Hithon v. Tyson Foods, Inc. Motion of Amici Curiae for Leave to File Brief in Support of Plaintiff-Appellant's Petition for Rehearing En Banc
Public Court Documents
October 16, 2010

Cite this item
-
Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Hithon v. Tyson Foods, Inc. Motion of Amici Curiae for Leave to File Brief in Support of Plaintiff-Appellant's Petition for Rehearing En Banc, 2010. 0d7dfc48-b89a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/33f74636-1982-4d41-99b6-16517ce482c8/hithon-v-tyson-foods-inc-motion-of-amici-curiae-for-leave-to-file-brief-in-support-of-plaintiff-appellants-petition-for-rehearing-en-banc. Accessed July 13, 2025.
Copied!
No. 08-16135-BB In the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit JOHN HITHON, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee v. TYSON FOODS, INC., Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama No. CV96-RRA-03257-M Motion of Amici Curiae for Leave to File Brief in Support of Plaintiff-Appellant’s Petition for Rehearing En Banc of Civil Rights Leaders Hon. U.W. Clemon; Ms. Dorothy Cotton; Rev. Robert S. Graetz, Jr.; Dr. Bernard LaFayette, Jr.; Rev. Joseph E. Lowery; Mrs. Amelia Boynton Robinson; Hon. Solomon Seay, Jr.; Rev. Fred L. Shuttlesworth; Rev. C.T. Vivian; Dr. Wyatt Tee Walker; Hon. Andrew Young John Payton Director-Counsel Debo P. Adegbile Counsel o f Record Ryan Downer NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. 99 Hudson Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10013 (212) 965-2200 Deborah N. Archer Elise C. Boddie NEW YORK LAW SCHOOL RACIAL JUSTICE PROJECT 185 West Broadway New York, New York 10013 (212) 431-2138 Mark Sabel SABEL & SABEL, P.C. Hillwood Office Center 2800 ZeldaRoad, Suite 100-5 Montgomery, AL 36106 (334) 271-2770 Counsel fo r Amici Curiae (Additional Counsel Listed on Inside Cover) No. 08-16135-BB John Hithon v. Tyson Foods, Inc. C-l of 4 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS AND CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT PURSUANT TO FED. R. APP. P. 26.1 AND 11TH CIR. R. 26.1-1 I hereby certify the following is a complete list of trial judges, attorneys, persons, associations of persons, firms, partnerships, corporations (including subsidiaries, conglomerates, affiliates, parent corporations, and any publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of the party's stock), and other identifiable legal entities related to a party that have an interest in this case: 1. Adegbile, Debo (Attorney for Amici Curiae) 2. Archer, Deborah (Attorney for Amici Curiae) 3. Armstrong, Robert P., Jr. (United States Magistrate Judge for the Northern District of Alabama, Middle Division) 4. Boddie, Elise (Attorney for Amici Curiae) 5. Bostick, Brian (Attorney for Defendant-Appellee) 6. Boynton Robinson, Amelia (.Amicus Curiae) 7. dem on, U.W. {Amicus Curiae) 8. Cotton, Dorothy {Amicus Curiae) 9. Downer, Ryan (Attorney for Amici Curiae) 10. Foreman, Michael (Attorney for Plaintiffs-Appellants) 11. Graetz, Robert S., Jr. {Amicus Curiae) CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS AND CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT PURSUANT TO FED. R. APP. P. 26.1 AND 11TH CIR. R. 26.1-1 No. 08-16135-BB John Hithon v. Tyson Foods, Inc. C-2 of 4 12. Haynes & Haynes (Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellants) 13. Haynes, Alicia (Attorney for Plaintiffs-Appellants) 14. Hithon, John (Plaintiff-Appellant) 15. Isenberg, Joel (Attorney for Plaintiffs-Appellants) 16. Lacy, Peyton, Jr. (Attorney for Defendant-Appellee) 17. LaFayette, Bernard, Jr. (.Amicus Curiae) 18. Lowery, Joseph (Amicus Curiae) 19. NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. (Attorneys for Amici Curiae) 20. New York Law School (Attorneys for Amici Curiae) 21. Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. (Attorneys for Defendant- Appellee) 22. Payton, John (Attorney for Amici Curiae) 23. Pennsylvania State University Dickinson School of Law Civil Rights Appellate Clinic (Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellants) 24. Sabel & Sabel, P.C. (Attorneys for Amici Curiae) 25. Sabel, Mark (Attorney for Amici Curiae) 26. Schnapper, Eric (Attorney for Plaintiffs-Appellants) No. 08-16135-BB John Hithon v. Tyson Foods, Inc. C-3 of 4 27. Seay, Solomon, Jr. (.Amicus Curiae) 28. Shuttlesworth, Fred L. (.Amicus Curiae) 29. Smith & Ely, LLP (Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellants) 30. Smith, Carol Ann (Attorney for Plaintiffs-Appellants) 31. Tyson Foods, Inc. (NYSE symbol: TSN) (Defendant/Appellee), and its subsidiaries: Cobb-Vantress, Inc.; Cobb Breeding Company Limited; Hudson Foods, Inc.; The Pork Group, Inc.; Tyson Breeders, Inc.; Tyson Farms, Inc.; Tyson Farms of Texas, Inc.; Tyson Foreign Sales, Inc.; Tyson International Company, Ltd.; Tyson International Holding Company; Tyson Mexican Original, Inc.; Tyson Poultry, Inc.; Tyson Shared Services, Inc.; World Resource, Inc.; AAFC International, Inc.; Benton Sales, Ltd.; Cobb- Denmark A/S; Cobb-Espanola, S.A.; Cobb France E.U.R.L.; Cobb-Poland B.V.; Cobb (Straffon) Ireland, Ltd.; Global Employment Services, Inc.; Gorges Foodservice, Inc.; Hudson Development Company; Hudson Foods Foreign Sales, Inc.; Hudson Midwest Foods, Inc.; IBP, Inc.; Meat Products Exports, Inc.; National Comp Care, Inc.; Oaklawn Capital Corporation; Oaklawn Capital-Mississippi, LLC; Oaklawn Sales, Ltd.; TPM Holding Company; TyNet Corporation; Tyson Export Sales, Inc.; Tyson Foreign CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS AND CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT PURSUANT TO FED. R. APP. P. 26.1 AND 11TH CIR. R. 26.1-1 No. 08-16135-BB John Hithon v. Tyson Foods, Inc. C-4 of 4 C ER TIFIC ATE OF IN TERESTED PERSO NS AND CO RPO RATE DISC LO SURE STATEM ENT PU R SU A N T TO FED. R. APP. P. 26.1 AND 11TH CIR. R. 26.1-1 Sales, Inc.; Tyson Marketing, Ltd.; Tyson Seafood Group-Japan, Inc.; and Universal Plan Investments, Ltd. 32. Vivian, C.T. (Amicus Curiae) 33. Walker, Wyatt Tee (Amicus Curiae) 34. Young, Andrew (Amicus Curiae) Debo P. Counsel o f Record NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. 99 Hudson Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10013 (212) 965-2200 COME NOW Amici Curiae Civil Rights Leaders, all of whom knew and worked with the late Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King. Jr., and hereby move this Court, pursuant to FRAP 29(b) and 11th Cir. Rule 29-1, for leave to file a brief supporting Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing En Banc. As grounds for granting leave to Amici, who individually and collectively can speak with extensive knowledge to the issues of exceptional importance raised by this case, they state as follows: PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Amici are pioneers and pillars of the civil rights community who personally participated in major campaigns of the Civil Rights Movement. (See Appendix A for a detailed account of the scope and nature of the contributions of Amici.) They have profound interest in the outcome of this case and in the preservation of the legal protections they have given the better part of their lives to achieve. Moreover, Amici are intimately familiar with the language of racial discrimination and its demeaning and harmful effects. They share the view that use of the term “boy” to describe an African-American man is deeply offensive and that its use reflects discriminatory intent in this case. INTERESTS OF AMICI CURIAE 1. The Amici are: Hon. U.W. Clemon, Alabama’s first African-American federal judge; Ms. Dorothy Cotton, the Education Director for the Southern 1 Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) (1960-68); Rev. Robert S. Graetz, Jr., a leader of the Montgomery Bus Boycott; Dr. Bernard LaFayette, Jr., a leader in the Civil Rights Movement; Rev. Joseph E. Lowery, a founder and former president of the SCLC; Mrs. Amelia Boynton Robinson, Selma civil rights activist; Hon. Solomon Seay, Jr., eminent Alabama civil rights attorney; Rev. Fred L. Shuttlesworth, civil rights pioneer and a founder of SCLC; Rev. C.T. Vivian, Executive Staff for the SCLC; Dr. Wyatt Tee Walker, former Chief of Staff to Dr. King; the Hon. Andrew Young, former Executive Director of the SCLC, Mayor of Atlanta, Congressman, and Ambassador to the United Nations. 2. Most of the Amici helped found or were otherwise part of SCLC’s inner circle. A trail-blazing organization, SCLC was established in part to promote civil rights and equality throughout society, including in employment. 3. This Court has rightly recognized the integral role played by civil rights pioneers, such as Amici, in ending racially discriminatory practices: Forty-five years ago, “the civil rights movement swirled into Birmingham, a city whose bitter resistance to change made it a battleground.” Jack Bass, Unlikely Heroes 201 (1981). Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. remarked, “If we can crack Birmingham, I am convinced we can crack the South. Birmingham is a symbol of segregation for the entire South.” Id. By blood, toil, and tears, segregation was, of course, cracked in Birmingham....Against this historical backdrop, this appeal from the Northern District of Alabama offers, amid a host of technical issues, an important reminder: despite considerable racial 2 progress, racism persists as an evil to be remedied in our Nation. Goldsmith v. Bagby Elevator Co., Inc., 513 F.3d 1261, 1267 (11th Cir. 2008) (Pryor, J.) (asserting claims under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. §1981). 4. Accordingly, Amici have a long-standing interest in the way in which federal courts interpret and enforce the nation’s civil rights laws, many of which were, as Bagby Elevator implicitly acknowledges, enacted in large measure because of the uncommonly courageous activities of Amici and their peers. 5. The panel’s decision is of serious concern to Amici because of its potential to erode protections afforded under our civil rights laws and to strip a racially demeaning word of its full context. For these reasons, it is essential to Amici, and indeed for all Americans, that courts apply and enforce civil rights legislation as intended by Congress. REASONS AMICI SHOULD BE HEARD 6. As this Court has stated, “despite considerable racial progress, racism persists as an evil to be remedied in our Nation.” Bagby Elevator Co., 513 F.3d at 1267. Yet the panel decision can be read to seriously undermine the Civil Rights laws which are the most effective means of protecting against discrimination. 3 7. Amici assert that continued adherence to the panel’s evidentiary approach could diminish legal protection for workers, and particularly for African Americans in the southeastern United States. Amici argue that our civil rights laws must be vigorously applied to safeguard African Americans, such as Hithon, from overt discrimination. This is particularly so where, as here, Appellant met the high burdens necessary to establish liability before two separate Alabama juries. 8. The opinion in this case questions the probative value of the term “boy,” when directed by a white supervisor toward an African-American man, as evidence of intentional racial discrimination. The life experiences and brief of Amici clarify that the term “boy” itself is presumptively racial, and is too often used to demean and intended to intimidate African Americans. 9. Amici have unique life experience with the use, operation, purposes, and harm associated with the use of the term “boy.” All Amici have heard the racially coded term directed toward themselves, members of their families and friends, or toward other ministers and pioneers of the Civil Rights Movement. 10. By way of example, a formative experience recounted by Amicus Seay, (see infra, Appendix A at 7), supplies insight into usage of the term “boy. Amici have all encountered the use of the word “boy” by white people to subordinate and control African Americans with the ultimate goal of keeping them in their place. 4 11. As Amici set forth in the accompanying brief, the panel’s conclusion about the use of the term “boy” is unnecessarily divorced from the well established historical and social context, and thus improperly diminishes the significance of that evidence. 12. The value of considering Amici’s perspective is underscored by the panel’s remarks in chastising Hithon’s counsel for attempting to elicit testimony to explain the parallel usages of the terms “boy” and “nigger.” See Ash IV, 2010 WL 3244920 at *15, n.6. Historic usage and context demonstrate that these terms are comparable, with Dr. King himself using them in juxtaposition. See Letter from Birmingham City Jail (1963), in James M. Washington, Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr. 293 (Harper Collins 1986) (“when your first name becomes “nigger” and your middle name becomes “boy” (however old you are) and your last name becomes “John”). Both words are intentionally used to express racial hostility and evoke racial injury. And, as explained more fully by Amici in their brief, numerous cases explain that both words are appropriately treated as indicia of discriminatory intent. 13. Moreover, as Amici demonstrate in their proposed brief in support of Plaintiff-Appellant’s Petition for Rehearing En Banc, the offensive nature of the term “boy” is recognized in the precedents of this and other circuits; and sadly, the 5 demeaning use of “boy”, though rooted in our history, is not a timebound artifact of it. 14. The attached Appendix A places the unique contributions of Amici in the efforts to aid all Americans in enjoying full equality in context, and the Amici Curiae brief provides a fuller discussion that illuminates the use of “boy” as a historical and contemporary expression of discriminatory intent. 15. In a very real sense, the contemporary use of the term “boy” in the workplace, directed at an African American adult male by a white supervisor, is a powerful indication of why our civil rights laws continue to serve a vital function even long after we all hoped that the indignities Amici faced would have vanished. Granting leave is desirable because Amici ’s attached brief avoids duplication determining whether to hear this matter of exceptional importance en banc. See FRAP 29(b) and 11th Cir. Rule 29-1. For the reasons stated herein, this motion should be granted so that Amici may be heard. CONCLUSION and addresses issues directly raised by the panel decision and will aid the Court in RespeC'' "* John Payton Director-Counsel Debo P. Adegbile Counsel o f Record 6 Ryan Downer NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. 99 Hudson Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10013 (212) 965-2200 Deborah N. Archer Elise C. Boddie NEW YORK LAW SCHOOL RACIAL JUSTICE PROJECT 185 West Broadway New York, New York 10013 (212) 431-2138 Michael L. Foreman The Pennsylvania State University Dickinson School of Law Civil Rights Appellate Clinic 121 B Katz Building University Park, PA 16802 (814)865-3832 O f Counsel Mark Sabel SABEL & SABEL, P.C. Hillwood Office Center 2800 ZeldaRoad, Suite 100-5 Montgomery, AL 36106 (334) 271-2770 Counsel for Amici Curiae October 16, 2010 7 1. Hon. U.W. Clemon, former United States District Judge, Alabama’s first black federal judge. Before he was a civil rights lawyer or state senator, Judge Clemon was a civil rights activist, participating in the 1962 selective buying campaign, the 1963 Birmingham campaign with the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and as leader of the campaign to desegregate the Birmingham Public Library. He is a native of Birmingham and personally familiar with the racially discriminatory uses of the term “boy,” which he considers comparable to the n- word. 2. Ms. Dorothy Cotton, the Education Director for the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC). In that capacity from 1960 to 1968, she worked closely with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and other civil rights leaders, directing the Citizenship Education Program (CEP) that was designed to train and empower disenfranchised citizens. The only woman member of Dr. King’s Executive Staff, Ms. Cotton worked intensively with the inner circle of leaders conducting the 1963 Birmingham campaign, particularly helping to organize the students during the 1963 Birmingham Movement and its Children's Crusade and conducting citizenship classes throughout the South during the era. Ms. Cotton has had first hand experience with the use of the terms “boy” and “girl” to reflect a racially demeaning intent. A1 3. Rev. Robert S. Graetz, Jr., a leader of the Montgomery Bus Boycott, who, upon hearing the community buzz, called the NAACP official he knew best, Mrs. Rosa Parks, to learn who had been arrested. That Sunday he announced the Boycott from his pulpit, the next day he provided rides to parishioners, and shortly thereafter he became the only Caucasian Board member of the Montgomery Improvement Association (MIA), the ministers group a young Reverend Dr. King was chosen to lead. The house occupied by the Graetz’s and their small children was bombed twice during the Boycott, (see Robert Graetz, A White Preacher’s Message on Race and Reconciliation 9 (2006)), and Rev. Graetz witnessed first hand the use of racial epithets, including “boy,” to restrict black people and to protect white privileges attendant to segregation. 4. Dr. Bernard LaFayette, Jr., a leader during the 1960s Civil Rights Movement who worked closely with several groups, including SCLC and Dr. King, he was badly injured in 1963 by a white assailant in Selma, but he continued to prepare that town for its destiny with voting rights. He had been beaten in May 1961, when Dr. Lafayette and two other freedom riders narrowly escaped being killed by members of the Ku Klux Klan when their group was attacked in Montgomery, Alabama. See Raymond Arsenault, Freedom Riders: 1961 and the Struggle for Racial Justice (Oxford University Press 2006). Dr. LaFayette A2 witnessed first hand the use of degrading language as a means of intimidation, including use of the term “boy.” 5. Rev. Joseph E. Lowery, a close confidante of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and a civil rights pioneer, he was a Founder and the third President (for twenty years) of the SCLC. At the request of Dr. King, Lowery led the 1965 Selma to Montgomery march. He has personal experience with the use of racial epithets as both instruments and indicators of racial intimidation and control, (see Juan Williams, My Soul Looks Back in Wonder, Voices o f the Civil Rights Experience 92 (2004)), and he is aware that use of the term “boy” has historically been a marker of discriminatory hostility. Rev. Lowery was one of the defendants in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), where he witnessed the trial judge repeatedly overrule objections to a white attorney’s continued and derogatory mispronunciation of the word “Negro.” 6. Mrs. Amelia Boynton Robinson, a courageous activist in Selma, was described by one historian as “a rock to whom the new freedom movement is anchored.” Howard Zinn, SNCC: The New Abolitionists 148 (2nd ed. 1965). Mrs. Boynton-Robinson's home was used by Dr. King and other leaders to plan the Selma to Montgomery marches. The first such march became known as Bloody Sunday, and Mrs. Boynton-Robinson was among those beaten on the bridge by baton-wielding state troopers. The Selma movement solidified passage of the A3 Voting Rights Act of 1965, and Mrs. Boynton-Robinson was one of President Johnson’s guests of honor when he signed that momentous legislation into law. 7. Hon. Solomon Seay, Jr., an eminent civil rights attorney who has litigated countless discrimination cases on every front in Alabama, encountered the racist use of the term “boy” at age eight. He saw his father repeatedly called “boy” by a white man, and he saw his father refuse to permit such treatment. Solomon S. Seay, Jr., Jim Crow and Me 6 (Delores Boyd ed. NewSouth Books 2008). He has written that his father’s “showdown” with the white man “empowered me and continues to guide my path as a civil rights lawyer.” Id. at 7. The racist remarks were similar to those made by Hatley, the Tyson Foods supervisor. Furthermore, as an attorney for Revs. Lowery and Shuttlesworth in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), Mr. Seay repeatedly objected to the insulting mispronunciation of the word “Negro,” a pronunciation that emphasized the sound “nig.” Overruling the objections of the African American attorneys, the trial judge reprimanded the objecting lawyers, implicitly finding it improper to draw parallels between the mispronunciation of “Negro” and the use of the word “nigger.” In truth, the mispronounced word was a slightly dressed up version of the word “nigger,” as was Hatley’s use of the term “boy” toward African-American employees. A4 8. Rev. Fred L. Shuttlesworth, a cofounder of SCLC with Dr. King, Rev. Lowery, and others, he led all manner of protests in Birmingham with seemingly complete disregard for his personal safety or survival, regularly receiving his share of racial slurs. See, e.g., Andrew M. Manis, A Fire You Can’t Put Out - The Civil Rights Life o f Birmingham’s Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth 75 (1999) (reporting a voter registrar’s instructions to Rev. Shuttlesworth, “Boy, I don’t think I want you to register right now; I want you to come back at a later time.”). Rev. Shuttlesworth was a co-defendant with Rev. Lowery, Dr. King, and others in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), where the defendants and their attorneys were insulted with racist language. But he was seldom dissuaded from taking action against even the longest odds. As one historian has written, “[W]ithout Fred Shuttlesworth the 1963 Birmingham protests could not have happened, and without those demonstrations Congress would have ended racial segregation ... later than it did.” Andrew M. Manis, A Fire You Can’t Put Out - The Civil Rights Life o f Birmingham’s Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth ix (1999); see also id. at 7 (quoting Dr. Wyatt Tee Walker to the same effect). 9. Rev. C.T. Vivian, Executive Staff of SCLC and lieutenant to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., had been a rider on the first “Freedom Bus” into Jackson, Mississippi, before working alongside Dr. King in Birmingham, Selma, Chicago, Nashville, the March on Washington, St. Augustine, FL, and elsewhere. Rev. A5 Vivian was the speaker at the mass meeting the night that Jimmy Lee Jackson was shot, and otherwise played a pivotal role in the Selma campaign. Rev. Vivian experienced white racists going out of their way to use “boy” to demean African Americans, and it was often used instead of the n-word. Civil rights leaders also understood the term “boy” to serve as a concealed yet intended threat, including because African Americans were expected not to respond in kind. 10. Dr. Wyatt Tee Walker, Chief of Staff for Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., became an early board member of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), later serving as its Executive Director from 1960 to 1964. He was the chief strategist and tactician for "Project C," the 1963 Birmingham Campaign, for which he developed the detailed plan for confrontation with local police and city officials. Dr. Walker ensured that the events captured important national media coverage, which helped harness support from the Kennedy administration for the Movement and its goals. Dr. Walker was aware of and witnessed distinguished civil rights leaders, including himself, being called “boy” as a means of racial insult, which he and others always resented. Dr. Walker was aware of the frequent usage of this term all across the South for discriminatory purposes. 11. Hon. Andrew Young, formerly Executive Director of SCLC and close advisor to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., was elected to Congress from the Fifth Congressional District of Georgia, was elected to two terms as Mayor of Atlanta, A6 and served as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. A continual presence and central figure of the Civil Rights Movement, he was instrumental in the Birmingham Campaign and working for passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. See Andrew Young, An Easy Burden: The Civil Rights Movement and the Transformation o f America (1996). A7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that, pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 29(e), the foregoing Motion was timely filed and that, in accordance with 11th Cir. R. 35-1, fifteen (15) paper copies were sent to the Office of the Clerk. I further certify that on October 16, 2010, two (2) true and correct paper copies of the same were served via Federal Express overnight delivery on the following individuals: Alicia K. Haynes Esq. Haynes & Haynes, P.C. 1600 Woodmere Drive Birmingham, Alabama 35226 P. (205) 879-0377 Fax: (205) 879-3572 Akhayne@mindspring.com Attorney fo r Plaintiffs Brian R. Bostick Peyton Lacy Jr. Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. One Federal Place 1819 5th Avenue North Suite 1000 Birmingham, Alabama 35203-2118 Phone: (205)328-1900 Fax: (205) 328-6000 brian.bostick@ogletreedeakins.com Attorneys fo r Defendants Debafy. Adegbile Counsel o f Record NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. 99 Hudson Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10013 (212) 965-2200 mailto:Akhayne@mindspring.com mailto:brian.bostick@ogletreedeakins.com