Huff v. N.D. Cass Company of Alabama Motion for Leave to File Brief Amicus Curiae and Participate in Oral Argument Upon Rehearing En Banc

Public Court Documents
August 7, 1972

Huff v. N.D. Cass Company of Alabama Motion for Leave to File Brief Amicus Curiae and Participate in Oral Argument Upon Rehearing En Banc preview

Huff v. N.D. Cass Company of Alabama Motion for Leave to File Brief Amicus Curiae and Participate in Oral Argument Upon Rehearing En Banc

Cite this item

  • Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Huff v. N.D. Cass Company of Alabama Motion for Leave to File Brief Amicus Curiae and Participate in Oral Argument Upon Rehearing En Banc, 1972. ba289191-b89a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/56cfd473-8c6a-4c36-b318-4ac902a8c3c4/huff-v-nd-cass-company-of-alabama-motion-for-leave-to-file-brief-amicus-curiae-and-participate-in-oral-argument-upon-rehearing-en-banc. Accessed July 30, 2025.

    Copied!

    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

NO. 71-2842

BRISCO HUFF, on behalf of himself 
and others similarly situated,

P1a intiff-Appe11a nt,
- vs -

K. D. CASS COMPANY OF ALABAMA,
De f enda nt - Appe 11 e e..

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF AMICUS 
CURIAE AND TO PARTICIPATE IN ORAL 
ARGUMENT- UPON REHEARING EN BANC._____

Movant NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 
hereby respectfully moves the Court to grant it leave to part­
icipate amicus curiae 'in support of the position of the appellant 
in the en banc rehearing of the above-styled appeal both by 
allowing submission of movant's brief and permitting movant to 
appear at oral argument. In support of its request, movant gives 
the following reasons, which also set forth its interest.

1. On July 18, 1972 the Court granted appellant's 
petition for rehearing en banc to review the panel decision of 
April 24, 1972 in the above-styled matter, and directed the 
Clerk to schedule supplemental briefing and oral argument.

2. The principal question presented by the rehearing 
of this matter is the standard by which the representativity 
requirement: of Rule 23(a) (4), Fed. R. Civ. P. is to be applied 
in class actions brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964 as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e ct seg>



3. Movant organization, a New York non-profit corpora- 
tion, is dedicated to the vindication of the legal rights of 
Black persons and other minority group members through the 
processes of law. Pursuant to this commitment, attorneys 
employed or supported by movant have filed in excess of 100 class j 
actions under Title VII, the majority of which have been within 
the jurisdiction of this Court, on behalf of clients claiming 
race, sex, or national origin discrimination in employment.
This program of litigation is crucially affected by the Huff 
matter. I4. Attorneys for movant have briefed and argued three

Icases before this Court, the outcome of which will probably 
depend on the disposition of the Huff matter. Those cases are:
Martin v. Thompson Tractor Co., No. 71-2957 , Smith v.
Delta Air Lines, No. 71- 3197, and Bradley v. Southern Pacific 
Oo., No. 71-3521 . All three were argued on May 16, 1972
before a panel consisting of Judges Tuttle, Morgan, and Roney, 
and are presently under submission. Both Martin and Smith are 
controlled by Huff; and the outcome of Bradley could well be 
affected by the Huff holding.

5. Since the panel decision in Huff was handed down, 
attorneys for movant have encountered defenses based squarely on 
Huff in over a dozen district court Title VII cases in this 
Circuit. Movant's attorneys believe that Huff questions will 
arise routinely in many or most of their pending cases until the 
matter is finally decided en banc.

6. As Judge Thornberry's dissenting opinion indicates, 
the panel decision in Huff is a de-facto overturning of this 
Court's landmark decision in Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, 
Inc., 417 F .2d 1122 (5th Cir. 1969). Movant also litigated that 
case, which is now the procedural keystone of movant's program
of advancing Title VII law and enforcing Title VII rights through­
out this Circuit and the country.

-  ■? -



7. Movant will abide by the schedule set by the Clerk 
for the parties, so that movant's participation amicus curiae 
will not delay the hearing and disposition of this matter.

WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing statement of movant's 
strong and immediate interest in the dispostion of the en banc 
rehearing in Huff v. Cass Co., movant respectfully prays the 
Court to grant it leave to submit a brief amicus curiae in 
support of appellant's position and to participate in oral 
argument.

Respectfully submitted,

JACK GREENBERG */ 
WILLIAM L. ROBINSON 
MORRIS J. BALLER

DAVID CASHDAN 10 Columbus Circle
1910 N Street, N.W. *' Suite 2030Washington, D.C. 20036 New York, New York 10019

Of Counsel Attorneys for Movant NAACP Legal
Defense and Educational Fund, Inc



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that on the ( day of August, 
1972 he served copies of the foregoing Motion for Leave to 
Participate Amicus Curiae upon counsel of record for the parties, 
as listed below, by mailing same, first class postage prepaid.

U. W. Clemen, Esq.,7th Floor, Masonic Temple Building 
1630 Fourth Avenue North 
Birmingham, Alabama 35203
Perry Hubbard, Esq.
P. O. Box 2427 
Tuscaloosa, Alabama
Charles L. Reischel, Esq.Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 
1800 G Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20506

Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellant
J

Copyright notice

© NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.

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


Additional info

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

Return to top