Carson v. American Brands, Inc. Joint Appendix

Public Court Documents
September 2, 1980

Cite this item

Carson v. American Brands, Inc. Joint Appendix preview

88 pages

Document text

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

Download

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read the full LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use Here.

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

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

Matter
- Frank L. Carson, Lawrence Hatcher, and Stuart E. Mines v. American Brands, Inc., t/a The American Tobacco Company; Local 182, Tobacco Workers International Union
Case
- Frank L. Carson, Lawrence Hatcher, and Stuart E. Mines v. American Brands, Inc., t/a The American Tobacco Company; Local 182, Tobacco Workers International Union
U.S. state
- Virginia
Collection
- Brief Collection
Taxonomy
Identifier
- f9b8cdee-ac9a-ee11-be37-00224827e97b

Cite this item

Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Carson v. American Brands, Inc. Joint Appendix, 1980. f9b8cdee-ac9a-ee11-be37-00224827e97b. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/5c644f61-fed3-420e-929b-fbb9700fae7b/carson-v-american-brands-inc-joint-appendix. Accessed November 23, 2025.

Copied!

No. 79-1236

In t h e

Bnpxmxx (tart ni tiir Iftttitrfc ^tatrs
October Term, 1980

Frank L. Carson, Lawrence H atcher, and Stuart E. Mines,
Petitioners,

A merican Brands, Inc ., t/ a The A merican Tobacco Company ;
L ocal 182, Tobacco W orkers I nternational Union,

______ _____ Respondents.

o n a w r it o p c e r t io r a r i t o t h e u n it e d s t a t e s
c o u r t o p a p p e a l s p o r t h e f o u r t h c ir c u it

JOINT APPENDIX

September 2, 1980

H enry L. M arsh, III
W illiam H. B ass, III
R andall G. J ohnson

H ill, Tucker & Marsh
214 Bast Clay Street
P. 0. Box 27363
Richmond, Virginia 23261
(804) 648-9073

J ohn W. Scott, Jr.
615 Caroline Street
Fredericksburg, Virginia 22401
(703) 371-3700

Jack Greenberg
Counsel of Record
James M. Nabrit, III
Napoleon B. W illiams, Jr.

10 Columbus Circle
Suite 2030
New York, New York 10019
(212) 586-8397

Barry L. Goldstein
806 15th Street, N.W.
Suite 940
Washington, D.C. 20006
(202) 638-3278

Counsel for Petitioners

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PLEADINGS

Page

Docket Entries of the Fourth Circuit..... iii

Docket Entries of the District Court vi

Complaint - filed October 24, 1975 ...... la

Answer of American Brands - filed
December 15, 1975 .................. 13a

Answer of International Union - filed
December 16, 1975 .................. 16a

Answer of Local Union No. 182 - filed
December 16, 1975 .................. 20a

Proposed Consent Decree - filed April
1, 1977 ............................ 23a

American Brands1 Memorandum in Support
of Entry of Proposed Consent
Decree - filed April 15, 1977 ...... 34a

Unions 1 Memorandum in Support of Entry
of Proposed Consent Decree - filed
April 18, 1977 ..................... 42a

Plaintiffs' Brief in Support of the
Adoption of the Proposed Consent
Decree - filed April 18, 1977 ...... 44a

Notice of Appeal filed June 24, 1977 ..... 57a

Letter of Defendant American Brands, Inc.
to Clerk of the Fourth Circuit —
Dated January 10, 1978 ............. 59a

Page

Order of the Fourth Circuit Denying Motion
for Summary Reversal - filed January.
31, 1978 .......___................. 61a

Order of March 27, 1978 Denying Motion
for Summary Reversal and Denying
Suggestion to Dismiss Appeal......... 62a

Order Establishing Briefing Schedule —
Filed March 28, 1978 ................ 64a

Letter From Clerk's Office, Fourth
Circuit, Requiring Briefs On
Seigal v. Merrick ...... 65a

Motion of Defendants for Pre-Trial
Conference - Dated October 10, 1979.. 67a

Notice of Pre-Trial Conference .......... 69a

■ a. a m» i*m am G E N E R A L D O C K E T
Un ited S ta te s C o u r t of A ppeals

r o w T H *
FOURTH CIRCUIT

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT
OF VIRGINIA, AT RICHMOND.

CASE NO. 77-2260
Civil

Stxlcipla party - m 19

TITUS OF CAS* ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT

Frank L. Carson, Lawrence Hatcher,
Stuart S« Minas,

A p p a lla n es ,

Aaaricaa Brands, lac., c/a Tha Aaaricaa
Tobacco Company; Local 132, Tobacco Workers
Inc ernacional; Tobacco Workers International
Union,

Appellee*.

No. C/A 75-0553-ft
JraamAiR
Dats or Jmxacmm
Noras or aitbal m ast

D. Dortch Warriner
Juna 2, 1977
Juna 24, 1977

P. Peter Sherwood, Sac.
10 Columbus C ir c le , Su ite 2Q30
New York, NY 10019
212/586-3397

Henry L. Marsh, I I I , Esq.
W illiam 3. Bass, I I I , Ssq.
Randall G. Johnson, Ssq.
P. 0. Box 27363
Richmond, VA 23261
304/648-9073

John W. S co t t , J r . ,
615 C aroline S treet

Ssq.

:e ys f o b a ppellee

Jay J. L avit, Ssq.
Suita 2120
Central N ational 3anJc a idg .
Richmond, VA 23219'
804/644—5453

Henry T. Wiclcham, Ssq.
D. Sugene Webb, J r . , Ssq.
P. 0. Box 1122
Richmond, VA 23208
804/644-8011

10/12/77

ACCOUNT OF APPELLANT

Clark's docketing faa $50 DO

1 1 1

GENERAL DOCKET
Un ited S ta te s C o u r t of A ppeals

FOR THE
roOHB CIRCUIT

CASINO. 77-2260 APPEAL HUM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT TOR THE ZSSmH DISTRICT

DATS 1 F*LINGS-»?ROCS£DINGS iFTJ»d 1

10/12/77 i Record cm appeal In ona velum (Vol. 1) filed and appeal docketed. jb
10/12/77 ! Defendant Aaarlean Brand's Answers to P laintiffs1 Interrogatories in one jacket

(Vol. XX), Answer of Aaarlean Brenda ca Plaintiffs ’ Second Interrogatories
In ona box (Vol. I l l ) , filed . jb

10/12/77 j Depositions in sixteen voluaea (Vole. XV mns XXX) filed . jb
'10/12/77 ; Order establishing brlaflng sedadula pursuant cs L3. 19, filed . jb
b .0 /14 /77 ! Appearance o f D avit fo r dope H aas (Local 132 5 Tobacco workers In tn l.
j j Union) f i l e d and en tered , mgk
JlO/17/77I Appearance o f Webb and Wickham fo r ap p ellee* (American Brands) f i l e d

and en tered , mjk
Appearance o f Sherwood fo r appellants f i l e d and en tered , mjk
Appearance o f S co tt fo r app ellan t f i l e d and en tered , mjk
Appearance o f Harsh, Bass s Johnson fo r appellants f i l e d and en tered . : mjk
MOTION o f appellant fo r an extension o f time to f i l e b r ie f and

appendix to December 20, 1377, f i l e d . MOTION GRANTED, ( f l s )
ten (10) cop ies o f the jo in t appendix f i l e d . (12-20-77 dmh).

12-22-77]’ Tw enty-five (25),fop4-*s o f the, a p p e lla n t ,'s -b r ie f f i l e d . (12 -2 __77 imra)
l k w i 8‘ teg g b frs ^ l i p e l l i n i 8 for11lu n m iry ~ fiv lrsa i*1‘f l fa f f .B (ecr !

Defendant'3 response to motion fo r summary re v e rsa l, f i l e d . (ecr)
Transmitted to Dulcey along with m otion.
ORDER denying motion fo r summary re v e rs a l, f i l e d . (ecr ! C e r t ifie d

co p ie s to Sherwood, Marsh, Bass, Johnson, S co t t , L a v it, Wickham.
Motion fo r summary a ffirm ance, response to m otion, proposed order

sent to Judges H all, Saynsworth and Soreman. Copy of appendix
sent to Judge Boreman; record reta ined in C le rk 's O f f ic e . (JBH/vsi)

Panel on motion rev ised to XXB, CFH, HLW. Papers sent to HLW. (JBH/vsl
ORDER rescin d in g th is c o u r t ’ s order o f Jan. 31, 1378, f i l e d . ■(ecr)

ORDER denying a p p e lla n t 's motion fo r summary reversa l and denying
the suggestion o f the American Brands to dism iss anneal, f i l e d .

ORDER esta b lish in g b r ie f in g schedule fo r the a p p e llee , f i l e d . (ecr)
Twenty _ ? iv e (25) cop ies o f the a p p e lle e 's b r ie f f i l e d , ,HD->rb«

H
10 /13 /77
■10/20/77
1 0 /20 /77
111/10/77

12-20-' :2-a
w .
1/23/78

S&31/78
>1/31/73

2 /7 /73
2 /3 /78
3/27/78

3/28/73
1/26/78

530-78
10-3-78
2 /9 /79
2 /12 /79 |
2 /22/79

5 /1 4 /7 9 i

5 /31/79 !

7 m i'

5/15/78) Twenty-Five (25) copies of the appellant's reply brief filedi,eu u y -ci.,T i i o ) cop ies oi tne aupeuxant ■ s repay o n e r _____ ______
Negative Local Rule 17 d is c lo su re (American Brands, In c . ) f i l e d , dhb
Cause argued b e fore Judges Winter and H all, C ircu it Judges and Hoffman
D is t r ic t Judge and subm itted, (wtc)
A pp ellan ts ' supplemental memorandum f i l e d . ?lm
Supplemental memorandum o f ap p ellees f i l e d (m is-d irectad to

d i s t r i c t c o u r t ) , plm Transmitted to HLW, KXH, WEHoffman.
A ppellant s supplemental rep ly memorandum f i l e d , ( f l s ) Transmitted

to HLW, XXH, WEHoffman.
ORDER granting rehearing an bane w ithout o ra l argument f i l e d , ( f l s )

Copy to Sherwood; Marsh-Bass-Johnsen; S co t t ; L ev it ; Wickham.
A pp ellan ts ' supplement b r ie f on rehearing en base, f i l e d . Transmitted

to CFH, HLW, JDB, OSS,, HEW, XXH, JDP.
1 .appei.ee• 3 v e n t ia d Dili ot e o s ts f i l e d . ( jm ;

I V

GENERAL DOCKET
Un ited S tates C o u r t of A ppeals

FOR THE
FOURTH C IR C U IT

CASK NO. 77-2260 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA, AT RICHMOND.

OATS FTLZNQ3— PROCEEDINGS ?n«d
9/14/19

9/14/79

9/14/79
10/5 /79

10/5/79

10/16/79

2/14/81

06/20/80

Opinion f i l e d , d ism issing the appeal f i l e d . KXH P Mincer jo in by
Haynsworrh and 3uccner d issen tin g .

Opinion and N otice mailed to counsel o f record and the Cleric o f the
D is tr ic t Court a t Richmond, VA. (wu)

Judgment f i l e d . (wu)
Record on appeal in one volume, in te rro g a to r ie s in one box and

d ep os ition s in one box returned to the Cleric o f the D is t r ic t Court
a t ’ Richmond, 7a. ( jh l )

C e r t if ie d copy o f the judgment and p r in ted copy o f the op in ion handed
the Clerk o f the D is t r ic t Court at Richmond,7a. <jID
C e r t if ie d copy o f the order o f the Supreme Court denving c e r t io r a r i

October 1, 1979, f i l e d . jh l
N otice evidencing the f i l i n g p e t it io n fo r w rit o f c e r t io r a r i in the

Supreme Court February 9, 193Q f i l e d . (No. 79-1236)( jh l )
Record on appeal in nineteen (19) volumes received from the Clerk of the

District Court at Richmond, VA. (wu) .
Certified copy of order granting petition for writ of certiorari limited ,o

question 1 presented by the petition) June 16, 1980, filed , (wu,
Certified record in twenty (20) volumes transmitted to the Clerk of the

Supreme Court, (wu)

DOCKET ENTRIES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE
DISTRICT OF RICHMOND, VIRGINIA

Dist/
Office

DOCKET

Yr. NO.

FILING DATE

Mo. Day Yr.. J NO.
H

0 R 21

422-3 75 0553 10 24 75 3 442 1 X

DEMAND JUDGE JURY DOCKET
6 OTHER NUMBER DEM. YR. NUMBER

Inj. 2212 NO 75 0553-R

PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

CARSON, FRANK L.
HATCHER, LAWRENCE
MINES, STUART E.

1. AMERICAN BRANDS, INC.,
T/A THE AMERICAN
TOBACCO COMPANY

2. LOCAL 182, TOBACCO
WORKERS INTERNA
TIONAL UNION

3. TOBACCO WORKERS
INTERNATIONAL UNION

CLASS ACTION

CAUSE

Alleged employment discrimination based on
race and color - 42 U.S.C. §2000e and §1981;
28 U.S.C. §1343(4), 2201 and 2202; 5 U.S.C.
§5596.

ATTORNEYS

John W. Scott, Jr.
Hill, Tucker & Marsh

615 Caroline Street
Fredericksburg,

Virginia 22401

Deft #1 Bradfute W.
Davenport, Jr.

Henry T. Wickham, Esquire
John F. Kay, Jr., Esquire
Kenneth V. Farino, Esquire
Mays, Valentine, Devenport

& Moore
Post Office Box 1122
Richmond, Virginia 23208

644-6011

OUT-OF-STATE COUNSEL Deft #2 & #3
Jay J. Levit, Esquire
Stallard & Levit
Suite 2120
Central National Bank
Bldg.

Richmond, VA 23219
644-5453

Henry L. Marsh, III, Esquire
Hill, Tucker & Marsh
Room 202 P.0. BOX 27363 23261
214 East Clay Street
Richmond, VA 23219

Jack Greenberg
Barry Goldstein

Suite 2030
10 Columbus Circle
New York, N.Y. 10019

v n

On Liability:

Petitioner
“Case set: 5/2/77 “ iWK
On Merits: 1/27/76 NOON

IPTO
Status: 4-5-76 4:00

VI-17.76-
On Motion: 11:30
FITC : 4-1-77 10:00

CHECK FILING FEES PAID
HERE DATE RECEIPT NUMBER

IF CASE
WAS FILED 10-24-75 88150 FF
IN FORMA
PAUPERIS

STATISTICAL CARDS
CO, NUMBER CARD DATE MAILED

C1027 15.00 JS5___________________
JS6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT D.C. 1/75
DOCKET

viii

CA 75-0553-R FRANK L. CARSON, ET AL VS. AMERICAN
BRANDS, INC., ET AL

DATE NR. PROCEEDINGS

1975
Oct. 24 Complaint filed and summonses

issues. No trial by jury
demanded. sig

Nov. 20 Marshal's rets on sumns exec,
filed. lg

Nov. 24 ORDER that the Deft Unions
shall have until 12/15/75 to
respond to the Complaint, ent.
11/24/75, DDW, filed. Copies
mailed to counsel of record
as directed.

bah

No. 24 ORDER that the time within which
the Deft American Brands, Inc.
shall have to file its Answer
to Pltf's Complaint is extended
to and including 12/15/75, FHT.
11/24/75, DDW, filed.
Copies mailed to counsel of
records. bah

Dec. 12 Pltf's First Interrogatories
to Defts, filed. bah

Dec. 16 Deft's Tobacco Workers Local
Union 182 Answer and Affir
mative Defenses, no jury
requested, filed. jlm

CONTINUED ON NEXT SHEET
xx

Dec. 16 Deft's Tobacco Workers' Interna
tional Union 182's Answer and
Affirmative Defenses, no jury
requested, filed.

jlm

Dec. 15 Answer to American Brands,
Inc., no jury requested,
filed. jlm

1976

Jan. 12 Answers of American Brands, Inc.
to Pltfs' First Interrogatories

' to Deft, filed. Attached
exhibits A thru. F. bah

Jan. 27 IPTO, non-jury, ent, 12-27-76,
DDW, filed. lg

Jan. 28 Pltfs' Second Interrogatories
to Deft. Company, filed. ape

Feb. 11 Objections by Defts to Pltfs'
Interrogatories, filed. bah

Feb. 23 Statement of Authorities in
Support of Pltfs' Response
to Deft's Objections to Inter
rogatories, filed. bah

Feb. 23 Pltfs' Response to Deft's
Objections to Interrogatories,
filed. bah

CONTINUED ON NEXT SHEET

Mar. 11

Mar. 23

Apr. 5

Apr. 6

ORDERED that time within which
Deft. American Brands has to
answer Pltfs' Second Interro
gatories extended to & Includ
ing 04/05/76 ENTERED by RRMjr
on 03/11/76 & filed. Copies
mailed to all counsel of
record. ape

American Brands' First Set of
Interrogatories to Pltfs,
filed. bah

Answers to American Brands,
Inc. to Pltfs' 2nd Interro
gatories to Defts, filed
(brown expandable folder) -
(Attachment to Answer to No.
45 in box in Room 340). bah

Pltfs' First Interrogatories
to Deft. Unions, filed. ape

Apr. 20 ORDER that the time within which
Pltfs have to answer American
Brand's First Set of Interro
gatories to Pltfs is extended to
and includes, 5/24/76, ent.
4/19/76, DDW, filed. Copies
mailed to all counsel of
record. bah

May 7 ORDER that Deft Unions shall
have until 5-26-76 to respond
to pltfs' interrogatories,
ent. 5-7-76, DDW, filed.
Copies mailed. jlm

CONTINUED ON NEXT SHEET

May 27 Deft Tobacco Workers' Answers to
1st Interrogatories of pltf,
filed. jlm

May 27 Deft Local 182's Answers to 1st
Interrogatories of pltf with
exhibits, filed. jlm

May 28 ORDER allowing pltfs until
6-7-76 to answer American Brands's
1st Interr. ent 5-27-76, DDW,
filed. Copies mailed
counsel. lg

June 9 ORDER allowing pltfs to 6-10-76
to answer Amer. Brands' 1st
Set of Interrogatories to
pltfs, ent. 6-9-76, RRMjr,
filed. Copies mailed. jlm

June 9 Pltfs' Answers to American
Brands' 1st Interrogatories to
pltf, filed with attachments, jlm

June 21 Local 182's First Interro
gatories to Pltfs, filed. bah

June 19 Pltfs' Answer to Local 182's
First Interrogatories to
Pltfs, filed. bah

July 21 Deft American Brands' 2nd Set
of Interrogatories to Pltf,
filed. jlm

Aug. 4 Refiled Consolidated Answers
of Local 182 and TWIU to
First Interrogatories of
Pltf, filed. bah

CONTINUED ON NEXT SHEET

X I 1

Aug. 6

Aug. 23

Oct. 6

Nov. 3

ORDERED counsel for Pltf. deliver
to Clerk of Court check for $25
to compensate counsel for Local
Union 182 & check for $25
to compensate counsel for
Standard Brands; Clerk shall
upon receipt of same deliver
same to respective counsel for
Defts, ENTERED by DDW on 08-04-76
& filed. Copies mailed to all
counsel of record. ape

Pltfs' Response to American
Brand's 2nd Set of Interro
gatories, filed. jlm

Deft American Brands' Notice
to Take Depositions of Lawrence
Hatcher, et al on Oct. 20-21,
1976, filed. Subpoenas
issued. jlm

Deposition of Richard Haskell
Norrison taken on behalf of
the Pltfs on 08/05/76, rec'd. bah

Deposition of Linwood Joseph
Spain taken on behalf of the
Pltfs on 09/21/76, rec'd. bah

Deposition of John Wrayburn
Tucker taken on behalf of
the Pits on 09/21/76, rec'd. bah

Deposition of Joseph James
Ancell taken on behalf of
the Ptlfs on 09.21/76, rec'd. bah

CONTINUED ON NEXT SHEET

Nov. 3

Nov.

Nov. 3

Nov.

1977

Jan. 3

Jan. 12

Deposition of William Hopkins
Bryant, Jr., taken on behalf
of the Pltfs on 09/22/76,
rec'd. bah

Deposition of Robert Landon
Talman taken on behalf of the
Pltfs on 09/22/76, rec'd. bah

Deposition of Joseph A. Savage
taken on behalf of the Pltfs on
09/27/76, rec'd. bah

Deposition of Raymond Charles
Strauss taken on behalf of the
Pltfs on 09/22/76, rec'd. bah

Deposotion of William Fielding
Tulloh taken on behalf of the
Pltfs on 09/22/76, rec'd. bah

Deposition of Lawrence Hatcher
taken on behalf of the Pltfs on
10/20/76, rec'd. bah

Defts' Unions, Second Set of
Union Interrogatories to Pltfs',
filed jen

Pltfs' Motion for Post-Trial
Proceedings, filed. jlm

Pltfs' Request for Inspection
of Deft's Facilities, filed. jlm

Pltfs' Motion to Certify the
Cause of a Class Action,
filed. jlm

CONTINUED ON NEXT SHEET

- xiv -

Jan. 31 ORDER certifying 2 classes
as parties pits under prov.
of R.23; granting pltfs1
motion for post-trial pro
ceedings; trial on 5-2-77
limited to liability only ent
1-31-77, DDW, filed. Copies
mailed. lg

Jan. 31 Pltfs' Response to Local 182's
Second Set of Interrogatories
to Pltfs, filed. ape

Feb. 3 Pltfs' Amended Motion to Certify
The Cause as A Class Action,
filed. len

Feb. 9 Deft. American Brands' Response
to Pltfs' Amended Motion to
Certify Cause as Class Action,
filed. ape

March 1 ORDER vacating order entered
1-31-77; action certified as
class action ent 3-1-77, DDW,
filed. Copies mailed. lg

Apr. 15 Deft's American Brands, Inc.
Memorandum in Support of Entry
of Proposed Consent Decree,
filed. len

Apr. 18 Memorandum in support of entry of
proposed consent decree filed by
defts. Loc. 182 & Tobacco
Wors Inti. lg

Apr. 18 Pltf's Brief in Supportof
The Adoption of the Proposed
Consent Decree, filed. len

CONTINUED ON NEXT SHEET

May 05

June 2

June 24

Deposition of Jack S. Mines
taken on behalf of the deft, on
10-21-76, rec'd. len

Deposition of John Walter Luck
taken on behalf of the deft,
on 10-21-76, rec'd. len

Deposition of Leon Macon Hatcher
taken on behalf of the deft, on
10/21/76, rec'd. ien

Deposition of Louis Rudolph
Mealy, Jr., taken on behalf of
the deft, on 10/21/76, rec'd.

len

Deposition of Frank Lee Carson
taken on behalf of the deft, on
10/21/76, rec'd. len

Deposition of Roy C. Sandord,
taken on behalf of the pltf.
on 11/23/76, rec'd. len

COURT MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
refusing sketcl. for Consent
Decree, ent 6-1-77, DDW,
filed. Copies mailed. jlm

Pltfs' Notice of Appeal of
Order of the District Court
issued on 06/01-77, filed. len

xvi

1.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Richmond Division

FRANK L. CARSON
1843 W. Morre Street
Richmond, Virginia

LAWRENCE HATCHER
3836 Grande 1 Drive
Richmond, Virginia

STUART E. MINES
1603 Hickory Street
Richmond, Virginia

Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION

vs. NO. 75-0553-R

AMERICAN BRANDS, INC.,
T/A THE AMERICAN TOBACCO COMPANY

Serve: Henry T. Wickham, Esquire
1111 E. Main Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219

LOCAL 182, TOBACCO WORKERS
INTERNATIONAL UNION

Serve: Irving Cosby, Jr.,
Financial Security
Route 2, Box 308
Midlothian, VA

TOBACCO WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION
Serve: Rene Rondon, President

1522 "K" Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005,

Defendants.

COMPLAINT

la -

2.
INTRODUCTION

1. This action is brought by the plaintiffs
on their own behalf and on behalf of the class
they represent:

(a) to secure and enforce their rights under
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42
U.S.C. §1981; and the Fourteenth Amendment to the
United States Constitution;

(b) for a declaratory judgment that:
(1) the defendants' employment prac

tices evidence discrimination
based on race and color, and

(2) the individual members of the
aggrieved class be awarded monetary
and other appropriate relief;

defendants' discriminatory hiring
and employment practices, and

(2) to require the implementation of
a viable equal employment oppor
tunity plan;

(d) for back pay, front pay, compensatory
and exemplary damages and costs of this suit,
including reasonable attorneys' fees.

- 2a -

3.
JURISDICTION

2. This action is authorized by Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000e
et seq., as amended; and 42 U.S.C. §1981. Juris
diction of this Court is also invoked pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §1343(4) and 28 U.S.C. §§2201 and
2202, and the Back Pay Act, 5 U.S.C. §5596.

PARTIES

3. The named plaintiffs in this action are:
(a) Frank L. Carson, a black citizen of the

United States and a resident of Richmond, Vir
ginia, employed by the American Tobacco Company,
Richmond, Virginia Leaf Department in Richmond,
Virginia, and was a member in good standing of
Local 182, Tobacco Workers International Union
(hereinafter referred to as Local 182) and
the Tobacco Workers International Union AFL-CIO
(her einafter referred to as the TWIU) through
July of 1974.

(b) Lawrence Hatcher, a black citizen of
the United States and a resident of Richmond,
Virginia, is a former employee of the American
Tobacco Company, Richmond Leaf Department, in
Richmond, Virginia.

- 3a -

(c) Stuart E. Mines, a black citizen of the
United States and a resident of Richmond, Vir
ginia, is employed by the American Tobacco Com
pany, Richmond Leaf Department, in Richmond,
Virginia, and is a member in good standing of
Local 182, Tobacco Workers International Union
(hereinafter referred to as Local 182) and the
Tobacco Workers International Union AFL-CIO
(hereinafter referred to as the TWIU).

4„ The defendants in this action are:
(a) The American Tobacco Company, located in

Richmond, Virginia, (hereinafter referred to as
"the Company"). The Company does business in the
State of Virginia and the City of Richmond, and is
an employer within the meaning of 42 U.S.C.
§2000(e)-(b). The Company is engaged in an
industry affecting commerce and employs more
than one hundred persons.

(b) Local Union 182, Tobacco Workers Inter
national Union, AFL-CIO is engaged in an industry
affecting commerce, has more than 100 members 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 some of
the employees (including the plaintiffs) of the

- 4a -

Company in Richmond, Virginia, and is a labor
organization within the meaning of 42 U.S.C.
§20Q0(e)-(d).

(c) The Tobacco Workes International Union
AFL-CIO is engaged in an industry affecting
commerce, has more than 100 members and exist in
whole or in part for the purpose of governing and
assisting the Local in its dealings with the
Company concerning grievances, labor disputes,
wages, rates of pay, hours, and other terms or
conditions of employment of some of the employees
of the Company (including the plaintiffs) in
Richmond, Virginia, and is a labor organization
within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §2000(e)-(d ).

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

5. Plaintiffs seek to maintain this action
as a class action pursuant to Rules 23(a) and
23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The class which the plaintiffs represent is
composed of all black persons who have sought
employment and who are employed or might in the
future be employed by the Company's Richmond Leaf
Department in Richmond, Virginia, who have been
denied, or in the future will be denied equal
employment opportunities by defendants on the

5a -

grounds of their color and race. There are common
questions of law and fact affecting the rights of
the members of this class who are, and continue to
be limited, classified, and discriminated against
in ways which deprive and tend to deprive them of
equal employment opportunites, and otherwise
adversely affect their status as employees because
of color and race. These persons are so numerous
that joinder of all members is impracticable. A
common relief is sought. The interests of
said class are adequately represented by plain
tiffs. Defendants have acted or refused to act on
grounds generally applicable to the class.

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

6. The defendants have denied the plain-
tiffs and the class they represent equal oppor
tunities for hiring, promotion, transfer and
on-the-job training and have thus restricted the
plaintiffs to the lower paying and less desirable
jobs which have traditionally been reserved for
black employees of the Company.

7. The defendants have paid white employees
of the Company higher wages than many black
employees who are doing the same type of work.

- 6a -

8. Matters regarding the promotion and
transfer of employees of the Company have been,
at all times material to this action, governed and
controlled by the collective bargaining agreements
negotiated by Local 182, the TWIU and the Company
and/or local supplemental agreements. Local 182
and the TWIU have failed in their duty to fairly
represent plaintiffs and members of their class
and have acquiesced and thus joined in the main
tenance of a policy, practice, custom or usage of
limiting these persons to the lower-paying and
less desirable jobs available in the Company. The
collective bargaining agreements entered into
between the Company, Local 182, and the Interna
tional were intended to discriminate on the
basis of race and have in fact discriminated
against plaintiffs and members of the class they
represent because of their race.

9. The defendants have disciplined and/or
terminated, or have acquiesced in the discipline
and/or termination of members of the class plain
tiffs represent solely because of their race.

10. All of the customs, policies, practices
and usages herein complained of have existed
prior and subsequent to July 2, 1965, and continue
to exist at the present time.

THE NAMED PLAINTIFFS
8.

11. The named plaintiffs have been victims
of some or all of the discriminatory acts enumer
ated above.

12. Frank L. Carson was employed by the
Company at its Richmond Leaf Department in August
of 1972. While employed by the Company, he
was denied the opportunity to transfer to the more
desirable jobs at other Company facilities in the
City of Richmond. Mr. Carson was terminated by
the Company in July, 1974, for allegedly smoking
on the job, a charge he denied. Mr. Carson
requested Local 182 assistance in opposing his
termination but was refused such representation.

13. Lawrence Hatcher was employed by the
Company in July, 1974. During the period of his
employment, he was repeatedly harassed by white
supervisors because of his race. In September,
1974, Mr. Hatcher was terminated by the Company
after having an argument with a white foreman who
had repeatedly harassed him with racial comments.

14. Stuart Mines was employed by the Company
at its Richmond Leaf Department in 1970. He has
repeatedly requested that he be transferred to the
more desirable jobs at other Company facilities in
Richmond, Virginia, which have traditionally been

- 8a -

9.
reserved for whites. The Company has refused to
grant any of his requests. Mr. Mines has also
been denied the opportunity to be promoted to a
supervisory position. On many occasions he
has been denied union representation because of
his race. Mr. Mines has also been denied many
of the fringe benefits, such as pension and profit
sharing options, afforded other employees of the
Company beause of his race.

RELIEF

Plaintiffs and the class they represent have
suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable
injury by the policies, practices, customs and
usages of the defendants complained of herein
until the same are enjoined by this Court.
Plaintiffs have no plain, adequate or complete
remedy at law to redress the wrongs alleged herein
and this suit for a preliminary and permanent
injunction and declaratory judgment is their only
means of securing adequate relief.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray that this Court
advance this case on the docket, order a speedy
hearing at the earliest practicable date, and upon
such hearing, to:

10.
1. Grant plaintiffs and the class they

represent a preliminary and permanent injunction
enjoining the defendants and their agents, suc
cessors, employees, attorneys, and those acting
in concert with them and at their direction from
continuing to maintain policies, practices,
customs or usages of limiting plaintiffs and
members of their class to the lower-paying and
less desirable jobs, denying them on-the-job
training opportunities, denying them the oppor
tunity to advance to supervisory positions,
denying them fringe benefits afforded other
employees of the Company, and denying them ade
quate and effective union representation because
of their race and color.

2. Establish a mechanism for the enforce
ment of said injunction, by requiring the defen
dants to present to the Court within 30 days from
the issuance of the injunction, a plan, in form
suitable for entry as a decree showing precisely
and in detail how it will comply with the Court's
order that it cease and desist from the pattern,
practices, customs and usages of discrimination
against the plaintiffs and members of their class
on account of their race and color, as to compen
sation, terms, conditions and privileges of
employment.

- 10a

11
3. Enter a declaratory judgment that the

policies, practices, customs and usages complained
of herein violate, 42 U.S.C. §1981, Title VII, as
amended by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of
1972, the Fourteenth Amendment and the Back Pay
Act.

4. Direct that all members of plaintiffs'
clss be immediately promoted to the job which they
have been denied by reason of discrimination with
seniority in such job dating from the first
instance of wrongful failure to place in said
job.

5. Enter judgment for back pay and compen
satory damages in an amount to be fixed upon
inquest, and based upon the difference between
wages, salaries, allowances and retirement-plan
contributions each member of the class would have
earned in the absence of illegal discrimination
against them.

6. Grant plaintiffs compensatory and
exemplary damages against the defendants for
violating plaintffs' statutory and constitutional
rights to equal employment opportunities.

7. Grant plaintiffs a permanent injunction
enjoining the defendants, their agents, successors
employees, subordinates, attorneys an those acting
in concert with them, from threatening or engaging

11a

in any acts of reprisal, retributions, punishment
or harassment against the plaintffs because of
their attempts to vindicate their rights and the
rights of their class to equal employment oppor
tunity .

8. Retain jurisdiction of this case until
the defendants have taken all steps necessary to
eliminate the effects of discrimination in the
past, to prevent discrimination in the future, to
protect the plaintiffs against reprisal, retribu
tion, punishment or harassment and otherwise to
comply with this Order.

9. Pay to plaintiffs their costs incurred
herein, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and
expenses, as provided in Title VII, 42 U.S.C.
§2000(e) et seq.

10. Grant such other and further relief to
the plaintiffs and the class they represent as the
Court may consider just and proper.

FRANK L. CARSON, LAWRENCE HATCHER
and STUART E. MINES, Plaintiffs

12.

By: /s/ John W. Scott, Jr,
Of counsel

- 12a -

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Richmond Division

FRANK L. CARSON,
LAWRENCE HATCHER, and
STUART E. MINES,

Plaintiffs, : CIVIL
ACTION No.

v. : 75-0553-R

AMERICAN BRANDS, INC.,
T/A THE AMERICAN TOBACCO COMPANY

LOCAL 182, TOBACCO WORKERS
INTERNATIONAL UNION

TOBACCO WORKERS INTERNATIONAL '
UNION,

Defendants.

ANSWER OF AMERICAN BRANDS, INC.

American Brands, Inc. (hereinafter American)
for its Answer states as follows:

1. The plaintiffs' complaint fails to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted.

2. American denies that the jurisdiction of
this court is properly invoked as set forth in
paragraph 2 of the Complaint.

- 13a -

2.
3. American admits that Frank L. Carson and

Lawrence Hatcher, who are black, were employed by
it at the Richmond Leaf Department in Richmond,
Virginia, and that Stuart E. Mines, who is black,
is employed at the Richmond Leaf Department in
Richmond, Virginia. The remaining allegations of
paragraph 3 of the Complaint are denied.

4. American admits the allegations in
paragraph 4(a) of the Complaint. American has no
knowledge of the facts alleged in subparagraphs
(b) and (c) of paragraph 4 and, therefore, denies
them.

5. American denies the allegations of fact
set forth in paragraph 5 of the Complaint and
further denies that this action is properly
brought as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as stated
therein.

6. American denies the allegations of fact
set forth in paragraphs, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of
the Complaint.

7. American states that Frank L. Carson was
employed on July 31, 1972 and that he was ter
minated in July of 1974. The remaining allega
tions of paragraph 12 are denied.

- 14a -

8. American admits that Lawrence Hatcher
was employed by it in July, 1974 and that he was
terminated in September 1974. The remaining
allegations of paragraph 13 are denied.

9. American states that Stuart Mines was
employed at the Richmond Leaf Department on August
24, 1971. The remaining allegations of paragraph
14 are denied.

WHEREFORE, American requests that the relief
prayed for by the plaintiffs be denied, that the
Complaint against it be dismissed and that it be
awarded its costs incurred in this action, in
cluding as a part thereof reasonable attorney's
fees.

AMERICAN BRANDS, INC.
T/A THE AMERICAN TOBACCO COMPANY

By: ____/s/ Henry T. Wickham
Of Counsel

Henry T. Wickham, Esquire
John F. Kay, Jr., Esquire
Kenneth V. Farino, Esquire
Mays, Valentine, Davenport & Moore
23rd Floor - F & M Center
P.0. Box 1122
Richmond, Virginia 23208

Counsel for Defendant, American Brands, Inc.

15a

1 .

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Richmond Division

FRANK L. CARSON, et al,
Plaintiffs,

CIVIL ACTION No.
75-0553-R

AMERICAN BRANDS, INC., et al.
Defendants.

ANSWER OF INTERNATIONAL UNION

For its answer to plaintiffs' complaint,
Tobacco Workers International Union (hereinafter
"TWIU") by counsel admits, denies, alleges and
otherwise responds as follows:

1.-2. The allegations in paragraphs 1 and 2
of the complaint do not require an answer. To the
extent an answer is required, the said allegations
are denied.

3. TWIU's counsel is without sufficient
information to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations in paragraph 3 of the complaint, and
the said allegations are accordingly denied.

4. (a)-(c) The allegations in paragraphs 4
(a) and 4(b) of the complaint are admitted, except
that the allegation in paragraph 4(b) "(including

- 16a -

2.
the plaintiffs)" is denied for reasons stated
hereinabove. The allegations in paragraph
4(c) of the complaint concerning commerce and the
statute constitute legal conclusions not requiring
an answer. To the extent that an answer is
required, the said allegations are denied. TWIU
does have more than 100 members. The remaining
allegations in paragraph 4(c) of the complaint are
denied.

5. The allegations in paragraph 5 of the
complaint are denied, and it is further denied
that this action is properly brought as a class
action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure as stated therein.

6. -11. The allegations in paragraph 6
through 11 of the complaint are denied.

12-14. TWIU's counsel is without sufficient
information to form a belief as to the dates
of employment and termination of the referenced
persons in paragraphs 12 thru 14 of the complaint,
and these allegations are accordingly denied. The
remaining allegations in these three paragraphs
are also denied.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1. The plaintiffs complaint fails to
properly invoke the jurisdiction of this Court.

17a -

3.
2. Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim

upon which relief can be granted.
3. Plaintiffs have an adequate and complete

remedy at law against the defendant Company.
4. Plaintiffs' claim is barred by limita

tions and laches.
5. The Secretary of Labor is an indispen

sable party defendant in this action.
6. The complaint fails to state a claim

which can be maintained as a class action under
the requirements of Rule 23, Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.

7. The complaint should be dismissed
because defendant International has not been
served with a proper notice of charge as required
by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as•amended.

8. Plaintiffs have failed to exhaust their
union administrative remedies, and other remedies
provided by law.

9. Defendant International is not a party
to any collective bargaining agreements involved,
and as to it the complaint should be dismissed.

10. Plaintiffs have failed to exhaust their
governmental administrative remedies.

TOBACCO WORKERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION

b Y : _____„ „ „ __________ ___ .________ _ _
Counsel

- 18a -

4.
Jay J. Levit
Stallard & Levit
2120 Cen. Natl. Bank Bldg.
Richmond, VA 23219
and
James F. Carroll, Esq.
1120 Connecticut Ave. N.W. Suite 940
Washington D.C. 20036

CERTIFICATE

I hereby certify that on December 15, 1975 I
mailed a true copy of the foregoing to counsel for
the Company, Henry T. Wickham, Esq., 1111 E. Main
St., 23rd Floor, Richmond, VA 23219; and counsel
for the plaintiffs, John W. Scott, Jr,, Esq., 615
Caroline Street, Fredericksburg, VA 23401.

19a -

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Richmond Division

FRANK L. CARSON, et al.
Plaintiffs,

CIVIL ACTION No.
75-0553-F

AMERICAN BRANDS, INC., et al.
Defendants.

ANSWER OF LOCAL UNION NO. 182

For its answer to plaintiffs' complaint,
Local Union No. 182 (hereinafter Local 182) by
counsel admits, denies, alleges, and otherwise
responds as follows:

1.-2. The allegations in paragraphs 1 and 2
of the complaint do not require an answer. To the
extent an answer is required, the said allegations
are denied.

3. Local 182's counsel is without suffi
cient information to form a belief as to the truth
of the allegations in paragraph 3 of the com
plaint, and the said allegations are accordingly
denied.

20a

4. (a)-(c) The allegations in paragraphs 4(a)
and 4(b) of the complaint are admitted, except
that the allegation in paragraph 4(b) "(including
the plaintiffs)" is denied for reasons stated
hereinabove. The allegations in paragraph 4(c) of
the complaint constitute legal conclusions not
requiring an answer. To the extent that an answer
is required, the said allegations are denied.

6. _H . The allegations in paragraphs 6
through 11 of the complaint are denied.

12.-14. Local 182's counsel is without
sufficient information to form a belief as to the
dates of employment and termination of the refer
enced persons in paragraphs 12 thru 14 of the
complaint, and these allegations are accordingly
denied. The remaining allegations in these three
paragraphs are also denied.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1. Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted.

21a -

3.
2. Plaintiffs' claim is barred by limita

tions and laches.
3. The Secretary of Labor is an indispen

sable party defendant in this action.
4. The complaint fails to state a claim

which can be maintained as a class action under
the requirements of Rule 23, Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.

5. The complaint should be dismissed
because defendant Local Union 182 has not been
served with a proper notice of charge as required
by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.

6. Plaintiffs have failed to exhaust their
union administrative remedies, their governmental
administrative remedies, and other remedies pro
vided by law.

7. The plaintiffs' complaint fails to
properly invoke the jurisdiction of this Court.

8. Plaintiffs have an adequate and complete
remedy at law against the defendant Company.

TOBACCO WORKERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION

By: __________________ ___ ________
Counsel

- 22a -

4.
Jay J. Levit
Stallard & Levit
2120 Gen. Natl. Bank Bldg.
Richmond, VA 23219
and
James F. Carroll, Esq.
1120 Connecticut Ave. N.W. Suite 940
Washington D.C. 20036

CERTIFICATE

I hereby certify that on December 15, 1975 I
mailed a true copy of the foregoing to counsel for
the Company, Henry T. Wickham, Esq., 1111 E. Main
St., 23rd Floor, Richmond, VA 23219; and counsel
for the plaintiffs, John W. Scott, Jr., Esq., 615
Caroline Street, Fredericksburg, VA 22401.

Jay J. Levit

- 23a -

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Richmond Division

FRANK L. CARSON,

LAWRENCE HATCHER, and

STUART E. MINES,

Plaintiffs, : CIVIL
ACTION No.

v. : 75-Q553-R

AMERICAN BRANDS, INC., :
T/A THE AMERICAN TOBACCO COMPANY

LOCAL 182, TOBACCO WORKERS
INTERNATIONAL UNION :

TOBACCO WORKERS INTERNATIONAL :
UNION,

Defendants.

CONSENT DECREE

Plaintiffs brought this class action agaist
the above-named defendants under Title VII of the
Civil Righs Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e) et.
seq., as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and the Four
teenth Amendment to the United States Constitu
tion. Jurisdiction is vested in the Court by

- 24a -

2.
virtue of 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e)-5(f) and 28 U.S.C.
§ 1343(4).

Defendants expressly deny any violation of
the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States
Constitution, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, as amended, or any other equal employment
law, regulation or order. This Decree and Consent
hereto does not constitute a finding or admission
of any unlawful or discriminatory conduct by
defendants.

Plaintiffs’ consent to this Decree does not
constitute a finding or admission that any of the
employment practices of the Richmond Leaf Depart
ment of The American Tobacco Company, a division
of American Brands, Inc., are lawful.

WHEREAS, plaintiffs and defendants are
desirous of resolving all of the issues set forth
in the Complaint without the time and expense of
further litigation, and the parties have consented
to the entry of this Decree, and it appearing
to the Court that the entry of this Decree will
further the objectives of the aforementioned
federal statutes, and that the Decree fully
protects the interests of the members of the
class represented by plaintiffs, it is

25a

3.
ADJUDGED, ORDERED and DECREED, as follows:

1. GENERAL

Notwithstanding the fact that defendants deny
any violation of the aforementioned federal
statutes, and solely for the purposes of the
settlement of this case and resolving the issues
in the Complaint without the additional expense of
further litigation, defendants hereby consent that
their agents, officers, employees and successors
in interest, and all persons in active concert or
participation with them are permanently enjoined
from discriminating against black employees at the
facilities of the Richmond Leaf Department of The
American Tobacco Company in Richmond, Virginia.

II. THE CLASS

The class represnted by plaintiffs is as
follows:

Class 1. All black persons, whether cur
rently employed or not, who were
seasonal employees of The American
Tobacco Company's Richmond Leaf
Plant at any time on or after 9
September 1972; and

Class 2. All black persons who applied for
seasonal employment at The American
Tobacco Company's Richmond-Leaf
Plant at any time on or after
9 September 1972.

- 26a -

III. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR THE CLASS

In full and final settlement of any and all
claims for injunctive relief alleged in the
Complaint, the parties agree to the following:

1. For the purposes of determining eligibil
ity for vacations and for promotions,
demotions, lay-offs and recalls, every
current, and future regular hourly paid
production employee of the Richmond Leaf
Department will be credited with actual
time worked as a seasonal employee
commencing with the date of hire of the
last period of continuous employment as
a seasonal employee in accordance with
Section I of Article 7 of the current
collective bargaining agreement govern
ing seasonal employees. The combined
total of such seasonal and regular
employment will apply toward service
requirements for vacations, and for
promotions, demotions, lay-offs and
recalls.

2. Regular employees who have served the
probationary period as a seasonal
employee during the last period of his
or her continuous seasonal employment
at Leaf prior to being transferred to
regular Leaf employment will become
eligible for medical benefits and sick
benefits immediately upon such transfer
to regular employment.

27a

3 In the event that vacancies in hourly
paid permanent production job classifi
cations at the Richmond Leaf Department
are not filled by regular production
employees, then all qualified hourly
paid seasonal production employees will
be given the opportunity to fill such
vacancies prior to hiring from the
outside.

4 In the event that vacancies in the job
classification, Watchman, at the Rich
mond Leaf Department are not filled by
regular production employees, then all
qualified hourly paid seasonal produc
tion employees will be given the oppor
tunity to fill such vacancies prior to
hiring from the outside.

5 The Richmond Leaf Department adopts a
goal of filling the production supervi
sory positions of Foreman and Assistant
Foreman with qualified blacks until the
percentage of blacks in such positions
equal 1/3 of the total of such posi
tions. The date of December 31, 1980 is
hereby established for the accomplish
ment of this goal.

IV. THE MONETARY CLAIMS OF THE CLASS

The Court finds from the evidence previously
filed in the form of answers to interrogatories
that there are no discriminatory hiring practices

- 28a -

at the Richmond Leaf Department. Accordingly,
the Court holds that members of Class 2, as
hereinabove defined, are not entitled to assert
claims for monetary relief.

Claims for monetary relief may be asserted by
indivdual members of Class 1, as hereinabove
defined, by filing with the Clerk of this Court a
proof-of-claim signed by the individual asserting
such claim. The information required to be
submitted on the proof-of-claim form and the time
of filing same shall be determined by subsequent
order of the Court.

Each member of Class 1 asserting a claim must
prove that he or she was denied the opportunity to
become a regular hourly paid production employee
at the Richmond Leaf Department because of racial
ly discriminatory acts, practices or policies
of defendants and that he or she suffered economic
harm as a consequence thereof.

Defendants may assert any and every defense
to such claims that may have been available to
them prior to the entry of this Decree. Defen
dants also expressly reserve the right to assert
as a defense that no member of the class who was
not or had not been an employee of the Richmond
Leaf Department within the 120 day period prior to
September 9, 1974 is entitled to monetary relief.

29a -

7 .
The Court shall determine by subsequent order

the procedure for determining the entitlement
of each member of the class to back pay and other
monetary relief.

V. EXCLUSIVE REMEDY

It is agreed that this Decree embodies the
exclusive remedy for any and all claims of alleged
discriminatory employment practices based upon
race of the plaintiffs and the members of the
class, heretofore defined, as alleged in the
Complaint against defendants occurring at any time
before this Decree becomes final, and that no
other actions will be brought to such persons
against defendants with respect to such claims in
any forum, administrative or judicial.

VI. NOTICE OF PROPOSED CONSENT DECREE

The Richmond Leaf Department shall give
notice to all members of Class 1, as hereinabove
defined, by posting in a conspicuous place on the
bulletin boards of its plant a copy of the pro
posed Consent Decree. The Decree shall remain
posted until it becomes final. In addition,

- 30a -

within 30 days after the proposed consent Decree
is filed, the Richmond Leaf Department shall
transmit by first-class mail to each Class 1
member a notice explaining the proposed Consent
Decree and a class member’s rights under it.
The notice, which shall be subject to review by
counsel for the plaintiffs prior to being mailed,
shall include a copy of the proposed Consent
Decree. The notice shall explain that any class
member who objects to the proposed Decree must do
so in writing within thirty-five (35) days of the
postmark of the letter. These written objections
must be mailed to:

Clerk
United States District Court
Eastern District of Virginia
Richmond Division
United States Court House
Tenth and Main Streets
Richmond, Virginia 23219

Re: Carson v . American Brands, Inc, et al.
Civil Action No. 75-0553-R.

VII. REPORTS

Within twelve months after this Consent
Decree becomes final and within thirty days of
each anniversary date of the entry of the final
decree, for a period of three years, the Richmond

31a -

Leaf Department shall file with the Clerk of this
Court the total number of production supervisory
positions of Foreman and Assistant Foreman
and the percentage of black employees in such
positions. When the percentage of blacks in such
positions equals one-third of the total of such
positions, the Richmond Leaf Department shall be
required to make no further reports.

VIII. ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS

Counsel for the plaintiffs are hereby awarded
reasonable attorney's fees and costs to be paid by
the defendants, jointly and severally, within ten
days after this Consent Decree becomes final.
Counsel shall confer prior to that time to deter
mine the amount of said fees and costs. Counsel
for the plaintiffs shall also be entitled to
reasonable attorney's fees and costs in connection
with carrying out the injunctive provisions of
this decree. Entitlement to and amount of at
torney's fees and costs in connection with any
award of monetary relief to class members shall be
determined by subsequent order of this Court.

- 32a -

The Court will decide, at a later date,
whether each defendant will be required to pay a
specific portion of the attorney's fees and
costs awarded, and if so, the amount of the award
allocable to each defendant.

10.

ENTER: //

United States District Judge

Agreed:

/s/ John W. Scott, Jr. (signature)
Attorney for Plaintiffs

/s/ Henry T. Wickham (signature)
Attorney for Defendant Company

/s/ Jay J. Levit (signature)
Attorney for Defendant Unions

- 33a -

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Richmond Division

FRANK L. CARSON, et al.,

Plaintiffs, : CIVIL
ACTION No.

v. : 75-0553-R

AMERICAN BRANDS, INC., et al., :

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ENTRY OF
PROPOSED CONSENT DECREE

Plaintiffs filed this action against the
defendants on October 24, 1975, alleging that
their rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution had
been violated. In the complaint, the plaintiffs
sought declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief

- 34a -

2.
and requested that the case proceed as a class
action. The case was certified as a class action
by court order dated inarch 1, 1977.

The parties have participated in extensive
discovery which was followed by negotiations
in an attempt to settle the issues raised by the
complaint. These negotiations culminated in a
proposed Consent Decree which the parties re
quested the Court to enter at the final pre-trial
conference on April 1, 1977. At that conference
the court expressed concern that the parties were
no longer in an adversary posture and that certain
provisions of the Consent Decree might violate the
United States Constitution. The court requested
the parties to submit memoranda covering these
questions.

Rule 23

Section VI of the proposed Consent Decree
requires the defendant Company to provide notice
to all members of Class 1 by posting a copy of
the proposed Decree on all the bulletin boards
of the Richmond Leaf Plant. Additionally, the
proposed Consent Decree and an explanatory notice
will be mailed to all class members. The notice
requirements of Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of

35a

3.
Civil Procedure will be satisfied by compliance
with Section VI. Also, since any member of the
class may object to the entry of the proposed
Decree as a final order by filing a written
objection with the Clerk, the proposed Decree
provides assurance that this case will remain an
adversary proceeding.

It should be noted, also, that the entry of
this Consent Decree after notice to class members
will have no greater or lesser effect on those who
are not members of the class than it would were
the Decree a final one entered after complete
trial of the case by the Court since Rule 23 does
not contemplate notice to anyone other than
members of the class represented by the named
plaintiffs.

Section IV of Proposed Consent Decree

The answers of defendant Company to interro-
gatories propounded by plaintiffs show conclu
sively, and plaintiffs so concede, that there are
no discriminatory hiring practices at the Richmond
Leaf Department. (Answers to interrogatories 14,
15, 41-52 and 57.) For example, by year, the
percentage of new hires which were black are as
follows: 1971 - 98.9%; 1972 - 98%; 1973 - 99%;

- 36a -

4.
1974 - 97%; 1975 - 91.7%; 1976 - 100%. By year,
the percentage of black applicants who were hired
are as follows: 1971 - 90.1%; 1972 - 82.2%; 1973
- 99&; 1974 - 90.1%; 1975 - 28.6%; 1976 - 10.4%.

Section III of Proposed Consent Decree

Paragraph 1 of Section III provides that
seasonal employees who become regular employees
will be credited with actual time worked as a
seasonal employee in determining their individual
employee seniority date. This provision of
course, will apply to all employees of the defen
dant at the Richmond Leaf Plant without regard to
race.

Paragraph 2 will allow employees who success
fully transfer from seasonal to regular employ
ment to be eligible for medical benefits and sick
benefits immediately upon such transfer if they
have fully served a 44-working day probationary
period during their seasonal employment. Again,
this provision will apply to all Leaf employees
regardless of race.

Paragraph 3 is a restatement of a practice
which has been generally followed at the defendant
Company for many years. Under present practice,
vacancies in regular production job classifica

37a -

5.
tions are posted for seven working days. The most
senior regular employee who signs the posting is
given the first opportunity to qualify for the
vacancy. If no regular employee signs the post
ing, management then canvasses the seasonal
employees from senior to junior until it finds an
employee who is interested in qualifying for the
vacancy.

There is sound business reasoning behind this
practice. Many of the jobs held by regular em
ployees are similar or identical to jobs held by
seasonal employees. Also, seasonal employees
become familiar with premanent job classifications
by working in close proximity to such jobs held by
regular employees. This being the case, seasonal
employees provide the Company with a ready pool of
experienced employees who are better qualified
to fill vacancies in regular employment than would
be outside hire. Finally, it is fair and equi
table to allow qualified seasonal employees the
initial opportunity to transfer to regular job
vacancies.

Paragraph 4 is redundent of Paragraph 3
inasmuch as the job classification of Watchman
is considered an hourly paid permanent production
job. The practice of defendant Company is
and has been however, to canvass only the most

- 38a

6 .

senior seasonal employees for interest in filling
a permanent vacancy in the job of Watchman when no
regular employee signs a posting for such vacancy.
If none of the emplyees canvassed is interested,
it has been the practice to fill the vacancy with
an outside hire. This practice of canvassing only
the most senior seasonal employees for interest in
a permanent vacancy in the job of Watchman is
supported by the real need to fill such vacancies
with individuals who want to be watchmen. As of
March 1, 1977, the inventory of stored tobacco at
defendant Company was 138,583,770 pounds having
a value of $214,113,265. The experience has been
that seasonal and regular employees have been
reluctant to take this job on a permanent basis
because of the night, weekend and holiday work
which is required. Also, the Company wants to
avoid the problem of very junior seasonal employ
ees taking the job for this limited purpose of
obtaining regular employment from which he or she
can bid on vacancies in permanent production job
classifications, thus, in effect, by-passing all
the more senior seasonal employees. However, for
purposes of settling this lawsuit, the defendant
Company has agreed to discontinue this practice.

- 39a -

7.
Paragraph 5 establishes a goal for the

filling of vacancies in production supervisory
positions of Foreman and Assistant Foreman, the
date for the accomplishment of which is December
31, 1980. Since 1959, eight blacks have been
hired or promoted into such jobs and four of these
were employees who were promoted from hourly paid
production jobs. These four blacks have been the
only hourly paid production employees so promoted
since 1959. Also, since July 2, 1965, over 58% (7
of 12) of all vacancies in the positions of
Foreman and Assistant Foreman have been filled by
blacks. The total number of Foreman and Asssitant
Foreman positions has been reduced 50% since July
2, 1965, yet the percentage of blacks in those
jobs has increased from 2.4% to 28.6% during
this period. The goal in Paragraph 5 is to
further increase the number of blacks in these
positions until they comprise one-third of the
total.

This goal is very similar to self-imposed
goals assumed by the Richmond Leaf Plant in its
current affirmative action program. Since the
defendant Company is a government contractor, such
affirmative action programs have been required by
Executive Order 11246 since its promulgation in
1965. In its 1977 program, the Richmond Leaf
Plant is committed to making every effort to

- 40a -

recruit qualified minority individuals to fil any
vacancies which may occur in the EEO job classifi
cation of officials and Managers. Thus, Paragraph
5 is largely comulative of requirements imposed by
this executive order.

Respectfully submitted,

AMERICAN BRANDS, INC.

By /s/ Henry T. Wickham
Of Counsel

Henry T. Wickham
D. Eugene Webb, Jr.
Mays, Valentine, Davenport & Moore
23rd Floor, F&M Center
1111 East Main Street
Post Office Box 1122
Richmond, Virginia 23208

- 41a -

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Richmond Division

FRANK L. CARSON, et al.
Plaintiffs,

CIVIL ACTION No.
75-0553-R

AMERICAN BRANDS, INC., et al.
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
ENTRY OF PROPOSED CONSENT DECREE

The Unions urge the Court to enter the
proposed consent decree, having reviewed the
memorandum in support thereof submitted by the
Company, and having nothing substantial to add
thereto. Of course, with respect to Article III,
5, the position of the Unions is that filling of
supervisory positions is a management function.

TOBACCO WORKERS UNION LOCAL NO. 182
and TOBACCO WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION

By: /s/ Jay J. Levit
Counsel

- 42a -

Jay J Levit
STALLARD & LEVIT
2120 Cen. Natl. Bank Bldg.
Richmond, VA 23219

CERTIFICATE

I hereby certify that on April 15, 1977, I
mailed a true copy of the foreging to Henry T.
Wickham, Esq., 23rd Floor, F&M Center, 1111 East
Main Street, P.0. Box 1122, Richmond, VA 23208 and
to John W. Scott, Esq., Hill, Tucker & Marsh, 615
Caroline Street, Fredericksburg, VA 22401.

/s/ Jay J. Levit

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Richmond Division

FRANK L. CARSON, et al.
Plaintiffs,

CIVIL ACTION No.
75-0553-R

AMERICAN BRANDS, INC., et al.
Defendant s.

PLAINTIFFS' BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THE
ADOPTION OF THE PROPOSED CONSENT DECREE

Pursuant to the Court's request of April 1,
1977, plaintiffs, Frank L. Carson, et al.,
by counsel, hereby respectfully submit their brief
in support of the adoption of the consent decree
which has been endorsed by all parties in the case
at bar.

- 44a -

I
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

The defendant, American Brands, Inc. (here
inafter referred to as the "Company"), operates
the Richmond Leaf Department of the American
Tobacco Company in Richmond, Virginia, for the
purpose of processing and storing leaf tobacco.
The defendant Local 182 Tobacco Workers Interna
tional Union has exclusive bargaining rights for
the establishment of wage rates and other terms
and conditions of employment for all hourly paid
production unit positions at the Richmond Leaf
Department. The defendant Tobacco Workers Inter
national Union is a national organization consist
ing of local unions, incuding Local 182.

The plaintiffs are present and former black
seasonal employees at the Richmond Leaf Department
and held jobs under the jurisdiction of Local 182
TWIU during their employment. As seasonal employ
ees, the plaintiffs all worked at the Richmond
Leaf Plant an average of six months each year.
Regular employees worked at this same facility all
year.

- 45a -

3.
The Company employs approximately 150 sea

sonal employees, all of whom at the present
time are black, and approximately 100 regular
employees, of whom 348 are white. Plaintiffs
are not aware of any white individuals who have
ever been classified as seasonal employees at the
Company's Richmond Leaf Plant.

Prior to September 1963, the regular job
classifications of Truck Driver, Watchman,
Maintenance Storage, and Boiler Operator at the
Leaf Plant were reserved for whites only. As
of February 15, 1976, sixteen persons were employ
ed as Watchmen, one of whom was black.

Regular employees have the right to obtain
any permanent position for which the TWIU has
bargaining rights within the Richmond Leaf Depart
ment. Seasonal employees have the right to obtain
any seasonal position for which the TWIU has
bargaining rights within the Richmond Leaf Plant.
Seasonal employees may transfer to regular class
ifications only when no regular employee desires
that position. Should the seasonal employee
transfer to a regular position he looses all of
his seniority and is treated as a new hire for
seniority purposes. Separate seniority rosters
are maintained for regular and seasonal emplyees.

- 46a -

When a s eas ona1 employee transfers to a
regular position, he is placed at the bottom of
the regular seniority roster irrespective of the
number of years he has worked as a seasonal
employee with the Company. This loss of seniority
affects his status for promotions, demotions,
lay-offs, recalls and vacations, or in short, the
principal terms and conditions of his employment.

Since 1971, the vast majority of applicants
and new hires at all of the Company's locations in
the Richmond area have been black, as indicated by
the following chart:

YEAR APPLICANTS NEW HIRES
BLACKS WHITES BLACKS WHITES

1971 97 1 88 1
1972 118 5 97 2
1973 94 4 93 1
1974 71 7 64 2
1975 77 3 22 2

The racial composition of the production unit
at the Ri chmond Leaf Department is as follows:

YEAR REGULAR EMPLOYEES SEASONAL EMPLOYEES
WHITES BLACKS WHITES BLACKS

1968 41 52 — 116
1970 40 59 — 175
1973 40 56 — 176
1976 37 57 135

- 47a -

Of the 35 supervisory positions at the
Company's Richmond Leaf Department as of April 5,
1976, seven, or 20%, were filled by blacks. Of
the 229 persons in hourly paid production unit
jobs at the Richmond Leaf Department in that same
year, 192, or 84% were black.

ARGUMENT

A. The Provisions of Paragraphs III, 1 and
3 of the Proposed Consent Decree
Should Be Adopted In Order To Equitably
Restructure The Seniority System Of
The Richmond Leaf Department.

Paragraph III, 1 of the Proposed Consent
Decree states:

1. For the purposes of determining
eligibility for vacations and for
promotions, demotions, lay-offs and
recalls, every current and future
regular hourly paid production
employee of the Richmond Leaf
Department will be credited with
actual time worked as a seasonal
emplyee commencing with the date
of hire of the last period of
continuous employment as a seasonal

- 48a -

employee in accordance with Section
I of Article 7 of the current
collective bargaining agreement
governing seasonal employees. The
combined total of such seasonal and
regular employment will apply
toward service requirements for
vacations, and for promotions,
demotions, lay-offs and recalls.

This provision would allow all persons who
were employed as seasonal workers at the Richmond
Leaf Plant to be credited with seniority for
"actual time" worked at the plant from the begin
ning of their employment. This is exactly the
same relief ordered by the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of
Russell v. American Tabacco Company, 528 F.2d 357,
364 (1975), when the Court ordered that seasonal
employees shall be allowed to transfer to regular
employment positions with each employee's depart
mental seniority "computed from his employment
seniority date."

The provisions of Paragraph 111,1 would also
eradicate any vestiges of the effects of past
racial discrimination since black seasonal em
ployees would now be permitted to transfer to
permanent positions without forfeiting their
seniority. As the Fourth Circuit has repeatedly
held:

- 49a -

7.
"Intentional segregation of the past that is
perpetuated by a company's seniority system
precludes the company from claiming that its
system is bona fide within the meaning of
§ 2000e-2(h)." Russell v. American Tobacco
Company, 528 F.2d_357,""363 (4th Cir. 1975);
see also United States v. Bethlehem Steel
Corp., 446 F.2d 652 (2d Cir. 1971); Robinson
v. Lorillard Corp. , 444 F . 2d 791 (4th Cir.
1971); Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 420 F,2d
1225, 1236 (4th Cir. 1970).

The parties have attempted to alter the
present departmental seniority system at the
Richmond Leaf Department to equitably allow all
persons to be credited with time served at the
plant. Even though the Company will retain its
regular and departmental seniority rosters, the
new system will satisfy the provisions of 42
U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. by removing the inequities
that presently exist in that system.

The provisions of Paragraph III, 3 of the
proposed Consent Decree state:

3. In the event that vacancies in
hourly paid permanent production
job classifications at the Richmond
Leaf Department are not filled by
regular production employees, then
all qualified hourly paid seasonal
production employees will be given
the opportunity to fill such
vacancies prior to hiring from the
outside.

- 50a -

This will allow seasonal employees to trans
fer to full time positions, some of which were
at one time reserved for whites only, as vacancies
occur. This relief again is the same type of
remedy fashioned by the Fourth Circuit in Russell
v. American Tobacco Company, 528 F . 2d 357,
362-363 (1975). By permitting seasonal employees
to transfer, as vacancies occur, to regular
classifications not filled by current regular
employees, the seasonal employees are permitted to
obtain full-time employment, thereby allowing
present employees of the company the opportunity
to advance before there is outside hiring.

B. The Provisions Of Paragraph III 2 and 4
of The Proposed Consent Decree Should
Be Adopted In Order To Fully Clarify The
Provisions of Paragraphs III, 1 and 3.

Under the present seniority system at the
Richmond Leaf Plant, all new regular employees
must serve a probationary period prior to becoming
eligible for health benefits. The proposed
Consent Decree would allow all seasonal employees
who have already served this probationary period
to transfer into regular employment without
having to serve an addition probationary period.
There is no reason to again subject these employ

- 51a

9 ,
ees to a probationary period with the attendant
loss of medical insurance coverage. The Company
proposed this provision for the purpose of remov
ing all impediments to seasonal employee transfer
and, as with the entire decree, all parties
agreed.

The provisions of Paragraph III, 4 of the
proposed Consent Decree parallel the provisions of
Paragraph III, 1, and should be adopted for
reasons previously stated herein. This paragraph
was specifically included, however, because of the
unique procedure used by the Company to fill
vacancies in the "Watchman" classification,
whereby a separate "eligibility list" is used
to fill such positions prior to hiring from the
"outside". This provision will negate any pos
sible question as to whether the procedure used in
filling "Watchmen" positions has been affected by
the consent decree.

C. The Provisions Of Paragraph III, 5 Of The
Proposed Consent Decree Will Assure
That The Company Will Attempt And Fill
Supervisory Positions At The Richmond
Leaf Department With A Representative
Number of Qualified Blacks____________

Paragraph III, 5 of the proposed Consent
Decree states:

- 52a -

10.
5. The Richmond Leaf Department adopts

a goal of filling the production
supervisory positions of Foreman
and Assistant Foreman with quali
fied blacks until the percentage of
blacks in such positions equals
1/3 of the total of such positions.
The date of December 31, 1980 is
hereby established for the accom
plishment of this goal.

Such a provision merely establishes a "goal"
for the Company to obtain in filling its supervi
sory work force. It does not establish a quota or
demand that the Company employ persons who are
less qualified than other applicants to fill
a vacancy. This provision merely amends the
Company's affirmative action plan to provide that
the Company recognizes a need to employ qualified
blacks in supervisory positions in meaningful
numbers. The Richmond Leaf Plant employs a
substantial number of blacks in blue collar
positions. The use of qualified black persons as
supervisors simply removes the stigma of decades
of alleged inferiority that for so long relegated
blacks to the position of "worker" but never
"leader".

By adopting this goal, the Company is simply
affirming that it will hire and promote all

- 53a -

11.

qualified persons, including blacks, to supervisory
positions irrespective of race, and will attempt
to place blacks into such positions in large
numbers as it has done in hiring blacks as hourly
production workers.

Ill

SUMMARY

The proposed Consent Decree has been pre-
sented to the Court by all the parties as a
fair, equitable and just resolution of the initial
phase of this litigation. In recent years,
the vast majority of applicants for positions at
the Richmond Leaf Department have been black.
Consequently, the racial composition of the hourly
workforce has become majority black. Plaintiffs
have not found any evidence of discriminatory
hiring for positions in the hourly production
unit. Plaintiffs contend, however, that the
proposed Consent Decree will alleviate the present
effects of past racial discrimination by estab
lishing a fair and equitable seniority system at
the Richmond Leaf Department that will permit all
hourly production workers to advance as far as

54a -

12.

their abilities will permit, while giving them
credit for time served in the employ of the Company.
The mandate of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 will be satisfied by the adoption of the
provisions of the Consent Decree as proposed by
all the parties to this litigation, in that the
terms and conditions of employment at the Rich
mond Leaf Plant will operate fairly and equitably
for all its employees.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully urge the
Court to enter the Consent Decree submitted
herein

FRANK L. CARSON, et al., Plaintiffs

By: /s/_____________
Of Counsel

55a -

13.
HENRY L. MARSH, III
WILLIAM H. BASS, III
RANDALL G. JOHNSON
HILL, TUCKER & MARSH

214 East Clay Street
P.O. Box 27363
Richmond, VA 23261

JOHN W. SCOTT, JR.
HILL, TUCKER & MARSH

615 Caroline Street
Fredericksburg, VA 22401

JACK GREENBERG
BARRY L. GOLDSTEIN

10 Columbus Circle
Suite 2030
New York, New York 10019

Counsel for Plaintiffs

CERTIFICATE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing
Breif was mailed, postage prepaid, to Henry T.
Wickham, Esquire, Mays, Valentine, Davenport 5s
Moore, Post Office Box 1122, Richmond, VA 23208;
and to Jay J. Levit, Esquire, 1223 Central Na
tional Bank Building, Richmond, VA 23219, as
counsel of record, this 18th day of April, 1977.

- 56a -

1.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Richmond Division

FRANK L. CARSON, et al.
Plaintiffs,

CIVIL ACTION No.
75-0553-R

AMERICAN BRANDS, INC., et al.
Defendants.

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Notice is hereby given that the plaintiffs,
Frank L. Carson, et al., by counsel, hereby
appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit from the June 1, 1977, Order
of the District Court refusing to enter a proposed
Consent Decree and denying injunctive relief.

FRANK L. CARSON, et al
Plaintiffs

- 57a -

HENRY L. MARSH, III
WILLIAM H. BASS, III
RANDALL G. JOHNSON
HILL, TUCKER & MARSH

214 East Clay Street
P.O. Box 27363
Richmond, VA 23261

JOHN W. SCOTT, JR=
HILL, TUCKER & MARSH

615 Caroline Street
Fredericksburg, VA 22401

JACK GREENBERG
BARRY L. GOLDSTEIN

10 Columbus Circle
Suite 2030
New York, New York 10019

Counsel for Plaintiffs

58a -

1 .
MAYS, VALENTINE, DAVENPORT & MOORE

F & M Center P.O. Box 1122
Richmond, Virginia 23208
Telephone (804)644-6011

Washington, D.C. Office
Barr Building
910 Seventeenth St.

N.W.20006
Telephone (202)296-4222

January 10, 1978

Mr. William K. Slate, II
Clerk
United States Court of Appeals
For the Fourth Circuit
U.S. Court House
Tenth and Main Streets
Richmond, Virginia 23219

Re: Carson, et al v. American Brands,
Inc., et al -No. 77-2260_____

Dear Mr. Slate:

On June 24, 1977, the plaintiffs in a
Title VII action styled Carson, et al v. American
Brands, Inc., et al, C.A. No. 75-0553-R, pending
Tn the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division,
filed a Notice of Appeal from an order of the
District Court entered on June 1, 1977, refusing
to enter a consent decree presented it by all
parties to the action.

The defendants in the District Court,
American Brands, Inc., t/a The American Tobacco
Company, Local 182, T.W.I.U. and Tobacco Workers

- 59a -

William K. Slate, II
January 10, 1978
Page Two

International Union, did not take an appeal from
the District Court's order and now take no posi-
tion as to the merits of this appeal. According
ly, 'no brief will be submitted by them unless, of
course, the Court of Appeals should otherwise
direct.

Moreover, inasmuch as the District
Court's order was a refusal to enter a consent
decree, the defendants are not, in fact or in law,
appellees. Accordingly, this appeal would not ap
pear to fulfill the "case or controversy" mandate
of Article III, Section 2 of the United States
Constitution. See, also, Moore v. Charlotte-
Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S.47 (1971).

Counsel for the defendant Unions have
requested American to state that they concur with
the statements contained herein and likewise take
no position as to the merits of the appeal.

Respectfully submitted

/s/ Henry T. Wickham
Henry T. Wickham — —
Counsel for American Brands, Inc.

29/312
cc: Jay J. Levit, Esquire

P. Peter Sherwood, Esquire
Henry L. Marsh, III, Esquire
John W. Scott, Jr., Esquire

- 60a-

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 77-2260
Filed

JAN 31 1978
WILLIAM K. SLATE,

CLERK
II

Frank L. Carson, Lawrence Hatcher,
Stuart E. Mines,

Appellants,

versus

American Brands, Inc., t/a The American
Tobacco Company; Local 182, Tobacco
Workers International; Tobacco Workers
International Union,

Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.
D. Dortch Warriner, District Judge.

Upon consideration of the appellant's motion
for summary reversal and the appellee's response
to the motion, by counsel,

IT IS ORDERED that the motion for summary
reversal is denied.

FOR THE COURT - BY DIRECTION

/s/ William K. Slate, II
CLERK

61a -

Filed MAR 27 1978
U.S. Court of Appeals

Fourth Circuit

Frank L. Carson, Lawrence Hatcher,
Stuart E. Mines,

Appellants,
v.

American Brands, Inc., t/a The American
Tobacco Company; Local 182, Tobacco
Workers International; Tobacco Workers
International Union,

Appellees.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 77-2260

Appeal from the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.
D. Dortch Warriner, District Judge.

O R D E R

The appellants* motion for summary reversal
having been read and considered, and it being the
view of the panel that the appeal presents ques
tions of law and of fact on which oral argument
should be heard,

IT IS, with the concurrence of Chief Judge
Haynsworth and Judge Winter, ORDERED that the
appellants’ motion for summary reversal is hereby
denied. The suggestion of American Brands, Inc.
that the appeal should be dismissed is also
denied.

- 62a -

2.
The Clerk is directed to establish an appro

priate briefing schedule inviting appellees to
file a brief addressing the merits of the appeal
and allowing appellants an opportunity to reply.

/s/ Emily Rueger

/s/
United States Circuit Judge

63a-

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 77-2260
Filed

MAR 28 1978
WILLIAM K. SLATE,

CLERK
II

Frank L. Carson, Lawrence Hatcher,
Stuart E. Mines,

Appellants,

versus

American Brands, Inc., t/a The. American
Tobacco Company; Local 182, Tobacco
Workers International; Tobacco Workers
International Union,

Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.
D. Dortch Warriner, District Judge.

For reasons appearing to the Court,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:,

1. twenty-five copies of the appellees' brief
shall be filed on or before April 27, 1978;

2. the appellants' reply brief, if any, shall
be filed 14 days after service of the
appellees' brief;

FOR THE COURT - BY DIRECTION

/s/ William K. Slate, II
CLERK

William K. Slate, II, Clerk
By Emily Rueger

- 64a

1 .

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Fourth Circuit
January 25, 1978

Clerk

O. Peter Sherwood, Esq.
10 Columbus Circle,
Suite 2030
New York, NY 10019

Henry L. Marsh, III, Esq.
William H. Bass, Esq.
Randall G. Johnson, Esq.
P. 0. Box 27363
Richmond, VA 23261

John W. Scott, Jr., Esq.
615 Caroline Street
Fredericksburg, VA 22401

Telephone 782-2213
Area Code 804

Tenth and Main Streets
Richmond, Virginia 23219

Jay J. Levit, Esq.
Suite 2120
Central National

Bank Bldg.
Richmond, VA 23219

Henry T. Wickham,
D, Eugene Webb, Esq.
P.0. Box 1122
Richmond, VA 23208

Re: 77-2260, Frank L. Carson, et al vs.
American Brands, Inc., etc., et al

Dear Counsel:

I am writing to you at the request of
the panel to call your attention to the recent
decision of Seigal v. Merrick, __ _F.2d___ 47 L.W.
2418 (2 Cir. , Dec. 14, 1978), a copy of which I
enclose. As a result of reading this case, the
panel is concerned as to whether it has jurisdic
tion to entertain this appeal and the panel de
sires the views of counsel on this question.

Accordingly, you are requested to file a
supplemental memorandum on this question by
February 9, 1979. Your memoranda should be

- 65a -

0. Peter Sherwood, Esq. et.al
Page Two

filed simultaneously and each of you will have
the opportunity to respond to the views of your
adversary by February 16, 1979. Please file all
of the memoranda with me so that I may forward
them to the panel.

Very truly yours,

WILLIAM K. SLATE, II

By Carol R. Lemon
(Mr.) "Carol R. Lemon
Chief Deputy Clerk

CRL:ecr

- 66a -

1 .
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Richmond Division

FRANK L. CARSON, et al. , )
)

Plaintiffs, )
)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION
) NO. 75-0553-R

AMERICAN BRANDS, INC., et al., )
)

Defendants. )

MOTION

The defendants American Brands, Inc., Local
182, Tobacco Workers International Union, and
Tobacco Workers International Union, by their
respective counsel, move the Court for an order
establishing a pre-trial conference pursuant to
Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
directing the attorneys for the parties to appear
to establish a trial date and to consider such
other matters as may aid in the disposition of
this action. In support of this motion the de
fendants assert that they do not now consent to
the entry of the proposed Decree which was pre
sented to the Court by the parties at the final
pre-trial conference on April 1, 1977, and that
the case is once again before this Court, the
appeal by plaintiffs having been dismissed by

- 67a -

the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on
September 14, 1979, and the mandate having issued
on October 5, 1979.

AMERICAN BRANDS, INC.

By Henry T. Wickham
Of Counsel

Henry T. Wickham
D. Eugene Webb, Jr.
Mays, Valentine, Davenport & Moore
23rd Floor, F&M Center
Post Office Box 1122
Richmond, Virginia 23208

LOCAL 182, TOBACCO WORKERS
INTERNATIONAL UNION and

TOBACCO WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION

By _Jay J. Levit
Of Counsel

Jay J. Levit
Imperial Building
Third Floor
5th and Franklin Streets
Richmond, Virginia 23219

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true copy of the
foregoing Motion was mailed to Henry L. Marsh,
III, Esquire, Hill, Tucker & Marsh, 214 East
Clay Street, P.0. Box 27363, Richmond, Virginia
23261, this 10 day of October, 1979

Is/ Henry T. Wickham

- 68a -

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Richmond Division
In the Chambers of Judge Warriner

FRANK L. CARSON, et al.,

AMERICAN BRANDS, INC., et al.,

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 75-0553-R

TO: John W. Scott, Jr., Esquire
615 Caroline Street
Fredericksburg, Virginia 22401

Randy Johnson, Esquire
214 East Clay Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219

Henry T. Wickham, Esquire
P.O. Box 1122
Richmond, Virginia 23208

Jay J. Levit, Esquire
3rd Floor, Imperial Building
5th & Franklin Streets
Richmond, Virginia 23219

NOTICE OF PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE

Please be advised that the above-styled civil
action has been placed on Judge Warriner's docket
for trial. Judge Warriner has requested an
initial pre-trial conference for November 15, 1979
at 11:30 a.m. It is anticipated that the confer
ence will last approximately fifteen (15) minutes.

- 69a -

2 .

At this conference the Court will set dates
for the completion of discovery, briefing sche
dules, dates for status conferences if any appear
advantageous, a date for the final pre-trial con
ference and a trial date.

It is not necessary for the lawyer who ex
pects to try the case to attend this initial pre
trial conference, but the lawyer who does attend
should be familiar with the case and should have
with him all available dates.

W. FARLEY POWERS, JR., Clerk

By: /s/ Linda K. McDonald
Deputy Clerk
Linda K. McDonald

Date:_____November 2, 1979

IF THIS CASE IS SETTLED PRIOR TO THE CONFERENCE,
PLEASE CALL CLERK'S OFFICE, 782-2611. THANK YOU.

- 70a -

MEIIEN PRESS INC. — N, Y. C. ° «f& » 219

Copyright notice

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

Additional info

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

Carson v. American Brands, Inc. Joint Appendix

Matter

Case

U.S. state

Collection

Taxonomy

Identifier

Cite this item

Copyright notice

Additional info

You may also be interested in