class on whose behalf they sue, the full and 
equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, 
advantages and accommodation of the facilities involved with­
out discrimination or segregation on the ground of race or 
color.

VII
Neither the State of Alabama nor the City of Tuscaloosa 

has any local law prohibiting the racially discriminatory 
practices described. Plaintiffs, therefore, have no plain, 
adequate or complete remedy at law to redress these wrongs 
other than this suit for injunctive relief authorized by 
Sec. 204 of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.



4

Plaintiffs and the members of the class on whose behalf 
they sue, are now suffering and will continue to suffer 
irreparable injury because of the policy, practice, custom 
and usage of defendant with reference to its Holiday Inn 
located on U. S. Highway 82 By-pass.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully pray that this court 
will advance this cause on the docket, order a speedy hearing 
at the earliest practicable date and cause this case to be in 
every way expedited and after such hearing:

1. Forever enjoin the defendant, its agents, successors,
employees, attorneys and those acting in concert with them 
and at its direction from continuing or maintaining any pol­
icy, practice, custom or usage of denying, abridging, with­
holding, conditioning, limiting, or otherwise interfering 
with plaintiffs and others similarly situated in the ad­
mission to and use and enjoyment of the goods, services, 
facilities, privileges, advantages and accomodations of Holi­
day Inn of America, located on U.S. Highway 82 By-pass, 
which is a place of public accommodation within the mean­
ing of Sec. 201 (b) (2) and (c) of the Civil Rights Act of
1964.

2. Allow plaintiffs their cost herein, including a 
reasonable attorneys fee and grant such other, additional
or further relief as may appear to the court to be equitable

VIII



5

and just.
S/ Oscar W. Adams, Jr.

OSCAR W. ADAMS, JR.
1630 Fourth Avenue, North 
Birmingham, Alabama,
NORMAN C. AMAKER
JACK GREENBERG
10 Columbus Circle
New York, New York 10019,
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

...oOo...
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 

(Number and Title Omitted) (Filed Feb 25, 1965)
Plaintiffs move this court for a preliminary injunction, 

pending the final deposition of this cause, and as grounds 
therefor rely upon the allegations of their Bill of Complaint 
and the affidavit of Rev. T. Y. Rogers, Jr., and in addition, 
show the following:

1. The policies and practices heretofore pursued by 
the defendant are contrary to Title II of Civil Rights Act 
of 1964, Title 42 U.S. C. , Sec. 1981.

2. Unless restrained by this court, defendant will 
continue the acts complained of.

3. Such action by the defendant will result in irrep­
arable injury, loss and damage to the plaintiffs.

4. The issuance of a preliminary injunction herein 
will not cause undue inconvenience or loss to the defendant, 
but will prevent irreparable injury to the plaintiffs.



6

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that this court issue a 
temporary preliminary injunction, pending the final dispo­
sition of this couse,enjoining the defendant, its agents, 
servants, employees, attorneys, successors, and all persons 
in active concert and participation with them from:

1. Refusing to serve persons at the Holiday Inn of 
America, located on U. S. Highway 82 By-pass because they 
are Negroes.

2. Making any distinction based upon race or color with 
respect to the use of any of the facilities at the Holiday 
Inn of America, located on U. S. Highway 82 By-pass.

Plaintiffs pray that after a final hearing in this 
cause, this court will enter a permanent injunction simi­
larly enjoining the defendant, its agents, employees, suc­
cessors and all persons in active concert and participation 
with it.

Plaintiffs also pray that this court will grant them 
costs herein and grant such other, further, additional or 
alternative relief as to a Court in Equity would appear to 
be necessary and just.

S/ Oscar W. Adams, Jr.
OSCAR W. ADAMS, JR.
1630 Fourth Avenue, North
Birmingham, Alabama,
NORMAN C. AMAKER 

JACK GREEMBERG 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York,New York, 10019,

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS



7

STATE OF ALABAMA 
COUNTY OF TUSCALOOSA

My name is T. Y. Rogers, Jr. I live at 1913 40th Avenue, 
Tuscaloosa, Alabama. I am the Minister of the First African 
Baptist Church and I am the Executive Secretary of the Tus­
caloosa Citizens for Action Committee. On January 20, 1965,
I, along with Rev. W. L. Herzfeld, who is the President of 
the Tuscaloosa Citizens for Action Committee, went to the 
Holiday Inn of America's motel located on U. S. Highway 82 
By-pass. We asked the manager for rooms and he refused to 
give us rooms at this motel solely because of our race. I 
am a Negro and Rev. Herzfeld is a Negro. I believe that the 
manager of the motel is a Mr. Sharpe. I even bought some 
stock in the Holiday Inn to see if this would make any dif­
ference so far as my being served, but I was still refused 
room accommodations even after I had purchased stock in the 
Holiday Inn. I had previously applied for rooms at the 
Holiday Inn on January 18, 1965, along with Rev. Herzfeld 
and along with nationally known comedian Dick Gregory.
Dick Gregory was given room accommodations but Rev. Herz­
feld and I were refused this service.

T. Y. Rogers
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 25th day of February, 
1965.

S/ Oscar W. Adams, Jr.
NOTARY PUBLIC

...oOo...



8

MOTION TO DISMISS
(Number and Title Omitted) (Filed Mar 22, 1965)

Comes now the defendant, Holiday Inns of America, Inc., 
a corporation, and moves the Court to dismiss the Complaint 
heretofore filed against this defendant in the above styled 
cause, and as grounds therefor sets down the following, 
separately and severally:

1. For that said Complaint fails to state a claim upon 
which relief can be granted.

2. For that said complaint fails to state a claim 
against this defendant upon which relief can be granted.

3. For that it is not alleged in said Complaint that 
this defendant in any way deprived the plaintiffs and the 
members of the class on whose behalf they sue, the full 
and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, 
privileges, advantages and accommodations of the facilities 
involved.

4. For that this defendant is not now operating, and 
at no time in the past has operated, the motel facilities 
referred to in said Complaint.

5. For that this defendant does not now own, and at 
no time in the past has owned, the motel facilities re­
ferred to in said Bill of Complaint.

6. For that it affirmatively appears from said Com­
plaint that this defendant is not a proper party defendant 
in this cause.



9

7. For that this defendant is improperly made a party 
to this suit.

8. For that service of process in this suit is pur­
ported to be had upon Victor Rogers, as agent, servant or 
employee of Holiday Inns of America, Inc., a corporation; 
the said Victor Rogers is not now, was not at the time of 
the purported service of process herein, and has not at any 
time in the past, been either the agent, servant or employee 
of the defendant herein.

9. For that no service of process had been had upon 
any officer, director, agent, servant or employee of the 
defendant.

10. For that the true and correct name of the defendant 
is Holiday Inns of America, Inc., and not Holiday Inn of 
America, a corporation, as the defendant is designated in 
said Complaint.

CLEMENT, ROSEN, HUBBARD & WALDROP
By S/ H. Vann Waldrop

Attorneys for the Defendant, Holi­
day Inns of America, Inc., 

a corporation

STATE OF ALABAMA
AFFIDAVITTUSCALOOSA COUNTY

Before me, the undersigned authority in and for said 
County and State, personally appeared WAYNE C. MARSH, who 
is known to me, and who being by me first duly sworn, did



10

depose on oath and say as follows:
"1. My name is Wayne C. Marsh and I reside at 5125 

Judy Lynn Avenue in Memphis,Tennessee.
2. That I am an attorney and employee of Holiday 

Inns of America, Inc., which is the correct name 
of said corporation.

3. That I am authorized by Holiday Inns of America, 
Inc., to file this affidavit as a part of the 
Motion to Dismiss in the above captioned case.

4. That Holiday Inns of America, Inc., does not own, 
has never owned, does not operate, and has never 
operated the motel facilities referred to in the 
complaint for which the Motion to Dismiss is 
hereby filed.

5. That Holiday Inns of America, Inc., does not have 
the power, the control, or the authority to force 
or persuade the actual owner or operator of the 
premises described in the complaint to comply with 
the prayer requested by the plaintiffs in this 
action.

5. That Victor Rogers, on whom service of process was 
purported to have been had, is not an agent, ser­
vant or employee of Holiday Inns of America, Inc., 
and does not and has not had the authority to 
accept service of process on behalf of Holiday Inns



11

of America, Inc.
7. That the facts and circumstances upon which the

plaintiffs base this action are unknown to any
of the agents, officers, servants or employees
of Holiday Inns of America, Inc."

S/ Wayne C. Marsh 
Wayne C. Marsh

Sworn to and subscribed before me
this the 19th day of March, 1965.
S/ Jane A. McArthur
Notary Public
State of Alabama at Large
(Seal)

...oOo...
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS THE 
COMPLAINT WITH L E A V E _____________

(Number and Title Omitted) (Filed Apr, 7, 1965)
This cause, coming on to be heard, was submitted to

the court on motion of defendant, Holiday Inns of America,
Inc., a corporation, to dismiss the complaint herein. Upon
consideration of said motion and it appearing to the court
that said defendant is not a proper party defendant in this
cause, it is the opinion of the court that the motion is due
to be granted.

It is, accordingly, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by 
the court that the said motion to dismiss the complaint 
herein be and the same is hereby granted and the complaint



12

is hereby dismissed, with leave, however, to plaintiffs to 
amend their complaint if so advised within 20 days from and 
after the date of this order.

Done, this the 7th day of April, 1965.
S/ Seybourn H. Lynne 

CHIEF JUDGE
...oOo...

AMENDMENT TO BILL OF COMPLAINT 
(Number and Title Omitted) (Filed Apr 22, 1965)

Plaintiffs hereby amend their Bill of Complaint in the 
above styled cause by leave of court granted on April 7,
1965, as follows:

Plaintiffs amend their original bill of complaint to 
state that the defendant is Holiday Inns of America, Inc., 
a corporation, and insert in the complaint wherever the name 
Holiday Inn of America, a corporation appears, the name 
Holiday Inns of America, Inc., a corporation. However, at 
paragraph five, the plaintiffs still allege that they re­
quested rooms at the Holiday Inn of America, located on 
U. S. Highway 82 By-pass.

Plaintiffs still retain the allegation of "Holiday Inn" 
in paragraph eight and the allegation that they were denied 
advantages and accomodations of Holiday Inn of America, lo­
cated on U. S. Highway 82 By-pass, stated in their prayer for 
relief in the original bill of complaint.



13

S/ Oscar W. Adams., Jr. 
OSCAR W. ADAMSe JR.
1630 Fourth Avenue, North 
Birmingham, Alabama,
NORMAN C. AMAKER 
JACK GREENBERG 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019,
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

STATE OF ALABAMA 
JEFFERSON COUNTY

I, Oscar W. Adams, Jr., hereby certify that I have 
mailed a copy of the above Amendment to the Bill of Com­
plaint to the Honorable H. Vann Waldrop of the firm of 
Clement, Rosen, Hubbard & Waldrop by United States Mail, 
addressed to him at Post Office Box 2427, Tuscaloosa, 
Alabama, United States postage prepaid.

S/ Oscar W. Adams, Jr.
OSCAR W. ADAMS, JR.

...oOo...
MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT 

AT LAST AMENDED_________
(Number and Title Omitted) (Filed Mar 31, 1966)

Comes now the defendant, Holiday Inns of America, Inc., 
a corporation, and moves the Court to dismiss the Complaint 
at last amended heretofore filed against this defendant in 
the above styled cause, and as grounds therefor sets down 
the following, separately and severally:



14

1. For that said Complaint fails to state a claim upon 
which relief can be granted.

2. For that said complaint fails to state a claim 
against this defendant upon which relief can be granted.

3. For that it is not alleged in said Complaint that 
this defendant in any way deprived the plaintiffs and the 
members of the class on whose behalf they sue, the full 
and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, 
privileges, advantages and accommodations of the facilities 
involved.

4. For that this defendant is now now operating, and 
at no time in the past has operated, the motel facilities 
referred to in said Complaint.

5. For that this defendant does not now own, and at no 
time in the past has owned, the motel facilities referred
to in said Bill of Complaint.

6. For that it affirmatively appears from said Com­
plaint that this defendant is not a proper party defendant 
in this cause.

7. For that this defendant is improperly made a party 
to this suit.

8. For that service of process in this suit is purport­
ed to be had upon Victor Rogers, as agent, servant or employee 
of Holiday Inns of America, Inc., a corporation; the said 
Victor Rogers is not now, was not at the time of the purported



15

service of process herein, and has not at any time in the 
past, been either the agent, servant or employee of the 
defendant herein.

9. For that no service of process had been had upon 
any officer, director, agent, servant or employee of the 
defendant.

10. For that said complaint, as last amended, is so 
vague, indefinite and uncertain that this defendant is not 
apprised as to what this defendant is being called upon to 
defend.

CLEMENT, ROSEN, HUBBARD & WALDROP 
BY S/HVann Waldrop
Attorneys for the Defendant, Holiday 
Inns of America, Inc., a corporation

...oOo...
ORDER DISMISSING PRETRIAL HEARING 

(Number and Title Omitted) (Filed Apr 11, 1966)
This case came on for pretrial at this time and from 

the discussion at the pretrial hearing it appears that the 
plaintiffs have not sued the proper parties. The Court is 
of the opinion that the action should be dismissed as to 
the Holiday Inns of America, Inc., with leave to the plain­
tiffs to amend their complaint within thirty days to bring 
in the proper parties defendant.

It is, therefore, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that:
1. Holiday Inns of America, Inc., a corporation, be



16

and it is hereby dismissed, as a party defendant; and
2. The complaint be and it hereby is dismissed, and the 

plaintiffs are allowed thirty days in which to amend their 
complaint to bring in the proper party defendant, or defen­
dant, to this action.

Done and Ordered, this the 7th day of April, 1966.
S/ H. H. Grooms 

United States District Judge
...oOo...

AMENDMENT TO BILL OF COMPLAINT 
(Number and Title Omitted) (Filed May 6, 1966)

Plaintiffs hereby amend their Bill of Complaint in the 
above styled cause by leave of court granted on April 7, 1966, 
as follows:

The plaintiffs add as defendants, Indian Hills Motels, 
Inc., a corporation and Victor Rogers.

Paragraph IV of the Bill of Complaint is ammended to 
read as follows:

The defendant, Indian Hills Motels, Inc., a corporation 
is the owner of the facility known as Holiday Inn of America 
located on Highway 82 By-Pass in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, but 
has leaded the operation of said facility to the defendant, 
Victor Rogers and Victor Rogers was in control of the oper­
ation of said facility at the time that the plaintiffs sought 
accommodations on January 20, 1965. This facility offers its



17

services and accommodations to the public generally.
Plaintiffs adopt all of the rest of the allegations in 

their Bill of Complaint and make them a part of this amend­
ment as if fully set out herein.

S/ Oscar W. Adams, Jr.
OSCAR W. ADAMS, JR.
1630 Fourth Avenue, North 
Birmingham, Alabama 35203
NORMAN C. AMAKER 
JACK GREENBERG 
# 10 - Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

...oOo...
MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT AS LAST AMENDED 

(Number and Title Omitted) (Filed May 11, 1966)
Comes now the defendant, Victor Rogers, and moves the 

court to dismiss the complaint as last amended, heretofore 
filed herein, and as grounds therefore set down and assigns 
the following, separately and severally:

1. For the said complaint fails to state a claim upon 
which relief can be granted.

2. For the said complaint fails to state a claim against 
this defendant which relief can be granted.

3. For that it is not alleged in said complaint that 
this defendant in any way deprived the plaintiffs 
and the members of the class on whose behalf they 
sue, the full and equal enjoinment of the goods,



18

services, facilities, privileges, advantages and 
accommodations of the facilities involved.

4. For that it affirmatively appears from said com­
plaint that this defendant is not a proper party 
defendant in this cause.

5. For that this defendant is improperly made a party 
to this suit.

6. For that service or process in this suit is pro- 
ported to be had upon Victor Rogers, as agent, 
servant or employee of Holiday Inns of America,
Inc., a corporation, and not upon Victor Rogers 
as an individual.

7. For that said complaint, as last amended, is so 
vague, indefinite, and uncertain that this defen­
dant is not apprized as to what this defendant is 
being called upon to defend.

CLEMENT, ROSEN, HUBBARD AND WALDROP
By: S/ H. Vann Waldrop
Attorneys for the Defendant,
Victor Rogers

...oOo...
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT 

(Number and Title Omitted) . (Filed Jul 19, 1966)
This matter came on for hearing on the regular motion 

docket on July 15, 1966, upon the motion of defendant Victor 
Rogers to dismiss the complaint as last amended. Upon due



19

consideration thereof, the Court is of the opinion that 
said motion is due to be overruled.

It is, therefore, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the 
defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint as last amended 
be and the same is hereby overruled, and the said defendant 
is allowed twenty days within which to file responsive 
pleadings.

Done and Ordered, this the 18th day of July, 1966.
S/ H. H. Groms 
United States District 

Judge
...oOo...
ANSWER

(Number and Title Omitted) (Filed Aug 3, 1966)
Comes now the defendant, Victor Rogers, and for answer 

to plaintiffs' complaint, as last amended, says the follow­
ing;

The defendant, Victor Rogers, denies the allegations 
contained in paragraphs one, two, three, four, five and six.

The defendant, Victor Rogers, is without sufficient 
information to admit or deny the allegations contained in 
paragraph seven of the complaint and demands strict proof 
thereof.

The defendant, Victor Rogers, denied the allegations 
contained in paragraph eight of the complaint.

CLEMENT, ROSEN, HUBBARD AND WALDROP 
BY: S. H. Vann Waldrop
Attorneys for Defendant, Victor

Rogers
...oOo...



20

ORDER ON PRE-TRIAL HEARING
(Number and Title Omitted) (Filed Apr 11, 1967)

This cause coming on to be heard cn a regular pre-trial 
hearing, and all parties being present in person or by coun­
sel, the following action was thereupon taken:

1. The following pleadings and amendments were allowed: 
The complaint as last amended and the answer.

2. It was agreed by all of the parties that the follow­
ing are all of the issues in controversy in this cause:

Proceeding under Title II of the Civil Rights Act 
of 1964, plaintiffs bring this class action against the de­
fendant, Victor Rogers, and defendant, Indian Hills Motels 
Inc. (not presently served) for an injunction based upon the 
alleged racial discriminatory practices of defendants. Con­
tending that defendants operate a public accommodation, to- 
wit, a motel, and that on or about January 20, 1965, the 
plaintiffs were denied enjoyment of the services, facilities, 
privileges and so forth of such motel on the ground of race 
or color, plaintiffs seek the injunctive relief for which 
they pray.

Defendant Rogers denies that the services or facilities 
of the Motel operated by him under the franchise name of 
Holiday Inn were denied plaintiffs on the occasion complained 
of and expressly denies that the privileges and facilities 
of such public accommodation have ever been denied to any



21

person because of race or color.
It is therefore ORDERED by the Court that all of the 

above-named allowances and agreements be and the same are 
hereby binding upon all parties in the above-styled cause, 
unless this order be hereafter modified by order of the 
Court.

Done this 6th day of April, 1967.
S/ Seybourn H. Lynne 
United States District Judge

...oOo...
JUDGMENT

(Number and Title Omitted) (Filed May 5, 1967)
This action came on for trial (hearing) before the 

Court, Honorable Seybourn H. Lynne, United States District 
Judge, presiding, and the issues having been duly tried 
(heard) and a decision having been duly rendered, on this 
the 5th day of May, 1967

It is Ordered and Adjudged that a written judgment will 
be entered for the defendants based upon the findings of 
fact and conclusions of law dictated into the record by 
the court.
Tuscaloosa, Alabama William E. Davis, Clerk
May 5, 1967 By: Gene E. Bell

Deputy Clerk
...oOo...



22

ORDER DENYING PRAYER OF PLAINTIFFS 
FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF_______ ______

(Number and Title Omitted) (Filed May 8, 1967)
In conformity with the findings of fact and conclusions

of law dictated to the court reporter at the conclusions of
the evidence:

It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by the court that 
the prayer of plaintiffs for injunctive relief be and the 
same is hereby denied and that this action be and the same 
is hereby dismissed.

Done, this the 8th day of May, 1967.
Seybourn H. Lynne 

CHIEF JUDGE
...oOo...

NOTICE OF APPEAL
(Number and Title Omitted) (Filed May 12, 1967)

Notice is hereby given that Reverend T. Y. Rogers, Jr., 
one of the plaintiffs herein, hereby appeals to the United 
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit from an order 
of said United States District Court denying the prayer of 
plaintiffs for injunctive relief and dismissing the plain­
tiffs 1 cause of action. Said order from the District Court 
was dated May 8, 1967.

DATED: May 9, 1967
S/ Oscar W. Adams, Jr.
OSCAR W. ADAMS, JR.
1630 4th Avenue, North
Birmingham, Alabama 

...oOo...



23

BOND FOR COSTS ON APPEAL
(Number and Title Omitted) (Filed May 12, B67)

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that we, Reverend 
T. Y. Rogers, Jr., as principal, and Oscar W. Adams, Jr., 
and Demetrius C. Newton, as sureties, are held and firmly 
bound unto Victor Rogers and Holiday Inn of America, a 
corporation, in the full and just sum of Two Hundred Fifty 
and No/100 ($250.00) Dollars to be paid to the said Defen­
dants, their successors, administrators and assigns; to 
which payment well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, 
our successors, assigns, heirs, executors and administrators, 
jointly and severally by these presents.

Sealed with our seals and dated this the 9th day of 
May, 1967.

Whereas, on the 8th day of May, 1967, in an action pend­
ing before the United States District Court For The Northern 
District of Alabama, Western Division, between the Reverend 
T. Y. Rogers, Jr., Et Al, plaintiffs, and Holiday Inn of 
America, a corporation, Et Al, defendants, an order was 
made denying plaintiffs prayer for injunctive relief and 
dismissing plaintiffs action, and the said Reverend T. Y. 
Rogers, Jr., having filed notice of appeal from the court 
order of May 8, 1967, to the United States Court of Appeals 
for the Fifth Circuit;

Now, therefore, the condition of this obligation is such,



24

that if the said Reverend T. Y. Rogers shall prosecute this 
appeal to effect and shall pay costs if the appeal is dis­
missed or the judgment affirmed, or such costs as the said 
Court of Appeals may award against the said Reverend T. Y. 
Rogers, Jr., if the judgment is modified, then this obli­
gation be void; otherwise to remain in full force and effect.

S/ Reverend T. Y. Rogers, Jr. 
REVEREND T. Y. ROGERS, JR.

S/ Oscar W. Adams, Jr.
OSCAR W. ADAMS, JR.

S/ Demetrius C. Newton 
DEMETRIUS C. NEWTON

Personally appeared before me T. Y. Rogers, Jr., Oscar W. 
Adams, Jr., and Demetrius C. Newton, who are principal and 
sureties in the above-styled bond, who hereby certify to me 
that they understand the nature of this bond and that they 
are fully capable of meeting the financial penalty of said 
bond, that the above signatures are genuine, and that they 
have signed said bond voluntarily and without coercion of 
any kind.
(Seal) S/ Jacqueline J. Wallace

NOTARY PUBLIC
...0O0 ...

ORDER EXTENDING TIME
(Number and Title Omitted) (Filed Jun 14, 1967)

Upon motion of attorneys for plaintiff-Appellant pursu­
ant to Rule 73(g), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and



25

for good cause shown, it is hereby
ORDERED that the time within which the record on appeal 

in the above-entitled action must be filed with the United 
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit at New Orleans, 
Louisiana, and the time within which the appeal must be there 
docketed, be, and the same hereby is, extended to and includ­
ing the 31st day of July, 1967.

This the 14th day of June, 1967.
S/ Seybourn H. Lynne 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

...oOo...



26

CLERK'S CERTIFICATE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

I. WILLIAM E. DAVIS, Clerk of the United States Dis­
trict Court for the Northern District of Alabama do hereby 
certify that the foregoing pages numbered from one (1) to 
twenty-eight (28), both inclusive, comprise the original 
pleadings in this action and are herewith attached as a 
full, true and correct transcript of the record on appeal 
in the Matter of REV. T. Y. ROGERS, JR., Appellant, vs.
INDIAN HILLS MOTELS, INC., and VICTOR ROGERS, Appellees,
Civil Action No. 65-136, Western Division, as fully as the 
same appears or record and on file in my office.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed 
my name and affixed the seal of said Court 
at Birmingham, Alabama, in said District, 
on this the 14th day of July, 1967.

(Seal) S/ William E. Davis
WILLIAM E. DAVIS, CLERK 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.

•••oOo•••



27

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Number and Title Omitted) (Filed Jul 13, 1967)

Tuscaloosa, Alabama 
May 5, 1967

BEFORE:
HONORABLE SEYBOURN H. LYNNE, Judge.

APPEARANCES:
MR. DEMETRIUS C. NEWTON, 408 North 17th Street, 

Birmingham, Alabama, for the plaintiffs.
MR. H. VANN WALDROP, of the firm of Clement.
Rosen, Hubbard and Waldrop, 2319 - 8th Street, 
Tuscaloosa, Alabama, for the defendants.

(3) PROCEEDINGS
THE COURT:

We are ready to proceed in the case of Reverend T. Y. 
Rogers and others against the Indian Hills Motels and 
others.

Is the Rule invoked as to witnesses?
MR. NEWTON:

No, sir.
MR. WALDROP:

No, sir.
THE COURT:

There is no need for opening statement. I have the 
order of the pre-trial hearing and we are ready to proceed
now.



28

MR. NEWTON:
Reverend Rogers.

REVEREND T. Y. ROGERS, JR.,
called as a witness, being first duly sworn, was examined 
and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION
Q (BY MR. NEWTON:) State your name, please.
A T. Y. Rogers, Jr.
Q Where do you live, Reverend Rogers?
A 1913 - 40th Avenue, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
Q Were you living in Tuscaloosa at this present address 
on or about 20 January, 1965?
A Yes.
(4) Q Reverend Rogers, I will ask you on or about that 
date if you had occasion to go to a place described as the 
local Holiday Inn Motel in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, located 
somewhere on the —  commonly called the 82 By-Pass?
A Yes, sir.
Q For what purpose did you go to that motel?
A Went to secure some rooms for the night.
Q How many persons were with you?
A Three of us.
Q Who were they?
A Willie Herzfeld, and Dick Gregory.
Q Reverend Rogers, what was your occupation at that time?



29

A Minister.
Q Were you an active minister of a church?
A Yes.
Q What church?
A First African Baptist Church.
Q Is that located in Tuscaloosa, Alabama?
A Yes, it is.
Q What was Reverend Herzfeld at that time?
A Pastor of Christ Lutheran Church.
(5) Q Located in Tuscaloosa?
A Yes, sir.
Q Do you know what the occupation of Mr. Gregory was?
A Comedien.
Q On the occasion that you went to the Holiday Inn did 
you have other duties with other organizations other than 
your church?
A Yes, sir, I was also president of the local Citizens 
for Action Committee.
Q What does that organization do?
A It is a civil rights organization of the Southern 
Leadership Conference.
Q Were you actively engaged in any form of civil rights 
activity?
A Yes, sir, voter registration, and selective patronage 
in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.



30

Q Was Reverend Herzfeld also engaged in similar activities 
with you?
A Yes, sir.
Q Was he an officer of the Tuscaloosa Citizens Action 
Committee?
A Yes. At that time he was president of the (6)Citizens 
Action Committee and I was executive secretary and Chair­
man of the Board.
Q Did Mr. Gregory also work with you people in voter 
registration and whatever activities in the area of civil 
rights?
A Yes, sir, he assisted us at that time.
Q Do you recall what time in the day or night you went 
to the Holiday Inn?
A It was late in the evening, that is to say, about —  
after six o'clock and between ten and twelve o'clock. Real 
late in the evening.
Q Is the Holiday Inn you described on the 82 By-Pas?
A Yes, sir.
Q In your best judgment, does it have more than twenty 
rooms ?
A Yes, sir, I think it does.
Q In your best judgment is the kind of facilities there 
what is .commonly called Mrs. Murphy's Boarding House where 
the management lives there?



31

A No, sir.
Q On this occasion, Reverend Rogers, you and Reverend 
Herzfeld and Dick Gregory went to the Holiday (7) Inn and 
do you recall who was on duty behind the desk?
A I think it was a student at the University on duty at 
the time.
Q Did you on that occasion ask for accomodations?
A Yes, sir.
Q And were either or any of you given accomodations?
A We were told —  at first we were under the impression 
we would have accomodations and then the question came up 
where we lived, you have to have some evidence that you 
didn't live in town, and Mr. Gregory is the only one who 
had evidence he didn't live in town. Both of us lived in 
Tuscaloosa and we were told then inasmuch as we were local 
people we couldn't rent rooms at the Holiday Inn.
Q Did whoever was behind the desk that you described on 
this occasion ask for some form of identification with your 
address on it?
A Yes, sir, he told us if we had identification that we 
were out of town he could rent us a room.
Q Did he offer you any opportunity to explain the need 
for a room other than the fact you were living in town 
and you couldn't have one?
(8) A No.



32

Q After Mr. Gregory, who did live out of town, showed 
his credentials was he granted a room?
A Yes, he decided at first —  he was undecided whether 
or not he would take a room inasmuch as we couldn't get a 
room and we sat in the lobby and discussed it a while and 
it was decided he would get a room and a room was rented 
to him in his name and we were his guests, so we could 
visit in his room if we so desired.
Q Reverend, did you have some special purpose for want­
ing to register at the Holiday Inn on this occasion?
A We had been involved in a lot of work for the past 
seven or eight days and one of the reasons we decided to 
go to the Holiday Inn was we could get out of town, out of 
the city, in the immediate vicinity and discuss some matters 
we wanted to discuss without any kind of interruption at 
all and have a night's rest without too much of a disturb­
ance, we felt.
Q Did you and Reverend Herzfeld actually spend the night 
on this occasion there?
A Yes, we did.
(9) Q And where did you spend the night?
A In Mr. Gregory's room.
Q Did you have any sleeping facilities there?
A They moved a cot in the room —  one small cot in the 
room. There were two beds in there.



33

Q You say "they," who are you referring to?
A The gentleman on the desk after conferring with someone 
else, I believe that is correct, decided to have the help 
bring a cot in the room, whoever the help was at that time.
Q You did go to the Holiday Inn to rent facilities on that 
occasion?
A Yes, sir.
Q And you did have the money to pay the cost of regis­
tration?
A Yes, sir.
Q And you were denied the right to use a room?
A Yes, sir.
MR. NEWTON:

I believe that's all.
CROSS EXAMINATION

Q (BY MR. WALDROP:) Reverend Rogers, the cot you re­
ferred to, is that a roll-away bed?
A A roll-away bed?
(10) Q Yes.
A It was a cot which folded up and had four casters on 
the bottom.
Q So, in fact, you and Reverend Herzfeld did spend the 
night in the facilities of the Holiday Inn?
A Yes, sir.
Q And you stated when you requested a room that the basis



34

for denying a room is because you were from not out of 
town, is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
MR. WALDROP:

I believe that's all.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION

Q (BY MR. NEWTON:) Reverend Rogers, were these accommoda­
tions you sought on this occasion? The accommodations you 
actually used?
A No, they were not. I wanted to rent a room at the 
Holiday Inn. Mr. Gregory wanted to rent a room and I also 
wanted to rent a room and I was denied the privilege of 
renting a room. We were allowed to visit him. We were his 
guests.
Q Did they tell you they had no vacancies?
A No, that wasn't the question.
(11) MR. NEWTON:

That's all.
MR. WALDROP:

That's all.
(Witness Excused)

MR. NEWTON:
Mr. Rogers.

VICTOR L. ROGERS,
called as a witness, being first duly sworn, was examined



35

and testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION

Q (BY MR. NEWTON:) State your name.
A Victor L. Rogers.
Q Where do you live?
A 205 Indian Hills Circle, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
Q Are you the owner of the facility which is described
as the Holiday Inn?
A No, I am not. I am the lessee.
Q From whom do you lease the facilities?
A The date under discussion I leased from Indian Hills 
Motel, Inc., a local corporation.
Q Indian Hills Motel has a franchise right to use Holi­
day Inns of America?
A Yes, sir.
Q As the lessee from Indian Hills Motel, do you (12)
have certain restrictions, for instance, as to how a sign
might be displayed or any such thing in order to use the 
name Holiday Inn of America?
A No, sir, I had none. The policies as to signs and 
advertising are established by Holiday Inns themselves.
Q And the Indian Hills Motel would have to abide by this 
policy in order to use the name?
A Yes, sir.
Q And you lease from Indian Hills?



36

A That's right.
Q Mr. Rogers, I call your attention to this date on or 
about the 20th of January, 1965, when Reverend Rogers and 
Reverend Herzfeld and Dick Gregory were there, were you 
there on the premises?
A No, sir.
Q Do you know who was?
A We had this desk clerk on duty at that time.
Q Do you recall their names?
A No, I don’t. They were University students.
Q Did you also have a manager on duty there?
A Not at that time.
Q Did Indian Hills Motel at that time have a (13)policy 
about renting rooms to persons who lived in a certain radius 
of the motel?
A No, they did not. You are speaking of the corporation? 
Q Yes.
A No, they did not.
Q Do you know whether Holiday Inns of America had such 
a policy?
A The only related policy that could be correlated with 
that is the fact all local citizens must be identified. There 
is a printed sign which is available to all Holiday Inns
which many of them post at the entrance to the Holiday Inn_
in other words, specific identification is necessary or



37

something to that effect.
Q That had nothing to do with the leasing or refusing 
to lease rooms?
A No.
Q Mr. Rogers, as lessee did you have a policy on January 
20, 1965, about leasing of rooms to local residents?
A We did.
Q What was that policy?
(14) A We, of course, are in the transit motel or
hotel rental business and our accomodations are offered for 
the travelers and for persons who might have a legitimate 
need for accommodations, and our policy, of course, was that 
we do not rent rooms to local people without a legitimate 
need for accomodations.
Q Have you spelled out to your employees what legitimate 
needs are?
A Yes, we have had a standing policy for years.
Q You haven't actually operated this facility for years, 
have you?
A Well, at that time I had —  since June 24, 1961.
Q Now, if I or some other person who lives locally in 
Tuscaloosa came to your Holiday Inn and I said I have —  

announced to the desk clerk I live in Tuscaloosa but I have 
a group of people I want to meet with and be up the great 
part of the night with and we would like to spend the night



38

here so that we could conduct our business, would that be 
legitimate?
A We have meeting rooms for such occasions.
Q I am assuming that as an individual I didn't want a 
meeting room.
MR.WALDROP:

I must object to that hypothetical (15) question. It 
is his witness.
THE COURT:

He didn't say he was calling him under Rule 43B but 
I will admit the examination under Rule 43b .
MR. WALDROP:

We except.
Q Just a person who wanted to use the facilities, they 
do not want a meeting room, three or four people, and wanted 
rooms where they could retire for the night and wanted to 
meet together and discuss business, would that be a legi­
timate use?
A No. One room would be all that would be required for 
such an occasion.
Q Do you recall giving your deposition here in Tuscaloosa 
on May 3, 1966?
A I don't remember the date but I recall the deposition. 
Q Do you remember questions being put to you in that 
deposition by Mr. Oscar Adams?



39

A He asked questions but what they were I don't recall.
Q On page 7 of this deposition I will read this to you 
and ask you if this is correct, if you recall this question, 
"Would you think a local resident who (16) felt he wanted 
to take a night off from the family for a rest, or who had 
a fight with his wife and left home, would have a need for 
accomodations?

"It would depend, actually, on the individual. If I 
knew of him personally — "

Did you make that statement?
A I could have but I don't recall specifically.
Q On page 8 of that same deposition, Mr. Rogers, "Let me 
ask you this, Mr. Rogers: Would you think where some local
resident and his family wanted to take a week-end at a motel, 
which is frequently done in Birmingham at the Airport Motel, 
would have a need for such accomodations?

"That would be acceptable, and we would rent to such 
individuals."

Do you recall that?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Have you done that in the past?

"We have on a few limited occasions. We have very few 
requests. If people want that, they usually go out of 
town."
A That is correct.



40

Q Then considering those statements and assuming (17) 
they were made by you and taken down by the court reporter, 
if you were not present on the scene how would your manager 
know what would be —  what person would or would not be 
acceptable to you?
A Either my manager or I is always available by tele­
phone and should there be a question in the desk clerk's 
mind he can always contact me or the manager to settle any 
particular situation like took place on this occasion.
Q Now, I refer you to the same deposition, page 11, and 
going back to my original question to refresh your recollect­
ion as to whether your manager was there or not, line 11 on 
page 11, "Do you know who the persons were that gave you 
that information?

"My manager.
"What is his name?
"William Sharp.
"Is he still working there?
"Yes, sir.”
Do you recall, sir, whether it was Mr. Sharp or someone 

else who gave you the information?
A It was Mr. Sharp.
Q Is Mr. Sharp still employed by you?
(18) A Yes, sir.
Q Does Mr. Sharp make his home on the premises?



41

A No, he does not.
Q Does he live in Tuscaloosa?
A Northport.
Q Do you on occasion, sir, rent sleeping facilities to 
local residents of the City of Tuscaloosa?
A Yes, we do.
Q You do that, sir, on an individual basis?
A Right.
MR. NEWTON:

I believe that's all.
CROSS EXAMINATION

Q (BY MR. WALDROP:) Mr . Rogers, so that we
this up, Mr. Newton asked you if Mr. Sharp was present when 
Reverend Herzfeld and Reverend Rogers and Mr. Gregory came 
in for accomodations. Was Mr. Sharp, in fact, present, to 
your knowledge, at that time?
A Not at the time they came to the desk.
Q Did he, to your knowledge, subsequently go to the motel?
A He did.
Q Approximately how long have you been engaged in (19)
the motel business?
A Over 21 years.
Q Approximately how long have you been engaged in the
motel business in Tuscaloosa?
A Twenty-one years.



42

Q What motels have you operated prior to the time you 
assumed the operation of the Holiday Inn?
A I was owner of the Moon Winx Motel for nine years, 1946 
until 1955, and 1955 until 1964 I leased and operated the 
Town House Motor Hotel.
Q Where is that located?
A Greensboro Avenue and 10th Street.
Q Throughout this 21-year period at all of these locations 
did you have any policy relative to leasing rooms to local 
residents?
A Yes, we did and that policy has been in force as far 
as my operations are concerned and other better motels, to 
my knowledge, for 21 years, or as long as I have been in the 
business.
Q What generally is that policy relative to local resi­
dents?
A Unless there is a definite need explained and requir­
ing accomodations under normal circumstances, (20) accomoda­
tions are denied to local residents.
Q Is this the prevailing practice in the motel industry 
in Tuscaloosa County?
A Yes, sir.
Q Is it the prevailing policy as to better motels in the 
State of Alabama?
A It is.



43

Q To your knowledge, is it the prevailing practice as to 
better motels throughout the United States?
A It is.
Q Tell us if you would some of the background for this 
policy, the basis for it.
A I got into the motel business in the early 401s when 
motels were commonly known as tourist camps and unfortunately 
at that time they weren't too well thought of. So the motel 
operators who belonged to the national organizations and 
state organizations thought there was a need to change that 
image in the public's mind and in doing so through the years 
certain policies were established and among these were to 
limit or eliminate as much as possible local clientele and 
this has more or less become standard procedure through the 
years and (21) emphasis is placed on catering to out of town 
transits and commercial travelers, and we think through the 
operation of that policy that in recent years motels and 
motor hotels have become accepted as places for all travel­
ers regardless of their status to feel comfortable and at 
ease the same as at any hotel within a large city or a small 
town.
Q Prior to the adoption of this practice of trying to 
exclude local traffic by motel operations, did you as a motel 
operator and your fellow operators in the motel industry, 
did you have considerable trouble which arose from renting



44

rooms to local persons?
A Yes, we found that situation quite prevalent and immed­
iately following the war years at the time I got into the 
motel industry it required quite extensive policing and, of 
course, the most advantageous place to try to control such 
a situation was at the time of application by a prospective 
guest at the registration desk, therefore, it was necessary 
to ask certain questions when it was obvious that a pro­
spective guest was either local or from the immediate surround­
ing territory.
(22) Q Are these inquiries made without any regard
to race or color?
A They are.
Q And throughout the time you have operated the Holiday 
Inn in Tuscaloosa, have you enforced this practice and pre­
vailing policy you referred to without regard to race or 
color?
A We have.
Q Have you on numerous occasions refused to accomodate 
local white persons?
A We have and do.
Q Do you exclude the student body of the University of 
Alabama?
A We do.
Q Is this exclusion made and is this policy enforced



45

without regard to race or color?
A Yes, sir, it is.
Q Prior to the incident complained of here today, prior 
to that have you had persons of the Negro race at the 
Holiday Inn?
A Many times.
Q And that was prior to and also subsequent to the action 
complained of here today?
(23) A That is correct.
Q To your knowledge, throughout the years you have operat­
ed the Holiday Inn in Tuscaloosa, have any Negro persons 
been refused accomodations of any sort based on race or color? 
A No, they have not.
Q Is the policy relative to renting of rooms in force at 
the time Mr. Gregory was admitted or registered as a guest, 
is the same policy in operation today?
A It is.
Q Is the same or similar policy in operation among the 
better motels in Tuscaloosa County?
A To my knowledge.
Q Is the same policy still in operation throughout the 
State of Alabama?
A It is.
Q Has it been your experience among those hotels perhaps 
of lesser standing, that the lack of enforcement of such a



46

rule leads to moral problems?
A It does.
MR. NEWTON:

We object to that, Your Honor, whether a man with con­
siderable experience with the (24) hotel business, whether 
it will lead to moral problems with —
THE COURT:

Well, Demetrius, I think this, the Court may not reach 
the question whether or not the general rule of denying 
accomodations to local citizens rest upon a reasonable basis. 
There may be room for discovery of the underlying basis and 
the reasonableness of the rule and I was going to ask you 
whether or not the underlying basis for the general rule of 
exclusion of local residents rest upon a moral basis.
A Not wholly so. It results from experience we have had 
or discovery of false registration in given cases which has 
had an influence on our establishing the policy.
THE COURT:

Have you had occasion since January 1, 1965, to request 
people who have been permitted to register to vacate rooms?
A We have.
THE COURT:

How often does it occur?
A Fortunately not very often.



47

THE COURT:
Well, let's say throughout any given year in the opera­

tion of the Holiday Inn have (25) there not been occurrences 
in each year where you or members of your management team at 
the Holiday Inn have had to ask registered guests to leave 
because you discovered them to be local residents?
A Yes, sir.
Q At the time they registered I assume they represented 
themselves to be from out of town?
A Yes, sir.
Q And they were requested to leave upon discovery that 
they were local residents?
A That's right.
Q So that we will be clear, insofar as your personal 
knowledge and personal experience goes in the operating of 
motels within Tuscaloosa and this county, is it not a fact 
one of the bases for the rule or practice which Mr. Newton 
inquired about, the excluding of local residents, is not 
the moral problem one of the real bases for this rule?
A Yes, sir.
Q Is it your experience in the motel operation if such 
rule is not enacted and enforced that moral situations can 
very likely develop?
A It is possible.
(26) Q At this time is the Holiday Inn accepting



48

people for accomodations without any regard to race or color? 
A They are.
Q And have you since you have been operating the motel 
enacted a policy of leasing facilities impartially without 
regard to race or color?
A Yes, sir.
Q Is it your present intent to continue to do so?
A Yes, sir.
MR. WALDROP:

I believe that's all.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION

Q (BY MR. NEWTON:) Are you personally acquainted with 
a large number of Negroes?
A Definitely. I have lived in Alabama all my life and 
served in the Army with them three years.
Q Are you personally acquainted with a large number of 
Negroes in Tuscaloosa County and the City of Tuscaloosa?
A Not a whole lot. I am personally acquainted with many 
of the employees whom I have.
Q If a Negro came to you and fell within that (27) legi­
timate group of local citizens who could at times rent rooms 
from or facilities and you didn't know him personally, would 
he be simply refused or how would you go about it?
A He would be questioned as to what his need for accomo­
dation was.



49

Q And let's assume his need met generally the needs you 
set down for local residents, but you didn't know him and 
your manager didn't know him?
A We would rent accomodations to him.
Q Did you have occasion to —  last month to have scheduled 
an affair for a Negro fraternal organization and cancel it 
without notice?
A That was scheduled prior to my assuming the operation 
of the restaurant facilities.
Q But you did cancel it?
A I did not. My manager did.
MR. WALDROP:

May it please the Court, we interpose an objection. The 
restaurant operation at the Holiday Inn two months ago was 
leased to a private individual with which Mr. Rogers had no 
connection.
MR. NEWTON:

He just testified what his policy was then and now.
(28) Do you lease these facilities to Negro groups?
A if they are requested and fit the certain policy we have 
established since taking over the restaurant.
Q This group did not fit that policy?
A No, it did not.
Q How?
A it was understood it was to be a cocktail party and



50

we had tried for two years to get cooperation from the opera­
tor of the restaurant not to rent these facilities to college 
age groups for cocktail parties.
Q Isn't it a fact this was a graduate chapter and not a 
college group? People who had already finished college?
A I wasn't aware of those facts.
Q Mr. Rogers, the only way I can do this is to pose a 
hypothetical question.

Assume a student arrives at the University of Alabama 
for registration tomorrow, he gets here today, he has not 
been assigned dormitory facilities and can't get them until 
tomorrow, would you rent that student a room?
(29) A No, we wouldn't.
Q Even though he has a legitimate need but is a student 
at the University of Alabama and merely because he is a 
student you would deny him a room?
A That's right.
MR. NEWTON:

I believe that's all.
RECROSS EXAMINATION

Q (BY MR. WALDROP:) Mr. Rogers, at the time this college 
fraternity or graduate fraternity made some arrangements to 
have a cocktail party or drinking party there at the res­
taurant facilities, did you have any connection with the 
operation of the restaurant?



51

A We did not.
Q I believe you have just taken the restaurant facility 
over how long ago?
A March 1st.
Q Is the basis for excluding the college fraternity 
drinking parties, is that again a policy applied without 
regard to race or color?
A That is correct.
Q And was the decision made relative to not holding this 
party, was that decision made without regard (30) to race 
or color?
A We also cancelled two other college parties.
Q Were those white?
A Those two were' white.
Q Was the decision made in the same fashion as to all 
three?
A Yes, sir.
MR. WALDROP:

That's all.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION

Q (BY MR. NEWTON:) Did you make any efforts to determine 
this wasn't or was a college group or did you assume it was 
a college group?
A We go by the age of the groups more or less, college
age crowds.



52

Q Did they give you their ages at the time of the appli­
cation?
A I don't know, it was made with the former manager, our 
former operator.
Q What I am trying to get at is you are not testifying 
that was a college group, are you?
A Not necessarily, no.
Q In other words, you were not carrying out your policy 
of refusing to have cocktail parties for (31) college groups 
because this was not one?
A I think the age of the group would determine as much as 
anything whether they were in college or out of college or 
what kind of organization it was.
Q In this particular instance did you make any investiga­
tion of their ages?
A Personally I did not.
Q Was it you then that cancelled it?
A No, my manager and I in conference decided to cancel
it along with two or three others.
Q You know if your manager made any investigation as to 
the ages of this group?
A We couldn't locate them. We had no connection with 
them, no phone number or names until they presented them­
selves to verify or confirm the reservation.
Q Do you know who that person was who came to verify it?



53

A No, sir.
Q Do you have any judgment as to that person’s age?
A No, sir, my manager talked with him.
MR. NEWTON:

I believe that's all.
(32) MR. WALDROP:

I have no further questions.
(Witness Excused)

MR. NEWTON:
We rest.

MR. WALDROP:
We have nothing further, the defendant rests.

THE COURT:
All right, gentlemen, the Court, upon consideration of 

the pleadings, including the order on pre-trial hearing, 
and the proof presented, enters the following findings of 
fact and conclusions of law.

On the 20th day of January, 1965, the defendant, Victor 
Rogers, under lease from Indian Hills Motels, Inc., operated 
the Holiday Inn Motel on Highway 82 By-Pass in Tuscaloosa, 
Alabama. The plaintiffs, Reverend T. Y. Rogers and Reverend 
W. L. Herzfeld, in company with Mr. Dick Gregory, applied 
for a room at the Holiday Inn Motel operated by the defen­
dant Rogers. At that time the person described as Mr. Dick 
Gregory, a Negro, who identified himself as being a non-resident



54

of this area, was registered and given a room in such hotel. 
Reverend Rogers and Reverend Herzfeld had applied for sep­
arate rooms and (33) were denied registration.

At that time and for some time previous thereto a gen­
eral rule had been established by the defendant Rogers that 
in the absence of exceptional circumstances or unusual cir­
cumstances a resident of the City of Tuscaloosa would not be 
permitted to register at the motel. There is clearly a 
rational basis for such a ruling.

On the night of January 20, 1955, plaintiffs Reverend 
Rogers and Reverend Herzfeld, while not being afforded sep­
arate rooms, were permitted to occupy the room registered in 
the name of Mr. Dick Gregory as his guest. At no time since 
January 1, 1965, has the defendant Rogers in the operation 
of his motel denied full and equal enjoyment of the service, 
facilities, privileges, advantages and accomodations of the 
motel which he operates to any person on the ground of race, 
color, religion or national origin.

The Court expressly finds that on the night of January 
20, 1965, that separate rooms were not denied to Gregory, 
Herzfeld and Reverend T. Y. Rogers on account of the fact 
they were members of the Negro (34) race.

The Court concludes as a matter of law it has juris­
diction of this action and of the parties hereto. The Court 
further finds that the defendant Rogers has not violated the



55

provisions of 42 U.S. Code, Section 2000 (a), 2000 (a-1).
The Court further concludes that the plaintiffs are 

not entitled to the injunctive relief for which they pray.
In conformity with the finding of fact and conclusions 

of law dictated to the court reporter at the end of the evi­
dence, an order will be entered denying the injunctive re­
lief prayed for and dismissing this action at the cost of 
the plaintiffs. That order will be entered.

(Court was adjourned at 10:06 a.m.)
(35) CERTIFICATE
STATE OF ALABAMA 
JEFFERSON COUNTY

I, Ray C. Wester, Official Court Reporter of the United 
States District Court, Birmingham, Alabama, do hereby certify 
that I reported in shorthand the foregoing proceedings at 
the time and place stated in the caption hereof; that I later 
reduced my shorthand notes to typewriting, or under my super­
vision, and the foregoing pages, numbered three through 34, 
both inclusive, contain a full, true and correct transcript 
of the proceedings as herein set out.

I further certify that I am neither of counsel nor of 
kin to any parties to said cause, nor in any manner interested 
in the result thereof.

S/ Ray C. Wester 
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER.

•••oOo•••



< 4 J
*>0 -, s o , v

U *4 ««»