Cooper v. Morris Appellants' Appendix

    IN THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
NO. 71-2026

AMANDA COOPER, et al.f
Plaintiffs-Appellants, 
v .

PHILIP MORRIS, INC., et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court 
for the Western District of Kentucky 

Louisville Division

APPELLANTS' APPENDIX

JACK GREENBERG 
WILLIAM L. ROBINSON 

10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019

NEVILLE M. TUCKER 
3308 W. Broadway 
Louisville, Kentucky

Attorneys for Plaintiffs- 
Appellants



INDEX
Page

Docket Entries, filed December 14, 1971.....................  la
Complaint, filed May 5, 1970 ................................  5a
Answer of Tobacco Workers International Union, Local

No. 16, filed May 27, 1970 ..............................  H a
Answer of Philip Morris, Inc., filed May 27, 1970 ........  15a
Defendant Philip Morris' Motion to Dismiss, filed

February 11, 1 9 7 1 ......................................... 21a
Affidavit of Martin Roach, filed February 11, 1971 ........  23a
Letter from Judge Gordon to certain counsel, filed

June 17, 1 9 7 1 .............................................  3ga
Order Sustaining Defendants' Motion for Summary

Judgment, filed June 17, 1 9 7 1 ............................  41a
Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider Order of June 17th,

filed July 8, 1971......................................... 43a
Affidavit of Neville M. Tucker, filed July 30, 1971......... 45a
Affidavit of Charles A. Dixon, filed July 30, 1971 47a
Affidavit of Dorothy Beatty, filed July 30, 1971 ........... 49a
Affidavit of Robert E .  Moorman, filed July 30, 1971 ..........................  51a
Affidavit of Vera M. Pruitt, filed July 30, 1971 ........... 53a
Affidavit of Bernice Robinson, filed July 30, 1971 ......... 55a

^ Affidavit of Delores Clark, filed July 30, 1971 ............. 57a
Filing of Affidavit filed by Local 16, Tobacco 

Workers International Union, filed August 11,
1971........................................................  59a

Affidavit of Richard Hilliard, filed August 13, 1971 . . . .  61a
Defendant Philip Morris' Notice of Filing of

Affidavits, filed August 13, 1971 ........................  64a
Affidavit of Martin Roach, filed August 13, 1971 ........... 65a

l



Page
Affidavit of John Cox, filed August 13, 1971 ...............  69a
Summary Judgment, filed October 10, 1971 ...................  72a
Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, filed

October 13, 1971...........................................  73a
Kentucky Commission on Human Rights' Findings of 

Fact, Conclusions of Law, Order, filed
April 24, 1970.............................................  84a

Kentucky Commission on Human Rights' Order, filed
June 5, 1970...............................................  92a

- i i -



c
CIVIL DOCKET

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

p f! • • r',i r/'!' «■
j p wJury uen.slid'datd:

ymm
V-. ____

D. C. Form N’o. 10GA Rev.

T I T T .B  OJ* C A  Cm ATTORNEYS

For plaintiff: \£ X  ~  2  0  2  O

Neville M. Tucker 
3308 V/. Broadway St 
Louisville, Ky.

Darryl T. Owens 
1300 W. Broadway 
Louisville, Kentucky

Jack Greenberg
10 Columbus Circle, Suite 2030 
New York, New York 10019

AMANDA COOPER
1313 Pawtuckett 
Louisville, Kentucky

VERA PRUITT
3305 Algonquin Parkway 
Louisville, Kentucky

GWENDOLYN D. WILSON 
2327 Maple
Louisville, Kentucky

For P.M.
PHILLIP MORRIS, INC. {Edward F. Butler

1930 Maple (20 Exchange Place
Louisville, Kentucky (New York, N.Yi’ 10005

TOBACCO WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION 
LOCAL NO. x6

2001 Maple
Louisville, Kentucky

For defendant: Tobacco Workers Int. Union: 
Herbert L. Segal 
1010 Republic Bldg.
Louisville, Kentucky 1*0202

Philip Morris, Inc.:
John E. Tarrant and Martin Roach 
Bullitt, Dawson and Tarrant 
1700 Kentucky Home Life Bldg. 
Louisville, Ky. 1*0202

For EEOC: Susan Deller Ross
Equal Employment Opportunity Cc 
1800 G Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20506

STATISTICAL RECORD
NAME OR 

RECEIPT NO.

J.S. 5 mailed 6/70

J.S. 6 mailed

Basis of Action: Alleged racis 
discrimination

Action arose at: Lou. Ky.

Clerk

Marshal 

^Docket fee 

Witness fees 

Depositions

1970 
Kay 5 
I>!ay 5
1971 

fU-3 
5UL-3

Neville Tuck' 
Trees.

Seville Tucke: 
reas.

r 15 00

5 00

15

F  I L
DEC 14

JAMES A. h*D

E  D|
1971

,iNS, llltiK

00

00



o o

%!)!

V !T' r , < .

A
I •
uV » tu  <&ha

r.p
•Vf,/•A ■ j c

PROCEEDINGS

,5^*T”"Coniplftint filed; summons issued and delivered to U.S, Marshal.
r/8 | Return*f ilod by Marshall Phillip Morris, Ino., served 5/7/70. Tobacco Workers
^ ! International Union - Local No. 16 Gerved 5/7/70.
*27 ! Answer of Tobacco Workers International Union, Local No. 16, filed.

ANSWER of Philip Morris Inc. filed by Messrs Tarrant and Roach.

9
'1

Order for pre-trial conference on 1/7/71.

A

%

10

■̂///11

,J2/

Order signed by Judge Gordon on 1/7/71 pre-trial conf., setting COURT trial for 
Aug. 2, 1971, at 9=30 A.M. Parties agreed to raise threshold of issues, to be 
briefed fc submitted within 60 days; defts. will file such motions within 3 weeks, 
accompanied by memo., to which pit. would have 2 weeks to respond - deft, could 
reply within 10 days. Copies sent to: Messrs. Dan Schneider, Herbert L. Segal,
Martin Roach, John Steward, and Judge Neville Tucker.

Agreed Order signed by Judge Gordon, allowing defendants up to and including Feb 
to file said Motions and Briefs as set forth in pre-trial order on Jan. 7, 1971; 
allowing plaintiffs to March 9, 1971, to respond. Copies to: Judge Tucker, to.
Mr. Herbert L. Segal, and to. Darryl T. Owens.
Motions of defendant Tobacco Workers International Local No. 16, filed by counsel 
asking that Complaint be dismissed, together with Memorandum in support thereof 
Order tendered.

Volumes I through VI of Transcript of Testimony in Complaint No. 103-E, Carrie Lee 
Carr, Amanda Cooper, Verma M. Pruitt, and Gwendolyn D. Wilson vs. Philip Morris, Inc. 
et al. filed, together with set of 39 Exhibits to Transcript of Testimony.

Data Order or 
Judgment Noted

10, 1971,
and
Martin Roach,

10

>'
31
■12

Motion to dismiss filed by counsel for defendant Philip Morris, Inc. 
support thereof, and Affidavit of Martin Roach. Order tendered.

with Brief in

Amended Answer of defendant, Tobacco Workers International Union Local No. 16, 
filed by counsel.
Tendered order that the ptffs shall have up to and including Monday, March 29, 1^71 
to file motions and briefs to which defts shall have ten days to respond.

Agreed Order signed by Judge Gordon granting ptffs until 3/29/71 to file notion! 
and briefs to which defts shall have ten days to respond. Copies to Neville M,
Tucker, Herbert Segal and Martin Roach.
Ptffs opposition to deft's motion to dismiss filed.

/^.Motion filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for leave to file 
brief amicus curiae, for extension of time to file the briefjand to present 
oral argument of the EEOC. Order tendered.

Response to EEOC motion for leave to file brief amicus curiae with motion that 
Court order the right to file a reply brief to the brief of ptffs and the 
amicus curiae brief of the EEOC. Order tendered.

Motion by deft, Tobacco Workers Union states it hac not objection to the EEOC 
fl-'-g an Amicus Curino Brief and moves the Court to grant this deft, the right 
to file reply_brief_to the_brinf of ptffn and the Amicus Curia Brief of EEOC. Order tendered.

y



F IL .IN Q & — P n O C tE D IN Q 9

1971
CT30

5-3

5-5

5-5

5-5

5-7

5-19
5-25

6/17

Brie

Order signed by Judge Gordan granting extension of time 
its brief amicus curiae.

Order signed by Judge Gordon granting deft. Tobacco Wort 
the right to file a reply brief to the brief of ptff anc 
brief of the EEOC.

Order signed by Judge Gordon granting deft. Philip Morri 
a reply brief to the brief of ptffs and to the amicus ci 
Copies of these three orders to Messrs. Neville M. Tuckc 
Herbert L. Segal, Edward F. Butler, Darryl T. Owens and

to EEOC t > file

era Ii 
to thi

Brief of the EEOC in opposition to defts; motion to dismiss filed.

Answer filed by Tobacco Workers Int'l Union to Brief in .unicus EEUDC.
Reply Brief of Philip Morris, Inc.
SiGvxSjorftixxt™ in support of its Motion to Dismiss.
Order by Judge Gordon that motion of Philip Morris for

Incs
riae 
r, Ja< 
Susan

Am LOrder signed by Judge Gordon granting EEOC leave to file

Motion for further extension of time in which to file brief ajnicu 
May 5, 1971 filed by EEOC. Order tendered.

C L C R K 'S  FCC 3

D EftND AM T

cua C 

1 curi

nt'l
e ar

Union
licus

motion of Local 16 for summary judgment SUSTAINED to t: 
£xxii rights claims of pffs; motion of Local 16 for si 
to extent it relates to claim of pffs. of violation

ummary judgment 
xtent 
mmary 
f duty of

6/17

6/17 Letter from Judge Gordon to certain counsel filed of recji 
of Court.

iiror9&KjyrrirfrraTnrirrrrisrgtmTryirt?cryyi5hn3gyx«XxX m ipdffyxM xiao3Q5CCxMgk±BiEg x£nxxS ussau xyxstm gmx .k x ff ili

7/8

7/9

7/8

7-26

7-27

successful parties to prepare memo, opinion or findings of fact 
law and judgment, in conformity with these rulings, qopies to 1 
Tucker, Owens, Greenberg, Ross, Butler and Segal.

Order setting pretrial conference 7/9/71 at 1:30 p.m. Copies

ord px

pla
eoui

Order by Judge Gordon that pretrial conf. continued from 7/9/'
9:30 a.m. Copies to counsel.
Order by Judge Gordon that the order of 6/17/71 is set aside; 

granted until 7/26/71 to file such affidavits and axtran 
to the aforesaid motions of defts; Defts. are granted tc 
other affidavits & extraneous proof in suppxart of their ti otic 

to dismiss of defts. shall stand thereafter submitted as irjotic 
judgment. Copies to counsel 

Memorandum of authorities filed by plaintiffs; motion to recorside 
sustaining motions for summary judgment filed by plaintiffs; ord< 

Motion for extension of time to file proof in oppositio a to irotic

iriae

le tl'

A M O U N T  
R E P O R T I D  IN  
E M O L U M E N T  

R E T U R N S

L< 
curi

iqcal 16 
ae

t le rignt to file 
brie ' of the EEOC, 
.ok G ’eenbej*g,
D. toss.

it relate
judgment

dismiss action with Affidavit of counsel filed by pffs. 
ORDER signed by Judge Bratcher 7-27-71; Pffs. granted up
1971, to file affidavits and extraneous proof mentioned in Court's Order of
1971; Dfts. be, and they hereby are, granted up to and i lcluding August
1971, to file such other affidavits and extraneous proof 
aforesaid motions. Copies to counsel.

Ord

fair fepr 
and e 
Iessrs

to counsel.

r oral in^trurtions

tend.
to ard includin

oncl

1 urtil 8/

proof in

*fl

sus
to

filed.

CAIIED: 
civil 
ED
asentation; 
5 ions t'f 

Tabrant,

16/ '1 at

intiffs are

8/S/71 tc file such 
ns; and motions 
ns for summary

r ordejr of 6/17/ 
er tendered, 
n of afts

ix

oppaosi t io n

to

J>iy 29,

0- 2 ,

in suppxarit of their

July 9

71



T IL IN G S — P R O C E E D IN G S

71 Affidavits filed by Charles A. Dixon, Neville M. Tucker 
Vera M. Pruitt, Robert E. Moorman, Dorothy Beatty, 
Delores Clark, Bernice Robinson.
Filing of Affidavit filed by dft., Local l6, Tobacco 

i  Affidavit of Richard Hillard filed by Local l6, Tobacco 
Notice of Filing of Affidavits, Affidavit of Martin Hoac 
filed by dft., Philip Morris, Inc...

-71 '/\l 
-71 /
•71 •//,

7-71
-777

£-13-

V/o: •!

Order by Judge Gordon that motions of dfts. for summry judgment taken under— - --------------------------------- A OUUUll U .L  J  J  UU

and ruling on class action to be withheld until later date, 
Owens, Greenberg, Segal, Roach and Ross.
71 Notice-Motion filed by dfts., Philip Morris and Local] No.

71

71
71

77

/c,'e

C L E R K ’S FE ES

PLAINTIFF

kers 
Works |r 

and
Ii■s

Affl

d v i n d j w t

it. Un 
idavit

Summary Judgment by Judge Gordon that: Complaiit di 
" costs; and this is a final judgment, and there is no 

Copies to counsel, I '/ i
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law by Judge Go: 
Notice of Appeal filed by pffs. Copies to counsel

smis sed 
jfust

rdc n 10-13-7: . Copies

Copier to M1

3 6, Tjobaccq Wk 
Lawnational Union for filing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of ua.» m u  

Summary Judgment and Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and I ummar;

A M O U N T
r e p o r t e d  i n  
E M O L U M E N T  

R E T U R N S

Lon
of

and Sijunmafy Judgment 
Ju igraentltend.

vith prejudice 
r^asoii for c.elar of it

John S

submi: 
:. Tucl

Cox

sion
er,

3. Inter-

at Plaintiff's 
s entity.

to counsel.



IN THE
tiNlTED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

KOR THE
V7LSTRR5J DISTRICT 0? XENTOCRy •

AKKK:\\ COO'.'SK 
X 3 ?. 3 } ; ■ v i 1 c /.1:1 
D°ui: viJ.Ic, 5v'..l
VK % • •: ;U ITT
3.'0.) /,DjC'inju.t ~i ±v; R.Wc’.y
J.onic.vili f., k <.-»uc.ky
GWMMTiOI.'y;-; D. V.’V.'.SOV 
23/ 7 p.lc
I-owioviij. , Kcut-icky

CIVIL ACTIOS

► * ? 1; I i* i ,I ‘ .<  ̂ H  f <•1 * ,. o  J.V
*WWi' v k v m o :?:, J i ; a?jK

WAY 5 .. 1970

( l-1, A- fl'STRJd CONST 
Vv'“',iV'1 Ci,?:. r.irjruCKV

Pil ’O. r‘! V1
1930 ’R:p1.-
3>>n •‘-.ill

•'«/ l-'/i.

lit *,' i

C O M _P L A I N  T

(j; j'icc.r i’roScRt:)

I Of,I ' '■ A v, W M O N  -• LocrJ. ifli.6
■ou::ov.’ lie- XviT,'>„
(S;.-.-;vp D-̂ hi-r.t Officer Pxuncut)

/■ ?$

PLAINTI

DK?EN.DA1

U J L R



I

Jn\v ■ di.i-t.i on of. the Court As invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343 

(4) ; 42 v . r -  , C . t  2000o~5(A) and 2C U.S.C. h:i 2201 and. 2202. This is 

<• *■ i■ i ' in equity i tifho; i.zc-d and instituted pursuant to Tital VX1 oh 

th;: h e i of Congress known us 'The Civil Rights Act of 1964," 42 U.S.C 

ss 20u0-.- ct scq. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked to secure

protec;Aon of and to redress deprivation of rights secured by (a)

42 U.S.C, bk 2000c et scq., providing for injunctive and other relief 

against racial discrimination in employment and (b) 42 U.S.C. § 1961,

providing for the equal rights of all persons in every state and 

territory within the jurisdiction of the United States. Jurisdiction 

of this Court is also invoked pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§ 151 et seq.,
\

based on violations of the duty of fair representation owed to.plaint! 

nnc! the clans he represents.

II

Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf and on behalf 

of other persons similarly situated pursuant to Rule 23 (b) (2.) of 

the pederrl Rules of Civil Procedure. The class which plaintiffs

3. .'present i s. composed of Keg.ro persons who are employed, have been 

employed or might be employed by Phillip Morris, Inc at its Plants 

located in Louisville, Kentucky and who arc members, have been members 

or might become members of the Tobacco Workers International Union- 

local 16, who have been and continue to be or might be adversely a 

affected by the practices complained of herein. There are common 

qni sti.ons of law and fact affecting the rights of the members of this

class who 

against in
Lemp!oyment

-.re and continue to be limited, classified and discriminated 

v/ays which deprive and tend to deprive them of equal 

opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status

as employees because of race and color. The persons are so numerous

that joinder of all members is impracticable. A common relief is

sought. The interest, of said class are adequately represented by

’ pieint’i zf.r . Ji?fen^ants 'neve acted or refused to act on grounds 
\

f;; n f.i.y appl ''.cable to the class.
i?i i

i i

Le ^



w

K. .'* Vi .s . ( >

' ' 1 *>/.<>..< >.<.3«.y j.ox <.1 declaratory judgment cm the plaintiff

;:o.: a proliminary and permanent injunction, restraining 

aining a policy, practice, custom or usur.ge of: 

Ti'd z‘.nd other Negro persons in thi? 

'-‘•b r expect to compencation , terrrx, 

loywent and (b) limiting, segregating 

andante, Phillip Morris, Inc, who are 

ivcionnl Union ~ Local # 16 in ways whi

cl r> ii t 0 fro. a ran:• n h'l.i:;:i;:g a

(«' ) (I ft.i■ • < ■ j ’ ;i.r.n natin y derail•• ! Pi.
C: 3« 'i.r. }»' V1 r.0 of : cc or color

cor.cl A. 1* 5. <xis cuicl pr.vvilcye .6- of e,

D'O (.0 • - 5 S.y j 5k.] c.i ployco*- cf d.

T.iC.nhe?: <.-■ of 'fob. k .c o CO.’ Y.C’?:s fat.

cicpr j v pi a . •• A IT. cine', ot‘ho? Kr

cir.itDoy,.. •nt ex <7 c> L i 1 *:'■rv;ir.e a elver.*

hoc an r. of XX CO «'X :1 oo.l or’•

PARyT!

P .1 a 5 nt .1.2 7. h Z\J.C> each Negro

roc.3 .dent c 0f X<ou5x\'ille .in the

hr V e be' i) emp .Toyed by def c-nd ant

and are ir-m3>x\r 5n good stsndii

(A) D c fond an i;:, Phillip Kc

IV

ice or Kentucky. Plaintiffs are or 

it its plant in Louisville, Kentucky 

mcb.ng v.’ith the defendant union herein.

V •

s, Inc. is a Company doing business 

in the State of Kentucky and in the City of Louisville. The company 

opera t-.. u and maintains a. plant in the City of Louisville and is 
eng;.ted xu an industry affecting commerce and employs at least twenty- 

five (25) persons.

(/■) defendant. Tobacco Workers International Union - Local #16 

is a labor organisation within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000-e (d) 

and (e) in that Local #16 is engaged in an industry affecting commerce 

and exists, in whole or in part, for the purpose of dealing with the 

Company concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, 

hours, and other terms or conditions of employment of the employees of 

th' Company in and around the City of Louisville in the State of 

Kentucky. The defendant has at least twenty-five (25) members.

:?o-



A ?..1 m a t t e r r e g a r d i n g  ('(ra^en^a Lion, toxins, conditions and priv ' •

3: - o il.oy. .1 :.i.a of the plaintiffs and the class they represent
)>c at all tit 's material to this action, governed and control­

____ w-

led by v oll.eeLive bargaining agreements entered into between, the- 

tree,:; d fer.dant he rein and the Company' entered into between the local 

;::se the. Co-„y.;,:iy. Under and pursuant to the terras of the aforementioned 

< ton ; s , the defendants have established n promotional a n d . ?enior :'.ty

:,y ■ • the design, intent and purpose of which is to continue and

press:ve 

defender-;

rd which has the* effect 

' policy, practice, cus

of continuing and preserving the

c'vn and usage of limiting the employ-*

and ps'oraof i c . 1 eppe-r 

l-eciui.- r- of race, or color.

i.ty of Negro employees of the Company

v;cx
0‘hc effect, purpose and intent of the agreements executed by 

the Company a.r-.d Local #16 and nov in effect has been and continue to 

be to limit, segregate, classify and dir criminate against Negro v.-orh. 

at Phi H i p  Morris, Ine. in ways which jeopardize the jobs of and tend 

to dc-pr-i'. -. the r.aid Negro workers of employment opportunities, and 

otherwise- adversely affect their status as employees because of their

race and color.

vi n:
(/':.) Neither the defendant Company nor the labor union has made 

any effort or attempt to correct, modify or disavow the policy, 

practice, design or purpose perpetuated in the discriminatory collect­

ive bargaining agreements entered into by the defendants Company 

and. the* defendant union.

(d) All of the practices herein alleged are continuing up to 

the present time. The way in which the lines* of progression and 

methods of hiring arc- presently structured is intended to discriminate, 

and has the effect of discriminating against plaintiffs and the 

class the represent.

r;n



I

V-/ V y
i x

Plainiif is and the cl??s they represent are qualified for pro

‘:"'1 jC': ^iailixuy '•'hxch could load to hiring and promotions 
placement and retention in employment on the same basis a; such
opportunri: 5.or. f»rc provided

On_

occurrence of. the acts o.T v

written eh 1 -• 9 C  i '•He oy. or. t*

Commission a 1leg5 v,g denial

_* within ninety (90) days of the 

••h they complain, plaintiffs names fil, 

n, with m e  Equal Employment Opportunity 

defendants of plaintiffs1 rights unde; 

'J’ttjc VII of the "Civil Rights Act of 1964," 42 U.S.C. II 2000a et

On o.. about 1 25, 1970 plaintiffs were advised that defendant

compliance with *5tic. VII had not been accomplished within the'period 

allowed to the Commission by Title VII and that they were entitled to 

institute a civil ac ion in the appropriate Federal District Court 

within thirty (30) days of receipt of said letters.

Count II «.

XI

' PAIR RBRKKSKNTATXOls? COUNT

Plaintiffs do hereby incorporate and adopt by reference all of 

the allegations set forth in Paragraph I through X of Count I of this 

‘Complaint,

XII

At a -u  tlwes material herein Local #16 has been the certified 

recognized representative under the National Labor Relations Act of 

the plaintiffs and the class they represent and, as such, has the 

duty, under the National Labor Relations Act, to act impartially and ' ‘ 

fairly represent the interests of plaintiffs and the class they 
represent.

XIII

Defendant., Local #16, has violated and continue to violate its 

duly of fair representation imposed on them by the National Labor 

Re!;' lei: in that they have acquiesced and/or joined in the



O i  i  ; l  .• C O i f i ; J C lS i \  1 . Oii\ !j\\ j . d  d  '• I » ( : j  Ii' ;i !' O T V  \ ,c , 1 •! <■• ;i »- c; a  v; n  '  •>'; <• a r *r • 5  f

Ct..n;..>»y has knowingly participated in or acquiesced in saicl violation 

of < be duty Oi fair representation.

XIV

VJ ini:' f is and the class they represent have.no plain, adequate 

or complete remedy at lav; to redress the wrongs alleged herein and 

this suit tor a prelirainary and permanent injunction is their only 
means of se.curiny adequate relief. Plaintiffs and the class they 

represent are now suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable 

injury from the defendants' policies, practices customs and usages 

as set forth herein.

V?HKREroi:E, plaintiffs respectfully prays this Court to advance 

this, case on the docket, order a speedy hearing at the earliest 

practicable date, cause this case to be in every way expedited and

upon such hearing to:

1. Grant plain tiffs and the class they represent a preliminary 

and permanent injunction enjoining the defendants their agents, 

successors, employees, attorneys and those acting in concert with 

them and at their direction from continuing to abridge the rights 

of plaintiffs.

2 . Grant plaintiffs and the class they represent requiring 

defendants to make whole, by appropriate back-pay and otherwise all 

such individuals who have been adversely affected by the practices 

and the policies herein complained of.

3. ' Grant to the plaintiffs' attorneys fees and all other relief

1.300 West "roadway 
T.nn i 1 •- ’»

/ o ^



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE

WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY 
AT LOUISVILLE

Civil Action No. 6599

AMANDA COOPER 
VERA PRUITT
GWENDOLYN D. WILSON PLAINTIFFS

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

PHILIP MORRIS, INC. 
and

TOBACCO WORKERS INTERNATIONAL
UNION - LOCAL NO. 16 DEFENDANTS

Comes the Defendant, Tobacco Workers International 

Union, Local No. 16, and for its answer to the complaint 

states the following:

1. The complaint does not allege sufficient 

facts to constitute a cause of action.

2. The Court does not have jurisdiction 

of the subject matter of the complaint in that, among 

other reasons, this matter has been previously adjudicated 

by the Kentucky Commission On Human Rights who rendered a 

decision involving the same complainants and the class they 

purport to represent and the Defendant, Philip Morris, Inc. 

(hereinafter referred to as Defendant Company) and Tobacco 

Workers International Union, Local 16 (hereinafter referred 

to as Defendant Local) and that said decision constitutes

t' V / V  s / ^ / 7 b

i l



res judicata.

3. Further this action is barred by the 

applicable Statute of Limitations for the time of bringing 

such actions.

For its further answer to Count I of the complaint 

Defendant Local Union states the following:

1. Denies Paragraphs I, II, III

Denies Paragraph VI, except that the 

Defendant Union and the Company have entered into collective 

bargaining agreements as had another local union, Local 

Union 72 of the Tobacco Workers Union.

Denies Paragraphs VII, VIII (A) and (3) 

Denies Paragraphs VIIII, X-except the 

second literary paragraph thereof to which Defendant Local 

answers it does not have sufficient knowledge to plead 

thereto.

Admit Paragraph IV-except that Defendant 

Local does not know the residence of the Plaintiff 

Admit Paragraph V (A)and (B)

Admit Paragraph VI 

Denies Paragraph XIII, XIV

For its answer to Count II of the complaint Defendant 

Local 16 states:

For its further answer to Article XII 

Defendant Local 16 states it has been certified and has 

acted impartially and fairly in representing the interests 

of all its members, any other inference or conclusion set 

forth in XII is denied.

- 2-  

/£ O s



Since Article XI is merely an incorporation 

by rererencc, Defendant Local by reference incorporates its 

previous answers to the respective paragraphs I through X 

of Count I.

For its further answer to Count II, Defendant

Local states that the National Labor Relations Board has

exclusive jurisdiction of the subject matter of Count II.
to Count I and Count II 

For its further answer/Defendant Local 16

states that Plaintiffs have failed to exhaust or attempt

to exhaust their remedies under the collective bargaining

agreement, if any they are entitled to.

WHEREBY Defendant Local 16 prays that the complaint

be dismissed, for its costs herein expended, and for all

other relief for which it may appear entitled.

Respectfully submitted:

Herbert L. Segal 
Attorney for Tobacco Workers 
International Union, Local 16 
Tenth Floor-Republic Bldg. 
Louisville, Kentucky 40202

-3 -



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify thnt. a true and correct copy of
1 ho foregoing Answer to Complaint was this ______ day of
M a y , 1970 mailed to Mr. Neville M. Tucker, Attorney at 
Law, 3308 W. Broadway, Louisville, Kentucky; Mr. Darryl T. 
Owens, Attorney at Law, 1300 W. Broadway, Louisville, 
Kentucky.

Herbert L. Segal '



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCET 

LOUISVILLE DIVISION

AMANDA COOPER, at al.,
m i r n m ,

V. Civil Action No. 6599

PHILIP MORRIS INCORPORATED, at al., 
DEFENDANTS.

* h s u o i. or.IHILIP

Defendant, Philip Morris Incorporated (Philip 
Morris), sued herein aa "Phillip Morris, Inc.," for Its
Ai s' or to the Complaint, states aa follows:

FIRST DEFENSE

The Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject 
natter of th’S action.

SECOND DEFENSE

The Complaint falls to atata (a) facts sufficient 
to form a claim, or (b) a claim upon which relief cao be granted.

THIRD DEFENSE

As to the allegations contained In paragraphs I

/S'.o
!/ u u / '



through X of Count I of th« Complaint, Philip Morrla:
1. denies the allegations of Paragraph* I and

II of the Complaint;
2. is without knowladga or information sufficient

to form a belief as to tha truth of tha allagatlona of paragraph
III of tha Complaint, except it danlaa past or prasant dis- 
crimlnation, limitation, segregation or classification against 
or ox Plaintiffs or any othar parsons in tha employ of Philip 
Morris because of race, color, religion, sax or natiooal origin;

3. is without knowladga or Information sufficient 
to form a belief as to tha truth of tha allagatlona of para­
graph IT of tha Complaint, axcapt it admits that aa of tha 
date hereof Plaintiffs are employed by Philip Morrla at its 
Louisvil e plant;

U. admits tha allagatlona of paragraph V of tha 
Complaint; and states that in addition to lta plant facilities 
at l??0 Maple Street In Loulaville, it alao operates a Greenleaf 
Stounery and lot true Ion Plant at Millars Lana;

5. denies the allagatlona of paragraph VI of tha 
Cmplaint, except it admits that the compensation, terms, 
conditions and privileges of employment of hourly production 
employees of Philip Morrla who are also uetibars of Local No.
I , Tobacco Workers International Union AFL-C10 (Local 16),
Are governed and controlled by collective bargaining agreements 
between Philip Morrla and Local 16;

6. denies the allegations of paragraphs VII and 
VIII of tha Complaint;

7. is without knowladga or information sufficient 
to form a belief as to tha truth of tha allagatlona of para­
graphs IX and X of tha Complaint.

-2-



rOWTH DEFOIg

A* to the allegation* contained In paragraph* XI 
through XIV of Count II of the Coeplelnt, Philip Morrle;

1. repeat*, reiterate* end incorporate* by reference 
as though fully copied herein each and every anever contained
in it* Third Defence by way of anawer to paragraph XI of the 
Complaint,

2. i* without kn<wledge or information sufficient
to form a belief aa to the truth of the allegations of paragraph
XII of the Complaint;

3. denies the allegations of paragraphs XIII end
XTV of the Complaint.

FIFTH PKTSME

The subject natter of this action m b  fully prosecuted 
end tried before the Kentucky Cowateeton on Human Rights in 
1969-73 in a proceeding *tyled "Coeplalnts Ho. 193-E, Carrie 
Lee Carr, Amanda Cooper, Vere M. Pruitt and Oweodolyn D.VMlaon, 
Contp!alnanta, v. Philip Morri* Incorporated and Local Ho. 16, 
Tobacco Worker* International Unloe, Raapondenta". The cauaea 
of action alleged by Plaintiff* in thla action are Identical 
to thoe* alleged, ttfed and fully adjudicated by the Kentucky 
Comal asIon on Huaan Rights In such proceeding. A true copy 
of the Flndings of Fact, Concluaiooa of Law and Order (Order) 
entered there!n by said Conolsson on April 23, 1973, ia attached 
hereto aa a part hereof marked Exhibit A.

-3- O ol,



Hon* of the parties to said proceedlag have
perfected chair right of appeal tberefron to cha Court* of 
tha Cnaeo wealth of Kentuoky, and said (Mar baaaaa final 
oa Monday, Hny S3, 1970. Philip ferric haa aeaesaaad carrying 
out tha tana of that Order, and tha Plaintiff* ara aatoppad 
or barred fron proaaeuting thla actLao by tha daatrlaaa of 
ra* judicata and alaatlon of raaadlaa.

i g n u a g H t t

Jurisdiction of tha aubjact aattar of this action 
having boon assarted by tha Kentucky Co*salaalan oo Hunan Rights 
and tha causes of cation allagad haraln by Plaintiffs having 
bean fully adjudicated by said Casailaalaa, th s Court should 
stay Its hand and rafusa te asaart juriddiotlon haraln.

g g y m n i  w u p

Tha avaata constituting tha allagad discrimination 
against Plaintiffs basausa of race or color occurred, If at 
all, prior to tha affaatlva data of tha federal Civil Rights 
Act of 1964, and this Court haa no Jurisdiction under that 
Act to attoapt to raaedy tha present consequences, If any, 
of such past dlscrlalnatlon.

z & B U w m

This aatloa Is barred by tha failure of the Plaintiffs 
to file aana within tha tine period praoarlbod by tha applicable 
federal and Kentucky statutes af llettattoo*.

H D C T H D E r e r a

Tha standards of coepaooaelon and tha tana,
«4» / l



condition* and privilege* of « p U ] W a t  ifflltd by Philip 
Norris ars dons an pursuant t» kssa (Ids saslarlty ays tans 
negotiated in good faith by 1* for par— neat and saaaaoal 
eaployeas par faming dl If a m  at fussties* is different lastleae, 
and if ehara ara dlffaroaaaa la soah standards, tarns, aoadltlana 
or privilege# as between os anoag Plaintiffs and othar anployaos 
af Philip Norris, suah dtffaranaaa a m  net tha moult of any 
intention on tha part of Philip Harris to dlserlsisfce haaauaa 
of rasa, color, raliglaa, eas as national arlgla.

wanXPOKS, Defendant, Philip Harris Inaorpacatad, 
praya that tha Ooaplalat harain ha diaadsaad; that It raaarar 
its costa herein; and that It ba aunsdad soah othar rallaf aa 
tsay ba equitable and proper.

a m o r , b e v i t t , o ' l a z n  &  b o a x s w u i

1Sward #. l u t W

l e a n :  im s s --------------------
SO ifrahanga PlanaNew Task, Nan Task 10009

Mtxnr, BdVtOM 0 TAUUUR

I g o g t ---------

Martin kaaah1700 Keatuehy Nam Lila Buildlag 
Loularilie, Kentucky 402OS
Oounaal fas Philip Morrla Insorparatad

I certify that aoplaa of tha foregoing Aaauas 
and Exhibit attached hereto warn sailed, postage prepaid, to
Neville M. Tucker, Esq., 3308 V. Broadway and Darryl T. Owens, Esq.,

j- >



1300 W. Broadway, Counaal for Plaintiffs; aad to larbert L. 
Segali Ssq. Republic Building, all of Lmlavllla, Kaocueky, 
this May 27, 1970.



r;:p\:;D states d is tr ic t  codrt -

V.T. STERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY 

LOUISVILLE DIVISION

AMANDA COOPER, et al,

Plaintiff,

V. Civil Action No. 6599

PHILIP MORRIS INCORPORATED,. et al, 

Defendants.

MOTION TO DISMISS

Defendant, Philip Morris Incorporated (Philip

Morris), moves Lhc Court to

(aj) dismiss this action against Philip Morris 

on the grounds that the Court lacks jurisdiction of the subject 

matter; the identical issues raised and relief sought herein 

against Philip Morris were fully adjudicated in prior state 

litigation corr.r.rnced by Plaintiffs for and on behalf of themselves 

and the class they purport to represent herein; and the state 

having taken jurisdiction and adjudicated this action, this 

Court should exercise its judicial discretion and decline to 

assort jar indict >n herein-

. ; ; , ...... •••:!•.: ••:•••• -:.s such • forth,..

relief as may so a to be just and proper.

)< 0/1 Q / h / H
;Ai/£



hero; 
its }

and E. 
Brief
uron < 
Tucket 
Owens, 
Berber 
this I

■ In support of this Motion Philip Morris files 

.1 th Lift AfJ.idjv.’t of Counsel and Exhibits thereto and 

>r ref of Authorities.

COMBOY, HEWITT, O/BRIEN & BOARDMAN

______
Edward F. Butler, Esq.
20 Exchange Place 
New York, New York

TARPavNT, GOlPJS^JApa/ELL & ^ULEITT 

1700 KeiVtucky Hone Life Buildinj
Louisville, Kentucky 40202

Tiding

CERTIFICATE

- I  cer*:if>' that the foregoing Motion and Affidavit 
■ S  -  ” -  than £xhibits 111 IX thereto, and

l.L° ^ erein.were s e r w d  by mail, postage prepaid,
- VHV-t v ' \ n  D ',UtlC!S’ co“wlt: Honorable Neville M.

J Brcacway, Louisville, Kentucky; Darryl T.
Esq l a w  West Broadway, Louisville, Kentucky; a n d ’ 

•ebrunS8 in ’ RePublic building, k u i s v i l l e , K e n t u c k y ,
^  J  A. V / J. •

..9.



II,-fi 'll) STATES DISTRICT COURT 

UFS'M"<N DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY 

I/)|i j DIVISION

I > COOPER , et al ,

ni .r!r'tiffs ,

Civil Action No. 6599

HILll KOi'oiio -

Defendants.

a f f i d a v i t  o f  m a r t i n  r o a c h

Affiant. Martin Roach,being duly sworn,

1 . r *-ur, pf q CoV:l‘L cLHd1 . Fe is a r.exoer «*» «**• -

,r - ... .pt rnmhs, Blackwell & r.ullitt, which is
t h e  T ’.L a i  O i- i U M  ^ J

asssoeiated with F.Jwart1 F. Butler, Esq., ana the firm or

r .„ . , <■ n.n_ ^ , n ?o Fnchanae Place, Newron’-riv H'-witt, u B r . c n  & ,,ua.„..-n, -u

i course! for Philip Mo; n s  Inccrpor «. 

.,-vi *.uis action and in that certain proceed: 

101-E, Carrie lee Carr

.... i :t al, before the Kentucky Commission

;1--, F

itji.ian i .■ j J • r ) .

„ . , hnrmichlv fam.il i,' r with the pleading'Ho i.s Luol u o * j  x-

that rate nr-.coedin.H r and with the pleadings, issues ann

1 M  sl
t/JL*

$ 3 ^



I , i .
'i , . : • . , <: trrfo Loo Can;,

■ ’ ■ ■ ' . : ' .1 • '. • ! V'l ■ ! . . ■’) U t t ( (till’ la!:,

■ !. , iili • n ; ■ racial <li sc i imin. uitm

’969, J rh the ‘s si r.rt against Philip Morris 

■c l No, I1' T- > h i  ’.'orkei :• International Union 

os ,,r charges iilc.d with the Corom-

•: i hereto as a pert hereof marked Exhibit la,

b, and d.

A. On or about "ebrunry 10, 1969, Plaintiffs filed 

charges of racial, discrimination dated January 22, 1969, with 

the Equal Employ, ant Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against 

Philip m o m s  ana Local 16. True copies of those charges filed 

with the Commission are attached hereto as a part hereof'marked 

Exhibit Ila, b, c and d.

5.
iCSOC

The charges filed with the Commission and the 

sr.i.rj allegation of racial discrimination, to-wit:

"I am being discriminated against with 
respect to compensation and transfer and pro­
motion opportunities because of my race. The 
collective bargainirg agreement between Philip 
Morris Incorporated and Local Union No. 16, 
Tobacco Workers International, is discriminator'' 
against me as a Negro because it contains pro­
visions tunerimposed on departmental structures 
organized on a racially segregated basis."

6 .
issued notice

After investigation by its staff, the Commission 

on April 23, 1969 that a hearing cn the charges

filed with it would be held and advised Phil. W) Morris and Local 1C
o> tl.ci.' rights to file answers thereto. Anrvers were filed by

oral depositions; and a public hearing was h-ld by the Cormn-

on September 9, 10, 23, 26 and October 1969.

- 2-



----- — yv---A(r -1-fwt-lH'arin;;, t he case for the chargi ng

p-vrrit '- cis pre:;i■ n ! i*ii n 11*» urgued l-i/ counsel for the Cor; : '.Ion 

•.(.•in, os C. Hi duty, E:;<|., and by counsel for Plaintiff- in 

this action, Judge Kcvil i Tucker and Darryl T. Owens, Esq.; 

fifteen witnesses (including Plaintiffs in this action) testified; 

sore 39 exhibits were introduced into evidence; six days were ; 

tonsured in trial; and the transcript, recorded by an official 

court u:l:cr, exceeded 1,300 pages of testimony and argument.

True, copies of the six volutes of testimony transcribed and of 

the exhibits introduced into evidence are attached hereto as 

parts hereof marked Exhibits ill, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII and IX.

The originals of the six volumes of transcribed testimony 

(Transcript) and of said Exhibits are on file at the Commission's 

irankfo-1, Kentucky office and available for examination .by all 

parties without cost. The copies filed herewith (Exhibits III 

through IX) arc: the only copies in this Affiant's possession, 

and because of theit availability for inspection in Frankfort and 

in this Court and the duplicity, voluminous task and costliness 

in time and money that would be involved, Affiant has not. made 

copies thereof for counsel in this action.

8. The theory of the case presented by the Commission 

staff during the six day trial was that (a) only Negroes were hired 

for seasonal employment at Philip Morris between 1952 and October 

■TO, 1961; (b) if they sought to transfer to permanent or year-round 

c--.ployir.fiif. they wax-*, subject to the transfer' date seniority pro- 

vision of the lahoi- agreement which provides that when a seasonal

-3-

0 ^  Os



fsf-niori ty date on the perii.iiu.nl. raster is his transfer date; 

art ! (c) this group suffer.', the consequences of past diner i.mI: a l 

by the application of this provision because they were employed 

at a tirre when the seasonal work force was racially segregated.

1 no Commission staff argued that this group of Negroes be given 

seniority adjustfronts; job transfer opportunities; and money 

damages in the form of backpay awards. Counsel for Plaintiffs 

practised trie case on the same theory and sought the same relief 

as uid the Co!..,m.ssion staff, except that counsel sought to con­

vince the Commission the cut-off date for the: group involved was 

not October 10, 1961, but January 13, 1964.

9. After all parties had submitted briefs, the 

Commission entered rts Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and 

Order on April 23, 1970. A true copy thereof is attached hereto 

as a part hereof marked Exhibit X.

10. Said Findings provided inter alia that the 

class of Negroes involved consisted of 133 persons - the four 

charging parties plus all other Negro employees of Philip 

Morris hired between May 1952 and October 10, 1961; since 1961 

Philip Morris her; endeavored to accord the same 'treatment to 

nil its employees regardless of race, religion or national 

origin; and the proof introduced did not determine with any 

certainty financial loss to the class of 153.

11. Said Conclusions provided inter alia that the 

; ! a1 e proccrd’ng w s  a proper class action and the claims of

"... O; s typical oi: l .0. class an., said

parties fairly and adequately represent and protect the interest

-4 -



; i , i e . ; 1 h i::. (! * ( '■ -It » i • I ; •. ’i' !.ion under he

1 * . ' ’ 1 1. ; . • .c 1 ■' ; rha t t ’■o seniority vys;cm

o'. i:i i i * • ' r . 1 • < w !• (.lass of 151

V.*'\ / ; jhired pr: : •: Oct. '.. r 1 0, j ‘ > -rsonal and individual

dear • os to jo- ■• itce.s d other factors made

any It O""’. to lit’ .V ir i-.rjs , i.f any, sustained by the class

hi':1 • r •• !.«; ’ •’ \ * ••••• and .i:ty at less■t to asc.ertain damages would be

purr: <- *; • > j OC fclli 0 .

12. Said Order provided inter alia that Philip Morris 

and Local 16 were to cease a'nu desisL from the unlawful employment 

practices described in said Findings and Conclusions; and that the 

class of 153 was to have their competitive seniority dates adjusted 

an specified therein and the 29 seasonal employees of that class 

were to be given opportune ty to transfer to the permanent work 

force. No damages nor attorney's fees for counsel for the charging 

parties were awarded.

13. No appeal by any of the parties to the state pro­

ceeding was taken from said Findings, Conclusions and Order which 

became final on Kay 24, 1970.

14. On or about June 8, 1970, the Commission requested 

Philip Morris to furnish it proof of compliance with the April 23. 

1970 Order, including a copy of current seniority lists identifying 

those persons whose seniority was adjusted j :\ accordance with

3 a id Order, and an uMplusintion of v.iiat slops were taken with, 

respect to ir.ipl.emeu* ing opportunities for t ainsfer from the

-5 -



] .*). Ori or about: July 9, 1970, Philip Morris 

r.tl-- • >'••<} (.<■• •••! m i  on that a] J portions of the April 23,

J9A> Order '.-.ore complied with. A true copy of the letter 

of Philip Morris to the* Commission is attached hereto as 

a part hereof marked Exhibit XI.

16. On or before April 23, 1970 the Plaintiffs

i.equ..*sted the EEOC to issue a 30 day letter pursuant to its 

ruin': and regulations which advised them of their rights to 

institute a civil action in the Federal District Court concerning 

the charges (Exhibits Ha, S and c) that they filed with the 

EEOC. Such letters were sent: to the Plaintiffs by the EEOC 

on April 24, 1970 and a true copy of the EEOC letter advising 

Philip Morris of the issuance of those letters is attached 

hereto as a part hereof marked Exhik-'*- VTT

On tnis lebruary 10, 1971, there appeared before me 
in t:ho Commonwealth and County aforesaid Martin Reach, persona 
known to me, who produced therein the foregoing affidavit; 
executed it in my presence; and acknowledged his execution 
thereof to be his free and voluntary act and deed and who did 
further acknowledge the statement, contained therein to be true

Martin Roach

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY ) 

COUNTY OF JEFFERSON )

My commission expires: Notary Public, .State a; targe, Kv.
i , : y dCTi.ci a.'j;. crpuea opr. l i f ly R i

Notary Pub piary Pub;: fan.

-6 -

t



boirrf on rO , •., t <*l *rl| )i JO, < » »■ • !, It f.r 1 III)

■ f  1 ••••• ' * on i

' • • ’ r
‘ *■ ’ i • . : . ,1.;. * ■

v V -• V : l

Ph oN t NUMShP

l t , \  f * . . ■■ l/ -  ■
. . . .  ........ . . ........ .............. _C35r..2.?gf>_______

l f  • •
• r- i ’ S i'*.»f?t

. ............

i S’ -' l f  ZIP CODE

.i.................L e v  : ■ * K«?r. V i ( 1. >/ 4 0 ? m

1 v.-.'S : ■:: z r .  ■. 
i ' 1 ‘ ~ « ■ - •- ‘ • V. C • . (p.»;UU '•* cK one)

J F 1 . n  □ :
a'ic^ol

| Vs.-jo '.’ I'ftfit ‘ ino'ed i  ̂ you * Give the nerve ciJ
<*' ;••••*: " f public oerre

HJr*?ss of ihn employe*-, tabor organi23ticn< e^ployncn? a |  
.--t, i or s' fmcc, Iftmore than one, list ell.

• . ? ‘H L i
i

-i l t  i : : c . 1

■ i i r r r - f  !'.-n:'Ess. 1930 W :-U - S 1*312;? |
1 CITY I/LUToVI!

...............STATE........  71P e n n F ^0210

,  , , , „ ryl T o b a c c o  W o rk e rs  1: t e r r .n t i o n a l  U n ic n , A .F . L .  C . I . C .

l o c a l  U r ic : :  " t - GOG? y,?.ple S t r e e t l o n i s v l l l e ,  K y .

H ow  yoy ••’ ?’! O C?‘
r r _E:^ A “ 3’ " v  y V l  “■ Y V / .'1- " 1': * ' m:° !  , « r : »  y ’ .. y « »  □  No

! .> :♦ *eceit «  T •»' = nf Oov C o n t lr .n tn . j

h  - •' 1 >«*'>< •’ o- occ..-cd : M e h ----------------------- -- - Btey------------------------------Year. .

L  .: v. :jf.. t :,n9 w0i dene fo you.

______ I  a a  b e i p 3 d io c r i : i l r ' . c t e d  a ^ o in s t th  r e s p e c t  t o  cc rr.p en sa ti.cn  a r.i

t r a n s f e r  ar.d ; ~CY.otJ.cn o p ; r o t u r i t i e s
’  ............. 1

i e c c u s e  o f  my r a c e .  Th e c o l l e c t i v e

............................  1

i
r t  r ^ t v -  ,r> r-v-fi'tv.* * *•-1 5, r i s  I n c o r j c r a t e d  s_c:! L o c a l  U n ion

1 i  * .  T o b a c c o  'f o r k o r s  T ’ •„r>r-’ ' i t i c r

. . _______________ V  . . ■ - -

» i s  d is c rJ L r .is so io r j*  a ; i i r . s t  r s  as

L —  — v _ r  c o r iS iil:i3  p r e t i s i o : . s - i-o r im p o s e d  cn  ( i e p a r t m e n t c l

o t  t v  :-.-3 o r t~
. n n ir e - i cn a  r a c i a l l y  ce

0 .c.i'-.ci - ie r r  o f o 'por if you no.-d fret* ro.'.r

I ,,

™ A0T RFAD 1,;r Ail--r charge AND THAI -T rs TRUE to the best of « y KNC

. . C f l ’. J t C J - ' C :  C ‘............
, i Tth'»t Of- COMPt AIM/MI)

•! I,rfc„ ..., V..... I? / ?  a.-.......A 'J ' . I U U . :  * . Konl.

on... V / p  j // t>

('<0 f A •' , 1*1 f,| ,i .)
I



CU.VI.Ami Or DljCRI.V.INAiION
bosril on r i ' .r t color, religion, or nofionol origin

A'All. vV;
T' ‘ ; K '-n ti.f i y ( . i l ' .  . T c -  !{ . :  on R irjfitk

Cor . - Ir'i oi l[. ..1: . . y
17? O  : ! / - -vx • • •
FranMmf, t mi'icV / !; i

YO’JR m w i

•? I -'HI
i
I cur

lo /c c tf  or r.l cr t/pi*)

A r .n r sIn Cry : ?r

1313

lyj'.’: /!" • *
ST A T E

KY.

PHONE N j ; .

7 7S- 8916

ZIP CODP

1 { fir - I" :a TO -. 1 : tAUSE
‘ ' I r-,1 .

••0:0 * ooc)

U  □  r ; r '
C?i SCi. t- J (-gains! ye

rppr^n ? k < *:sJr* com m ittee, or

NAME P ::T * .T ;• v c j w i s  i :

GTPEfT' A D D t1:: .s  . . .1 2 3 0  ’ -

C IT Y . . I C U I .G 7 .T X L 5 .

AND 1C!her f.r. liet if c r y )___

. 1/ : 1 Y r s lr j :• l * o , . I f

lie nome cod a c t re s s  of the em ployer, labor organ ization , employment cg ency , 
Jol liC occom m oicricn  or s e rv ic e . If more than one, l is t  o il.

STATE__K?,_ ZIP CODeJlOZLQ__

Icuisville. Ky.
4 !'cvf? you tilu l tj complaint •v*‘i or»v ô ’C-rgDvvrnr-.entol ĉ-r.cy0 2̂ Yci [J] NoWh i ch Cr.e ...I I'.'JAL j: 3.1mii.cn.:: • ytC_.' j ... iyN

r T'tf ortcol dote or The moo rocffr.t c*cto Time cf Cay Conti:
u on Vshtch t'iis discrirrir. ;?;• Mon'h.... . .. _______ Day------------ Year_____

C• f--• • n W rj?  t’.'fo i'r th in g  *s ~ j  0 to  yo*J:

---_ Ira being di.s;rl;.\l:-.3ted against vith.resi-jct to.compensation and
. t ra n s lo r  f-r.d prc o tiu n  o tp o rt-Ja itie c  because of ny rr.cn. The c o l l e c t i v e  

_ ca iT r-'in iT .a g re em en t > ttve en  P h i l ip  M orris In co rp o ra ted  ar.d L o c a l Union 

Uo. J>?, Jobacco ’<■ ori-.err. 'in te r n a t io n a l, i s  d isc rim in a to ry  a g a in s t  r.e as 

o .it’C 'o  t..-cause i t  contains p ro vis io n s sujt:ri.T.jooed on departm ental 

stru ctu re s organized on n r a c i a l l y  segregate! b a s is .

(A ttach  anothe. p iece o1 paper if  you need ir-ve  roc"'! 

Or ,- ,i||P M  THAT I (IA-. ; PC AO iiiE A EO V f CHANGE AND 111 At IT IS TRUE JO T ill: CESf O f AW KNO V
| I t .1 (:■ - .vU IC N  AND ' . l i f t

(S K̂ M A f URL Of IN AN U

.h e r! tr .r l s w o rn -to  h - f o r e  me t h is  s ^ 1?  - la y  o f . . , / '  '  c \ ____19 A? 0 » '6? “  ‘J '  • •' L5  _ K ...

;nrr% on.
3 S * v



t

r»*Mji iji

vr? : r

jT r.< /

I I n r /

'pf*.. I

. O^':» • 
737 C > 
I/ml nv

. -t

-I

»th St.

'•;̂ r

phone n u m . :
____775- 6127___

""iiMpt- ~

t 1! t i V'/ S i,.; I it ;..

iz i ? l r .

(p ,;̂c. I
!!*’ig»on | | Nolionol

N/ho 6i , . r .  1 in e j  a ̂  ̂  ir, .r > ov 7 C iv ?  the r end address of the em ployer, lobor orgonixation employment agency 
o p p ic iH ce- i ! .p  co-n-Tiltce. or p!-jc» o ' putN c orr.,-,-r,oJc>i-n or s - r v i r c .  If n v e  tl.on one, l is t  e l l .

NAME______ PHILIP KC: .!IS I!«._ _ ____

STREET AD DRESS_________1 9 3 .0 . K A ? e£  S T a g F . ? ________

air------- m n s v jL U i.--------- ______________state, k y ___________

AMD (other parries if enr).?ofrt££Q_>fc>ry-era International Union.___A.~F.L.__C.I.O.
ZIP CODE_jt0210 .

-ODO-Î :al̂ 'llcn r?°• 36_________ 2C°1 J‘nplP Street__________ I^ulcyil.ie,. Ky.____
you riled 0 Carr̂Iair.* v.-«th or.v other ‘•,ov«*rn'-1«n?nl

y*m> One/i'.-̂ Ai. t o ? 'J G 'A r r : m  co!"-a*r>ic?r Yes □  No

lire ertvef 'iVc o' fne frost recent cote 
CO which *'ts <j'SCfirnin .! on occurred*

Time of [>?y__ Continuing
Cay------ Yc-or._

Explain what unfair thing war done ta you:

.........— J.oa.telnii. discrir.ir.ateci against with. respoct to_ compensation and

----- transfer end promotion opportunities because of ry race. The collective

.... tf^coininr, evrcer.cut Itetwoen Philip Morris Incorporated end local Union

N°* 16, Tobacco Workers International, is discriminatory against me as 

a Negro because it contains provisions superimposed on departmental 

ni-vclv.rcs org-paised ou a racially segregated basis.

........... .. ;____________________ _ fAiloch onctl.o nirce c';;3:;tr if you nerr.:’ >ure rao-.>)
,n ^ * * ' 0 - / ' r- 0 N  T'^AT ' H r f l  *U U  fHE ABOV/ a CH/IRGE AND T,’A tT IS TRU- T O ^ « f-PEST OF .W  k n OWI...'

( i\J /»; ' T U R l- OF COM PLAINANT*

/

5‘A..rn to hffjrr jJ

d . - -  f / ' : h

V r u  / ’
Y

(f.OlAMl V . J

c)- Kenti'fl-v

2  le u



Lose.I on roce, colcr, religion, o r nri.»- i I Oftfin

- ' \ V r ----- . Hu-ri.-;

! 1

vc: ; i •

M  :: i /1
V .- - :

Al'<v:

PI ION? NUMBER'
775- 6Uoo

cur
r. *> 1.

51 ATE

K * .
ZIP CO DE

U0211

w a s  iM -. i.»r

f l!

• i . . .  L E C / .C .E  0 r : ip Ic Jte  i . ’-.c' one)

□  □  ::;r
Who d isc r irm -x ted  c g jin s t  y r . j ?  Cm vc tho nome end address of the em ployer, lobor orgonizo fion , employment cgency , 
cp ;:ten tice  sh ip  c v 'n it * '- '* , cr j.I ; e c f  p jb l ic  ocio*". j '- M - n  or £» f v ir  . ,  If more then C“ " ,  ' is *  o

i 4

NAMr pi'ilth Kcrais x::c.___

STRKT AODSESS_IS£9Jl*&Î JLvfis3L
C IT Y ____ J ;  . I I V .? ______________________________ STATE. r a r . z ip  c o d e

1*0210

ANO (other potties if onylT.-pteC^oW^^^ A.f .Is__CgLj>.
T/r.-2. Union " o .  16 2001 S t r e e t______ L o u is v i l l e ,  Ky.__

Move yc j riled o cc:“~!r:nr .virh err/ clher cov̂ nmente! ? - inc:y?
v.T>irh

^  Yes □  No

£,
P  ■ o c tu s l core ■-.* the most recent date
on nvhic': V . ;s  e i r cri —.m e !. nn occurred :

Tirr.e. cf Do/__

Month----- ----------------------- D a y . Y e a r .

Captain wi-of unfair thing w n ; done to you;

I  c.~ h e l j v j  O i s c r i ; - ! . r . s t r-d  c ~ f . i r .B t  y . '. t U  r e s p e c t  t o  c c m p e r .r T .t ic n  a n d  _____

trcr.r.fcr *.nd promotion opportunities because of ay rr.ee. _The collective
i i ................  - - - - -

Lv/-:!:*ir.G error - tetvecn Philip Morris Incorporated and. Local Union 

V o .  in, Tobacco Workers Interneticr.nl, is discriminatory ccainot no as 

n Knrr’o because it contains provisions superimposed c.n depertaentnl

R tru c tu re s  o r ,;c in = ti  c.n a r a c i a l l y  s e p a r a te d  b a s is .

(Attoch if

I SW FA .t C X  AFFIRM THAT I HAVE READ THE ABO VE {fllAP .CE AND n y ' iT  IT IS TRUE TO THE 6ES1 OF M Y KN C V
*o;.i:, iMioPMATtON and BFUtr •>//, { /f ̂ , /(? J

r zr '/ .I -
(SIC M U X fc Cl COMPLAINANT)

r> /x "  0,?--h: m * and s v o r'i t.i hefo 'e me th is*  — dnv o> .••»* ''

My ~o. • .ii '.ir-p -' pin* , on_/ /
/-< , /

_________/ ^ y s <  /

■ ■ P l h j } .

*  2 c . .  a

t i | _ ,  w / - £
<y

,t_JfniiY. //• Kent t ,

<M01 a RV r’lti’.s. iC)



/  , /  t  {  !
!  f

!

< V:- •Itlf.l, l .1411111. ... »*• i . . , i  )»•
' ' • ' • • 'm :

t •• lit .Hi .• Oil
... . til. • l! ..... t l>- IIM.lt |l VY ill..11 'HI *l.t) oil 1*1 llu* il l ' . , .
,11 1 111 1*b |»I.m t\ Itin* .uflhtrv.es mi b.u k |«.ii.«) r  l . J V.

AM
‘c a r a m  r;;i ' l l  OK fY l'f» • t ••:' i • 1

M .*• . • C’o jj* î  i ;

I’llK .iW . J. !»( X. t i l NAHO. ./1  k.’t

PM Case file No. J l j S j

____  ___________

_________________________Phone Numbo

*!.»?»•___ *v •__

V . a ;, iff: f)if O : ‘ • AM(»\ liiCAIJSf O f: (Please ( i . e f k  r.ncj
lijfC or Cob:.' K e l l , C r e e d  G  National Ofi,;in II Sex O

' , 1:0. 'Ll_7 ip Code..« ------- ------------------

n  Win. :c-.l .ya.rv.t yr.j* Give ihe name an.l #!•!.«»  01 ll.e cm; '.,,er. labor orf.anoalion, employment agency and/or aft-wcnticcyl.:
t< \n\tv«? *f n [' *n out*. list .»’•!

rv.y ... I/rV-T:;'.1 . i.'.j___ .. . __________ Slain--- >----
. v ' . r u . S . , - -  ■>■.» - . ‘^ ■ '- ir -v U o r V r M -a  

)/OcrT :ir.n .. • _ ____

_7i;t C n d o .J * 0 n 0 _____________
ro'; -.IJIaicn, A.F.L. C .T.O. 

Sv.jet Louisville, Ky.

4  lu x e  you filed this charge with a ilat» or local KOvernment agency? Yes p '  When---------------------— ------ ^

5  II y . >< ch.-ngc *5 ay.airist a company or a union, bo.v many employees Of mem bers? Over 2S □  Ovei SO IS.

C llu  inns! recent da'., on which thi'. d-si rimmalion to..I pl.'a e: MonthiiQS.'ililli.n-Si.------Day----------------

No Cl

Year.

7  [»[»’:• in wh.it un'Vr ihinr was done to you. How uvre other perxr.ns t c.-icd d'horenlly? (Use extra shtvl it necessary).
3 «» discv.ir.Gi'ftd et ---c -.1 -re. r.cvM or. o' A o a I,nn ,a_c.J ;..c i.TjC o- /.'.y rocsi. xh-j cOx-lsu-.l___

.;l r e c : ' ; r . l  ^ w S T K - g l y i • ^ o ^ ^ s 'i r n c o r u x ir a t c a  'griaT S c & r P n io a

' a K'r„ro y , . y:o ■ - co-balns provisions r.u-f.S;:.roeoO or. gepri,^r.«i

1 y,v,\u or ti p! I have io .jH 'uic above charge and that it is true to the nest of njy kn VArCi
n a a  .s>» f ' f t  *» /  >', -XJJL-J L ' l ^ S - l~

r> ,1
A  l-OS.' «

f -• day of _ ; . n .
.■ a . : ,  a -  /  ’  / A  r s '/ . ~ _ l i a

* '  ft -*/7,/ ( S ......... y*. ' '  _̂______________________ t L Z .. . _________________________________ ..................

_1%„'

«TfSlcl

!.' ii is (' 'Icv ii' for a Notary Pi V i . i • sijjn this, si-.n your own name and n u .l to .1 e KVj;iona! Oft.ee. The Commission w ill help
» :!*» to. *i ‘ v .iv .i  #i).

J*. «C .• . T.'t Mill

r

Exhibit I la tro Affidavit of Mitrtin Roach (K130C C0MP1ATNTS)

J? ? i



....'., .. ,11 ll III llll. 1 l|U,.| , t i . r. . .1 . i' i It!**

. t ■■••. • t . J . i■ • i! ( ’ In r  in shim , iu a o n  KA( 1, t 5 ' . ' I ' l l  1' M >• .. hi A.

ii ri ii- * !•• •! v, .1
. r . t  •

il.ii. ' n l  ii.i, •. ,i»le» (lie 
>. 1 .. • j. . j 1TB '* <■

• ’ > • J • . •

i

d e f i l e
■ ,r » • . •

'vO. .

* * » . • » ■» i* . *

_ ___ Phone '' i ■ ■ • •. r. 7 7 5 -  - *7 -

Sox fi*

( e #)!o,of. 2-i'iior ui {;.t:walion. employment agency and/or apprentice; •,

< ’’
AND : •

I-'.,':.

St, ;c\___________________ 7ip c » j , - ± 0 2 i i
U:r'xa^_ A , 7 J j.__C..I-CA---------------

•j.c j c r c o t ________ Louisville, Xyr_

H j r  y ou  i:’: J  ’ (!: 'rj e  w ith .i -state or local poscrorTicnt ai‘cr.c>? Yes C /  W hen

5  I; y our chjiV.c is . ;vainsf a comp.my or a union. how many employcos or members? Over 25 □  Over 50 k_r'

C The ny/.t reverft */ *.ie on which this disc riminaLon toe* p'ace: MenjK__ .*V.lilic>— Oay----------------------------------- Vear.

7  lx.niein • !'at u. f-ir llvry was dope lo you. How were u'.her persons treated differently? (Use evirj sheet if necessary).
______  Jl. v ALrA'.f;~ain3  ̂ e;.s~.3c o—cc~~3-c.'.cc.tio.\—arid—
_ trar»:»rc:v ■T'.djvrG;i c:\_or ip; A- ’i ';-lc.TJ'i2.CCU’.jC; r.y __CZhc._ ccllcntivc____

\*TiV, : i i . ': ;• ay.rcrv: ..•/ ̂ptvvior*. rh'I.lijh7iQT Q Itie o~ j or:br-1 rr/i Locc.1-Union_____
..•a. t.:, '• h'icco Uc \:cr3 T n t r . c .  .:'t ::r.? . A , c~i :: c r 1 r.i  r, n~t o ry a g a in s t  r.e as a ___
: -:;c i a  c.o. .*.A.~.» p ro v is ic r * -  .'irrioced cn c c p a c ir .c n ta l  S tr u c tu r e s
o.. . . •  «: n l\"i L c • 1 * AjTcT,  v;ccT’bifoi’:7. 7~ _____  ___

No Cl

i ;h:t ? have read ti c ab j.o  cl. :.y and that j: iy true to tl/o h o t of my j, .owlcd,;:, i-vormation and bcWef.
r-r______________

i> ! *w ev  c f - • ' 1  »h:t I have read the ab j.o  d  .vr and that j: iy true to the h o t ol my - .owlc-v,-
r ^ c _ A < C « , . d . - 1 :  j & ' •  / :> X '- s r r -

!: .bxrri
./->V

he«/'. -i- s-aorn to before me.this_____ --------------------------- day of— - ---------------------------- r------- 196_7_

H i . .  ___________C»<rtK-! yrA T T -
dd.Vi f; •. .i to jjet a Notary Public to iHis. sij.n your own name jhJ mail to thr .'V^ional Office. The Commission w.!l h 

' r. ::'A '••.vVr.i to. rr.̂ v i* i

l..ii7 Ivi u TT!) ti! Art’davit of Martin Roach
3 ^

(  T'l.'rhP r f \ \U ) l  A T M T f ' t



J• i
f/\ ( i *

l' » • .. . < 1 .-jit.H ill, ( i l l  III »*,: i r -

*•(1 V C

in -the 1 (ju.it ■ 4 ( lo
m yum .ue.i (/it i<

.liter the 11.--
) I l. i j  1

AM
w l •

rr i • -i i  ■ ! o 
-I • J^t

,1 t i l  H)V l.» t.V.( »
> / ' -  H ' - ' r

is ij.e il m ily  l«i lilt* .» i l i  ny
( ( K( JU.  Ktl KilUN. M or NAI

r*;i C w  no

! : • el A »  ; 

< ’ f ...........

V'V;, rvi:.t
A !  • G . ;r  i

..P h o n e  N u m b e r__- ( ’{ ' }  -  - C '- - .

../.ip Code . . ' .C O l l________

2  WAS H U  r. S( . . !\AriO‘« it: <"At. r or 0 ';... -• Check or,e)
R ' - . c o i  r ' f  H.-h,. a ;s r  • , a □  N .» U .r..il O r«..in  H  Sex O

V b -»  rti%f f*mi*..e. 

f .O n in i;! .

t * *1 1 '

1 .i *i ist y r  d  l 

. I1 . f#:K', 1 ! 
. r \  J  .

’ /•\e the n .in ie  »! ..'I.lr i c ; ot the r . r - •'•»ycr. l.»f>or o r^ .in i/. it io n . e m p lo ym e n t a g e n cy .w d /o r o p p r c n iic e J

Sfrcnr! A M  c s s . . .  V j Z O ■ y  ; . 7

C - ,  ’ ’ t r .  ......  7ip  r < v ’.. l - C - ’ T O
A N T > loth- p..rt ''•> if a n y i .  j  ' /L '.-.C C O  • t  I . ' .  a .  (•.■ '.■ ■ . ,v.‘ 1-.C .I U r . i c . ' i . A . P . r , .  C . t ! o .

.................................. .....
I / j C '  ' . :,* c . . k o c a > ; u t -  S t r . . i  L o u i s v X l l o ,  K y .

H a v e  yx»u fii J  th:s ch a rg e w ith  a state- or lo c a l *,<j;Ov(*fnn.i r.t .v .r r .c y ?  Yes l /  W h e n . N o  C

t> /f  y o iif  c h a rg e  i> a -a .n s i j  c o m p a n y  o '  a uni. i. h :..v  .y e n /o - .v e s  or m e m b ers? Ove* 25 O  O ver 50 ^ >

G The ny^j recc- * ^ •: on which t! s -Mcrirr? • iimn !/.<■•.« phiec M o n C o n t 1 r.uj. r? ___ Qt1y_______________ yr<lr

/  l ’ '*• he! tM'fae thin- \v as done to you How v.. c ether p -^ons treated cii'Tcrer.t!
... .1. a*n celn'; (Visc/Irdir.;

■ jr.y_i> .o'/r, Of..Qr v\:.
l ';,' '• y vcc a2’a*;con ?•

-Cc.jo.cco i;Oi*‘:co.i Intorr.;
" d~F<f;'ro ■ ; •u w • O .. : • ’ J-:.***.*-o'T 'V.i i\ic3i

treated d i'Yc rcrstJy? (U se extra  she
,: i t h _ r c  r._a c c  c  t o  c o : . ; . 'Q it

rr,c .~ * .  ? l i o  c o l '

- r . c c r r . o r ; '.'^ c d  r . r .c  T - o c r J

i G c r i n ’. i r : ; ■ t o r y  a - o i n s t  :

. ' i i . iG O  a c e ‘ CT: d o  pc.j'cr^co *.

Ti 1 -v,‘v r  '£  1 h w c  ,!‘t‘ •stove charge and that it is true to the brstm!7' y l renv.'.yj'e, information and belief

V cj f -------- ------------------- --------_ ---------------------. .-v l»*vr »Oui
b r d / f t r i  s»- ™  lo h A : r  m j f a i s -------- . J L ' t . ' J . - . ________ (b y  < i

tS%'f VOU/ OWTkPl
A___

A , . .  ̂ If.J »•»
- t ; -  . /. _l./' ' I •_ _________________________*;

r y >*' I'/ f/.-t a Notary Public sn;n lies. si0a y u r  o..n  name and mail to

/6w ; «a . ,n- v.

V
f

• M.-ir I ; n Pn,T('h

J S ~  cG



' RttKy
M l o  i L '/ j

July 9, 1970

Mr. Onion Marti a
Executive Director
Kenti’.c y Cc:,rujaicn on Human Rights
25 a . y . itol Anne:-: 
l'rcn'.s ert, Ker-uucky 40001

E v

JUL j

“ I’lfllJI’ MORRIS
------------  U S A

n n c  m .vpi ? s r x t f  r p  o  h o * m o b
t£Hi OVII IE. KlNIUCKY 40iftn

V::i.X :.a in:

4t, i£! !;,Y understanding that your staff has
for verification that Philip Morris has 

Human Rights Commission1 s 
Oreo: or April 23, 1970.

X am  ̂ o.icJosinc a current seniority list: for 
i . i . . wj.:. .;i_v*net Operation. Since your 

records contain seniority lists nrior to the 
t e i s M M ' . -  Order, you will re able to see,

co‘TJ-rlson, that the Commission's Orders nave iwcn executed.

Xn addition, the individuals at the Stemrerv, 
v.v.o vero >.r.c.!ticca rn  toe Commission's Order) 
have .oc: given an opportunity to transfer’’
« t h  employment date seniority if they so de~

C-t! l;r.■ tc O : the:
been co.vpiiea *ith.

Commi scion * s Orel*. r nnve

r

0AHr TO
/

c c : M r , Ed •'arc: 1,. Butler
v-ilr. •tin V. Roach
Mr. K. M. Schaaf
Mr. J. S. Cox, Jr.
if . J. Campbell

Yours very truly.

trr  xj to a f f id a v it  of martin roach



y y SC-' r  /
/

- /

CIIKSTI.K J. CitAY 
Regional Director

K . “ s i x ::1

April 24, 1970

In Reply Refer to Case Ho 
YCLO-088 ‘

Th* f°llWlnn ?CrSOn3 J ,vInS filGd charges alleging 
unlawful discriminatory employment practices under Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act .of 1964 against Philip Morris 
Incorporated, Louisville, Kentucky, have requested a
thirty day Vc„o i K -

1 * er PJrs‘J-*nt to Section 1601.25a of 
this Commission’s ndcs and regulations:

■ ^vcndolyn D. Wilson - TCL9-0642 
Mr t y  , Co°P^- TC1,9-064 3
• • Ver" pruitf TCL9-0644

Notice issues were sent on April 24, 1970 to the 
narties Pa , r . .

* thfc-a of t:1Glr eights to institute a
i.i the appropriate federal district cour!- 

consisunt with Section 706(e) of the Act.

" “ ** f“ ‘ fr“  t0 '««=“  «*. office if you have 
any questions concerning this natter.

Si.rce roly > 

Chester J.Gray

i

3 7



Jlmteb ^Stairs piatrict Court
F O R  T H E

3«n^*'#.'rtfiori>an 32Je*tern Pwtrict of Kentucky
]ubg<

Louisville, Kentucky 40202 

June 17, 1971

Honorable Martin Roach 
Tarrant, Combs, Blackwell & Bullitt 
Kentucky Home Life Building 
Louisville, Kentucky 40202

Honorable Neville Tucker 
Attorney-at-Law 
3308 West Broadway 
Louisville, Kentucky 40211

Honorable Darryl T. Owens 
Attorney-at-Law 
1300 West Broadway 
Louisville, Kentucky 40203

Honorable Herbert L. Segal 
Attorney-at-Law 
Republic Building 
Louisville, Kentucky 40202

Honorable Susan Deller Ross 
Attorney-at-Law
Equal Opportunity Employment Commission 
Office of General Counsel 
Washington, D. C.

Honorable Jack Greenberg• NAACP, Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc.
10 Columbus Circle, Suite 3020 
New York, N. Y. 10019

Re: COOPER, et al v. PHILIP MORRIS, et al
Civil Action No. 6599 
United States District Court 
Western District of Kentucky

Gentlemen:

This matter has come on before the Court on the motions 
of the defendants, Philip Morris Incorporated and Tobacco Workers

f- x  . -/ t c / n / n



Honorable Martin Roach, et al 
June 17, 1971 
Page 2.

International Union, Local No. 16, to dismiss the Complaint of 
the plaintiffs herein. In addition to the pleadings the Court 
has also considered the supporting affidavit and exhibits thereto, 
including the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order of 
the Kentucky Commission on Human Rights and the transcript in the 
proceedings before that Commission styled Case No. 103-E, Carrie 
Lee Carr, et al, v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al ., and the
Court treats these motions as motions for Summary Judgment under 
Rule 56. 6

| # Enclosed is an Order entered today sustaining the motion
of Philip Morris; sustaining the motion of Local No. 16 insofar as 
it relates to the issue of violation of the civil rights of the 
plaintiffs on account of racial discrimination; and denying the 
motion of Local No. 16 insofar as it relates to the issue of 
violation by Local No. 16 of the duty of fair representation on 
the ground that the record as now constituted is insufficient to 
enable the Court to dispose of the fair representation issue under 
Rule 56. Such denial is without prejudice to the right of Local 
No. 16 to renew its motion in the future, and the Court retains 
jurisdiction of this action with respect to and for further hear­
ings on the Plaintiffs' allegations that Local No. 16 has violated 
its duty of fair representation.

Philip Morris and Local No. 16 are directed to jointly 
prepare and tender, with copies to all counsel, a proposed 
Memorandum Opinion, or Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law,
and a proposed Judgment in conformitv with the foregoing and the 
following:

1. Title \II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 expressly 
provides for non-preempt ion of state laws. The issues raised and 
the relief sought here were fully adjudicated in the state tribunal 
Jjnder the Kentucky law. That determination was not appealed.
Res judicata is applicable here as well as collateral estoppel.

2* The plaintiffs could have insisted on proceeding 
under the federal statutes 60 days after filing their charges with 
the State Commission. Instead they chose to delay invoking federal 
jurisdiction for over a year during which time they litigated their 
claims in full under the state law. They do not assail the fair­
ness of the hearing they received before the state tribunal. Under 
these circumstances they must be bound by the decision of the forum 
they elected to proceed before.



Honorable Martin Roach, et al 
June 17, 1971 
Page 3.

3. The Court believes that the wise exercise of judicial 
discretion dictates that it abstain from exercising jurisdiction 
in this case. The considerations leading to this conclusion are 
the following:

The Kentucky Civil Rights Act is structured to carry 
out the national policy embodied in Title VII. The issues involved 
here were adjudicated in accordance with the procedures provided 
by the Kentucky law. The Commission conducted an investigation, 
issued a Complaint and retained counsel to prosecute it. Pre- 
'hearing depositions of the defendants representatives were taken. 
The issues were thoroughly aired at a hearing before the Commission 
which extended over a period of five days. During all of these 
proceedings plaintiffs were represented by counsel of their own 
choosing as well as by counsel for the Commission.

It would be an improvident expenditure of time, money 
and judicial manpower to relitigate the same issues in this Court. 
Relitigation would undermine the effectiveness of the Kentucky 
Civil Rights Act. In addition, the Order of the tribunal granting 
retroactive seniority has been implemented and it would be 
extremely difficult, if not impossible, to restore the defendants 
and other employees of Philip Morris affected by such seniority 
adjustments to the status quo ante.

Further, the parties will find attached hereto an Order 
for a pretrial conference to be held in this matter at the hour 
of 1:30 P.M., Fridav, July 9, 1971, in the Court's chambers in 
Louisville, Kentucky. The purpose for such to be to ascertain 
the desires of the parties relative to proceeding in this action 
at this time to a trial as to the issue of violation by Local 16 
of the duty of fair representation.

JFG/ddt

Enclosures



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY

LOUISVILLE DIVISION

AMANDA COOPER, et al )
)
)
)

V. ) Civil Action No. 6599
)
)
)

PHILIP MORRIS INCORPORATED, et al.,)

O R D E R

The defendants, Philip Morris Incorporated and

Tobacco Workers International Union, Local No. 16, having 

filed motions to dismiss the complaint of the plaintiffs 

herein and the Court having considered the pleadings, supporting 

affidavit and exhibits thereto of record and the briefs of all 

parties; the Court having,therefore, treated said motions as 

motions for summary judgment under Rule 56; and the Court being 

sufficiently advised, it is hereby ordered that the motion of 

Philip Morris for summary judgment be and the same is hereby 

SUSTAINED; that the motion of Local No. 16 for summary judgment 

be and the same is hereby SUSTAINED to the extent it relates 

to the civil rights claims of the plaintiffs; and that the 

motion of Local No. 16 for summary judgment be and the same 

is hereby DENIED to the extent it relates to the claim of the 

plaintiffs of a violation of the duty of fair representation.



It is further ordered that successful parties

jointly prepare and submit proposed memorandum opinion or 

findings of fact and conclusions of law, and a proposed 

Judgment, with copies thereof to all counsel, in conformity 

with the foregoing.

June 1971

Copies to:

Hon. John E. Tarrant 
Hon. Neville M. Tucker 
Hon. Darryl T. Owens 
Hon. Jack Greenberg 
Hon. Susan D. Ross 
Hon. Edward F. Butler 
Hon. Herbert L. Segal

A Copy: Attest
August Wiuk)Buhofert Jr., Cl^rk e n t e r e d  

JuN i 7 1975
Deputy Clerk



i N'i n:n s i \ ids i»is irk r corin'
WI-SITRN DISTRICT OF KLNIVCKN

i.onsviu.i-: division

AMANDA COOI’FK. KT AI ... )
)
I
)

VS. ) Civil Action No. 65l>d
)
)
)
)

m il.II’ MOKIUS INOOKIOKA ITiD I.T AI... >

MOTION TO RFOONSIDFR ORDI: R OF JCNT 17th 
SI ’STAINING MOTIONS FOR SI MMARY Jl ’DGMKNT

(ionics now the plaintiffs, hy counsel, and moves the cou rt  to

recons ide r  its O rder  of |une 17rh sustaining lliilip M orr is  and l ocal No. 16 's

Motion for S u m n rm  ludgment on the following grounds:

1. The plaintiffs were unaware until the receipt of the c o u r t 's  O rder  

of June 17, 1671, that the court was treating  the motions of the defendants to 

d ism iss  the plaintiffs complaint as motions for sum m a n ' judgment under 

Rule ."ft.

2. ITiat the conversion to the motions to d ism iss  into motions for

sum m ary  judgment had the effect of uufairlv taking the plaintiffs hv s u rp r i s e
' t

and depriving them of the opportunity to file opposing affidavits and 

extraneous proof in support of the ir  position.

W!IKRDl'ORIi, the plaintiffs moves the Court to reconside r  its O rder  

of June 17th sustaining the motion of lliilip M orris  for summit rv judgment and 

sustaining the motion of I .oca I No. 16 for sum m ary  judgment to the extent it 

re la te s  to the civil rights claim-* of the plaintiff anil to g ran t  leave to the 

plaintiff to file within a reasonable time set bv the court affidavits and 

ex traneous proof in opposition to the motions for sum m arv  judgment.

< h/[, j/jc

• »  AT L AW

KA 1
C KY 4 02 11

?/*/;/
J  u t R .



NEVILLE M. IT K'.KIi R 
TICKER, SIIOBE & SCHNEIDER 
3308 W. Broadway 
I ouis villc, Ky. 40211

|A( K OKEENBERC,
WILLIAM I . ROBINSON 
10 ( Columbus ( '.i role 
Suite 2000
New York, N. Y. 100E)

certifk:a it: o r  service

I hereby certify  that on the Kth day of July, NJl, l s e n 'e d  a eopv of 

the foregoing Memorandum of Authorities and Tendered O rder  upon Edward 

L. Butler, Esq.,  20 Exchange I’lace, New York, N. Y . : John E. T arran t,  Esq. 

Martin Roach, Esq .,  T a iran t .  Combs, Blackwell & Bullitt, 1700 Ky. Home 

Life Bldg., Louisville, Ky. 40202: Herbert L. Segal, Esq .,  Republic Bldg., 

Louisville, K v ., counsel for defendants and Susan I V ile r  Ross, a ttorney for 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 1800 G. Street, N. W.

Washington, O.C. 20-306 by depositing sam e in the Lnited States mail, 

postage prepaid.

Attorney for I’lainriffs
I

f

fJ „  S U e

t\ i ̂ m r ' Jrr

. ' - //A f 
Kl •C'JlII



_/

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
WESTEP.N DISTRICT OF REfiTUCHY

louisyille division

A-'A.’iUA COOPER.. ET AL. ,

7/^/7 f

R E C E IV E D
JUL 30197?

vs. Civil  Action Ho. 6399

PHILIP • ; r : r . i S I :i c c p p o RATED, ET AL

A F F I 0 A V I T

The a f f i a n t ,  f:o v l l l u  N. Tucker ,  s t a t e s under oat i i :

I

That Oft Apri l 1 7 .  1 9 0 9 , t h e r e ware 175 emplo yee s o f

P h i l i p i o r r i J id v;er a e - .ploye J r1 or to October 10 , 19 ol  ,  aad

wore- j l a c - , .

II

T.’i at Od Apri l 1 7 ,  1 9 0 9 , t a e r e were 2 4 employ e o s Of r ; i 1 1

"ovr i ^ vine ri1 C- L* c r i ? i :i; 11 y L a c n c;i f l a y cd 1 n th a 5 ter. at-ry an J

t  r a o s f . r r a A to i ii r*, tJ r  vr Depart; -.. n l c r t Ho r a i a pi ar. t b 0 t  . • : u

J .1 j . r 7 10 , 1 J7 i • '» o CctODvl- 1 ■ » 1 VO 1 • A11 0 r" th os J J; 3r e e n s  wj

bl  3 C .

I I I

T . : 0. t C ' / ;• r i 1 1 7 ,  1.-0 9, #• v re wore > j e " p 1oy o Of Pi! 11 i

> > v* i * r * \j -,:.0 ;; -■ r -■ i i * ) . ; 111. 0  , 1.1 l> •- O'  i'• i or t 0 '..'0 to . Jr 1 \  1 .

v; v' • ' ; r o .> u '<i i i.o r!. i .•. 'j ill ti.2 c, I , .■■■■'try. Al l o f  t u G'vj r r  i. V- s

c 10

IV

T...• t c- 11 17,  U-3.-» tD'.ru •< t j  i-S u-..u1.cy..c- 

‘ 5* ii 1 r*v* i M i » t *i-i '-j t cry j- i or t o 0 c v(j 

•or! i . .p 1n t e e  r.a: n pi All  o f  titesc; p< r

s c f i n .  

For 1.. U

7 / 3 0 / V
J jt  l<

y<, cl,



V

™ *  !“ ' C' l3Cn Oc:0!‘"  '»• ' « >  ««" «prll 17.

M r M  ** ' * » « >  >-7 cf perso„
W2r° ,,irt:C' , n t °  t h e  s t e n s , e r * and 131 I n t o  t h e  ca 1n

VI

I " 36 ° 0tW' 8n 0ctoL)Or 1 J * 1-^1 and A p r i l  1 7 ,  m 5 y ,  t h e r e  
were o22 u n i t e s  Newly h i r e d  by P h i l i p  M o r r i s ,  101 o f  t h e s e  

p er s o ns  wore h ir e d  i n t o  the  s c , , o r y  and 731 1„ the , a 1 n  P l a n t .

6̂'*- / / ■! X.- fi/(
T̂r t1 i o n t i ̂ V n  ] e .T"V u c k eor

S U j J C r i - - d  and sworn t o  b e f o r e  tie b y ,  . ' J e v l l l e  M 
t h i s  20t h  day o f  J u l y ,  157^

h>y coanl4510,1 expires October 15, I3 7 4 .

. Tucker,



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY 

LOUISVILLE DIVISION 3. m t

Amanda Cooper, et al )

Plaintiffs,
)
) Civil Action No. 6599

VS . ' )
)

Phillip Morris, Inc.,
)

et al ) 
) h } j  V V i o / 7 !

Defendants. ) r
AFFIDAVIT

STATE OF TENNESSEE 
COUNTY OF SHELBY

^ A R L E S  a . DIXON.; being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says: 

1* 1 am the ̂ Deputy Director of the Memphis District Office

of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (hereinafter'' 

referred to as the Commission); I am familiar with the general

practices and customs of processing charges in states which have 

State laws prohibiting unlawful employment practices as defined 

in Section 705(b) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,

42 U.S.C. 2000a-5!o ); I have examined and reviewed the Commission's 

cate file relating to the charge filed by .the plaintiff in the 

above entitled case against Phillip Morris, Inc.', et al upon which 

the above-styled matter brought under Section 706(e) of Title v i l

of t)\j Civil Rights Act or 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-5(e) was 
b ased.

2. That based upon the above examination and review, said 

Co-mi ns.ion file reveals that on April 15, 1969, .the Commission 

n u M ’-'v 1 jar.indict, i-n of the charge o c the Plaintiff in the

•1 --d matter that the Cor.mi ion began it
1, 1°6'J nr.•d completed it o: Sop tember 11

h a c i t i s c o.-nm.o n p r a c t i c e for a person,
• .of the n ixty-day p-riod : for;red to in
v :: ■ - r th e Civil Rig):* ;; yc ; r ,  f 1 ' C ,  42 !

V hi* Ciiro before the Com
*/7 6L

I



Affidavit of 
Charles a . Dixon

4- That it i <?
not Poetical for a nor-

thS Cominission'S administrative proce(lu 8<>n ^  ^  "  terminat*
"  ^rocessing his claim because ^  W h U e  the State Agency

beginning to final conclusion ^  Procedures from .

Party w i U  not W ;  ^  ^  ^  tlme and the charging

for some time. ' thr°ugh conciliation

Pago 2

Purtner affiant says not.

My Commission expires:

I



UNITED STATES DISTRICT Cnl'KT 
FOR THE

WESTERN DISTRICT Or KENTUCKY 
AT LOLTSVII.EE

saw
'IS1L 81 ®7t

That ha is a black employee of Philip Morris Incorporated, a defendant 
herein and a roc-mber of the class represented in the above styled action.

II
That he was initially employed tv Philip Morris Incorporated on

and assio-.rd to the stennerv. r -
!C

III

That at the tine of employment at the ster.m.ery only whites were heinr 

employed in tit? main plan: and only blacks were employed in ti e ster.norv.

IV

That at the tine of the initial hirin'., of the at'tlant, the wares received 

0 e el.? s.. loss than, ••ap.es bein’ pa i 1 white employees in the main plant.

Trnt cn /_7 any of _____ ___the affiant transfrrr. i to the main plant

"''h t:|’ lority date for purposes of promotion, bid.!inn, etc. heinp the date
O '., t T n 71 ;;

VI

1‘ *- n -'lived i»n-» the ~ii;: plant .it tie t t..r- affiant trnrrfcrr.

-!̂ r ‘ *!1-° the ain plirt with : .\n sarc- ?»er.ir.ri tv date a s t!:.
rr  in : .

?/



V I I

Th.it until approximately January 13, 1964 the affiant was a member of

b. r >1 i’u'.r . ; 72 Tohicc -o r r c r I n  t lt n 1 1 lonal Ai'b-blh: since Januarv 1 4, 1 \",4

the affiant pis hcen and still is i member of local 1'nton No. 16 Tobacco Workers 

International Union AFL-CIO.

VIII

That as a result of the differential between the affiant’s capes and the 

wages paid a white hired on the sane day, that the affiant has been substantially 
and irreparably injured. ,n

IN' ThSTr-ONY "kb:-'FIJT, witness ray signature this ^ " day of

1971.
* • J

4_— Cr J--C_LjL~i__zJl
•4

Subscribed and svnrn to before r.e this / day of 

Mv Ccrj^ission exrires ' , . -

/ , 1971.

I'lrbi.ic

'hd-

I



unit.1:;' .STATUS DIM P ICT COURT 
FOP Tlif

CESTKRI. DISTRICT nt RENT1 CRY
at imy isvi

^  Si iS7ii

That he is a black employee of Philip Norris Incorporated, a defender! 
herein ar.d a nenfcer of the class represented in the above stvle.: action.

Th at  he l a s  l n i t i a . l l v  c—p l o  v .;h! 

3 ntl fi ' is i 1 ’ n ■ i 11 the s t iT i iaorv  ,

II

hv Phi! p Vorris

HI

At t :  (■ ; , t f ; - « T v itf-s v.ere reir.j;

T h a t  At of

\ *1 i ? ' c r a i r. plant.

t r . n - f . - r r o  ; to the plant
■•’It h -it"

A.nt tra.n-f

i / i o /  a

U 't  n
f  / (k;



That until approximately Januarv 13, l ",’-, the affiant was a member of 
Tonal Tnior. To. 72 Tobacco Vorrers International AFI.-CIO; since Januarv 14, 1964 

the affiant tins been and still is a member cf Local Tnior. No. 16 Tobacco Workers 
International Union AFL-UIh.

VIII

That as a result of the differential he tween the affiant’s wages and the 
wages paid a white hired on the same day, that the affiant has been substantially 
and irreparably injured.

C  2.



IMTHj STATKS nirTRICT COl’KT 
FOR Till:

VHSTKRN Dismic-  Of ‘•'•‘TL'Crv
AT m m n u  received

TH 2 a f f i 0 tl t be i 02 .J >. T . » CL*nrn Ir  - u .>  s - o r n  d e p o s e s  n r.i s a y s :  

I

” ** ^  “  1 blaCi -  '“" ‘A » " < >
herein ami a member of the class represented in t!

ir
ie a Rove styled action.

That he vas initially enp! 
and assigned to the ster.rc-rv.

oved by Philip Morris Incorporated

I II

crar-1
That at the tine of e~; loyn.-nt at the stenn.rv ,,ly wl.U ) , ;^ r„

Plf'VC- ir' the ' ««nlv blaris y,,f ,.r.1(1..pd .. .rc i. r st er.r.crv.

T h a t  a t  t h e  t i - . e  o f  t h e  i - . « t * -» !  m , < .  - .
■  ‘  • i  .  . t '  .  t  : :  f* 1 * .* * T  r  r »

4 l r ‘ - r * - - o s  r e c c i v
at the- st:- r.c-ry iG5s : •'=•■0 5 ‘ cm- j-.,: | v i r .. c.: . ,ov>

c‘ plant.

That o: 

wlth the* ■ • r 

of tr.?n>f..ri*

day of

Th i

M V  ~7/l'/?/
h  / . U K

C L ,



J

That until 

local Union To. 

the affiant has 
Internal Lonal i'n

That as a r 

wages paid a vhi 

and irreparably
in* TfSTi:'-":

1971.

Subscribed.

approximately January 13, ! the affiant war a tr.er.ber of 

72 Tobacco Workers Intrrnatior.il AFL-!.I<>; since January it. He. 4 
been and still is a nenher of local inion Mo. 16 Tobacco Workers 
ion AFL-CI'J.

VII

VIII

•.•suit o f tae differentia! between the affiant's wares an.! the 

re hired on the sane day, that the affiant has teen substantially

and



RECEIVED
JIJl 31W1

PLAINTIFF

DEFENDANTS 

I
That he i3 a black employee of Philip Morris Incorporated, a defendant 

herein and a member of the class represented in the above styled action.
II

That he vis initially employed by Philip Morris Incorporated on //' '< fp, f C  ̂
' ’ 7

and assigned to the sttmery.

III
That at the time of employment at the stemery only whites were being

r  yp ' y p ' l in the i/ain plant and only blacks «*crc employe*! in the steamery.

IV

That at the time of the initial hirin': of tlie affiant, the rages received 

at the nt~ 'ry rare lr,',s than vanes being paid white employees in the rain plant.
v

hhnt mi __day of / ̂___t_ the affiant transferred to the main plant

vith the s afor.ity date for purposes of promotion, bidding, etc. being the date

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE

WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY 
AT LOUISVILLE

VI

Y a 'kite h r\*el into the rain plant at tlie sar.e ti~c- the affiant transferred 
a . --.••ery "ns hir • ! into the main plant rith th.e same seniority date ar- tic

V -S c / - ) !

U 'U l



VI I

That until npr.roxinntely January 13, 1064 the affiant was a nenber of 

Local Union No. 72 Tobacco Workers International AFL-CIO; since January 14, 1964 

the affiant has been and still is a nerbcr of I.ocal Union No. 16 Tobacco Workers 

International Union AFL-CIO.
VIII

That as a result of the differential between the affiant's wages and the 

wages paid a white hired on the sane day, that the affiant has been substantially

and irrunarv,lv Injured.
1 / /  /IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my signature this __ day of ______,

1971.
7 /  * 6

Subscribed and sworn to before ne this '  dav of . <_/.<■/■ -_______1971.
y

My Comission expires -

a .



I'N’IYKL* STATI'S .»IJT• lTf.T )L’RT
r OP. T!:K

WESTERN' : ) IS ' : I t*T Or KENTUCKY 
AT !.OUISVIL!.F RlCtWtO

JUL 3 ' ® '

PLAINTIFF

DEFENDANTS

That he is a black employee of Philip Morris Incorporate-.!, a defendant 
herein and a renber of the class represented in the above styled action.

II

That he was Initially e-.ployed by Philip "orris Incorporated on ■ -
a n d  a n .! t'..« T.:\L S t  ‘

I l l

T h t  a t t : : e  c i n e  o f  e n p i o y r - e n c a t  t i e  s c  e r r " .c r y  o n l y  w h i t e s ••••re b e i n c

e . i p l o y  : j  1 n  t t r a i n  p l a n t  a n d  o r . l v b l a c ’- s  ’ . -e r e l o v e d  i n  t h e s t e n n e r y .

I V ‘

T K * t  A t I h o  t i - . a  o f  C h e  i n i t i a l n i  r  : o r t a f f i a n t ,  r l i - - w a r e s  r e c e i v e d

■n t  • • •. . /  ‘ i  ■ 1 ■ • c h a n  ’. . ' a r e :- ' ■ v  1 n ; p a i d ’. / h i  t o  < r ’ o v i ’ f*:, i n  t ! i e  r a i n  p l a n t .

V

T h l  t O - . o f  _• t ! " . ’ a :  f l a p t t r  ‘. I I S ’ O ’T C 'd  t o • t h e  r a i n  p l a n t

L t h  i :  . ' « 1 - ;  d a f  . 1 . .  ; • i r : r  ■ ; e •:; o f  : . - i t  11- "•, i : ' i t 1- . n -  , «• t c  . h o i n y  t h e  d a t e

o :  t r

'1 1 r h ' r ' : •> • t h  ■ • . • p 1 a.. t  a t  t ‘ ' « r  c- t  :• »■ t i . o a f f i a n t  t r e m - f e r r

'•  ■ ■ ' - ■ ? r  - ’ 1 . , . -  > . : 1 ! : 1 a  f t I . -  s.  : •• f v n i e r f t v  d a p - :  a ;  t h

f i

/'•  1 , / i !
? i

/. / '



VII

That until approximately January 13, 15« the affiant was a n.ew.hcr of 
Local Union No. 72 Tobacco Workers International AFL-CIO; since January 14, 1064 

the affiant has been and still is a member of Local Union No. 16 Tobacco Workers

International Union AFL-CIO.
VIII

That as a result of the differential between the affiant’s wages and the 

wages paid a white hired o n  the same day, that the affiant has teen substantially

and irreparably injured. /] ■

IN T E S T I ' / O N T  N T iL T r O r  , w i t n e s s  n y  s i g n a t u r e  t h i s  v day of .'t

1 9 7 1 .

Subscribed and sworn to before me this _  

My Cor-nisslor. expires

dav of 1 9 7 1 .

NOTARY P'JRLIC

. ci--



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY 

LOUISVILLE DIVISION

AMANDA COOPER, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS

VS. FILING OF AFFIDAVIT NO. 6599

PHILIP MORRIS INCORPORATED, ET AL. DEFENDANTS

Comes the Defendant, Local 16, Tobacco Workers 

International Union and in compliance with this Court's Order 

of July 9, 1971 does hereby file its Affidavits in support 

of its Motion for Summary Judgment.

These Affidavits are directed primarily to the said 

Defendant Local Union's Motion for Summary Judgment as it 

relates to the claim of the Plaintiffs of the violation of 

the duty of fair representation and to place into the record 

which as the Court indicated was not presently in the record 

as set forth in its letter of June 17, 1971, sufficient evidence 

of the carrying out of its duty of fair representation so as to 

enable the Court to dispose of the fair representation issue

under Rule 56.

/
> ,  F :

HERBERT L. SEGAL 
Attorney at Law
Tenth Floor - Republic Building 
Louisville, Kentucky 40202

5 7 '

>; ?  / ' !  h i



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a true and correct copy of
/ j ,,

the foregoing Filing of Affidavit was this^_____ day of___ .— _— i—
1971 mailed to Mr. Neville M. Tucker, Attorney at Law, 3308 West

Broadway, Louisville, Kentucky, Mr. Martin Roach, Attorney at

Law, Kentucky Home Life Building, Louisville, Kentucky, Mr. L.

T. Owens, 1300 W. Broadway, Louisville, Kentucky, Susan Daller

Ross, Attorney at Law, .Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,
Office of General Counsel, Washington, D. C., Mr. Jack Greenburg,

Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc., 10 Columbus Circle,

Suite 3020, New York, New York 10019.
I a

U  1 <
l / \ A  ,

HERBERT L. SEGAL



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY 

LOUISVILLE DIVISION

AMANDA COOPER, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS

Vb - AFFIDAVIT

PHILIP MORRIS INCORPORATED, ET AL. DEFENDANTS

Comes the Affiant, Richard Hillard, and after being 

duly sworn states the following:

1. During all times in issue, he was the President 

of Local 16 Tobacco Workers International Union.

2. As President, he participated in all of the hearings 

before the Kentucky Commission on Human Rights in Case No. 103-E.

3. A s set forth in the transcript of evidence before 

the Human Rights Commission, as testified to by Company represen­

tatives, witnesses for the Defendant Local Union 16 and witnesses 

fcr the Plaintiffs, at no time was any grievance filed by the 

Plaintiffs alleging discrimination, nor was any request made to 

the Defendant Local 16 to file a grievance alleging discrimination, 

nor any proposals submitted to either the membership of Local 72

or Local 16 by any of the Plaintiffs to correct or change any alleged

discrimination for any Eason. See Vol. II, Pages 20, 39, 69, 71,

■u 101-102, 109; Vol. IV, Pages lb; Vol. V, Pages 147, 137, 168,

170-171; vol. VI..Pages 1122-1157, 1161, 1185-1203- (From Transcript 
ot testimony before Kentucky Human Rights Commission)

4. At no time was a request made to file a grievance or 

conciliate or mediate or discuss with the Company any alleged 

ci..crrmination because of race or for any other reason by these 

Plaintiffs or anyone on their behalf.

. A'
/  ' ■ ' 77/

( d  > ■



5. At no time during any of the negotiations by Local

16 or any other local of the Tobacco Workers representing employees 

at the Defendant Philip Morris plant were proposals submitted by 

any of the Plaintiffs or anyone on their behalf to eliminate 

any alleged discrimination or change any of the practices, 

seniority or transfer system. Even though there were employees 

who were black on the bargaining committee and officers of 

Defendant Local 16, no proposals were ever made or submitted to 

the bargaining committee pertaining to the elimination of any 

alleged discrimination because of race during any of the period 

in issue.

6. At no time were charges filed before the National 

Labor Relations Board or before the Secretary of Labor alleging 

any failure to properly represent any employee, nor specifically 

did the Plaintiffs herein file any such charges before the 

National Labor Relations Board alleging any failure to properly 

represent them before that Board or to the Secretary of Labor 

under any other federal acts. See above cited volumes and pages.

7. Affiant further states that since the Affidavits 

filed by the Plaintiffs raise no new issues of fact not heretofore 

testified to and considered by the Kentucky Human Rights Commission 

in its deliberation and decision, Affiant relies upon the testimony 

introduced by the Commission and its decision.

• > " 

RICHARD HILlARD

/



Hillard

Subscribed and sworn to before me by Richard 

iis_ day of August, 1971.

My commission expires:

NOTARY PUBLIC 
State-at-large, Kentucky



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY 

LOUISVILLE DIVISION

AMANDA COOPER, et al.,

Plaintiffs

v.

PHILIP MORRIS INCORPORATED, et a l .

Defendants

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 6599

V ^ / 7 /

NOTICE OF FILING OF AFFIDAVITS

Defendant, Philip Morris Incorporated, pursuant to the 

Orders of this Court entered herein on July 9, 1971 and July 27, 

1971, files herewith in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment 

the Affidavits of John S. Cox and Martin Roach.

TARRANL

1700 Kehtucky Home Life Building 
Louisville, Kentucky

Counsel for Philip Morris Incorporated

CERTIFICATE

I hereby certify that copies of this Notice and of 
the Affidavits referred to therein were mailed, postage prepaid, 
to Neville M. Tucker, Esq., Jack Greenberg, Esq., Darryl T. Owens, 
Esq., Herbert L. Segal, Esq. and Susan Deller Ross, Esq., this 
August 12, 1971.

A



UNITED STATES DISTRICT <D URT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY

LOUISVILLE DIVISION

AMANDA COOPER, et al.,

Plaintiffs

)
)
)
)
)
)

v. ) Civil Action No. 6599

PHILIP MORRIS INCORPORATED, et al.,

Defendants

)
)
)
)
)
)

AFFIDAVIT OF MARTIN ROACH

Affiant, Martin Roach, being first duly sworn, 

states as follows:

1. He is a member of the bar of this Court and 

the firm of Tarrant, Combs, Blackwell & Bullitt, which is 

associated with Edward F. Butler, Esq., and the firm of 

Conboy, Hewitt, O'Brien & Boardman, 20 Exchange Place, New 

York, New York As counsel for Philip Morris Incorporated (Philip 

Morris) in this action and in that certain proceeding styled

Case No. 103-F, Carrie Lee Carr , et al v. Philip Morris Incorporated, 

et a l , before the Kentucky Commission on Human Rights (Commission).

2. He is thoroughly familiar with the pleadings, 

issues, record, briefs and findings, conclusions and order in



that state proceeding and with the pleadings, issues and record 

in this action.

3. The statistics contained in the Affidavit of 

Neville M. Tucker with respect to the hiring, placement and transfer 

of white and black employees of Philip Morris were introduced 

into evidence either by oral testimony or documentary exhibits 

at the hearing held before the Commission, e.g., Exhibits 4 through 

15, including Exhibits 10A, 11A and 13A, (see Exhibit IX to 

February 10, 1971 Affidavit of Martin Roach filed herein) reflect 

inter alia, seniority list as of March, 1969 for all departments 

including the Stemmery, of Philip Morris; all transfers to the 

main plant between 1961 and April, 1969 indicating race andcfa.te 

of transfer, etc.; black employees as of March 30, 1969 who trans­

ferred from the Stemmery to the main plant between 1957 and 1961; 

black employees employed at the Stemmery as of March 30, 1969 

who were hired prior to October 10, 1961; all employees as of 

April 14, 1969 who transferred from the Stemmery indicating race 

and sex and year of transfer; current black employees originally 

hired into the main plant prior to October, 1961, together with 

the number of whites hired into the main plant at the same time.

In addition, company Exhibit F reveals the racial composition of 

the Stemmery each year for the years 1961 through 1969 and company 

Exhibit G-l, G-2 and G-3 shows, respectively, for the years 1961 

through 1969 percentage of blacks in permanent employment, the 

percentage of blacks in the cigarette department, the highest 

paying department of the operations of Philip Morris, and the 

percentage of blacks added to the permanent work force.

- 2 -



4. In addition to thie documentary evidence intro­

duced at the Commission hearing, counsel for Plaintiffs, Neville 

M. Tucker, also introduced through oral testimony, the statistics 

recited in his Affidavit. For example, his examination of Thomas 

A. Ebendorf, a field investigator for the Commission, adduced the 

following:

"Q. Now, I wonder if you could tell us the 

percentage of blacks hired since 10/10/61 that were 

placed in the Stemmery, and you could also tell the -- 

indicate to the Commission how you arrived at that per­

centage .

A. Well, we took the total number of new hires 

since 10/10/61 in the Stemmery including those presently 

employed and those who were employed and have subsequently 

transferred, and we simply divide it racially. I came 

up with one hundred ninety-seven black people out of 

three hundred eighty-eight, and one hundred nine-one 

whites out of a total of three hundred eighty-eight, which 

you can see roughly break down at about fifty-fifty within 

a handful of people of being fifty percent.

Q. Now, do you have the total number of blacks 

that were hired for this period both in the Semmery and 

the Main Plant?

A. Yes. As I previously indicated we would add 

an additional amount of one hundred eighty-one persons 

and come up with a total of three hundred seventy-eight 

persons hired either in the Stemmery or the Main Plant 

during the period of time since 10/10/61.

-3-



Q. My next question is what percentage of 

blacks hired in the entire plant were placed in

the Stemmery since 10/10/61.

A. Well, it would show that somewhat over 

fifty percent of the black people hired at Philip 

Morris since 10/10/61 have originally been hired 

into the Stemmery. Now, I must indicate immediately 

here that these are based on current employee records 

and do not reflect turn-over rates, as we just don't 

have that information.

Q. I'd like to ask you based on the same factors 

that you just told us about, what percentage of whites 

hired both fi the Main Plant and the Stemmery were hired 

into the Stemmery?

A. Well, we show a total of nine hundred twenty-two 

whites hired, one hundred ninety-one in the Stemmery and 

seven hundred thirty-one in the Main Plant, and of that 

total we see that approximately one out of every four 

white persons hired was hired in the Stemmery, and I 

think we figured that out percentage-wise at twenty 

point seven (20.7) percent." Vol. I, Transcript of 

Testimony, p p . 114-116, Exhibit III to February 10, 1971 

Affidavit of Martin Roach filed herein.

MAR

Subscribed and sworn to before me by Martin Roach 

this _____ day of August, 1971.

My commission expires April 11, 1973.

/
Notary Public, Jefferson County,

Kentucky



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY 

LOUISVILLE DIVISION

AMANDA COOPER, et al., )
)

Plaintiffs )
)
)
)

v. ) Civil Action No. 6599
)
)

PHILIP MORRIS INCORPORATED, et al., )
)

Defendants )

AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN S. COX

Affiant, John S. Cox, being first duly sworn, 

states as follows:

1. He resides at 1401 Coldspring Road, Anchorage,

Kentucky;

2. He is currently Personnel-Labor Relations Manager 

for the Louisville operations of Philip Morris Incorporated, a 

position he has held since 1958;

3. As Personnel-Labor Relations Manager he is in 

charge of and responsible for the personnel department of Philip 

Morris which collects, maintains and administers every record 

pertinent to every employee's job connection with Philip Morris; 

and the negotiation and administration of labor contracts with 

various unions certified as the collective bargaining agents for

f  " L ,



the hourly production workers of the Louisville operations of 

Philip Morris;

4. He is thoroughly familiar with the pleadings, 

documents of record, transcript, testimony and briefs on file

in the proceeding styled Case No. 103-E, Carrie Lee Carr, et a l ., 

v. Philip Morris Incorporated, before the Kentucky Commission 

on Human Rights (Commission) as he participated in the preparation 

of the defense of that proceeding against Philip Morris and 

attended all hearings held therein and testified under oath thereat

5. He has read and reviewed and is thoroughly familiar 

with the affidavits filed in this action by Neville M. Tucker, 

Charles A. Dixon, Bernice Robinson, Delores Clark, Dorothy Beatty, 

Vera M. Pruitt and Robert E. Moorman. He is likewise thoroughly 

familiar with the pleadings and other documents on file in this 

action;

6. The foregoing affidavits of Neville M. Tucker, 

Bernice Robinson, Delores Clark, Dorothy Beatty, Vera M. Pruitt 

and Robert E. Moorman do not state or allege any fact: or statistic 

that was not introduced into evidence before the Commission in 

the proceeding styled Carrie Lee Carr, et al., v. Philip Morris 

Incorporated, et al., nor do any of said affidavits make any claim 

or raise any issue that have not already been made or raised in 

said proceeding before the Commission;

7. Statements made by Affiants Robinson, Beatty,

Clark, Pruitt and Moorman that at the time they were employed at 

the Stemmery only whites were employed at the main plant is com­

pletely untrue^



Pursuant to the Order of the Commission,

Philip Morris adjusted the seniority of all black employees 

hired prior to October 10, 1961 at the Stemmery and who transferred 

therefrom to the main plant so that the permanent seniority date 

of those black employees is the date they were initially hired 

by Philip Morris into the Stemmery;

black employee and a whi te employee of Philip Morris who each 

hold the same job classification.

Subscribed and sworn to before me by John S. Cox, 

personally known to me to be Personnel-Labor Relations Manager 

of Philip Morris Incorporated this August ' 1 , 1971.

My commission e x p i r e s ___________  .

9. There is no differential in the wages paid a

jJOHN S. COX

Notary Public, Jefferson County, 
Kentucky

-3-



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY

LOUISVILLE DIVISION

AMANDA COOPER, et al., )
)

Plaintiffs, )
)
)

v. ) Civil Action No. 6599
)
)
)

PHILIP MORRIS INCORPORATED, et al., )
)

Defendants. )

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

This cause having come before the Court on the 

motions cf Defendants for summary judgment against Plaintiffs, 

and the Court having entered Findings of Fact and Conclusions 

of Law,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:

I. That the Complaint be, and the same hereby is, 

dismissed with prejudice at Plaintiffs' costs; and

II. That this is a final Judgment and there is no 

just reason for delaying its entry.

Copies to all counsel:

Neville M. Tucker 
Darryl T. Owens 
Martin V. Roach 
Edward F. Butler 
Jack S. Greenberg 
Susan D. Ross

_ r Gordo11------ Jaart I -— — ---------------
JAMES F. GORDON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

il Copy 
"..IGU-t

ty

‘ Attest
hinkeuhofer, Jr., Clerk

Z & J U  (Deputy Clerk

p  0  V  jc/ ss/ j j
h:L



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY 

LOUISVILLE DIVISION

AMANDA COOPER, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

)
)
)
)
)
)
) Civil Action No. 6599
)
)
)

PHILIP MORRIS INCORPORATED, et al.,)
)

Defendants. )

FINDINGS OF FACT 
AND

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This cause having come before the Court on the motions 

of Defendants, Philip Morris Incorporated (Philip Morris) and 

Tobacco Workers International Union, Local No. 16 (Local 16), to 

dismiss the Complaint herein of Plaintiffs; the Court, after 

giving all parties reasonable opportunity to present all material 

pertinent thereto, having treated said motions as motions for 

summary judgment under FRCP56 and having considered all pleadings 

of record and all affidavits and exhibits thereto filed by 

Plaintiffs and Defendants and having heard the arguments of 

counsel, the Court now makes the following Findings of Fact 

and Conclusions of Law:

7 3 *

/  J  / f t / / i / ' 7 /  

f t



FINDINGS OF FACT

!• Plaintiffs, Amanda Cooper, Vera M. Pruitt and 

Gwendolyn D. Wilson, are blacks employed by Philip Morris at 

its cigarette factory in Louisville, Kentucky. Local 16 is 

the collective bargaining representative of Plaintiffs and 

certain other Louisville employees of Philip Morris.

2. On or about January 27, 1969 Plaintiffs filed

the Kentucky Commission on Human Rights (Kentucky Commission) 

charges of racial discrimination in violation of the Kentucky 

Civil Rights Act of 1966 (Kentucky Act) against both Philip 

Morris and Local 16. The charges were sworn to January 22, 1969 

and each described the alleged discrimination in the following 

identical terms:

"I am being discriminated against with respect 
to compensation and transfer and promotion op­
portunities because of my race. The collective 
bargaining agreement between Philip Morris 
Incorporated and Local Union No. 16, Tobacco 
Workers International, is discriminatory against 
me as a Negro because it contains provisions 
superimposed on departmental structures organized 
on a racially segregated basis."

3. On or about February 10, 1969 Plaintiffs filed 

identical, word for word, charges sworn to January 22, 1969 with 

the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against both 

Philip Morris and Local 16 charging them with racial discrimination 

in violation of Title VII of the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964 

(Federal Act).

4. The Kentucky Commission investigated the charges 

filed with it and by notice dated April 28, 1969, ordered a

-2-



hearing. Answers were filed by Philip Morris and Local 16; 

pretrial discovery of Philip Morris and Local 16 was had; and 

a public hearing was held before the Commission on September 8,

9, 10, 23, 26 and October 2, 1969.

5. At that hearing, the case for the charging parties 

was presented and argued by counsel for the Commission staff,

James C. Hickey, Esq., and by counsel for Plaintiffs, Hon. Neville 

M.  Tucker and Darryl T. Owens, Esq. Fifteen witnesses (including 

each of Plaintiffs) testified at the hearing; thirty-nine exhibits 

were introduced into evidence; six days were consumed in trial 

and final argument; and the transcript recorded by an official 

court reporter exceeded 1,300 pages.

6. The theory of the case presented by the Commission 

staff was that (a) only Negroes were hired for seasonal employ­

ment at Philip Morris between 1952 and October 10, 1961; (b)

if they transferred to permanent or year-round employment, they 

were subject to the transfer date seniority provisions of the 

labor agreement which provides that when a seasonal employee 

transfers to permanent employment, his seniority date on the 

permanent roster is his transfer date; and (c) Plaintiffs and 

others similarly situated suffered the consequences of past 

discrimination by application of these provisions because they 

were employed at a time when the seasonal work force was racially 

segregated. The relief sought was that the emplcy ees affected 

be given seniority adjustments; job transfer opportunities; and 

money damages in the form of back pay awards. Counsel for Plaintiff

-3-



presented their case on the same theory and sought the same 

relief except they sought to extend the relief to all Negroes 

hired for seasonal work between 1952 and January 13, 1964.

7. After considering the written briefs of all 

parties, including Plaintiffs, on April 23, 1970 the Kentucky 

Commission issued Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and 

Order, finding inter alia that Negro empLoyees of Philip Morris 

hired for seasonal work between 1952 and October 10, 1961, when 

only Negroes were so hired, continue to suffer the consequences 

of past discrimination by virtue of the transfer date seniority 

provisions of the collective bargaining agreement; that the 

proceeding before it was properly prosecuted as a class action; 

that the class consisted of 153 Negro persons Hired for seasonal 

work between May 1952 and October 10, 1961; that Plaintiffs 

fairly and adequately represented the interests of the class; 

that the seniority system discriminated against this class; and 

that personal desires as to job and shift preferences and other 

factors made any attempt to ascertain damages, if any, sustained 

by the class highly speculative and that airy such attempt would 

be pure conjecture.

8. The Order of the Kentucky Commission directed 

that retroactive seniority on the permanent roster be accorded 

to those of the class involved who had previously transferred 

from seasonal to permanent employment and tihat those within the 

class remaining in seasonal employment be given an opportunity 

to transfer to permanent employment with seniority unimpaired. 

Neither damages nor attorneys' fees for counsel for Plaintiffs 

were awarded.

-4-



9. Orders of the Kentucky Commission may be 

appealed within 30 days to the Kentucky circuit court and 

then to the Kentucky Court of Appeals. All proceedings under 

the Kentucky Act in the circuit courts and Kentucky Court of 

Appeals are directed to be held and determined "as expeditiously 

as possible and with lawful precedence over other matters."

KRS 344.240. However, no appeal by any of the parties was 

taken, and said Order became final on May 24, 1970.

10. Philip Morris and Local 16 then complied with 

said Order and readjusted the seniority lists so as to accord 

retroactive seniority to those of the class entitled thereto 

and gave those of the class remaining within seasonal employ­

ment an opportunity to transfer to permanent employment with 

seniority unimpaired.

11. At no time prior to said Order did any of 

Plaintiffs refile their charges with or request the EEOC

to intervene and take jurisdiction of their charges of racial 

discrimination filed with it on February 10, 1969. On April 

24, 1970, the EEOC, pursuant to requests of Plaintiffs, issued 

to them notices pursuant to Section 1601.25(a) of the Rules 

and Regulations of the EEOC advising them of their right to 

institute a civil action in the appropriate District Court 

consistent with Section 706(e) of the Federal Act.

12. Plaintiffs commenced this action on May 5, 1970, 

on behalf of themselves and the class of all other blacks 

employed in the hourly production work force of the Louisville

-5 -

7 7  as



operations of Philip Morris, alleging that (a) they had been 

discriminated against with respect to the terms, conditions 

and privileges of their employment by Philip Morris and Local 

16 in violation of their civil rights; and (b) Local 16 had 

violated its duty of fair representation under federal laws 

in that it has acquiesced and/or joined in the unlawful and 

discriminatory practices and policies alleged in the Complaint 

in this action and has failed to protect Negro employees from 

said practices and policies.

13. The civil rights issues and the relief sought 

by Plaintiffs and the class they purport to represent in this 

action are identical to the issues, relief and class involved 

in the Kentucky proceedings.

14. Plaintiffs do not allege or contend that the 

Kentucky proceedings were arbitrary or denied them a full and 

fair hearing on their charges of racial discrimination.

15. The collective bargaining agreements between 

Philip Morris and Local 16 prohibit any discrimination because

of race, and any charge of such discrimination can be the subject 

for the grievance procedure established under such agreements.

16. Plaintiffs neither allege nor submit any proof 

that any efforts were made to utilize the administrative remedies 

under the collective bargaining agreements with respect to 

their charges of racial discrimination, or that it would have 

been futile or a meaningless act to so do or attempt to so do,

or that Local 16 interfered with, frustrated or thwarted the 

filing of or the processing of any grievance alleging dis­

crimination because of race.

-6-



At no time was any grievance filed by Plaintiffs or anyone else 

alleging racial discrimination, nor was any request made of Local 

16 to file a grievance alleging discrimination because of race, 

nor was any effort to file a grievance or request conciliation 

or mediation or discussion with Philip Morris over alleged dis­

crimination because of race made by Plaintiffs or anyone.

17. Plaintiffs nowhere allege in their Complaint nor 

have they submitted any proof that Local 16 acted arbitrarily, 

in bad faith, in a fraudulent manner, by misrepresentation, with 

dishonesty of purpose, or by such gross mistake or inaction as 

to imply bad faith, or with malice, fraud, or dishonesty or 

hostility toward Plaintiffs or any other Negro members of Local 16.

18. The amount in controversy exceeds'$10,000, exclusive 

of interest and costs.

19. Philip Morris and Local 16 are each engaged in an 

industry affecting interstate commerce.

20. There is no genuine issue as to any material fact 

with respect to the claims of Plaintiff herein.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. This action arises under Title VII of the Federal 

Act (42 U.S.C. §§2000e et seg_.); 42 U.S.C. §1981; and 29 U.S.C. 

§l-tl £t £0£. (labor Management Relations Act). The amount in 

controversy, exclusie of interest and costs, is $10,000.

2. The Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§1331 

and 1343, and 42 U.S.C. §2000c-5(f).

3. Title VII of the Federal Act specifically provides 

that nothing therein is to be construed as indicating an intent

>/.'V



on the part of Congress to occupy the field in which Title VII 

operates "to the exclusion of State laws on the same subject 

matter". 42 U.S.C. §§2000h-4.

4. The Kentucly Act is closely patterned after Title 

VII of the Federal Act; prohibits in identical terms racial dis­

crimination in employment as does the Federal Act; provides for

an efficient and effective administration and enforcement of those 

provisions; and fully embodies the national policy of anti-dis­

crimination in employment. The Kentucky Act is not pre-empted 

by Title VII of the Federal Act.

5. The civil rights issues raised and the relief sought 

by Plaintiffs herein on behalf of themselves and the other members 

of the class they purport to represent against Philip Morris and 

Local 16 are identical to those raised and litigated against 

those defendants in the Kentucky proceedings Plaintiffs initiated, 

the final adjudication of which Plaintiffs did not appeal, as

they had the right to do. The findings and adjudication by the 

Kentucky Commission are entitled to full faith and credit by 

this Court and are binding upon Plaintiffs and the class. See United 

States v. Utah Construction & Mining C o ., 384 U.S. 394 (1966); 

Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Hunt, 320 U.S. 430 (1943). Plaintiffs 

are barred by res judicata and are estopped from prosecuting their 

civil rights claims in this Court against these named Defendants.

See Chicago, R. I. & Pac . R y . v. Schendel, 270 U.S. 611 (1926); 

Voutsis v. Union Carbide Corp., 321 F.Supp. 830 (S.D. N.Y. 1971); 

Marquez v. Ford Motor C o ., 2 FEP Cases 26 (D. Neb. 1968).

6. At any time after the expiration of 60 days after 

the filing of their charges with the Kentucky Commission, Plaintiffs, 

at all times represented by experienced counsel, had the right to 

request the EEOC to Intervene and assume jurisdiction of their

- 8 -



charges. 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(b) and (d); EEOC Reg. 1601.12 and 

1601.25a and b. Nonetheless, Plaintiffs chose to litigate thair 

charges to a final adjudication under the Kentucky Act. That 

election of forums and the determination of the Kentucky Commission 

(which Plaintiffs do not assail as unfair) is binding upon them 

and precludes them from maintaining this action with respect to 

their civil rights claims. See Pewey v. Reynolds Metals C o ., 429 

F.2d 324 (6th Cir. 1970), aff'd per curiam 39 U.S. Law Week 3526 

(June 1, 1971); Voutsis v. Union Carbide Corp., supra; Washington 

v. Aero-Jet General Corp., 282 F.Supp. 517 (C.D. Cal. 1968).

7. Because the civil rights claims of Plaintiffs relate 

to the terms, conditions and privileges of their employment at 

Philip Morris which, in turn, are governed by labor contracts 

between Philip Morris and Local 16, the contention of Plaintiffs 

that their rights to make and enforce contracts as guaranteed by

42 U.S.C. §1981 have been violated cannot give them any greater 

claim or create any additional civil rights issues that have not 

already been raised and litigated under the Kentucky Act. Their 

prosecution of this action under 42 U.S.C. §1981 is likewise 

precluded for the foregoing reasons.

8. Title VII of the Federal Act encourages the states to 

promote and enforce anti-discrimination laws which, such as the 

Kentucky Act, effectively implement the national policy expressed

by the Federal Act. Plaintiffs proceeded under the Kentucky Act; 

participated in pre-trial discovery; were given a full and fair 

hearing in a five day trial before the Kentucky Commission in which 

they were permitted to introduce evidence and examine and cross- 

examine witnesses by counsel of their own choice, as well as counsel

-9-
6 1 6 -



selected by the Commission. There must be an end to litigation. 

Assumption of jurisdiction of the civil rights claims of Plaintiffs 

in this action would abrogate such Congressional intent; under­

mine the effectiveness of the Kentucky Act; be an improvident 

expenditure of time, money and judicial manpower and effort; and 

place an intolerable burden on Defendants. Relitigation might 

also result in a decision adverse to the class, and it would be 

impossible, in view of the adjustments in seniority and the transfer 

opportunities made and afforded by Philip Morris in compliance 

with the Order of the Kentucky Commission, to restore the status 

quo ante with respect to the employees affected thereby. Con­

sequently, this Court murst exercise its wise discretion and abstain 

from taking jurisdiction of the civil rights claims of Plaintiffs 

herein. See Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc, v. University of 

Illinois Foundation, 39 U.S. Law Week 4506 (i970); Railroad Comm'n 

v. Pullman C o ., 312 U.S. 496 (1941).

9. Local 16 is under a duty to afford its members 

fair representation, and to enforce on behalf of its members 

the contract between it and Philip Morris [NLRA Section 8(b)(3), 

8(d); 29 U.S.C. §158], As such representative, it may not 

discriminate between or among itsmembers on account of race or 

color [Title VII, Section 703(c), 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(c)]. In 

representing its members in their relationship with Philip Morris, 

Local 16 has not violated the provisions of Title VII of the 

Federal Act or its duty of fair representation under any federal 

laws .

10. Before a claim alleging a violation of the duty

of fair representation can be sustained, there must be allegations

-10-



and proof that some effort to utilize the administrative or 

grievance procedure provided for in the collective bargaining 

agreement was made; or that it would be futile or a meaningless 

act to so do; or that an attempt to utilize the administrative 

or grievance procedure under the collective bargaining agreement 

was made and was frustrated by the defendant union; Republic 

Steel Corn, v. Maddox. 379 U.S. 650 (1965); Vaca v. Sipes, 386 

U.S. 171 (1967). Plaintiffs neither allege nor prove any of 

these matters.

11. A claim of a violation of the duty of fair repre­

sentation must also be supported by allegations and proof that 

the defendant union acted arbitrarily or in bad faith, with 

fraudulent intent, misrepresentation, dishonesty of purpose, 

gross mistake, with malice, or dishonesty. Dill v. Greyhound

Corp,, CA6 435 F.2d 231 76 LRRM 2076, cert, denied, ___ U.S.______,

77 LRRM 2120 (1971); Motor Coach Employees v. Lockridge, 29 L.Ed 

473, 77 LRRM 2501 (1971). Plaintiffs neither allege nor prove 

any of these matters.

13. Philip Morris and Local 16 are each entitled to 

summary judgment against Plaintiffs dismissing the Complaint herein.

_____ Jame3 F. Gordon_____________
JAMES F. GORDON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Entered: October /ffifi-971 .

Copies to all counsel:

Neville M. Tucker 
Darryl T. Owens 
Martin V. Roach 
Edward F. Butler 
Jack S. Greenberg 
Susan D. Ross

A Copy; Attest
August Winienhofer, Jr,, Clerk 

Deputy Clerk

-11-

£ 2  4-



* i . °  f •
l\i t > c.- ■' * ’/

c o m m o n w e a l t h  o f  Ke n t u c k y  
COMMISSION on HUM.Vi RIGHTS 

case no. 103-n

R OF:

.ORATE!)

’■o. 16, TOBACCO WORKERS
i A T i c t r . - n

FIHD.’ : 3S_ CFJ-V.C7

cone? u ions o f  l a w

ORFF I;

tu.' .j Commission c.i Mu nun Rights, havi.ij considered the 

• in thi- proceeding.,, including r.ll of the evidence
■cd at the public hearing held in Louisville, Kentucky, on 

3, io, 23, and October 2, 196S, hereby makes the 
•-nS findings ox fact, conclusions of law, and order in 
•dance with the provisions of KRS 34if.2 30 :

FIMHNG3 OF FACT
fli The He-pro complainants, Carrie Lee.Carr, Amanda Cooper,

M. Fiuiit and Gwendolyn D. Wilson, are production employees 
itomo, Incorporated, and members of Local Number 16 

co ..or.:_r3 International Union. Complainants end one hundred

employees, similarly situated composed 
of Faroes hired by Philip Morris between May. 1952 

. --> — - -T-, wiio were employees of Philip Morris on the
complaints herein were filed with the Commission.

■ ?? The respondent, Philip Morris, Incorporated, is doing 
nos in Kentucky, and the respondent, Local Mo. 15, Tobacco

■! *1 1 t O i l  u l

Tac respond 
ul

•" •' -i .; - : .1 •* •

.............................. .... *-**•-* : u j U I u . 1  UI7.Z

OTill > i l ■* . s\ v. . u  i  > ii* n . yriv'

on j.oni, reprv seats certai
r. . ;:<r pi1 at :.tr> Maple itree

i-5 hav.i ent er-: d into cc
, ho-'— a.il workin?

-1..

rs for :>Fir.■.anunt and ;
onui'i'v/o• i ' i,v!ho tr wir for .
COJ.-.p.:■ tit I seniority <f
!Ilt* :> •:• t r? r ,
A Cf 5 • l of >'■') c i .j.- Rose

i / ^ / '

sy a-

><?

! I I



(4) There are at Philip Morris,* Incorporated in Louisville ,

) n tux fcy, bo til sea vjr.al employee:

*•*'nsonal c;:.pIcyees worl appx'oxi n«

5 -! wcl • 1:111- - s Lan,■> Gr ■ cJLZr-4r»

V'O -k yea r* '-ound in the Cigarette

ri* iippir.g , Extrusion and Sundry D.

- 1 ( 5 ) Ex cept for th e factors

he i gh t requi ren.ent not relevant

employment in the Philip Morris, Incorporated hourly production 

workforce, until the date of October 10, 1961, whether for seasonal, 

or permanent employment, were the same. . ,

(5) F ^ m  the opening of the seasonal Greenleaf Stemmery on 

Millers bane in Kay of 1952 until the date of October 10, 1961, 

respondent, Philip Morris, Incorporated, hired only Negroes for 

itr, seasonal stemmery work.. Such Negroes were permitted to transfer 

to Permanent work only by transferring to the Sundry Department 

in ganitorial and natron position, and only in small numbers.

(7) Until October 10, 1961, the Negro employees were represent 

fcy local Mo. 72, Tobacco Workers International Union and the white 

hcvrly production employees were represented by Local No. 16,

Tcsacco Workers International Union. On January 13, 1964, Local 

No. 72, then under trusteeship, w a s ,merged, with Local Number 16, , 

an.u the surviving Union was Local No. l B ^ T o b a c c o  Workers 

International Union. Between 1961 and 1964, some-Negro employees 

in. the Sundry Department represented,by Local No. 72 were allowed 

to transfer to jobs under the jurisdiction of Local No. 16.

•' ~ <Q) On October. 10, 1961, a Factories Employment Policy for

ti first time provi dxd opportunity for the Negro Sundry Personnel

to transfer into the previously all white Cigarette Department.

xt’ also r,-idcd th.
!

t ir. +■' r vent Sundry personnel declined transfer

t:*no Ci '. i c*t Lo l .• i :■ tn •* n t t'* o n temmery w< rk.a..» at the Millets

I ;;r.s Stemmcry would be permitted to transfer directly to the

Clrare V ; u Department. :.u> .11

i I



(9) N: Ami'll-.; i u t  employees transferring, to the,

Ciyn f.’t’t te D- 'p.• 'Tirii l. J.UOK (la t.h
t ■ of t'rioir l.iMJi:' 4 to 1.1 * C
Strr ' • :y v»or' '1 : took th-jir i

pur. •' •: Mary 33, 195 4 ,
erpl-syces had their cn; petitiVo
date of their entry into perman*

at
*<

n t e m - r y  workers continued to have only transfer date competitive 

seniority.

O O  In the operation of r ondent, Philip Morris, Incorporated, 

. ho;; i.svillo, Kentucky, an employee's opportunity to bid for a 

bigucr p lying job, or a job personaally preferable, to transfer to 

Other departments, to select a preferred shift, and to select 

vacation time, are determined cn the basis of his or her competitive 

seniority date.

(^1) The seniority system is included in the cpntracts betv/een 

Philip Morris, Incorporated and local No. 16 of the Tobacco Workers 

International Union (the latest of such contracts being of date 

January 31, 1968.

$-'/> The seniority system in the above mentioned contract 

CKo. 11 above), while neutral on its face, did at the time of the 

cm., crcement of  this action affect in different fashion from all 

other employees covered by such contract 153 Negro employees 

hired in the years from 1152 to 396) in the green leaf stemmery 

operation. . , .

%Xo) Of the 153 employees so affected, 124 are presently 

rarmanunt employees and 29 are seasonal employees presently.

^  ( l O  The proof introduced did not determine with any certainty 

financial gain or .ass to the 153 employees because of the system 

of seniority compl; ined of,

•' ) Since 1- <15 I'hi. u‘p Me— a ’ : Tr.co" ' . .-..ted has endeavor''!

-a accord the same treatment to all employe-, s regardless of race, 

religion and national origin, such policy having the effect of attract­

ing upgrading i-oina Negro employees.



_ co.N'ct.ns i!):,':; or r.-v,7

Co:

on3 oi 1.

Cr <: n

p r - :'

f i - ' , f .

of

' tile '

adeov

.•'on I3 -i proper subject for class 

1 and fact cocmon to all persons 

J olJ*/ 1 '-•!C number of persons involved in 

i . . ;:n numerous that joinder of all persons is im- 

11,2 cl; of t h - i'-;rjcd complainants, Carrie Lee Carr,

‘ ‘ ■ euitt ..i.d Gwendolyn D. Wilson, are typical

"•* .t;‘° •'1'v'-'!s ,of aJ1 Negroes similarly situated at the time 

J-plcUiiLi herein v/ere filed. The named complainants fairly and 

ately represent and protect the interest of the class.

~ 1 . '

- ^2‘-' *he respondent Pmiip Morris, Incorporated is an"Employer" as 

defineu by KK3 344.030(1). The respondent Local Humber 16,Tobacco 

Horhers International Union is a "Labor Organization " as defined by 

_KRS 344.030(3). The complainants, Carrie Lee Carr, Amanda Cooper,

Vera .... Pruitt end Gwendolyn D. Wilson and other similarly situated 

Negro employees of Philip Morris, Incorporated, in Louisville,Kentucky 

are "Urpioyeco" as defined by KRS 344.030(4). Accordingly, the Kentucky 

Commission on Human Rights has jurisdiction of the parties and the 

Instant controversy under the Kentucky Civil Rights Act of 1966.

(3.) The respondents' establishment and maintenance , pursuant to 

tncii collective bargaining agreements, of a seniority system which 

denies employment opportunities and equal terms and conditions of 

employment to the complainants and other Negroes similarly situated 

hecne. of their race or color constitutes"Dis<:rinination" as 
defined in KRS 344.010(4) ' * . ‘ ' • ' •'



C  ) Subsequent to the July 1,1966 effective date of the Kentucky 

■ C j.vj.1 Sights Act of 1966, respondents have byuxheir -continuance of 

seniority system referred to in paragraph 3 above engaged in 

.>n tn. awful practice as defined in KR3 344.040 ar.p 344.060. incthat they 

have discriminated against the four complainants and 149 other Negro 

employee., similarly situated with respect to compensation, terms, cond­

itions and privileges of employment because of race and color.

'  ' ' *
(5.) Respondents' seniority system continues the effects of past

diSCrIminati0n as t0 the f0L,r complainants and 149 other Negro employ­
ees similarly situated and constitutes an unlawful practice for an

rapi°yer 33 dGflned in KRS 344.040(2) and for a labor organization 

' «  defined in KRS 344.060(2) in that the effect is to segregate and

classify these individuals in a way which deprives them of employment 

..opportunities, limits such employment opportunities and otherwise 

adversely affects their status as employees because of race or colo'r.

(. j respondent committed an unlawful act when after July 1,1966 

they maintained these policies above described, continuing a seniority 

cystem which had the effect of requiring the four complainants a^d '

- 149 other Negro employees similarly situated hired prior to October 10,

1961, to forfeit their competitive seniority' If they availed themselves

of previously denied.opportunities for improved terms and conditions
of employment.' • .

t /  a . }  personal ant individual desires as to jab preferenaes,

to ascertain. dr.-.,*....,

< * *



'fy ' by thC C0",pluindnt= ' -  l*;n other Ne^ro’ S UV''1:; I hi J i °V •iiCUil h-
L' 1 Vt-' end any attempt

■‘it* •- 1 ; r*

- ' ton

} 
«. y->

 
■* 

C i j.<; be pur­- conj. •cturc
i iyi 's Acts of 1 o r g 3 3 G 8

.. Of Ui • corns'. vet.. r-ned J;
' ■■■■•■- for the case to be P^e::ented i, . ----- =û o r ir  c

^ °y counsel n n v i r - H  +,
• ‘" d by th° Concussion, or an
f-ri- c m  staff of the Commission.

i/

o h d s r  ‘ ■

Z Z T cky c~ ' * i“ ~ —
tr^- . ' °‘'ip ln et̂ ual opportunity and^■'•eouerit for all ,-»-r ,*4. J

11 °f lts ^Ployees. H,e Commissi- m r  , 
« r o ?any for its e f V n *  „ S'°“ C0mr'9nds theefforts and pre^rpoo ■*-« i •

‘ - * .o eliminate d1* serin*- -j--r•u* u.i coDJovr«nt u c-scnirduaaon
“  However, it is incu^ ent .

« “ «  indicates that the , • . Co— ss-on
t>tvv« t--:C r. j_c_ aP? ication or an employment

r c- -s a continuing
c - r  .v-c. - ' • “  a , * „ up of

—  *. i t Z Z Z Z 1" ’ ”  d“ 3 the evide"“ herein- «■••'
. »  IS J W t t R W S  OP.DZFZD j*tT,

Cl.* Hie resoond t,, .

w - ~ ,  r  p " ~ i- r—  -  

^  p „: * 7 — *  union' — • - — « ,pra..ices above described.

( Z }  Jnt! 23 employees hired dur^nr th«curing the years t o o t *_
classified as "seasonal , ‘ 6 1 » e r r a n t l y->easonal e m o l o w a ^ "
C r e c n W f  S t ^ p * p r e S e n t ly  a t  =he

t .. ■ S h a U  ln the order of their S t e - c - y  sen’ -
bC one opportunity to trar~fe- f ..' - n i°rity,
following deoartm.—  r * ^  th* 3t“ »e*y to the

tne permanent work forro.
■ - „  ^ i „ ,  Cflpartcu„ t , n m M n t  ^

...... o n t ' Extrusion . r
• “ ,vl sundry rep.-r.tne.it

"rr.oie^ occur or as new p o - . i t W  „„
i J- L-orij are opened in

wo r k  force in - w , ‘ , .,. 1 ^  the permanent
theS° Apartments. this o r ^ - h .  +

£ ’Will Le afforded • ri , U y to transfer
r°rc‘ed to the hiring of

& f Personnel into such
* • 1 • r

t

<3 C\ rt M
y i

• »■



ci-.tmr:;- -'-.If.. In the event that vacancies occur in the

ir-tn. •:ir there shall be made available to those 

ar'-' yet at the sti.'.Tunery at the time

: y opportunity to transfer into
’ Ci r-- • * * ,, Hr**-' • » *

■ J‘ ‘ rî  on the sane basis as opportunity 
’V.’ 1 ‘ ■ ploy s's of the above mentioned Departments,

■ "... 'd D./.'ig, Blending, Shipping, Extrusion and

•" t '■‘i-ic. o_ any of these 23 employees such

■ - g shall taxe as his or her competitive 

the sfernery date held as of the date of

T'M trans

n- ' 1- ty 

tnofer.
( ?>

C; :-vnl<?:." Stemmer-.
- narou during The years 1952 to 1961 in the 

J> c . - r r e n t c l a s s i f i e d  as "permanent employees"' 

: : ^...pctitivo sei.iority dates adjusted so as to

I‘"‘!.their e?jr-r‘'titive seniority date that date which was 

1h3i. S.c:,...:e:y seniority date upon their transfer to'permanent
C.;plov

( ’ ) t p c  (' :-: J. .1 O 

---  t

p/. ■' -is el foi

I.” 't days fi­

oU t':eri ty £

etto — rtV't *

(3) Th e j) r

hove ver, d r

terse:rved.

i'y, vhe Kenti

acn does not believe that it has the authority to* 

l<"  t° T,,r complainants1 private counsel, 

le complainants and counsel for the respondents within
oviev." *r

m

i *
. Ey. -She hcnti>c*<y_ Cormier ion on H u m 2-lE'j day of Anr i 1 . 19 70

Paul T . Kra-. - f ’•1 ;?.b »2 r 
• - 1'. :nbei

•v.paca, II - VMca chai r.Tian



a copy or t-)ic foregoing -
11 1 ir f. )j> , of j.. -,, » n.,j

‘ - • 0 7 ; i i'
’ ' • wx u-j*'

*  ̂"<•* «“* .11 co uns v  i
• c t i \ , ,

’ rcsr.cr. bv

hio ; : ;i -’-■y of April, 1970.

\

■ t
:!

. j• i

i
iii
i

■ r

/

l

i

i
i



C) <
COMMONWEAL I. 

COMMISSION o;
complain';

r KE.-.'TUCKY 
*.i.:MAK SIGHTS
i.C . 10 ?-£

In the Matter of: ) 
PHILIP MORRIS, INCORPORATED ) ar.d ) 
LOCAL NO. 16, TOBACCO WORKERS ) 
INTERN ATI ORAL UNION )

1370

ORDER

Rights, having consideredTne Kentucky Ccnsnission on Huv.n 

on May 22 , 1970 tr.e April 20, 1070 notion and brief offered by 

counsel for Respondent, Local Mo. 16, Tobacco Workers International 
Onion, and Commission staff counsel for complainants' response to 
tne motion ar.a having giver, due consideration ar.d deliberation 
to the motion to adjust seniority and respondents' arguments 
m  opposition to awarding attorneys' fees:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The motion (Part I) of respondent 
Workers International Vnior. is de;

2. Attorneys' fees (Part ID win no 
complainants ' private ocurr-el.

Local No. 15, Tobacco

be awarded to

Date _June 5. l->7() KENTUCKY ON HUMAN R]

By - C l  ,
C a a . rm*?.n

I hcr«d j y ce. rtify that a copy cftho wit::.. n w a a m to?-!v. ■ri 1. Sera], 19 th E^.n i>; , ■» -* Bldg., i.rui d l l e ,  V . ;i'r. .V -i»'l in V. Roach, 1V  . f i ^ T  * : ; •'
?1 ig. , I.c•uisville, Ky.Mr. : !wa» d [.. Butler, 20 Exchar-.’0New York, Mew York;
Mr. Moviilc M. Tucker
Wore End Profess Lena! Bldg.Lou i s vi 1 1 ’<•/•; s th 15 5t!iday of _[ 111it-_ , 1 0 7 L . /  ^

/ / J <■